Sunday, March 13, 2005

Open Letter on Infiltration into 9/11 Truth Movement

This is an open letter on the subject of possible manipulation or infiltration into the 9/11 truth movement by larger and better funded powers (whom I will define below)

I´m sending this letter to three groups of people. As the people in the first two groups are very public about advertising their contact emails on their websites I don´t think there´s anything wrong with naming them...

First group -- People who don´t necessarily know me well or at all but have been public in their criticism of the 9/11 Truth mafia (I will define them below) and/ or the Peak Oil/ Die off theory

1. Wing TV
2. David McGowan
3. John Kaminski
4. Nico Haupt (who does know me well)
5. AngieSept11 (who does know me)
6. Brian Salter
7. VoxFux (who met me once briefly)
8. Bruce McBurney of HiMac who was treated like retarded dog at the Toronto 9/11 conference but claims to have a technology that could use gasoline far more efficiently

Second Group -- Three individuals whom I still have a measure of respect for, but for one reason or another still seem to be associated and in two cases very closely associated with the 9/11 truth mafia

1. Jim Hoffman
2. Michael Kane -- co-author of Crossing the Rubican with Michael Ruppert
3. Jamie Hecht -- editor of From the Wilderness -- Michael Ruppert´s web editor -- if I´m not mistaken

The third group of recipients of this letter are a handful of personal friends of mine whom identifying would serve no purpose.

I want to begin by displaying the quote from Angie´s website which gave me the deep inspiration to write this letter. To do something like this, I really have to have some deep inspiration as my soul is so sunk in the deepest cynicism imaginable. Please first read this quote.


There's also been another possible motive for the 9-11 attacks that I've speculated about since the beginning. Have you ever wondered why the 9-11 official story was so implausible and so sloppily put together? (you know, the simultaneous hijacking of four different planes by people armed with mere boxcutters, the suicide notes found in luggage that inadvertently didn't make it on the planes, Arabic flight manuals left in cars in the airport, and a million other things they did which seem like obvious plants, or things they didn't do or create which would have squelched many of the 9-11 skeptics early on.) It's as if they want us to see through the whole thing. Could the perpetrators, in fact, want a 911 Truth Movement to flourish? And if so, why?


I believe that Angie´s next paragraph is interesting and I am going to put it at the bottom of this letter as a footnote, but I think the quesiton is actually more interesting than her particular answer and I want to have my own shot at addressing it. To see her full essay use the URL above.

Before I begin my discussion of this question, I want to also cite the following URL from Brian Salter´s website which is below which discusses the shocking background of many of the signers of a recent 9/11 petition. While I was already somewhat aware of the critique of Daniel Hopsicker about the human garbage John Grey... this essay really made a lot of things more clear to me.

First of all I want to state something about my 9/11 truth activism. I began as a legal researcher and community legal organizer around ground zero of communities effected by the toxic dust on 9/11. A year later after seeing Mike Ruppert speak in New York I joined the underground video collective Shadow Government TV which Nico Haupt was once heavily associated with and Michael Kane is now heavily associated with.

From late 2002 to mid 2003, I was one of most active people organizing for the movement in New York City until Kyle Hence came into town and somehow appointed Premila Dixit to be the new leader of the movement. From then on I was marginalized, gagged and finally on September 9th, 2004, ejected from a 9-11 truth event. An incident that was witnessed by Vox Fux as he was also being either gagged or thrown out by Kyle Hence.

Two days later I witnessed both Nico Haupt and even local toady Nicholas Levis physically thrown out by brutal security guards (and yes I mean DRAGGED OUT) of the big 9/11 event on the orders of eccentric millionaire Jimmy Walters. I wrote a short, off the cuff note which surprisingly was actually webpublished all over the world which resulted in close friends of mine attacking ME for making an off the cuff comment about Jimmy Walter´s medical condition.

All through this time it was many times alleged to me that all these problems were petty personality problems. I was too high strung. I was too prone to yell at people. If I would just calm down and accept thing, none of these problems ever would have happened. Etc Etc. Case in point was the incident at Riverside Church on September 11th 2003 when I WAS GAGGED AT AN OPEN MIC. In this incident which was caught on tape, I waited hours to speak. Given my background in the movement one would have thought in a 4 day event I would have been on a panel. But here I waited hours to speak and was cut off by the moderator, someone who had never done any 9/11 activism in NYC... The point here is that there is no doubt I was caught on tape screaming at the moderator and telling him to go fuck himself. But the real point was, I waited to speak for hours just like everyone else and I had a right to my time.

The complete story is already on my

I have to say that without the work of Wing TV, I would still partially be blaming myself for all these incidents. I would still be saying to myself, maybe if I took an anger management class or something like that, I could have walked away from the movement having only wasted 3 years in my life without uttering so many 4 letter words.

But having had a lot of time at the computer in what seems to be becoming an annual trip down to South America, I have to conclude that there is a lot more too this.

And I have not come to these conclusions rapidly or lightly. In fact if you read my first blog posting, it is very very clear that I was desperately trying to at least partially defend Mike Ruppert from the attacks of WING TV. If the WING TV people are taking the time to read this email and if Viktor remembers my first phone call to him he will perhaps recall that I spent the time trying to tell him that Ruppert is really a decent guy and the real enemy is Kyle Hence.

Since then, WING TV has become much more critical of Kyle, but not critical enough. But I have been researching the work of WING TV, Brian Salter, Angie and David McGowan on Ruppert and unfortunately and I really have to say unfortunately because I do have a soft spot for the man, I have to conclude that they may be right. I have a soft spot for Mike Ruppert and always will because he treated me with great courtesy one night when I was stranded at the New Haven railroad station. But the fact that he seems capable of great kindness and courtesy at times, cannot excuse his bizarre and reprehensible policy of threatening to sue other activists for defamation when there just is no need.

Threatening penniless bloggers with civil action in a United States court of law has a very chilling effect. It really makes you want to think twice before you even want to start a conversation with the man.

A good source on Ruppert´s threats to sue Dick Eastman and WING TV are here

But besides this childish behavior, on the part of Ruppert, I want to make a few general observations on the evolution of the 9/11 truth movement.


When I first went to Mike Ruppert´s website in November of 2001, it seemed to be a great learning tool for me. I managed to use to site to get to

1. Jared Israel´s site
2. Webster Tarpley´s book on the elder Bush
3. It´s where I first heard of Barry Zwicker
4. It´s how I first heard of Daniel Hopsicker and his work
5. And through the Ruppert lecture I first became aware of Kyle Hence and Unanswered Questions, Nafeez Ahmed´s book -- The War on Freedom, I met Nico and became familiar with his work, and I met SGTV

But it was only through reading Nico´s a few months ago that I became aware of WING TV and only through WING TV did I become familiar with people like John Kaminski and David McGowan among many others.

This is after 3 years in the movement and I still wasn´t aware of the existence of many of the people who did the original research that really built the movement. And this is after attending every major conference that I´m aware of other than the one in SF which I missed.

Now look what happened to this original list above

1. Jared Israel became a dyed in the wool Zionist and spends all his time apologizing for Serbian and Israeli nationalism. His original work on the airforce standown that played such a huge role in the birth of the 9/11 truth movement seems almost like ancient history. I still think Jared Israel has some amazing political commentaries on his site, but of all the people in the so called movement, he seems to be one of the most desperate to avoid any discussion with me. After three years of attempting to contact him, I have never suceeded. And this is from someone who claims to be a fearless debater

2. Daniel Hopsicker and Ruppert have become total opponents with Hopsicker doing trenchent exposes of the bizarre funding behind 9/11 truth movement financier John Grey

3. Barrie Zwicker, one of the seemingly nicest people I´ve ever met had a lot to do with making this movement a movement and he continues to be heavily at the center of the 9/11 truth mafia. How he manages to ignore the objective actions of the people around him is more than my poor mind can understand.

4. Kyle Hence has done more to destroy militant 9/11 activism than any other person. He is such a punk that he has finally hit the radar of many people in the real movement. He has been surprisingly open in his refusal to pin anything on the US government other than incompetence -- which is covered by the doctrine of SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY. The US government can be held responsible for building a defective parking garage, but not for giving billions to the Afghani muslim fanatics. So what´s the point of proving them negligent? And yet Kyle is and I guess will always be a respectable member of the 9/11 truth mafia.

See how Ruppert defended him in this attack on WING TV´s guests
“Oh, and your vaunted list of 911 researchers … with the exceptions of Web Tarpley, David Ray Griffin, Jim Hoffman, Tom Flocco and Kyle Hence, all of them are flakes or well-intentioned neophytes who, because of their associations with UFO’s, David Icke and the like are certain destroyers of 911 credibility if the issue were ever to reach the mainstream.

What I´m trying to show here is that in my traditional opinion people like Kyle Hence and Barrie Zwicker played a good role in the beginning because they helped make the 9/11 Truth movement a movement -- as opposed to say Jared Israel who needed to build his own sect.

But little by little this movement has turned into a bureaucracy that has marginalized most of the original researchers.

Well that was my old theory. My new theory is that there is something WAY more sinister going on here and there always was.

--------------The website test

I have a theory about 9/11 truth websites

The way you can tell a real 9/11 truth website from an infiltrator sponsored website is that the real 9/11 truth websites look like shit.

Look at or 9/11 they look great. Because they have MONEY. Look at David McGowan´s pathetic looking website. He obviously has no money to pay a webprogrammer so he´s hacking it out by his own html coding skills. I mean hey no offense to WING TV because their program rocks but their website still looks like they have no money. But look at the content of say McGowan who has one of the worst looking websites versus the GATEKEEPERS like Ruppert or 911

or look at the quality of the content that Nico and Billy Pilgrim used to post on globalfreepress before they ran out of MONEY. I mean hey, globalfreepress needed only 250 dollars a month to keep going and Ruppert has 20,000 or something like that subscribers giving him 20 or something like that bucks a year... Something on the order of a bit less than half a million dollar a year. almost 200,000 dollars were blown in Toronto by Barrie Zwicker. Jimmy Walters is blowing money through his butthole to buy advertising on ESPN... and no one could come up with money to save globalfreepress.

-------------- the real issue

Ok let´s talk about the real issue here which is that the 9/11 truth mafia is covering stuff up and pushing the Peak Oil population decline mantra.

First I want to make a little chart comparing the views of Ruppert, Hence and the 9/11 collective on two issues, Peak oil and population implosion and demolition of the towers

1. Ruppert ----- Obsessed with Peak Oil ---- seems to believe in Demolition but doesn´t want to talk about it because he´s afraid that will make people believe more in the government´s story

Say what? Yes... read his full story here. He doesn´t want to talk about physical evidence because he´s afraid it will STRENGTHEN the government... ok
the blurb below encapsulates his opinion

"I don't for a minute believe that an airliner hit the Pentagon. And no one has ever seen a video of an airliner hitting the Pentagon because there isn't one. It doesn't look like the WTC towers collapsed because of the impacts and the way that they collapsed doesn't make sense. But if I, with some measure of journalistic credibility, and my readers on Capitol Hill and in universities start writing stories about these things, I wind up in either a journalistic suicide mission, or in the improbable place of having to explain where the airliner that didn't hit the Pentagon went or how the towers were brought down. There is a mountain of physical evidence that blows the government story in my mind, but my experience says that it will never penetrate the consciousness of the American people in a way that will bring about change. What will penetrate, from my experience, is taking non-scientific reports that most people instantly accept as credible, whether news reports or government statements or documents, and merely showing that they are lies. That opens the wedge, and removes any reliance upon expert or scientific testimony which is typically used to confuse simple facts. From there, you can begin to show people all the other documentary evidence of foreknowledge, planning and participation."

2. Kyle Hence ----- doesn´t seem very into Peak Oil ----- won´t talk about demolition or anything even remotely close to it. In fact Hence seems to be only one step more radical on 9/11 than Michael Moore in that he will at least talk about the air force stand down

3 The 9/11 mafia ---- open to Peak oil but not obsessed with it --- will sometimes talk very vociferously about demolition

And this is interesting to me because as the 9/11 truth mafia have congealed themselves they will never attack Ruppert or Hence who engage in blatant self censorship but they are open to working with people like Hufschmid, Jimmy Walters, Don Paul and Jim Hoffman who are the best expositors of the demolition theory.

So who is being gagged here by the 9/11 Truth mafia. Not the demolition people. But it seems that the people who are being gagged most openly are the people talking about abiotic oil, and who are raising questions about the Peak oil stuff and a few people like me who REACT TO ANTI DEMOCRATIC MEASURES WITH RAPID FIRE STREET SLANG.

It seems to go like this. Argue with Ruppert about Peak Oil and he may threaten to sue you. Invite Ruppert to a TV interview to debate Peak Oil and he may sue you too. Talk about demolition and you can´t play in Kyle Hence´s sandbox. But you can play in Barry Zwicker´s sandbox. Try to show up to a 9/11 event that you have been invited to by the entire NY 9/11 movement to sell Tshirts and you get thrown in the streets. Complain to people like Barrie Zwicker and Cynthia Mckinney and all you get is a smile.

Conclusion: Criticizing Rupperts Peak Oil theory is a the flashpoint of conflict in this movement, NOT anymore the demolition theory. For some reason the nicer people in the 9/11 Truth mafia group will NEVER break with Ruppert or Hence or criticize them in any way no matter what insane things they do, but they will talk about demolition and they will act like decent human beings.

But radical activists have a tendency to identify bullshit and move away from it and this is why I see a whole new movement forming and I can only agree with WING TV´s comments on John Kaminski´s essay The Second Wave. But I can add something to this. As opposed to even the most radical criticism I have heard, I have to say that given my long experience in observing the congealing of the 9/11 truth mafia, the Second Wave can only be worth anything if it dedicates itself to exposing the First Wave as a blatantly anti democratic bureaucracy funded by mysterious sources.

For example, why would anyone like John Gray give thousands of dollars to the 9/11 truth movement. The guy is a complete moron who got a degree from a diploma mill. The man actually BOUGHT his way onto the Toronto conference panel. His speech was ridiculous.

I was an eyewitness to this crap, but I got this off of Salter´s website
see my excerpts below as footnote 2

I was also an eyewitness to Kyle Hence trying to get Professor Michel Chossudovsky to shut up about John Gray and telling everyone in a meeting of about 25 leaders of the 9/11 truth movement than no one can talk about this and no one can talk about Kyle telling us that we can´t talk about it. Appalling to have to watch someone like Kyle with an IQ of around 20 telling someone like Professor Chossudovsky with an IQ of 200 to shut up.

One other little point about Toronto... The reason Barrie Zwicker lost over 150,000 dollars was because the tickets cost over 60 Canadian dollars a day. The rooms were 90% empty. Only 200 people came over the weekend to the Convocation Hall which could seat 3000 people. It was like the whole thing was marketed to the WEALTHY. Who don´t really care about this stuff because they feel like if everyone is sent to the gas chambers they will at least be the last.

It´s almost as if they were TRYING to lose money.
-------------------------SECTION ABOUT PEAK OIL------------------------------------------------------------

Now let´s talk about Ruppert and his peak oil obsession.

Why did I used to have faith in Ruppert on Peak Oil? Because every time I read an article about Peak Oil, the price oil went up. And that´s been happening for three years now. It has seemed as if Ruppert was maybe UNDERSTATING THE CASE FOR PEAK OIL...I mean geez like since I first attended Rupperts lecture the price of a barrel of oil has gone up by 30 dollars.

So since reality keeps seeming to correlate with Ruppert´s predictions, it has seemed to be sensible to give him the benefit of the doubt and that´s why I have been very skeptical as I have watched the presentation of material on WING TV and David McGowan´s website...

I also read all of or almost all of Lyndsey Williams online book and saw nothing there that seemed convincing enough to really change my thinking.

But a couple of things have made me think a little more deeply into the matter

Look at Rupperts debate with Jerry Russel on abiotic oil.

First look at the kind of language Ruppert uses to the other side in the debate!!!
Ruppert modus operandi

Listen, let's take the passive-aggressive gloves off here you asshole.

You have already lost the bet and I have more than enough information to
prove you wrong. What I haven't done yet is write it up or finish
reading the Russian piece thoroughly to see if I can learn something.
Now from the first URL you can read about the debate and then there are several URLs where you can jump to the Yahoo group where Ruppert pleads to his Peak Oil expert buddies to dispose of Jerry Russel.

In the dialogue between Ruppert and Dale Allen Pfeiffer, there is not the slightest hint that Ruppert has ANY CONCERN ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE MATERIAL SUBMITTED TO HIM IS TRUE OR NOT. Ruppert draws his conclusions without bothering to do

1. Any research on his own
2. Having even a slightly open mind
3. Giving off the impression that he really knows anything about the subject himself

Which left me the impression that Ruppert is just winging it. One has to ask why does he believe in Peak oil, because Dale Allen Pfeiffer has a cute smile? Because Dale Allen Pfeiffer is a good writer? Because a lot of other people who claim to be experts support Dale Allen Pfeiffer...and so what then its majority opinion? Science is not a majority opinion thing. A scientific conclusion can only be drawn after the careful weighing of material evidence which apparently Ruppert didn´t even have the slightest interest in.

Then the next URL is Ruppert´s reply to Russel and you can see that

I mean like, supposedly the fate of human life on earth is at stake and Rupperts repsonse to Russel denying his claims is just cut and pasted out of some emails from his buddies. The centerpiece of the scientific argument was that two people didn´t show up to a conference. And Ruppert is 100% sure than he doesn´t owe Russel 1000 dollars. A more honest person would have obviously stated that neither side had put forth anything conclusive... but Ruppert typically makes these absurd fraudulent $1000 bets with the world that no one will ever collect without taking him to court because he will always find some way to worm out of anything.

By the way, these 1000 dollar bets of Ruppert are legal contracts and he can be sued. Not to say that anyone should bother, really they are just silly ridiculous rhetorical devices. Just like his refusal to debate with anyone who won´t put up 1000 dollars for the privilege. Obviously he´s got money and most of the rest of us don´t.

So where is he getting his money from? Real use the URL at the top of this article.

As far as I´m concerned Peak Oil could be true, Abiotic oil could be true. I haven´t seen enough evidence either way to make an informed opinion. But between Russel, McGowan and WING TV, I will say that they have presented a fair case that abiotic oil is NOT absurd. That there are prominent scientists mostly in the former Soviet states that have published a lot of material on it. And thus, this accusation that anyone who wants to challenge Peak Oil is just looney is unfair.

But, I want to approach this question from another angle.

Let´s summarize how Ruppert gets from Peak Oil to Die off...

1. Almost all the easy to get at oil in the world is gone
2. The rest of the oil will be harder to extract
3. Oil demand is rising and will continue to rise until it hits around 180 a barrel
4. Without oil we can raise food, transport vehicles, heat houses, conduct energy
5. Replacing oil will natural gas, coal, uranium etc will make these resources run out more quickly. Wind and solar can only replace a small amount of the energy from so called fossil fuels.
6. What will result is mass starvation not simply because the powers that be are mean and awful but because there´s just not enough resources out there.
7. Solution: buy a subscription to Rupperts website ie give Ruppert you money, buy PHYSICAL GOLD --- an investment which has 0% capital appreciation except in case of a collapse of the dollar --- and . . . . well not a heck of a lot else.

In a sense, I think the abiotic oil crowd like WING TV, Jerry Russel and David McGowan have made a tactical error in debating Ruppert.

I don´t think that it´s very easy to prove abiotic vs biotic oil without pouring over months worth of scientific information. Maybe more than months. Maybe the abiotic people are right, maybe they are totally wrong. I don´t know.

But I do believe that there is a very easy line of attack against the Peak Oil people and Mike Ruppert especially. So i will pursue this argument and we will assume for a minute that Rupperts points 1-3 are correct. We are almost out of oil and oil is about to skyrocket and natural gas, coal and uranium aren´t solutions because they too will run out forgetting about the environmental consequences. Do we get to INEVITABLE die off? Meaning not die off because the Henry Kissinger types will see the oil crisis as an opportunity to do what they always wanted to do but because essentially we are on a row boat with only enough water and food for 1 tenth of the people on the boat and it doesn´t matter who is in charge.

Jerry Russel has a very good page on solar power and this is especially interesting

and here is his link on wind

In any case, Denmark is already producing, I believe, almost a 5th of its power through wind. And they use off shore platforms. Meaning on the SEA... So if you total up all the wind out there that sweeps across the sea on the whole planet... Well that´s a lot of energy. And of course, it costs a lot of money to set up those platforms but once they are set up they produce a heck of a lot of electricity.

Now of course, if oil goes to 180 dollars a barrel, wind power is going to become a heck of a lot more economical than it is technological advances are steady.

Of course there is resistance from people who say wind power is ugly and it hurts migratory birds... I due submit that if people are faced with the choice of being eugenicized by Ruppert´s favorite spiritual depsot the Dalai Lama or losing some migratory birds and having an ugly seascape, they will choose the second.

As far as solar goes, Russel´s link shows the remarkable fact that solar power may drop in price in the next few years by 95% as manufacturing techniques pioneered by the computer industry are applied to producing solar panels out of plastic.

Now this is really interesting, because unlike large windfarms that need a very large capital investment, this kind of revolutionary solar technology could be rolled out by anyone on a house by house, backyard by backyard basis and could even put the electrical utilities and the oil industry out of business.

In fact, the results could hypothetically be so dramatic that they could reduce inflation, reduce pressure on the dollar and stave off a collapse of the housing market leaving people who buy physical gold once again with a bunch of non income producing rocks.

To argue that this is not probable, you would have to argue that the guys at Nanosolar will probably fair...and because of the technological hurdles not because they get assasinated by the oil mafia.

Remember, Ruppert says don´t buy land, buy gold. He could be right. Let´s say the whole economic system collapses, the dollar collapse, interest rates skyrocket and land values plummet because of skyrocketing oil. Then gold will be valuable.

But let´s say solar power plummets in price due to nanotechnology. The price of energy especially in the sunbelt (but solar panels can catch energy even on a cloudy day) collapses and millions of people around the world go off the grid. The sunbelt sprouts with solar farms, the American economy becomes a leader in nano solar power fueling another 90´s type boom. In such a situation, Rupperts investment strategy would be terrible. Because land will skyrocket in value due to an INCREASING POPULATION....

A sound investment advisor would give both possible scenarios, Ruppert only gives one. Collapse is inevitable.

Check out another technology.

When I was at the Toronto conference, I met a man named Bruce McBurney who argued with me that it is possible to build internal combustion engines which would be far more efficient and even improve the efficiency of existing engines simply by building a superior carbuerator.

When I approached Barrie Zwicker regarding this matter, Zwicker merely commented that he had talked to McBurney and felt that there was nothing to it. And what, Barrie Zwicker is now an expert on engine design? Just like Ruppert, an ex police officer is an expert on geology?

Mcburney presents compelling evidence that all sorts of alternative fuel and engine experts over the course of decades have been systematically murdered.

Now that I´ve read something about the abiotic oil stuff, I´m starting to get the picture that maybe the elites want us to think like this...

1. No oil
2. No way to burn oil other than through traditional wasteful and polluting carbeurators
3. Wind, Solar can´t make up for the oil
4. Solution is endless war, tsunamis and mass eugenics

Whereas Ruppert and Zwicker say:

1. No oil
2. No way to burn oil other than through traditional wasteful and polluting carbeurators
3. Wind, Solar can´t make up for the oil
4. Solution is buying Ruppert and Zwickers videos, subscribing to Ruppert´s website, buying physical gold and mass eugenics with the Dalai Lama as the person in charge.

and Ruppert and Zwicker with no scientific credentials between them are SURE they are right and we as the SKEPTICS COMMUNITY should just believe them and kiss their ass?

With millions of qualified scientists on this planet we won´t be able to come up with any energy solution no matter if the skull bones people are in charge or ANYONE is in charge. They think that even if David McGowan and Bruce Mcburney were global dictators and had all the economic resources in their hands, we STILL would all die.

And not just that, we should even discuss alternative energy. I have attended about 7 Ruppert lectures and he has never spent more than 5 minutes talking about alternative energy and only in the discussion section when bothered by pesky attendee.

One time it was actually Kyle Hence that prodded him to make a comment. And one other thing he always talks about how pesticides are also made of oil.. Never considering that maybe there are other solutions other than pesticides like biological control of pests.

And I want to say one thing about Rupperts speech at the Commonwealth Club

I have larger excerpt of the following quote below as footnote three with the URL

Maria Gilardin writes: This was one of the more surreal experiences of my recording "career". The very mainstream San Francisco Commonwealth Club had invited Mike Ruppert to speak on the eve of the publication of his new book: CROSSING THE RUBICON (- with a foreword by the amazing Catherine Austin Fitts). The Commonwealth Club is mostly a place for the power elites. Here was Mike Ruppert accusing some of those whose portraits are hanging on the walls of having had a hand in the events and/or the cover-up of 9-11.

Are the people who run the Commonwealth Club STUPID... .I really doubt it. It´s very hard to imagine that Ruppert would be allowed to speak at the Commonwealth Club unless they support his agenda and visa versa on some level.

And this is a typical example about how people are so easily fooled into thinking that an alternative movement is hitting the mainstream when in actuality its being totally coopted.

Lets go back to Angies question

There's also been another possible motive for the 9-11 attacks that I've speculated about since the beginning. Have you ever wondered why the 9-11 official story was so implausible and so sloppily put together? (you know, the simultaneous hijacking of four different planes by people armed with mere boxcutters, the suicide notes found in luggage that inadvertently didn't make it on the planes, Arabic flight manuals left in cars in the airport, and a million other things they did which seem like obvious plants, or things they didn't do or create which would have squelched many of the 9-11 skeptics early on.) It's as if they want us to see through the whole thing. Could the perpetrators, in fact, want a 911 Truth Movement to flourish? And if so, why?

------------------ Could the perpetrators want a 9/11 Truth Movement, and why?

The why question is obviously a little difficult. But look at what we have. Mike Ruppert can´t get on Amy Goodman´s show, but he can speak at the commonwealth club. Meanwhile any non white non male hate America fanatic can have hours on Pacifica like say our good old Ward Churchill.

And so that he can get invited to the Commonwealth Club, Ruppert can´t talk about demolition or the Pentagon. Because he can´t lose his crediblity with... the Commonwealth Club I guess?

--------------------footnote 1...angie´s answer
Perhaps the perpetrators are deliberately setting up the U.S. to be the bad guy to the rest of the world, perhaps to give the rest of the world the notion that they'd have to consolidate to fight the sole superpower, getting us that much closer to a one world government that so many global elite long for. Perhaps the 'transparent 9-11 inside job/ mass murder deliberately painted on others for a non-ending war pretext' is just a part of that, part of the intentional plotting to have the U.S. be seen as the real rogue nation that others must get together to fight against.

------------------footnote 2 John Gray on 9/11

Earlier this year, a controversy erupted over the participation of John Gray, "Ph. D" in the 9/11 Internation Inquiry held in Toronto. Gray is famous as a "relationship guru" and the author of "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" series. Researchers Michel Chossudovsky and Matthias Broeckers discovered an alarming connection between Gray and the notorious Iran-Contra conspirator and international con man Adnan Khashoggi. The latter had been deeply involved in running a spectacular stock scam through Genesis Intermedia, a company with which Gray had been associated for years and was a part owner.

The story of the Genesis Intermedia (GENI) affair and its aftermath are summed up in this article from Businessweek:

New York 9/11 researcher Nico Haupt also played an important role in pursuing this connection, and in pressing for disclosure of information concerning Gray's funding of the Toronto 9/11 Inquiry as well as a 9/11 activist organization, Those involved with Gray, including the Toronto Inquiry organizer Barrie Zwicker (who has disclosed that Gray is helping him finance and produce a new 9/11 video project), Nikos Levis, Bill Douglas of 9/, and others, were quite defensive and asserted that Gray was a victim of Khashoggi's GENI scam and that the two did not have any relationship of importance (Some of these denials reached the point of outright ridicule towards those raising questions about Gray, which is disturbing in itself).

Question from an audience member:
"John, in conclusion of your speech, I understood you to
say that we could heal ourselves by forgiving the government
for letting the terrorists commit the attacks. My question to
you is what makes you believe this long after 9/11 that
the terrorists who committed the attacks weren't within
the U.S. government?"

John Gray's Answer:
"I've written several books on forgiveness, and whenever anybody
talks about forgiveness they always think, it's like if you have a good excuse, then I forgive you. Like, let's say I'm late for dinner, my wife's upset with me, and I say, but honey there was a fire on the bridge and I rescued a child, and she say's oh, okay, that's a great excuse, I forgive you. That's not what forgiveness is. That means she doesn't need to forgive me because I have a great excuse. The government doesn't have a great excuse. These are murderers. The people we really
need to forgive are the Congress that allowed them to do it, because they know a lot of the details. And they're kind of like on the edge and they don't know ALL the information. So finding forgiveness for a government doesn't mean that you say that they had good reasons for it. They didn't have good reasons for it, they're killers and there's murderers and there's a few of them, there's not a whole lot of them. So, we want to forgive the
whole government because they were fooled just like we've been fooled. And for those people we forgive them as mentally ill and we put them away and we make a big show of it. I would personally like to even, I'm always out of the box a little bit, but I think that I would like to make a big show of it and demonstrate through brain scans the problems with their
brains. My research in the last 10 years is about brain research,
differences between men and women and brain research. And I bet every penny I have that if we could do live brain scans, that these men who run that will have very inactive prefrontal cortex which is associated with people, and this is a fact, there's people who can't feel happy unless there's violence in front of them, unless they're dropping bombs. And let me give you one brief example of that, in America, I know the statistics there, 1 out of 5 boys, 1 out of a 100 girls, and 1 out of 5 boys is taking Ritalin for ADD symptoms, which is an inactive prefrontal cortex. But, you put 'em on a videogame with bombs and immediately the brain starts producing more dopamine which
is pleasure and their brain begins functioning in a cogent, clear way. So what happens is these are smart guys, some of them, some of them aren't (George Bush), but they're smart guys, but they're unable to experience pleasure in their lives without some sort of stimulation. And I believe that before anybody could ever be
elected to a high authority position that we should do brain scans on their brains, make sure that their brain chemicals are normal because these people don't have normal brain chemicals."

------------------------footnote 3
Maria Gilardin writes: This was one of the more surreal experiences of my recording "career". The very mainstream San Francisco Commonwealth Club had invited Mike Ruppert to speak on the eve of the publication of his new book: CROSSING THE RUBICON (- with a foreword by the amazing Catherine Austin Fitts). The Commonwealth Club is mostly a place for the power elites. Here was Mike Ruppert accusing some of those whose portraits are hanging on the walls of having had a hand in the events and/or the cover-up of 9-11.

On the eve of the publication of his new book, Crossing the Rubicon, Mike Ruppert spoke at the prestigious San Francisco Commonwealth Club. His research, laid out on 600 pages and supported by over 1000 footnotes, shows that members of the Bush administration knew about the impending attack of 9-11 and helped them succeed.

Wednesday, December 08, 2004

Oy Veh? Ruppert Unmasked? In Partial Defense of the Man

In contrast to my off the cuff comment which was republished around the world in regards to Jimmy Walter's security goon squad attacks at the 9/11/2004 Grand Ballroom event, my recent blog posting seems to have gotten little attention other than Nico saying that he pissed in his pants that it was so funny.

However, since it ended up on Nico's blog -- I'm sure many people did read it.

Now I'm ready to open my big Jewish mouth again, but first two points of regret.

It was indicated to me by certain people I respect that my comment regarding Jimmy Walters could be interpreted as making fun of his physical disability (some weird neurologial's not worth me talking about it, I'm not an MD -- let's just say the one time I talked to him it was clear things weren't all well with him neurologically -- he seemed mentally sane but was jumping around in a very weird way.) When I wrote that little note, I had no idea it would be published on blogs around the world. In no way did I intend to make fun of Jimmy Walter's physical disability. The issue, was that he had his co-organizers of his event physically attacked by security guards and thrown out of the event. Worse yet, some of the people thrown out seemed to take it a little too much in stride -- probably in my opinion -- because they were hoping to get more money out of him in the future.

It was outrageous what Jimmy Walters did that night. I myself feel very ashamed that I said nothing, because I was making good money that night selling Tshirts and there was nothing I could have done anyway other than gotten thrown out myself. Nor did I have all the facts at my disposal. But still I feel bad about just standing around there. To make matters even more poignant I received a handwritten note from a friendly 9/11 activist specifically warning me not to object verbally to these goon attacks for my own good. She wrote this note to me, obviously because she knew that I would be one of the most likely people to try to jump in to defend the people being dragged off.

It amazed me that after my note got published that certain people were more outraged that my comment could possibly be construed as making fun of Jimmy Walters than the actual goon attacks. But I do recognize that I could have chosen my words better. For all his obvious failings, I do respect Jimmy Walters for putting money behind a cause that has few other financial backers. He seems like a good person trying to do some good with the money he inherited, albeit with severely flawed judgment.

This brings me to my second retraction. People who know me know that I am hopping stinking mad at the way I have been treated by the 9/11 Truth movement oligarchy, but specifically by Kyle Hence of Unanswered Questions website. In my last blog posting I gave a fairly detailed chronology of what transpired and how Kyle, in my opinion did an enormous amount to retard the development of a 9/11 Truth movement in New York City.

The blog posting was basically a letter I wrote to John Leonard, publisher of the War on Freedom whom I've been writing lengthy memos to try to explain to him my bird's eye view on the history of the 9/11 Truth movement in NYC . . . and in turn I guess I've been doing this to try to get a lot of anger off my chest. I did edit the letter quickly before posting it on the blog but unfortunately there was a sentence that ended up being reposted on Nico's blog which contained a disparaging reference to the physical appearance of 9/11 Truth bureaucrat Les Jamieson -- a man who seems to think the movement here is his personal property.

Let me get this straight. It's none of my business whether Les is handsome or ugly, sexy or not sexy. Just as it's none of my business what neurological (as opposed to mental) disorder Jimmy Walters suffers from. That sentence of my blog posting was absolutely wrong to post, was a result of my sloppy editing, but even more basically was a by-product of the extreme anger I feel at the way I've been treated.

For the record, Les Jamieson really is a decent looking guy -- can be considered way too sexy for the second Bush administration. The real issue is that he has helped foster the perenially undemocratic meetings that characterize the movement here in NYC and besides that he is an incredibly boring speaker which apparently is what you have to be to be high on the list of 9/11 speakers in New York.

Ok let's get to the thing which is inspiring to type here early in the morning in Brooklyn 9/8/2004...oops wow we just hit another Pearl Habor day eh?

I picked up another one of Nico's INN emails and what do I find, this rant by Mike Ruppert...

“Oh, and your vaunted list of 911 researchers … with the exceptions of Web Tarpley, David Ray Griffin, Jim Hoffman, Tom Flocco and Kyle Hence, all of them are flakes or well-intentioned neophytes who, because of their associations with UFO’s, David Icke and the like are certain destroyers of 911 credibility if the issue were ever to reach the mainstream.

-- This bold paragraph is really an attack on Wing TV and I guess its leader, Viktor Thorne

Nico adds the following commentary which I will italicize

As you’ll see in the above mentioned article, this list includes: Jim Marrs, Christopher Bollyn of the American Free Press, Ralph Omholt, John Kaminski, Dave McGowan, Kee Dewdney, Dave Von Kleist, Phil Jayhan, Eric Hufschmid, George Humphrey, Jerry Russell, Nico Haupt, Russ Wittenberg, Don Paul, Michael Elliott, Dylan Avery, Daniel Hopsicker, Anthony Hilder, Stanley Hilton, Karl Schwartz, John Leonard, Richard Stanley, and Donn de Grand-Pre...

This kind of shocked me for a moment because I would be surprised for Ruppert to launch such a virulent attack on rather respected people at least say, Kee Dewdney (an incredibly wonderful man, mathematics professor and noted science author), Don Paul and Karl Schwartz. I certainly don't know what Ruppert thinks of everyone on the list below, but the point is he didn't actually associate these people with David Icke and David Icke's theory of GOP lizard metamorphosis AS SUCH, but rather Nico is saying that he did so by implication.

For the record, in my opinion, Nico Haupt is neither a flake, nor a neo-phyte, simply a stark raving madman and idiot savant researcher extraordinaire. But with all his failings, he's the only hope I have that anyone will ever read anything I write, so I owe the man alot...

Well let's look at Ruppert's approved list of 9/11 freaks. What does Rabbi Philo think of them?

Ruppert likes Webster Tarpley
Rabbi Philo --- agrees that Webster Tarpley is a wonderful human being and absolutely brilliant

Ruppert likes Jim Hoffman
Rabbi Philo -- met Jim Hoffman on only one occasion, got a wonderful interview with Jim Hoffman which he then used as the basis for a lesbian seduction 9/11 truth screenplay which was never shot because the actresses kept quitting. Rabbi Philo's opinion of Jim was that Jim was a first rate brilliant guy. Jim's presentation in Toronto at the international inquiry was also excellent

Ruppert like Tom Flocco
Rabbi Philo --- has never had any interaction with Tom Flocco but often reads Tom Flocco's materials and is of the opinion that while Tom Flocco may be a good well meaning guy, his politics are on the far right of the 9/11 truth movement, which may not bother Ruppert but certainly bothers Rabbi Philo. Some of Flocco's materials read like anti immigrant diatribes. Rabbi Philo was further distressed in a conversation with the brilliant and admirable Michael Kane of Clarity who works for Ruppert and wrote a chapter of Ruppert's book. Michael Kane had the temerity to tell Rabbi Philo that, "both the RIGHT and the LEFT are wrong on immigration." Rabbi Philo's response would be that since the RIGHT has 100% of the power and 100% of the guns, it doesn't really matter that the left might be "wrong" if the "left" exists at all in the USA as anything else than paid pawns of people like Jimmy Walters, George Soros, Wes Boyd, Ben Cohen or whomever else might be willing to pay them a salary.

In any case, Rabbi Philo does not think that people like Tom Flocco or Catherine Austin Fitts (whom Rabbi Philo has had sporadic contact with and has a high opinion of) should be simply considered uncriticizable gurus simply because they are friends with Ruppert. Anti-immigrant hate mongering is a first step toward building a mass fascist movement and if the anti-immigrant activist is a 9/11 truth activist it changes nothing. We know from Michael Springman that terrorist immigrants will get into the USA no matter what the laws so the last thing we need to do is help the neo-con fascists by calling for closing down the borders.

And the last person on Ruppert's list of approved 9/11 investigators is all around ass kissing, don't draw any conclusions about anything, shut your mouth to not discredit the movement in front of the fascist mainstream media himself -- KYLE HENCE.

This is what inspired me to read the discourse between Viktor Thorne and Mike Ruppert. I'm not trying attack Mike Ruppert for praising Kyle Hence. I'm not saying that anyone who praises Kyle Hence is automatically wrong about anything else...In fact, I will praise Kyle in a minute for the things he did right way back when. But as I demonstrated in my last article, in my opinion, Kyle did more to retard the development of a movement here in NYC than anyone else and the keystone of that negative work were his attacks on me.

To summarize my last article, the problems arose when Kyle came into town in mid 2003 after 8 months in which I was doing more networking on this issue than anyone else and Kyle appointed Premila Dixit (whose name I couldn't remember) as lord high guru of the local movement. Kyle did not at that time or any other time have authority from anyone else than his own mind to appoint anyone as the leader of anything. Literally overnight I was demoted from the person who was doing all the work and widely and internationally recognized as such, to a person who was lucky to even be invited to meetings. Next I was slandered as a reverse race baiter because I questioned why two black activists were disinvited to a meeting, and soon afterward I was effectively banned from speaking at every 9/11 event in the city. Finally Kyle had the temerity to physically kick me out of his so called Citizen's Commission hearings.

Yes, I regret yelling out that Kyle Hence was an FBI agent. I have not the slightest evidence that Kyle Hence works for the FBI. All I can tell you is that he has done as much or greater damage to the movement in New York City that if he was working for the FBI. In fact, I suspect that he is not working for any agency of the government, because I would imagine that a real agente provocateur would be far more subtle. Real agente provocateurs usually pose as being the most dedicated and MOST RADICAL in a fringe organization... case in point, Malinovsky in the Russian Revolution who convinced Lenin that he was genuine while really working for the Tsarist Police. Kyle Hence, on the contrary, is totally open about being very rightward leaning in his politics and very moderate in his activities. So, Kyle, sorry for calling you an FBI agent, you probably aren't an FBI agent, just a real shmuck.

But the question remains, why does Ruppert have such a high opinion of Kyle Hence?

One thing that struck me about Kyle when I first met him was how conservative he was politically. The first time we had dinner together (I believe 9/14/2002) on hearing that I was a Marxist his response was, "you are not a Marxist." And I thought to myself, This man only met me three days ago and we have only spoken twice. Why does he think he is a greater expert on my OWN OPINIONS about the world than I am.

I mean hey, it's just outrageous, you tell someone that you are a Marxist, or a Humanist, or an Atheist, or a Christian, or a Muslim, or a Pagan or a Republican or a Nazi --- whatever... and they don't even know you and they tell you that you are lying or simply mistaken. Isn't every person more of an expert on their own beliefs than anyone else, much less someone who doesn't know the person in question?

But Kyle probably meant something like the following -- oh, you are an intelligent guy and all Marxists are idiots thus you can't be a Marxist. He was saying it in a friendly and insipid way. This was shortly after I had read over 6000 pages to write a 120 page article that was the foundation for a short ghost written encyclopedia entry (I produced the first draft) of a professor of mine for the Oxford Encyclopedia's of American law's entry on Marxism and the Law.

Having been a Marxist for at least 15 years prior to meeting Kyle and just having done this incredibly indepth research into Marxist philosophy, what was Kyle's intellectual background to make such a statement? He apparently had been a sailor who specialized in moving rich people's yachts around.

I don't know if his activities in yacht moving included reading Marx's Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, or the Grundrisse, or the Critique of Political Economy or the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 . . . but nonetheless Kyle knew my ideas better than I did.

I'm going to say one last thing about Kyle before getting to Ruppert. If you watch Kyle's video (produced with GNN) AFTERMATH (which in my opinion is a pretty lousy product -- albeit decent for the time) you have this interview with George Soros, a man responsible for an incredible amount of economic destruction and manipulation of whole countries' economies and governments. Soros says that we have to fight terrorism but we are doing it the wrong way and the Bush administration is in effect stifling dissent.

Now I can accept that Soros may not be 100% evil, and within the context of being an incredibly powerful billionaire who is responsible perhaps for an incredible amount of murder and mayhem globally, he may have a conscience. And the guy does seem, within a certain context, at least within the context of US politics to be on the liberal lefty side of things. But, just because he has criticized Bush, doesn't mean he can be absolved for one second from all his other crimes. And in this brief comment in AFTERMATH Soros does say that we need to fight the war on terror which effectively implies that the USA is not the terrorist and that there are terrorists out there and thus some form of US militarism is justified albeit a more liberal variety. And that leads to the conclusion that maybe we should vote Democrat and since he is the largest monetary contributor to the Democrats, effectively George Soros should be given the reigns of power in the USA.

This is by no means the only problem with the AFTERMATH video, but in any case, it's just one example of how Kyle views the 9/11 movement has having value primarily to the extent that it can raise money from donations from wealthy people. Kyle also stated in our very first meeting how we should be trying to cozy up to people like Arianna Huffington. Again, not to claim that she's all bad, but you have to be skeptical of the motives of extremely wealthy people who claim to be the demogogic leaders of the masses. Apparently Kyle managed to contact George Soros because he was a yachtmen on Soros' son's yacht. Which again shows how Kyle's modus operandi is hob nobbing with extremely wealthy people. And in order to do that hob nobbing the first rule is NEVER CRITICIZE THEM... and the second rule is NEVER ALLOW YOUR ASSOCIATES TO CRITICIZE THEM... and included in the second rule is the corollary, it doesn't matter if the associate in question's name is Professor Michel Chossudovsky and his IQ is about 80 points higher than yours.

So getting back to Ruppert, I don't have the same animosity toward Ruppert than I have toward Kyle. Ruppert never did anything to hurt the movement here in NYC quite the opposite, he's done a huge amount to help build it. In the article attacking Ruppert, Viktor Thorn makes the accusation that Ruppert is getting rich off the 9/11 movement about 10 times. Over and over again you read Viktor Thorn with his ($$$$) in parentheses, making estimates as to Ruppert's income. Well, there nothing wrong in principle about raising these issues...

But in response Ruppert points out that he has to pay his staff including Professor Jamie Hecht whom I consider a wonderful friend and one of the very very best and most intelligent people in both the 9/11 movement and the general Green Party millieu here in NYC and also Stan Goff and Dale Allen Pfeiffer whom I don't know personally but I consider their writing to be of the highest quality. And also Michael Kane who has done so much for the movement locally through his incredible music talent, intellectual abilities and political dedication (ok yes, I print Michael Kane's Tshirts and loosely participate here and there in the management of his band...but have never made a penny off these activities.) But in any case, to the extent that I have some personal insight into where Ruppert puts the money that he receives off of FTW subscriptions, I can say that it would be hard to find people better than the people he is able to pay modest salaries to.

And thus, in some ways, I find Thorn's insinuations to be somewhat sinister. If people cut off subscriptions to Ruppert's site and he lays off people like Professor Hecht and Michael Kane (I'm sticking to people I know personally here no offense to Goff and Pfeiffer) I can say personally that this would be tremendously damaging to these great guys who have done so much for us here in NYC. On the other hand, if people stop donating money to Kyle Hence and his left wing gate keeper website Unanswered Questions, I can assure you that Kyle Hence being bankrupt would not set the movement back one iota.

And yet Ruppert likes Kyle so much. Why? Probably because Kyle besides being an ass licker of the elites is also extremely cautious in what he will say. So cautious that I would say that his criticism of the status quo is so mild as to be IGNORABLE.

So we get back into the whole LIHOP vs MIHOP debate. Kyle was once of the most virulent attackers of MIHOP for a long time. And since he would hang out in 9/11 truth activist circles and try to utilize us as pawns in his fundraising games he was able to do alot of damage demanding that the movement censor itself.

I want to make one major point here that tremendously transcends whether Kyle has treated me unfairly or not. There is in the abstract and has been in the particular, a natural statistical arc in which someone like Kyle naturally contributes a lot in the beginning and becomes a detriment to a radical movement more and more as time goes on. In the beginning (no not when God created the heavens and the Earth but let's say 9/12/2001) heck, we didn't know much. Even people like Mike Ruppert had to take much of what the mainstream media said at face value. By today's standards, Mike Ruppert's original Oh Lucy timeline, was a very conservative piece of criticism -- and so was Unanswered and Unanswered Questions still is.

When one is very close to a historic event, it is natural to give at least some credence to the official story. Ok, I have met two 9/11 skeptics who are so skeptical that they question even the story about planes crashing into the buildings (both were at ground zero, one in building four, the other under the building...and one of them actually saw a piece of fuselage on the ground yet is still skeptical about the "story" regarding planes hitting the towers.) I mean heck, even David Von Kleist and Kee Dewdney believe planes hit the towers.

But little by little, more and more radical criticism of the official story tends to become acceptable. In terms of the history of the 9/11 truth movement I will note that today, Eric Hufschmid's theory which was so fringe in 2002 (note how Nafeez Ahmed says nothing of it in The War on Freedom) became quite acceptable by early 2004 (note it's inclusion in David Griffen's book). And the Pentagon theory of Thierry Meyssan was also considered fringe at first and is now accepted it seems by the majority of mainstream leading 9/11 researchers including Tarpley who Ruppert praises and David Griffen although apparently no longer by Jim Hoffman (haven't researched Hoffman's latest yet.)

Back in 2002, the most compelling arguments about government negligence or complicity in 9/11 (and I say negligence or complicity in one phrase INTENTIONALLY) was the whole deal of the non mobilization of the airforce (nicely detailed by Jared Israel and later Nafeez Ahmed) and then things like the Colleen Rowley memo. Put slightly differently, early on we were thinking about things like:

A) Why if they had the evidence needed to capture the 9/11 terrorists before they boarded the planes, why didn't they?

B) Why if they had the ability to intercept (and then we get back into the old issue that intercept doesn't necessarily mean shoot down) the planes, why didn't they?

Crucially here, we need to understand that if we allow the Bush administration to maintain the excuse that they were simply mentally retarded, we are granting them an automatic victory. Mental retardation is not an impeachable offense. That's what all the defenders of the official story threw at us. They said, hey the government was surprised by this surprise attack and maybe they didn't do a good job but that's the nature of surprise attacks.

And they maintain these arguments even with the video tape of W. Bush. If you look carefully at the tape of Bush in the Florida school you can notice that after Card whispers in Bush's ear, Bush does not even move his facial muscles...not even slightly. Card allegedly said that, "a second plane has hit, America is under attack" Having watched the tape at least 500 times I doubt that Card's mouth was next to Bush's ear long enough to utter than sentence. So really we don't know what Card said. But if he really did mention the second attack (and Bush already knew about the first) the lack of any movement of Bush's facial muscles implies that either he is a comatose psycho or perhaps drugged out. In fact, I have speculated that Card actually said, "we got a call from the pharmacist and they are still out of your Thorzine." This statement at least when matched with the peculiar nodding of Bush's head would at least make sense.

Point being, the LIHOP theory is essentially pretty boring. Certainly it is an easier progression for some people from a plain vanilla negligence argument than MIHOP is. After all, the government didn't have to do anything different in an extreme negligence scenario than in a LIHOP scenario. In the former scenario they had some info and were just inept and in LIHOP they had info and sat on it intentionally. It is difficult to prove intent because then you have to get into Bush's mind if he has one or Cheney's mind whatever.

Whereas, if you accept the theories regarding the trade center being blown up or the Pentagon being attacked with a missile, this is not boring. This is not something that can be easily accepted by a pro official story negligence partisan, but at the same time, while its fairly easy to fall back from LIHOP to negligence -- once you believe that the WTC was blown up or the Pentagon attack was a missile...there's no going back unless you change your mind about the underlying physical evidence.

For example when I tell people that the Pentagon was attacked by a missile sometimes they ask me...who shot the missile? I mean heck it's a dumb question, obviously it would be a US government missile... and then they ask, why would they do that? And it all falls back to the utter naivete that the defense establishment of the US government or defense establishments in general in world history have ever existed to defend all the people within a territory or rather simply a tiny elite.

Was United States security hurt by the Pentagon attack? Of course not, they can always rebuild it at taxpayer expense. Who benefitted? The defense establishment, of course, which received the immediate sympathy of all the taxpayers that it rips off every year. Who apparently was hurt by the attacks... well the Taliban in Afghanistan who were driven from power. So why is it so obvious that we were attacked from abroad when the alleged attacked did not benefit and the alleged victims (at least in the case of the Pentagon being attacked as in the defense establishment not the pathetic military pawns who actually died in there) benefitted so much.

Early 9/11 Truth activists and webmasters like Ruppert and Kyle Hence faced a very very hostile climate in which even the slightest criticism of the government was somewhat courageous. But once enough evidence is out and a critic falls behind the curve of legitimate criticism the road to becoming a gate keeper of the status quo is a short one and for Kyle that was inevitable. I don't see so clearly that that has been the case with Ruppert. Ruppert has emphasized areas where we have firmer knowledge but he has never, to my knowledge, attempted to silence and disrupt the efforts of other activists as Kyle has done so effectively.

Now I'm going to get into the meat, tofu or tempeh of Viktor Thorne's critique.

One point Thorne makes is that Ruppert predicted the invasion of Saudi Arabia by the USA which has not yet occurred.

I have a lot of respect for Ruppert as a commentator on international politics. I think the man is intelligent and perceptive. It does not follow that everything he says will come true. True, the USA has not YET invaded Saudi Arabia, maybe it never will and maybe it will... we don't know. However, Ruppert did predict that the USA would invade Iraq NO MATTER HOW GREAT THE PACIFIST OPPOSITION MIGHT BE... and he surely ended up right on that score. And let us recall that on 9/11/2002 it hardly appeared absolutely 100 percent certain that Bush would get away with such a brazen attack against widespread opposition around the world.

Well at least it didn't appear that way to me. The USA had launched only one major war in my lifetime, in the Gulf War and there had been a much clearer causus belli... ie Iraq's invasion of Kuwait regardless of whether one believes they were tricked into the invasion by the US ambassador. It just didn't seem to me that one could be so sure that Bush would get his way. But today the world as laid out by Mike Ruppert 2 years ago has come to pass. It has become clear that the USA powers that be are prepared to lose thousands of troops in Iraq and spend tens of billions of dollars even if Iraq's oil production is no greater today than it was under fact that's not really the point. The point is controlling the oil not pumping it out faster necessarily.

And look today at the strength of the insurgency in Saudi Arabia. Who the hell are these people? Are they getting aid from the CIA? What is clear is that Saudi Arabia is a heck of a lot less stable than it appeared to be back in 2002. And furthermore, there is a huge groundswell of LIHOPers and semi LIHOPers that want to point the finger at Saudi Arabia -- Michael Moore, Craig Unger, perhaps our beloved Greg Palast as well and never at Israel. And this faction has support amongst Democrats in Congress. One could see this mood in the speeches of John Kerry here and there. ie the whole point is we need to be energy independent from Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia bad bad bad, Saudi Arabia human rights violators, Saudi Arabia responsible for 9/11 -- USA, Bush and Israel never responsible for anything.

True we haven't invaded Saudi Arabia, but there certainly seems to be a disturbing liberal faction that would do so, one could imagine a John Kerry or Howard Dean being confronted with a CIA/ Bushbot led attack pinned on the Saudis and then having them launching a good progressive imperialist war with Moveon, George Soros, Ben Cohen, Sheryl Crowe and Michael Moore in tow.

So yes, Ruppert hasn't been vindicated on this particular prediction yet, but simply to put the question in the public spotlight was absolutely crucial and very commendable.

I'm not going to go into the case of Delmar Mike Vreeland which I'm not an expert on. But I will say that Ruppert is correct when he says that the Vreeland case was never a large part of his presentation. I saw Ruppert speak 4 times in late 2002 and so I know that for sure.

Perhaps Ruppert was totally wrong about Vreeland, but as I indicate in my unpublished book on 9/11 media gatekeeping, that old David Corn article which was used to discredit the whole 9/11 truth movement and keep Ruppert and others off Pacifica stations and out of the oligarchy foundation backed pseudo left mass media was one of the most successful blows delivered by defenders of the status quo. In my opinion, the Nation is a shitty paper that would do the world a service by going bankrupt.

Viktor Thorne's arguments about Vreeland are overly conclusory...Just because somone is convicted of something in a US court doesn't mean anything on an ultimate level. Ethel Rosenburg went to the electric chair when the government knew she was not guilty. Julius Rosenburg was a Soviet spy but did not steal A-Bomb secrets and the government knew it. Why do people like Viktor Thorne and David Corn take the judgments of US courts and US jurys for granted?

Certainly Vreeland might be a conman or he might not. I don't know enough to say, but any argument regarding this must be based on a careful weighing of the evidence and a conclusion of a US court can be considered SOME evidence but not final evidence. Ruppert does know alot about covert ops and the biographies of deep cover US agents like Lee Harvey Oswald can be as bizarre as Vreeland. One of my favorite clips from the movie JFK is when the DA guy exclaims, "how is it that the guy can defect to the Soviet Union and then come back and not be arrested." Indeed, Lee Harvey Oswald, a US soldier and alleged leftist, learned Russian, defected to the Soviet Union with high level radar secrets, came back to the USA with the niece of a KGB colonel in tow, was given a job in a defense industry contractor, hob nobbed in the right wing Russian community while hiring unemployed people to hand out left wing fliers, visiting the Cuban embassy and planning to defect to Cuba and visiting the Soviet embassy in Mexico...

That's just not normal behavior for a leftist or a rightist. Very few American leftists defected to the Soviet Union and those that came back didn't start hanging out with right wingers while being active as leftists. I read Edward Jay Epstein's book about the life of Lee Harvey Oswald and it's surreal how you can go through this guy's life and be a reknowned author and never state as Jim Garrison did that this is just not a normal leftist. This is even considering Oswalds bizarre relationship with George De Morenschildt which I consider to perhaps be the smoking gun of the JFK assassination saga.

So anyway, maybe Ruppert screwed up on the Vreeland stuff, but it's simply not the case that Vreeland's story should automatically have been rejected -- more than that I cannot say.

Now I want to talk about population control. Angela D'Urso (who has been a courageous defender of me locally) and many others consider this a touchstone issue. I have argued in the past with LaRouchies and the Socialist Workers Party about the question.

The fact is that the world population is growing out of control. The vast majority of people in the world are young, on child bearing age and the human male penis squirts out an incredible number of spermatazoa...

Yes it is true that a lot of right wing kooks are into the population control issue -- the Bush gang being one (and back in the 60's quite openly until Bush daddy's conversion to Reaganite pro Catholic anti abortion breeding) apparently the Audobon society is controlled by some sinister monarchial elements... so yes there is some convergence here and there between the environmental movement and ruling class eugenics advocates.

It does not follow that anyone who points out the problems of population expansion is automatically a racist. And Viktor Thorn's implication that Ruppert is a racist is pretty nasty and just the kind of thing that would justify Ruppert never appearing on WING TV.

Thorn says
In addition, Ruppert’s horrifying social views are once again exposed by D’Urso. “As for creepiness, get this; Ruppert also wants to inform us that because of ‘peak oil,’ population reduction is a necessity. The only question we have to decide, he told us all at the 911 Inquiry in San Francisco, is whether we want to do it ‘nice or nasty’.”I don’t know about you, but my first reaction to this type of agenda is: WHO THE HELL DOES MIKE RUPPERT THINK HE IS? Who made him an Olympian god that determines who should live and who should die? What we’re delving into here, folks, is pure New World Order treachery – i.e. a Rockefeller-style eugenics/euthanasia nightmare.

--- this is first rate bullshit. Here Ruppert's views are unfairly conflated with ruling class genocidal insanity and not fairly. Look at the sentence,

WHO THE HELL DOES MIKE RUPPERT THINK HE IS? Who made him an Olympian god that determines who should live and who should die?

--- Mike Ruppert, to my knowledge has never advocated killing anyone and to impute these views to him comes very close to libel. Thorn is all pissed off at Ruppert threatening to sue people, so he should take the responsibility to present Ruppert's views as they are.

We need to give Ruppert the benefit of the doubt for a moment. We know it is Rupperts belief that there is no abiotic oil supply to be tapped. We know it is Ruppert's belief that there is no zero point energy and that fusion is not about to happen and that solar and wind energy cannot take the load of the world economy.

He could be wrong. Maybe some miracle fusion process will be discovered tomorrow. Maybe cold fusion already exists and is being covered up by the government. Maybe Maybe Maybe. But one thing is certain, alternative energy sources are not widely available. I like what the Real Goods catalog is doing making solar and wind energy stuff more accessible for American consumers but even there, it's not easy to produce enough solar power to provide the electricity that most of us are used to using. And that's just consumers forgetting about industry.

Ruppert could be wrong about his premise...Science may make a big leap, science may be being covered up -- and then lastly, it may be possible to run an industrial economy -- not with Hummers but some sort of industrial economy on present existing alternative energy sources.

So Ruppert may be exaggerating somewhat that there just are no other alternatives, but then again, he might be right on target. Most Americans could produce food with less artificial power if they were herded at gunpoint like Maoist peasants in the Great Leap Forward -- are they looking forward to doing that? NO WAY MAN...

You have all these Green Party hippies and all that want to eat organic produce and certainly we could produce lots of organic produce with much less power if we utilized muscle energy -- and we could do without most pesticides if we used biological controls and we would be better off with healthier soil... yeah BUT must of us would have to live in the countryside in densely populated communes with rationed food living like Amish.

And that indeed is what the world would be like today if the oil plug is pulled. So maybe Ruppert is wrong about his premise, but he has defended his premise with what appears to me to be very good analysis based on experts like Dale Allen Pfeiffer and he has produced a compelling argument that things just can't go on the way they are going on...

I also talked with an engineer named Bruce McBurney in Canada who claims that we can support a huge world population because of his miracle Carbureator which would burn gasoline much more efficiently and I'm not sure why Barry Zwicker blew this poor guy off... do a google on his HIMAC company. But I said to Bruce, even if we could sustain a huge world population...why would we want to? There are limits -- we aren't just running out of oil we are running out of fresh water, hard woods, land etc...

Also an enormous population is simply a brake on any ability to raise workers wages. A growing population is a growing population of potential scabs. So yes, maybe there is a way to keep the present population by heroic means and maybe there isn't...but inherently this number of humans is a huge strain on the biosphere...

I was driving through the former rainforest in Argentina and the only tres there were farmed Pine Trees...Pine Trees in the friggin rainforest? And it was only when we got to the national protected zone of Iguazu falls that you could really see the native flor and fauna...

Long before we run out of oil we may run out of hard woods. I've heard that half of Cambodia has been chopped down by predatious logging. I've seen it in Oregon, in Argentina and in Vancouver in front of my eyes, mountainsides stripped of native hardwoods.

Now I think Ruppert gets a little naive when he says people should just have a conference as to what to do and the USA should cease invading other countries. The USA is not going to cease invading other countries and there isn't going to be any nice conference. The future is very bleak. The powers that be have too much power to be overthrown and pretty soon we are all going to end up like the people in Fallujah. Alex Jones has shown that we are almost there anyway but look at this clip...

Returning Fallujans will face clampdown
(apparently they are going to get treated almost as badly as I was treated by Kyle at the Citizen's Commission hearings on 9/9/2004)

By Anne Barnard, Globe Staff December 5, 2004
FALLUJAH, Iraq -- The US military is drawing up plans to keep insurgents from regaining control of this battle-scarred city, but returning residents may find that the measures make Fallujah look more like a police state than the democracy they have been promised.
Under the plans, troops would funnel Fallujans to so-called citizen processing centers on the outskirts of the city to compile a database of their identities through DNA testing and retina scans. Residents would receive badges displaying their home addresses that they must wear at all times. Buses would ferry them into the city, where cars, the deadliest tool of suicide bombers, would be banned.

(I think some Green Party people would at least be excited about the no car thing...)

So anyway, this is what we are facing folks and this is why I have been saying for a long time that the only answer is an anti Bush, 9/11 Truth, girl on girl seduction movie that would at least be a good laugh.

But anyway, in my book, Mike Ruppert is no racist and no one has any right to call him that. I personally watched him in a little get together at a humble pizza place in New Haven with an almost entirely African American audience including an ex Black Panther and was truly struck by the warmth of his spirit and how much he cared about communicating his ideas to what was primarily a very humbly educated but enthusiastic crowd.

I believe that if it came down to Mike Ruppert being on a lifeboat with Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, GWBush, and Cheney along with five African Americans from Watts and only supplies sufficient for six people there would be no question as to whom Ruppert would suggest to the African Americans as to whom should be chucked over the side. Limited resources and a ballooning world population is a simple reality and no amount of reverse race baiting can change it.

Thursday, December 02, 2004

The 9/11 Truth Movement Factionalism Pains Me Like a Bris

I'll give you a little synopsis of how I got involved in all this.

On 9/11 I was in Kuaui in Hawaii for the wedding of my roomates daughter. I got back to NYC on the 24th of September. At the time I was working for an enivronmental attorney opposing pesticide spraying in New York City. Then I found out that my boss was becoming a big wheel because he was representing the community groups around ground zero and was on TV all the time. The website that I had starte for him, was getting incredible traffic.
So for the next 5 months until the pressure of finals and the bar exam took over, I was the top legal researcher for the top lawyer representing all the community groups around the trade center. And we worked very closely in conjunction with Congressman Nadler in drafting legislation for disaster regs. I filed the NY State Assembly hearings, I attended the New York City Council Hearing, I attended PTA meetings of Stuyvesant high school...

At the same time I was researching stuff from Rupperts website, synthesizing it with the stuff that we were learning about the toxic dust (I was the ONLY PERSON TO DO THIS until Nick Levis stepped into that vacuum a little...and I was two years ahead of him.)

Around this time, Shadowgovernment television was first getting started with my partner Sterling putting together an intial video with footage of Kyle's press conference in Washington DC. I was in contact with Catherine Austin Fitts sporadically. But other than that I didn't have any contact with the 9.11 researcher community other than the 9.11 toxic dust community.

When Ruppert came to NYC in September of 2002, I only knew about it because of a prominent Green party activist Mitch Cohen sent me one of his spam emails. I attended the Ruppert lecture and despite Ruppert being a bit absurd on a lot of things, I was overall impressed by his sincerity and knowlege base. Walking into the talk I met Guy and Dr. Fazi Khan (whom it turns out went to college with one of my best friends from childhood and Fazi also grew up very very near to me)

Walking out of the event I met Kyle.

Kyle invited me to a meeting at Walker Stage which was truly bizarre...

I walked into Walker Stage and met German researcher and all around madman Nico Haupt... I was just trying to figure out where the meeting was and I didn't know the name of the group, "so I just poked my head in and said does anyone know where the wacky conspiracy meeting is..." and Nico immediately went ballistic screaming "I am sick of everyone calling us wacky..." and I'm like WOOOOO....

so in two minutes I'm in some raging argument with Nico who starts off on his the left is just as bad as the right rant --- sad because people like him are obviously on the left whether or not they care to admit it as the right would kick his right out of the country -- then we have the meeting which Nick Levis ends up lamely chairing as he always seems to end up chairing every meeting. And because Nick couldn't chair a meeting to save his life, Kyle and Nico spend the whole night screaming at each other. Sterling was there and promptly left leaving

Kyle (who doesn't life in NYC)
Guy (who dropped out shortly afterwards)
Adam Hurter (who lives in CT)
some grad student named Ann (who dropped out immediately)
a guy and a girl from the green party (who dropped out immediately)
and Nick Levis (who went promptly back to Germany)

I am including all these parentheses, because it shows clearly that between September 11, 2002 and mid summer of 2003, all the people in parentheses weren't even in NYC. All the people who organized the Ruppert lecture in 2002 never did ANYTHING afterwards. NOTHING. Never showed up to another meeting after the one at Walker. Nick was in Germany, Kyle was very rarely if ever in NYC. Adam Hurter was in CT, Dr. Fazi Khan really works as a doctor and doesn't have alot of time.

None of these people did anything after that meeting. NOTHING. Slice it, Dice it, do whatever you want with it, that's the true history of the 9/11 movement in New York City. For those 8 months, It was only Nico, Sterling and myself and of the three, I did 80% of the activism that actually got anywhere -- Sterling did the video editing (the man almost never leaves his house) -- and Nico did Nico stuff...pissing everyone off and researching all sorts of interesting things. Nico is not an organizer although he is an activist of sorts.

Somehow during this period some people had some idea that Nick Levis was the head of things in New York City... what the fuck? Not only was he not here, he didn't even answer emails after awhile.

So then what happened is that Kyle and Nick show up here in the summer of 2003 and declare an older Indian lady with some strong connections on the left and a radio show on WBAI to be the leader of the group locally.

She organized three meetings. On at a friends house in which a whole bunch of people were invited that ended up doing precisely NOTHING. Then there was a meeting at Judson church where alot of people regrouped...

Adam Hurter was there
John Judge
Webster Tarpley
Sanders Hicks
my friend Dana from the Green Party and
that Indian lady whose name escapes me at the moment

and they all gabbed on about bullshit for hours because none of them had done anything to build anything in New York City and Sterling and I shot a bunch of footage...

And then you had the 9/11/2003 event at Riverside... In which Kyle and the Indian lady had completely maneuvered me out of the group. They used the combined resources of Riverside Church and WBAI to put on this huge weekend long event. And I do have to say that they did a decent job of getting a lot of people in front of a lot of interesting speakers...but again, they were not building a local activist group just an event..

And because the star of the event, Amy Goodman, is a fierce opponent of the 9/11 truth movement and you also had other of our enemies like William Rivers Pitt speaking, it was just outrageous to me that I wasn't asked to speak at all. That's when Michael Kane who has become such a big contributor to Ruppert, 9/11 activism and Shadowgovernment Television appeared on the scene -- I only had been active virtually EVERY DAY since 9/24/2001, almost two years when he showed up.

There was then another event in Long Island that Michael organized with Nicholas and Nico and I went there and they absolutely wouldn't allowed me to say a word.

Well, I should add that at the 9/11/2003 Riverside meeting I wasn't even allowed to speak AT AN OPEN MIC SESSION. I was actually gagged after waiting over an hour to speak online... this is where I met Andrea Psoras who was standing right behind me and witnessed it... None of the people who controlled the microphone had done anything ever to promote 9/11 truth in NYC.

After that Long Island meeting I quit the movement and concentrated on SGTV representing us out in Sundance Film festival and then this Spring there was an entire new gang of newbies like Les Jamieson thinks the local 9.11 movement is his personal property. Nick Levis was back in town getting his salary from David Kubiak. Adam Hurter popped up various times also being bank rolled by David Kubiak or so it seems...

And this is when 9/ started to call itself "a leading coalition" or some BS like that..

I missed San Fran conference because I was down in Argentina. But I went to the Toronto conference with Barrie Zwicker which in my opinion was very very badly organized. Many good speakers, very small audience, ticket prices way to high. Kyle launched an absurd slander against me in a big meeting chaired by Ian Woods of Global Outlook when I demanded that there be some procedure as to who gets to speak when. Again this was totally outrageous, the guy says "this is how Rabbi Philo acts in NYC..." Precisely...since Kyle is a man who has to live off the money that he raises from wealthy donors the idea that he or Nick won't be chairing every single meeting is anathema to him. And yes I always demand democratic producedures which has basically resulted in my ostracism from the so called movement which doesn't even exist really.

Kyle also told Michel Chossodovsky to shut up when Chossodovsky started talking about John Gray and Gray's contribution (monetary) to the movement. And what was clear to me in Toronto was that Gray bought his way onto the Sunday panel which was bizarre because his comments were utterly delirious. And I started to realize there was something very dark going on in terms of Barrie Zwicker being an exceptionally good man but the way he organized that conference beheld him to money people like Gray when really so much money was just wasted in Toronto.

And everyone in Toronto knew that Nick was the leader in New York, when the man had never down anything in New York other than beg me to live in my house. The Indian lady had dropped out, and she and Kyle's main lasting contribution was driving me out of the movement.

And then came the so called Summer of Truth whereby Nick or Kyle or somebody had hooked up with Jimmy Walters, Mr. Moneybags... and so all of a sudden these guys are able to do a lot of printing and hand out free tshirts and pay people bribes to hand out fliers for them. And I don't know whether Kyle got his money for the 9/9/2001 event at the Symphony Space from Jimmy Walters or someone else, but he had the temerity for the first time to actually KICK ME OUT PHYSICALLY of the event not even allowing me to sell my tshirts when Gabriel Day was allowed to vend. And this is despite that I was invited by Nick Levis and was accompanied by Michael Kane who supposedly was the local chair of the local 9/11 truth...

And I talked to Barrie Zwicker and Cynthia McKinney and Mike Ruppert when they came out of the event about what had happened, but that night I hooked up with a pretty hot girl who also walked out of the event and she's been in my apartment ever since so that had little by little distracted me from any further activism...

And then there was 9/11/2004 Jimmy Walters night when he had this thug security guards expel Nick Levis and Nico from the event along maybe with some other people. EXTRAORDINARILY I was not kicked out and Kyle was standing there all smarmy as usual...and I was like, how could Kyle let his flunky Nick get kicked out without saying a word....and of course Nick hates it when I call him Kyle's flunky, (and maybe that's the evidence that he isn't who knows?)

In any case, all through these weeks I was saying to myself...just wait as soon as the election is over, Jimmy Walters money will dry up and all these people will become politically inactive again...and of course I think that night Jimmy Walters basically decided to just do his own thing...maybe with Eric Hufschmid and since the election, I don't get virtually any 9/11 emails any more...which is funny because if the 9/11 truth movement's political goal was to get Kerry would be ironic since Kerry was totally silent about all that stuff and of course he didn't get elected. But I think implicitly the frenetic activity around the Republican National Convention was really all about the 9/11 truth movement trying to hitch a ride on Kerry.

So anyway...this is the story of my 9/11 activism.

But I'll say this... political movements who kick out their most active and dedicated cadre will ultimately crumble and that was pretty apparent when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991... The 9/11 Truth movement was tremendously damaged in mid 2003 when they replaced me with that Indian lady had their big splash at Riverside and then had to completely reorganize in 2004 (which was done really just to be a tail of the Democrats and perhaps syphon money from Jimmy Walters and David Kubiak.) Its a very dangerous thing when people who are getting salaries from out of town money are considered automatically to be the leading activists and that justifies not having democratic procedures at meetings.

I think a lot of people thought oh...Jimmy Walters he's spending all this money now we are going to be big and strong...but really that money was used to destroy activism, not really build a group but just pay for the grand ballroom and whatever...hand out expensive four color process tshirts... big whup... John Gray's money in Toronto...what use was rent Convocation Hall and then have 1000!!!!!!!!! empty seats because the tickets were 60 Canadian dollars a day and almost no one paid.