Whats the worst that could happen?

[Pangloss]

I'm actually kinda swamped today, trying to finish up a term paper for Wednesday and a program by Friday. But I popped back over to that web site for a few minutes while I ate my lunch. I actually spend a lot of time looking at left-leaning web sites, because I feel that I'm slightly right-leaning/libertarian-leaning myself, so I need the balance. But I'm afraid I can't find much to take seriously on that one.

 

 

We offer our readers a unique and accurate map of how the world works, unfiltered by preconception or ideology.

 

This is their claim, but it's *clearly* not the case.

 

I skimmed through their 9/11 section. Virtually everything in there runs contrary to the findings of the 9/11 Commission Report. That was a *bipartisan* commission, and its conclusions have been accepted by not only the public and the media, but anyone doing any serious, non-agendized critical thinking on the issue.

 

The biggest logical fallacy they constantly promote as "truth" over there is the "connection" argument. In other words, if Dick Cheney used to work for some company that also provided software to a government agency, and that government agency later failed to stop a terrorist in some way, then they draw the *conclusion* (and promote it as *fact*) that Dick Cheney knew about the even prior to it taking place and was in fact part of a conspiracy and cover-up to make it happen.

 

That's hogwash. Utter tripe. Complete *bullsh*t*. Not their conclusion, mind you -- for all I know that's true about Cheney. What's bullsh*t is their claim of proof.

 

If we did science that way, we'd all still be living in the stone age.

[TimeTraveler]

I skimmed through their 9/11 section. Virtually everything in there runs contrary to the findings of the 9/11 Commission Report. That was a *bipartisan* commission, and its conclusions have been accepted by not only the public and the media, but anyone doing any serious, non-agendized critical thinking on the issue.

 

Contrary to the findings? Maybe in some cases, but most of what is discussed are issues completely ignored by the 9/11 commission.

 

Accepted by media and the public? I will agree.

 

Accepted by anyone doing serious, non-agendized critical thinking on the issue? I strongly disagree.

 

The biggest logical fallacy they constantly promote as "truth" over there is the "connection" argument. In other words, if Dick Cheney used to work for some company that also provided software to a government agency, and that government agency later failed to stop a terrorist in some way, then they draw the *conclusion* (and promote it as *fact*) that Dick Cheney knew about the even prior to it taking place and was in fact part of a conspiracy and cover-up to make it happen.

 

That's hogwash. Utter tripe. Complete *bullsh*t*.

 

No offense, but this statement above shows your lack of understanding of what is even being said here.

 

For one thing, what you infered about Dick Cheney is not even what is being said, it goes ALOT further than that and what you said is not even close to the basis the case they are making.

 

As for presenting it as fact... that is a false misinterpretation, think of it more as presenting strong evidence. And in my opinion the evidence is so strong it definatly warrants further investigation.

 

And you say *I'm* the one who's not being objective? Dude, this is what I mean when I say you're telling us more about yourself then you are about the events you're trying to "open our eyes" about.

 

Are personal insults necessary in proving your point? When I infered that perhaps you were not being completely objective I did not intend it as an insult, if you took it that way I apologize. But I take the above stated comment as an insult, and I fail to understand why you feel it is necessary.

[syntax252]

Okay Syntax, please tell me about PROMIS software, FEMA, and what these things have to do with 9/11. You can just give a brief overview. I want to see what you know that makes you claim that I am so "gullible", because I get the feeling that you probably do not know much about what I am talking about, but yet you can so easily dismiss what I am saying.

 

Why don't you tell me about it? It is you, is it not, who are making the claim that the administration orchastrated 9/11.

 

It is not the onus of the other members of this forum to disprove your idiotic claims, it is your burden to prove your declaration.

 

You know, kinda like you should be able to prove that Wolfowitz is indeed insane, since that was your statement. You already agreed that you couldn't back that one up.

[TimeTraveler]

Why don't you tell me about it? It is you, is it not, who are making the claim that the administration orchastrated 9/11.

 

It is not the onus of the other members of this forum to disprove your idiotic claims, it is your burden to prove your declaration.

 

What you are telling me is that my claims are completely off the charts and idiotic.

 

However, you do not have any idea what I am talking about. Funny, but sad at the same time.

 

I also think you should re-read my statement:

 

I strongly believe there is a very realistic possibility[/b'] this administration played a role in orchastrating 9/11

 

It is you, is it not, who are making the claim that the administration orchastrated 9/11.

 

As you can see it is not me making the claims, it is me saying I have read through the evidence those making the claims have presented and I believe their evidence realistically raises the possibility and deserves alot more investigation.

 

You know, kinda like you should be able to prove that Wolfowitz is indeed insane, since that was your statement. You already agreed that you couldn't back that one up.

 

This is rather silly, you take something I said as opinion (and slightly meant in humor) and you spin it out of context. Hope your having fun.

[Pangloss]

No offense, but this statement above shows your lack of understanding of what is even being said here.

 

Yeah defense of extremism usually involves focusing more on flaws in the messenger than dealing with the facts, so this is no real surprise. That may work when you're talking to someone who really isn't familiar with the events in question, but you run smack into a brick wall when you talk to someone who is.

 

I should warn you that I've read the entire (full, not summarized) report from the 9/11 Commission. I'm pretty familiar with those events.

 

Your web site friends do present supposition as fact, but aside from that they do tend to focus more on the "cast doubt everywhere you can" method. This is an obvious logical fallacy familiar to UFO proponents and Oliver Stone fans, which basically involves focusing on anything that might be spun to their point of view. They *generally* stop short of drawing actual conclusions, but of course the reader is expected to come to a very specific conclusion, or the whole thing was moot.

 

That's not opening people's eyes, TT. There is a word for it, though. The word is "proselytizing".

 

Calling for "further investigation" is a classic example. They want us to spend countless millions looking into anything that they can even remotely come up with, and when that shows up nothing they'll be more than happy to come up with more. It's like my old friend who used to run around telling everyone who would listen that she just couldn't understand why the government didn't release ALL of the documents related to UFO visitation and abduction. She had no evidence that anything like that existed, just countless web sites and fanatical articals claiming that they did. It's *safe* for her to ask that question, because you can never prove that the government doesn't have something like that (can't prove a negative). Your web site exists in that same territory. It's safe and effective and I'm sure it keeps the checks coming in.

 

But it's not objective, it's not critical, it's not investigative (a word you used), and it's not valuable. It's a matter of faith, not science.

 

If that's what you want, more power to you. But your difficulty is not the fact that the minds of the people you're talking to are closed, but rather what happens when they do listen and fail to make the leap of faith you're asking of them.

[TimeTraveler]

Pangloss,

 

I am sorry you feel that way, but I'm not going to debate your opinions, they are yours to keep.

 

I do think that what you are asking for as scientific fact is an impossibility in politics, in any circumstance.

 

This guy started by finding links to the CIA and drug trafficking during his reign with the LAPD as a narcotics investigator. I think he has come as close to proving that is true as can possibly be done, and I am sure people felt the same way about that topic. And these discoveries and evidence mostly have stemed from that investigation.

 

Quick question, have you ever heard of Operation Northwoods?

[syntax252]

What you are telling me is that my claims are completely off the charts and idiotic.

 

However' date=' you do not have any idea what I am talking about. Funny, but sad at the same time.

 

I also think you should re-read my statement:

 

 

 

 

 

As you can see it is not me making the claims, it is me saying I have read through the evidence those making the claims have presented and I believe their evidence realistically raises the possibility and deserves alot more investigation.

 

 

 

This is rather silly, you take something I said as opinion (and slightly meant in humor) and you spin it out of context. Hope your having fun. [/quote']

 

 

So now we are down to, "well I don't really think that W was in on 9/11, but I have read enough stuff to be able to throw that shit against the wall and if it sticks fine, but if it doesn't, well I can always say that I was just kidding?"

[Pangloss]

Yes, I'm familiar with the Operation Northwoods business. I've read both of Bamford's NSA books. Twice. I believe them to be accurate and credible, and I've used many points from his books in debate.

 

 

I do think that what you are asking for as scientific fact is an impossibility in politics, in any circumstance.

 

Well you're certainly right about that, and maybe I'm reading too much into your site -- it's clearly pushing my buttons. As you say they do have an agenda, but I certainly agree that that doesn't in itself mean that there's nothing of substance there.

 

Perhaps it's my problem -- I have a real issue with people who show hints and subtexts and innuendo and then stamp their feet in derision when you don't leap immediately to what they believe is the only possible conclusion. It toally rubs me the wrong way. Why give me that crap at all? Just tell me where to stand and hand me a hymnal for crying out loud.

 

If you've read Bamford, you'll notice how he differs from your web site. He doesn't do that. He's not proselytizing. Even when he wrote a later book that condemned the war in Iraq he still stopped short of outright concemnation of the Bush administration. He may have an agenda, but he's not going to beat you over the head with it. He gives you a little credit and room to figure things out on your own. Your web site friends could learn a lot from him.

[TimeTraveler]

Pangloss,

 

Good to know that you know about Operation Northwoods, and good thing the plan was abondoned.

 

Well you're certainly right about that, and maybe I'm reading too much into your site -- it's clearly pushing my buttons. As you say they do have an agenda, but I certainly agree that that doesn't in itself mean that there's nothing of substance there.

 

Perhaps it's my problem -- I have a real issue with people who show hints and subtexts and innuendo and then stamp their feet in derision when you don't leap immediately to what they believe is the only possible conclusion. It toally rubs me the wrong way. Why give me that crap at all? Just tell me where to stand and hand me a hymnal for crying out loud.

 

If you've read Bamford, you'll notice how he differs from your web site. He doesn't do that. He's not proselytizing. Even when he wrote a later book that condemned the war in Iraq he still stopped short of outright concemnation of the Bush administration. He may have an agenda, but he's not going to beat you over the head with it. He gives you a little credit and room to figure things out on your own. Your web site friends could learn a lot from him.

 

I am still baffled by your opinion of this website, I am not sure what exactly you read that gave you this impression, maybe you got that from my reaction to the material rather than the material itself, /shrug. I almost feel we are not even talking about the same website. Oh and hey, stop refering to them as my website friends, lol.

[TimeTraveler]

So now we are down to, "well I don't really think that W was in on 9/11, but I have read enough stuff to be able to throw that shit against the wall and if it sticks fine, but if it doesn't, well I can always say that I was just kidding?"

 

Do you just make up interpreations of what people say in order to fling mud so you can get your jollies? Hope you enjoy it, its rather annoying though.

[syntax252]

Do you just make up interpreations of what people say in order to fling mud so you can get your jollies? Hope you enjoy it, its rather annoying though.

 

That isn't what you were saying?

 

Why not?

 

And who is "flinging mud?" For a guy like you who has said that he thinks that the current administration orchastrated 9/11, and who on another forum, said that Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld and Paul Wolofowitz were responsible for the antrax letters being sent to members of the US Senate--none of which you offer proof of--for you to accuse me of "flinging mud" is beyond ludicrous.

[TimeTraveler]

That isn't what you were saying?

 

Why not?

 

And who is "flinging mud?" For a guy like you who has said that he thinks that the current administration orchastrated 9/11' date=' and who on another forum, said that Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld and Paul Wolofowitz were responsible for the antrax letters being sent to members of the US Senate--none of which you offer proof of--for you to accuse me of "flinging mud" is beyond ludicrous. [/quote']

 

Maybe you should try comprehending what someone is saying before responding.

 

I do think it's POSSIBLE (keyword) Bush played a hand in orchastrating 9/11. The evidence to suggest it is very strong. If I were a juror as of right now I would find him guilty. He, nor anyone has really even attempted to answer these questions or explain these things, when asked they do the three d's, dodge, duck and deny.

 

That is different than saying the Bush admin orchastrated 9/11. Do you understand the difference?

 

Now on to the next one. I said Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld were responsible for the anthrax letters? lol. Okay whatever you want to make up. Maybe try doing a search in the news section for memory pills, you might find something that will help you there.

 

Let me remind you of what I said:

 

I said I was not making allegations and there is no proof of anything, it just seems like more than coincidence and why have we not caught or tried alot harder to catch the person responsible since it is a terrorist attack on the US. I went on to say in my opinion it was definately an inside job, considering the targets AQ or Iraq really did not have motive, they would have went for Republicans or the Bush circle. The CIA and the Bush admin however do have motive. It helped get the patriot act passed, and the powers it gives is something the CIA and FBI have wanted for a long time.

 

You then asked me to "guess" who I thought would have ordered it, I said probably Cheney, Rumsfeld or Wolfowitz.

 

That is different than saying Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz are responsible for the anthrax letters. Do you understand the difference?

 

Now Redhawk/Syntax I would appreciate if you stop trolling me, you hate my opinions and thats fine. But you following me around spitting insults, manipulating my words, and basically downright harrassing me is annoying. If you want to have civil discussion or debate I am all for it, but keep it mature and civil.

[Pangloss]

Yeah, he's trolling you. He's good at it. Get over it.

 

 

I do think it's POSSIBLE (keyword) Bush played a hand in orchastrating 9/11. The evidence to suggest it is very strong. If I were a juror as of right now I would find him guilty.

 

Are you sure you didn't leave out the word "not" in that third sentence? You go on to say there's no proof of anything, just that you feel it's important to listen to these allegations. But the third sentence above really crosses the line in my book.

 

See this is what I don't understand about extremists (I don't know if this applies to you, I'm just reflecting on this "complicity" stuff in general). It's not enough to complain about the stuff we DO know for sure. They insist that every hint of trouble is actually a sure sign that your worst nightmare is the god's-honest truth. As if it's not bad enough already. They don't seem to understand that they lose more people than they gain because of their insistence that we're all blind because we're not leaping to the same conclusions they are.

 

That 9/11 complicity business is a prime example. It's not bad enough that we were caught with our pants down and need to take care of business -- it's really important to these people that every hint or incongruity be interpretted as Bush collusion with the hijackers or something. Never mind proof, we'll just stack on every ounce of insanity we can muster.

 

Put another way, if they really believe that they aren't drawing conclusions or making assertions, then why can't they draw back after showing their circumstantial stuff? Why do they then have to then go on to say that people's eyes are closed? That's absolute proof that this isn't about "opening people's eyes" or "waking people up" -- it's about getting people on board their bandwagon, sure enough.

 

There's a real danger with these kinds of people, because it makes it that much harder to spot the truth when it does show up in a subtle, incongruous form.

[Pangloss]

By the way, if you really want to grow and develop and as a person, you should hang around places that think the OPPOSITE way from you. All your doing visiting a place like that is just feeding the beast, and all it's going to get you is more and more frustrated and angry at other people for "not listening to the truth".

[Pangloss]

And Syntax, you have a really bad tit-for-tat habit there. It really detracts from your posts.

 

Just my two bits, FWIW.

[TimeTraveler]

Are you sure you didn't leave out the word "not" in that third sentence? You go on to say there's no proof of anything, just that you feel it's important to listen to these allegations. But the third sentence above really crosses the line in my book.

 

I did not leave out any words. I went on to say there is no proof of anything about the anthrax thing, not 9/11. Your mixing them up. .

 

I am not sure why the third sentance crosses the line. The only reason I can think of would be if I was some ignorant person who had no objectivity, was making things up and just blindly supported this because I dislike Bush. I am not that person.

 

I'm going to ramble here a minute, first, I supported Bush up until last year when I started looking into some of these allegations. A year ago, heck even six months ago, I would have called someone crazy for believing our government may have had a hand in 9/11. But since then I have read, studied, analyzed and researched this information. Whereas before all the information I had gotten was from the News and Newspapers, and well, we all know that side of the story. I'm not ignorant, and I am objective, I would not even consider this type of stuff if the evidence was not so compelling. The problem is I can't post all of the evidence for you to evaluate, we would be here for months. And if I post one piece at a time it won't hold any weight because its one piece of a puzzle that has thousands of pieces. If you are willing to listen to the evidence and consider it I recomend Michael C. Rupperts book Crossing the Rubicon. I know your first impression of this man is that he is biased and an extremist, so if that prevents you from reading his book I suggest re-evaluating him and familiarizing yourself with him. I am under the impression that you are a student, he sometimes does presentations at Universities (usually on the topic of peak oil), so you might have a chance to see him in person. Okay I am done rambling now.

 

Take care.

[Pangloss]

A year ago, heck even six months ago, I would have called someone crazy for believing our government may have had a hand in 9/11.

 

Well no offense, but we're not discussing people who assume that our government could never have had a hand in 9/11. We're discussing people who believe it. Remember, there's a liiiiitle bity step in between. I got that you know there's a step there, and that you took that step seriously. What you're forgetting is that you took that step without proof, and not everyone is willing to follow you down that path. That's *you*, not the logic. Something *you* did. Not something the logic forced you to do.

 

Because the logic simply isn't there. All that exist are allegations and circumstances with other (better defined, better documented) explanations. Note that I'm not saying it didn't happen. I'm saying it's a logical fallacy to leap to the conclusion that it did. That's not keeping an open mind, my friend. That's making a leap of faith.

 

So if you're saying that you would convict on that basis, then that's what you've done. You've made a leap of faith, and you're saying you would convict someone on that basis. That's not objectivity. That's prejudgement. Of course the point is actually moot, because that kind of prejudgement would actually preclude you from ever serving on that jury.

 

Like I said, I respect your opinion (and still do). But I can't respect a rush to judgement without proof. As it stands I have no problem with you having the opinion that the government was complicity in 9/11 -- I still respect. But if you were actually on that jury and made that call on that basis, the respect would go right out the window.

 

But hey, we're just talkin' here. All hypothetical and all that.

 

BTW, Crossing the Rubicon is already on my reading list, I just haven't gotten to it yet. I'm plowing my way through a book about relativity at the moment, then I've got the Spinsanity book "All the President's Spin" to get through, and then it'll come somewhere after that. The difference between you and me, TT, is that right after that I'll probably read "Anti-Americanism" by Revel, and get just as much out of it. You need to open your horizons a bit, my friend, and stop dwelling with the lunatic fringe! You are WAY too intelligent to be spounting extremist talking points.

[syntax252]

Maybe you should try comprehending what someone is saying before responding.

 

I do think it's POSSIBLE (keyword) Bush played a hand in orchastrating 9/11. The evidence to suggest it is very strong. If I were a juror as of right now I would find him guilty.

 

Beyond a reasonable doubt?

 

That is different than saying the Bush admin orchastrated 9/11. Do you understand the difference?

 

How? Givin that you would vote him guilty if you were on a jury' date=' HOW is it different that saying that he did so?

 

 

Now on to the next one. I said Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld were responsible for the anthrax letters? lol. Okay whatever you want to make up. Maybe try doing a search in the news section for memory pills, you might find something that will help you there.

 

Let me remind you of what I said:

 

I said I was not making allegations and there is no proof of anything, it just seems like more than coincidence and why have we not caught or tried alot harder to catch the person responsible since it is a terrorist attack on the US. I went on to say in my opinion it was definately an inside job, considering the targets AQ or Iraq really did not have motive, they would have went for Republicans or the Bush circle. The CIA and the Bush admin however do have motive. It helped get the patriot act passed, and the powers it gives is something the CIA and FBI have wanted for a long time.

 

You then asked me to "guess" who I thought would have ordered it, I said probably Cheney, Rumsfeld or Wolfowitz.

 

That is different than saying Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz are responsible for the anthrax letters. Do you understand the difference?

 

Sure. Just like there is a difference between voting one guilty if you were on a jury, (see above) and actually making a claim that the person was in fact guilty.

 

 

Now Redhawk/Syntax I would appreciate if you stop trolling me, you hate my opinions and thats fine. But you following me around spitting insults, manipulating my words, and basically downright harrassing me is annoying. If you want to have civil discussion or debate I am all for it, but keep it mature and civil.

 

Tell me, how does one have a "civil discussion" with a person who throws anything againse the wall that he thinks might stick, and then tries to crawl out by saying, "oh, that was just my OPINION."

 

You do not deserve to be treated respectfully. Your "opinions" are nothing other than libelous garbage thrown out in the hope That some marginal portion of the readership of your "posts" will find some sort of resonance in them.

[syntax252]

And Syntax' date=' you have a really bad tit-for-tat habit there. It really detracts from your posts.

 

Just my two bits, FWIW.[/quote']

 

Yes, I do!

 

Perhaps the reason is that for more than 50 years I have listened as people said outragous things and tried to pass it off as "political debate" and I have lost the patience required to respond to hyperbolic rhetoric with reason and facts.

 

These jerks are not in any way interested in, nor will they be swayed by, facts.

 

That your approach is more in keeping with what passes for debate in this--and other forums--is not in question. Of course it is. Hell, even I like your style more than mine. But you are spinning your tires and so am I. I can see why Josh doesn't realize that he has lost traction, but I suspect that you are smart enough to see that nothing is going to be gained from flogging a masochist.

[Pangloss]

(chuckle)

[TimeTraveler]

Pangloss and Syntax,

 

I am not really sure what you 'think' the evidence may be. But, let me ask you this, do either of you think Michael Jackson is guilty? Well, whether you do or not you are making that assessment based on evidence you have seen. You have seen that evidence in the media, or perhaps maybe through your own research. But you are in fact making a judgement based on evidence you have seen.

 

That is what I have done. But, here is the difference. None of this evidence is on the media. So I doubt that you are aware of any of it. The evidence is strong, but you wouldn't know that unless you have seen it. Crossing the Rubicon is a book designed as a court case, it's presented exactly how our system of justice designes for a case to be put together. Now, understand in this book you are getting one side of this court case, the other side is missing. Why is it missing, alot of these questions have never been asked to this administration, the ones that have they have pleaded the fifth and not answered. The 9/11 commission didn't even scratch the surface of this evidence and the only time I have seen a member of congress or senate try and demand answers to these questions was very recently, but they were not answered, an attempt to even answer them did not take place.

 

Here is a link to when a question was asked, and I will tell you this, this question is a very small question compared to those that need to be asked, but at least it is still one small step:

 

This is a media file, need real player:

 

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/mp3/McKinney.rm

 

Now the question of the war games is important, but it is a small piece in a large puzzle. If you add up all of the evidence around it, the evidence Mr. Ruppert displays explains exactly who was in command of those war games (Dick Cheney) and how they were used to confuse the system on the morning of Sept. 11th, especially since one of those war games in particular involved a simulation of an airliner being hijacked and crashed into the pentagon! (Yeah I know, no one in the administration had ever considered someone using a plane as a missle, yeah right) and the use of a software called PROMISE that plays a pretty big part in the case made here. Do you know what PROMISE software is and can do?

 

Anyways read the book, make up your own mind about the case presented. But no matter what your conclusion is of the evidence, I have no doubt you will be in agreement that certain people have some serious explaining to do and that a second investigation is very necessary.

[Pangloss]

do either of you think Michael Jackson is guilty

 

I have no idea. I think the same thing about MJ as I thought about OJ -- if he's guilty, lock him up.

 

But even if I thought it was, that's different from saying that I would convict him if I were on his jury. There is an important step BETWEEN "having an opinion" and "making a judgement".

 

 

None of this evidence is on the media.

 

Of course it is. That's why you know about it. Your web site is media.

 

 

So I doubt that you are aware of any of it.

 

Your assumption is incorrect.

 

 

Crossing the Rubicon is a book designed as a court case, it's presented exactly how our system of justice designes for a case to be put together.

 

Oh. So he has someone with the opposite point of view writing counterpoint throughout the book? Challenging his assertions, objecting to incorrect procedures, and responding only and entirely within the rules of evidence?

 

That book sounds more interesting by the moment.

 

 

Now, understand in this book you are getting one side of this court case, the other side is missing.

 

Oh. Dang. I was getting all hot and bothered.

 

 

Why is it missing, alot of these questions have never been asked to this administration, the ones that have they have pleaded the fifth and not answered.

 

"A lot"?

 

But that's beside the point -- the point is that we're discussing drawing conclusions based on facts not in evidence. Drawing conclusions based on speculation and question-asking without question-answering. The lack of an answer should lead you to an OPEN mind, not a CLOSED one.

[TimeTraveler]

I have an open mind, I know there could very well be a real logical explination to all this. And I have not once said I know they are guilty! I have said as of right now with the evidence I have seen I would find them guilty. They have offered no explination of these things, matter of fact they have avoided them at all costs, the only reason some even know about them is due to the great investigative work by Mr. Ruppert.

 

I by no means have a closed mind on this issue. But there is alot of explaining to do by the admin. and I do not have any confidence they will just come out and address these issues, they will ignore them and hope they just go away, and at this rate maybe 10 -20 years from now we will finally uncover the truth. If they have nothing to hide there should be no qualms about answering these questions and submitting to another investigation. You say its not worth the money that would be spent on it, I say it won't cost nearly what you think it would cost, and I think it would be worth every penny, or they could just come out and try to explain these allegations. But as of right now there non-response and very obvious dodging is making them look very guilty.

 

PS. I meant mainstream media, not media.

 

This conversation is almost impossible from my side though until you read the book so you know what I am talking about.

[TimeTraveler]

Here is a piece of an interview with Mr. Ruppert about his book:

 

The full article can be found here:

 

http://www.newtopiamagazine.net/content/issue19/features/ruppert.php

 

Newtopia: The 9/11 case you present in "Crossing the Rubicon" eventually leads up to charging the President and especially the Vice President, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the Commander of NORAD, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General and the former Directors of Central Intelligence and the FBI with multiple counts of premeditated murder. What has been the response (if any) from DC circles?

 

MR:The response has been absolute silence. Not a word of reply from any official source in Washington or elsewhere.

 

Newtopia: Your findings seem to correlate with many of the "911Truth" findings, and I know you are on familiar terms with the people there. Are there any areas in which your findings or theories differ appreciably from theirs, or do you feel that your investigations are mutually supportive?

 

MR: By and large our findings and approaches are consistent. However, as I described in Rubicon, because of my long experience with investigative and court procedures, there are some areas of emphasis I have chosen to avoid or minimize. Legal “proof” is a standard that is very much misunderstood by many amateur researchers who have no legal or law enforcement training. This is especially true when it comes to physical evidence issues which require expertise to analyze in a legal setting and incredibly strict standards to guard against manipulation of physical evidence (whether video, photographic, or crime-scene evidence).

 

There is an old saying that "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert", and we have seen this used against physical evidence proponents as recently as a couple of days ago when the New York Times presented rebuttal experts on physical evidence to their story about millionaire activist Jimmy Walker and his ad campaign. I predicted this kind of response well over a year ago.

 

I have been at this for 26 years and I have seen all of these mistakes made before. No such rebuttals can be made against a written record of statements made by the suspects themselves or to their records and documents submitted under oath and no scientific analysis is necessary to evaluate them. Either they said something or they didn't. Either the records they submitted were submitted or they were not.

 

An additional problem is that by focusing on physical evidence questions only, there is no legal proof offered as to who was responsible. For example: Lets say that it was definitively established that no airplane hit the Pentagon. That would still leave you legally bereft of proof as to who was responsible for that, what was used instead, and who used it.

 

In Rubicon I nail the suspects with enough evidence to prosecute and convict them for murder. If that were to ever happen then a real investigation with reliable control mechanisms for the analysis of physical evidence and real penalties for dishonesty might produce some interesting results that could be legally trusted.

 

I also believe that it is imperative to get people to the point of realizing that the government “did” 9/11 as quickly as possible for the same reasons that I believe that fighting over the 2004 election is a complete waste of time.

[Pangloss]

I have not once said I know they are guilty! I have said as of right now with the evidence I have seen I would find them guilty.

 

What's the difference between "knowing they are guilty" and "beyond a reasonable doubt"?

 

They have offered no explination of these things, matter of fact they have avoided them at all costs, the only reason some even know about them is due to the great investigative work by Mr. Ruppert.

 

Irrelevent to the present discussion. Their lack of response does not prove complicity, and again, we're not actually discussing their 9/11 complicity, we're talking about why you've leapt to the conclusion that they're guilty; why you would convict them in spite of the lack of evidence. By your own admission, the most important questions haven't been answered. Yet you can't understand why other people aren't willing to make that leap of faith with you -- you have to assign reasons like "you're not objective", or "you must not know the facts". To wit:

 

This conversation is almost impossible from my side though until you read the book so you know what I am talking about.

 

And you don't see a problem with this.

 

(shrug)

 

Not to draw this out endlessly, but it's fascinating to me that you view that as "objective" and "open minded" (your words describing yourself). I don't think it's unusual or atypical -- people do this all the time. It's just interesting.