Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by TimeTraveler

  1. 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 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.
  2. 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.
  3. What is his reasoning and agenda, 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.
  4. 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.
  5. And the destruction of Iraq has ultimately prevented this fictional terrorist attack that may happen and may kill 1,000,000?
  6. 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. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. Brilliant! *sigh*. Im not sure if your trying to be insulting or humorous here, either way it didn't work out.
  9. 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. 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. 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.
  10. 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
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. TimeTraveler

    Schiavo case

    I have not read through this entire thread, I don't have the time. I also have not been following it very much so my opinion is not formally developed. But, what I think is if her parents are willing to take care of her even if she has a chance to recover or not they should be allowed to. The husband has moved on, he should just let her go and leave her with her parents. As a parent thats what I would want from my children. They brought you into this world, it should ultimately be their decision. And it seems to me that the arguement is she is not aware and suffering, well by that arguement if she is not aware, would she be aware that she is suffering? My wife and I care for her mentally disabled uncle and trying to understand a disfunctional mind is difficult.
  14. Have you read the Volcker report? I didn't think it was out yet. At any rate Annan has said he is confident he will not be incriminated, I would like to read the report if it is indeed out yet. I have always considered Kofi Annan a good man and I appreciate alot that he has done or has at least tried to do. As for his proposed plan I like it, I would like to read the full thing in detail if I could.
  15. 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.
  16. lol. I think that we really should put more concentration into renewable energy sources rather than drilling in anwr, what we are doing is trying to stall rather than trying to repair/replace. I don't think it's a huge deal for now, my fear is whats next, like someone said, do we start drilling in our national parks? Oil from here might help slow the price hikes, but the price is still going to continue rising.
  17. 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.
  18. Pangloss, Good to know that you know about Operation Northwoods, and good thing the plan was abondoned. 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.
  19. 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?
  20. 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: 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.
  21. 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. 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. 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.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.