Mike Ruppert has done more damage to the 9-11 Truth Movement
than any other individual in this field, and during the
course of this report I will show how he has filled the
role of a Gatekeeper to deliberately squelch any substantive
progress that has been made in determining what actually
happened on the morning of September 11, 2001 in terms of
the two primary crux issues:
1) how controlled demolitions brought down the World
Trade Center towers
2) how the Pentagon was not struck by a Boeing 757
Before delving into these topics, though, I would like
to address some of the points Mike Ruppert made in his
response to my Ten Unanswered Questions article
(October 8, 2004). My reason for doing so is as such:
to truly understand Ruppert's stance in the 9-11/peak
oil arena, you first have to know "The Man" himself. This
is precisely why I wrote my 36-page expose, Mike Ruppert
Unmasked (October 1, 2004). From my perspective, someone
had to put this information in the public domain so that
others could see it. Of course, some people criticized
me for doing so, and said that I should have instead focused
solely on his work. Well, you'll be pleased to know I
am going to do precisely that later in this article.
But first I'm going to show how Mike Ruppert duped quite
a few of his most ardent followers by using the exact
same techniques that government handlers and conditioners
use to distract their subjects away from the crux of an
issue. Y'see, Mike learned quite a lot about the CIA's
secrets, and now he's putting them to use on his own followers.
Needless to say, this tactic should throw red-flags up
in every direction.
Here's how he did it. After finishing his responses
to my Ten Questions, Ruppert queried directly to
me, "So now, let me ask you a couple of questions, publicly
and for the record. What is your real name? Is it Scott?
Have you ever been arrested? Have you ever received any
money from any agency of the United States government
for any services rendered?"
The intent of this question was obvious. Ruppert wanted
to plant a seed and leave his readers with the notion
that there was something hidden or lurking in my current
or past history. But instead of falling for his guise
and immediately responding to these loaded questions,
I stood-back and waited to see how many people would get
sucked into this little trap. And sure enough, the e-mails
started flying. Why? Because to draw attention away from
my questions (many of which Ruppert completely avoided
answering, as we'll see), he dropped a few "false-flag
bombshell diversions" that were deliberately meant to
incite suspicion in his readers' minds. It's the EXACT
same thing the government and corporate media do with
their innuendo/distraction techniques.
Anyway, I don't mean to disappoint all of those who
jumped on this piece of raw meat, but:
a) My real name is Scott Makufka, but I go by the pen-name
Victor Thorn for one specific reason. Throughout my life,
my last name has been virtually impossible to say and
spell (with variations including Kamufkama, Macukfu, and
the best of all, Scott Mafucka (think about that one))!
To prove this point, every person who has recently tried
to spell my name has gotten it wrong (including Jim Hoffman,
Mike Ruppert, and syndicated radio talk show host Mike
Gallagher). So, to avoid any unnecessary confusion, in
the year 2000 I selected a name that could not be any
simpler (i.e. Victor Thorn). And, if Ruppert had bothered
to check, there are various articles in the public domain
on the Internet written about me using my real name. So,
my pseudonym is no great mystery, and nothing I've ever
tried to hide. It's just a simple non de plume,
and the individuals who are playing these little games
are doing nothing but diverting attention (once again)
away from the real issues (just, I might add, as Mike
Ruppert intended).
b) In regards to a police record, not only have I never
been convicted of any crime, I've never even been arrested
- ever! Now, being that Ruppert was a former member
of the LAPD, he could have very easily checked and verified
this fact. I'm sure he still has a few buddies on the
force. But instead, he deliberately misled his
readers by insinuating something that has no basis in
reality whatsoever. Ruppert frequently talks about "sloppy
journalism," and not only is this tactic a blatant example
of such practices; it goes far beyond that. What he has
willingly and knowingly done is exploit his audience with
an obvious false-front. Specifically, this technique is
called "coercive persuasion" (see Ralph Omholt's article
by the same name), which is defined as: "the methodical
- often subtle or even clandestine - application of psychological
manipulation." This point is vitally important to remember
because I'll show later in this paper how Ruppert uses
the exact same techniques in relation to 9-11.
Can't you see what's going on? For years this guy has
been using the same techniques that operatives use, and
it's about time we start calling him on it. He's duping
people with nothing more than blatant CIA/media/propaganda
tactics. It's the oldest trick in the book, and I genuinely
feel sorry for the people who fell for this ruse. It's
an overtly manipulative process used to draw attention
away from all of his shortcomings outlined in my articles.
Mike, you know better than this, and you should be ashamed
of yourself for sinking to such depths.
c) Lastly, Ruppert asked if I had ever received money
from the government for services rendered. Again, sorry
to disappoint you, Mike, but the answer is a profound
NO. And just so people won't be swayed by your smokescreens
any longer, I'll explain: to insure that we're not even
remotely compromised; we don't accept advertising money
of any kind for WING TV (even though it has been offered).
The same applies to corporate donors, which should be
anathema to anyone in the alternative news field (do you
hear that Amy Goodman). We're so disinterested in such
matters that we don't even have a hit-counter on our site.
In other words, we don't want anyone having a thumb
over us or controlling what we say or write, especially
the government.
How, then, some may wonder, can we afford to put our
show on the air? The answer is simple. Both Lisa Guliani
and I work day jobs to cover the costs associated with
WING TV. In fact, I get up at 3:30 am six days a week,
work between 45-50 hours/week, then come home and immediately
launch into preparing WING TV for broadcast. Lisa likewise
splits her time between outside work and our show. Thus,
from noon until late afternoon we set-up the camera, do
sound-checks, film the show, publish it, do the html computer
work, put together the photo gallery, burn it to disc,
and finally upload it to the Internet. It's an extremely
complicated process, and a 25 minute show takes about
five hours to complete. Then, in our "free time" we have
to contact future guests, do research to prepare questions,
write articles, answer viewer e-mail, and maintain our
site (not to mention other mundane tasks such as cooking
supper, raking leaves, etc). In all honesty, it's a brutal
lifestyle; and we usually only get 4-5 hours sleep a night.
But to insure that no one will be able to manipulate our
broadcasts or writing, it's the course we've chosen to
take. Plus, to make WING TV available to everyone, we
don't charge subscription fees, nor do we continually
beg for money like William Rivers Pitt of Truthout.com
does. As we say at the end of each show - Don't Pay
for Internet News - WING TV Always Free!
Now, Mike, would we go on four hours of sleep a night
six days a week if the government was bankrolling us?
Once again you've deliberately misconstrued a situation
and distorted reality, and this shows just how low you
can go with your coercive persuasion games. It's really
quite pitiful, and you should know better. It's time we
start calling this guy on what he's doing.
But wait, folks; there's much more to Mike Ruppert "The
Man" that he doesn't want you to know. Namely, in my follow-up
to Mike Ruppert Unmasked, I asked:
# 10: FLIP-FLOPPING: When my review of
your Truth and Lies of 9-11 video first appeared
in The New World Order Exposed, the people operating
your From the Wilderness website were so pleased
with it that they gave me a free one-year subscription
to your newsletter. But then, just last month, you completely
flip-flopped and denounced my research as sub-standard.
Question: How frequently do you undergo
such dramatic, almost schizophrenic turnarounds, and do
you foresee any other flip-flops in the near future when
they become "convenient" for you (i.e. peak oil)?
Ruppert responded:
Boy, you're really not going to like this one. FTW has
had a firm and consistent policy that it will sell no
product or affiliate with any entity that I have not first
approved. The employees you refer to were both terminated
several months ago for multiple violations of company
policy. One Cynthia (last name withheld to protect privacy)
was a retired FBI agent who did a number of things in
an apparent attempt to sabotage my business. She showed
me your book. After two minutes of looking at the cover
I realized that under no circumstances would I ever be
affiliated with you or sell your products. I told her
this. She ignored my direct instructions and continued
a relationship with you behind my back and in secret.
This was possibly as part of an FBI-engineered COINTELPRO
type operation to discredit me by attacking me for affiliating
with your absolutely horrendous journalism and well-documented
errors.
I fired her (and another employee, Tim) for this and
other violations of my company rules. I have never once,
inside or outside my office said that I wanted to be connected
to illuminati jerks, UFO advocates or David Icke's Lizard
people. Anyone who knows me at all knows that this is
ironclad policy with me.
Now, before I expose a fistful of blatant lies on Ruppert's
part, I would like to interject another thought. Ruppert
boasts at every turn about being a journalist of the highest
degree. Yet re-read his following statement: "After two
minutes of looking at the cover [of The New World Order
Exposed] I realized that under no circumstances would
I ever be affiliated with you or sell your products."
Think about the absurdity of this narrow-minded pronouncement.
There has never been a better example of shoddy, myopic
journalism than this. Ruppert claims that by simply "judging
a book by its cover" he could tell what was inside it
- all 570 pages - without even opening it! How did he
perform such an amazing feat - via psychic powers? If
so, he should start playing the lottery because his powers
appear to be far greater than even Kreskin's! Plus, The
New World Order Exposed has blurbs on the back cover
from Jim Marrs, Michael Collins Piper, Gordon Thomas,
and Paul Walker of Aftermath News. These are some
of today's leading figures in the alternative research
field, yet Ruppert dismissed them (and the entire book)
in 120 seconds without ever opening it. How utterly pathetic.
How can we trust anything this guy says after he makes
such a patently absurd statement? It's a joke, especially
when we look back at his equally preposterous Vreeland
equivocations.
Worse, Ruppert blamed this entire New World Order
Exposed flip-flop not on himself, but an employee
named "Cynthia" who he said was possibly a retired FBI
agent that conspired behind his back to sabotage him under
some type of FBI-engineered COINTELPRO program.
Upon reading this response when it initially came out,
I instantly turned to my WING TV co-host, Lisa Guliani,
and said, "Ruppert's lying through his teeth. I've never
in my life spoken to anyone named Cynthia at From the
Wilderness. The only person I dealt with back then
was named Michael Leon. I don't even know who Cynthia
is."
The only problem was: I couldn't prove it. It was Ruppert's
word against mine. That was until I received a dramatically
eye-opening e-mail on October 11, 2004 from one of Ruppert's
former employees. To preserve this individual's identity
and any possible retaliation on Ruppert's part, I will
merely call him X. Anyway, this person wrote:
Victor Thorn,
To set the record straight, since Mike Ruppert has seen
fit to use my name and that of my former co-worker in
his rebuttal to you as posted on his site and Jeff Rense.
His claim that "60 man hours" was dedicated to answering
queries re: the "Oh Lucy" timeline is utter BS. I have
the distinct pleasure of having been fired by Ruppert
2x's. When I returned in August of 2002 (after being first
fired in Sept. 2000) and through May 2004, I did not field
a single phone call or email regarding the timeline award.
I am aware that the $1000.00 went to Tony's favorite charity.
Your free subscription came about through Michael L.
[Michael Leon], our office manager, well before Cynthia
was hired. It was Michael L. who first brought your book
to Mike Ruppert's attention.
After Ruppert's burst appendix in July of 2003 and after
(prior) repeated warnings from Michael L.- to Ruppert
- that he needed to secure medical insurance, both of
us went to Ruppert's residence to confront him on his
anger issues - which were becoming intolerable. Ruppert
AGREED to get help. He has NEVER done so.
I have known Mike since 1993. In fact, he was my first
AA sponsor. I have witnessed his anger completely out
of control. He has been physically, verbally and emotionally
abusive - to employees and to total strangers.
Unfortunately, what Mike sells is ... fear. He has consistently
demonstrated knowledge of the problem and a complete inability
to address the solution. When he spoke at the PQI Convention
in Cancun, a good portion of the audience went to the
bar to drink or up to their rooms to sleep off the depression
after hearing his pitch. At the end of his pitch he stated:
"Catherine Austin Fitts will give you the answers in her
presentation tomorrow!"
What a guy!
Claudia, who coordinated the Cancun event, called me
in mid-March and asked me to talk to Mike about doing
a presentation that was solution oriented ... I suggested
that she and Dave Struckman take this up directly with
Ruppert - at this point I already knew I was history.
Ya' see, what Ruppert means by his (my) company policy
is: I'm right/YOU are wrong, my way or the highway, I
see YOU as an extension of me!!!
My perfect vision of Ruppert is: in a rubber room, daily
thorazine injections, a cup for the drool - just down
the hall from George W. Same coin, different sides.
Kind regards,
X
One day later, on October 12th, X followed-up with a
second e-mail:
Victor,
When I spoke to Cynthia last night regarding this entire
matter, I mentioned your name and her response was: "Victor
who?"
Cynthia is a good person who deserves much more than
being scapegoated by a paranoid, delusional LAPD x cop.
Michael Leon is now living on top of a mountain in New
Zealand.
X
Can you see what's going on here? Ruppert absolutely
and undeniably LIED THROUGH HIS TEETH about
the entire New World Order Exposed matter. As I
told Lisa Guliani, I had never spoken with a woman named
Cynthia at FTW. And now I had the proof. To add even more
ammunition, I did a quick search through my computer and
found the initial letter that we sent to From the Wilderness
in regards to my book. It was dated May 27, 2003; and
guess who it was addressed to. Michael Leon, just as I
had said. If anyone would like to verify this correspondence,
I will gladly forward the letter to them.
For the sake of fairness, though, I gave Ruppert a chance
to redeem himself on December 2, 2004 by sending him this
question via e-mail:
"In your response to question # 10, you stated that
a former employee of yours named Cynthia was the individual
who gave you my book, THE NEW WORLD ORDER EXPOSED.
You also stated that she was possibly part of a FBI engineered
COINTELPRO program, that she was attempting to sabotage
your business, and that she "continued a relationship
with me" behind your back. Do you stand by these statements,
and if not, what part of it would you like to change?"
But instead of coming clean, Ruppert spun an even more
elaborate explanation on December 3, 2004:
"I did not say that Cynthia was part of a COINTELPRO
operation. I said it was possible and that I suspected
it. That's a major distortion of my words on your part.
[Actually, I did use the word "possible" in my original
question - vt] Do I still believe it's possible or
likely? Yes. Either that or Cynthia has other very serious
personal issues. One thing I can say, because she made
it public knowledge herself in front of many witnesses,
is that she believes the government is tracking her every
move by satellite and bombarding her with rays that make
her sick and cause her to get electric shocks from her
car seat. She believes that helicopters follow her everywhere
and that even the helicopters were bombarding her with
rays. She believes that these "rays" are able to target
just her in a room full of people, none of whom felt a
thing. That was entirely different from the microwave
attack on our office where everyone was hit at the same
time and we all felt it at the same time. Cynthia would
start ranting about it in the office when no one else
felt a thing."
Now I don't know about you, but isn't it curious that
Mike Ruppert (and supposedly everyone around him) always
seem to be involved in completely outlandish situations
(at least according to Ruppert)? It's like he lives every
day in a perpetual episode of The Twilight Zone
where people are being poisoned, microwaved, tracked and
attacked. But since Ruppert went X-Files in his
first description of Cynthia, why should we believe his
second cock-n-bull story? Give us a break, Mike, and drop
the dramatics!
Anyway, here's the bottom line: To this day I have still
never spoken with or e-mailed "Cynthia." In fact, I don't
even know her last name. Yet Ruppert, for whatever delusional
reason, concocted the entire paranoid fantasy about the
FBI and COINTELPRO, blamed it on an innocent employee
(who he said was conspiring behind his back with me -
a person she has never met or spoken with), all in order
to cover his own tracks. There are only two explanations
for this response: Ruppert is either a pathological liar,
or he's insane. What other alternatives are there, especially
when he's had every opportunity to correct this outlandish
tale? How are we supposed to take this guy seriously any
longer? He sounds like a drunken, overly-theatric Richard
Nixon during the crash n' burn Watergate days. The lunacy
which flows from Ruppert's pen at every turn is precisely
why the mainstream media labels us ‘crazed conspiracy
theorists.' Ruppert is collectively damaging our credibility
with all of these ludicrous statements. [As a reminder,
take another look at his account of the Mike Vreeland-Alan
Greenspan incident - it's frighteningly deranged.] So,
not only did Ruppert use obvious CIA coercive persuasion
techniques in his responses to my questions, he also LIED
THROUGH HIS TEETH, and continues to do so even
today!
Also, during an October phone conversation, X revealed
how he and Cynthia actually had to perform an intervention
at Ruppert's residence to confront him about his wildly
out-of-control anger issues. In addition, he described
Ruppert as being (verbatim): "insecure, paranoid, and
out of touch with reality." These words, you must remember,
are originating from someone who worked in close proximity
to Ruppert on a daily basis. This, I am afraid to say,
is Mike Ruppert "The Man." Anyone who has read my Mike
Ruppert Unmasked article, along with this first-hand
account, is finally starting to understand what type of
individual we're dealing with. The only thing I can suggest
right now is for Mike Ruppert to get the professional
(psychological) help he so desperately needs.
Moving on, as promised this lead-up will eventually
meander its way back to 9-11, but first I would like to
take a moment and quote from an October 19, 2004 article
written by Brian Salter (QuestionsQuestions.net)
entitled Ruppert vs. Hopsicker, Thorn in which
he comments on Ruppert's responses to my original ten
questions.
First, Salter touches upon Ruppert's propensity to attack
and threaten legal action against practically anybody
that disagrees with him (i.e. his LOCK-STEP mentality).
Salter wrote: "I've already known for a long time that
Ruppert is an asshole and a megalomaniac. That is reason
for caution, but doesn't inherently mean that anything
he's saying or doing is already wrong. But one example
of something I take very seriously is Ruppert's bizarre
penchant for making lawsuit threats, as illustrated by
his recent threat against a theater production which he
claimed had unjustly stolen his ideas concerning Cheney's
role in the 9/11 op. This left me astonished and disturbed."
Salter continued, "Thorn's question about Ruppert's lawsuit-mongering
is obviously sarcastic and in jest, but at the same time
I am totally unmoved by Ruppert's evasive "answer" on
the subject, which offers no reassurance to those of us
who are concerned about his behavior."
Salter then examined Ruppert's equally strange behavior
in relation to Mike Vreeland, and the "nastiness" of his
attacks upon fellow researchers. But the point which most
intrigued me was when Salter alluded to the possibility
of a deliberately-created "Legend" being built around
Mike Ruppert. He wrote: "A search for "Brian Salter" in
Thorn's "Unmasked" will bring up an example of how those
of us who have rallied around Ruppert in the past have
been sucked into backing up his "my way or the highway"
interpretations of current events that haven't all come
to pass. And those of us who have parted ways with Ruppert
on the "peak oil" issue are now in an awkward spot, with
his millenialist huffing and puffing that "peak oil is
the only story." So, some of us who worked hard to shield
Ruppert from attacks and build his credibility now find
ourselves vilified and mocked by his site as "flat earthers"
and the like for failing to fall in lock-step behind his
"peak oil" line. Was Ruppert meant to be a lightning rod?
Was the war with the "gatekeepers" a case of "legend-building"?
Another researcher who is a "peak oil" skeptic wrote to
me, "We've created a monster -" and I find myself increasingly
suspecting that he may be right, and I do not feel too
good to be saying so."
This concept of "Legend-building" is vital to understand,
for it exists at the absolute center of Mike Ruppert's
universe. It is so vital, in fact, that author and researcher
Dave McGowan (the Center for an Informed America)
broached it during his November 30, 2004 appearance on
WING TV:
Victor Thorn: So, right then, two days
after this event happened [9-11], Ruppert's status as
a Gatekeeper had already been established, hadn't it?
McGowan: In my opinion, absolutely. I
believe that a Legend was created -- so to speak -- to
elevate him into this position where he could assume the
mantle of - I think he calls himself the "godfather of
9-11 research." I believe that was a very deliberate effort
to establish someone as a point-man who could serve to
plant red-herrings on the trail and to re-direct attention
onto relatively insignificant matters, and I think they've
done a very good job.
So, what we have here goes well beyond Ruppert being
rude to fellow researchers, his overt lies, and his paranoid,
bizarre claims in relation to Vreeland and the FBI. Rather,
what if Mike Ruppert has actually been a "plant" or "strawman"
from the onset, and a carefully choreographed Legend was
indeed built around him to become the false-front damage-control
"godfather" of the 9-11 movement? Look at it this way:
an ex-LAPD officer with family intel connections falls
on hard times, then is suddenly resurrected at a pivotal
event - his conveniently videotaped "confrontation" with
CIA Director John Deutsch in 1996 over the Agency's involvement
in drug-trafficking and money-laundering. Shortly thereafter
he launches his From the Wilderness website and
begins parading around his Deutsch videotape to give himself
"credibility." Then, to further build his "Legend," he
engages in some staged "debates" with Left Gatekeepers
such as Amy Goodman, Chip Berlet, and David Corn. All
the while, he's bolstering himself to be the # 1 "government
outsider" and self-appointed leader of the 9-11 Truth
Movement.
But instead of being our savior riding in on a white
horse, what if Ruppert was actually the anointed lightning
rod that bullied, threatened, and shot down EVERY
researcher that was getting too close to the truth or
strayed too far away from the "official limited hang-out"
party line? And I think every person in the 9-11 investigative
community would agree that Ruppert has been a pit bull
attack dog far more than anyone else (except for maybe
Dick Eastman). Is that the kind of company you want to
be in, Mike? Hell, in the two months since Unmasked
was published, I've received scores of e-mails from fellow
researchers who told me about being subjected to his lawsuits,
heavy-handed tactics, and abusive behavior. And, when
you think about it, isn't this precisely the role which
a government-planted debunker would fill? They'd go to
great lengths trying to silence those who were about to
"crack the case."
If you're still not convinced, though, hearken back
to the opening of this article where I illustrated very
clearly how Mike Ruppert used the exact same techniques
that our government, corporate-controlled newscasters,
and the CIA utilize to mislead and distract their audience.
I pointed this out for a very specific reason - to show
that Ruppert is not above utilizing very manipulative
tactics to achieve his (their) ultimate goals.
With this premise in mind, please read the following
passage from Dave McGowan's phenomenal article, September
11, 2001 Revisited: A Three-Act Play (September 15,
2004):
The collapses [of the World Trade Center Towers] represented
a fundamental weakness in the master plan. Were it not
for the virtually complete control exercised by Washington
over the media, both mainstream and 'alternative,' the
twin collapses would almost certainly have been recognized
as an obvious smoking gun. Of course, the perpetrators
never had any reason to doubt their ability to thoroughly
control the flow of information, both in the media and
in the so-called 'skeptics community.'
Many in that community have harshly denounced those
intrepid souls who have questioned the cause of the collapse
of the World Trade Center towers, just as they have cast
aspersions on those who question whether it was really
a commercial airliner that struck the Pentagon. From
the Wilderness set the tone very early on with a post
that was up barely 48 hours after the towers hit the ground:
Credible Evidence, Expert Witness Testimony Convincing:
No Explosives Hidden in WTC Sept 13, 2001 -- 1500
PDT
(http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/09_13_01_No_Explosives.html)
FTW - 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.
The motive for such a move would have been unclear in
light of the drama and the security risks for "pre-event"
compromise posed by dual efforts that would have accomplished
the same ends.
Discovery of the explosives before the hijacking would
have emptied the buildings and placed the nation on alert
before the hijackings could have been carried out. The
WTC towers would have been evacuated and that would have
reduced the impact of the crashes.
Gravity would have taken all of the unburned fuel down
central shafts of the building and the physics in this
story are consistent with both witness statements and
other expert interviews I have read.
In addition, my ex-wife Mary lives a block away and
witnessed both the second crash and the collapse of both
towers from a close distance. Neither she, nor any other
person she knows, heard any explosions or believe that
secondary charges were a factor in of the collapses. I
will be posting a more detailed bulletin for my subscribers
on this shortly.
Mike Ruppert
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1540000/1540044.stm
The phantom New York architect was never identified.
The alleged "expert interviews" never actually existed.
The BBC report was shown to be littered with errors.
And the "more detailed bulletin" never surfaced. Instead,
Ruppert allowed his hastily assembled initial post to
stand for over two years as his only commentary on the
collapse of the towers. The dust from the World Trade
Center hadn't even settled yet and already the 9-11 gatekeeper
position had been established, courtesy of Mike Ruppert
and the BBC.
Please ponder for a moment the ramifications of this
very intriguing excerpt. Only two days after 9-11, while
everyone else in the country (and the world) was still
in shock, Mike Ruppert emerges on the scene with his "damage
control" and announces that there were no explosives hidden
in the World Trade Center towers! This pronouncement completely
and unwaveringly supported the government's "official
version" of events --- after only two days and zero investigation.
None whatsoever! How unsettling is this notion?
Worse, McGowan also adds: "From the beginning, many
of the most prominent 9-11 researchers have labored to
either discredit, or ignore and direct attention away
from these three key areas of research. From the
Wilderness, for example, considered by many to
be the preeminent 9-11 site, avoided commenting on the
Air Force stand-down for many long months; dismissed the
notion of controlled demolitions in a short, unsourced
post just two days after the towers had fallen; and still
has not, to this day, ever reviewed or addressed the photographic
evidence from the Pentagon." Yet again, Ruppert has given
us a textbook example of how shoddy journalism and
disinformation can be used to deliberately divert attention
away from the truth of an issue.
Note: The three key areas of research that McGowan
is referring to above are as follows:
1. The perfectly symmetrical and total collapse of three
commercial high rise office buildings that day (WTC1,
WTC2, and WTC7), the first such collapses in history,
can only be explained as controlled demolitions, requiring
a considerable amount of advance planning, preparation,
expertise and access.
2. The nation with the world's most formidable military
apparatus, and with the world's most advanced air defense
system, failed in every way imaginable to respond to the
attacks, and failed to follow the most basic, routine,
automatic procedures for responding to emergency situations.
Not only did the Air Force and civil defense systems fail
to respond, despite having more than ample time to do
so, but the purported commander-in-chief also failed to
respond, as did his staff and security detail, and all
of his underlings.
3. It is impossible to reconcile the documented damage
to the Pentagon with the notion that it was struck by
a 757 passenger jet. Evidence instead indicates that it
was either struck by a missile (and not one launched from
a cave in Afghanistan), or taken out with explosives planted
within the building.
So, without further ado, let's get down to the brass
tacks of the 9-11 terror attacks.
A) controlled demolitions brought down the World Trade
Center Towers
B) photographic and physical evidence is so lacking that
it is impossible to prove that a Boeing 757 struck the
Pentagon
These two points are the crux of 9-11 --- the true "ground
zero" for researchers --- or, as Dave McGowan likes to
call them, exhibits A and B, for without the monstrous
devastation of these towers and the traumatic impact it
created on our collective psyche, 9-11 would not have
grown to such epic proportions (and subsequently allowed
our government/New World Order controllers to move ahead
with their agenda). The collapsing towers killed more
people, created more trauma, and was by far the most memorable
event in our minds. Everything else exists on the periphery.
If we truly want to bring the guilty parties to justice,
this is where we must begin. War games didn't bring down
the towers, nor did airliners or burning jet fuel. Controlled
demolitions did. Likewise, if the government wanted to
prove that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, they'd release
each and every videotape taken with their own cameras,
as well as those confiscated from a nearby Citgo station,
Sheraton hotel, and the Virginia DMV. In addition, they
would also open the doors to a warehouse/hangar that they
claim holds the plane's wreckage. Yet three years later,
they've taken none of these simple steps.
Now, at this point I could engage in a lengthy discussion
of how basic the case for a controlled demolition of the
World Trade Center towers was, including:
- the scientific formula used to calculate a resistance-free
gravity fall
- the melting point of jet fuel and construction grade
steel
- or how steel buildings have never in the history of
the world collapsed due to fire
But the single greatest piece of evidence is the two
massive steel and concrete cores of each World Trade Center
tower that supported all 110 floors. Even if, in the highly
unlikely event that all of the floors did "pancake" to
the ground, that would still leave standing the center
CORE of each building that was constructed of concrete
and steel. Can't you see? It would have been physically
and scientifically impossible for them to fall. This is
the most basic and elementary point in the world. Examine
photos of the towers when they were being constructed.
Look at their cores. Jet fuel cannot burn, melt, destroy,
or pulverize to dust these massive 137' x 87' x 1360'
foot concrete and steel columns.
That's it. The 9-11 case is closed with this simple
premise. The government and corporate media's version
of events crumbles to pieces with ONE PHOTOGRAPH!
It's that simple - that basic. The planes didn't bring
down those columns, nor did fire. That only leaves one
thing - controlled demolition. Its physics and logic 101.
With this single, rudimentary point in mind, let's jump
back to Mike Ruppert's proclamation on September 13, 2001
--- two days after 9-11 --- where he said there was no
evidence of a controlled demolition. Even if in the chaos
of the moment Ruppert had made a mistake, he's had over
three years to correct and update it. But he hasn't! Plus,
he wrote a 670 page book which was published in October,
2004 entitled Crossing the Rubicon.
Now, whenever anyone asks specific questions of Ruppert,
he constantly instructs them (mantra-like) to read his
book, where "all the answers will be found." So, guess
what I did. I read the review copy that he sent to me
and looked for an explanation of 9-11's two crux issues:
1) how a controlled demolition brought down the World
Trade Center towers
2) how no photographic or physical evidence can reconcile
a Boeing 757 hitting the Pentagon
But much to my dismay, guess what I discovered. Nothing
- no precise details whatsoever describing the core issues
of 9-11. I even went to the book's index and looked-up
every reference to "The World Trade Center" and the "Pentagon"
--- and still nothing. In 670 pages!
Here's the best Ruppert could do in regard to the towers
(Crossing the Rubicon, page 590):
"For a long time I have not believed that the WTC towers
collapsed as a result of the impacts."
Okay, that's a good start, but then Ruppert immediately
cops-out with his constant standby: "I said from the first
days after 9/11 that I had too much experience with the
way physical evidence could be manipulated, even inside
a courtroom, to waste my time arguing claims that
could not be proven as thoroughly and concretely as the
ones I have proven here."
Wait a second. Did Ruppert say that he didn't want to
WASTE HIS TIME trying to argue that the towers
were brought down by controlled demolitions? What kind
of rationale is that?
He concludes: "While I cannot tell the general public,
or you who have made so many excellent cases for your
positions, how the buildings were brought down, I can
certainly now point you to a likely suspect for the requisite
studies of what would be required to do it."
Then, immediately after this passage, he skates away
from this issue by referencing, of all things, the Kean
Commission's Whitewash report, then a long-winded analogy
by Mark Rabinowitz. And just like that - with no other
information - he wants to erase the matter from our minds.
There is even less information on the lack of evidence
pointing to a Boeing 757 striking the Pentagon.
At this stage we have to ask ourselves: if Ruppert isn't
writing - in 670 pages - about the two crux issues of
9-11, then exactly what does fill his book? Well, I'll
tell you. Ruppert exerts a great deal of energy on "war
games." Now, let me reiterate one last time so there's
absolutely no confusion. Jetliners did not bring down
the WTC towers, nor did jet fuel; and no Boeing 757 struck
the Pentagon. Thus, the war games become nothing more
than a peripheral issue that facilitated, or allowed,
the planes to strike the towers. That's it. They were
merely a SYMPTOM of the central CAUSE, and
not the core issue.
In fact, 9-11 Skeptics Blogspot creator Nico
Haupt wrote in 911: The Lost Terror Drill (November
30, 2004) that, "War games were obviously planted to construct
a ‘limited hangout' later." He added in the next
line, "This indicates to me that traditional war games
are a red herring."
For once, somebody is finally starting to get it! So,
now that we're making progress, let's look at it this
way. Even if Dick Cheney admitted that he was the commander
of these war games, he could turn right around and say,
"Yup, we were running these operations, and due to the
distraction they created, the government and military
was negligent and incompetent in stopping
those pesky Arabs from hijacking our planes and ramming
them into the towers." Thus, the official story
is allowed to remain standing where 19 Afghani-trained
terrorists were the perpetrators (and not a bloodthirsty
cabal within the government) while the war games served
as a convenient and well-planted distraction.
Nico Haupt was right. The war games that Ruppert is
pushing full-bore are nothing more than a LIMITED HANGOUT
in case the government gets backed into a corner. Thus,
responsibility can be defrayed away from them (the true
guilty parties within our own government who planned,
executed, and covered-up their crimes) while still perpetuating
the myth of Arab hijackers. It's a classic red herring,
especially when it's coming from Mike Ruppert - a guy
who absolutely refuses to confront the true crux of this
matter - the controlled demolition of each tower. The
same can be said for other members of what I call the
"9-11 Cabal." These are individuals who have quite an
extensive amount of media access and dominate the 9-11
conferences; yet never bring this information to the public,
while at the same time excluding guests and voices that
are trying to promote the truth. And I haven't even mentioned
Ruppert's obsession with trying to distract people with
PEAK OIL - a completely unproven theory that is once again
used as a major source of distraction.
It is for these reasons that I've reached a conclusion:
Mike Ruppert is a 9-11 saboteur who has done everything
possible to divert people's attention away from crux
issues which ultimately point to the government's
responsibility for the 9-11 terror attacks. When we compound
this matter with his deliberate fabrications and his use
of government/CIA coercive persuasion propaganda techniques,
it becomes clear what his agenda is. And its highly disappointing,
because just think if Ruppert had spent three years and
670 pages examining the WTC's controlled demolition and
the government lies about a Boeing 757 hitting the Pentagon.
This case might have been blown-open sky high by now.
But Ruppert's done everything in his power to stay away
from these issues (while at the same time attacking those
who are exposing them).
These revelations have also allowed me to finally figure
out why Ruppert's been so adamant about not appearing
on WING TV. It's simple - he doesn't want to answer these
tough questions in front of every member of the 9-11 Truth
Movement. Why? Because he knows that Lisa Guliani and
I will ask him very pointed, direct questions, and Ruppert
wants nothing to do with that. Instead, he'll only agree
to softball-fluff interviews with publications like Newtopia.
In case you missed it, check out the two guys who interviewed
Ruppert. One has written for Entertainment Weekly,
Boing-Boing, and PIX-elations; while the
other is a guitarist for a band named Lucid Nation. Gee,
there are some real seasoned, hard-hitting 9-11 researchers,
huh!
Think about it. Here at WING TV, we have spent more
time than any other venue trying to expose the truth about
9-11. On the other hand, Ruppert just recently released
a book that delves into this very same topic. You would
think that these two forces are a perfect match. Yet Ruppert
is deathly afraid to appear on our show. Why?
