Ruppert blasts recent developments.

I guess Mike doesn't believe that any publicity is good publicity.

HEY CHARLIE SHEEN, WAKE UP!

There Are Good Reasons Why 9/11 is Having Its 15 Minutes of Fame Now – Look at Who’s In the Spotlight

by
Michael C. Ruppert

March 30, 2006 1300 PST (FTW) - ASHLAND - Michel Chossudovsky, Paul Thompson, Nafeez Ahmed, Mike Ruppert, Dan Hopsicker; these are the people who were front and center with credible, original, and groundbreaking research and investigation in the months following the attacks of September 11th. For the next three years, almost every major, incontrovertible piece of evidence showing government complicity in the attacks originated from this group. Add to this list David Ray Griffin, the late-comer author of two excellent books deconstructing the US government’s “explanation” of the attacks, and you have encompassed five of the best-selling books about 9/11—books which thoroughly and reliably discredit the US government. It is also from these scholars, investigative journalists, and researchers that almost every now-standard, unanswered issue debunking the government’s position originated.

There are other writers and researchers who made serious contributions to our knowledge of 9/11, but these five were there “firstest with the mostest.”

It is also no coincidence that these are the journalists and authors who have been universally ignored by the mainstream media. Why? Because their research doesn’t fall over with the first puff of opposing wind. That’s a lesson that the latest flock of 9/11 celebrities needs to be prepared for.

So before getting all excited about Charlie Sheen’s recent CNN appearance expressing doubts about the official version, followed by Ed Asner’s attempt to back Sheen up, it might be wise to ask why none of the pioneers made it to CNN’s airwaves over this last week. The immediate follow-up question is why CNN would suddenly grant airplay to a new host of characters when their studios have been off-limits to credible 9/11 research for four years.
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/033006_charlie_sheen.shtml

Or does he feel that this will diminish the important work the researchers have been doing?

this sudden fame. I think Alex Jones is just trying to get the word out there, and I applaud him for getting Sheen to feel comfortable enough to come forward. It doesn't matter how much "research" you do, if people aren't listening then it won't do much good.

Ruppert needs to learn how to "play the game" a little better. Jones is a little more savy in this territory.

not only 9/11. And with his history, he knows the score. I'm surprised that he's surpised.

Uh...he`s an actor.
:patriot:

There are so many accepted junk science theories in this trendy new "truth" movement, many respected founders do not want the association.

Mr. David Ray Griffin is a brilliant theologian, but his infiltrator tactics barometer is set naively low.

I'm not jumping on you, I just don't understand the point you are making about David Ray Griffin regarding "his infiltrator tactics barometer is set naively low." Thanks.

http://www.wirenh.com/Features/Cover_Stories/system_breakdown_200603291183.html

"The greater danger, according to Ruppert, is that the 9/11 movement has been “heavily, heavily infiltrated … by government disinformation operatives” who have put proverbial “poison pills” into its debates."


"Griffin, on the other hand, is skeptical of talk about disinformation and infiltrators.
“I really haven’t had any strong suspicions about anybody,” he said. “Even if there is some truth to it, I don’t think it’s a very important concern.”

Translation: Ruppert believes that the infiltration efforts have destroyed the 9-11 movement
and Dr. Griffin believes that even if disinformation and infiltratin is true, it is not a big deal.

I do not thing it's anyones particular 'theory' that has prevented the issue from seeing the light of day. Ruppert knows the tactics, and favorite tools the government uses to suppress, deflect, and construe criticism. It is standard. His pessimism concerning the truth being revealed, or anyone being held accountable is appropriate, considering what he's been through. He kicked the can as far as he could down the street. It's time for others to give it a shot.

This could become a problem but at the moment doesn't seem to be. Disinfo agents expose themselves by trying to blame Moslems or the Clinton administraton.

Disinformation comes in a great many forms...
and does not appear to be a trivial issue.

http://911review.com/infowars.html
http://911research.com/disinfo/index.html

It's a difficult situation. Between the wack job theorists and the in fighting within the 9/11 truth movement, it makes me even more pessimistic about it ever taking hold in the mainstream.

I understand how precarious it is to get someone to pay attention to the case against the government's official version. Personally, I had a gut feeling of incredulity about the way the towers fell and how quickly they were able to throw up the pictures of the 19 hijackers on national tv and "explain" the whole thing. However, I never fully actualized my disbelief until just a few months ago as the deceitfulness of the Bush administration became apparent.

Early on, when I started looking into 9/11 on the net, I almost dismissed it because of the 1st websites I came to also included alien and holocaust, and demonic cabal stuff. Finally, fortunately or unfortunately, I came across Dr. Griffin's lecture covered by C-Span. I did not sleep a wink for two nights after watching it.

I continued to look around, unwilling to take Dr. Griffin word alone for it, particularly, since I am an anti-religion person and he is a theologian. But the more I've dug, the more convinced I've become. It's really impossible for anyone who spends anytime looking at all the loose ends, contradictions, and the aftermath cover-up and whitewash to come to the conclusion that the official government story is not accurate.

It's certainly healthy to be skeptical of your government and it's also healthy to be skeptical of the people who are skeptical of your government. I think though it's a little unfair to discredit Dr. Griffin simply for an off-hand, perhaps naive comment. I have increasing concerns with the Scholars For 9/11 Truth website; but I am inclined to believe that Dr. Griffin, and Dr. Jones for that matter, don't have much to do with the day to day operation of that website.

I hope you can make it to the 9/11 conference in Chicago in early June.

As pointed out elsewhere in this thread, the book has its flaws, but the extensive documentation from MSM and governmetnt sources makes up for that. Also, he makes the important point that we need to understand how a covert operation works; once we get that, a lot of other things start making sense.

I just became aware of Rupert since I came upon this forum through an article by Judy Wood on the Scholars For 9/11 Truth website. Perhaps I will check it out, but to be honest, I've seen enough now to be more than convinced that the official version of 9/11 is untrue.

The Scholars for 9/11 Truth website has been where I have focused my attention. Unfortunately, I have become a little disillusioned with the website. It takes a too narrow, partisan view. They, of course, are not the only ones to do this. I am looking for someone to take a broader perspective of what is clearly evident; without reaching into demonic cabal and Zionist theories.

What is clearly evident to me is that there is government-wide, bi-partisan complicity. Even a cursory examination of the attack aftermath issues (which I've posted about before) points directly to a cover-up and whitewash by Republicans and Democrats alike.

This goes beyond one administration in one party or one faction within one administration in one party. The two party institution that has taken root since the very start of our nation, which I have always believed to be to our detriment, has come home to horribly roost. The two parties have consolidated into a duopoly of entrenched power. They have insulated themselves from challenge by rigging election laws. Not only have they made it virtually impossible for an outside independent or third party movement; but through their stacking of the deck for incumbency, have made an internal revolution within a party just as impossible.

The result is absolute power, power without accountability. The culture of corruption rife with profiteering has created an environment where an element of the power structure is emboldened to go even farther, into more illegal and more immoral depravities.

Some ambiguity surrounding 9/11 is politically advantageous for the Democrats; but full exposure is decidedly not. If push comes to shove, Democrats will close ranks with Republicans in order to protect the power structure they mutually enjoy.

I'm not much of a fan of the ST911 website myself. You might better spend your time at these:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

http://www.911research.com/

http://www.911review.com/

The entire Republican philosophy and the administration is full of them and is based on their theories. They've got street cred! Eventually, the worm will turn.

There is no denying that Dr. Griffin is an american hero of the finest measure. The comments made were simply about Dr. Griffin's tactical 9-11 philosophy and influence. It is well known that Dr. Griffin is a strong advisor to 911Truth's Big Tent approach. Due to the sophistication of the enemy, many people in the 9-11 movement believe that tactical approach is misguided.


A large part of the "in fighting" you refer to in the movement has roots in the lack of research standards and blindsighted leaders. The movement is growing because of recent publicity but imo, it will not be accepted into the mainstream unless the evidentiary wheat is separated from the chaff. People in this movement are too close or invested in the 9-11 truth issues to realize how the (tolerated and/or endorsed) outlandish theories hurt our cause. It would serve the long term interests of the 9-11 truth movement if all its leaders would immediately become educated about disinformation issues. However, they seem to have no interest in that particular aspect of the "truth" which they continually disregard as "divisive".

This credibility factor is ignored at our peril.


A related DU thread, scholars for 9/11 truth & loose change
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x79026

for the sake of credibility is that there is government-wide, bi-partisan complicity, at least in the cover-up and whitewash. I am still waiting for someone to explain to me how the Bush administration neo-cons could have and continue to get away with this. It is very conceivable, perhaps even most likely, that the neo-cons concocted and carried out the attacks themselves. But how can all the aftermath issues, which I've posted about numerous times, continue to be ignored or their relevance to the scope of responsibility continue to be discounted.

There could be many people who simply chalk this up to an extreme off-shoot of the anti-Bush faction, attempted revenge for the Clinton impeachment lunacy. This is the greatest trouble I have with Griffin, Jones, and Fetzer and the Scholars For 9/11 Truth. They are too partisan.

Another concern I continue to have is that there are another large chunk of people who silently believe, but deny out loud, that the government's official version is untrue. They, however, don't know what to do. We need people to step forward with plans to take our country back that goes beyond impeaching Bush. His removal from office will only sweep the problem under the rug.

Let's remember, the only other party in this country is just as on board with the perpetual, nebulous, and phony "war on terror" as the Bush administration is. What will really be gained if the Democrats take over?

of 9/11 as a government conspiracy needs to get to a tipping point (where people feel comfortable to at least BRING IT UP) before we can spend all day worrying about poison pills.

What the fuck has Ruppert ever done to get his theories out to a national television audience of anyone other than the choir over the last four years? Hasn't he just been banging his head against the wall on this for the last 4+ years to some extent? And isn't him saying the he knows that "Cheney did it" based on anonymous sources just as overreaching as many of the physical evidence theories he attacks as poison pills? How does he know for sure that HIS OWN anonymous sources are any better than Curveball?

"Crossing the Rubicon". Have you read it? He has a chapter on PROMIS software where he reprints his FTW articles on PROMIS. Some of those "theories" he reports on are simply stupid. He says that "AI"(?) can allow satellites some 20 or 30 thousand miles out in space to focus on a human hair on the surface of Earth. Uhh...yeah, right. :freak:

That frustrates me, because a lot of the other stuff in the book seems more "level headed" and backed up. Although Ruppert has some very interesting and seemingly factual, sited information, it must be taken with a grain of salt.

I'm a little past half way through his book, so far so good, but I just hope there aren't any more science-fiction like claims in it.

His feud with WING TV is pretty entertaining.

He is good at marketing, I have to admit that.

Someone asked me about McKinney's briefing last year, and I quoted Ruppert, who was giving Mel Goodman a run for his money...
http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/index.php?showtopic=75756&view=findpost&p=714993



This "escapetheMatrix" guy makes a couple interesting points;

http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/index.php?showtopic=75756&view=findpost&p=715695



And here's a kicker, when Paul Thompson revealed more Wargames at McKinney's briefing last year, Ruppert was taking notes faster than Dick Cheney can concoct a cover story!

The irony? Thompson gets all his goods from the public domain. So, how hard did Rupie look for all the available Wargames info?

Just info to be aware of. I know that some 9/11 skeptics embrace his work like a product of the Gideon press.

It's fucking old school lotus notes type software for God's sake. Sure, it probably has built-in access for elite intel ops, but it doesn't control the world. They just ain't that good at info science yet because their fucking military trained project managers often resemble Dilbert's boss.

Were even mentioned by Ruppert. These scientific discoverers include Peter Meyer, Jeff King and Jeff Strahl.

There does seem to be some sour grapes going on here. Ruppert dislikes publicity going to others for exposing official 9/11 fraud. If he really just wants the truth to get out, why not celebrate these moments?

Ruppert has a rep for always blowing his own horn.

The fact that Ruppert has a healthy ego does not
dilute his core message here.


Six months from now, it will be interesting to
review this area to see if there is still
widespread thought that disinformation has
a trivial effect on this issue.

Circumstances may have changed that opinion.

been somewhat supportive of Jim Hoffman. I know Ruppert thinks arguing demo is a distraction from other issues, but I'm pretty sure in his book he gives some credit to Jim Hoffman for his reasoning on why WTC 7 was likely destroyed. But, you're right, he can't just let the movement enjoy some coverage without getting in his shots.

was that the recent positive coverage is superficial
or short lived.

I hope he is mistaken, but I fear he is right.

The corporate media does not do important political investigations. It is not a space where important information can be presented in adequately contextualized form. It will not support causes for very long that threaten its dominion over the minds of Americans. Its function in extending and deepening the poitical status quo is well understood, and won't be changing anytime soon.

Having said that, I'm all for infiltrating it as much as possible and trying to bend it to our purposes. I simply hope people remember not to pin their hopes on it. To the corporate media, revolution is just another plot line to be sold - a useful narrative to keep eyes glued to the TV during the automobile ad coming at quarter past the hour. We lose sight of that at our own peril.

I think he's a little embarrased about this;
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/09_13_01_No_Explosives.html

It's strange, unless you were a first responder who heard explosions, would demolition even cross your mind on 9/13/2001? about the only thing I was concerned with was calming my wife (and myself) down.

it is suspicious. I may have to reconsider my support.


He is not infallible, but Jim Hoffman is the most consistant researcher about the CD issue.

You might want to read this page too. I'm glad that Ruppert spoke up, I really am, but nobody is above a little criticism.

http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/9712/ch04p1.htm#N_43_

I wasn't watching TV on 9/11, so I don't know what other people saw. But in a lot of
9/11 movies I see TV news clips that talk of secondary explosions and comment that
the collapse of WTC7 looks just like a controlled demolition. The mushroom dust cloud
(I suppose that was shown on TV) looks like an explosion. So yeah, I think a lot of
people who watched TV on 9/11 thought of demolition.

I was watching TV that day for a while, and saw none of the later collated reports about explosions. Then again, I never saw the multitude of OKC reports of "unexploded devices" at least one them "very sophisticated", etc.

Ruppert's report still strikes me as weird. He's so sure that nope, no explosives. Then he never followed up on that for ages.

I'm just a little weary of all the 9/11 contrarians within the 9/11 skeptic crowd. Especially contrarians with so much contrary baggage to account for themselves.

He's the apologist for the FBI, documenting volumes of "mistakes" by the FBI but misses the truth behind his own findings: The FBI wasn't ONLY making "mistakes" - there was inner corruption. But Peter Lance just can't bring himself to admit it, let alone go along with any of the other conspiracy theories....

I'm surprised he hasn't tried to criticize Sheen's latest statements.

pretty clear, he just avoids making any controversial sound bites.

"Journalist Peter Lance, one of the few serious reporters willing to state that the Bush regime deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, claims that Building 7 was demolished but the towers were not. He argues that Building 7, a military facility, was destroyed in an operation similar to destroying classified materials in an embassy about to be overrun by foreign troops."
http://www.oilempire.us/demolition.html

If you ask me, there is the sour grapes aspect from Ruppert, but there are valid considerations too.

Where's A K Dewdney who delivered the first definitive proof for MIHOP with his legendary cell phone experiment?

Where's Webster Tarpley? - Ah - I see - a "former senior researcher for Lyndan La Rouche". Ad hominem attacks have never been suited for substituting serious argumentation, Mr. Ruppert.

Tarpley's "9/11 Synthetic Terror" is much better and deeper than "Crossing the Rubicon", particularly regarding the function of the wargames. Ruppert's LIHOP drill version doesn't reach far enough.

Ruppert is too egocentric and jealous to be convincing.

tarpley, who publicizes nico haupt as the best 9-11 truth representative and is a regular guest on wing tv?


- sure ruppert is egocentric, but emotion doesn't have anything to do with the message that it is more important to focus on the approaching peak oil crisis.

Where does Tarpley say Nico Haupt is the "best 9-11 truth representative"?

I know Nico well, he's difficult sometimes, but he has uncovered important stuff deep, deep inside the criminal network behind 9/11 - read his "terror drill" series. But the time for general acceptance of his research has not yet come - it will come after the second American revolution.

As opposed to Nico, I do believe peak oil is real, but I don't understand why we should neglect the 9/11 truthseeking.

While it's clear to me that his heart is in the right place, he's a bizarre choice for spokesperson of ANYTHING.

Why again does that make the Sheen coverage bad other than it hurts Mike's feelings?