|
Statement by Michael C. Ruppert
"More than thirty-five times now, and in nine countries, I have lectured
on 9/11. The average attendance at the lectures has been between 400 and
500 people. In an estimated sixty-five per sent of those lectures, in
question and answer sessions lasting sometimes up to three hours I have
been asked why I don't pursue the physical evidence inconsistencies of
9/11. At least 9,100 people have heard me say something like:
"I don't for a minute believe that an airliner hit the Pentagon. And no
one has ever seen a video of an airliner hitting the Pentagon because
there isn't one. It doesn't look like the WTC towers collapsed because of
the impacts and the way that they collapsed doesn't make sense. But if I,
with some measure of journalistic credibility, and my readers on Capitol
Hill and in universities start writing stories about these things, I wind
up in either a journalistic suicide mission, or in the improbable place of
having to explain where the airliner that didn't hit the Pentagon went or
how the towers were brought down. There is a mountain of physical evidence
that blows the government story in my mind, but my experience says that it
will never penetrate the consciousness of the American people in a way
that will bring about change. What will penetrate, from my experience, is
taking non-scientific reports that most people instantly accept as
credible, whether news reports or government statements or documents, and
merely showing that they are lies. That opens the wedge, and removes any
reliance upon expert or scientific testimony which is typically used to
confuse simple facts. From there, you can begin to show people all the
other documentary evidence of foreknowledge, planning and participation."
|