RESEARCHER
OP MOCKINGBIRD AGENT MIKE RUPPERT & OTHERS!
Fri Nov 14 16:16:15 2003
64.140.158.169

OP MOCKINGBIRD AGENT MIKE RUPPERT & OTHERS!

-------- Original Message --------
From: "Jeffrey G. Strahl" jstrahl@well.com
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 face
now is the attempted cooptation and diversion-into-safe channels being
done upon on the 9/11 movement by people like Kyle Hence, who now refuses
to handle even Deception Dollars, while giving mileage to Democratic
politicians. 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, threatening
to take our movement from us and turn it into a weapon to be used against
us. In that context, Michael Ruppert's full particiapation with Hence is a
cause for alarm and a legitimate topic of debate, especially given his
efforts to discourage investigations which emphasize the physical
evidence.

I am not in agreement with 100% of the words here, but think this is
important to read and discuss.

Jeff

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 09:26:31 +1100
From: Gerard Holmgren
Subject: rewrite of Ruppert WTC analysis

Recently, I had a stoush with Ruppert on another discussion list. It began
with Ruppert launching another of his unprovoked ridicule attacks against
the 11/9 evidence. During this debate Ruppert was caught out contradicting
himself and letting slip some very incriminating statements about his
attempts to suppress such evidence - right from 12/9 2001. I then twice
tried 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 what
Ruppert's real agenda is. This mail contains some references to the
previously mentioned discussion, so if anybody is confused by where a
few of the quotes come from, and what a few of the references to a
previous discussion are about, that's what it is. I still have the
emails from that discussion which I can foward ,if necessary. But I
think this deconstruction of Ruppert is the most revealing, and the
most relevant to the question of why Ruppert seems so hysterically
opposed to the airing of nearly any of the Sept 11evidence.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent exchanges with Mike Ruppert have revealed his unhealthy obsession
with squashing any evidence which would demonstrate that the US gov was
not merely complicit in the events of sept 11, but indeed orchestrated the
entire event itself.
Ruppert continues to actively attack those who work to expose the
following 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 the
evidence to the contrary. In the following analysis, I will concentrate on
the WTC towers demolition to demonstrate that Ruppert had foreknowldege
from Sept 13 2001 at the latest, that it would become a problem for the
govt, and by Sept 13 at the latest ,had already set in motion a campaign
to provide counter spin for the govt - before the issue had even been
raised.

First, lets look at something which Ruppert wrote in recent exchanges on
this issue. He threatens to oppose airing of the B7 collapse, the moment
anyone raises it. Interesting. Why the panic?

A 47 story building which was not hit by a plane, not subject to any
significant fire, and not struck by significant debris, collapses into its
own footprint, in a manner only possible via controlled demolition. It
collapses in exactly the same manner as the WTC towers. 3 Buildings in one
day, when such a collapse has never happened before or since, and has been
demonstrated by solid scientific principles to be physically impossible by
any means other than a controlled demolition. Worthy of an inquiry? Not
according to the govt. And not according to Mike Ruppert.

If someone is not particularly savvy on the physical principles
involved, I can understand a certain amount of caution in embracing it
as evidence. Caution is good when one is not sure. However, I would
expect a purported govt critic to at least show some casual interest in
and casual support of the progess of such an investigation. If not
that, I would at least expect a purported govt critic to leave it
alone, and simply get on with their own thing.
But not Mike Ruppert. He has threatened to oppose the issue, the
moment 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 a
starting line two years behind the other issues we have fought for and
advanced -- to a significant degree jeopardizes discussion of the issues
that are already out there I will oppose it ]]

Anyone, however cautious ,should be able to see that B7 is at least
potentially a smoking gun, even if they can't yet see that its proved
lock, stock and barrell. So why the panic from Ruppert about the issue
being raised ? And much of it by people who are qualified engineers and
physicists So we even have the relevant pieces of paper to wave in front
of the hard line sceptics.

Why does Ruppert describe qualified engineers and physicists, using
their expertise to punch holes in the govt story as

[[candidates for Darwinian deselection ]] ?

As we shall see later, Ruppert approves of people with such qualifications
who spin lies for the govt, but derides those with equal qualifications
who demonstrate the impossiblity of govt lies. Which side is he on?
I will add here that no qualifications beyond junior high school science
are needed to demolish the laughable govt stories on the WTC demolition.
But just in case Ruppert tries to play the "qualifications" card, we have
the people who can match it with the best that the governement can bring
forward. One would think that purported govt critics would find this an
encouraging development, even if they're not interested in being involved
themselves.

But not Mike Ruppert. The mere mention of the issue is enough to have
him 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 on
this 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 email
block list.]]

Again I ask, Why the panic ? For something which is such an obvious
smoking gun, he's *awfully anxious* to keep it bottled up.

On this question, Ruppert tries to wriggle by claiming that its wasting
his time. This absurd lie is as ridiculous as the govt spin which Ruppert
is so keen to defend. How does it waste Ruppert's time, if somebody else
is 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 of
expertise. TENC finds it no problem. TENC posted an article, demonstrating
that a demolition expert, Professor Van Romero was reported in the
mainstream media as calling a controlled demoltiion.Romero later retracted
the statement in mysterious circumstances. TENC opened its article with a
statement that TENC has not entered the debate about the physical nature
of the WTC collapse, and confines its analysis to the apparent pressure
placed on Prof Romero to retract his professional opinion. Easy, no
problem. Everyone is happy with that. TENC gets on with its work, and the
WTC 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 on
Prof Romero's mysterious retraction has proved a useful politically based
supplement to the overwhelming physical proof of the WTC demolition.
without TENCt needing to express any opinion one way or the other on the
physics. They simply documented articles and opinions relating to it,
which is their area of expertise, and let the facts about that speak for
themselves.

By contrast, Ruppert froths at the mouth when ever the issue is
mentioned, threatens and insults those who raise it, describes it on
his website as "worse than re-arranging the deckchiars on the
Titanic", and makes absurd whinings about it wasting his time. Ruppert
is a liar. He claims that he needs to leave it alone, because he's
working 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 time
write plenty on the WTC issue. Its just that everything he writes
supports the official story.

The reality is that Ruppert has made considerable time to spin for the
govt on this issue, both by posting an article on FTW in supprt of it, and
by constant attacks on those who raise the issue, but then to try to
maintain his cover within the 11/9 movement, tries to distort that into an
impression that he simply wants to stay out of it.

Before examining in more detail the considerable interest which Ruppert
has shown in concocting lies for the govt in relation to this issue, I
will examine another of his recent statements, in relation to physical
evidence.

[[Today's messages are cut and paste identical to
those 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 issues
which have Ruppert frothing at the mouth were issues on sept 12 2001.

The issues of the ficticous hijackers, the ficticious boeing at the
Pentagon and the ficticous 767s at the WTC would not be raised for months
after this date.

However, it is possible that a few observant people would have noticed by
Sept 12, that the WTC collpase looked awfully suspicous, and that some
inquiry was warranted.

So it can only be the WTC collpase which Ruppert is referring to as being
on his banned list by Sept 12 2001. So he admits that he was already
hostile 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 time
for it, but on the other hand admits that he was already hostile to the
idea by Sept 12 2001, before any clear indication can have emerged about
exactly how the different aspects of the evidence against the govt would
unfold.

By Sept 12, all that anyone would have been able to say was that
anecdotaly, the whole Sept 11 event seemed rather fishy, and enquiries
were needed. But nobody could have had any detailed idea about exactly
what form the subsequent enquiries would take, and what evidence they
would reveal. And yet, by Sept 12, Ruppert, by his own admission, was
already attacking some of the strongest intial indications for govt
involvement before it even became a clear issue, and before there could
possibly have been time to make a properly considered judgment about
either its truth or its political potential - or to make any such
judgement about any other aspects of evidence which might arise.

Ruppert can't have it both ways. Is he claiming that by Sept 12, he was
already so deluged with anecdotal observations that the WTC collapse
looked suspicious, that it was driving him crazy ? If so, then wouldn't he
think, "Well this issue is clearly going to resonate with people" ? If
this was the case (a deluge of interest by Sept 12), why did Ruppert
immediately move to begin a campaign of suppression, distrotion and
dismissal of the evidence ? (this will be presented shortly) And on what
grounds does he justify his recent statement that the issue is beginning

[[ from a starting line two years behind the other issues we have fought
for ]] ?

By Sept 12, there were no articles published on it, and no campaign
organized around it.To my knowledge no allegations of controlled
demolition had been aired anywhere by Sept 12. Thus, if it was generating
significant interest by Sept 12, it can only have been in a speculative
sense within Rupperts circle of contacts - which should have indicated to
him that the issue had significant potential to create a lot of trouble
for 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 supress
an issue which he was already able to observe as naturally resonating with
people, and to have significant potential.

And if it wasn't generating significant interest by Sept 12, then why was
Ruppert already expressing annoyance at an issue which hadn't even been
raised 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 interest
in this issue ( which we are told starts two years behind and will never
resonate with anyone) that he took to his website to write an article
denying that explosives were placed in the towers, and confirming that the
official story of the collapse was true.

What's truly remarkable about this is that on Sept 13 - nobody had yet
publicly alleged that the towers were deliberately demolished! Ruppert was
writing govt counter spin before the issue had even surfaced.

Professor Romero's intitial remarks were not published until Sept 14. How
did Ruppert know that it would become an issue ? Why go to the trouble of
writing counter spin to an issue which doesn't yet exist ? Or if it did
exist, then why the panic to try to immediately squash it without any
consideration at all? And why the hostility to its obvious potential?
I think we can safely conclude that on Sept 13, Mike Ruppert knew very
well that the WTC demolition argument was going to be a problem for the
govt, and that he had already set in motion a campaign of pre-emptive
counter spin to support the govt story. And two years later, he still
froths 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 is
expert on high rise construction and upon today's BBC story which I have
linked at the bottom of this page, I am now virtually certain that there
were 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 the
secret, is it? Do we get *any* more information ? No. Documentation for
such wild claims simply isn't Ruppert's style. But at the bottom of the
article we get the usual Ruppert promise.

[[I will be posting a more detailed bulletin for my subscribers on this
shortly.]]

Not being a subscriber, I don't know whether he made good on this promise
for 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 it
was, or even who reviewed it. This was more than 2 years ago. What kind of
researcher depends upon such blatently dishonest methods? Guess who ?

The same charlatan who

• Art Bell and ADVANCED — Ranger Rick, Sun Nov 16 19:15