Whats the worst that could happen?

[Pangloss]

(hehe) Don't ever serve on a jury with me, btw. I'm the guy they beat about the head and shoulders and shove out the nearest window during deliberations. ;-)

[TimeTraveler]

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

 

At this point I only feel it is beyond resonable doubt because the investigation or trial has not taken place, there may very well be evidence to counter the evidence Mr. Ruppert has put forword. As of right now that evidence has not been made available. I do doubt that it exists but I am open to the fact that it might.

 

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.

 

Let me rephrase, the important questions have not been answered to the compelling evidence has not been refuted. Thats more along the lines of what I am saying, my mistake for not being more clear.

 

And you don't see a problem with this.

 

Not sure what exactly you mean, but no I don't see a problem with this. I mean we can go over the evidence, we can discuss the PROMIS technology, the money laundering, the CIA and drug trafficking and their relationship with Bin Laden, the business relations with the Saudi royal family and Bin Ladens and what they have to do with 9/11, the complexity of the ISI (Pakistani intelligence) involved in 9/11, Dick Cheney's role with Fema, the PROMIS software, The war games on Sept. 11th, and on and on, and how this all is part of what happened on 9/11 but its very hard to have discussion on if you are not up to speed on this information. That is not saying that you are not, I don't know what you know. But I am assuming that you are not fully educated in these things and how they played a role in 9/11. That could be my mistake however.

[syntax252]

Pangloss and Syntax' date='

 

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.

 

[/quote']

 

I don't know if MJ is guilty or not, but if a panel had been put together to investigate the charges, and it conducted one of the most exhaustive investigations in the history of the country and they said thet he was not guilty, I would tend to accept that over and above speculative articles writtin by members of the Ku Klux Klan.

 

That seems to be the primary difference between your "logic" and mine.

[TimeTraveler]

I don't know if MJ is guilty or not' date=' but if a panel had been put together to investigate the charges, and it conducted one of the most exhaustive investigations in the history of the country and they said thet he was not guilty, I would tend to accept that over and above speculative articles writtin by members of the Ku Klux Klan.

 

That seems to be the primary difference between your "logic" and mine. [/quote']

 

The most exhaustive investigation in the history of this country? By what account? It was performed by business men and politicians, not real investigators. It was not conducted in any manor that matches our standards in even the most simple of murder investigations. It fails to touch any complexity involved with PROMIS software, it barely scrapes the wargames on Sept. 11th, it doesn't pay mention to any of the intel given to us by outside governments regarding what was about to happen, it doesn't explain the inconsistancies in the stories of our own government officials, it allowed key witnesses and suspects to not testify under oath and not have their testimony displayed in the report, it failed to ask the most important questions, or acknowledge and counter the most compelling evidence, it was lacking all around the board.

 

I'm not saying these guys did not perform their task to the best of their ability, I am saying their ability to perform this task is what was lacking.

[Ophiolite]

TT, you've allowed Pangloss to divert you from the central issue. He has you trying to justify your rather bizarre guilty verdict before the defense has even cross examined; and debating the nature and quality of a web site. Agree you got theverdict wrong, or just pend it for a moment; forget about the website and get back to discussing the merits and demerits of the case against the government.

 

Pangloss, I'm not suggesting your diversionary tactics were conscious or deliberate, but they sure were effective.

 

Syntax, of course you are right. No government could ever be complicit in something like that. Nixon never heard of Bernard Barker. Kennedy won his election fair and square, and didn't abandon the Cubans in the Bay of Pigs. And even if such fanciful notions were true, no leader of a country would ever allow destruction of life and property on such a scale even if he believed it was for the greater good of the country.......Of course that leaves me wondering why Coventry has a new cathedral. You are old enough and knowledgable enough that that reference should not be an enigma to you.

[syntax252]

The most exhaustive investigation in the history of this country? By what account? It was performed by business men and politicians' date=' not real investigators. It was not conducted in any manor that matches our standards in even the most simple of murder investigations. It fails to touch any complexity involved with PROMIS software, it barely scrapes the wargames on Sept. 11th, it doesn't pay mention to any of the intel given to us by outside governments regarding what was about to happen, it doesn't explain the inconsistancies in the stories of our own government officials, it allowed key witnesses and suspects to not testify under oath and not have their testimony displayed in the report, it failed to ask the most important questions, or acknowledge and counter the most compelling evidence, it was lacking all around the board.

 

I'm not saying these guys did not perform their task to the best of their ability, I am saying their ability to perform this task is what was lacking.[/quote']

 

According to who?

 

The Ku Klux Klan?

[syntax252]

TT' date=' you've allowed Pangloss to divert you from the central issue. He has you trying to justify your rather bizarre guilty verdict before the defense has even cross examined; and debating the nature and quality of a web site. Agree you got theverdict wrong, or just pend it for a moment; forget about the website and get back to discussing the merits and demerits of the case against the government.

 

Pangloss, I'm not suggesting your diversionary tactics were conscious or deliberate, but they sure were effective.

 

Syntax, of course you are right. No government could ever be complicit in something like that. Nixon never heard of Bernard Barker. Kennedy won his election fair and square, and didn't abandon the Cubans in the Bay of Pigs. And even if such fanciful notions were true, no leader of a country would ever allow destruction of life and property on such a scale even if he believed it was for the greater good of the country.......Of course that leaves me wondering why Coventry has a new cathedral. You are old enough and knowledgable enough that that reference should not be an enigma to you.[/quote']

 

 

Well, let me put it this way.....

 

I have yet to see any convincing evidence that this administration helped to orchastrate the events of 9/11--have you?

[TimeTraveler]

Well' date=' let me put it this way.....

 

I have yet to see any convincing evidence that this administration helped to orchastrate the events of 9/11--have you? [/quote']

 

I have, it's in the book, read it. I can't post it. If you don't want to read it, then you really cannot say if it is convincing or not.

 

According to who?

 

The Ku Klux Klan?

 

Brilliant! *sigh*. Im not sure if your trying to be insulting or humorous here, either way it didn't work out.

[TimeTraveler]

TT, you've allowed Pangloss to divert you from the central issue. He has you trying to justify your rather bizarre guilty verdict before the defense has even cross examined; and debating the nature and quality of a web site. Agree you got theverdict wrong, or just pend it for a moment; forget about the website and get back to discussing the merits and demerits of the case against the government.

 

That sounds fair enough to me. I will pend my verdict for now. We should start a new thread though if we want to continue discussing this, maybe we could do a point by point list of all the evidence that has not been refuted and go from there. Mr. Ruppert is offering $1,000 to anyone that can prove any piece of evidence wrong, maybe we can make some cash.

 

Take care.

[syntax252]

I have, it's in the book, read it. I can't post it. If you don't want to read it, then you really cannot say if it is convincing or not.

 

That is not evedence, that is someone's speculation.

 

 

Brilliant! *sigh*. Im not sure if your trying to be insulting or humorous here, either way it didn't work out.

 

I was trying to point out that you put more faith in the opinions of people who have an idiology to justify than you do in a bipartisan panel of highly qualified people who already investigated this issue. If you found that insulting, so much the better.

[TimeTraveler]

That is not evedence, that is someone's speculation.

 

And you know this because you read the book? Didn't think so. The book is actually formatted to completely leave all speculation out, except one of the last chapters he offers his opinions and speculation.

 

I was trying to point out that you put more faith in the opinions of people who have an idiology to justify than you do in a bipartisan panel of highly qualified people who already investigated this issue. If you found that insulting, so much the better.

 

Actually I put more faith in him because he was an LAPD Narcotics investigator, he was trained in the art of investigation and he has spent the last 27 years of his life investigating the CIA and drug trafficking, the last seven years investigating Bin Laden and the last 5 years investigating Peak oil, and the last 4 years investigating 9/11.

 

Can you same the same for any 9/11 panel member? Or even if you add up every single 9/11 panel member would they match those qualifications? Nope.

[Ophiolite]

Can you same the same for any 9/11 panel member? Or even if you add up every single 9/11 panel member would they match those qualifications? Nope.

Which does not make him right, just worthy of some attention.

 

Edited to add "some"

[syntax252]

And you know this because you read the book? Didn't think so. The book is actually formatted to completely leave all speculation out, except one of the last chapters he offers his opinions and speculation.

 

Only if you accept his reasoning, which is based on his agenda. Scientific investigation which starts out with a predisposed idea of what the investigation will yield, is considered junk science--no?

 

 

Actually I put more faith in him because he was an LAPD Narcotics investigator, he was trained in the art of investigation and he has spent the last 27 years of his life investigating the CIA and drug trafficking, the last seven years investigating Bin Laden and the last 5 years investigating Peak oil, and the last 4 years investigating 9/11.

 

Can you same the same for any 9/11 panel member? Or even if you add up every single 9/11 panel member would they match those qualifications? Nope.

Who did he interview when he was gathering his material? I don't recall anything in the news about Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, George Tnent, etc granting interviews to this guy.

[TimeTraveler]

Which does not make him right, just worthy of some attention.

 

Edited to add "some"

 

I agree. He is worthy of being heard. And after hearing the compelling evidence he has put forword, I believe there is a realistic possibility he is right, but whether he is or not it definatly deserves further investigation by real investigators.

[TimeTraveler]

Only if you accept his reasoning, which is based on his agenda. Scientific investigation which starts out with a predisposed idea of what the investigation will yield, is considered junk science--no?

 

What is his reasoning and agenda, in your opinion?

 

A criminal investigation is alot different than a scientific investigation.

 

Who did he interview when he was gathering his material? I don't recall anything in the news about Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, George Tnent, etc granting interviews to this guy.

 

If you turn on the news you hear everything these people have to say, he has interviewed countless people in and around the administration, in the FAA, in NORAD, in the CIA, former CIA operatives, Mathew Simmons (Cheney's energy advisor in 01'), In the military, Saudi's, Foreign intelligence officials (Germany, France, Pakistan...), Richard Clarke, and many others.

[syntax252]

What is his reasoning and agenda' date=' in your opinion?

 

A criminal investigation is alot different than a scientific investigation.

 

 

 

If you turn on the news you hear everything these people have to say, he has interviewed countless people in and around the administration, in the FAA, in NORAD, in the CIA, former CIA operatives, Mathew Simmons (Cheney's energy advisor in 01'), In the military, Saudi's, Foreign intelligence officials (Germany, France, Pakistan...), Richard Clarke, and many others.[/quote']

 

I think this guy explains Mr. Ruppert about as well as Ruppert can be explained...

 

http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=66

 

The Ex-Cop Who Connects the Dot

 

By his own account, Ruppert has long been a purveyor of amazing tales. In 1981 he told the Los Angeles Herald Examiner a bizarre story about himself: While a cop in the 1970s, he fell in love with a mysterious woman who, he came to believe, was working with the mob and US intelligence. Only after she left him, Ruppert said, did he figure out that his girlfriend had been a CIA officer coordinating a deal in which organized crime thugs were transporting weapons to Kurdish counterrevolutionaries in Iran in exchange for heroin. In an interview with the newspaper, the woman denied Ruppert's account and questioned his mental stability. Whatever the truth of his encounter with this woman, the relationship apparently extracted a toll on Ruppert. In 1978 he resigned from the force, claiming that the department had not protected him when his life was threatened. According to records posted on Ruppert's site, his commanding officer called his service "for the most part, outstanding." But the CO also said Ruppert was hampered by an "over-concern with organized crime activity and a feeling that his life was endangered by individuals connected to organized crime. This problem resulted in Officer Ruppert voluntarily committing himself to psychiatric care last year.... any attempts to rejoin the Department by Officer Ruppert should be approved only after a thorough psychiatric examination."

 

There is a lot more to this article and it is worth the read...

[TimeTraveler]

I think this guy explains Mr. Ruppert about as well as Ruppert can be explained...

 

http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=66

 

 

 

There is a lot more to this article and it is worth the read...

 

Interesting article, but inaccurate on many accounts.

 

For one, the woman in question was his fiancee, not girlfriend. Her name is Nordica Theodora D'Orsay (Teddy).

 

In the particular quoted section of the article it is clearly designed to make Mr. Ruppert look mentaly instable, it's the authors way of attacking the character of the man before he attacks his research in order to help him prove his point.

 

It's similar to what you do Syntax, you try to assassinate the character of the person you are debating with before you ever touch the information they present. It's a proven tactic although it is cheap.

 

The full story of what happened can be found in the book.

 

Full disclosure #1:

 

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/mcr_lapd.shtml

 

Full disclosure #2:

 

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/full_disclose_2.shtml

 

As for the 1981 Story, here it is. As you can see the author of your article clearly distorts the story in his summary to make Mr. Ruppert's story sound so unbelievably bizarre:

 

Part #1:

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/about_Mike_part_one.shtml

Part #2:

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/about_Mike_part_two.shtml

 

I see no reason to talk about the rest of the article, he does not discredit any of the evidence only questions it. He attempts to discredit it by discrediting Mr. Ruppert and then questioning the evidence, however it's easily seen through.

[syntax252]

Interesting article' date=' but inaccurate on many accounts.

 

For one, the woman in question was his fiancee, not girlfriend. Her name is Nordica Theodora D'Orsay (Teddy).

 

In the particular quoted section of the article it is clearly designed to make Mr. Ruppert look mentaly instable, it's the authors way of attacking the character of the man before he attacks his research in order to help him prove his point.

 

It's similar to what you do Syntax, you try to assassinate the character of the person you are debating with before you ever touch the information they present. It's a proven tactic although it is cheap.

 

The full story of what happened can be found in the book.

 

Full disclosure #1:

 

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/mcr_lapd.shtml

 

Full disclosure #2:

 

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/full_disclose_2.shtml

 

As for the 1981 Story, here it is. As you can see the author of your article clearly distorts the story in his summary to make Mr. Ruppert's story sound so unbelievably bizarre:

 

Part #1:

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/about_Mike_part_one.shtml

Part #2:

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/about_Mike_part_two.shtml

 

I see no reason to talk about the rest of the article, he does not discredit any of the evidence only questions it. He attempts to discredit it by discrediting Mr. Ruppert and then questioning the evidence, however it's easily seen through.[/quote']

 

I posted only one of many many articles about Ruppert that point out that he is a fruitcake.

 

This is what happens when pink cheeked kids like you, allow themselves to be taken in by a con man.

 

Hell, Jim Jones talked several hundred people into committing suicide in Guyanna few years back.

 

Here read about it and learn from the mistakes of others.

http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~reli291/Jonestown/Jonestown.html

 

I warned you to be careful what you swallow, but you wouldn't listen.

[TimeTraveler]

I posted only one of many many articles about Ruppert that point out that he is a fruitcake.

 

Anyone who says anything remotely contraversial is going to have people come out and attack them. I have read a crap load of these articles about Mr. Ruppert, and I have read a boatload more that praise him. Other peoples opinion's whether good or bad are irrelevant to me. Counter his evidence with evidence that shows his evidence is flawed.

 

This is what happens when pink cheeked kids like you, allow themselves to be taken in by a con man.

 

This is the response you expect from an old men like you, who allow themselves to be so stuck in their opinions they will attack anyone who has a different opinion. Go away troll.

 

Hell, Jim Jones talked several hundred people into committing suicide in Guyanna few years back.

 

Here read about it and learn from the mistakes of others.

http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~reli291.../Jonestown.html

 

I warned you to be careful what you swallow, but you wouldn't listen.

 

Mr. Strawman this has nothing to do with anything we are talking about. Although nice attempt.

 

I'm done discussing Mr. Ruppert. If anyone (besides Syntax) wants to discuss his evidence and information I am up for it.

[syntax252]

Anyone who says anything remotely contraversial is going to have people come out and attack them. I have read a crap load of these articles about Mr. Ruppert' date=' and I have read a boatload more that praise him. Other peoples [b']opinion's[/b] whether good or bad are irrelevant to me. Counter his evidence with evidence that shows his evidence is flawed.

 

He doesn't present evidence. He presents speculation and inuendo and asks his readership to accept it as fact.

 

This is the response you expect from an old men like you, who allow themselves to be so stuck in their opinions they will attack anyone who has a different opinion. Go away troll.

 

 

 

Mr. Strawman this has nothing to do with anything we are talking about. Although nice attempt.

 

I'm done discussing Mr. Ruppert. If anyone (besides Syntax) wants to discuss his evidence and information I am up for it.

 

 

I just thought that you might take comfort in knowing that you are not the first one to be taken in by a con artist.

 

If you don't appriciate it, I am not surprised.

 

"No man is so blind, as he who will not see."

[Ophiolite]

This is what happens when pink cheeked kids like you, allow themselves to be taken in by a con man.

Your arguments are being lost in the 'noise' of your personal attacks. It predisposes readers to take the other side even if the facts support you. It may be fun, but is it worth the price.

[TimeTraveler]

He doesn't present evidence. He presents speculation and inuendo and asks his readership to accept it as fact.

 

And you came to this conclusion after reading his book? Or you came to this conclusion because its convenient for your arguement?

[syntax252]

And you came to this conclusion after reading his book? Or you came to this conclusion because its convenient for your arguement?

 

I came to that conclusion because nobody in main stream America considers his theory to be worth arguing about.

 

He is a nothing, a dud, a non entity.

 

Nobody excepy conspiracy theroists even know his name. He is the Jim Jones of the off-the-wall gang. He is a potential presidential candidate for the grassy knoll society.

[syntax252]

Your arguments are being lost in the 'noise' of your personal attacks. It predisposes readers to take the other side even if the facts support you. It may be fun, but is it worth the price.

 

And precisely what is that "price?"

[TimeTraveler]

I came to that conclusion because nobody in main stream America considers his theory to be worth arguing about.

 

He is a nothing, a dud, a non entity.

 

Nobody excepy conspiracy theroists even know his name. He is the Jim Jones of the off-the-wall gang. He is a potential presidential candidate for the grassy knoll society.

 

Thats got to be the weakest arguement in recorded history. At least its better than the usual insults though.