[stu]

Whoops forgot the rating.

*****

[Pherdz]

Have you guys heard this conspiracy that Ruppert really works for the CIA and that he feeds us all this info to keep us scared?

Check out this page: http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr64.html

Funny.

[stu]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pherdz', 'H')ave you guys heard this conspiracy that Ruppert really works for the CIA and that he feeds us all this info to keep us scared?

Check out this page: http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr64.html

Funny.

[skateari]

you can see how great that website is.. just look at this comment, brilliant if I can say so myself:

"This raises, in my mind at least, one very obvious question: how is it possible that nature has been taking an extremely heavy toll on the globe's 'fossil fuels' for hundreds of thousands of years (at the very least), without depleting the reserves that were supposedly created long, long ago; and yet man, who has been extracting and burning 'fossil fuels' for the mere blink of an eye, geologically speaking, has managed to nearly strip the planet clean?"

Wow, this guy is ahead of his time. Ruppert must be wrong, this guy just shoved all Ruppert has proven right back in his face. booyaa

[fastbike_gst1]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pherdz', '
')Check out this page: http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr64.html

[stu]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skateari', 'y')ou can see how great that website is.. just look at this comment, brilliant if I can say so myself:

"This raises, in my mind at least, one very obvious question: how is it possible that nature has been taking an extremely heavy toll on the globe's 'fossil fuels' for hundreds of thousands of years (at the very least), without depleting the reserves that were supposedly created long, long ago; and yet man, who has been extracting and burning 'fossil fuels' for the mere blink of an eye, geologically speaking, has managed to nearly strip the planet clean?"

Wow, this guy is ahead of his time. Ruppert must be wrong, this guy just shoved all Ruppert has proven right back in his face. booyaa

[tokyo_to_motueka]

If you do a search on www.google.com for:

[ruppert "crossing the rubicon"]

you get approximately 11,600 results.

If you then search news.google.com for:

[ruppert "crossing the rubicon"]

you get 4 results

(these are from FTW, CounterPunch, Axis of Logic and Vive le Canada).

Please note that google news only covers 30 days of news articles from 4,500 news sources.
In other words, not a word of this book in the last month in the mainstream press. Not one.
Why am I only mildly surprised?

[ck]

Wish I knew more about this "Peak Oil" business, but I'll check out the book... I have a feeling it helps to confirm what a lot of us have thought since 9-11... It was to perfect of everything on 9-11, never really added up when you looked at the facts... Like how we still have the same supposed 19 hijackers of that day, yet 7 of these guys have turned up alive and well in other countries...hmm... Or that the trade towers came down faster than the law that encompasses the rate of speed at which a free falling object can travel allows... The wrld is so interesting if we just look into it a bit...lots still to do beside watching tv

[PhilBiker]

I personally Don't Trust Ruppert. One sentence from that last link sums it up quite well $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'R')uppert is an expert at combining facts with unreliable reports and wild leaps of illogic.

[jimmyc]

PhilBiker, I don't think Rubbert's assertions are "illogical" at all. In fact, each day they seem more and more logical. Please give an example of where Ruppert combines fact with wild leaps of illogic, so that we can say, "Oh, yeah, that was a wild leap of illogic." or "No, actually Ruppert's view confirms what I see with my own eyes and feel in my own heart."

[Kingcoal]

The problem with using the news media as sources is that the new media is generally wildly inaccurate. If you don't believe me, just become involved in something where you are witness to an event that is reported on such as a traffic accident and you'll see what I mean.

You could probably spin any kind of conspiracy out of the garbage laying on the newsroom floor.

[TrueKaiser]

i haven't read the book but it's on my list to do so. though the fact that rupert was once in a insane asylum only makes me think it's just the rambleings of a person who is not running on all cylinders.

[skateari]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PhilBiker', 'I') personally Don't Trust Ruppert. One sentence from that last link sums it up quite well $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'R')uppert is an expert at combining facts with unreliable reports and wild leaps of illogic.

[Chuck]

More Problems with Mike Ruppert

http://kurtnimmo.com/blog/index.php?p=503

This piece is written by one of my favourite bloggers. I introduced him to PO, but he doesn't buy it. Hence maybe his attack on Ruppert (who is advising to buy gold/silver). Nonetheless, he makes some valid points.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')t also makes Mike Ruppert look like something other than what he tells us he is. Some have even gone so far as to accuse Ruppert of sabotaging the 9/11 movement from within, a sort of post-COINTELPRO operation initiated by the government. I have no evidence of this. However, if the dog and pony show at Kane Hall is any indication, it would seem, more than anything, Mike Ruppert is a shameless huckster, more interested in selling books and forging a career than getting to the bottom on what really happened on September 11, 2001.

[clv101]

If he doesn't buy into peak oil then I don't hold his other comments in very high regard.

[Tuike]

I've just finished reading the book.

English is not my mother tongue and I read the english version as there is not finnish version aviable. Matters are very complex what he says and I had much difficulty of grasping what he means.

If searching info about peak oil, then this is not a good book, because that subject is processed very lightly as the book concentrates on september's conspiracy. That U.S. leadership let Osama do his bidding on purpose, so that Usa could have good reason to start rampaging middle-east to fight for the last drop of oil. Osama, or was that remote controlled planes?

[azur]

Given that from start to end, Ruppert accuses Cheney of being the "maestro" behind 9/11, and devotes the whole book to providing evidence to try and back up that assertion, why does Cheney not sue Ruppert?

[azur]

Mike Ruppert kindly gave the reply today on the FTW website.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')ome years ago in the United States Supreme Court Larry Flynt won a case against Jerry Falwell that has protected our First Amendment to this day. That case enshrined our right to say critical and negative things about public figures, especially politicians, and it denied them the right to sue us little people for saying them. That decision made it impossible for Dick Cheney to sue me over Crossing the Rubicon, even after he leaves the White House. This is not the case in the UK as journalists labor under the constant threat of very expensive and prohibitive lawsuits where the only thing contested is the amount of money being thrown at lawyers.

[mastroid]

I read this book.

absolutely awesome and well written.

Anybody has information about mind control devices and how it is possible to ''hypnotise'' people remotely, using radiowaves frequencies ?

it is actually the most poignant and frightening aspect of the book, from my point of view.
some good info is available at :

http://www.raven1.net/
and
http://www.angelfire.com/or/mctrl/


anything else ?

thanks
this forum is great

namaste

[Bandidoz]

Very comprehensive and thus very long winded. It felt like a catalogue of Mike's FTW works. If you take Ruppert's position as gospel then you can skip a lot of the quotations held within the book, as they do drag on.

For me the most interesting aspects were about how "money works", microbiology, and the "phone call from the FAA to his brother in the South Tower".

As I was reading I couldn't help but think, "OK Mike, what do you think's coming next?"

Rating = ****. (4.5 out of 5)