Interested in being exposed to the REAL STORY behind the September 11 Attacks? You too can have your own copy of Michael C. Ruppert's Portland lecture, "Truth and Lies about September 11th", the lecture which shocked the 1000 attendees and now people across the nation.
Advance Orders now being accepted for FTW subscribers only: $19.95 + $5.00 s&h (save $5.00). The first copies of the video will ship before January 31st to our subscribers on a priority basis. Sales to the general public will begin around February 1st. Order your copy now!

Wait there's more! Check out our low, low prices for the truth as explained in the following video tapes:

Special offer! Receive one year free online subscription with your order of all 6 tapes. Order all 6 video tapes for the low price of $99.99.

Read about Mike Ruppert on his webcite (www.copvcia.html), an excerpt:

Twice the CIA attempted to recruit Mike: the first time just before he graduated and again after he was a highly praised field officer and budding narcotics investigator. In 1977 he discovered CIA bringing drugs into the U.S. through New Orleans in an operation supervised by his then fiancée, a CIA agent. He began to speak out and was forced out of LAPD in November 1978 after being shot at and threatened. He has been speaking out publicly ever since. In 1981 he spoke out about CIA and drugs inside the White House during a visit to his college classmate Craig Fuller. Fuller later served as Chief of Staff to Vice President Bush.

In 1992, after speaking with Ross Perot during the course of his investigations, Mike served as the LA County Press Spokesman for the Perot Presidential Campaign.

He's just the man to sniff out the CIA's dirty tinkerings anywhere!!!

All quotes taken from the From The Wilderness Publications website, .

On a serious note, I urge you to ask yourself the following questions before passing this on as a credible theory:

  1. Who is Michael Ruppert? What does he stand to gain or lose by putting forth this theory (other than $19.95)?
  2. Does he have any direct evidence or proof of his thesis, or does he string together well known facts to construe causality from coincidence, leaving contradicting evidence out of his timeline?
  3. If this is a plausible theory why hasn't the mainstream media addressed it? Are they in on it too? (Sure, the mainstream media are whores, but all the more reason for them to cover this theory if there were any meat on its bones.)
  4. Reality check: whatever you think of their politics, do you really think it's possible that the leaders of this country would be complicit in the murders of thousands of its civilians? Isn't the whole rationale behind the CIA's overseas medlings the preservation of the sanctity of the United States?
  5. Notwithstanding that reality check, in what would have to have been a widespread conspiracy, don't you think people would worry about leaks? Imagine what Bush and Cheney, let alone hundred of others, would have to risk, murder charges and in exchange for what? More money? More US influence abroad? Get real. There is no logical motive to explain the risk vs. benefits.
Come on now, we can find hundreds of the smarmy conspiracy theories on the web and in the tabloids. Let's exercise a little common sense first, until we really find something concrete to shock our worlds. Bad theories are like the heads of a hydra: cutting each off one by one is a waste of time, since there will always be one to take its place.

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.

Ok, now for the response to the response...ah nevermind. I think I made my point above. I have productive work I should be doing instead. Of course we should question authority, but that doesn't take away the responsibility of having to back up extraordinary claims with evidence, otherwise those claims are just delusional, inflamatory rantings, which is pretty much Ruppert's bailiwick.
<deep breath>

Ok look, my write-up above attempted to address 1) the title of this node and 2) the article pasted here. It's fine with me if one wants to question why 11 Sept. happened, the history behind the anger, who bought oil from whom, who gave arms to whom, ad infinitum. However, these tangents do nothing to defend the inflamatory and unbased assertion that the United States government was involved in the 11 Sept. attacks; Let's not imagine that the definition of "involved in" is a fluid one. If I were "involved in" a murder, a prosecutor would have to show* that I did it myself, hired someone else to do it, was present during its planning, or knew when and where it was going to happen in advance. If, years ago, I pissed the murderer off for some reason, or bought oil from him, or (legally) sold him a gun, I'm not "involved in" his act of murder. Facts are just loose bricks until they are shaped to house a theory. Logic, causation, motive, opportunity, plausibility, and so on are the mortar. So what we have here is the idea of a house (one to me which looks like an upside-down pyramid, cloaked in black and dripping in blood) with a big pile of 15-20 year old bricks laying about. Throwing more bricks on the pile won't help ya, and it looks like you're going to have to be quite a magician to construct this wacky pyramid.

*As far as I know from watching Law & Order.   ;^)