Whats the worst that could happen?

[Newtonian]

And precisely what is that "price?"

Have you ever heard of a place called Coventry!

You may end up there or worse!

[Dave]

Have you ever heard of a place called Coventry!

You may end up there or worse!

 

There's nothing wrong with Coventry - I live there, after all

 

(That wasn't intended as sarcasm btw )

[Pangloss]

"Now, Che Guevara. Che... Coventry City last won the English Football Cup in what year? No? I can throw the question open. Anybody else? Coventry City last won the English Football Cup in what year? No, well, I'm not surprised you didn't get that. It is in fact a trick question. Coventry City have never won the English Football Cup."

[syntax252]

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

 

Well really, who is this Ruppert guy anyway?

 

He has been committed to a mental institution, he is known to make rather off-the-wall conclusions, he hs no standing in the ligitimate press and he has not even interviewed any of the principal players in the 9/11 event.

 

All he has is a following of gullible people who are already pre-disposed to believe anything that is critical of their government and especially if it is critical of the Bush administration.

 

He is just another jerk who wrote a book. Big deal!

 

When the rest of the media starts to pick up on his allegations, then it might mean something, but so far, he hasn't gotten much traction for his conspiracy theories--now has he?

 

Newtonian:

Have you ever heard of a place called Coventry!

You may end up there or worse!

 

Perhaps Coventry would be the better for it if I did!

[TimeTraveler]

Well really, who is this Ruppert guy anyway?

 

I've posted links to about everything you would ever want to know about this guy. Did you read any of them? Did you look over his bio, his LAPD records, or any of the other 20 or so links of all this guys records and documents about his history that I posted?

 

He has been committed to a mental institution,

 

Are you joking? Do you just make this stuff up as you go? He went to a psychiatrist on his own accord and was diagnosed in perfect mental health and you interpret that as being committed to a mental institution? Millions of people see Psyciatrists especially people in these very stressful professions.

 

This completely fabricated and manipulated arguement holds no water what-so-ever.

 

he is known to make rather off-the-wall conclusions, he hs no standing in the ligitimate press and he has not even interviewed any of the principal players in the 9/11 event.

 

Do you even know who he has interviewed? Do you even know his standing in the press or are you just making more stuff up? His work is independant, he has a staff of about 10 editors and writers. His news letters are in the form of essays instead of dumbed down mainstream media reports, his level of writing is higher than most anyone in the media, his work is alot more known than you give credit for and yes people do pay attention. If your waiting for the mainstream media to catch on to what he is saying and actually report about it you might be waiting along time. It's not in their best interests to even think about reporting this stuff, they have too much to lose.

 

All he has is a following of gullible people who are already pre-disposed to believe anything that is critical of their government and especially if it is critical of the Bush administration.

 

Weak. You don't even have any idea who he has got the attention of. People who understand what really goes on in our government agencies pay attention to this guy.

 

FTW is now read by more than 20,000 subscribers in 40 countries including 40 members of the US Congress and professors at 30 universities around the world.

 

That is just subscribers, and you don't really get anything extra for subscribing except newsletters that usually become free about a month after the newsletter is released. People subscribe to get those stories early, and to help support the site and keep his work going.

 

The rest of your arguement is not worth the time to respond. Its just more fabricated and manipulated made up conclusions that show how little you know about what you are trying to argue about.

[syntax252]

I've posted links to about everything you would ever want to know about this guy. Did you read any of them? Did you look over his bio' date=' his LAPD records, or any of the other 20 or so links of all this guys records and documents about his history that I posted?

 

 

 

Are you joking? Do you just make this stuff up as you go? He went to a psychiatrist on his own accord and was diagnosed in perfect mental health and you interpret that as being committed to a mental institution? Millions of people see Psyciatrists especially people in these very stressful professions.

 

This completely fabricated and manipulated arguement holds no water what-so-ever.

 

 

 

Do you even know who he has interviewed? Do you even know his standing in the press or are you just making more stuff up? His work is independant, he has a staff of about 10 editors and writers. His news letters are in the form of essays instead of dumbed down mainstream media reports, his level of writing is higher than most anyone in the media, his work is alot more known than you give credit for and yes people do pay attention. If your waiting for the mainstream media to catch on to what he is saying and actually report about it you might be waiting along time. It's not in their best interests to even think about reporting this stuff, they have too much to lose.

 

 

 

Weak. You don't even have any idea who he has got the attention of. People who understand what really goes on in our government agencies pay attention to this guy.

 

 

 

That is just subscribers, and you don't really get anything extra for subscribing except newsletters that usually become free about a month after the newsletter is released. People subscribe to get those stories early, and to help support the site and keep his work going.

 

The rest of your arguement is not worth the time to respond. Its just more fabricated and manipulated made up conclusions that show how little you know about what you are trying to argue about.[/quote']

 

 

From the article I posted earlier--" 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."

 

Doesn't that sound more like what I said that what you said?

 

Where does he talk about his interview with Condi Rice? Don Rumsfeld? George Bush? Cheney? Colin Powell? These are all principals in the 9/11 matter, are they not? How can he say that these people were complicit in the events of 9/11 without even interviewing them?

 

The man is a joke--a sick joke. His only appeal it to freaked out conspitacy buffs who are still wet nehind the ears and not smart enough to know when they are being had.

 

The Jim Jones of the modern era.

 

And those 20,000 subscribers don't go very far in todays world of journalism. Ruppert wouldn't make a pimple on a journalists ass.

 

Your willingness to buy into his line of garbage speaks to your youth and unexperience. After you have been around as long as some of us, you will learn to be nore careful who you associate yourself with.

[TimeTraveler]

From the article I posted earlier--" 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."

 

Doesn't that sound more like what I said that what you said?

 

No not at all, and you trying to argue this point clearly illustrates how little you understand the difference between seeing a psyciatrist and being committed to a mental institution.

 

I don't know what your thought process is behind this whole baseless arguement, but it appears you are just in it to win it and get the last word (like usual). You win, I'm done. Go pat yourself on the back knowing that you won a debate because your arguement was so ignorant and arrogant for anyone to continue.

 

And the "I'm older than you so that means your stupid and wrong" arguement is priceless!

 

Later.

[syntax252]

No not at all' date=' and you trying to argue this point clearly illustrates how little you understand the difference between seeing a psyciatrist and being committed to a mental institution.

 

I don't know what your thought process is behind this whole baseless arguement, but it appears you are just in it to win it and get the last word (like usual). You win, I'm done. Go pat yourself on the back knowing that you won a debate because your arguement was so ignorant and arrogant for anyone to continue.

 

And the "I'm older than you so that means your stupid and wrong" arguement is priceless!

 

Later.[/quote']

Well OK, if you're gonna go getting all mad about it.

 

What's the matter, doncha like it when someone accuses your hero of being a phoney? Because that is exactly what he is--a 2 bit phoney. He can lope off to Hell and take all of those 20,000 subscribers with him.

 

Maybe when they get there, he will be able to figure out who shot Kennedy, who really bombed Pearl Harbor and who really kidnapped the Lindberg baby.

[Ophiolite]

And precisely what is that "price?"

Being ignored.

Being attacked.

Being perceived as a senile old man.

Being laughed at.

Being banned.

 

Take your pick. Sorry, you don't get to choose: everybody else does. (Except for the last one.)

 

Now, getting serious: are you really basing your opinion of this guys book on other people's opinions? I had you down as more independent minded than that.

[syntax252]

Being ignored.

Being attacked.

Being perceived as a senile old man.

Being laughed at.

Being banned.

 

Take your pick. Sorry' date=' you don't get to choose: everybody else does. (Except for the last one.)

 

Now, getting serious: are you really basing your opinion of this guys book on [i']other people's [/i]opinions? I had you down as more independent minded than that.

 

None of the above are of any concern to me.

 

Now as to the book, let me ask you a question: If, as I outlined in a previous post, a panel was established for the express purpose of investigating an event, (9/11) and that panel came back with a report that stated that certain people did not play a role in the planning of or the carrying out of the event, yet someone who has little or no expertise in investigating matters of this magnitude, writes a book and claims that the afore-mentioned panel was full of shit and that only by reading his book could we find the truth, and he wrote this book based on not interviewing any of the principal players of the event--would you think that his book was relevent to the question?

 

Especially since the rest of the established media essentially ignores him and his book?

 

Neither would I.

 

Then we cast around to see if there are other examples in history that come adorned with the same sort of for-profit activity, and we find that indeed there are! The Kennedy assassination, how many books and movies were made about that one? How much soap and how many Chevys were sold on the unfortunate fact that a man had his brains blown out?

 

Pearl Harbor--I have read many accounts about how Roosvelt and Churchill got together and planed that one just to get the US involved in WWII.

 

The internet is stuffed to the extent of it's bandwidth with cock-a-ninny conspiracy theroies about any sibject that one can imagine. Do you think that I--or you--necessarily has to read all of these bullshit theories before we can disregard them?

 

Neither do I.

[TimeTraveler]

Now as to the book, let me ask you a question: If, as I outlined in a previous post, a panel was established for the express purpose of investigating an event, (9/11) and that panel came back with a report that stated that certain people did not play a role in the planning of or the carrying out of the event, yet someone who has little or no expertise in investigating matters of this magnitude, writes a book and claims that the afore-mentioned panel was full of shit and that only by reading his book could we find the truth, and he wrote this book based on not interviewing any of the principal players of the event--would you think that his book was relevent to the question?

 

Do you honestly believe that the 9/11 commission was even trying to denounce any traces of government complexity? It would seem that their main purpose was to establish a basis of what went wrong and how to increase our ability to prevent something like this happening again. I do not understand how you get the impression that this panel was more qualified than an investigator who has blown the door wide open on the CIA's complexity in drug trafficking, or who has spent the last 30 or so years investigating behind the scenes in our government. The panel consisted of politicians and business men, the only experience they have investigating anything is investigating how to get elected or how to make more money.

 

I mean c'mon. They didn't even prove that the list of the 19 hijackers was accurate, all they did was report what was reported to them. There is much evidence to suggest that as many as 9 (maybe even more) of the list of 19 are still alive. How much investigating went into finding out how accurate our intelligence was on exactly who those hijackers actually were? They basically took the list and accepted it. They didn't investigate the accuracy.

 

They did very little in investigating the war games that took place that morning, they didn't investigate who was commanding and in charge of those war games. (which was likely Dick Cheney)

 

They didn't investigate the real impact of those war games, they basically stated what they were reported that those war games actually helped because the FAA and Norad were more prepared, which can pretty much be proven false, the war games caused some severe interference and massive confusion, but they didn't really investigate into that too much.

 

They didn't investigate the manuever that was performed over the pentagon, by an alleged hijacker pilot who had barely recieved enough training to fly small aircraft. But somehow he was able to pull off a loop manuever and very tricky and accurate shot into the pentagon that probably less than 10% of our most experienced pilots could perform.

 

I could go on and on about what was not investigated, and how unreal this investigation was. But thats okay, you continue to believe they did a perfect job and that politicians and business men are best suited for the biggest investigation in our history.

[Pangloss]

There you go again, off like a rocket, making Oliver Stone proud.

 

You need to stop letting Syntax draw you out so much that you keep falling off the deep end. You sound like one of those chiropracters who try to stick with simple back massage but who secretly believe that subluxions are real.

 

This is an amusing last-word contest, but it lost its discussion value several pages ago. Flip a coin or something. Loser gets the last word in the next one.

[Ophiolite]

It has always been my perception that committee style investigations are more in the nature of a CYA operation (or cover someone else's ass if it is an 'independent' investigation). They are also, typically limited in their remit, so that some aspects are deliberately excluded. Combine these characteristics with natural human incompetence and its a fair bet that they come up with only half the truth.

I think syntax is being charmingly gullible in the faith he places in such studies.

For all its faults it does not, however mean that the 'conspiracy' solution is correct. You really can achieve a great deal with simple incompetence.

[TimeTraveler]

There you go again, off like a rocket, making Oliver Stone proud.

 

You need to stop letting Syntax draw you out so much that you keep falling off the deep end.

 

I don't see how suggesting that the 9/11 commission was not a reasonable investigation for the biggest homicide case in American history is 'off the deep end'.

 

This is an amusing last-word contest, but it lost its discussion value several pages ago. Flip a coin or something. Loser gets the last word in the next one.

 

Pangloss, you should just take the last word I don't want it. As long as it doesn't come in with the intention of antagonizing and provoking the continuation of this one-sided flame war.

[TimeTraveler]

It has always been my perception that committee style investigations are more in the nature of a CYA operation (or cover someone else's ass if it is an 'independent' investigation). They are also, typically limited in their remit, so that some aspects are deliberately excluded. Combine these characteristics with natural human incompetence and its a fair bet that they come up with only half the truth.

I think syntax is being charmingly gullible in the faith he places in such studies.

 

I agree.

 

For all its faults it does not, however mean that the 'conspiracy' solution is correct. You really can achieve a great deal with simple incompetence.

 

No it doesn't mean anything is correct. But, I think I know you well enough Ophiolite to say that if you read the book I think you would agree that further investigation is 100% necessary, and that complexity is a very realistic possibility.

 

And it goes alot further than just this guy and his investigations. It's just that he has done some serious work and investigation, his work and evidence is very organized and covers the whole spectrum. But, there is a huge 9/11 truth movement that is growing everyday trying to get answers and find out the truth.

 

The problem is no one is really approaching the problem in the right way. Stanley Hilton:

 

Alex Jones: He (Stanley Hilton) is former Bob Dole's chief of staff' date=' very successful counselor, lawyer. He represents hundreds of the victims families of 9/11. He is suing Bush for involvement in 9/11....

 

Stanley Hilton: I also wanted to point out that, just quickly, I went to school with some of these neocons. At the University of Chicago, in the late 60s with Wolfowitz and Feith and several of the others and so I know these people personally. And we used to talk about this stuff all of the time. And I did my senior thesis on this very subject - how to turn the U.S. into a presidential dictatorship by manufacturing a bogus Pearl Harbor event. So, technically this has been in the planning at least 35 years.[/quote']

 

And I don't know what kind of evidence Stanley Hilton has or will present in his legal case, but I do know that his efforts so far have been flawed. He made his case accussing the President of the US as having involvement in a mass homicide. The case was thrown out of court, not because of a lack of evidence, but because the doctrine of sovereign immunity. A civilian can not bring charges (even mass murder) against the President of the US. When it got thrown out he lost alot of credibility and so did the movement. People looked at it as being thrown out, so there must have been no truth to his allegations, however he never even got the opportunity to address those allegations.

 

Basically we are left with a corrupt government as the only means of protecting us, or investigating corruption in our government. It's not in the best interest of those in Congress or Senate to even get involved here, how would that be benefitting them to get re-elected? But, things are looking up, and the truth movement is making alot of progress. In New York where the movement is largely established recent polls indicate that over 40% believe government complexity in 9/11 and the spitzer petition has been gaining signatures at great speeds, so it might not be long before this evidence and these allegations hit the main stream.

[syntax252]

There you go again' date=' off like a rocket, making Oliver Stone proud.

 

You need to stop letting Syntax draw you out so much that you keep falling off the deep end. You sound like one of those chiropracters who try to stick with simple back massage but who secretly believe that subluxions are real.

 

This is an amusing last-word contest, but it lost its discussion value several pages ago. Flip a coin or something. Loser gets the last word in the next one.[/quote']

 

This kid doesn't have a word to express, let alone "last."

 

What the Hell is "government complexity" anyway? Is he trying to say government complicity?

 

This is a sterling example of a nut who wants to shoot off his little round mouth about things that he knows nothing about.

 

First he wants to take the high road and refuse to be party to an argument, then he comes right back with the same old off-the-wall, lame arguments that he has been parroting since the beginning. And if I point out the rather obvious fact that he is a weapons grade jerk, you "intellectuals" rip your clothing and cry "blasphemy."

 

According to Timetraveler, the 9/11 commission has it wrong!! according to him, the only authority who's opinion is worth reading is this jerk Ruppert who is a reject from the local fruitcake acadamy.

 

And I am supposed to be polite to this guy?

[syntax252]

Do you honestly believe that the 9/11 commission was even trying to denounce any traces of government complexity? It would seem that their main purpose was to establish a basis of what went wrong and how to increase our ability to prevent something like this happening again. I do not understand how you get the impression that this panel was more qualified than an investigator who has blown the door wide open on the CIA's complexity in drug trafficking' date=' or who has spent the last 30 or so years investigating behind the scenes in our government. The panel consisted of politicians and business men, the only experience they have investigating anything is investigating how to get elected or how to make more money.

 

I mean c'mon. They didn't even prove that the list of the 19 hijackers was accurate, all they did was report what was reported to them. There is much evidence to suggest that as many as 9 (maybe even more) of the list of 19 are still alive. How much investigating went into finding out how accurate our intelligence was on exactly who those hijackers actually were? They basically took the list and accepted it. They didn't investigate the accuracy.

 

They did very little in investigating the war games that took place that morning, they didn't investigate who was commanding and in charge of those war games. (which was likely Dick Cheney)

 

They didn't investigate the real impact of those war games, they basically stated what they were reported that those war games actually helped because the FAA and Norad were more prepared, which can pretty much be proven false, the war games caused some severe interference and massive confusion, but they didn't really investigate into that too much.

 

They didn't investigate the manuever that was performed over the pentagon, by an alleged hijacker pilot who had barely recieved enough training to fly small aircraft. But somehow he was able to pull off a loop manuever and very tricky and accurate shot into the pentagon that probably less than 10% of our most experienced pilots could perform.

 

I could go on and on about what was not investigated, and how unreal this investigation was. But thats okay, you continue to believe they did a perfect job and that politicians and business men are best suited for the biggest investigation in our history.[/quote']

 

 

The problem with Ruppert is that he is a liar and he doesn't know what he is talking about.

 

I warned you to ne careful what you swallowed.

[Sayonara]

This kid doesn't have a word to express, let alone "last."

I rather think that he does. The posts in which he does just that appear to be ample evidence.

 

 

And I am supposed to be polite to this guy?

Yes. Unless you think you can give me a good reason why not?

 

Go on, try me. I've just suspended Cadmus, which puts you at the top of the trouble list. The sad part is that you actually can do a lot better.

[syntax252]

I rather think that he does. The posts in which he does just that appear to be ample evidence.

 

And you call unsubstiantiated allegation "evidence?"

 

Does it matter at all to you that the 9/11 commission found that the things that TT quotes are bullshit?

 

Yes. Unless you think you can give me a good reason why not?

 

Go on, try me. I've just suspended Cadmus, which puts you at the top of the trouble list. The sad part is that you actually can do a lot better.

 

Well I think I can.

 

He has accused the President of the United States as being complicit in the worst attack against civilians on American soil in the history of the nation. He, in another forum has charged that the Vice President, the Sec. of Defense and the assistand Sec of defense "may have" organized the antrax letters being sent to members of our Senate. And he has repeatedly cited the for-profit work of an off the wall nut case as being somehow more reliable than the findings of the 9'11 commission, a panel sworn to investigate the circumstances surrounding the events of 9/11.

 

If you think that that sort of input is worthy of courtesy and respect on this forum, then you just get right to banning, but, just as long as I am here, I will call a spade a spade and this guy is, in my opinion, a weapons grade JERK!

[Aardvark]

If you think that that sort of input is worthy of courtesy and respect on this forum' date=' then you just get right to banning, but, just as long as I [b']am[/b] here, I will call a spade a spade and this guy is, in my opinion, a weapons grade JERK!

 

Syntax, i know how you feel, i sometimes allow myself to get pissed off at what i see as peoples stupidity or refusal to face reason. But it's best not to allow yourself to be provoked into exchanging insults, however well deserved they may seem.

 

I'm writing this as someone who has occasionally gone a bit over the top at what i've seen as peoples idiocy.

 

For what it's worth, the idea that the US government deliberately orchestrated an attack on its own capital and New York seems highly unlikely, if only on grounds of risk/reward calculations.

 

Even if we assume the US government is evil, cynical and aggressively imperialistic it still seems unlikely that it would make such a move.

 

As such the balance of proof very much lies on those who would hold the US government culpable. So far i haven't seen anywhere near enough evidence to remotely approach the mark.

[Pangloss]

No, Syntax, he's saying that it's ample evidence that TT has plenty of words to express. He's not defending his position on the 9/11 commission. (grin)

[syntax252]

Syntax' date=' i know how you feel, i sometimes allow myself to get pissed off at what i see as peoples stupidity or refusal to face reason. But it's best not to allow yourself to be provoked into exchanging insults, however well deserved they may seem.

 

I'm writing this as someone who has occasionally gone a bit over the top at what i've seen as peoples idiocy.

 

For what it's worth, the idea that the US government deliberately orchestrated an attack on its own capital and New York seems highly unlikely, if only on grounds of risk/reward calculations.

 

Even if we assume the US government is evil, cynical and aggressively imperialistic it still seems unlikely that it would make such a move.

 

As such the balance of proof very much lies on those who would hold the US government culpable. So far i haven't seen anywhere near enough evidence to remotely approach the mark.[/quote']

 

 

Indeed!

 

I do not understand how one can be so very casual of accusing the President of murder, with no credible evidence to back it up, then cry "flame" if someone accuses him of being a jerk for suggesting such a thing.

 

It is almost as if he thinks his opinion takes precident over all others.

[syntax252]

No, Syntax, he's saying that it's ample evidence that TT has plenty of words to express. He's not defending his position on the 9/11 commission. (grin)

 

When I said that he didn't have any words to express, I should have said he had nothing meaningful to relate. That is the fact of the matter.

 

But for one to insist that the President is culpable in one of the most vicious mass murders of all time, is insulting to every American in the country.

 

I am not by any means a Clinton fan, but I certainly would be insulted if anyone seriously suggested that he had arranged for the bombing of the USS Cole, for example.

 

This kind of stuff is stupid, it is insulting and anyone who promotes that kind of garbage should be told exactly what kind of asshole he is.

[Sayonara]

And you call unsubstiantiated allegation "evidence?"

I called it no such thing.

 

Does it matter at all to you that the 9/11 commission found that the things that TT quotes are bullshit?

Not one bit.

 

If you think that that sort of input is worthy of courtesy and respect on this forum, then you just get right to banning,

The word you used was "polite". Despite commonly appearing alongside them, it has nothing to do with courtesy or respect.

[Sayonara]

I do not understand how one can be so very casual of accusing the President of murder' date=' with no credible evidence to back it up, then cry "flame" if someone accuses him of being a jerk for suggesting such a thing.

 

It is almost as if he thinks his opinion takes precident over all others.[/quote']

Let me spell it out for you:

 

 

Response A: "That opinion is moronic!"

 

Response B: "You are a moron!"

 

 

Guess which one is less acceptable.