Just because

[Michael Bailey]

Just because someone had mental health issues and/or killed themselves
doesn’t mean they were wrong about everything.

He was a cop, which takes a certain amount of fortitude. The CIA did find
him employable although he didn’t accept.

There was a legit concern about Promis.

The CIA was indeed involved in dealing coke.

IJS, not all of the stuff on Rupert’s website is wrong.

Not all of the 9-11 doubt is instantly dismissable.
Not all has been refuted point for point.

A lot of refutations fill the gaps between objections they can easily
counter with ad hominem, and then never deal with other ones but claim
completeness.

But, I’m not pushing that myself.

 Back in the dark days of the naughts, I liked to compare versions & the
official one always seemed to suck & to try to justify killing a bunch of
foreigners whom *nobody* claimed had anything at all to do
with it, and Halliburton making a bunch of money.

(Even if every word of the NIST is true the US military used that as an
excuse to lurch into action, killing orders of magnitude more people than
9-11, and for what? Those folks are certainly as worthy of mourning, and
outrage, if you’re into that, imho.)


The disbelievers in “official” version, however, almost always seemed to
have fucked up affiliations and/or something off about their feng
shui…except maybe Stephen Jones, the cold fusion guy who retired from
Brigham Young U, his objections were interesting and he seemed like a good
guy…

As Willie Nelson said, there’s nothing I can do about it now. Reviewing
9-11 from time to time, like JFK material, is good reminders of history and
actually generates a bit of nostalgia, which is fucked-up, isn’t it?


Wikipedia is actually pretty kind to Ruppert. They mention that he gave
over 9-11 stuff in favor of music, towards his final days.

Lots of people have done themselves in - that doesn’t make it a crime to
quote them, does it, if they said something interesting?