The Kennebunkport Warning claimed that a group of 9/11 and anti-war activists joined together to sign a document warning of a false flag terror attack and resulting war with Iran. Like most, I first believed that the Kennebunkport Warning and the signatures were legitimate.
While the warning may or may not be valid, the signatures of Cindy Sheehan, Dahlia S. Wasfi, and others have been contested.
Initially, John Leonard, Webster Tarpley’s book publisher claimed that "as far as Dahlia Wasfi is concerned, I was a guest on Webster's radio show last night so I heard Bruce Marshall and Janice Weir say they saw her sign the statement." The controversy however is not the fact that a document was signed—the controversy is over which document was signed.
Dahlia S. Wasfi, MD claimed "I signed a statement in Kennebunkport to endorse the impeachment of Dick Cheney, but my signature has been used on this "Warning" without my consent. While I was humbled to have my signature misappropriated with such prominent voices as Cindy Sheehan, Cynthia McKinney, and Jamilla El-Shafei, none of us signed that document." Elsewhere she stated "I don't know about the validity of this ‘warning,’ but the people who put this list together were dishonest about signatories. They took our signatures for something else and put it on this. Very weird."
Cindy Sheehan via MySpace called the warning “shady”, and confirmed that "the same thing happened to me as happened to dahlia." A few days later, this joint release was posted, further suggesting that an alternative document involving impeachment was signed:
With five individuals claiming that they did not sign the warning, and providing essentially the exact same story that a document involving only impeachment was signed—it is very hard to believe that they are not telling the truth and dismiss their accounts. However, a scanned copy of the signatures eventually emerged providing yet more intrigue and controversy. Admittedly, it is not confirmed at this point that the signatures were taken from another document and put onto the Kennebunkport Warning as the anti-war activists allege. However, the five corroborated statements should not be dismissed easily.
Many of those who supported previous warnings dispute the claims of the anti-war activists. Among these are Kevin Barrett according to Captain May and Webster Tarpley, an author of the Warning. Kevin Barrett says that "it is overwhelmingly probable that the people who say they never signed the warning are lying, and that they signed, then had second thoughts and backed out... or, just possibly, did not fully digest what they had signed when they signed it." Laurie Dobson and others claim (or rather, insinuate without evidence) that “it is obvious to me that the big name people are afraid.” This claim does not appear to have merit since no evidence is given to support it, and Cindy Sheehan had appeared several times on Alex Jones’ radio show and elsewhere to discuss her 9/11 questions and support for a new investigation saying that the collapse of the twin towers looked “like a controlled demolition.” In fact, Sheehan even warned of a “distinct possibility” of a US-sponsored false flag attack. She has never retracted these comments due to “fear”. An important distinction here is the difference between “distinct possibility” and “massive evidence” as alleged in the Kennebunkport warning. The other alleged signers all indicated that they supported another 9/11 investigation. These facts seem to suggest that the possibility of retracted signature from the warning due to “fear” is implausible and unlikely.
After the controversy of faked signatures emerged, Webster Tarpley, the supplier of the “massive evidence” outrageously asserted:
"Some of the signers, under the obvious threats of totalitarian forces, are lying in appalling fashionabout what they signed and if they signed. You can see for yourself from the facsimile who signed. We need to move beyond thesewretched individuals.[sic]"
· No apologies for these accusations and ad-hominems
· Direct support for the highly dubious directed energy weapons (Fetzer, Tarpley, Craig Hill (citing Judy Wood), Daniel Abrahamson and Morgan Stack have all supported this theory in some form).
The Next 9/11? Predictions, Propaganda, Motive, and After the Attack: “The whole mystique of intelligence is that you acquire this… very valuable information covertly… if truth be told, about 80%—eight, zero—of any of the information that one needs is available in open source materials.” Ray McGovern, 27-year CIA analyst
A mystery trader has risked losing around $1 billion dollars by placing 245,000 put options on the Dow Jones Eurostoxx 50 index, leading many analysts to speculate that a stock market crash preceded by a new 9/11 style catastrophe could take place within the next month.
There are 65,000 contracts @ $750.00 for the SPX 700 calls for open interest. That controls 6.5 million shares at $750 = $4.5 Billion. Not a single trade. But quite a bit of $$ on a contract that is 700 points away from current value. No one would buy that deep "in the money" calls. No reason to. So if they were sold looks like someone betting on massive dislocation. Lots of very strange option activity that I haven't seen before.
The entity or individual offering these sales can only make money if the market drops 30%-50% within the next four weeks. If the market does not drop, the entity or individual involved stands to lose over $1 billion just for engaging in these contracts!
Clearly, someone knows something big is going to happen BEFORE the options expire on Sept. 21.
Bear in mind that the last time anyone conducted such large and unusual stock option trades (like this one) was in the weeks before the attacks of September 11.
What exactly do Iraq, 9/11, and oil have to do with each other?
While many object to the Iraq war for its conduct:
“Suppose that a President invaded another country, and adopted the unusual tactic of sending our troops in unarmed and unprotected, one platoon at a time, holding signs that said: We want to take over your country! Please surrender! And suppose that, unsurprisingly, the result of this was that those troops were all killed, one after the other. Suppose that the President was urged to adopt a different strategy, but refused, on the grounds that admitting mistakes would give comfort to our enemies; and that when some people began to mutter: not as much comfort as making those mistakes in the first place, he accused them of being defeatists. Finally, suppose that after several thousand troops had been killed in this way, the American people stopped supporting this President and his war. It would be beyond galling for the President to lecture them on their lack of will, or their insufficient concern for the people of the invaded country, when the reason for their lack of support was that his own idiocy had made any good outcome impossible.” -- Obsidian Wings
George Bush truly is a master of this disinformation technique.Take for example, the claim that Iraq had a connection with 9/11. Here is what Bush has to say about the subject:
The Pentagon and the 9/11 Commission claim that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Even Bush admitted it once. But perhaps we shouldn't be surprised about the repetition of lies after hearing:
Question: When did the US administration decide it wanted to go to war with Iraq? Was it after 9/11, or before 9/11?
“From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11. “From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,” says Suskind. “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.” As treasury secretary, O'Neill was a permanent member of the National Security Council. He says in the book he was surprised at the meeting that questions such as "Why Saddam?" and "Why now?" were never asked. "It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this,’" says O’Neill. “For me, the notion of pre-emption, that the U.S. has the unilateral right to do whatever we decide to do, is a really huge leap.”
Why would they want to do this?
Before 9/11, Dick Cheney arranged secret Energy Task Force meetings. Judicial Watch sued for the release of documents from these meetings:
"These are documents turned over by the Commerce Department, under a March 5, 2002 court order as a result of Judicial Watch’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit concerning the activities of the Cheney Energy Task Force. The documents contain a map of Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, as well as 2 charts detailing Iraqi oil and gas projects, and “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.” The documents are dated March 2001.
Lynn Margulis, AB, MS, PhD is the latest in a huge line of scholars (150+), senior military, intelligence, and govn't personnel(110+), professional engineers & architects (190+), pilots and aviation professionals (50+), and 9/11 survivors and family members (180+) who have joined together to go on the record questioning the 'official' story of 9/11
The History Channel released a new documentary about those who question the “official story” of 9/11. While “9/11 Conspiracies, Fact or Fiction” is professionally edited, and interviews many different commentators, it is also highly biased. It frames the entire discussion in this way:
· "No, that's not true" (Without explaining why: Begging the question)
· The government is too incompetent!
· We're an EXPERT! See the Graphic!
After some twenty dozen mentions of the dirty word "conspiracy", we come mercifully to an end.
While Popular Mechanics continues its lame and pompous efforts at defending the official "conspiracy theory", their "debunking" efforts are objections that have been frequently answered elsewhere. Take for example, their section on the controlled demolition theories.
Controlled Demolition: "Conspiracy" Theorist, "Expert", and Responses
1.Conspiracy Theory: The speed of the collapse was too fast
1A. [Prof. Steven Jones] You would expect the tower to absorb the shock but not just fail completely, and certainly not in less than 15 seconds as we observe.
1B. [Sofia Shafquat] That's basically free-fall speed. I have a hypothetical demonstration. A collapse is clunkety clunk, clunkety clunk, clunkety clunk, floor by floor. Say that 110 times, and a major Republican tried this, he took his watch with the second hand and he said clunkety clunk 110 times, it took him over 3 minutes.
"Expert" Response 2A. Controlled demolitions always begin from the bottom of the building. You cut the bottom columns and then the building falls. If you look at the World Trade Center, both of them began at the impact wounds of the planes.
Straw-man: A controlled demolition is “controlled”. Explosives can be set off in any pre-planned order.
2B. What they're trying to say is all kinds of explosives that were perfectly timed, and that top section fell a lot faster than it would have if it had to force all this other debris down, and that's just not true, it's just factually inaccurate.
Begging the Question: Why is it not true? This “expert” statement is “factually inaccurate”; conservation of momentum has existed long before the existence of Yellow Journalism, Hearst, and Popular Mechanics.
3. Conspiracy Theory: WTC fires did not burn hot enough to melt structural steel.
3A. No building built out of structural steel that is designed to house people has ever collapsed before or since 9/11 due to structural fire. And there are many, not just one or two, there are many instances where fires have burned much hotter and much longer, and stood.
3B. [Sofia] Jet fuel is a hydrocarbon, that's all. It maxes out in a controlled burn at 1800 degrees. Steel starts melting at 2750 degrees. Now we're 1000 degrees apart, and office fires burn at this really low temperature of 600-800 degrees. So regardless of the fuel, the temperature of an office fire is not sufficient to weaken steel.
"Expert" Response 4A. As the debris flew through the building at almost 500 mph it caused equivalent to sandblasting all the steel. So all the fireproofing came off and that meant that the steel was naked, it would have been subject to the fire.
4B. Engineers do agree it would have taken a much hotter fire to melt the steel supporting the floors. But they say it didn't have to melt to compromise the building's structural integrity.
4C. The fires burned at a temperature of about 1100 degrees in some cases. That's sufficient for the steel to lose half its strength. Now if it only has half its strength it doesn't have the ability to support the floors above it any more.
5. Conspiracy Theory: Demolition explosives are visible just before the Twin Towers collapse.
5A. Excerpt from Loose Change. In all the videos of the collapses, explosions can be seen bursting from the buildings 20 to 30 stories below the demolition wave.
5B. [Sofia S.] If you just look at the videos and you just see these puffs coming out floor by floor by floor, it's apparent that the floors are being blown out of the way as the building was falling.
5C. There were a lot of things happening on the screen that I would not normally expect to see in just a structural failure, specifically, jets of what appears to be gas or possibly explosions, coming out of the sides of the buildings long before any of the debris had gotten down there.
6. "Expert" Response. [Cartoon of WTC-shaped squishy gray popsicle going splat over and over]
6A. As the buildings collapsed they literally pulverized the materials inside the buildings, the concrete floors of the building were essentially turned to dust as were the sheetrock walls, that's why you saw this light gray colored dust forming as the buildings collapsed.
Special Pleading: This feature is characteristic of Controlled Demolition. This argument therefore, does not disprove it was a controlled demolition.
6B. A building like that is like a giant accordion, it's full of air. When the top of that building comes down, all that air has to come out, and where it comes out, it comes out the windows, it blows out the windows.
6C. There was just an enormous amount of energy that was being formed by the collapse of the building and that energy compressed the air and caused the dust to be blown out the side of the building.
7A. [Sofia] The witness testimonials are fantastic, because these people spoke absolutely reflexively when they were there about what they heard and experienced, and they used the word "explosion" over and over.
7B. [Narrator] Some of those accounts were reported in the chaotic moments just after the attacks. "We received word of a secondary device that is another bomb going off."
7C. [Jason Bermas] Pat Dawson talked to some members of the FBI and they expressed that they believed that secondary explosives were used to demolish the WTC and that was onsite moments after the collapse of the building.
"Expert" Response. 8A. In fact, Dawson, who became a part of the story himself when conspiracy theorists cited his report, never interviewed FBI officials at Ground Zero. It was Fire Chief Albert Turi he spoke to just minutes after the North Tower collapsed, when confusion and rumors were rampant.
Response: Yes, and Chief Turi said he heard “bombs”—see response below.
8B. [Fire Chief Albert Turi] There was a secondary explosion, probably a device that had been planted before or on the aircraft that did not explode and it exploded an hour later.
8C. [Pat Dawson] What is important to remember is what Chief Turi said and what he didn't say. What he said was that he thought he heard secondary explosions in the building prior to the collapse. What he didn't say was that he heard bombs.
8D. There are things that happened inside the building, pieces coming loose as a result of the extreme impact very well may have been interpreted as explosions.
9. Conspiracy Theory: Rigging of Twin Towers with explosives was an "Inside Job"
9A. [Jim Fetzer] There were odd security lapses in Buildings 1 and 2 the North and South Tower for the two weeks before the events took place, where large sections of the buildings were shut down, the employees were sent home, the security apparatus was turned off and teams of so-called engineers were given access to the buildings, which raises the question is it then possible that there were previously positioned explosives in Buildings 1 and 2.
9B. [Webster Tarpley] No force can do that, except a force inside the US command structure itself, who is capable of preparing the Twin Towers and Building 7 for controlled demolition. That's got to be a force that's massively present here in the United States
"Expert" Response 10A. It would take an army of workers, it would take months, you'd have to strip all the sheet rock off the wall, you'd have to run 100's of miles of wiring all throughout the building in order to wire a building for demolition so this idea that some crew in black would sneak inside during the night and then wire a building for demolition, it's absurd
10B. The biggest problem for me is how do you put explosives in those exact spots where the plane hit before the plane hit. Because that's where the building failed. Everyone can agree on that.
Like all good hit pieces, there are some guilt by association smears like:
· Jim Fetzer and his faked Zapruder film book mentioned (Guilt by association)
· The highly speculative (and family member alienating) Voice Morphing
· "The 'Jews' did 9/11" (Guilt by association)
· “Holocaust Denial” (Guilt by association)
In the final analysis, “9/11 Conspiracies, Fact or Fiction?” is so bad that it will actually help the 9/11 Truth movement. This is because the documentary is so obviously condescending to the intelligence of the viewer, and brings up so many questions that it might lead some to actually research the facts—questioning the “fictions” supplied by The History Channel and Popular Mechanics.
Respected journalist Robert Fisk comes out and questions 9/11 in a leading UK newspaper:
My final argument – a clincher, in my view – is that the Bush administration has screwed up everything – militarily, politically diplomatically – it has tried to do in the Middle East; so how on earth could it successfully bring off the international crimes against humanity in the United States on 11 September 2001?...
I am increasingly troubled at the inconsistencies in the official narrative of 9/11...
Let me repeat. I am not a conspiracy theorist. Spare me the ravers. Spare me the plots. But like everyone else, I would like to know the full story of 9/11, not least because it was the trigger for the whole lunatic, meretricious "war on terror" which has led us to disaster in Iraq and Afghanistan and in much of the Middle East. Bush's happily departed adviser Karl Rove once said that "we're an empire now – we create our own reality". True? At least tell us. It would stop people kicking over chairs.
“Consider that an aircraft emergency exists ... when: ...There is unexpected loss of radar contact and radio communications with any ...aircraft.” —FAA Order 7110.65M 10-2-5 (6)
“If ... you are in doubt that a situation constitutes an emergency or potential emergency, handle it as though it were an emergency.” —FAA Order 7110.65M 10-1-1-c (7)
An organization called “Family Security Matters” with links to Dick Cheney promotes the idea that Bush should be dictator for life:
“He could then follow Caesar's example and use his newfound popularity with the military to wield military power to become the first permanent president of America, and end the civil chaos caused by the continually squabbling Congress and the out-of-control Supreme Court. President Bush can fail in his duty to himself, his country, and his God, by becoming ‘ex-president’ Bush or he can become ‘President-for-Life’ Bush: the conqueror of Iraq, who brings sense to the Congress and sanity to the Supreme Court. Then who would be able to stop Bush from emulating Augustus Caesar and becoming ruler of the world? For only an America united under one ruler has the power to save humanity from the threat of a new Dark Age wrought by terrorists armed with nuclear weapons."[2] Philip Atkinson, Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy [sic]
This embarrassing article was quickly deleted, presumably over negative feedback.
“If you thought Stu Bykovsky's call for a new 9/11 was the lowest the Neo-Cons could sink, think again. A right-wing foundation with links to Dick Cheney has called for Bush to be made lifetime president, ruler of the world, and for Iraq to be ethnically cleansed of Arabs by means of a nuclear holocaust… Though FSM chose to delete the article from their website after it started to get bad press, the cache is still available and Atkinson's previous articles betray the fact that he is a real columnist and he really believes this crap!”[4]
While many would reject the idea of Bush as permanent dictator as offensive, unlikely, and absurd, this article echoes a document signed by President Bush himself, which would theoretically give him a dictatorship in the aftermath of a “Catastrophic Emergency”. The National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive signed on May 9, 2007 reads:
“’Catastrophic Emergency’ means any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions… The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government.”[5]
While the media has remained silent on this document, many including Craig Paul Roberts,[6] Webster Tarpley,[7] and others[8] have spoken out on its significance. Lee Rogers writes:
“This is nothing more than a power grab that centralizes power andwill make the President a dictator in the case of a so called ‘Catastrophic Emergency’.It is insane that this directive claims that its purpose is to define procedures to protect a working constitutional government when the very language in the document destroys what a working constitutional government is supposed to be. A working constitutional government contains a separation of powers between three equally powerful branches and this directive states that the executive branch has the power to coordinate the activities of the other branches. This directive is a clear violation of constitutional separation of powers.”[9]
Is the Family Security Matters article a precursor to more Neo-conservative propaganda promoting the idea that Bush should be Dictator for life?
I had my suspicions about “Family security matters” when I read this from the website a few days before this Bush as dictator article came out:
An August 20, 2007 article by Family Security Matters writer Luke Sheahan derides Kevin Barrett and the 9/11 Truth movement:
“Columbus 9/11 Truth is an organization in Ohio that argues that the attacks of 9/11 were an inside job. Got that? In June the organization hosted the ‘Truth Film Festival,’ which screened a number of documentaries questioning the government’s role in the attacks. The last two films explicitly argued that the U.S. government orchestrated the attacks…What would make distinguished professors at a major American research university fall for the patently absurd ideas propagated by the likes of Columbus 9/11 Truth? Or even allow themselves to be associated with such clearly unsavory fellows as Abukar Arman and Ahmad Al-Akhras? This isn’t just your run of the mill anti-Americanism, its full blown crazy black helicopter conspiracy theories. However, there is a connection. The vision that makes some academics anti-American also lends itself to making them conspiracy theorists.”[10]
While weak, ad-hominem filled attack pieces on the truth movement are common, I think it is reasonable to consider Family Security Matters a biased source of information, and likely a direct propaganda arm of the Bush administration itself.
[2] Philip Atkinson, Exclusive: Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy [sic], The Family Security Foundation, Inc., http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/, August 3, 2007 [embarrassing article removed from internet]
“Philip Atkinson, ‘Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy’, Family Security Matters, August 3, 2007. (This is an archived version of a FSM article that has now been removed from their site).”
“A spate of new reports of al Qaida resurgence appears to be laying the foundation for a fake attack on the US to bolster support for the ‘war on terror’ and Bush's sagging political fortunes.”
“This is all sitting around like a loaded gun waiting to go off. I think the risk of martial law is trivial right now, but the minute there is a terrorist attack, then it is real. And it stays with us after Bush and Cheney are gone, because terrorism stays with us forever.”
“There are already some on the left and right warning about new emergency plan that would go into effect after a terrorist attack that would essentially put the executive wing in charge of the entire government.”
The History Channel 9/11 special that aired last night was by far the worst hit piece we have ever witnessed, a completely savage, dishonest and deceptive abomination, replete with dirty tricks, malicious lies and a level of journalistic fraud that goes way beyond simple bias.
Hayes “take” on this event is rather surprising and could be interpreted in other and more unflattering ways—one of which is high treason “defining” Mr. Cheney’s presidency.
What is not clear however, is whether or not Mr. Hayes got this story directly from Dick Cheney—which is possible, since he is a biographer of the infamous Vice President, or from Norman Mineta. It is worth contacting Hayes (without mentioning Mineta) to find out where he got this story from. This could be a big find if the vice president himself confirms the Mineta Testimony.
Here is how Mineta described this event:
During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, "The plane is 50 miles out." "The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to "the plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the Vice President, "Do the orders still stand?" And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?"
David Ray Griffin explains the significance of the Mineta Testimony:
Stephen F. Hayes is a columnist for The Weekly Standard, a prominent American Neoconservative magazine. Hayes has been selected as the official biographer for Vice President Richard Cheney.
Hayes authored a book on this subject entitled: The Connection: How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein has Endangered America
The title of this book fully demolishes the credibility of Mr. Hayes. Al Qaeda's involvement with Iraq was debunked by even George Bush of all people.
BROOKLYN, N.Y. - Firefighter John Schroeder, assigned to Engine Company 10 directly across the street from the World Trade Center complex, holds back tears and describes his first-hand experience on Sept. 11th. His story directly contradicts many aspects of the National Commission on Terrorist attacks any corroborates many other eyewitnesses testimony.
“We first assembled on West Street, where we saw someone burnt beyond recognition. We were like ‘What is going on here?’ and then went straight into the Marriot building” From there, Firefighter Schroeder made his way to the lobby of the North Tower. “It looked like a bomb went off, and we started making our way up the stairs to rescue as many people as we could.”
As they were making there way up the floors, Firefighter Schroeder heard a huge explosion. “The elevators just blew right out. We couldn’t believe it. The plane hits 80 floors up but the elevators explode at least five minutes later? It was unreal.”
Firefighter Schroeder made it all the way up to the 23rd floor before barely hearing on the failing radios that another plane was coming in. That plane would hit the South Tower, though for some reason, “We were tossed like a rag doll by another explosion in our building. People were making there way down the stairwells burnt like you couldn’t believe. We were all shocked because it seemed as if there was fire everywhere, on so many floors. It just didn’t make sense”.
The stairwells were black, and at that point, firefighters were making the decision to head back down stairs. In making there way down to the third floor, they were not able to find an exit. “The lobby was like a war zone. We could not find our way out. Then, all of a sudden, one of the maintenance workers had a key that opened a back door that got us out of there. He saved my life.” That worker was Willie Rodriguez. “I want to thank him from the bottom of my heart."
Firefighter Schroeder today has lost 40% of his lung capacity. “We haven’t been treated properly at all. From the day of the attack, our physical and mental health has deteriorated and it seems as if no one cares. To lose friends, to have to recover their bodies in the days after, to be offered no protections against that horrific-smelling dust that was everywhere even though the government said the air was OK to breathe is just not right.” Some of Firefighter’s Schroeder’s best friends have gotten out of the FDNY altogether while others accepted money and trips to help. “I stayed right here and did the right thing and now it feels as if I’m suffering the most. Where is our government to help the one’s with the toughest jobs on that day and the days after?”
While Constitutional experts and even sectors of the corporate mainstream media have denounced the latest power grab by the Bush administration as unnecessary and highly dangerous, the President himself has confirmed that he will seek even more authority from Congress and will attempt to pass more legislation aimed at granting the government unques
The top ten advances towards tyranny in the United States during the tenure of the Bush administration, from the Patriot Act to the latest expansion of the illegal eavesdropping surveillance program.
Note by Arabesque: a new paper by Victoria Ashley references several of my articles on Disinformation and tackles the "Big Tent" 9/11 Truth Phenomenon as seen in the website "Patriots Question 9/11".
Discrediting By Association: Undermining the Case for Patriots Who Question 9/11 by Victoria Ashley
PatriotsQuestion911.com is not unique in its mixing of nonsense-advocates with real researchers, but due to this site's high visibility the need to address this issue is all the more important. Efforts to get these small needed changes -- for the sake of the basic credibility of the entire 9/11 community -- have been fruitless. Hence, in order to keep the public aware of the basic role of the insertions of nonsense into our work which sites like PatriotsQuestion911.com are ignoring, this essay was created.
As we enter the 6th Anniversary of the attacks, the nonsense advocates are meeting for their own conference about TV fakery, nukes, UFOs, and space weapons, meaning that essays such as this are unfortunately increasingly necessary to provide a basic resource for journalists, researchers, and average readers who are questioning the 9/11 attacks, but are coming upon ideas so absurd, so often, that it might seem like most of the entire 9/11 community is simply nuts. But if one looks closely one finds that, in general, these people also appear to have held reasonable jobs and have even won grants for tens of thousands of dollars from the government.
This basic contradiction which we see again and again -- nonsense combined with expert credentials or high competency -- is a red flag in which only two possible rationales reasonably exist: either the person has begun a tragic course of Alzheimers (or some other organic disorder of the brain) which has apparently not yet been diagnosed nor affected any of their other abilities to function independently, or they are intentionally protecting the official story by attempting to discredit those who are questioning it by association. There are other possibilities - i.e., ego, spite, ideology etc. -- but most of those necessitate such a level of reckless disregard for the truth that they amount to an intentional effort to discredit, nothing more.
Some will argue that such essays and research as this are only negative, waste time, and risk getting us too involved in debunking and divisiveness rather than the positive work we should be doing instead. Indeed, the individuals described in this essay would likely feel the same -- "Shut up about the disinformation already, and lets all get along!" This is the basis for Big Tent, an organizing strategy which tends to welcome all ideas, no matter their content, for purposes of "unity."
The truth is, each of us has our own path, interests, fascinations, and abilities, and we can each contribute our best work by following what we feel most strongly about. Sometimes writing about mis- and disinformation is a cathartic exercise which can allow researchers to move forward knowing they have done as much as they can do to expose the charades. I recall discussing disinformation briefly on stage at a 9/11 event while waiting for the main speaker to arrive. Audience members were confused about some of the information they'd recently learned that made no sense to them and someone brought up a question. When I explained a little about mis- and disinformation, the history of it, the examples we know of, the likely possibility that this may be at the root of the topic they were confused about, there was a palpable relief in the room, almost an audible sigh that went across people. It surprised me: people understood immediately and in a gut way, gaining a knowing look on their faces as if to say, "Ah, of course . . . now I get it." After such situations are resolved, I've noticed, events move forward positively. I've witnessed such relief in a number of audiences when false claims have been brought up -- "But I think nukes were what really caused those clouds at Ground Zero!" -- and quickly decapitated by individuals like Dr. Steven Jones, Jim Hoffman and architect Richard Gage.
We are engaged in a 2-front information war, and pretending that we are not won't make one side go away. There are more than enough of us for all the different types of efforts -- outreach, organizing, group building, physical evidence research, petitions, lawsuits, FOIAs, and refuting false claims -- to move forward in unison.
The good news is that more and more people are seeing the nonsense and are rejecting it openly in their posts to forums, in their own essays, on blogs, and in films. Creating a firewall between the genuine research and the nonsense will take more than ignoring nonsense, it will take uniting against it. And that takes courage, as anyone knows who has attempted to expose mis- and dis-information and has been met with vitriolic public attacks and threats.
“The whole mystique of intelligence is that you acquire this… very valuable information covertly… if truth be told, about 80%—eight, zero—of any of the information that one needs is available in open source materials.”[1] Ray McGovern, 27-year CIA analyst in the film 9/11: Press for Truth
“We’re an Empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.”[2] “Senior Bush Advisor”, New York Times, October 17, 2004
"This is a battle… for the future of civilization."[3] Dick Cheney, February 15, 2006
“In every State of the Union Address since the attacks on 9/11, the President has raised the specter of another attack.”[4] Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Sen. Robert Byrd, July 19, 2007
“Bin Laden is more symbolism than anything else.”[5] Presidential Candidate Fred Thompson
“Those who want the United States to stay in Iraq indefinitely and those who want to widen the war into Iran… constantly [try] to obscure the nature of the violence in Iraq. Foremost among this crew of charlatans is President George W. Bush who (along with members of his administration) runs around telling the American public that the United States is primarily fighting al-Qaida, or, as Bush put it in a recent press conference, ‘the same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th.’[9]This is an absurd statement for multiple reasons: It ignores the true nature of the violence… it implies that Iraq attacked the U.S. on 9-11 (it didn't) and it implies that al-Qaida was in Iraq before the U.S. invasion (it wasn't). Nevertheless, it is used by war supporters to try and trump up support for staying in Iraq permanently.”[10] Jason Stahl, July 18, 2007
“Stranger still is [Bill] Kristol's speculation that, had Saddam been left in power, ‘his connections with al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups would be intact or revived and even strengthened.’ Connections with al Qaeda? Just this April, the Washington Post (yes, the same paper running the Kristol piece) ran an A1 article about a declassified DoD report from before the war stating that Saddam was not working with al Qaeda. What about Zarqawi, you ask? He went to Iraq in 2002, but only joined bin Laden's al Qaeda network after the U.S. invasion.”[11] Carolyn O'Hara, July 16, 2007
“A newly formed non-profit organisation made up of former Bush administration officials is to spend $15 million to run pro-war television and radio ads in more than 20 states whichfalsely link the 9/11 attacks to the war in Iraq in an effort to strong arm Congress into withdrawing support for a de-escalation.”[12] Infowars, August 23, 2007
“Al Qaeda is a creation and a tool of our own CIA. The CIA through the Pakistani Intelligence Bureau called the ISI funds it. The facts are that we wired $100,000.00 to ISI that has links to al Qaeda . In late September 2001 there was an FBI source that published a report that determined that the FBI and CIA were linked to the ISI. General Ahmad, the head of the Pakistani ISI wired $100,000 to al Qaeda, in fact, to Muhammad Atta, the leader of the group that staged the 9/11 attacks. This was in the Summer of 2001. This was in a press report that was covered by the MSM, and talked about the ‘money man’ that financed and supported the 9/11 hijackers. This General Ahmed was in Washington when the attacks on 9/11 occurred. He met with George Tenent, Richard Armitage and Senator Joe Biden.”[13] Tim Gatto, August 17, 2007
War and Globalization - The Truth Behind September 11 (9/11)
A Blog Devoted to Discussing 9/11 News, Research, and Disinformation
"When we act, we create our own reality"
“The aide said that guys like me were ‘in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who ‘believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.’ I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ‘That's not the way the world really works anymore… We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.'"
“Arabesque is the best writer in the movement, bar none. Arabesque writes with great clarity on all areas of the 9-11 cover-up, meticulously documenting each point through the use of extensive endnotes. Arabesque has also proven that he isn’t afraid to take on the disinformation specialists who would serve to discredit legitimate questions, research, and evidence which would directly contradict the 'official conspiracy theory' about the events of September 11th, 2001. This, I believe, is one of the most important issues facing the 9-11 movement today.” — Michael Wolsey, Visibility 9-11
