Changed my view point

After watching this;

Mike Ruppert

And reading this;

from the wilderness

My view point as changed, we seem to be losing our selves in scientific arguments about how and why the towers fell, as good as these are and help to understand things better, they can only be speculatiuon until hard facts are available or a near identical attack happens, which lets be honest is never gonna happen.

I'm now of the view point that arguing about how they came down should be left till after something is done about whats happening now.

If mike rupperts facts are to be believed (no reason not to he has alot of hard evidence with good sources) then something has to be done before we are all "global US citizens" and as far fetched as that sounds there are plenty of facts to suggest its a strong possibilty if everything goes to plan.

Has anyone seen or researched mike rupperts claims? the book by Zbigniew Brzezinski seemed to be spot on the money and predicted what needed to be done when published back in 1997, in GOD we trust indeed!!!!

And what with all the gas supply problems there having in Georgia (country not state) which also has links with bush then it seems we are in for an intresting decade!

[edit on 22-1-2006 by Ernold Same]

Originally posted by Ernold Same we seem to be losing our selves in scientific arguments about how and why the towers fell, as good as these are and help to understand things better, they can only be speculatiuon until hard facts

You mean the fact that many people heard/witnessed multiple explosions/popping sounds on various floors (including the basements), saw flashes coming from the towers before it collapsed, squibs coming out of the towers, molten metal, and the fact that all three building's imploded are not "hard facts"???


I'm not sure what Ruppert's motives are, but you should check this out.

Like Ruppert says, he's not qualified to analyse video and photographs to determine physic irregularities, so he doesn't. For some 9/11 researches, they get turned off by that thinking he's not interested or doesn't believe anything was wrong which isn't true at all, he simply isn't going to rest his case on something he's not qualified for and that a court of law wouldn't accept and it's obvious you can get two scientists to say the exact opposite if you want anyway.

He sticks to evidence which has paper trails and 9/11 isn't his main focus, that's just a by-product of what he's been talking about for years, he said it would happen, that something had to happen soon and it did.

He was writing articles about Bin Laden being a CIA asset long before it was fashionable, i think around 1997 was his main article on that link.

Like all researchers, he has his areas of expertise and does amazing research in those areas - mainly issues dealing with the CIA which has connected itself with drugs, weapons and eventually 9/11 and beyond.

He needs to be listened to and taken in along with the rest as he fills in some major holes in the 9/11 puzzle which are left behind by those who only focus on the details that come with photos and video.

9/11 would be busted wide open by now if the amount of researchers who focus on the videos and photographs actually focused on the business, trades and money trails.