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,
www.copvcia.com .
On a serious note, I urge you to ask yourself the following
questions before passing this on as a credible theory:
- Who is Michael Ruppert? What does he stand to gain or lose
by putting forth this theory (other than $19.95)?
- 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?
- 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.)
- 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?
- 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.
;^)