portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary united states

9.11 investigation

Ruppert and 9/11

What's going on here?
Henry Ayre, "Henri the Celt"
Ruppert and 9/11
Sat Jan 22, 2005 02:50
209.112.204.118

The behavior of Ruppert leaves little room for guesswork as far as I'm concerned. He gives crumbs and snatches back the whole loaf. He uses "peak oil" as a diversion for the truthful and intensive investigation of 9/11. He makes pronouncements as if he were God speaking down from the clouds above to us mere mortals on earth. Good grief, he is an establishment shill, a clever one, but an establishment shill nonetheless. If we discount his grand authoritative pronouncements 100%, and search for bits of information in his orations, fine, but that takes a very level head to do all the time...

add a comment on this article

Its simple, 22.Jan.2005 13:48

~Y~

Its simple,

In the 1990s we saw the rise of the Conservative Right wing barkers. Mostly on AM Radio. (Limbaugh, Hanity, Liddy, Savage etc.)

All of them hocking their ware for whoever would lap it up.

Rush Limbaugh was the first and biggest success of these. His yearly income estimate is $25 million, from TV, Books and Radio. He is well on his way to becoming a Billionaire.


More recently, The Liberal/Progressive/Left has begun the same tactic. Like so called conservatives, not because of any really deep held beliefs, but because they saw a niche market inhabited by people eager to hand over their hard earned dollars to anyone who would articulate their rage, and validate their beliefs.

Michael Moore has been very successful at this. Whether he actually believes what he is peddling is irrelevant the point is now people are coming out of the wood-work, trying to emulate his success.

As Conservatives must get more outlandish in order for people to pay attention to them (i.e, Michael Savage) The Left's peddlers must also one-up each other in order to have their customers fork out money for their books, movies, seminars etc..

Find an under-developed market with a want or need, and exploit that want or need to your own financial benefit. ECON/CAPITALISM 101

I like mike 22.Jan.2005 18:29

Fleeta

Mike ruppert like Frank serpico before him, is a hero of the people.
He deserves our support.

coordinated campaign? 22.Jan.2005 18:50

who

Based upon all these articles being posted, it looks like there's somebody reading Indy who wants to damage Mike's career. Last time I checked, Mike was human and had opinions. If he thinks questioning 9/11 is no longer going to yield political change, that's his right. On the other hand, didn't Crossing the Rubicon attempt to show that Cheney was behind 9/11? So, if Mike's trying to say that 9/11 is now irrelevant, he's saying his own book is somewhat irrelevant and is doing so at his own expense. Bugger off trolls!

Ruppert gatekeeps against Israeli/Mossad involvement of 9/11 24.Jan.2005 03:09

and more

GARY WEBB ON MIKE RUPPERT: Gary Webb, whose explosive 1996 _Dark Alliance_ series in the San Jose Mercury News alleged CIA complicity in the Los Angeles crack epidemic, says, "Mike is a real conundrum. I think he's a sincere guy, concerned about the right things, and he was quite supportive of my efforts to expose the interplay between the CIA and drug traffickers. But he's also written stories expounding a theory about the genesis of my Mercury News series that were, quite frankly, ridiculous."

 http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/ Original Source; Mark Jurkowitz can be reached at  jurkowitz@globe.com www.boston.com/dailyglobe2



It's Time To Ignore Michael Ruppert
Comment By Paul Fassa
Internet Trailer Park Trash
1-23-2005


In my opinion, Mike Ruppert is at best a blowhard gatekeeper who only cares that he is the ultimate mouthpiece of the alternative and Internet media, cashing in big time, or at worst, he is is a disinformation agent for one or more of our international alphabet soup intel agencies. When he first came to my attention, I bought his early 9/11 video.

I was impressed, though a little bothered over how he gloated over getting CIA Director Deutch's goat at the Compton meeting, a meeting inspired by Gary Webb's "Dark Alliance" series in which Mike inserted himself as the star.

What bothered me even more in that same video is how he totally dismissed the possibility of ANY Israeli or Mossad involvement with 9/11. He never expressed that as an opinion. He authoritatively made it into a fact, despite so many reports involving Israeli spies posing as art students, suspicious moving vans with traces of explosives, the high-fivers with the Israeli moving company that promptly disappeared, and on and on. Not to rush to judgment, Mike, but those are critical areas to investigate ...unless there is an agenda NOT to.

Back to Ruppert's association to Gary Webb. Neat job of positioning on that meeting, which was assembled due to Gary's diligent journalistic efforts. Mike got the sound bite. Stole the show. Very impressive, and useful too. As Mike Ruppert eulogized Gary Webb's recent demise, all the while asserting it was a suicide and calling anyone who dared challenge that verdict as "Internet trailer park trash", I was reminded of a politician eulogizing an important figure more to grandstand than express true loss and regret.

As Mike waxed on with his "tribute" to Webb, he constantly inserted himself as someone who was a virtual buddy and prodigy of Gary in real life, urging us to be Webb like and not make hasty conclusions about Gary Webb being assassinated. Here's what Gary Webb himself said about Mike Ruppert, from a Boston Globe article on Ruppert a while back:

** Gary Webb, whose explosive 1996 ''Dark Alliance'' series in the San Jose Mercury News alleged CIA complicity in the Los Angeles crack epidemic, says, ''Mike is a real conundrum. I think he's a sincere guy, concerned about the right things, and he was quite supportive of my efforts to expose the interplay between the CIA and drug traffickers. But he's also written stories expounding a theory about the genesis of my Mercury News series that were, quite frankly, ridiculous.'' ** _  http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/

Original Source; Mark Jurkowitz can be reached at
 jurkowitz@globe.com
www.boston.com/dailyglobe2

Mike Ruppert's asserting Gary's death as a suicide, which he considered journalistic, were based on his discussions with an ex-wife and family, noting an error with "Freeway" Ricky Ross's testimony to an Alex Jones interviewer about the outside of Gary's house, and claiming that a .38 revolver is a "relatively weak" firearm, and as an ex-cop he has witnessed several double shot (in the head!?) suicides. By the way, the .38 revolver was used by the LAPD and virtually every police force in this nation for decades. I guess those bullets just bounced off bandits.

The .38 revolver has been replaced by automatic 9 mm pistols, more for efficiency and ease of rapid fire and reloading than power. What is an ex-cop doing when he implies that a .38 revolver is sufficiently weak to enable a suicide victim to squeeze off a second shot, not easy with a revolver, to the head at point blank because the first shot missed his brain and merely blew off half of his jaw? I say he is lying about something. There is more, but I must move on, as Mike would say.

Again, instead of expressing an opinion about Webb's death, albeit a stupid one, he proclaimed his suicide announcement as absolute, irrefutable truth, attacked earnest investigators Alex Jones and John Hankey, and drew a line in the sand, calling everyone who suspected foul play in Gary Webb's death "Internet trailer park trash". Sorta reminds me of "you are either with us or against us". Hmmm, let's splinter up the Internet news, eh Mike? For what reason? Your glory as king of the alt press, your ability to profiteer more as the opinion leader, or gate keeping for . . . .?

The same pattern exists with 9/11. Ruppert jumped in as the 9/11 authority early on, overriding others who were on the scene at the same time, and dismissed all sorts of forensic and logistical evidence and anomaly, maintaining his word as the word. Why? Now that a 9/11 "Truth Movement" has gained momentum and is jelling with more and more actual evidence, Mike jumps in again and says ''move on folks, nothing worth pursuing here!" Why?

Ken Levine, curiously, has been instrumental in helping Mike Ruppert obtain success on the international lecture circuit, promotes his the FTW (From The Wilderness) website, even by getting subscribers to donate big money for full page ads in large dailys promoting that website, and of course the books and videos that are included. Lots a bucks, eh?

Who the heck is Ken Levine and how are they managing to maintain all this in a relatively high profile arena without attacks from the mainstream? Remember, the Boston Globe article where Gary Webb was quoted, was about the emerging star of Mike Ruppert, not Gary Webb. How are they managing to handle the legal expenses of slander suits directed at or from Michal Ruppert, involving 9/11 and other researchers, or even have the confidence to threaten others with law suits, and still profit on? BTW, those tactics to intimidate others need financial backing. Where is that money coming from?

I would say, as part of the legacy of Gary Webb that Ruppert claims we should learn from, that Rupert's threats and assertions and gate keeping does deserve further investigation. They are resulting in schisms and infighting amongst sincere researchers. As for me, he has nothing to offer. I do not trust him, regardless of his motives, or wherever they come from. On second thought, let us not waste our time pursuing this investigation of Ruppert and his motives. It is time to move on. We should all simply ignore him.

Paul Fassa Internet Trailer Park Trash

and more... trolls 24.Jan.2005 12:13

Jesse (CIA double agent)

Yes, I visited the site where the screed above originated. Like the part about Bush being a Satanist. Yeah, that's why he and Ashcroft (Mr "no calico cats!") got along so well. *heavy sarcasm*

All I can say is, if anything can be gleaned from this mess, it is that there is definitely a contrast between those of us who reach a verdict of conspiracy through reasoned examination of the evidence, and those of us who see a conspiracy no matter what the evidence. I take comfort in knowing which side of that duality I am on.

Hey Jessie 24.Jan.2005 14:17

Never trust a NARC

Answer this question please: why is this information left out of Ruppert's 9-11 map? Is there a gate keeping agenda here?

"What bothered me even more in that same video is how he totally dismissed the possibility of ANY Israeli or Mossad involvement with 9/11. He never expressed that as an opinion. He authoritatively made it into a fact, despite so many reports involving Israeli spies posing as art students, suspicious moving vans with traces of explosives, the high-fivers with the Israeli moving company that promptly disappeared, and on and on. Not to rush to judgment, Mike, but those are critical areas to investigate ...unless there is an agenda NOT to. "

Answer the question please. And don't revert to discrediting the website where this article was originally posted. That's a TROLL technique. Cause your not a troll...right?

Re: 24.Jan.2005 15:33

Jessica (CIA, double-double agent)

I am not one to doubt the nefarious intentions of the Mossad and the Zionist extremists, but I am not aware of any strong evidence suggesting Israel was involved in 9/11. There is evidence, proof even, that they knew 9/11 was going to take place before it happened. But so did France, Germany, Russia, the Taliban regime, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and probably other nations I am forgetting. The Israeli art school scandal? Well, when have there *not* been Israeli spies in the US??? The high five? If I were a mossad agent who just witnessed the destruction of the WTC, I would see the obvious opportunity for Israel. That does not mean they were involved. It is sick, but I would bet you anything there were many thousands of Israeli's in the US that day who were just as gleeful. Were they all involved, too? The moving vans with traces of explosives are very suspicious of *something*. But, there is nothing connecting them to 9/11, or any of the people involved in 9/11. It's just very suspicious, and until we have another lead, that's all we can say. That is what real journalists do. They don't entangle themselves in a web of conjecture that they can only defend through vehement over reaction to criticism, or even the nearby presence of a differing opinion. Israel may or may not have been involved beyond foreknowledge. Mike doesn't believe they were. That is his right, and is not deserving of the public lynching being attempted by the chipped shoulder brigades. This talk of some kind of a cover-up on the part of Mike, who almost singe handedly took on "progressive" media gatekeepers, and took the brunt of it's daily bludgeoning of "conspiracy theorists", is nothing less then a total re-writing of history by those who are willfully or not, ignorant of it. You think Israel did it, Mike doesn't and hopefully, most people will look beyond the these ego driven pissing matches and make up their minds' on there own.

Flunk Jessie 24.Jan.2005 16:10

Answer the question

Your're losing lots of credibility here --Jessie. I'm not interested in what you know. Anyone whp's done a cursoory study of 9-11 shoul;d know there are Israeli/Mossad appects to the story that have been reported by mainstream sources. Nice try Jesse--trying to say that the contentio nis that Israel pulled off 9-11. Hmmmm... you're acting like a disinformation agent again. The point is Ruppert Mr. 9-11 has EXCLUDED this MAINSTREAM EVIDENCE from his not to be challenged 9-11 map. Stop attacking and answer the question please. You're acting like Ruppert.

Who is Responsible for 24.Jan.2005 16:53

9-11

Rothschilds. Study how they(the family) established Israel to operate empire expansion.
Rothschilds agent in America, Rockefellar, gives orders to the American establishment.

I have no doubt there is an Israel - CIA angle to 9-11. Rothschild will have his capital in Jeruselum. It defies logic to believe otherwise.

Bottom line, neither the American nor the Israeli people have much control over the action of their respective governments.
As for Ruppurt--insignificant as far as the globalists and their interests. He is merely a sideshow to absorb action otherwise better directed.

Why do I bother? 24.Jan.2005 16:53

Jessiclese (agent of agents)

"you're acting like a disinformation agent again"

And you're acting more like a paranoid wacko, again. Part of the fact that I talk to you as if you were a fool, is because I am sitting here in my livingroom, in a sweater and blue sweatpants, eating chicken soup, and you keep accusing me of being part of some great dissinfo conspiracy. Excuse me if it's hard for me to take your reality vs imagination judgement skills more seriously.

Oh, no. I'm losing credibility? Like anybody else here gives a shit! First of all, if your contention is not that Israel was involved, what the hell is it? Secondly, Mike did not add every piece of evidence to his timeline, because it would be overwhelmingly massive. Unansweredquestions.org had a timeline like that for a while, and it was so rediculously huge that it was completely impractical for putting any kind of a picture together (connecting A to B to C, etc.)
Mike made his timeline, not as the be all and end all, set in stone, historical record of the only evidence acceptable to a 9/11 investigation, but as a police timeline, which filtered out the weaker evidence, and focused in on the key evidence around the central suspects. He set out from the beginning to find the core of the conspiracy. Sorry, but there is not evidence that Israel was part of the *core* conspiracy around Cheney, Bush, and Rumsfeld. He doesn't *have* to include Israel. Get over it. If you don't like it, make your own damn timeline!

ANSWER THIS QUESTION Mr. RUPPERT 24.Jan.2005 19:03

NO ATTACKS JUST REPLY

Again the point is that there is MAINSTREAM media conformation that implicates Israel/Mossad in 9-11. It's not a theory that's there's evidence it's a FACT. The QUESTION IS THIS: WHY DOESN'T RUPPERT INCLUDE THIS EVIDENCE IN HIS 9-11 TIMELINE/MAP???? ANSWER THIS QUESTION ONLY?

add a comment on this article