I've mentioned Michael C Ruppert before, and was impressed by his approach, strictly a legalistic-evidence-gathering, in line with his police detective training.
He used to run a site called "From the Wilderness", but this has been "frozen" since about 2006, although a lot of the old material is still there. There is a pointer there to his current blog. In a comment someone had posted a link to the recent Danish report on nano-thermite. This was blasted by Jenna Orkin, Ruppert's friend and colleague. I could not at first fully work out why, although it is obvious that the focus of Ruppert/Orkin's work has moved on a long way from 9/11, and is all about "peak oil".
I've just started reading his 2004 book "Crossing the Rubicon". From the beginning actually he makes clear that he's not interested in what he calls the "physical evidence" (which would include things like the nano-thermite, and video of the buildings collapsing), mainly because it would not be admissable as evidence in a court of law, which is clearly his main criteria for investigation, and the way he has approached 9/11 from day one.
He is more interested in things like proving the foreknowledge of the administration, which he claims he can prove with documentary evidence, and the documented statements of witnesses, analogous to witnesses in a homicide investigation, and clearly 9/11 was a homicide, whoever perpetrated it.
Although I say he has "moved on" to peak oil, in fact it's already clear that 9/11 was always about "peak oil" and the scenario that led up to 9/11 had been planned for a long time, e.g. even the rigged election results of 2000.
As well as oil, there is also the drug trade, which is how Ruppert first got involved with questioning the world of government and intelligence. He had discovered evidence of C*A involvement in the drug trade back in the 70s as a policemen, and had refused to be involved when offered. When he tried to report this, his career was basically destroyed.
The reason the drug trade is so important is actually as a source of revenue for the US government and business, both directly and indirectly. So for example, after the US invasion of Afghanistan, the Opium industry which had been virtually wiped out by the Taliban was opened up again, with full C*A approval and backing. It took a while of course for the profits from the harvest to come through and hit the banking system and have its effect, but by 2004, the DJIA had recovered from around 7200 to 10000.
It might have helped that 2004 was an election year.
Co-incidence? Well, Ruppert does not think so, and offers plenty of evidence.
I imagine that the subjects of Wall Street corruption and the small matter of the disappearance of the world's oil supply in our lifetimes, with no obvious form of replacement, may be of interest even to the most politically unaware of traders.
