Main Menu

Obama and 9/11

Wasn’t Bush president in 2001?

I get some odd items in the Obama Conspiracy Theories mailbox, and this was one of the odder conspiracy theories. I had thought that Barack Obama was immune to 9/11 conspiracy theories, but I’ve been wrong before.

That image comes from a 2013 article at Veterans Today: Journal for the Clandestine Community titled “Following the Money: Obama, 9/11, Chemtrails, Climate Change, $Trillions in Carbon Taxes.” The thesis follows from this claim:

It is statistically significant that 44 % of the souls murdered on 9/11 (including firefighters, police etc.) worked for companies that were in competition with the Chicago Climate Exchange. (CCX)? Al Gore, Obama, Maurice Strong, and whoever in Congress owns stock in CCX stands to cash in on $Trillions if they can pass enforceable Cap and Trade legislation.

They say the jetliners that crashed into the World Trade Center were pilotless drones. The motivation was money to be made in climate change economic activity. And exactly where is climate change coming from? It’s all tied up in a neat conspiracy package:

image

Did you guess? It’s chemtrails!

So where does Obama fit in? According to the article, in 2001 Barack Obama was on the board of directors of the Joyce Foundation (true), an organization that supports the development of policies that improve the qualify of life for people in the Great Lakes Region. Pretty scary. Obama was paid $70,000 over the 8 years he was a director of Joyce. In 2000 the Joyce Foundation provided a grant to Northwestern University to develop carbon trading software. (The article alleges that folks at Northwestern were guiding the 9/11 planes to the WTC.) According to an Obama campaign spokesperson, most of the grant votes at the Joyce Foundation were unanimous, so Obama probably did vote for it, along with 1,499 other grants.

There are two points that seem crucial to the advancement of this conspiracy theory. The first is the claim that climate change is a hoax, or a an event engineered by the conspiracy. The second is that a patent developed at Northwestern University and owned by a number of individuals is worth trillions of dollars and gives them a “lock on the fledgling carbon trading market, thus giving it a major financial stake in the success of cap-and-trade legislation” according to the Climateer Investing blog. It also gives them a motive, say the conspiracists, to commit mass murder. The patent, # 6,904,336 has the foll0wing abstract:

The present invention is directed to a method of residential emissions trading and a residential emissions trading commodity. In particular, an embodiment of the present invention is a method for identifying, quantifying, and aggregating reductions in residential emissions into a tradable commodity. The step of quantifying the emissions reduction may further comprise the steps of measuring an energy savings resulting from the energy savings opportunity and calculating the emissions reduction resulting from the energy savings. The method may further comprise the steps of verifying the quantification of the emissions reduction and monitoring the residential energy savings opportunities and the quantification of the emissions reduction.

The particular method described in the patent does not seem to this naive reader to be the only method that could be invented, and hardly comprises a “lock” on the market, nor on the entire value of carbon trading on the globe. It is also for residential trading and not industrial trading.

Anyhow, lots of names get dragged in, including Fannie Mae, Valerie Jarrett and Al Gore.

, , ,

10 Responses to Obama and 9/11

  1. avatar
    Curious George March 21, 2016 at 8:40 pm #

    A very interesting article. Just a brief comment about climate change.

    We’ve gone from global cooling to global warming to the catch all, climate change.

    Our climate is continually changing. I remember living in smog filled Los Angeles. The mornings would be relatively clear in the mornings and then as the traffic flow increased during the morning commute, the sky would turn gray and by the early afternoon, the sky would be an ugly brown. It was a result of commuters making their morning trek to work. The Los Angeles climate changes on a daily basis.

    Many people ridicule the connection between contrails and their impact on climate change. Depending on the flight paths on a given day in our area, heavy jet traffic can result in a clear blue sky in the morning becoming a gray overcast sky. The climate changes drastically.

    There is no question that our climate changes. Where is the proof that climate change is a result of a conspiracy?

  2. avatar
    W. Kevin Vicklund March 21, 2016 at 9:27 pm #

    Curious George:
    A very interesting article.Just a brief comment about climate change.

    We’ve gone from global cooling to global warming to the catch all, climate change.

    In what way? Are you talking about going from Ice Age to modern era? Or do you mean the overhyped headlines of the past few decades that didn’t actually reflect the state of scientific knowledge? Please note that at no time in the past century was there a general belief among scientists that global cooling was happening or about to happen. There was a brief period where there was some uncertainty about whether the combined natural and anthropogenic cooling forcings would be greater than the anthropogenic warming forcings. But even then, the best information we had weighed on the side of net warming.

    Our climate is continually changing.I remember living in smog filled Los Angeles. The mornings would be relatively clear in the mornings and then as the traffic flow increased during the morning commute, the sky would turn gray and by the early afternoon, the sky would be an ugly brown.It was a result of commuters making their morning trek to work. The Los Angeles climate changes on a daily basis.

    That’s not climate that you are describing, it’s weather. Or rather, that is not a change in climate, merely the weather changing. The change in climate is that it no longer does that daily cycle, because we’ve drastically reduced the pollution.

    Many people ridicule the connection between contrails and their impact on climate change. Depending on the flight paths on a given day in our area, heavy jet traffic can result in a clear blue sky in the morning becoming a gray overcast sky.The climate changes drastically.

    Again, that’s not climate change.

    Not trying to bust your chops, just addressing some misconceptions.

  3. avatar
    Curious George March 21, 2016 at 10:58 pm #

    W. Kevin Vicklund:

    “That’s not climate that you are describing, it’s weather.”

    Weather is part of climate.

    “Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the “average weather,” or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands of years.”

    EPA

  4. avatar
    justlw March 21, 2016 at 11:44 pm #

    I guess my colleague who was allegedly on Flight 11 is, what, in a FEMA camp?

    I despise Sandy Hook truthers the most, but 9//11 truthers are right on up there.

  5. avatar
    justlw March 22, 2016 at 12:04 am #

    No open thread, btw. I blame HAARP.

  6. avatar
    Keith March 22, 2016 at 1:10 am #

    Curious George: “Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the “average weather,”

    Yes, notice the word “average” in the phrase “average weather”.

    You gotta have more than one event in order to have a relevant “average”. In the case of climate, you need lots more than one event. One event is current weather. A month of weather is not climate, unless you are directly comparing it with the average weather of the same months over previous years. So we can talk about the ‘normal climate for January in Tucson’, for example. But you can’t talk about the ‘normal climate for Tuesday in Tucson’.

    The term “global warming” is popsci shorthand for “the atmosphere is retaining more solar energy in the Earth’s biosphere systems than it used to”. More energy = warmer. “anthropogenic” means that the reason the atmosphere is retaining more energy is due to human activity that is affecting the mix of gasses in the atmosphere.

    What is being directly observed is the change of the average global temperature, year on year, as compared to a baseline average temperature calculated over the past two centuries.

    “Climate Change” is the result of “Global Warming”. The two terms are NOT synonymous even if popular media shorthand seems to think they are interchangeable.

    As the biosphere systems maintains more energy, the average ground temperature goes up. That is climate change. As the oceans warm current patterns change and affect atmospheric currents and thus land weather. That is climate change. As atmospheric currents change, the jet streams ‘move’. That is climate change. As the atmosphere warms, it can hold more moisture, so there are more droughts. That is climate change. Since there is more moisture in the atmosphere, when it eventually does come out, there are more and stronger floods. That is climate change. Etc. Etc. Etc.

    My point is that global warming CAUSES climate change – not the other way around, and the two terms are not interchangeable except in poorly written popsci articles.

  7. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) March 22, 2016 at 5:19 am #

    Doesn’t that tie in with the conspiracy theory that a handful of people on that lost TWA flight had a technology patent that supposedly was worth having an entire plane “disappear”?
    (Of course a real conspiracy would’ve disposed of such hypothetical people in a way that doesn’t make top headlines for weeks.)

    [But I continue to be amazed what kind of stuff is patentable in the US.]

    BTW it’s life imitating art – my personal (fictional) conspiracy theory was that 9/11 was a massive deflection, with the actual purpose being to eliminate a single person on UA Flight 93. Pretty much the same theory came up after that TWA plane went missing.

  8. avatar
    Scientist March 22, 2016 at 6:48 am #

    The Magic M (not logged in): Doesn’t that tie in with the conspiracy theory that a handful of people on that lost TWA flight had a technology patent that supposedly was worth having an entire plane “disappear”?

    If they already had filed for a patent, their death would have no impact. Patents are property that forms part of the person’s estate and passes to their heirs.

  9. avatar
    Thrifty March 22, 2016 at 6:59 am #

    Obama was also behind the Kennedy Assassination! He was a very precocious 2 year old.

  10. avatar
    The Magic M (not logged in) March 22, 2016 at 12:24 pm #

    Scientist: If they already had filed for a patent, their death would have no impact.

    I know. I have yet to see a real conspiracy theory that doesn’t fall apart at the first hard look. Only fictional ones are known to have internal consistency and no “plot holes”.