12 December 2004

Victor Thorn vs. Ruppert, again

I need to make a brief note about the latest critical article about Mike Ruppert from Wing TV's Victor Thorn, "Mike Ruppert: 9-11 Saboteur". Thorn has done some creative editing of some comments I wrote in a previous entry concerning his first Ruppert crtitique, apparently in an effort to make me look like a supporter of his. Although he gave an adequate citation including my webside address, the lack of a live link or URL might help prevent some of his readers from readily learning that in fact I was highly critical of his earlier effort, and rejected much of it. Here's what he left out:

"a great deal of this is a waste of time & effort, being a lot of personal commentary and some "sour grapes" issues... As for the other points that I haven't mentioned, I am either undecided or find Ruppert's side to be convincing. While Thorn may have brought up some legitimate points, there sure are some amateurish cheapshots, such as wasting time questioning Ruppert's journalism training or dredging up purely personal gripes. I think Thorn has muddied things up by issuing a flawed and sloppy attack, which has probably made things more difficult for those who want to criticize Ruppert in a more thoughtful and disciplined way."

Although I couldn't call Thorn's editing a misquote, I feel a need to distance myself from this piece which selectively uses my words for ammo without responding to my criticisms. In fact, my initial impression of this new piece leads me to a similar opinion as the last. However, there may again be legitimate points in there (but claiming "proof" of no 757 at the Pentagon is certainly not one of them), mixed in with the barrages of inflammatory and emotionalistic rhetoric, and I will watch carefully to see how this plays out. For now, Mike Kane has written a partial rebuttal which shows that Thorn is again shooting from the hip on some points.

Ruppert, for his part, has not done too well with this either, having insulted a large number of Thorn's guests as having "UFO" or "David Icke" connections when in fact this only applies, even metaphorically

In related news, Jim Hoffman has rebutted a quite ridiculous attack from Thorn:
http://911review.com/wingtv/markup/hoffman.html