Comment on Michael Ruppert's Report on
Condoleezza Rice's Testimony
by Angie D'Urso, NY 9/11 Truth Alliance

Editor's preface: Condoleeza Rice, accurately dubbed the Contessa of Lies, testified under oath and in public on 2004-04-08 before the September 11th Commission.

Michael Ruppert wrote a report on this: Condoleezza Rice Testifies: Lies a Sixth-Grader Would Not Accept

While we owe Mike Ruppert a debt of gratitude for his work in revealing much information relevant to 9/11, especially concerning insider trading, it is regrettable that his writings continue to lend support to the official story that 9/11 was planned and carried out by Arab terrorists, members of Al-Qaeda, thereby distracting attention from the actual perpetrators. Angie D'Urso makes this point in the following comment.


This report urges that the sole focus now be on forewarnings, see the report's conclusion. I don't think that's a good approach to reveal the 911 truth because it actually strengthens the official legend, i.e., these Arab terrorists (not patsies) really were coming to get us, we were warned over and over again about it, after all. They were and are a real threat kind of thing. The justification for a war on terror remains with this stuff. (To me all this shows is that the perpetrators effectively laid their legend, sending out these patsies around town so the warnings could be received.) However, there's never been any credible evidence to suggest that arab hijackers were really involved — no video of any of them boarding the doomed flights, for example, has ever been shown — unless you find Korans and flight manuals and suicide notes left in airport parking lots credible. There are so many 911 things to reveal which do not reinforce the official legend — like discussion of the physical evidence which Ruppert here suggests we put off until later — that focusing on the forewarnings which strengthen the official legend is a mistake, I believe.

Additionally, the forewarnings issue supports the approach that the Commission has adopted — framing their entire "investigation" into a question of whether there were enough warnings for the government to have acted more competently. Most people will think the "cover-up" follows simple Monday morning quarterbacking, that the warnings demonstrate the government should have understood the importance of, and acted better in the face of, the threats that they received. Most will believe that they're merely trying to cover up knowledge of the warnings because unfortunately they did not then act upon them competently. But such lies — about forewarnings, even bald-faced ones, to hide incompetence — are nothing new to the American people, nor unfortunately is incompetence itself. Thus, I see no reason to believe that lies about forewarnings will awaken people to what should have been investigated — the government's actual manufacturing of the attacks — which would be new to the American people.

Unlike Ruppert, who thinks forewarnings should be our only focus from now until November, I don't think lies about forewarnings should be our focus at all — and for these two reasons: the forewarnings strengthen the Arab hijacking legend; and they have nothing to do with the manufacturing of the attacks, only whether the government incompetently let them happen and then lied to cover that up. Instead, our focus should be on areas that demonstrate that 9/11 was an inside job — such as the destruction of the towers.

Angie


See also:

The World Trade Center Demolition and the So-Called War on Terrorism
Serendipity Home Page