Could someone please tell me what's happened to Ruppert and why he won't play with the team? Thanks

I just re-read "Report from Ground Zero" and there are several points that don't square with what is known about 9/11. The most obvious is where one of the fire fighters says that all 47 stories of WTC7 were in flames at the time of its collapse. This is manifestly not the case, as we know from video and still photos. It's an interesting read and Dennis Smith's personal closeness to the fire fighters is really quite moving. Having said that, I'd like to know what those same men say today.

I just listened to the GunsandButter Griffin MP3 posted further down the main page... good interview.

He goes over the Oral Testimonies of Firemen, etc., fairly extensively.

Incredible, suppressed information. If you are new to all of this, I highly recommend it.

I'm no physics major but didnt the WTC essencially have a hollowed type center?so if a plane slammed into the building and went in and there was the enivetable explosion I imagine that would send a blast of air and what have you DOWN the center where I am sure it would then spead out up..sideways..

besides,you guys seem to imagine a big plane crash into a building would be minor.

It takes weeks to wire a building to blow. You'd figure at least a couple of the 50000 people working at the WTC were not part of the Eeeeevil Jewish-Neocon cabal and would have blown the wistle on the whole thing....

A President can't even keep secret a BJ in his office and you guys expect us to beleive this sort of conspiracy?

This 'hollowed center' actually consisted of 47 steel core columns, no government coverup propaganda is gonna fly here.

Additionally, all the elevator shafts were hermetically sealed to prevent any "chimney" affect in the event of a fire.

Seeing how the fire did not spread from the initial impact location, I'd say this design did its job.

THATS a great point Flanstein. also,
there is no way a conspiracy of this size and the number of people involved wouldnt have fallen apart what with all the technology and normal secutity measures that exist as normal operations of american life.

no way any american high level group could have pulled this off what with all the prep and computer networking needed to stage and align everything and leave no trace.

radar controllers,demolition people going into buildings,the brainwashing aspect. it makes sense why in the news they only want to talk about the WTC.

they know what would happen if they started in with the brainwashing angles.

Venezuelan Government To Launch International 9/11 Investigation
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/310306launchinvestigation.htm

Unless of course it's a truth-seeker conspiracy to keep the REAL story from the masses...giggle...

Glenn:

Sibel Edwards tried to talk...

In this country in this day and age, it is considered "Anti-American" to question, or dissent.

Flanstein:

I think it would take at most 30 people in the highest offices of administration and military.

I would look at who was promoted and who gained the most from this event.

Remember Flainstein:
All that would've had to happen would be to allow the events to unfold, not to actually plan them.
Many believe in the "LIHOP" Let It Happen On Purpose theory.

This theory states the gov't and military had ample warning and foreknowledge regarding KSM/OBL's "plan" for this event and failed to act accordingly in order to justify the actions that have been playing out since 9/11/2001, actions that are eerily similar to the document "Rebuilding America's Defenses" by the Project for a New American Century

And as far as the explosives, keep in mind that there was an attack on WTC in 1993 in which FBI agents were taped pushing the fallguy to use real explosives and "let the bombing go through". Many believe that explosives could've been placed in these buildings after the first attack, to "guarantee" success next time. Others believe that high-tech explosives (not standard demolition stuff) were used during the "shutdowns" that occured weeks before 9/11/2001, in which power (including security surveillance) was shut off and the people evacuated, giving whoever was in that area free reign.

I am just providing you with information, I am not trying to tell you what the TRUTH is.

I'm glad at least you are asking some valid questions now, and not resorting to insults.

Seems like the 9/11 Truth Movement lost Mike Ruppert. Or maybe, he lost the movement. Either way, it's a real shame.

Glenn:

WTC 1 and 2 had 47 core columns. The "hollow center" idea came out of the 9/11 (C)omission report. Search for "47" in this article: http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html

Normal security measures would have prevented it? What if you shut off the power in the top floors, remove bomb sniffing dogs the week before 9/11, have your brother Marvin Bush running the building security, order that plane intercept orders have to come from the vice president, run several war games on the day of the attack involving injecting fake aircraft into air traffic control screens and sending several F-16s up to Canada, and then scramble F-16s to intercept from bases miles away (traveling at 1/3 top speed) instead of the closest airbases that were ~10 miles away?

Does that sound like "normal security measures?"

(BTW, this is all documented. None of it is hypothesizing.)

has anyone seen this???

Venezuelan Government To Launch International 9/11 Investigation
Truth crusaders Walter and Rodriguez to appear on Hugo Chavez's weekly TV broadcast

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/310306launchinvestigation...

All it would take to pull it off is Dick Cheney (who ordered NORAD to stand down and potentially organized the war games), some security guys at the WTC, a couple pilots (or real hijackings with real hijackers), a team of (military?) engineers specializing in explosives, and a task force from the CIA or other covert organization.

That's not infeasible to accomplish without anyone talking.

benthere:

nice post.

I dont know much about Ruppert but didn't a friend recently die from 2 self-inflicted gun shot wounds to the head? Perhaps he had a change of heart.

anon:

This link is Michael Ruppert's 2 hour presentation on gov't and 911 and other things: november 2001

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8797525979024486145&q=ruppert&pl...

This one is the 18 minutes that cover the Timeline of 911

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8715284217141358195&q=ruppert&p...

DHS,

regarding 911hijacker:

that's a nice film you put together.

I'd like to get video clips of Bush Sr and Gary Hart's NWO comments individually. Did you download them from a site somewhere?

Flanstein, I posted this in the last thread to another person who thought the crimes would have to involve thousands.. read over it:

glenn,

you may be interested in reading Ruppert's book on 9/11.. in his book he points the finger at just a few public officials.. a basic synopsis for his simple explanation is that in May of 2001, by presidential order, Cheney was handed direct control of all wargame and drill operations.. there were 6 wargames on the morning of 9/11, some of them live fly excercises which mobilized jets to canada, and inserted false blips into norad radar as part of the coinciding wargames.. these wargames included hijackings, and planes crashing into buildings, a huge coincidence, and a big confusion for those at NORAD, etc.

another simple example is the military administrative order of June 1, 2001, which formally included the Secretary of Defense in any decision to authorize the interception of errant civilian planes by military jets.. this removed the abilities for local norad officials to scramble jets (which were done successfully 67 times in the year before 9/11) and put the sole control into Rumsfeld's hands, who stayed in a meeting throughout the attacks.. the process of scramble orders was then changed back to previous standards after 9/11.

not everyone believes in a massive conspiracy involving 100s or 1000s of people, some do, but others dont. it is quite easy to point out scenarios in which fewer than 5-10 key political or military figures facilitated the events of 9/11 happening.. i just want to make sure that you arent assuming that everyone believes in a massive conspiracy..

DHS,

thanks for hunting up that info on Flight 93 (SS death records, date of the webpage creation, etc)! It's amazing how much info is out there

I see that there are a few people wondering about Michael Ruppert, so I took a look at his website: www.copvcia.com and found this :

HEY CHARLIE SHEEN, WAKE UP!

There Are Good Reasons Why 9/11 is Having Its 15 Minutes of Fame Now – Look at Who’s In the Spotlight

by
Michael C. Ruppert

© Copyright 2006, From The Wilderness Publications, www.fromthewilderness.com. All Rights Reserved. May be reprinted, distributed or posted on an Internet web site for non-profit purposes only.

March 30, 2006 1300 PST (FTW) - ASHLAND - Michel Chossudovsky, Paul Thompson, Nafeez Ahmed, Mike Ruppert, Dan Hopsicker; these are the people who were front and center with credible, original, and groundbreaking research and investigation in the months following the attacks of September 11th. For the next three years, almost every major, incontrovertible piece of evidence showing government complicity in the attacks originated from this group. Add to this list David Ray Griffin, the late-comer author of two excellent books deconstructing the US government’s “explanation” of the attacks, and you have encompassed five of the best-selling books about 9/11—books which thoroughly and reliably discredit the US government. It is also from these scholars, investigative journalists, and researchers that almost every now-standard, unanswered issue debunking the government’s position originated.

There are other writers and researchers who made serious contributions to our knowledge of 9/11, but these five were there “firstest with the mostest.”

It is also no coincidence that these are the journalists and authors who have been universally ignored by the mainstream media. Why? Because their research doesnÂ’t fall over with the first puff of opposing wind. ThatÂ’s a lesson that the latest flock of 9/11 celebrities needs to be prepared for.

So before getting all excited about Charlie SheenÂ’s recent CNN appearance expressing doubts about the official version, followed by Ed AsnerÂ’s attempt to back Sheen up, it might be wise to ask why none of the pioneers made it to CNNÂ’s airwaves over this last week. The immediate follow-up question is why CNN would suddenly grant airplay to a new host of characters when their studios have been off-limits to credible 9/11 research for four years.

Watching all the recent hullabaloo about Alex Jones interviewing Charlie Sheen and then both making the “big time” on CNN, you’d think that questions about the attacks, now four-and-a-half years old, were new news. In this latest media “frenzy” (yawn) which has Alex Jones parading like a puffed-up superstar version of Edward R. Murrow and a slightly-deranged, multi-pierced, obviously unstable, researcher named Nico Haupt wrapping himself in an ill-fitting label as the new “avant garde” of the 9/11 movement, 9/11 truth has sadly and predictably rounded a corner from Solid Avenue onto Surreal Boulevard. Add to this list of movement “leaders” Webster Tarpley, a former senior researcher for Lyndon LaRouche—whose intellectual capacity far exceeds his street smarts—and you have what the world now “sees” as the only real threats to the US version of events.

If the Charlie Sheen episode gets any more traction, the American public and the world will soon see these “public threats” conveniently, ruthlessly, and easily dismissed, discarded, and disgraced. Sheen may get a little adverse publicity or may lose a juicy part, but his future is not threatened. He’s a talented actor who will always find work in Hollywood. He risks nothing.

But I think I can safely speak for Chossudovsky, Thompson, Ahmed, and even Hopsicker when I say that all of us are glad not to be involved in this farce that is now posing as the only solid reason to disbelieve the US government and the so-called Independent Commission on 9/11.

This was all predictable. This has all happened before. The pattern hasnÂ’t changed much in 40 years.

yes, that's why I question his intentions.

You guys use too many words. Someone just tell me how WTC7 fell straight done into a neat little pile. The official 911 report doesn't mention it.

WTC towers had 44ft of steel in the core and was built to withstand the Cat 5 hurricane that hits the area every hundred years.

Does anyone know if salt water is good for the transit system?

Apart from the building's core not being hollow, wasn't the core extra-super-reinforced up to about the 80th floor? Read that somewhere, but can't remember where. Maybe Flanstein and Glenn could do a little research, they seem to excel in getting to the core of things (Ehm yes, pun intended).

CB:

I didn't make that video, if I did it would've had better spelling and grammar.

The video's author is unknown, I got it from plaguepuppy's site and it is available at
http://www.question911.com/links.php

ok, thanks

anonymous,

> zuco said,
>
> "What makes you think you need to include police, firemen,
> government officials and media people in planning 911?"
>
> What makes you think you can claim a conspiracy without
> providing physical evidence?

What makes you think I'm doing so?

I don't know why you quoted what you quoted and addressed me on a topic I haven't commented on, but you will never hear me talking about 'upward rushing winds' as an argument, let alone as factual evidence, for a coverup of the events of september 11th.

I am aware, and agree with you and NL, that there are a lot of people in the '911 truth movement' that are way too eager to grasp just about anything that they stumble upon, no matter what the source or its credentials. That's why I myself am always open to criticism and skepticism, and I hope 911blogger is too.

However.

In one of your posts in this particular thread, regarding controlled demolition, you say "Yet there is no evidence of explosives." Reading through other comment threads, the alleged lack of evidence seems to be one of you're biggest arguments, if not the only one. Well, let me tell you a couple of things.

There is no evidence that Osama bin Laden and said 19 hijackers pulled this whole thing off, whether they pulled it off unaided, or pulled it off altogether. You may think there is, because of the official report, but when you look at the facts (passengers lists, hijackers' identities, Osama's repeated denial) AND the circumstancial evidence (a list of the alleged perpetraters after only two days, Osama's alleged confession tape that holds no credibility (not because the guy merely just doesn't look like him, and the quality of the tape is so poor you cannot even see his lips saying what he allegedly says, but the fact that the arab-english translation is faulty, and the complete lack of logic for it - were it indeed Osama he would've surely been proud of his acts and taken complete responsability directly after 911)), you might conclude the whole thing is an unsubstantiated claim from the Pentagon.

There is no evidence that building 7 came down from damage caused by tower 1's collapse and the fires on several floors. You might think there is, because of official reports, but the way it collapsed (symetrically, totally, leaving only a footprint of crumbles dust) and the lack of support for that claim (no mention in the offical 911 report, not a word from NIST) along with yet again circumstancial evidence (a building with such powerful, and in terms of national security crucial tenants, collapsing on the day of the attacks would surely deserve more attention from any research commision) makes it yet another unsupported one.

There is no evidence that flight 77 hit the pentagon. You might think there is, you know, the official story and all that, but when you look at all the -contradictory- facts (the plane allegedly vaporized yet 98% of passengers DNA has been recovered, the contradicting eye witness reports) along with the circumstancial evidence (the flight path being completely illogical and physically improbable, resulting in a minimal amount of casualties and structural damage), and take into account that possible evidence (security camera footage from different angles) is being withheld to this very day, there is simple no strong case for it.

If you, anonymous, think that my assumptions are incorrect, or think that you have strong, convincing evidence that counters my above claims, please enlighten me. I think you will a have a hard time at it though, as several governmental institutes with multi-million and even multi-billion budgets have yet failed to do so. And don't worry, I checked with 911myths.com, which -surprisingly- is just as sloppy, suggestive, incomplete and inadequate on these points as some advocates of the more outlandish 911 theories out there are on their subjects.

What I'm trying to say is that there is no solid evidence to support the official explanation of what exactly happened on september 11th. Yet I don't ever hear you complain about that. A lot of people do, but all you can say is "there is no evidence". You seem to portray the entire discussion as irrelevant, for its lack of hard, cold facts. And while I disagree, let me present you some facts you might want to respond to.

It is a fact attacks took place on september 11th. We've all seen it on TV, and a lot of people have witnessed it in person.
It is a fact these events have brought forth a cultural, political and social change throughout the entire world, but most notably in the US.
It is a fact these events happened to fit several political agendas, most notably those of the PNAC.
It is a fact these events is what allowed the US to invade Afghanistan and Iraq.
It is a fact these events allowed the Patriot Act to pass.
It is a fact the physics of the collapses of the three WTC towers and the impact of flight 77 have never before been seen, and cannot be recreated in scientific computer simulations.
It is a fact NORAD ran several exercises that day, leaving the US exceptionally vulnerable, in spite of several high level security warnings weeks and months before september 11th.
It is a fact Condolleezza Rice and others lied about knowledge of the possibility of such an event taking place (i.e. crashing passenger aircraft into buildings).
It is a fact George W Bush was not immediately rushed into security when one of the hijacked planes was still in the air.
It is a fact George W Bush opposed the creation of an independent commission to investigate the attacks.
It is a fact George W Bush refused to publicly testify to that commission, and refused to take an oath.
It is a fact Cheney's Halliburton has been awarded roughly 50% (about 13 billion dollars) of all Iraqi contractor deals.
It is a fact both investigations on the insider trading on put options as well as the anthrax attacks have never been completed.

I could go on quite some time, because there is so much more, but I'll leave it here. I just wrote down some points that came to mind, but if you're interested, there are litteraly hundreds of people who have published more thorough and extensive reports on this, supported with facts, theories and/or media references. Besides, I'm not even American, which makes it quite a task for me to elaborate like this in a language that is not my native tongue. Also, I have other things to do than to discuss the fairly obvious with narrowminded people like yourself, who fail to respond to more or less valid points made on this board with something other than stating it is not factual, or ignoring it altogether.

Still, there's one last this I'd like you to ask. Say all of this arab boxcutter wielding flight simulator enthousiasts bypassing the worlds biggest military authority in spite of several high level advance warnings is true. Say, the official story is, however improbable, true. Osama and his trigger happy boyscout cubs attacked the US and managed to hit three out of four targets. Three steel skyscrapers collapsed to nothing but rubble and dust, with one of the buildings not even being hit by aircraft. Why on earth would you not investigate the possibility of explosives? Surely arab terrorist have much more experience in that field, compared to operating passenger aircraft, so why not investigate? It would be something you would like to know, wouldn't it?
I guess for some it would not.

> The famous question you guys never ask yourselves
> or want to reveal is: another investigation by whom?

Well, not by a bunch of corporate and political friends of the current US government. See, that's not what people call 'independent'. What were your thoughts, anonymous, when they proposed Kissinger to lead the investigation?

Nicely stated Zuco ( both above posts)!

Once again, we do not have to decide right now who could truly independently investigate this. But we do know a lot of people and organizations that could not.

But even before any investigation, why not release the evidence requested in the st911.org petition? That was the second part of my question which you have failed to answer or resond to.

Give me a good reason and I'll consider it.

zuco wrote,

"Well, not by a bunch of corporate and political friends of the current US government. See, that's not what people call 'independent'. What were your thoughts, anonymous, when they proposed Kissinger to lead the investigation?"

Don't dodge the question, zuco.

WHO is going to do another physical and scientific investigation of the tower collapses and the Pentagon - on which the WHOLE 9/11 conspiracy theory depends - if NOT independent physicists, sctructural engineers, and foresinc scientists - the very ones who have already done so?

You can't do it backwards, zuco. You have to justify another investigation and you're going nowhere until you demonstrate scientifically that the conclusions of NIST and the many other investigations are wrong.

Unless you and your fellow 9/11 conspiracy buddies does this, you'll continue to live in a fantasy world.

Honestly, anonymous, you want me to say who should be on a new investigative commission? You do know I'm not american, don't you?

I am willing to still answer your question though, albeit in part. I think you should have 5 (international?) universities that should investigate the collapse of the three WTC buildings and the impacts of flights 77 and 93. They should at least provide scientific computer simulations of what technically happened on all those occasions, and a seperate scientific (international?) committee should evaluate those reports.

I agree such an investigation should on forehand be justified by scientific reports and not by mere hypothesises, but I understand people are working on that. I do want to remind you though that the technical aspects aren't the only issues that deserve more attention.