September 1, 2007

The Kennebunkport Warning: Hoax?

The Kennebunkport Warning: Hoax?

By Arabesque

August 31, 2007

Updated: September 9, 2007

See also: The Kennebunkport Warning Controversy: A Study in Divisive Accusations, Insults, and Ad-Hominem Attacks

Discussion on The Kennebunkport Warning: A Hoax?

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 it has not been proven conclusively yet, we have very strong evidence suggesting it is a hoax.

While the warning may be valid, the signatures of Cindy Sheehan, Dahlia S. Wasfi, and others appear to have been unethically used without their permission or knowledge.

When initially released, the warning claimed "massive evidence" without supplying any. Curiosity was justifiably invoked, so I independently provided a link to my own research. A few days later, Tarpley supplied his evidence, which included a fake “90 days” warning by FOX news—an exact word for word reprint of an article published in 2005.

While I strongly agree that there is a serious risk of an attack on Iran (and by extension a "trigger" to justify it), I strongly disagree with the unethical use of signatures to support such a warning. I do not know when or if another false flag attack will occur, but there is very strong evidence that the Bush administration intends to go to war with Iran.

Here is what we know:

John Leonard, Webster Tarpley’s book publisher says 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 says "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 told someone that "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"

And then, this joint release was posted:

“Each of us were approached during the rally at the Kennebunkport event on August 25, 2007, to sign a statement calling for the immediate impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney. Since then, the statement has been altered and posted on the internet, making it appear as if we have evidence that this administration will carry out a "false-flag terror operation."
None of us have such evidence, and therefore, none of us signed a statement stating that we do. We wish the authors of the document well in continuing much needed investigations of all aspects of 9/11.

Jamilla El-Shafei
Cindy Sheehan
Dahlia Wasfi
Ann Wright

Another alleged signer named Kris, has corroborated this story further stating “I DEFINITELY did NOT sign a paper with the Kennebunk Warning physically on it. My memory is of signing a piece of paper that simply had columns for signatures and email addresses, and perhaps a brief statement calling for impeachment at the top… I personally feel that while the Bush administration is certainly MORALLY capable of orchestrating a 911 false flag attack, and that there are definitely unanswered questions about 911, I have seen no evidence which proves it to me.”

With five individuals claiming that they did not sign the warning, and providing the exact same story—it is very hard to believe that they are not telling the truth and dismiss their accounts. However, a scanned copy of the signatures has been provided providing yet more intrigue and controversy as it apparently has their names on it. It is not confirmed at this point that the signatures were taken from another document and put onto the Kennebunkport Warning. However, the five corroborated statements can not be ignored.

The question becomes, if the signatures on the Kennebunkport Warning are not legitimate, what is its purpose? Is its purpose to discredit future warnings, or even the Kennebunkport Warning itself? Is its purpose to discredit anti-war activists by associating them with controversial 9/11 activists like Jim Fetzer and Judy Wood and their space beams and TV fakery? Is its purpose to create division between 9/11 truth activists and the anti-war movement? I don't know the answer to these questions, but they are all worth asking.

Who is claiming it’s legitimate? Kevin Barrett according to Captain May and Webster Tarpley, who is an apparent author of the Warning. Laurie Dobson and others claim (or rather, insinuate without evidence) that “it is obvious to me that the big name people are afraid.” Craig Hill seems to be one of the “real signers”. According to Michael on 911blogger, "I just spoke with Craig Hill, treasurer of the Green Party of Vermont who verified that he is indeed a signatory of this document and indicated to me that the document is very real."

Strangely, four of the promoters of the warning have ties to Lyndon LaRouche, who has been involved in promoting violent actions against activists. Webster Tarpley, one of the main figures in the controversy has a strong connection with LaRouche. Bruce Marshal (one of the originators of the warning), Craig Hill (calling the anti-war activists liars), and Laurie Dobson (claiming to be an “eyewitnessto the signings) are also connected to LaRouche. By coincidence or conspiracy, most of the inflammatory comments and insinuations about “fearful signers” are coming from LaRouche associates.

It is conceivable that some individuals did indeed sign the document, but Craig Hill says, “the immediate aim of the militarization of space via nuclear weapons and other exotic dangers orbiting Earth, pointing down and controlling entire societies under threat they, too, may suffer that which Dr Judy Wood persuasively suggests occurred in NYC on 9/11.” Signers Morgan Stack, Jim Fetzer, and Webster Tarpley have also supported the highly dubious theory of directed energy weapons (DEW) on 9/11.

No serious 9/11 Truth Activists believe that the WTC towers were destroyed with Space Weapons and the theory appears to be a deliberate ‘guilt by association’ Trojan horse. The theory has been debunked many times and is likely deliberate disinformation. An amusing and embarrassing mp3 excerpt of Judy Wood and Jim Fetzer discussing “beams” from space reveals the credibility of its advocates.

Why promote ideas like directed energy weapons and create controversy over signatures on a document? Discrediting and dividing activist groups is a historical part of FBI CoIntelPro operations, and the Kennebunkport Warning Hoax appears to be yet another stunning example. The purpose of CoIntelPro is to “divide, confuse, [and] weaken in diverse ways” activist groups.

A previous example was the “controlled demolition” of Scholars for 9/11 truth by none other than Jim Fetzer, who also appears to be involved in this controversy. Fetzer was interviewed by Tarpley shortly after the Hoax Warning was submitted to 911blogger and proclaimed, "Scholars stands with you. You may make Scholars for 9/11 Truth a signatory to your Kennebunkport Warning. [...] Keep up the great work! You are a clear, strong voice for truth!” Jim Fetzer then issued a press release entitled "Scholars endorse 'The Kennebunkport Warning': Report ominous signs of a privatized takeover of the nation."

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 fashion about what they signed and if they signed. You can see for yourself from the facsimile who signed. We need to move beyond these wretched individuals.[sic]"

Why would Tarpley attack Cindy Sheehan and others in this manner? Why his association with Jim Fetzer, (who has a history of disinformation and divisive behavior) so soon after this controversy erupted? Why do Tarpley and three others have connections to LaRouche? Similarly, Mr. Craig Hill (who referenced Judy Wood and Space Weapons) has also attacked Cindy Sheehan and the anti-war activists suggesting that this is a deliberate attack. While it may simply be dismissed as bad behavior, it is also a typical divide and conquer strategy of CoIntelPro to create division within activist groups through false accusations and allegations. In contrast, Cindy Sheehan and others have refrained from attacking the apparent hoaxers and have showed support for 9/11 investigations. In my view, this is very strong evidence that we should take their claims seriously.

In Summary:

On the one hand, five of the alleged signers of the warning:

· Claim they did not sign the Kennebunk Warning

· Say they did sign another document

· Independently claim the document signed involved impeachment

· Support 9/11 questions and another investigation

· Have not attacked the authors of this document

On the other side we have:

· Multiple accusations of "liar", personal attacks, divisive and inflammatory language (i.e. “wretched individuals”, etc), and unproven speculations about "fearful signers"

· No apologies for these accusations and ad-hominems

· Direct support for the highly dubious directed energy weapons (Fetzer, Tarpley, Craig Hill (citing Judy Wood), and Morgan Stack have all supported this theory in some form).

· Four individuals who appear to be associated with Lyndon Larouche

· No indications that the signatures will be removed from the warning. (update: now the names have an asterisk)

· Signatures shown on the warning (it is disputed that the document was signed by the anti-war activists)

Thanks to the good work of 911blogger Col. Jenny Sparks, other signers have been contacted and should provide more facts in this swirling controversy.

I would like to emphasize that while the truth of this matter has not yet been determined, the main issue is that of divisiveness and the apparent attempts to split the 9/11 and anti-war activist groups.

In the mean time, the 9/11 anniversary approaches, and the family members still demand answers to their unanswered questions.

Note: this is an older version of this article. The newer article has been updated with new research and edited to remove unnecessary opinion.