Mike Ruppert leaves the US for good

DamianB · Post by **DamianB** » 20 Aug 2006, 23:28

...just hoping that this site won't degenerate into a peak oil version of Hello magazine where 'celebrities' latest PR stunts are analysed.

PowerSwitchJames · Post by **PowerSwitchJames** » 21 Aug 2006, 10:24

I have seen the light and now believe that we will all be saved by the imminent release of zero-point energy devices.

mobbsey · Post by **mobbsey** » 21 Aug 2006, 11:41

MacG wrote:Tell me one thing Ruppert has done on his own? He's just taking other peoples work and spin it (and ask for money to keep on).

Having met Mike and corresponded with him for a couple of years, I'd agree that he's not "out there" with the original thinkers and researchers, but his strength and speciality is "oiling" [forgive the pun] the cogs of communications. He's put a lot of people together/in touch, and sparked off a lot of debates through FTW, which otherwise wouldn't of happened, and for that reason his work is a valid contribution the overall effort.

Re: leaving the US.... can anyone blame him?

P.

dr_doom · Post by **dr_doom** » 21 Aug 2006, 11:48

If it wasn't for Mike I wouldn't know about peak oil.

Yes he is a drama queen.

GAZ · Post by **GAZ** » 21 Aug 2006, 12:31

It was reading FTW's work on the CIA and the global grug trade and their work on september 11th that helped me to learn about peak oil.

It's also because of an insatiable desire to learn more about the subject that i discovered Powerswitch.

dudley · Post by **dudley** » 21 Aug 2006, 12:58

I'd like to know where he's moved to and why he chose that place.

I think he draws conclusions when there isn't enough evidence. His book is pretty unreadable, too.

PowerSwitchJames · Post by **PowerSwitchJames** » 21 Aug 2006, 13:52

I wish Ruppert all the best with his future as he goes into the wilderness. He has made a lot of people peak oil aware although for a long time his angle on it made peak oil seem like a traditional conspiracy theory. The subject of Peak Oil is now being taken seriously with varying degrees of openness by a growing number of people with power (government, investment banks, pension funds etc) and the people with the ability to transmit it (mainstream press, cinema, well regarded websites such as the BBC). Peak Oil is becoming part of the common lexicon. Some have argued his conspiracy take on Peak Oil may have damaged the message, but to me, that is irrelevant now. On a personal note, the dealings that myself and some other PowerSwitch members have had with Ruppert have not left a positive impact on us, but I am thankful to his contribution to the movement as he has been a part of getting many more people thinking about the subject than if he hadn't been around.

Bozzio · Post by **Bozzio** » 21 Aug 2006, 16:35

I for one support Mike Ruppert. I do agree that he is a drama queen but he has made many people aware of peak oil and 9/11.

I came to understand PO through reading about 9/11. For me, there is no doubt that 9/11 was an inside job - the proof is overwhelming and we have discussed it here many times before. Just for the record, Ruppert is not highly rated among the 9/11 Truth Movement because of his rejection of the visual evidence. Overall, his views on 9/11 have made him both friends and enemies on each side - the peaknik crowd and the 9/11 truth bunch. I for one admire his consistency. I very much share his view that 9/11 was in reaction to a coming oil crisis (not that that justifies it at all) and I admire his conviction.

This is just my humble opninion of course but I do find it annoying when intelligent people are so quick to criticise any discussion that may involve fringe concepts choosing instead to attack the very role they may play in raising awareness when completely non-oil related subjects are discussed everyday on this forum without prejudice.

Can I just add in reaction to James' comment above that I for one do not view the BBC website with high regard. The BBC often makes schoolboy errors in its reporting and rarely offers any proof that it has actually investigated much of what it reports. Some of the 9/11 information, a subject I know well, has been so badly distorted that it beggars belief that we should trust anything the BBC says on any subject.

PowerSwitchJames · Post by **PowerSwitchJames** » 21 Aug 2006, 18:29

Fair point about the BBC, but nonetheless, it is held in high regard by a large percentage of the population. Many people will not believe anything until it is on the BBC.

MacG · Post by **MacG** » 21 Aug 2006, 20:44

The BBC have done a MUCH better job describing the current situation than anything Ruppert have ever come close to!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... nightmares

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... nightmares

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... nightmares

Ruppert claim that he is "connecting the dots" and present his stuff as if there was some global plan or something to screw us. I dont belive that one second! From what I know from watching government officials and big corporations from the inside, there are bunches of people who just react to the various incentives presented to them. In retrospect, it might look like a conspiracy, but in reality it's just the sum of human shortcomings acting in concert.

Nota bene: I think that WTC 1, 2 and 7 got down by controlled demolition and that no plane hit the Pentagon.

Concerning WTC 1,2 and 7 it's pretty obvious that the buildings were wired for destruction since they were built. Anyone owning such a building want to insure it. Insurance companies want to be able to calculate risks - that's what they do for a living. It's pretty straightforward to calculate risk for a single building, quite another thing to calculate risk for the potential damage to surrounding life and property. Tall buildings like WTC 1 and 2 could fall in a lot of directions causing incalculatable damage. Any insurance company would like to limit the insurance coverage to just the very building they insure.

Owners of surrounding property will also want to insure THEIR buildings, and the insurance companies would like to restric the risk to just the buildings they insure, and would call force majeure if WTC 1 or 2 fell on them.

From an insurance/risk standpoint, it makes all the sense in the world to wire privately owned high-rise buildings in urban environments for controlled demolition. Should go into the design specification, and it probably did. And it makes all the sense in the world to keep quiet about it.

My personal guess is that Larry Silberstein did an insurance job. The darn buildings were full of asbest after all. And WTC 7 was no "command centre", it was just damaged, full of asbest and in need of an insurance job that too.

dr_doom · Post by **dr_doom** » 21 Aug 2006, 22:18

MacG wrote: My personal guess is that Larry Silberstein did an insurance job. The darn buildings were full of asbest after all. And WTC 7 was no "command centre", it was just damaged, full of asbest and in need of an insurance job that too.

Some might say your way of rationalising these actions as: "it's just an insurance job", and "it makes perfect sense to demolish the buildings and then lie about it"....would be seen as condoning mass murder.

MacG · Post by **MacG** » 22 Aug 2006, 05:52

dr_doom wrote:
MacG wrote: My personal guess is that Larry Silberstein did an insurance job. The darn buildings were full of asbest after all. And WTC 7 was no "command centre", it was just damaged, full of asbest and in need of an insurance job that too.
Some might say your way of rationalising these actions as: "it's just an insurance job", and "it makes perfect sense to demolish the buildings and then lie about it"....would be seen as condoning mass murder.

That would be to terrible! No, I'm looking for conspiracies with some historical precedent. Things that have happened before. Combinations of conspiracies, human weakness, greed and cock-up, which is littered around the rest of history.

isenhand · Post by **isenhand** » 22 Aug 2006, 06:11

Bozzio wrote:I for one support . I do agree that he is a drama queen but he has made many people aware of peak oil and 9/11.

the proof is overwhelming and we have discussed it here many times before.

Underwhelming as far as I can see. Too much wishful thinking, poor thinking, logical fallacies and lack of knowledge. Best just to be honest and say we don?t know rather than make up fantasies.

As for Mike Ruppert, never read his stuff but in getting the message over I think we have room for all kinds of people and if people become aware of PO through Mike?s work then I think it is irrelevant if he is or is not a drama queen or adds or does not add anything original (and lets face it, its hard to add something original).

dr_doom · Post by **dr_doom** » 22 Aug 2006, 08:46

MacG wrote: That would be to terrible! No, I'm looking for conspiracies with some historical precedent. Things that have happened before. Combinations of conspiracies, human weakness, greed and cock-up, which is littered around the rest of history.

But you just said you thought Silverstein did demolish those buildings for the insurance pay-out. How is it a cock-up if his plan (conspiracy) succeeded.

From what I can gather, you are saying that you do think 9/11 was an inside job, but you think it was just a few rogue criminal elements of the government and definitely not part of any larger conspiracy?

dr_doom · Post by **dr_doom** » 22 Aug 2006, 08:51

isenhand wrote: Underwhelming as far as I can see. Too much wishful thinking, poor thinking, logical fallacies and lack of knowledge. Best just to be honest and say we don?t know rather than make up fantasies.

Who in their right mind would wish to believe that our governments are so totally corrupt, and think so little of "its" people that it would sacrifice 3,000 of them as a pre-text to start an illegal war in the middle-east?

That's a logical fallacy if ever I saw one.