from another list, that doesn't "allow" me to directly forward:
In a message dated 12/8/04 6:19:15 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is extensive, and I'll need time to go through it at length. I have a response from Ruppert to this guy and will forward it. As far asÂhis claim that,Â
Â
"The New World Order Exposed hasÂ
blurbs on the back cover from Jim Marrs, Michael Collins Piper, GordonÂ
Thomas, and Paul Walker of Aftermath News. These are some of todayâsÂ
leading figures in the alternative research field"
Â
I can see why Ruppert could throw the book in the ashcan without reading even to Page 1. Jim Marrs is described as aÂ'libertarian' (think Cato institute)Â-Âinto the whole "Alien Agenda" (as his book titleÂmight indicate). Gordon Thomas is a clear spook with British Intelligence and CIA connections. His book, "Descent Into Madness", is thinly veiled CIA propagandaÂposing as journalism. He is rabidly anti-China (ask Larry Chin and/or Shiu Hung) and anti-Israel (not bad in and of itself - but of a piece with the "Secret War against the Jews" alleged by Loftus and Arens) .
Â
That the subscription was handled by Michael Leon and not Cynthia is more likely a mistake on Ruppert's part - rather than a lie. I understand that he's just as pissed at M. Leon as Cynthia if not more. Michael Leon was DEFINITELY up to no good, and fucked Ruppert over on multiple fronts (perhaps this was one of them).
"Ruppert absolutely and undeniablyÂLIED THROUGH HIS TEETH about the entire New World Order Exposed matter."
Â
So this is pure hyperbolie, with other logical interpretations - which the author excludes in favor ofÂhis prefered (predetermined?) Âanalysis.
Â
"There are only two explanations for this response: Ruppert isÂeither a pathological liar, or heâs insane."
Â
I do not believe either assertion to be true. Fucked up shit happens frequentlyÂaround Ruppert because he's up to his neck in research that the black-ops community would prefer derailed, supressed, or otherwise marginalized - enter "Victor Thorn" (or Scott Muthafucka, or whatever).
Â
"The lunacy which flows from RuppertâsÂ
pen at every turn is precisely why the mainstream media labels usÂ
âcrazed conspiracy theorists.â Ruppert is collectively damaging ourÂ
credibility with all of these ludicrous statements."
Â
No 'Victor', the reason the mainstream media labels ANYONE thusly is because that's what they're paid to do. Whether the people involved are directly linked to the Intel community (as former Army Intelligence officer Walter Cronkite - to this day supporting the Warren Commission report), or are merely overseen or hired by them is irrelevant. The results are what matters, and if you can show me an example of a mainstream journalist who gives fair and accurate coverage of the issues which fall under the false rubrick of 'conspiracy theory', I'll be non-plusedÂ(or contest your definition of 'fair and accurate'). No 'Victor', it's the tying of what are obviously Clandestine affairs, intrigues and covert operations, to 'illuminati' and 'aliens' which get you labeled thusly, and in so doing, you give veracity to the charge. And I'm certain that this is why Ruppert has consistently wanted nothing to do with you - which you admit was the genesis of your first shoddy hit-piece on him.
Â
Relative to the story he quotes, from September 13th 2001 - it's important to put that in context. (I believe that)ÂRuppert had first printed a storyÂabout a guy claiming to have first hand knowledge of there having been explosives used, which was shown to be absolute BS.ÂLikely aÂtrue story told by someone who was a demonstrable liar - telling it in a way which could easily discredit it. Ruppert was simply over-reacting in his retraction, and attempting to re-focus the debate to areas that were PROVEABLE beyond a doubt (US oil motives - The Grand Chessboard - Put options - etc.). Even if my memory is faulty, and Ruppert hadn't forwarded that story, rumors were flying far and wide based on the canard testimphony, and he was doingÂeveryone a favor by putting it to bed temporarily. I don't seeing him sayÂthat it didn't happen, just that he is 'virtually certain' on his own behalf. He is correct in his analysis that the planting of explosives at the site would endanger a black-op by leaving evidence at the scene prior to the event. However, as we've since learned the Bushes and their security company were on the scene to control this, and there was 'maintenance work' done shortly ahead of the date which might have provided cover for the setting of charges. I don't think Ruppert is still so adamant on this point (this is reasonable, as more evidence supporting it has emerged), though I don't know if he ever has, or will (re-)visit this line of research himself.
Â
Now if the attack on him is that he createdÂa 'legend' for himselfÂas the "Godfather of 9-11 research" that's bullshit. He actually became that (to the extent thatÂthe assertion is even true, and not just more hyperbolie), by actually writing stories immediately after the attack (and even one foreshadowingÂit - a special prize for the reader who can ID it), back when mere mention of the idea was sacrilege just about anywhere in media - commercial or otherwise. He followed that with the first video on theÂsubject of any investigative merit - that I'm aware of (and no "Illuminazi 911" by Anthony Hilder doesn't really count under this distinguishing criteria).ÂÂÂ
Â
"âFrom the beginning, many of the mostÂ
prominent 9-11 researchers have labored to either discredit, or ignoreÂ
and direct attention away from these three key areas of research. FromÂ
the Wilderness, for example, considered by many to be the preeminentÂ
9-11 site, avoided commenting on the Air Force stand-down for many longÂ
months; dismissed the notion of controlled demolitions in a short,Â
unsourced post just two days after the towers had fallen; and still hasÂ
not, to this day, ever reviewed or addressed the photographic evidenceÂ
from the Pentagon."
Â
He the author acknowledges that Ruppert wasn't alone in his alleged 'sins' of ommission - but nonetheless singles him out for punishment (such as this weak attack may be adjudged by some to be). As far as the Air Force stand-down goes, this guy is just mis (dis?) informed. Ruppert comments at length in Truth and Lies about the speed interceptors flew at vs. their capabilities. In the videoÂhe mentions Jared Israel's TENC.net reporting and the changing webpage at Andrews AFB. At the time he was linked to it as well. Does Ruppert have to endorse and mention every good story being done by people he'sÂalready linked to? Even if the answer is yes, I'd be surprised if in this case he didn't. Perhaps that's in the subcribers section, or was later removed when he and Israel had a falling out. In either case Ruppert doesn't have to duplicate the work of others, nor explore it if it doesn't interest him (or evenÂif he thinks it strategically inappropriate). Ruppert WAS at one point dismissive and perhaps a bit too forcefull and/or brusque around physical evidence issues re: 9-11. He has since declared a truce and both changed and written about his position on the subject.
Â
His strategy is to stick to things that the David Corn's and Chip Berlet's of the world can never dispute, and build his case on those items. I applaud him in doing so. That actually creates space which Mr. Salter and complainers like the one above can use to their advantage. Because when it comes to science and physical evidence the CIA and related parties will ALWAYS have more money and better "experts" to lean on to "refute" their interpretations, if not the actual facts. As an aside "Case Closed" and "While America Slept" "author" Gerald Posner was recently part of a PR campaign to once again trash Oliver Stone/JFK (and all similar researchers/research without actually naming or addressing them), and re-habilitate the Warren Commission and it's "magic bullet". The campaign was featured prominently on the History Channel, and ABC ( and no doubt others)Âin the week of Nov 22nd, andÂinvolved an alleged 'ABC investigative producer/reporter',Âand featuredÂa Peter Jennings voiceover. If people are still arguing about THAT, perhaps Ruppert is right in choosing his strategy (which doesn't require others to follow - though perhaps he mightÂif they want to be involved with him). Anyway when the Corn's or Berlet's (or even the MIllegan's) of the world attack Mr Thorn and his cohort for their proliferation of the "disinformation mud-op" around the pentagon, they can take heart by pointing to facts which they can NEVER refute (because they're sourced back to the same media mandarins whom they secretly serve), many of which Ruppert and his reporters brought to light.
Â
As for Victor/Scott's claim that he never receives money from the Government, and never makes appeals for money. The same claim could be made by Michael Albert, or even Chip Berlet. Often theseÂoperationd are paid surreptitiously, either by 'anonymous' donors, or through 'clean' and untraceable third parties. SO I find his answer on this point less-than-convincing, and his behavior in the attack to be quite telling. Let it be known that I've disagreed with Ruppert on issues privately and even on the air. I've yet to be attacked or even ostracized by him. Furthermore I've had people on the air (at times in the same discussion with Mike, on other occasions on different segments of the same show) who look at the areas Ruppert chooses not to. His behavior has always been acceptable, and most of the time, exemplary.
Â
Serious shit is going down right now. The House just passed aÂBush approved version of "Intelligence Reform" (really just a laundry list of police-state enabling items, long sought by PATRIOT actors), and the Senate is likely to rubber stamp it.Â"Victor Thorn" would do better spending his time attacking the real enemy - instead of creating them from his misperceptionsÂand his imagination.
"President, USA Exile Govt." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dear Professor Nosferatu,
You're more familiar with Mike than I am. What's your take on
this?
Regards,
Pondomonium
