Michael Ruppert Weighs in on Recent Reynolds' Comments

This is yet another follow up to this article..

Comment on the Morgan Reynolds "Demolition" Story
Michael Ruppert weighs in on the recent comments by former Bush aide..

While very encouraging, the deeper meanings behind these statements by Morgan Reynolds have yet to be revealed. Reynolds is not an engineer or scientist, and while he is a former Bush Administration official, the practical reality is that these statements are a long, long way from criminal indictments, prosecution, trial and conviction.

I offer praise to those diehard activist researchers who have never let go of their building collapse investigations, arguments and public activism. This is an achievement for them. But, in fairness, while it is an encouraging development, it is a long way from a public debate where the government has to respond to Reynolds. We all recall the hatchet job done by Popular Mechanics on physical evidence (carried out exactly as I said it would be). It is even further from the point where the major media musters a horde of well-paid engineers to discredit Reynolds publicly because he is an economist or send them into court in droves to confuse a jury which has not been empanelled in a case which has never been brought to trial. Such distractions are called Red Herrings. They inspire false hope.

I am sitting with a well-earned attitude to see what shakes out of this. Summed up, it is: "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is." As I have said many times, I have no doubt that the WTC buildings were brought down by controlled demolitions; especially WTC 7. I corrected and retracted a story we (re)published just days after 9/11 a long time ago that said otherwise.

Ruppert is a good guy, even

Ruppert is a good guy, even if he is over attached to 'Peak Oil'. You can read my comments wrt his fascination with 'Peak Oil' at http://rabbiphilo.blogspot.com/2004/12/oy-veh-ruppert-unmasked-in-partia... .
However, I believe his bitter experience with physical evidence, along with his policeman mind-set, has colored his judgement. I'm skeptical, along with Ruppert, that we will obtain justice through the courts. They are probably too corrupt for that, and where are we going to find another Jim Garrison, in these days of scarce moral courage? If your only criteria for the usefulness of evidence is "what evidence will better convince a jury of government complicity?", then even if Ruppert is correct, it doesn't matter since we aren't likely to get any satisfaction from the courts.
However, the task of convincing the public at large that 911 was an inside job is far from over. And if it became widely KNOWN (not just believed) that 911 was aided and abetted at the highest levels of government, then, possibly, a somnambulent public might become politically active and force through reforms. AND REFORMS, TO BE SURE, ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN JUSTICE. I wish somebody could get that point across to Ruppert. Did Martin Luther King change our society by throwing President Johnson in jail? Or by shaming the government into at least trying to make a more equal society?
For that to happen, a tome like "Rubicon" is probably inferior to an honest scientific investigation. Furthermore, both of these will not likely have a significant effect unless they are "made real" via a film like "JFK" or a widely available documentary like "Farenheit 911".
So, if Oliver Stone should rise to the task, I certainly hope his screenplay accurately relays the main points of physics which contradict the FEMA fairy tale of the WTC collapse, as well as many of the "means, motives and opportunity" points of fact so richly detailed in "Rubicon".

sl, thanks for the recent


thanks for the recent comments, good stuff.