Mike Ruppert: Anti or pro the 9/11 Truth Movement?

[David Rose]

Sometime ago (March 2010) I helped organise the first screening of Mike Ruppert's "Collapse" in the UK. Clearly Mike Ruppert is a legend in the 9/11 Truth Movement. He delivered the classic lecture at Portland University in November 2001 .... yes November 2001! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQR2z4YCzDw Mike also wrote "Crossing the Rubicon", which makes a very convincing case that the offcial story of 9/11 is not true, using a legal/detective method that avoids the visual deconstruction of "Loose Change" etc. (indeed Mike thinks that visual analysis a la the Zapruder film is a waste of time: http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/112603_kennedy.html). Sometime ago Mike "divorced" himself from the 9/11 Truth Movement, declaring it a "circus". He now campaigns about Peak Oil and the immanent collapse of industrial civilization.

The point of my post is to pose the question: Why has Mike Ruppert "dumped" 9/11 Truth and indeed now actively campaigns to stop people even talking about 9/11. I include a Facebook dialogue between Mike Ruppert, myself, David Nye and others from a few months ago.

The dialogue starts with a discussion of Colonel Anthony Shaffer's appearance on Fox News http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9DQ4EpgYzY to promote his new book ... and the well known debate over operation Abel Danger.

As I make the case on Facebook that its still worth investigating 9/11 and campaigning for 9/11 Truth, Mike Ruppert basically tells me to shut up and drop 9/11 Truth:

The conversation begins with this from Mike to me:

"Dude, I rote abook about it called "Crossing the Rubicon". You might try reading it. I don't have time to rewrite it for you now. In case you haven't noticed, human industrial civilization is collapsing all around you."

... then getting more hostile ....

"Empirical evidence, dude, is not legally admissible evidence without the actual physical evidence"

... and finally moving to "cutting me off" .... for continuing to make the case that its still worth campaignign for 9/11 Truth and there is still evidence that the official story of 9/11 is a lie:

"That's it. You're cut off. Chain of custody cannot be proven. therefore it is not admissible. -- I'm the detective. Have a nice life."

My question is this: Is Mike Ruppert right? Is researching/campiging about 9/11 Truth a waste of time? Should we all now concentrate on peak oil and collapse http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAyHIOg5aHk

... or has Mike Ruppert been "got at" and silenced by "them"?

Any ideas people? .... becaseue all this just does not make sense to me.

peace

David

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>

Facebook

"US Military Intelligence officers now say 9/11 was an inside job".
9/11 Report Is A Cover Up From Start To Finish!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9DQ4EpgYzY

Yesterday at 13:37 • Comment • LikeUnlike • View feedback (22)Hide feedback (22) • Share
•
•
•
o
David Nye: Nope. I don't know what you got from that video, Dave, but Scheuer is talking about "intelligence failures" and playing the limited hangout game. Shaffer is rocking the boat, but not swamping it. The impression Scheuer is attempting to convey is that the 9/11 Commission was a whitewash to hide incompetence and negligence, nothing more.
Yesterday at 14:54 • LikeUnlike • 1 personChristopher Stephen Hodgson likes this.
o
Jinger Dixon: I see Fox "News" dangling shiny objects. Don't look. I suspect Fox will be disclosing the existence of aliens from outer space very soon. Anything to keep you distracted from the implosion of America, the latest "inside job".
Yesterday at 15:51 • LikeUnlike
o
Dave Rose
David: Shaffer's public testimony at the very least conforms the LIHOP theory & that the 9/11 commission was a deliberate cover up. Able Danger flagged up the presence of AQ cells in the US pre-9/11and were told to shut up and go away. Same... with the FBI. Intent is always hard to prove in such official/institutional conspiracies but if at least two US security agencies tell the CIA that there are terrorists in the US and are told to shut up and go away, what can any reasonable person infer from the CIA's pattern of behavior? That the CIA are stupid or that some part of the CIA wanted to let 9/11 happen (on purpose)?

Jinger: all MSM is propaganda. You've always got to 'read between the lines'. Fox News is no different. Do you really trust Katie Couric
any more?See more
Yesterday at 18:47 • LikeUnlike
o
Michael C. Ruppert Sorry Dave Rose -- you're about five years behind the curve here. Listen to dave Nye.
Yesterday at 19:43 • LikeUnlike
o
Dave Rose OK Mike: what IS the current thinking on 9/11? How (and to whom) do you attribute blame? What evidence do you use? What arguments do you make against continued war in Afghanistan and Pakistan etc etc ... all still justified by 9/11? Shaffer has credibility and credible evidence. Why not use it to make a case to those who still believe in the official story?
Yesterday at 19:54 • LikeUnlike
o
Michael C. Ruppert Dude, I rote abook about it called "Crossing the Rubicon". You might try reading it. I don't have time to rewrite it for you now. In case you haven't noticed, human industrial civilization is collapsing all around you.
Yesterday at 20:00 • LikeUnlike • 2 peopleLoading...
o
Justin Edwards CTR and "The Truth and Lies of 9/11" were the ultimate wake-up call for me. Keep ropin' Mike! Yee HAW!
Yesterday at 20:15 • LikeUnlike • 1 personLoading...
o
Dave Rose
Mike: I've read "Crossing the Rubicon" and its a great book that shows Bush/Cheney had the means, motive and opportunity but unfortunately it does not offer evidence that would persuade a jury to send them to jail (or better still execution...). In the meantime other researchers do offer empirical evidence: Jones (nanothermite), Gage (engineering theory of collapse) to name a few. If ex-military intel officers (like Shaffer) also put their first person eye witness evidence into the public domain and it also adds to proof of Bush/Cheney's guilt ... then why do you want to ignore his testimony? This is not rational (just as it is not rational to belive that a 9/11 truther video, cut by a 21 year old on his laptop at home, is a high budget dissinformation film funded by the CIA). Yes, human industrial civilization is collapsing all around us and as long as mass populations in the West believe in the 9/11 official story and continue to support irrational wars in Afh/Pak etc, there is no hope of getting humanity to adopt rational, sustainable behavior. 9/11 is the key event of the 21st century and its interpretation will determine the course of the 21st century. Period.See more
Yesterday at 20:18 • LikeUnlike
o
Justin Edwards I think we have to deal with the fact that 9/11 ran us the * over, and ...there's really nothing we can do but prepare for the future.
Yesterday at 20:24 • LikeUnlike
o
Michael C. Ruppert Empirical evidence, dude, is not legally admissible evidence without the actual physical evidence... which was destroyed. Everything I wrote is both legally admissible and can prove guilt. This, however, is the last second of precious time I waste with you. Too many people are looking to me for more urgent information on now to survive what is coming. You are free to be eaten by the bear, but I will not let you slow the rest of us down or divert us from lifeboat building.
Yesterday at 20:24 • LikeUnlike • 4 peopleLoading...
o
David Nye
To a skeptic, Shaffer has evidence of an "intelligence failure" caused by inter-services bickering prior to 9/11 and an attempt to cover it up afterwards. He doesn't explicitly argue for anything more, and Scheuer works to make sure people ...get the right idea. It's very well stage-managed.

Further, I've suspected there was something rotten about the whole Shaffer book-censorship deal from the start. It would have been patently obvious in advance that "attempting to suppress" this information would (1) backfire, calling attention to the book in general and the redacted information in particular, and (2) make Shaffer a minor celebrity worthy of media limelight. Fait accompli on both counts. The leaks came right on schedule. Several publications (including, I understand, The Army Times!) published side-by-side comparisons of pages from the original ("classified") and redacted versions. And then you get the guy parading around the TV shows spouting the next fallback position.

That's what *I* see. But more importantly, I see the next shoe starting to drop in the financial sector. Better take cover.See more
Yesterday at 20:37 • LikeUnlike
o
Dave Rose
Mike, read 'Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe' by Steven Jones for a description of the physical chain of evidence (linking the dust back to WTC) and proving the presence of explosives... by peer reviewed scientific analysis.Video of the collapse of WTC-7 is material evidence of controlled demolition (because the photographic evidence has no other rational explanation, other than controlled demolition). As long as the majority of people still believe in the official 9/11 story, they will continue to be NWO controlled Zombies and threaten all of us, who want to build lifeboats. There is no escape from 'them', from society.See more
Yesterday at 20:39 • LikeUnlike
o
Dave Rose
David: I take your point that Shaffer is being managed but he is putting some real evidence out there and it just shows how successful the 9/11 Truth Movement has been. Its all re-active to 9/11 Truth. 'They' are using Shaffer to push the ...incompetence theory but his testimony points to LIHOP. On the financial front I completely agree with you. The atmosphere in London is TOTALLY SURREAL. Its all denial/suppressed panic. UK Central government is (slowly) shutting down. A currency war with China will spark a revolution in China (due to social unrest caused by shutting down all the factories that send the tat to Walmart). The stakes couldn't be higher. The next 6 months will see a controlled demolition of the US dollar. Nobody has a clue how the world will look after that. Have you seen the film: "Children of Men"?See more
Yesterday at 20:49 • LikeUnlike
o
Michael C. Ruppert Dave -- That's it. You're cut off. Chain of custody cannot be proven. therefore it is not admissible. -- I'm the detective. Have a nice life.
Yesterday at 21:07 • LikeUnlike • 1 personLoading...
o
Adrian Allan ‎911 Truth is a powerful way of convincing people about the reality of Peak Oil - explain how they needed to kill their own people in order to keep the oil-based economy afloat. By saying "let's move on from 911 and concentrate on Peak Oil" you are missing the chance of bringing many more people on board. Indeed, I bet many people here were switched on to Peak Oil as a direct result of 911 Truth videos.
Yesterday at 21:09 • LikeUnlike
o
Dave Rose Mike: Either you are being incredibly childish and cannot tolerate someone disagreeing with you ... or you have some kind of malevolent agenda in wanting to close down the 9/11 Truth Movement. I cannot decide what is behind this.
Yesterday at 22:16 • LikeUnlike • 1 personLoading...
o
Christopher Stephen Hodgson
Ok Dave,after not having changed anything significant in the political landscape after 40+ years with the several books worth of evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald was not a "lone nut assassin" what makes you think any kind of legal justice wi...ll be met with anything you are presenting about the attacks of September 11,2001?Do you think you have 40+ years of energy and money to combat a system over it,that is crumbling anyway?There is a time to stop kicking a dead horse and move on,but always remember the truth in your heart and pass it down as historical wisdom to loved ones in the hope that when some unforeseen society emerges decades down the line that kind of evil will be more recognizable before it can gain momentum.See more
23 hours ago • LikeUnlike
o
Jinger Dixon
How is "proving" what we already "know" going to change our lives? So we can say,-I knew it!!!! Does anyone imagine (in their wildest dreams) that there will be an indictment? A trial? We know they did it. I don't give a * if a bunch of ...patriotic dumbasses claim "They did it cuz they hates our freedom!!" I don't care if those people ever wake up. There has been enough evidence lying around for nine years. They had their chance to figure it out. If you've been paying attention, you already know.
I am thinking the smart move now is to figure out, what are they planing to do next? Much more useful and relevant way to focus your energy.

This is a retarded attempt at distraction. They are throwing you a bone, don't trust it. Don't bite.See more
23 hours ago • LikeUnlike
o
Jinger Dixon ‎@ Dave R -Children of Men was a great movie. I don't give Katie Couric the time of day. As to to you your last comment, it's always the former (heehee)
22 hours ago • LikeUnlike • 1 personLoading...
o
Joshua J Clarke what i thinkMCR is saying is... he dosen't want to waste anymore time tring to convice folk toget on the boat... if your not already aware and taking action its to late for you.
19 hours ago • LikeUnlike
o
Jon Stevenson ‎@Joshua...I think that's exactly what Mike is saying...After all...he spent a considerable time in Law Enforcement... He could have been a little more considerate towards DR perhaps...but as I sometimes explain to people....sorry, don't take it personally...but I aint got time to be nice!
9 hours ago • LikeUnlike
o
Jonathan Colwill What hes saying is the ships sinking get in a lifeboat, you haven't got time to have a trial of some people who may have murdered some people on the ship there isn't the time for that now .
7 hours ago • LikeUnlike

[fish5133]

Maybe its just his "defence mechanism" kicking in. The bigger picture of 9/11 truth is a mind boggling thing and can cause some people huge stress and worry. He may just be saying- ive had enough my brain cant take it any more so please go away.

[David Rose]

If you put these two pieces of information together, you could get
rather alarmed!

best wishes, David!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqO64-ipqAM

“Elsewhere, those familiar with the workings of Whitehall will tell
you that, behind the scenes, the machinery of government is seizing
up. For example, have you tried emailing or writing to a minister
recently? Don’t bother. Government correspondence is in chaos. Some
departments, such as education, appear to be on the verge of giving up
trying to answer letters. Some ministers are refusing to sign
correspondence put before them by officials because the content is
frankly illiterate. Recently, an exasperated former minister turned up
at the reception desk of a major department and demanded to see a
minister’s private secretary after five emails went unacknowledged. I
am told that Mr Cameron has asked a Tory peer to lead a discreet
inquiry into why such an essential arm of government communication has
ground to a halt.”

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100082774/david-camer on-isn%E2%80%99t-a-winner-%E2%80%93-and-that%E2%80%99s-where-his-probl ems-begin/