It Still Kind of Amazes Me

that Mike Ruppert naming Dick Cheney as the person in the US government most responsible for 9/11 hasn't received more attention. Sure, I never expected this to get to CBS News or CNN, but you would have though there would be more independent media interest, at least. This recent article in the San Francisco Bay Guardian, an alternative newspaper, talks quite a bit about Ruppert, but only superficially mentions Ruppert's theory that Cheney was behind 9/11 (it's actually a pretty good article although they get some things wrong-- such as saying Ruppert thinks the WTC was brought down by demolition and that he thinks that a missile hit the Pentagon. Ruppert has never claimed these things that I know of and has avoided 9/11 "physical evidence".).

In any case, the fact that Ruppert's case for Cheney has more or less fallen flat, shows the sorry fragmentation of the 9/11 truth movement. Granted, the case against Cheney was basically circumstantial, and moreover there was not much any activist could do to prosecute the case. Of course, even worse is that Ruppert has apparently left the 9/11 movement.

But still, it is stunning that Ruppert could write a huge blockbuster book on 9/11, come to the startling conclusion that the Vice President of the US was heavily complicit in the 9/11 attacks, and then have this bombshell fade away. Certainly if nothing else, it is stunning that Ruppert would not pursue his "indictment". Granted Peak Oil may be a bigger issue, but there is such a thing as justice, after all.

I can see that Ruppert may be burnt out on 9/11, and maybe he really thinks sounding the alarm on Peak Oil is more pressing. I certainly hope that Ruppert hasn't sold out, or been pressured to drop 9/11. The worse part of this is that Ruppert looks like a flake.

But Ruppert's book is out there, and maybe eventually in another couple of years, his conclusions on Cheney will bubble up to the mainstream. This will also depend on how badly the Bush administration degenerates in the next few years (which I suspect will be considerably).

I should point out that Webster Tarpley also thinks Cheney was heavily complicit in 9/11, although not exactly the 9/11 "maestro" as Ruppert describes Cheney's role. Tarpley thinks Cheney was aware of the plot by a group of rogue government insiders, and that Cheney acted as a go-between for the 9/11 plotters and the clueless Bush-- particularly on the morning of 9/11. I have to say this theory makes more sense to me than Ruppert's Cheney theory.