Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

I'd like to extend my thanks to everyone who has reviewed Crossing The Rubicon, and to everyone who has read the book. And a special thanks to those who have done both. Let me reply to a recent review by a Mr. Watson. "Already some of his witnesses are unravelling as in the case of Mike Vreeland." The sentence starts with the plural, but it really refers only to Vreeland -- whom the book describes as utterly unreliable EXCEPT in the special case of his 911 warning. Why? Because the warning was a physical document whose authenticity and pre-9/11 provenance have been attested by Vreeland's lawyers, court records submitted under oath, interviews with the attorneys, former Canadian federal prosecutors, and news media. At no point does Ruppert's use of Vreeland depend on the latter's personal credibility. Then Watson refers to the exchange between a "Victor Thorn" of "Wing TV" and Mr. Ruppert. For a complete and accurate account of the matter, including Wing TV's questions and Mike Ruppert's answers, see Ruppert's website, page: [...] Watson continues: "The improbability of such an event [9/11] being pulled off under the noses of every uninvolved government/military official is not discussed." It is discussed at length -- see pp. 2-4; 12-18; 103; 203-224; 291-306, et al. "Ruppert asks us to believe that Bush/Cheney could pull 9/11 off with such precision and them fumble so publically with WMDs in trying to connect 9/11 with Saddam - which he states was their main reason for 9/11 - an excuse to grab the oil." Ruppert does not say any such thing. Nobody who had read this book could possibly come away with the view that the Iraq war was the "main reason" for 9/11. "Plenty of dots, but not many connections. Indeed, given enough dots, one can connect any kind of picture one wants." Yes, and this applies to the official story (the conspiracy of 19 highjackers and the man in the Afghan cave), and to the 26-volume "Warren Report," and to every other text. The job of an investigator, like that of a lawyer or an historian, is to configure an accurrate interpretation whose logic is more compelling than the others. This is achieved through a combination of sound evidence gathering and valid argumentation. Mr. Ruppert has produced both in abundance.