Ruppert/Hecht: THE NY TIMES PUTS 9-11 QUESTIONS IN THE GRAVE

by **Bismillah** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 10:02 pm

Capital-letter headline in the original, and rightly so. There's very little to add to this. Ruppert and Hecht nail it: the dumb obsession with spectacular irrelevancies is on the very verge of burying this issue forever. ****** THE NY TIMES PUTS 9-11 QUESTIONS IN THE GRAVE As Sad As It Was Predictable Story Marks the End of a Sequential and Planned Campaign to Discredit Authentic 9/11 Research by Michael C. Ruppert and Jamey Hecht © Copyright 2006, From The Wilderness Publications, www.fromthewilderness.com. All Rights Reserved. June 7th 2006, 1:28pm [PST] – “Ignominious” is the only word that comes to mind as I try to describe a June 5, 2006 New York Times story titled 500 Conspiracy Buffs Meet to Seek the Truth of 9/11. For the first time (to our knowledge) in the almost five years since 9/11, the nation’s premier newspaper sent a reporter to cover a two-day conference sponsored by 9/11truth.org. The term 'ignominious' applies to both what remains of the 9-11 movement and the Times story itself. The Gray Lady’s disingenuous but expectedly well-crafted character assassination will have a lasting historical footprint, but the 9-11 truth movement has been virtually consigned to a footnote in the dustbin of history as a result of mainstream media mind control and its own foolish choices. The truth is that the real and best 9/11 researchers chose a long time ago not to ride willingly into the Little Big Horn massacre that was long prepared for, set up, and executed over the last few months. None of us takes any satisfaction in saying we told you so, but… we told you so. Unless a movement alleging government corruption of this magnitude understands from the gate that every move must be planned with one question and only one question in mind, it will fail at the precise moment that it reaches the threshold of mass public consciousness. That question, very simply, is “When the mainstream media is forced to take note, how will they try to discredit our efforts?” Avoiding the obvious ambush points is the best way to plan. Of course, that threatens the chance that a movement like 9-11 truth will ever reach the mainstream media; it also evokes the now-justified observation that the only movements questioning the government and exposing the complicity of the press that get the ink or airtime will be the ones that can easily be shot down in the public eye. The headline pretty much sets the tone for a series of cheap shots that run very predictably throughout the story — cheap shots that most of the 9-11 movement stood up and volunteered for. Among other things the Times article spun using the following terms and phrases: “splintered factions of the movement” (second paragraph) “In colleges and chat rooms on the Internet, this band of disbelievers has been trying for years to prove that 9/11 was an inside job” (4th paragraph) – The Times does not mention the three best-selling books on 9/11 after the Kean Commission report including Crossing the Rubicon, The New Pearl Harbor, or The Terror Timeline. “It was in tone, half trade show, half political convention” (5th paragraph) – Nothing to take seriously here, this implies. It’s only a bunch of people trying to make money selling things, have a few drinks and get laid. “Mr. Berger, 40, is typical of 9/11 Truthers – a group that, in its rank and file, includes professors, chain-saw operators, [Gee, as in Texas Chain Saw Massacre?], mothers, engineers, activists, used-book sellers, pizza deliverymen, college students, a former fringe candidate for the United States Senate and a long-haired fellow named hummux (pronounced who-mook) who, on and off, lived in a cave for 15 years.” (7th paragraph) – By the time you get finished reading about the cave man you have forgotten about the professor and are now looking at this as a ridicule piece. “Such ‘red flags,’ as they were sometimes called, were the meat and potatoes of the keynote speech on Friday night by Alex Jones, who is the William Jennings Bryan of the 9/11 band.” (9th paragraph) – Great, anoint a not-so-credible and easy-to-dismiss Jones as leader of the movement, wrap him up in a ball with the kooks and then flush the whole thing. Just ignore the real 9/11 pioneers like myself, Michel Chossudovsky, Paul Thompson, Nafeez Ahmed and Dan Hopsicker because we can’t be so easily dismissed. I’m certain that Jones’ pocketbook is flush, however, since he helped trash the movement which others made credible as he appropriated their research. “The controlled demolition theory is the sine qua non of the 9/11 movement.” (11th paragraph) – Says who? Not one of the authors of the three best-selling 9/11 books challenging the Kean Commission adopted or endorsed this position or made this statement. – “its basic claim and, in some sense, the one upon which all others rest. It is, of course, directly contradicted by the 10,000-page investigation by the National institute of Standards and Technology, which held that jet-fuel fires distressed the towers’ structure, which eventually collapsed." There are more lies per square inch in this little passage than in a whole page of typical NYT fare (say, Judy Miller). First, the most widely respected 9/11 researchers have stayed completely away from physical evidence arguments, which will be discussed further below. The sine qua non of 9/11 research – as far as we’re concerned – is the original investigation and exposé that five simultaneous wargame exercises based on hijacked airliners were taking place on the morning of 9-11-01 in the Northeast Air Defense Sector and that these exercises — under the control of Dick Cheney — were what paralyzed air defenses that day. This is the one piece of hard evidence which cannot (and has not) been refuted or even acknowledged by the government. The cited 10,000 page investigation is one of the exact reasons why FTW and other major researchers never touched the physical evidence aspects of 9-11: sufficient non-scientific (i.e. uncontestable) evidence exists to prove government complicity, cover-up, and murder. “— the 9/11 Truthers are dogged, at home and in the office, by friends and family who suspect that they may, in fact, be completely nuts.” (13th paragraph) “There is a plan by the British delegation (such as it is, so far) to get members of Parliament to watch “Loose Change”, the seminal movement DVD.” (16th paragraph) – This is one of the biggest whoppers of all. I have watched “Loose Change” and in my expert opinion it is a very fine piece of CIA disinformation, one that fits an astute maxim by Professor Peter Dale Scott: “Disinformation, in order to be effective, must be 90% accurate.” Even though the film opens with some of my original research (including images taken from the FTW web site), it quickly sinks into a repeatedly debunked and confabulated hypothesis that no airliner hit the Pentagon. This film is so slickly produced (and on such a large budget) that it is hard to believe that amateur filmmakers could have made it. Once the audience buys into all the credible research at the front, they are quickly swept away in a flood of easily impeached high-tech nonsense, and that was the film’s intent. Not long before “Loose Change” was released, a recently retired high-ranking US Naval officer approached me and tried to sell me on the claim that no plane hit the Pentagon. He even claimed that he had been inside the Pentagon on 9-11 and had seen no aircraft wreckage. He kept pushing but could not persuade me, because (as I told him) I was aware of more than 130 independent, non-military eyewitnesses who had been traveling on nearby I-395 who swore that they did see an airliner hit the Pentagon. Having driven on I-395 many times, I know that they had a perfect view. My last correspondence with the retired Navy Captain was on May 16th and in my message I made it very clear that I would not endorse the no-plane hypothesis and that I believed “Loose Change” to be (in impact) a CIA propaganda film, whether by design, trick or device, or the sheer gullibility of its makers. On May 16th the Pentagon released what it claims was new video showing a Boeing 757 striking the building. It was clear that, realizing I would not fall for the “dangle,” the powers that be had decided that they would discredit the rest of the 9-11 movement who had accepted “no plane.” “Beneath the weekend’s screenings and symposiums on geopolitics and mass hypnotic trance lies a tradition of questioning concentrated power…” (18th paragraph) – “Mass hypnotic trance”? What the movement uses as a metaphor has been turned into a hyperbolic specific allegation. “I hope you don’t end up dead somewhere,” a companion said to a participant… (last paragraph) – This is just a nice reinforcement that those who get it too accurately sometimes turn up dead. Psychologically, this is just the cherry on top. After all the other ridiculed and twisted logic, why should anyone go through the trouble of challenging authority if that’s the payoff one gets for being successful? ---------------------------------------------------------- “NO-PLANE”: TIMELINE OF A MEME 1 October 2001: Michael Ruppert begins timeline of 9/11 attacks, turning up early evidence of U.S. complicity by focusing on actions by individuals, agencies, and corporations as evidenced in public media, legal proceedings, and government documents. October 7, 2001: Thierry Meyssan posts webpage claiming that no plane hit the pentagon on 9/11, eventuating in his book Pentagate. October 12, 2001: SECDEF Donald Rumsfeld, in an interview with Parade Magazine, uses the word “missile” to describe what hit the Pentagon. This was probably a deliberate intent to mislead gullible researchers. In military parlance a missile can be anything from a bullet, to an airliner striking a building, to a real missile. The first dictionary definition listed for missile states, “An object or weapon that is fired, thrown, dropped, or otherwise projected at a target; a projectile.” Thus the airliners were missiles and Rumsfeld’s choice of words was literally correct. How could anyone who understands the rudiments of evidence consider that as proof of anything? November 25, 2001: At an annual meeting of the Coalition on Political Assassinations, John Judge and T. Carter make a presentation regarding 9/11 in which Carter, an AA flight attendant, claims to have recovered from Pentagon wreckage the bracelet of a colleague killed in the crash of AA77. November 26, 2003: Michael C. Ruppert publishes “The Kennedys, Physical Evidence, and 9/11,” an essay that attempts to warn the 9/11 Truth Movement not to over-invest its energies and its credibility in questions of physical evidence which invite sabotage by U.S. counterintelligence programs (COINTELPRO). October 1, 2004: New Society Publishers releases Michael C. Ruppert’s Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil. This book is the most complete, early, logical and legally actionable case against American authorities – chiefly Dick Cheney – for complicity in the 9/11 attacks. It makes almost no reference to the physical evidence issues, precisely because they are so easily distorted. October 7, 2004: Washington Post Staff Writer Carol Morello publishes “Conspiracy Theories Flourish on the Internet,” which uses the “no-plane” story to characterize the 9/11 Truth Movement in general. March, 2005: Popular Mechanics publishes cover story claiming to debunk 9/11 skepticism. The article gives ample space to the “no-plane” straw man. While addressing almost every major 9-11 research group, the article fails to mention Crossing the Rubicon. December 2005: The US State Department posts “Identifying Misinformation,” a guide to 9/11 claims. In response, FTW contributing writer Mark Robinowitz publishes “‘Identifying Misinformation’: The State Department’s Rosetta Stone for understanding 9/11 disinformation promotes 9/11 conspiracy hoaxes while ignoring Crossing the Rubicon and other authentic investigations.” The State Department web site also fails to mention Rubicon, which by now has gained worldwide recognition. February, 2006: The Village Voice profiles the 9/11 Truth Movement in a negative article focused on the “no-plane” story. Again, there is no mention of Rubicon even though the Village Voice is known to have obtained at least one copy. March 20, 2006: In an interview by radio host Alex Jones, Charlie Sheen disputes the 9/11 Commission Report on grounds that include the no-plane hypothesis. March 25, 2006: Sheen makes similar claims on CNN Headline News’ “Showbiz Tonight.” April, 2006: USA Today reviews “no-plane” based film “Loose Change.” April 21, 2006: Divorce court proceedings appear in the news, accusing Sheen of dangerous mental instability and an addiction to pornographic images of “very young girls.” The stories about Sheen proliferate through the major media for several days. May 16, 2006: The Pentagon releases images which it claims are proof that a Boeing 757 did indeed hit the Pentagon, discrediting the large portion of the 9/11 Truth Movement that had embraced the “no-plane” hypothesis. May 19, 2006: FTW publishes “It’s the Timing, Not the Film: New Frames from Pentagon Crash Video Show Langley Embarrassing the 9/11 Truth Movement.” --------------------------------------------------------- The moment Crossing the Rubicon was in print, copies were rushed to major news outlets including the New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times, and NEWSWEEK. None of them has ever reviewed the book, though it is one of two best-selling texts on 9/11 from the skeptical point of view – nor have they ever even mentioned it. To quote Mark Robinowitz, Rubicon “has sold 100,000 copies despite a deafening silence from the media, an extremely unusual circumstance for a book. Even the publications that attacked From the Wilderness in the months after 9/11 for daring to connect the dots about 9/11 foreknowledge have refused to say anything (good or bad) about Rubicon. If the thesis was flawed, surely someone somewhere would describe the errors.” Indeed, this book accuses the sitting Vice President of the United States of mass murder, demonstrating means, motive, and opportunity. Surely if the book was in error it would have been challenged. Instead, there has been nothing but stony silence. Mr. Feuer’s New York Times article is an off-the-shelf hit piece, done in boilerplate prose, against a movement that should have had the sense to avoid this sort of thing. For a critique of the intellectual poverty of Feuer’s language (shared by thousands of happy hacks on the gravy train), see “Conspiracy and the State of the Union.” But Feuer and his ilk don’t matter. The real lesson here is about how to oppose fascism: speak the truth, anticipate the propaganda, and make it impossible for disinformationists to discredit your research. Remember: means, motive, and opportunity. Anything else is a slippery slope to the pillory. This played exactly the way we said it would. It is too late to change things but perhaps someone, somewhere is paying attention from these bitter lessons. It might make a difference if there is another opportunity to fight the “Mighty Wurlitzer” of state-sponsored propaganda and mind control. ------------------------------------------------------------ 1 The authors wish to thank Mark Robinowitz for assistance. See “History of the ‘no planes on 9/11’ hoaxes,” at: <a href="http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html#history.">www.oilempire.us/bogus.html#history.</a> <a href="http://www.fromthewilderness.com/members/060706_questions_grave.shtml">www.fromthewilderness.com...rave.shtml</a> Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=bismillah@rigorousintuition>Bismillah</A> at: 6/7/06 8:58 pm

by **greencrow0** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 10:19 pm

Ruppert made himself irrelevant to the 9/11 truth movement over a year ago when he said in a packed lecture hall that we all had to forget about 9/11 because peak oil was breathing down our back. That's like telling everyone to forget the dead body with the knife sticking out of it on your doorstep because someone down the street is going to get mugged in a couple of days. It just doesn't make sense. Ruppert showed himself to be just as disingenouous as the neoCon perps themselves...making me think he was a disinfo agent...speaking on behalf of the perps. as the New Yorkers would say... forgidaboud him

by **Bismillah** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 10:30 pm

Rubbish. If that kind of feeble ad hominem is the best you can do, it's no wonder the NYT can hardly keep its face straight.

by **Bismillah** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 10:42 pm

Bombs. Missiles. Thermite. Yeah. Hopsicker is a spook. Dylan Avery - way cool. Pods? Maybe. Larry Silverstein - eeeevil. Pixels. That hole's too small. Ruppert was, like, a cop, you know? Don't see no wreckage. Amazing Pentalawn. CD, it's obvious. Loose Change. Wow. Way cool. ...What's on TV?

by **Et in Arcadia ego** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 10:59 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>forgidaboud him<hr></blockquote> I always thought it was 'fuggedaboudimm'..

by **Bismillah** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 11:08 pm

I think the phrase you're looking for is "Listen to him."

by **pugzleyca3** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 11:09 pm

"Great, anoint a not-so-credible and easy-to-dismiss Jones as leader of the movement, wrap him up in a ball with the kooks and then flush the whole thing. Just ignore the real 9/11 pioneers like myself, Michel Chossudovsky, Paul Thompson, Nafeez Ahmed and Dan Hopsicker because we can’t be so easily dismissed. I’m certain that Jones’ pocketbook is flush, however, since he helped trash the movement which others made credible as he appropriated their research." I was going along with what he had to say until this point above. What is this, jealousy? This really showed me how unprofessional he is. This wasn't necessary to prove his point, it was downright tacky and as cheap as the shots the NYT took in their article, if not worse. Ruppert needs to realize that no one can dominate this "movement" or whatever you want to call it. People are free to disimenate their opinions far and wide across the internet and there is no controlling it. As he is. People are not total stupid idiots and they are going to have to discern for themselves what parts of the 9/11 info they believe and what parts they do not. People who start to question 9/11 have already crossed that Rubicon everyone wants to heckle back and forth about and such an obvious hit piece like the NYT article will likely set them upon the path of more research, not less research. Once you know there is an elephant in the living room, an article in the NYT is NOT going to make a shit of difference. If Loose Change is a disinfo tool, then it was a terrible move on the part of the disinfo pros who put it out there. This thing has opened more eyes than anything else I know of (in recent months) and whether or not the PTB show a video with a plane that hit the Pentagon or not at some time in the future, there is enough wrong with 9/11 that once people start looking at it funny, there is no putting that genie back in the bottle. Maybe his article is coming from genuine concern and from the heart, but that quote I put up above makes me think otherwise.

by **Rigorous Intuition** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 11:12 pm

prick, but the man's right. 9/11 "Truth" got suckered, bad. Enough that the bogus disappears the genuine whenever it crosses over into the mainstream.

by **Bismillah** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 11:25 pm

So Ruppert and Hecht are angry. Shouldn't they be? Yes, they should. In June 2006, the state of "9/11 truth" is an embarrassment. "I was going along with what he had to say until this point above [about Alex Jones]. What is this, jealousy? This really showed me how unprofessional he is. This wasn't necessary to prove his point, it was downright tacky and as cheap as the shots the NYT took in their article, if not worse." So what is this, a niceness contest? The NYT would be happy to have you believe that. Nice or nasty, R & H describe precisely how efficiently the media scam is working, and it is working precisely as Ruppert predicted it would three years ago. NYT: "Controlled Demolition is the sine qua non." Popular Mechanics wanted us to believe the same thing. Why? Until people learn to distinguish between the unprovable and the undeniable, there is not a hope in hell of ever seeing this issue taken seriously.

by **NewKid** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 11:26 pm

I think people are maybe reading a bit too much into the NY Times article. I don't actually think it says much of anything about 9-11 "Truth" at all. But I guess it's all in the eye of the beholder. <a href="http://newsbusters.org/node/5681" target="top">newsbusters.org/node/5681</a>

by **sunny** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 11:40 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>the bogus disappears the genuine whenever it crosses over into the mainstream.<hr></blockquote> Jeff, you have to admit- an issue doesn't have to be a conspiracy theory for the bogus elements of it to trump the genuine. Immigration, gay marriage, estate tax, Iraq war, GWOT, net neutrality, you get the picture. The NYT piece is not the disaster Ruppert is making it out to be. MSM is never ever ever going to treat this subject seriously and straighfowardly. You might as well wish for the sky to open up and start raining fifty dollar bills. People will see through the bs, eventually. Iraq war? Not so popular anymore. Has WaPo and NYT times stopped hawking it? Not! Kennedy was killed by a lone gunman? Nobody but Gerald Posner believes that tripe, no matter how many times he gets on teevee and repeats it. His ilk have been pushing it since '63, yet people have grown more skeptical every year since. People disagree on who actually did it though, and how. Should assassination researchers have just folded up their tents and gone home because they disagreed and the NYT refused to give them props? God knows, that is the pinnacle of respectability for the Judy Miller's of the world, and we saw how that turned out. Stop sweating it. The net is the new media, as long as it lasts. We're getting the word out, and you can bet people are paying attention. I was shocked the other day when the elderly father of a coworker of mine started going on and on about how 9/11 was an inside job. WOW! My friend was embarrassed but I told her she should listen to him and check this stuff out for herself. That's how the word will get around. State media has never in the history of the world been an organ for truth. That has always been left up to the people.

by **isachar** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 11:45 pm

Jeff, no matter what line of inquiry the truth movement would have taken, the same result would have obtained. Ruppert would have preferred the movement had focused on the war games (which, by the way it has not neglected and which I also think are one of the critical smoking guns). But all THAT evidence is also under the control and domain of the Pentagon, so no reason to exect it would have obtained any better results. Others would have focused on the options and short positions. Again, that evidence has been neatly boxed up by the SEC. Myself, I would have focused on impossibility of cell phone calls and Flights 93 and 77, as well as evidence of foreknowledge. The actual individuals who deserve mountains of blame are Thierry Myessen (no plane) and that webfairy nutcase (holograms and pods) and those who credulously accept these obvious disinfo agents. But the public will avoid knowing that which it is not ready to confront. Frankly, that is the biggest obstacle of all. Most Americans, even though they intuitively know something is very very wrong, are too fat, lazy and apathetic to acknowledge it or do anything about it. IMO, all lines of inquiry into the multiple 911 smoking guns will be stifled/suppressed - until the inconsitencies and lies begin to reach critical mass in the public consciousness, or until Sibel Edmonds, or such others with direct knowledge of events, are free to speak without retribution. I sure hope she's got a food taster and doesn't fly very often. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=isachar>isachar</A> at: 6/7/06 9:49 pm

by **Bismillah** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 11:47 pm

Sunny: "The NYT piece is not the disaster Ruppert is making it out to be. MSM is never ever ever going to treat this subject seriously and straighfowardly." Ivory Coast is never going to beat Brazil in the World Cup, but the Africans would still be well-advised not to wear blindfolds while playing. "Kennedy was killed by a lone gunman? Nobody but Gerald Posner believes that tripe, no matter how many times he gets on teevee and repeats it." And 43 years later, the real-world consequences of this universal scepticism have been precisely what?

by **Rigorous Intuition** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 11:52 pm

I don't think we can have a paperless revolution. Better to have an old printing press in the basement than depend on the goodwill of electronic providers, most of which are extentions of Old Power cohabitating with National Security. Blogger (bought by Google) is killing me right now. It's like a denial of service attack, from them. Some new media this is.

by **pugzleyca3** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 11:56 pm

Niceness contest? Apparently not. But a smattering of professionalism in this case would have been well spent on Ruppert's part. See, I have only minimally dealt with Ruppert's work and this is the impression his article left on me. I have no ax to grind on him personally. But coming upon his article here that you posted, left me thinking exactly what I posted as it will others who read it I am sure. That diminishes his effectiveness. "Until people learn to distinguish between the unprovable and the undeniable, there is not a hope in hell of ever seeing this issue taken seriously." The msm has had nearly 5 years to report on the issues of 9/11 and they have not done it. They only come out when they try to bonk someone on the head like the NYT and Popular Mechanics has done. Then they disappear back into their hole again. Real quick like. In my opinion, they can't even afford to do too many pieces in the same voice as the NYT article. See, the politicians want to invoke 9/11 at every turn, but they don't want anyone to seriously investigate it. This, to me is their achilles heel. They want to keep on using it and keep on with their facade, but the more it is invoked, the more people have to think about it and the more likely they will sit down and type 9/11 into their search bar and what will they find? We can argue till we're blue in the face about what is true and what is not and what we should believe and what we should not. When I started looking into this 9/11 issue, I ran across all the whack sites as well as what I consider to be good, solid informational sites. This is something only the seeker can discern for themselves. And anyone who seriously doubts the official story will make their own choices. I think the majority of America is awake to the fact that the official story of 9/11 is a hoax, regardless of whether they believe in planes, or no planes or pods or ufo's. Does it matter? As long as they know the government is lying, what they choose to believe about it? There are so many different facets of 9/11 to study. Because the fact is, that by invoking 9/11 in order to take our freedoms away through legislation, is the most concrete evidence of all that there is something definitely wrong with what happened on that day. That is palpable and tangible and cannot be denied. I saw the Pentagon no plane theory and yes, that hole is really tiny. But I looked at much, much more than that. You can lead a horse to the water, but you surely cannot make him drink. Once I saw all the info out there on 9/11, there was no stopping me. And though I don't really KNOW what is true and what isn't about HOW it happened, I know there was government involvement and that set me on a path of watching them more closely. And it made me active in politics and made me care what was happening in this country and made me want to fight them and make sure that they do not win. This is what learning the 9/11 "truth" no matter what it is, is causing to happen to vast numbers of Americans right now. And regardless of how we got there, we're standing up to them now in our own ways as best we can. And as much as I hear that Americans are lazy and stupid and don't care, I don't believe that this the truth. People ARE waking up and they are trying to do something. And that is what this is all about.

Ruppert/Hecht: THE NY TIMES PUTS 9-11 QUESTIONS IN THE GRAVE

Ruppert/Hecht: THE NY TIMES PUTS 9-11 QUESTIONS IN THE GRAVE

Re: Ruppert/Hecht: THE NY TIMES PUTS 9-11 QUESTIONS IN THE G

Confirming the point made in the article.

Controlled Demolition - way cool.

Re: Ruppert/Hecht: THE NY TIMES PUTS 9-11 QUESTIONS IN THE G

"I always thought it was 'fuggedaboudimm'.. "

Re: Ruppert/Hecht: THE NY TIMES PUTS 9-11 QUESTIONS IN THE G

Ruppert can be an alienating, self-aggrandizing

Re: Ruppert/Hecht: THE NY TIMES PUTS 9-11 QUESTIONS IN THE G

Re: Ruppert can be an alienating, self-aggrandizing

Re: Ruppert can be an alienating, self-aggrandizing

Re: Ruppert can be an alienating, self-aggrandizing

Re: Ruppert can be an alienating, self-aggrandizing

'The net is the new media, as long as it lasts'

Re: Ruppert/Hecht: THE NY TIMES PUTS 9-11 QUESTIONS IN THE G

Who is online