Home | Community | Message Board

Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Amazon Shop: The Doors

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1
DSYSB since '01
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/26/01
Posts: 16,248
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 17 days, 3 hours
Crossing The Rubicon
    #3619165 - 01/12/05 06:12 PM (13 years, 4 months ago)

This is a book that I am currently reading and solidifies my belief that the Bush Administration not only had prior knowledge of the 9/11 attacks but were complicit as well.

Below is a link that will take you to a page that gives a review of the book and also offers a sample chapter near the bottom that I strongly suggest you read.

Basically, the author treats the 9/11 attack as a criminal investigation...establishing Motive, Opportunity..etc...and does so in a very convincing manner.
I honestly believe that this book will help expose Bush and Co. (Cheney in particular) and it is already listed as one of the top five political books of the year by Amazon.com.

p.s. You will need Adobe Reader to view the file

Crossing The Rubicon

"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"

Edited by Rono (01/12/05 06:28 PM)

Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Fred's son

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 3 years, 4 months
Re: Crossing The Rubicon [Re: Rono]
    #3619511 - 01/12/05 07:05 PM (13 years, 4 months ago)

Why am I not surprised the author of this book is Mike Ruppert?



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
prophet of God
 User Gallery

Registered: 09/05/04
Posts: 953
Re: Crossing The Rubicon [Re: Phred]
    #3619523 - 01/12/05 07:09 PM (13 years, 4 months ago)

This guy does a good job making Bush haters look bad.

Mike Ruppert: 9-11 Saboteur
by Victor Thorn

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,



One day later, on October 12th, X followed-up with a second e-mail:



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.



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

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


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?

- Jim Marrs wasn?t afraid.
- David Ray Griffin wasn?t afraid.
- Dave Von Kleist wasn?t afraid.
- Phil Jayhan wasn?t afraid.
- Daniel Hopsicker wasn?t afraid.
- Russ Wittenberg wasn?t afraid.
- Eric Hufschmid wasn?t afraid.
- George Humphrey wasn?t afraid.
- Jerry Russell wasn?t afraid.
- Jim Hoffman wasn?t afraid.
- Don Paul wasn?t afraid.
- John Kaminski wasn?t afraid.
- Tom Flocco wasn?t afraid.
- Michael Elliott wasn?t afraid.
- Kyle Hence wasn?t afraid.
- Nico Haupt wasn?t afraid.
- Anthony Hilder wasn?t afraid.
- Christopher Bollyn wasn?t afraid.
- Dylan Avery wasn?t afraid.
- Ralph Omholt wasn?t afraid.
- Kee Dewdney wasn?t afraid.
- Stanley Hilton wasn?t afraid.
- Dave McGowan wasn?t afraid.
- Jimmy Walter wasn?t afraid.

And as future guests, it doesn?t seem as if Karl Schwarz, John Leonard, Donn de Grand-Pre, Richard Stanley, or Webster Tarpley are afraid either.

Apparently, the only person who IS afraid is Mike Ruppert. The above-mentioned individuals are tops in the 9-11 research/activist field, and none of them ducked and ran for cover or hid behind flimsy excuses. Instead, they simply did what every other guest did ? they allowed themselves to be interviewed. And, when you think about it, what Lisa Guliani and I do is pretty straightforward. We ask questions, and our guests answer them. It?s a fairly uncomplicated process. And it?s not like we?re hurting for guests. In fact, we?re booked solid for the next 2 ? months. Thus, we only want Ruppert to appear on our show for one reason ? to see where he stands on the issues. I?ll repeat this statement so there is no misunderstanding: we want to see where Mike Ruppert stands on the crux issues!

And in all honesty, since Ruppert has propped himself up to be the leading 9-11 researcher, people expect to know where he stands on certain issues. That?s not too much to ask for, is it? In other words, all of us want him to answer some questions, especially when they?re asked by people who aren?t ?controlled? by the powers-that-be. So, here is what I propose: Lisa Guliani and I are extending an open invitation to Mike Ruppert to appear on WING TV. And, to insure that he doesn?t have any excuse not to appear, we guarantee there will be no personal questions asked of him. We?ll stick strictly to the issues. So, Mike, the ball is now in your court. Everybody is waiting to find out where you stand. If you don?t accept, it leaves us with only one explanation: you?re afraid to handle the tough (real) questions.

Anyway, to bring this article to a close, all I can ask everyone right now is this: are you serious about exposing the essential truths about who was responsible for the 9-11 terror attacks? If you are, then re-read Mike Ruppert Unmasked, my Ten Questions to him; and finally, his curious answers to them. Then ask yourself: why is Mike Ruppert so adamant about steering people away from the WTC?s controlled demolition, along with the absence of Flight 77 at the Pentagon? Also, now that you know everything you know about Ruppert, ask yourself another question: is he the kind of spokesman we want representing us, especially in matters of such importance? From my perspective, Ruppert has now been exposed by not only me, but also numerous other researchers and those who have worked closest with him. He?s a charlatan at best, and a devious plant at worst; plus, the war games he?s been pushing have gotten us nowhere, and they won?t get us anywhere in the future. In this light, I feel there is only one alternative: let?s kick Ruppert off his perch once-and-for-all as the self-appointed ?godfather? of the 9-11 Truth Movement. His credibility has been shredded, and his true agenda is now painfully clear. It?s time to wash our hands of Ruppert, because he?s done (and not a minute too soon)!

Now that this distraction is gone, let?s focus on some REAL ISSUES!

(December 7, 2004)

SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT: Coming in March, 2005 to WING TV:
9-11 on Trial: The Trial of the Century!

Edited by Great_Satan (01/12/05 07:10 PM)

Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
DSYSB since '01
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/26/01
Posts: 16,248
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 17 days, 3 hours
Re: Crossing The Rubicon [Re: Great_Satan]
    #3619680 - 01/12/05 07:46 PM (13 years, 4 months ago)

I find it odd that you of all people will take the word of that article as gospel...yet the source is a website that promotes many other 'conspiracy' books. oh the irony...

Every one of Michael Rupperts conclusions comes from Public sources and Reputable News Articles. I don't personally don't think that all of his research is accurate, but I do feel that much of his research and questions are bang on.

Peak oil is a fact...unlike what the author of that article claims.

I suggest you read the excerpt from the book.

Edit*** Yet another 'headline' from your 'source'...

Michael Ruppert Becomes Front Man
for Illuminati Depopulation Agenda


"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"

Edited by Rono (01/12/05 08:06 PM)

Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Miracle of Science

Registered: 10/25/04
Posts: 2,577
Loc: PNW
Last seen: 1 year, 12 days
Re: Crossing The Rubicon [Re: Rono]
    #3620186 - 01/12/05 09:16 PM (13 years, 4 months ago)

I was just reading appendix A: Joint Chiefs of Staff "Northwoods" Document, signed by L. L. Lemnitzer, one of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

It sounds like they have been planning an attack like this for the last 40 years, if what the document says is true.


Edited by SWEDEN (01/12/05 09:17 PM)

Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Inquiring Mind
Registered: 08/19/03
Posts: 418
Last seen: 3 years, 11 months
Re: Crossing The Rubicon [Re: SWEDEN]
    #3620697 - 01/12/05 10:59 PM (13 years, 4 months ago)

Here's an online link to the Northwoods document.

Scary stuff mang.

"In the United States anybody can be president. Thats the problem."

"The gray-haired douche bag, Barbara Bush, has a slogan: "Encourage your child to read every day." What she should be is encouraging children to question what they read every day."

- George Carlin

Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator

Registered: 09/24/04
Posts: 12,326
Re: Crossing The Rubicon [Re: SquattingMarmot]
    #3620715 - 01/12/05 11:05 PM (13 years, 4 months ago)

I believe Northwoods was originally a plan to commit terrorist acts against the American population and blame it on Cuba. 9/11 was basically the same thing as Northwoods. It was a clencher for enacting the Bush administration's Project for the New American Century. The PNAC stated that their process of global domination would be a slow process, barring some "unforseen" cataclysmic event such as 9/11. Bush and Co. knew it was gonna happen, and let it happen, no doubt about it.

Michael Ruppert is awesome. And that's the bottom line.

Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1

Amazon Shop: The Doors

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* What the pentagon video should have looked like Slooch 337 2 05/20/06 04:28 AM
by Slooch
* Pentagon Now Hiding Dead in 'Transfer Tubes'
( 1 2 all )
Zahid 1,897 20 11/11/03 06:03 PM
by PsiloKitten
* Pentagon to moniter every purchase made by citizen
( 1 2 3 all )
Ellis Dee 2,350 56 12/15/02 01:57 PM
by johnnyfive
* Pentagon confirms Koran incidents...
( 1 2 3 all )
myndreach 2,470 49 06/02/05 02:48 PM
by CJay
* Atta known to Pentagon before 9/11 Learyfan 1,032 13 09/29/05 08:02 PM
by RandalFlagg
* Sensational Memos Lift the Lid on News Control
( 1 2 all )
Learyfan 1,690 37 08/07/03 01:57 AM
by Xlea321
* The Pentagon Screws Up (Again) Autonomous 446 5 05/05/05 05:11 PM
by lonestar2004
* Pentagon Thought of Developing Drugs to Make Soldiers Gay Ravus 679 6 01/18/05 01:28 PM
by Ravus

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil
619 topic views. 1 members, 1 guests and 6 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Crestline Sales - MycoPath
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2018 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.072 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 19 queries.