portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article portland metro

alternative media

Discussion and defense of Micheal Ruppert's argument

Micheal Ruppert has made claims about Bush, et al. Norman Soloman and Chip Berlet have complained that he's crazy, wasting our time, or overstating his case. I argue that MR is guilty of none of the above. I do think, however, he's got more work to do to make his case, and I suggest where that work needs to be done.
Michael Ruppert (MR) recently spoke in Portland where his views have been heard and discussed on KBOO-FM. He claims George W. Bush and others in the United States Government (USG), one, knew ahead of time there would be attacks on the World Trade Center (WTC) and other places September 11th, two, were complicit in those attacks, and three, acted out of an ongoing criminal enterprise involving oil and drugs. One response to MRfs claims made by Norman Solomon, Chip Berlet, and others, has been to question the intelligibility of these claims. For example, Mr. Berlet accuses MR of being a conspiracist who thinks that therefs a secret group of elites responsible for all the evil doings in the world. Mr. Berlet argues that to make G.W.Bush involved in a conspiracy of such a wide scope is comparable to engaging in other obviously discredited conspiracy theories involving Jewish bankers and Freemasons. MR has certain problems with his argument and the claims hefs made about Bush, et al, but he does not have the problems that Solomon and Berlet says he does.
I give MR credibility because I accept the idea that the CIA and other USG entities feed off the drug trade, either for their own purposes or for the benefit on major corporations, and I am impressed with MR for opposing that criminal activity. I give him credibility because I accept his account of the USG involvement in stealing oil as one more facet of US imperialism. Neither Solomon nor Berlet challenge these claims and so, I am not very impressed by their complaints that it doesnft make sense to point out individuals who are criminally responsible for actions done to maintain and further these ill-gotten gains. Both Solomon and Berlet suppose they can discredit MR by arguing that whatever evidence he pulls together, and they allow that he has pointed out some interesting pieces of information, hefs wasting our time because his basic claim doesnft make any sense. But, I give MR credibility because I see his claims about Bush, et al, are outgrowths of his basic account of how the world works (unfortunately), and the USG and Bush, et alfs, role in it. By focusing just on MRfs claims about Bush, et al, and ignoring MRfs full argument, Solomon and Berlet risk misunderstanding MR completely. So, MR is not talking about Jewish bankers, Freemasons, black helicopters, and so on and so forth. Nor is he committed to the idea that every wrong in the world can be laid at Bush, et al, and the CIAfs doorstep. In response to Solomon and Berlet on this point, MR tells us that if we met a person on the road who told us our house was on fire, we would be wrong and short sighted to ignore him if we were also told that the guy happened to be crazy. Even crazy people can discover and warn others about burning buildings. That is, even if MR engaged in conspiracy theories, which he is not granting, itfs still possible that there could be evidence that Bush and others are responsible for the events of Sept. 11th.
When the Presidentfs Press Secretary was confronted by some of MRfs ideas he responded by saying they were gabsurd.h I do not think his reaction was based on the same arguments that Solomon and Berlet give about MR. I allow that Solomon and Berlet agree with MR that the USG steals oil and deals drugs, but disagree with him about whether there are people personally responsible for these crimes or whether only institutions should be held accountable. Rather, Ifm sure the Press Secretary doesnft agree with MR that the USG is stealing oil and dealing drugs. The Press Secretary thinks MRfs claims are absurd because he doesnft agree that the USG or Bush is guilty of anything whatsoever. I think the major weakness of MRfs argument is that he has not sufficiently established for the Press Secretaryfs benefit, or for the people who are initially skeptical of any criticisms of the USG or their President, that the USG has in the past and Bush et al in the present steal oil and deal drugs. If he cannot do this it is like in a court of law he has not established that a crime has been committed. He has no body, with which he can charge individuals with the crime of murder. The problem he has here seems to be just the problem the left has had in trying to pin the crime of imperialism on the USG or its corporations. There is an effort to make sure people donft see what the USG and its corporations does as crimes or constituting imperialism. I give MR credit for making efforts toward establishing that the USG, its corporations, and Bush, et alfs, role in stealing oil and dealing drugs. I assume Solomon and Berlet agree with MR on these points because they do not challenge him on them. However, in order for MR to address and establish his claims to a wider audience, and not just those who are now in agreement with him on these issues, he must work to prove these claims to those who may disagree with him.
Norman Solomon complains that MR has not established that Bush, et al, had forknowledge. Because he has not done so, Solomon argues, he is wasting our time. Instead, Solomon argues, the left should be working on the much more productive and practical task of institutional reform. When Chomsky wrote his critique of the leftfs obsession with discovering that really killed Kennedy and why I took him to be saying it was a waste of our time and precious resources to look into these questions. He was saying the reason for this was that after twenty, thirty, or forty years after the fact any documents that might have been incriminating were shredded and any witnesses that could have cast light on the events were gdealt with,h i.e., shot, poisoned, thrown over bridges, dropped into wet cement, etc. However, this could not be Solomonfs argument because we now are not twenty years after the event. If there are documents or witnesses now is the time to look for them and encourage people to let them see the light of day. They may not yet be sgredded or otherwise dealt with. It is not unreasonable to encourage this collection process.
After WW II when the winners thought about prosecuting gthe Nazish for crimes, they did not think they were going after a secret elite that acted behind the scenes. The prosecuters knew that individuals were responsible for particular crimes because the Nazis did not make a secret of what they had been doing. They either didnft think what they were doing was wrong or thought no one would ever be in a position to give them grief over it. However, after they lost that war, cases were made against them by gathering evidence consisting of documents, witnesses, timelines of activities, and so forth. In this country, if MR were correct about the oil and the drugs, the people responsible would want to keep their roles secret. They would naturally be concerned that, if they thought what they were doing was wrong but profitable, or if they could justify what they were doing but became too weak to defend themselves from critics, too public an activity would be dangerous for them. This is why powerful people decide to do what they do in secret around here. And, this is why is may have been easier to prosecute German Nazis than it could be to prosecute American ones. People who steal oil and sell drugs arenft going to tell their stories to journalists.
Solomon tells us it is a waste of our time to go after individuals and instead we should try for institutional change. Maybe he has in mind the problems of documenting criminality in high places as suggested above. However, in telling us to do the one and not the other he assumes we cannot or should not do both. MRfs argument, as a former investigative cop, is that if you want to improve our country and prevent these kinds of tragedies in the future, you have to go after the people who are responsible for them today. If they arenft stopped they will be able to do the same or worse kind of crimes in the future. And, even if others who take advantage of the same unchanging institutions replace them, then the task then will be to get them for their criminality. The premise of the Nuremberg trials of the Nazis responsible for crimes against Jews, Gypsies, Catholics, Communists, Labor leaders, and so on, was to prevent them from repeating their crimes, but mostly to make the case that no one should do those crimes and get away with them. This point cannot be made when you go after just institutions that are corrupt. Yes, the institutions are corrupt, but the criminals are guilty of crimes for taking advantage of them. Best policy would seem to be to both change the institutions and prosecute the individuals.
To sum up, Solomon and Berlet complain that Michael Ruppertfs argument is about conspiracies and such a claim is senseless. They think there are no overarching conspiracies behind all the wrongs of the world. This complaint ignores MRfs argument and merely denies his claims. In doing so, MRfs critics fail to show theyfve understood his view well enough to make any telling criticisms. In fact, they do nothing to challenge his contention that the USG, AS corporations, or Bush, et al, steal oil and deal drugs. This leaves them very little with which to argue that there arenft individuals like Bush who are responsible for the day to day maintenance of this criminal activity.
Furthermore, because they have done nothing effective to challenge MRfs claim that the crimes of stealing oil and dealing drugs have been committed Solomon and Berletfs complaints about going after individuals has the effect of saying we should let the felons get off scott free. Would Solomon and Berlet allow that the holocaust occurred but argue that it would be a waste of our time in the 1945-50fs to pursue the people responsible? I donft think so.
Letfs say the issue isnft the oil and drugs, as Michael Ruppert claims. Put aside our suspicions about an agenda behind Bush, et al, and the USG. We could still raise the issue of pereformance. Where did all the money go when the USG turns out to be so bad at national security? Did Bushfs policy of going it alone on all the treaties and efforts in the world to address the issues in weapons, racism, etc, make the people of the US more vulnerable? Why did it take so long to get planes in the air to go after hijacked airliners? Was there a coverup about that? Why isnft the President in the loop when major terrorist events occur? Why wasnft he told about planes and terrorists? Doesnft this show the impossibility of a missle defense system?
I think MR is going to the question, if it was right to criticize and court marshal the commanders in Pearl Harbor for their mismanagement, wouldnft it be right tocriticize and impeach the Commander in Chief for his teamfs mismanagement during September 11th.

phone: phone: 503 709-6044

the official story is proven false 27.Apr.2002 18:33


you make some good points, but you miss the very essence of the issue

it is shown beyond any reasonable doubt, that the official story of what happened on 911 is bullshit. . .

the glaring contradiction of flight school instructors (quoted in the Washington Post) saying that the alleged pilots of the hijacked planes were lousy pilots which then means that they were incapable of flying those planes is alone enough to completely shoot down the official story.

here is the core point of who the FBI says piloted the planes, being fundamentally contradicted by the people who taught the alleged pilots how to fly!

if the alleged pilots were not even close to capable of flying those planes, then who did?

the fact that Bush and his Administration are not investigating these and numerous other glaring inconsistencies is right there proof of their criminal culpability. . .one way or the other, they are criminally culpable

Mike Ruppert has done more than enough to prove the official story as blatantly false. It is not Mike Rupperts job to uncover everything that happened. It will take alot more resources and people involved to carry out a full investigation.

You measure Mike Ruppert and find his evidence wanting and send him back to the drawing board. . .what needs to happen is for you and others to see that the official story is proven false and raise your voices in dissent, not sit back and wait for Mike Ruppert to refine his argument. . .


thankyou deva 27.Apr.2002 20:06


There are dozens of questions floating around that need to be answered. The official line is a big load of baloney. No, Ruppert doesn't have enough to take anybody to court with, but he has enough to show that a thorough investigation is merited. And that's where people like Cynthia McKinney come into the picture. Until enough light shines on the official line to expose it for what it is, there will be no pressure to investigate. The halogen has been upped a few candelabras lately, and seems nearly bright enough to show the picture.

what's up with the left??? 28.Apr.2002 00:37


following is a comment on this topic that I recently sent to a pprc email group:

What is so confusing to me is why the left is so resistant to taking up the 911 issue. I heard Dave Mazza talking about Ruppert the other morning on KBOO - he didn't ENTIRELY dismiss what he was saying (though he still referred to it as a "conspiracy theory," which is inherently dismissive), but his argument was that "conspiracy theories" aren't useful because they only go after a group of people, when the REAL problem is capitalism/the whole fucked-up system. Well, yes, that may be true - this group of elites who play their war games and rake in the profits is only possible because of the system we live in.

I think this is a really lame argument. If someone commits a murder, there are usually a lot of systemic factors that led to this person becoming a murderer (socioeconomic and/or racial oppression, lack of education, etcetc). But even if we understand where they're coming from, I think most of us would agree they should still be prosecuted, because we don't want them to kill more people.

So, when a group of elites murders 3000+ people, yeah, it's yet another sign that the system is fucked and that it's time to dismantle capitalism. But in the meantime, while we're waiting for the revolution, it still seems like a good idea to bring those people responsible to justice. Why? So they won't do it again!! Especially when those responsible are the same people who are supposed to be PROTECTING us from further attacks.

The other big problem with not going after the perpetrators is that other people (like, the entire Middle East, and Americans of Middle-Eastern descent) are being scapegoated for the crime. While we on the left are silent about Bush/the CIA's complicity in 911, people are literally dying for a crime they had nothing to do with. Sure, the Bush gang would have eventually found another reason to wage war against oil-rich/pipeline-convenient countries, but the reason they've gotten away with it so easily is because they've got most Americans believing that they're doing it in retaliation for 911 and to "protect" us from further acts of "terrorism."

Please do not kill Indymedia's credibility. 28.Apr.2002 03:28

Please do not kill Indymedia's credibility.

I think opinionated articles should be excluded from the main, center section of the Indymedia web site. Keep opinionated pieces on the right column section of the Indymedia.

Uh, excuse me... 28.Apr.2002 09:04

Heidi Enji Hoogstra enji@earthlink.net

I just got an article by Norman Solomon in my box this morning, here are his main points, pretty much the SAME points as made by my friend the Art Bell listener:

Main point: don't take the media on faith, whether mainstream or alternative.

1. Vreeland's note: "...amount to an ambiguous mish-mash. The phrase "water supplies" appears in an unexplained list of landmarks and cities including not only the World Trade Center, White House and Pentagon but also sites in Chicago, Ottawa, Toronto and Malaysia.

"Let one happen, stop the rest," Vreeland scrawled. Below are first names and random words like "Vladivostok" and "bilateral." The only dates are 2007 and 2009. To call it a "warning note" about the events of Sept. 11 is preposterous."

[my point: any "psychic" could have said these things, probably did]

"Michael Ruppert has been proclaiming that Vreeland "was able to write a detailed warning of the attacks before they occurred" on Sept. 11."

You call this detailed? I'd say it's more like cops spraying over the heads of a crowd with mace and hoping they hit someone.

2. "Yet Ruppert is an expert at combining facts with unreliable reports and wild leaps of illogic."

3. "Ruppert excels at a selective vacuum-cleaner approach -- sucking in whatever supports his conclusions while excluding context and information that would undermine them. Meanwhile, he's apt to tout unsubstantiated tales as revelatory. "

4. "Another technique is to imply that exploitation of events after they occur indicates direct involvement beforehand. So, the fact that the Bush administration has done all it can to take advantage of Sept. 11 events is presented by Ruppert as backing up his claim of its "foreknowledge" and "complicity."

[These are exactly the point my Art Bell listening friend made. These are the tactics he has found that conspiracy theorists use, and it is just rhetoric, my friends.]

5. "It's appropriate to demand a thorough congressional investigation of events surrounding Sept. 11. But it's something else to make sweeping pronouncements without credible evidence."

Not only does MR misrepresent the facts, but it seems folks here are also misrepresenting Solomon.

I like Mike but he ain't my guru 28.Apr.2002 13:24

Alan Graf peopleslawyer@qwest.net

I have heard Mike on the radio and saw his presentation last time he was in town. You couldn't get more fertile ground than this hippie lawyer for believing that Bush and the boys had foreknowledge of the event.

Mike started the night letting us know that we were the jury and he was the prosecutioner and he would prove his case. So as a lawyer, I stood ready to examine his facts, presentation and his conclusions and see if he proved his case at any level of proof.

First let me say, he was a lousy trial lawyer. I couldn't see the letters he projected on the screen but had to take his word for his quotes. His sound system which had been tested and used the night before was shoddy. If he were in trial, he would have lost just on his audio-visual presentation.

I thought a lot of his "facts" that he garnered from major medial sources raised serious questions about culpability, but I agree with the writer below that he tends to look at the facts he has researched with an eye for proving his point. In other words, there are omissions that he leaves out if they don't prove his case AND he takes certain logical leaps that raised my eyebrows, e.g., letter from Justice Department to federal agency saying they would look the other way if crimes were committed---the logical leap he proposes is---ahh haa--the agency is dealing drugs. There are other possibilities that this letter could raise.

I think Chip's main point on Mazza's show was that the conclusions Mike reached from the data presented were possible conclusions BUT other conclusions could have been reached as well--such as gross institutionalized incompetence instead of the great conspiracy which would have involved many, many players all sworn to utmost secrecy. I didn't hear the disrespect from him about Mike that others alleged.

I think Mike has been great about doing the research and looking at the big picture. He asks, is there a pattern here. The facts he raises and the patterns he discerns are enough to get Congresswoman McKinney to call for an investigation. That would be just wonderful. After all if a little semen on a woman's skirt could cause impeachment proceedings, it seems reasonable to investigate these new claims against an Administration that came to power by coup.

Mike presented facts that need to be examined and investigated. I am glad he is doing what he is doing (I emailed him to get copies of the letters he presented but all of his email sites were down) But he did not convince me even to a preponderance of the evidence that the Bush administration knew and planned the attacks. That doesn't mean he is wrong. He just has not met his own burden of proof in this lawyer's eyes.

I agree again with the writer below that we need to be skeptical of any source, especially these days, in reaching our conclusions about the state of the world.

You know, I still trust my gut where all else fails.

Alan Graf

further comments... 28.Apr.2002 13:57


The question of whose information to trust is a good one. I like to look at the source, their history, and who benefits from the information they're giving. Based on that, I trust nothing that the Bush admin. says, unless it is backed up with solid evidence. None of their story on 9/11 has met that criteria - it actually sounds pretty ridiculous. The fact that the war on Afghanistan was pre-planned (a well-documented fact and openly acknowledged months before 9/11 in the foreign press), and that the Bush clan has benefited hugely from the "terrorist" attack, are enough to make Bush a prime suspect.

Heidi and others - please read Ruppert's account of the Vreeland case rather than relying on Solomon's interpretation of it. Ruppert has a reporter in Toronto covering the trial, and often quotes from the court record. I think Solomon is misrepresenting the story. Again, in wondering whom to trust, I tend to trust an independent investigator over someone who is well "established" in the media, even if that media outlet is considered "progressive."

I thought that Ruppert was a pretty ineffectual (boring) speaker. But I've read his work and it rings true to me - like Alan said, I trust my gut. And I tend to trust someone who has spent 20-something years fighting the CIA. Sure, it could be for personal reasons, maybe he's on an ego-trip, maybe somehow he's raking it in by selling subscriptions to his newsletter - I don't really care. Anyone going after the CIA and trying to hold them accountable for their despicable actions is doing something GREAT as far as I'm concerned. Ruppert has been after those bastards for 2 decades - that makes me trust where he's coming from. I can't think of a single thing that the CIA has done that has been good or useful for society - on the contrary, they seem to be involved in practically every humanity-crushing conspiracy from the Bay of Pigs to Iran/Contra to the recent "coup" in Venezuela. Based on historical precedent, the CIA is right up there on my list of prime suspects for 9/11. Considering Osama's close ties with the CIA, the official story starts to look really fishy. It seems like much more of a leap of faith to believe Bush's/the media's story about those cave-dwelling evil Arabs.

enough of this right wing crap 28.Apr.2002 14:21

uncle fluffy

Rupert is a right-wing stooge of the christian fundamentalist milita movement.

His stuff is full of mis-quotes and distortions.

He has threatened to sue people who have proved some of his "facts" to be lies and distortions.

Don't follow him into the pit of right-wing politics.

The IMC should be a bit more careful about aligning themselves with such right-wing people.

I think that Ruppert is after the TRUTH 28.Apr.2002 15:48

discerning eyes, ears and mind

i, like mr. graf, was also dissapointed that ruppert was a bit ill-organized with his "incriminating" documents. Sometimes he would say "i think that this one is from the wall street journal", or, i am not sure of the date on this one. however, when i saw him in eugene, he was on his third lecture in three days and admitted to virtually no sleep for three days. so, cutting a bit of slack on that. i also wanted his documents to be bigger, much bigger, so that we could read them from where we were seated. the sound system seemed fine to me, so no complaints there.

but all in all, i will say, from someone with discerning senses, that ruppert is following a red hot trail that is leading to the real perputrators of 9.11. perhaps he needs some pointers in the presentation of his materials, but his integrity is in the right place - a place of truth. i think that the jumps of reasoning that he takes, when he takes them, are based on his knowledge of having worked on the inside for such a long time, and being well-versed in the inner workings of that system.

ruppert is not 'my' guru either, not per 'se, but a guru (teacher) he is.

list of questions to......... 28.Apr.2002 17:01

lesfrerespetards lesfrerespetards@yahoo.fr

General Richard B. Myers, Pentagon
Why did the Pentagon release a new video version or translation of the Bin Laden Homevideo and can you explain the odd coincidence why that happened only 8 hours after a new translation by german magazine MONITOR on December 2oth?
Can you explain, why all 4 translators have been working for the US-Government before?
What exactly happened on September 11th, 2001 and at which time did you inform President Bush?
Why was President Bush scheduled for a lecture at a school and who decided that at which time?

George Tenet, CIA:
Can you confirm as dailynews yahoo reported, that you already started to monitor Usama Bin Laden in 1998 with the help of 15 afghan agents, who got paid $1,000 a month?
Can you tell us something about the whereabouts of this agents?
Are they still the same agents?
Was Johnny "Mike" Spann one of them?
Was John Walker Lindh one of them?
Is any afghan agent also member of the ISI?
Is any afghan agent also working for Bin Laden?
Is any afghan agent also working at any of the following companies:
UNOCAL, Halliburton, BinLadin Group Inc, Afghan Development Company, Telephone Systems International (TSI) , Consolidated Contractors International,
SG Asia Project Finance, Caspian Pipeline Consortium (CPC)
Why did you stop to monitor Chalid al-Midhar in 2000 in Malaysia?
When was the first time you mentioned an Al-Quaeda group to any member of the Senate?
At which time did you find the Bin Laden Home Video?
Who found the video?
Why was it possible to find that video at a time when none of the Northern Alliance or US -Troops have yet
arrived in Kandahar or Jahlalabad?
Is it correct that from the timestamp on the Home Video of Bin Laden you found the HomeVideo of Bin Laden already two weeks after it was produced?
Why didn't you tell the public when and who found the Home Video of Bin Laden?
What can you say about the translation of MONITOR magazine, germany, who proved that the most controversial statements have been translated wrong?
Why did you release that Home Video?
Who gave the final decision to release that HomeVideo?
Do you know the home video of Bin laden of June 2001 in which he praised an attack and can be ordered over the Internet?
What do you think about Bin Ladens statements on Al-Jazeera in June 2001 about the bombing on USS Cole, which has a similar conversation like the one from November 2001s homevideo?
Why do you think Bin Laden stated in Umman Magazine in September 2001 that he wasn't involve in the attack on America on September 1th?
Is Bin Laden still on the payroll of the CIA or ISI?
Is it not correct that Bin Ladin Group Inc. helped to build ToraBora together with the CIA?
Is it correct that you relocated Chalid Al-Midhar and Nawaq Alhamzi in October 2000 again?
Why did you stop monitoring them again a second time?
Did you ever read the trial transcripts of the bombing on the embassies of Kenia and Tansania?
Do you know that some of the Al-Quaeda accounts have been mentioned in that Trial already in February 2001?
Do you know that Al-Zawahiri was mentioned as Bin ladens account manager in the trial transcripts in February 2001?
What was the purpose of the meeting with General Pervez Musharraf in May 2001?
What exactly did the CIA do on September 11th?
Is it correct that some US Airbases have been on high alert on September 1oth and for which purpose?
Did you speak with Richard Cheney on September 11th?
Can you explain, why you released a press statement that Al-Khalifa bin Laden did a telephone call with Bin Laden on September 9th, who is not the real mother of Bin Laden, but Alia Ghanem, who is?
Can you explain, why Bin Ladens real mother Alia Ghanem thinks that Bin Laden didn't plan the attack on America?
Where did you get the photos of all 19 hijackers?
How did you get all 19 names so fast 2 days after the attack?
Why all 19 names still didn't appear on the passenger list 2 days after the hijacker list was released?
How did you get the first five names of the hijackers on the same day of September 11th?
Can you explain, why none of the names appeared on any passenger list, UA and AA gave out to CNN?
How could the hijackers disable the defense systems?
What happened with the updates about the whereabouts of Al-Zawahiri since October 2001?

A.B. "Buzzy" Krongard, CIA:
Is it true, that the CIA is in possession of a software called PROMIS?
What is the purpose of PROMIS?
Do you or did you own any stocks of United Airlines, American Airlines, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, AXA Re (insurance) which owns 25% of American Airlines, and Munich Re.?
What is your connection to Alex Brown, Deutsche Bank?
Did you give any insider information about Stocks to George Tenet, CIA?

Deutschebank-Alex Brown
Who was the investor who purchased 2,000 United Airlines (UAL) put option contracts between August 8th, 2001 and September 11th, 2001?
Did you or do you own any stocks of UA, AA, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, AXA Re (insurance) which owns 25% of American Airlines, and Munich Re.?
What can you say about 2,500 UA-contracts which were "split into 500 chunks each, directing each order to different U.S. exchanges around the country simultaneously." on August 10th, 2001?

Dick Cheney, Vice President and former CEO of Halliburton
When did you stop working for Halliburton?
Are you still in possession of any Halliburton Stocks?
Are you still in contact with Halliburton?
Is it correct that Halliburton was invited to an oil conference in May 2002?
Do you know since which date that was planned?
Did you have any influence about contracts of Halliburton with the Pentagon?
Are you in contact with any represantatives of any of these companies or institutions:
UNOCAL, Halliburton, Carlyle, CDC, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS),BAYER, BioPort, BinLadin Group Inc., Kissinger Associates Inc., Pentagon, Acambis (former OraVax), DeutscheBank Alex Brown, Afghan Development Company, Barclays Bank, Telephone Systems International (TSI) , Consolidated Contractors International, SG Asia Project Finance, Northrop Grunman, ISI, CIA, American Airlines, United Airlines, Caspian Pipeline Consortium (CPC), Kevin Ingram, Ft. Detrick, MD, Battelle Memorial Institute (and various other US-Labs), General Motors (owned by ENRON), Bristol-Myers Squibb, Americans for Affordable Electricity (ENRON is member), if so what's the purpose?
What exactly did you decide on September 11th?
Did you speak with any Air Force Commander especially Lt. Gen. Charles F. Wald on that day?
When did you inform the president about the hijacked airplanes on September 11th?
Who called the White House on September 11th at 9:30 PM about a possible threat?
Why was no air security at the White House or the Pentagon at 9:30 PM?
When or who did give the ok to evacuate the White House at 9:45 PM?
What was the purpose of a meeting with Indian opposition leader Sonia Gandhi last June 2002 about a multimillion-dollar debt owed to Enron from a major energy project in Indian Power Plants?
When was the last time you spoke with anyone from ENRON?
What was the role of Colin Powell?
list of questions to.........
list of questions to.........

Comments on Solomon letter posted by Heidi 28.Apr.2002 21:51


Just my opinion, but even the letter from Solomon that you posted is a bit flawed in reasoning.

Regarding 1. 2007 and 2009 are broken far away from the section of his note where the names are listed. I don't think Vreeland would call them part of his 9/11 warning. After all, if it were a warning for 2007/2009, then why would he feel the need to write a warning letter NOW instead of after he was out of jail a bit later? Do you question that Vreeland is who he says he is? If so, how do explain the call he made from court which strongly suggests that he is who he says he is? Why would ALL the sites Vreeland mentioned have to be hit to make it a valid warning? Aren't three sites enough? How many people do you know that have predicted such things in the past--listing multiple sites even? And how do you know that maybe "they" didn't independently decide to cut back on the scope of the attacks.

Regarding 2. What are the "unreliable reports" and "leaps of illogic" used by Ruppert. I admit, he does make some leaps, and they are often not fully supported, but they usually fit into the big picture and make sense. Where is the lack of logic? And what exactly would an investigator do if he/she had to piece together a puzzle without being given the pieces? He/she would SPECULATE!!! Mike has said that he doesn't know if what he says is true, only that he has developed a map which seems to fit together and to serve as a fairly accurate predictor of the way things will play out.

Regarding 3. In the world of politics, you can find articles to contradict most any belief there is. But have you tried stacking up the official version of the events? I find it to be less plausible than Mike's. Of course, Iran-Contras was pretty much based on the same approach. Agee had to rely pretty much on what people told him, and to make his case he had to filter out the "official" bs which would never have supported his case. At least Ruppert's selective vacuum sucks from the mainstream media.

Regarding 4. If there's no motive, why do it? It's just a piece of evidence. Now, you can believe that some terrorists who flunked out of flying school managed to pull it off because they hate America, and that they left tons of clues everywhere they went (and do I need to mention that many of them are still ALIVE?--wouldn't it be interesting to see if any who were alive supposedly had their passports and suicide notes found?) but that even though they were sloppy, trail-leaving flunkies, the government never caught onto them. OR you can believe that they were allowed to succeed by some greedy people who have billions on the line. Just a peek at corporations today should convince you that "they" just don't care about us. Yeah, sweatshops are really humane. Just a peek at Bush's "working man" tax cut, which was a tax advance for the poor, but a cut for the rich (or his airline bailout which didn't go to those who were laid off, or any number of other things), should convince you that some folks high up in government just don't care about us. I know which reality I believe. And I say that making money hand over fist is a PROVEN motive.

So, after all this illogic from Solomon's letter, you still say it's Mike?!? who misrepresents the facts? Maybe you can rebut what I've just written, but it looks to me like Solomon should just stick his tail between his legs and whimper off. Please, I'm begging you, show me that *I* am the loony here--I don't want to believe our government sucks, but everywhere I look, that belief is affirmed.

Great points 28.Apr.2002 23:40


4. "... the fact that the Bush administration has done all it can to take advantage of Sept. 11 events is presented by Ruppert as backing up his claim of its "foreknowledge" and "complicity."

[These are exactly the point my Art Bell listening friend made. These are the tactics he has found that conspiracy theorists use, and it is just rhetoric, my friends.]

Based on the above logic, criminal investigators are conspiracy theorists because they look for motive, including who profits from the crime, to identify and pursue suspects. It's interesting that progressives are spending so much time and rhetoric trying to pull strings from a map of evidence that makes at least some sense. Seems the administration was wise in feeding us mass amounts of nonsense while simply insisting it makes sense. You might want to examine if it's wise to hold skeptics of the mass-media story more accountable for their facts and logic than a government which, as we speak, illustrates daily and in clear sight their unmitigated, unabashed corruption.

What if? 29.Apr.2002 08:40


I strongly believe in what Micheal Ruppert is talking about. If we are wrong, thats great. Because that would mean that George Bush is not involved.
But if we are correct? Are people afraid to think for a second that Mike could be correct. What would that mean?
To me it means that this country has gone to shit. It means that we are all being made fools of. From the poor ghetto boy to the most intellectual. People that say Mike has not proved anything, or that just call him crazy are the most scared of the truth. Call me a conspiracy theorist, crazy, or whatever you want. I believe Mike and I told my family about what he is saying, and I have told my friends, and i am going to tell as many people as i can. Some of us know the truth, and we want answers. Other people are blind.
thats it for now....

reply 29.Apr.2002 14:02


<<<Main point: don't take the media on faith, whether mainstream or alternative. >>>

there is no need to take anything on faith. . .there is clear and undeniable evidence that the GOVERNMENTS OFFICIAL STORY IS A LIE!

this single, unambiguous point is enough that there should be a huge cry for an investigation

instead, there is an ongoing denial of this basic point, and a refusal to face the situation. the results are attempts to condemn people like Ruppert who are asking good questions.

there is no doubt, that if all the truth were known, a few of the points being presented as evidence would indeed turn out to be unrelated. Vreeland may have just made a good guess. It is possible, though it is still more likely that he did know based on all the facts of the case (which Soloman does ignore).

however, the fact that the US military has repeatedly lied about Vreeland, and has not been interested to interview him even to find out if he knew something is highly suspicious. If nothing else, the Vreeland story is another example of


4-5 Governments gave warning of terrorist attacks, and even some of the alleged hijackers had been under surveillance, yet the official story is that the government was totally taken by surprise. . .once again


The flight instructors own quotes indicate that the people that the FBI says piloted the planes were not capable of doing so


There are dozens of such points that can be made.

Here is the government that has killed a million Iraqis, just tried to overthrow the government of Venezuela, is threatening the world with nuclear weapons, exerting its military might worldwide, and so called progressives like Soloman continue to try to grab one little facet of Mike Rupperts argument as a means to discredit his fundamental point and as a means to blunt the effort to launch a serious investigation.

The progressive left is in denial.

The progressive left has allowed the government to shape the official story. . .has allowed the government to play on the established racism and stereotyped images of Arabs to lay the blame on them. (maybe falling prey to that same racism)

there is not a single Arab name on the publicly released flight lists. . .hmmm

does the progressive left say alleged? no. . .innocent until proven guilty is thrown out the window and the official story is accepted as fact. . .the while acting as some sort of righteous overseer of the people who dare to ask the serious questions

So you have someone like Soloman, and other so called progressives doing their damnedest to find any chink in Mike Rupperts arguments, yet they completely swallow the official story.

If you think Mike Rupperts argument is not solid enough, then you must consider the official story to be no more than a puff of rancid air

The hypocracy of energetically critiquing one, while blindly accepting the other is astounding.

<<<5. "It's appropriate to demand a thorough congressional investigation of events surrounding Sept. 11. But it's something else to make sweeping pronouncements without credible evidence." >>>

it is easy to give way to speculation. . .the reason speculation is happening, is because THE GOVERNMENT HAS SQUASHED ALL INVESTIGATION TO FIND OUT WHAT REALLY HAPPENED

It is not speculation to say that THE GOVERNMENT IS LYING

there is also solid and credible evidence of foreknowledge. . .it is not speculation to say there was foreknowledge. . .how much is in question.

The harder Bush and his fascist cronies work to prevent serious investigation (remember both bush and cheney specifically asked congress NOT to investigate), the easier it is to speculate that they may be even more criminally culpable. . .that is common sense and human

it is also important to note that much important information has been classified so that honest and determined investigators like Mike Ruppert are forced to make some leaps and forced to do some speculation BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT WHICH IS SHOWN TO BE LYING, IS HIDING THAT INFORMATION

<<<Not only does MR misrepresent the facts, but it seems folks here are also misrepresenting Solomon.>>>

Soloman is well respected by progressives, which is all the more reason he must be taken to task. . .his using a small point as a way to shift attention away from the entirely valid and urgent necessity for a real investigation is fundamentally dishonest

i would respect a critique of Rupperts information if it were in the context of seriously trying to determine the truth. . .that is not the case with Soloman

to make a guess, Soloman is likely well off financially, and i would suggest he has a comfortable position as the 'opposition' and to really challenge the official story might risk his ability to be published in the Washington Post, The Nation and so on. . .i conclude he is not courageous enough to do so.