RESEARCHEROP MOCKINGBIRD AGENT MIKE RUPPERT & OTHERS!Fri Nov 14 16:16:15 2003188.8.131.52OP MOCKINGBIRD AGENT MIKE RUPPERT & OTHERS!-------- Original Message --------From: "Jeffrey G. Strahl"
firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Ruppert WTC analysis (fwd)IN case anyone didn't get this from Gerard.Some will view this as passe, i don't. One of the key questions we facenow is the attempted cooptation and diversion-into-safe channels beingdone upon on the 9/11 movement by people like Kyle Hence, who now refusesto handle even Deception Dollars, while giving mileage to Democraticpoliticians. This is as much of a threat to us as open gov't repression,in fact more so, because it's more subtle yet more insidious, threateningto take our movement from us and turn it into a weapon to be used againstus. In that context, Michael Ruppert's full particiapation with Hence is acause for alarm and a legitimate topic of debate, especially given hisefforts to discourage investigations which emphasize the physicalevidence.I am not in agreement with 100% of the words here, but think this isimportant to read and discuss.Jeff---------- Forwarded message ----------Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 09:26:31 +1100From: Gerard HolmgrenSubject: rewrite of Ruppert WTC analysisRecently, I had a stoush with Ruppert on another discussion list. It beganwith Ruppert launching another of his unprovoked ridicule attacks againstthe 11/9 evidence. During this debate Ruppert was caught out contradictinghimself and letting slip some very incriminating statements about hisattempts to suppress such evidence - right from 12/9 2001. I then twicetried to get Ruppert to clairfy his remarks but he ran off. Subsequent to that, I did this deconstruction of a Ruppert article,which he posted on FTW on Sept 13. Its very revealing about whatRuppert's real agenda is. This mail contains some references to thepreviously mentioned discussion, so if anybody is confused by where afew of the quotes come from, and what a few of the references to aprevious discussion are about, that's what it is. I still have theemails from that discussion which I can foward ,if necessary. But Ithink this deconstruction of Ruppert is the most revealing, and themost relevant to the question of why Ruppert seems so hystericallyopposed to the airing of nearly any of the Sept 11evidence.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Recent exchanges with Mike Ruppert have revealed his unhealthy obsessionwith squashing any evidence which would demonstrate that the US gov wasnot merely complicit in the events of sept 11, but indeed orchestrated theentire event itself. Ruppert continues to actively attack those who work to expose thefollowing govt lies.1) That 19 Arabs, 15 of them Saudis, hijacked the planes.2) That a hijacked 757 hit the pentagon.3) That the WTC towers and B7 collapsed due to fire.The problem is not so much that Ruppert believes these ridiculous stories,but his obsession with attacking those who have unearthed and promoted theevidence to the contrary. In the following analysis, I will concentrate onthe WTC towers demolition to demonstrate that Ruppert had foreknowldegefrom Sept 13 2001 at the latest, that it would become a problem for thegovt, and by Sept 13 at the latest ,had already set in motion a campaignto provide counter spin for the govt - before the issue had even beenraised.First, lets look at something which Ruppert wrote in recent exchanges onthis issue. He threatens to oppose airing of the B7 collapse, the momentanyone raises it. Interesting. Why the panic?A 47 story building which was not hit by a plane, not subject to anysignificant fire, and not struck by significant debris, collapses into itsown footprint, in a manner only possible via controlled demolition. Itcollapses in exactly the same manner as the WTC towers. 3 Buildings in oneday, when such a collapse has never happened before or since, and has beendemonstrated by solid scientific principles to be physically impossible byany means other than a controlled demolition. Worthy of an inquiry? Notaccording to the govt. And not according to Mike Ruppert. If someone is not particularly savvy on the physical principlesinvolved, I can understand a certain amount of caution in embracing itas evidence. Caution is good when one is not sure. However, I wouldexpect a purported govt critic to at least show some casual interest inand casual support of the progess of such an investigation. If notthat, I would at least expect a purported govt critic to leave italone, and simply get on with their own thing. But not Mike Ruppert. He has threatened to oppose the issue, themoment he sees someone put it on the table. Taboo. Banned.Blacklisted. Here is exactly what Ruppert wrote in relation to B7.[[the moment that I see that putting that issue on the table -- from astarting line two years behind the other issues we have fought for andadvanced -- to a significant degree jeopardizes discussion of the issuesthat are already out there I will oppose it ]]Anyone, however cautious ,should be able to see that B7 is at leastpotentially a smoking gun, even if they can't yet see that its provedlock, stock and barrell. So why the panic from Ruppert about the issuebeing raised ? And much of it by people who are qualified engineers andphysicists So we even have the relevant pieces of paper to wave in frontof the hard line sceptics. Why does Ruppert describe qualified engineers and physicists, usingtheir expertise to punch holes in the govt story as[[candidates for Darwinian deselection ]] ?As we shall see later, Ruppert approves of people with such qualificationswho spin lies for the govt, but derides those with equal qualificationswho demonstrate the impossiblity of govt lies. Which side is he on?I will add here that no qualifications beyond junior high school scienceare needed to demolish the laughable govt stories on the WTC demolition.But just in case Ruppert tries to play the "qualifications" card, we havethe people who can match it with the best that the governement can bringforward. One would think that purported govt critics would find this anencouraging development, even if they're not interested in being involvedthemselves. But not Mike Ruppert. The mere mention of the issue is enough to havehim thundering fire and brimstone against any who dare raise it. Why?As we shall see, Ruppert is not just a passive absorber of govt lies onthis matter - he's an active supporter and originatgor of them.Ruppert further displays his panic on this issue by imperiously thundering[[get out of the way of the people who are doing something]]and[[Leave this bullshit alone.]]and[[The next person who sends me such garbage gets put on my permanent emailblock list.]]Again I ask, Why the panic ? For something which is such an obvioussmoking gun, he's *awfully anxious* to keep it bottled up.On this question, Ruppert tries to wriggle by claiming that its wastinghis time. This absurd lie is as ridiculous as the govt spin which Ruppertis so keen to defend. How does it waste Ruppert's time, if somebody elseis researching and promoting it?Lets look at how real researchers approach the issues of time management,prioritization, and lack of confidence outside their specific area ofexpertise. TENC finds it no problem. TENC posted an article, demonstratingthat a demolition expert, Professor Van Romero was reported in themainstream media as calling a controlled demoltiion.Romero later retractedthe statement in mysterious circumstances. TENC opened its article with astatement that TENC has not entered the debate about the physical natureof the WTC collapse, and confines its analysis to the apparent pressureplaced on Prof Romero to retract his professional opinion. Easy, noproblem. Everyone is happy with that. TENC gets on with its work, and theWTC collapse specialists get on with their's. Who's wasting anyone's time?In fact they're complementing each other's research.The TENC article onProf Romero's mysterious retraction has proved a useful politically basedsupplement to the overwhelming physical proof of the WTC demolition.without TENCt needing to express any opinion one way or the other on thephysics. They simply documented articles and opinions relating to it,which is their area of expertise, and let the facts about that speak forthemselves. By contrast, Ruppert froths at the mouth when ever the issue ismentioned, threatens and insults those who raise it, describes it onhis website as "worse than re-arranging the deckchiars on theTitanic", and makes absurd whinings about it wasting his time. Ruppertis a liar. He claims that he needs to leave it alone, because he'sworking too hard to find time for the issue. This simply isn't true.Because Ruppert has not left the issue alone. He has taken the timewrite plenty on the WTC issue. Its just that everything he writessupports the official story.The reality is that Ruppert has made considerable time to spin for thegovt on this issue, both by posting an article on FTW in supprt of it, andby constant attacks on those who raise the issue, but then to try tomaintain his cover within the 11/9 movement, tries to distort that into animpression that he simply wants to stay out of it.Before examining in more detail the considerable interest which Rupperthas shown in concocting lies for the govt in relation to this issue, Iwill examine another of his recent statements, in relation to physicalevidence.[[Today's messages are cut and paste identical tothose I watched and refused to participate in starting on 9-12-01.]]Twice I have now asked Ruppert to clarify this incriminating statement,and twice I have received no response.You see, the big problem with this statement is that none of the issueswhich have Ruppert frothing at the mouth were issues on sept 12 2001.The issues of the ficticous hijackers, the ficticious boeing at thePentagon and the ficticous 767s at the WTC would not be raised for monthsafter this date.However, it is possible that a few observant people would have noticed bySept 12, that the WTC collpase looked awfully suspicous, and that someinquiry was warranted.So it can only be the WTC collpase which Ruppert is referring to as beingon his banned list by Sept 12 2001. So he admits that he was alreadyhostile to such an idea on Sept 12 2001. Awfully quick making up his mind!On the one hand Ruppert tries to tell us that he simply hasn't got timefor it, but on the other hand admits that he was already hostile to theidea by Sept 12 2001, before any clear indication can have emerged aboutexactly how the different aspects of the evidence against the govt wouldunfold.By Sept 12, all that anyone would have been able to say was thatanecdotaly, the whole Sept 11 event seemed rather fishy, and enquirieswere needed. But nobody could have had any detailed idea about exactlywhat form the subsequent enquiries would take, and what evidence theywould reveal. And yet, by Sept 12, Ruppert, by his own admission, wasalready attacking some of the strongest intial indications for govtinvolvement before it even became a clear issue, and before there couldpossibly have been time to make a properly considered judgment abouteither its truth or its political potential - or to make any suchjudgement about any other aspects of evidence which might arise.Ruppert can't have it both ways. Is he claiming that by Sept 12, he wasalready so deluged with anecdotal observations that the WTC collapselooked suspicious, that it was driving him crazy ? If so, then wouldn't hethink, "Well this issue is clearly going to resonate with people" ? Ifthis was the case (a deluge of interest by Sept 12), why did Ruppertimmediately move to begin a campaign of suppression, distrotion anddismissal of the evidence ? (this will be presented shortly) And on whatgrounds does he justify his recent statement that the issue is beginning[[ from a starting line two years behind the other issues we have foughtfor ]] ?By Sept 12, there were no articles published on it, and no campaignorganized around it.To my knowledge no allegations of controlleddemolition had been aired anywhere by Sept 12. Thus, if it was generatingsignificant interest by Sept 12, it can only have been in a speculativesense within Rupperts circle of contacts - which should have indicated tohim that the issue had significant potential to create a lot of troublefor the govt. Either it was generating significant interest or it wasn't.If it was, then Ruppert is lying when he claims that that issue is placed[[ from a starting line two years behind the other issues ]]and admitting that he's had an agenda right from the beginning to supressan issue which he was already able to observe as naturally resonating withpeople, and to have significant potential.And if it wasn't generating significant interest by Sept 12, then why wasRuppert already expressing annoyance at an issue which hadn't even beenraised yet ?Oh dear! "What a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive! "But it gets worse.By Sept 13, Ruppert was so apparently annoyed with the deluge of interestin this issue ( which we are told starts two years behind and will neverresonate with anyone) that he took to his website to write an articledenying that explosives were placed in the towers, and confirming that theofficial story of the collapse was true.What's truly remarkable about this is that on Sept 13 - nobody had yetpublicly alleged that the towers were deliberately demolished! Ruppert waswriting govt counter spin before the issue had even surfaced.Professor Romero's intitial remarks were not published until Sept 14. Howdid Ruppert know that it would become an issue ? Why go to the trouble ofwriting counter spin to an issue which doesn't yet exist ? Or if it didexist, then why the panic to try to immediately squash it without anyconsideration at all? And why the hostility to its obvious potential? I think we can safely conclude that on Sept 13, Mike Ruppert knew verywell that the WTC demolition argument was going to be a problem for thegovt, and that he had already set in motion a campaign of pre-emptivecounter spin to support the govt story. And two years later, he stillfroths at the mouth at anyone who raises it. Rupperts article is at
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/09_13_01_No_Explosives.html The article is the usual laughable trash from Ruppert. A mix of hearsay,speculation and blatent absurdities. The article begins thus.[[Based upon a detailed review of an interview with a NY architect who isexpert on high rise construction and upon today's BBC story which I havelinked at the bottom of this page, I am now virtually certain that therewere no explosives placed within the WTC buildings. ]]Do we get a transcript of the interview? No. Do we get to know who it was? No. Do we get to know who did the review and where it was published ?No. Come on Mike, it's too much trouble to let the rest of us in on thesecret, is it? Do we get *any* more information ? No. Documentation forsuch wild claims simply isn't Ruppert's style. But at the bottom of thearticle we get the usual Ruppert promise.[[I will be posting a more detailed bulletin for my subscribers on thisshortly.]]Not being a subscriber, I don't know whether he made good on this promisefor his subscribers, but he certainly hasn't on the rest of the web site.So we are expected to believe this trash about "a detailed interview ",but we're not allowed to see the interview for ourselves, or know who itwas, or even who reviewed it. This was more than 2 years ago. What kind ofresearcher depends upon such blatently dishonest methods? Guess who ?The same charlatan who
Main Page - Friday, 11/14/03
Message Board by American
Patriot Friends Network [APFN]