Crossing the Rubicon
I have Michael Ruppert's Crossing the Rubicon on my shelf back home, but I haven't started reading it. I did watch the video "THE TRUTH & LIES OF 9/11" (same link, farther down the page), which is mostly just a recording of a lecture given by Michael Ruppert back in November 2001. If you're looking for a "shorter" version of "Crossing the Rubicon," Michael Kane has provided it.
I'll say that in general I agree with that there is a high probability that Dick Cheney was involved with 9/11, at least to the degree of letting it happen. The details will likely remain unclear, but the official explanation is probably the most ridiculous of the various conspiracy theories that I've heard. (See The New Pearl Harbor for details on lots of the unanswered or clearly wrongly answered questions about what happened on 9/11.)
One minor point: Kane twice refers to "peak oil" as being when half of the oil is gone. This isn't right. "Peak oil" refers to the time (usually given as a year, but could be "refined" to a month or day) when world oil production reaches its all-time high. Since this is likely to occur soon, during a time of rapidly increasing world demand, the economic consequences are likely to be massive, if not catastrophic. Determining when peak oil production has occurred will be relatively straightforward, although it may take two or three years after it happens to be sure that it has been reached. Knowing when exactly half of the oil is gone would be impossible, since no one knows for sure exactly how much oil there is, and since some types of oil may remain economically unrecoverable even at much higher prices. It's possible that world oil production will max out at approximately the same time as we have used half of all the oil (by some definition), but there is no reason at all that it has to. Kane should know the distinction (I'm pretty sure that Ruppert does). Making a stupid factual error when presenting a bold conspiracy theory just makes it too easy for critics to discredit the whole thing.
I'll say that in general I agree with that there is a high probability that Dick Cheney was involved with 9/11, at least to the degree of letting it happen. The details will likely remain unclear, but the official explanation is probably the most ridiculous of the various conspiracy theories that I've heard. (See The New Pearl Harbor for details on lots of the unanswered or clearly wrongly answered questions about what happened on 9/11.)
One minor point: Kane twice refers to "peak oil" as being when half of the oil is gone. This isn't right. "Peak oil" refers to the time (usually given as a year, but could be "refined" to a month or day) when world oil production reaches its all-time high. Since this is likely to occur soon, during a time of rapidly increasing world demand, the economic consequences are likely to be massive, if not catastrophic. Determining when peak oil production has occurred will be relatively straightforward, although it may take two or three years after it happens to be sure that it has been reached. Knowing when exactly half of the oil is gone would be impossible, since no one knows for sure exactly how much oil there is, and since some types of oil may remain economically unrecoverable even at much higher prices. It's possible that world oil production will max out at approximately the same time as we have used half of all the oil (by some definition), but there is no reason at all that it has to. Kane should know the distinction (I'm pretty sure that Ruppert does). Making a stupid factual error when presenting a bold conspiracy theory just makes it too easy for critics to discredit the whole thing.
<< Home