AN ANALYSIS OF... FLIGHT 77'S SHADOW?
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
First posted October 30 2007
Last update Nov 5, 12:25 pm
PLEASE NOTE: The solar angles I had used for my original detailed analysis were not accurate. My presumption of steady change during the day seems to be at fault. Steady change would create a triangle waveform of change - /\ - which is not how the sun moves. In reality the pattern is curved, and so degree change minute to minute changes in a steady non-linear pattern that I don't know how to calculate, so I've used a solar calculator as recommended by helpful comments from a knowledgeable reader (please see comments section below). I've found, as the commentator did, an altitude of 32°, not 25, and an azimuth of 113°, not 126. I have update ALL my math, graphics, and text to reflect this. Distance/speed has not changed at all, but my original altitude of 72 feet above the shadow has been increased to 115 feet, and pitch issues have been raised. See below for details. All other findings stand as is.
Starting to lean towards a 757 impact at the Pentagon, or at least to a more 'agnostic' position than the missile theorizing of Loose Change version 2, Director/narrator Dylan Avery started a thread at his Loose Change forum in August 2007 asking “why does the Citgo video contradict the North Side claim?” The significance of this of course is that the ‘official’ south-of-the-Citgo flight path allows the downed light poles, impact and internal damage (as well as plane debris and the flight data recorder) to be caused by the plane, while the north-of the-Citgo flight path attested by Citizen’s Investigative Team (CIT) and their ‘PentaCon’ witnesses rules this out, implying a flyover and all damage staged in real time.
The answer Dylan provided to his question was to be seen in a short segment of the station’s security video (9:40:37-9:40:39 by video timestamp) which shows a flash of light at the northwest end of the station, and a subtle darkening of one interior camera’s field of view, as well as a less-noted soft double-pulse of light reflected off a wall on the station’s southeast end. These are usually taken as a glint from a plane on the south side of the Citgo and the shadow of same falling over the station. Though Avery failed to elaborate on what exactly the video shows, an endlessly-looping 3-second animated gif was left up to drive the vague point home. 
A frame of video showing the canopy flash (upper right large screen, camera 3, 'dual pump') and south end light pulse (top center small, camera 2, 'east entrance'). The interior 'shadow' was captured by camera 7, 'register 2,' lower right.
The thread is a fascinating and frustrating read, with the video’s authenticity immediately questioned by CIT cohorts Aldo Marquis and Craig Ranke and their forum compatriots, primarily via the “proven” manipulation of the video to remove key frames (a point we’ll return to at the end), and the timing of its release last year to “discredit” their then-new north path witness Robert Turcios by editing him out. At any rate, even looking at the content, a lot of doubts were aired in that thread that seriously question Avery's original 'findings.'
Rob Balsamo popped in to ask “the dim of the lower right cam for one frame is what is being argued here? Really?" It was. His piloty opinion, echoed by others, was that "that dimming effect in the lower right cam is not a "shadow" of AA77 or any other aircraft.”  Craig concluded “the content of the data isn't anywhere close to definitive in regards to whether or not a plane flew on the north or south side. No "fakery" at all was necessary because of this,” he announced, but was willing to entertain “low level fakery of a slight dimming in ONE view or what might appear to be a reflection or two.”  Researcher John Farmer (spcengineer), alongside his flaying CIT for their dishonesty, abuse of his work, and ‘delusions of grandeur,’ agreed “I do see evidence for the north side claim. I also see evidence of the south side claim […] there is not enough evidence to be dogmatic about either.”  Discussion of light angles was inconclusive, but enough to question the path they evidenced. After the original post, there was no defense or explanation from Dylan, despite some pleas for clarification. The poor quality video, endlessly hammered charges of alteration and irrelevance won the days, with CIT supporters slapping down grinning emoticons like silver dollars at happy hour.
I agree with these general findings that the effects captured in this loop in fact do NOT contradict the north side claim. The interior ‘shadow’ captured in camera 7 (Register Two, lower right) happens synchronous with the two lighting effects – uniform in nature and effecting one camera only, my best guess is it’s a brightness adjustment triggered by the flashes, and not a shadow cast by an airborne object. Immediate reaction of customers/employees inside and the black police car just after it sends the flash onto the canopy indicate these light bursts are at the moment of impact, not of the earlier pass over the station. This would put any plane reflection at or very near impact – so despite what I’ve published before, it may tell us tells nothing about north or south path, as both converge at that point. These light effects will require additional analysis and are beyond the scope of this piece, but the main reason I’ve identified them with impact will be fairly clear by article’s end.
The Real Shadow
Ironically, the best clue mitigating against the north-side claim in the Citgo video is one little feature Avery’s loop missed - seen onscreen just before the loop starts, at 9:40:35. Here is a video I made to help illustrate (please note this has editing effects and is less-than-clear: Do NOT use this video for in-depth research):
Here is the highest resolution still of that one frame I could find, provided by Farmer, who also helped me first locate the dots. This is still not very good by any measure, but briefly a large shadow – or set of shadows – appears on and then flickers away from the ground south of the station. This is the view captured by camera 4, labeled “Single Pump side,” multiplexed into the video screen above as a very small view. It was set beneath the canopy at the east edge of the southwest end of the station, looking southwest. Interestingly, this is the same camera view Robert Turcios is said to have been edited out from. Just beneath the canopy edge across the right half of the view are two large patches of darkness stretched across on the white background that seems to be the surface of South Joyce Street.
The only early mention of this in Dylan's thread was made my Aldo: “A ways back, I noticed a couple of dots that pop up in the street in the south side camera. John Farmer points this out as well. It is inconclusive and could actually just be a flaw in the video.”  He'd better hope so, because the object(s) casting such a shadow would be further southeast of that in the sunlight at that time and location – in fact, roughly in the space Flight 77 is said to have passed through at about that time in the official story.
The first thing to establish is the size and location of this area of shadows. The fisheye effect of the lens clearly a factor, but not one I feel impacts the general findings, so I’ve essentially ignored it. In this montage of two site photographs kindly provided by John Farmer – taken on his research trip there earlier this year – exact feature correlation is hard to pin down. The security camera was set higher than this and looking more down, but at about this lateral angle. Using the 100 ft scale from Google maps, I measured the south parking lot at about 75 feet long and therefore the area occupied by shadow seems at least 45-50 feet across.
Subdividing the camera's view in 4 for reference, and approximating its field of view on a satelite map oriented north, I have placed the shadow here, on South Joyce Street:
Each camera captured in the multiplexed video has an “action” setting that seems to increase frame rate when it detects a certain level of motion. This mode is off for camera 4 as the shadow passes, so it is only visible for one frame. My non-expert analysis with iMovie shows this image holds for 10 frames of standard video (at 30 fps), so the original video would have been 3 frames per second. A plane traveling at a reported 530 mph would cross 777 feet per second, or about 260 feet per video frame – therefore we should expect just one frame to capture any meaningful part of it passing over this patch of ground.
Vehicles passing down the street seen at other points in the video come from a great distance and take something like 60 frames or about 2 seconds to pass off-screen. The shadow, however, takes one frame to be gone, indicating that it was either crossing the road - not running down it - or moving at tremendous speed, or both.
Even more interesting is what happens after the shadow blinks off-screen again. The flashes of light and the interior ‘shadow’ featured in Avery’s loop, by my analysis (using iMovie), start happening 65 frames after the shadow first appears – 2.167 seconds, yielding a speed of around 530 mph, or just what the flight data recorded found inside the Pentagon says. I will explain this more fully below, but so far it seems this is lining up quite well with the ‘official story,’ whatever exactly that means.
Two Smudges Ain’t a 757 Shadow
The first obvious problem for this line of reasoning is ‘the shadow’ appearing as two separate dots and entirely too small to represent the outline of a 125-foot-wide 757, and far too short as well. As LCF member Avenger argued when I brought up my first awareness of the issue in Avery’s thread (link at top, page 13) “two little spots can not be the shadow of a 757,” he said. “For one thing, they are too small, and for another, there are TWO OF THEM!!!” 
Would it be a cop out to suggest optical effects? Factors at work to counter a clear view of the shadow include edge fuzzing due to altitude and refraction, road reflectivity, angle of view and surface topography, camera resolution, transfer resolution, and of course the shape of the object casting the shadow, in this case supposedly a twin-engine airliner. Farmer seems comfortable referring to them a single shadow and told me regarding its appearance:
”A lot of it has to do with image quality and poor quality CCD... That is the big problem, people try to see more than the system is capable of revealing. Alone the dark "smudges" mean nothing. Together with angle of sun, predicted location and altitude of plane, and other factors combine to identify it as a shadow (exactly where models predict it should be). Alone, it is just a smudge...” 
I've found two photos that help us understand what would be seen in this video if a 757 passed over South Joyce Street in front of the camera. I'm not allowed to repost them, or apparently to even link directly. But if you right-click this link and search for ["Mark Wilson" shadow air] you can view them. They both show a different angle relative to the camera and probably different model craft. Note the angles of the wings and engines, and the effects of minor topography; in the second picture, the slight rise of the roadway seems to have snubbed off the nose of the plane.
And here is a perspective model I made with a 757 shadow to scale. Note also how in the foremost section the fuselage shadow and engine shadows, if divided from the rest, would appear as three separate shadows, one of which disappears once distorted along the lines of the video view, the parts at the top hidden by perspective, the lens, and the canopy (bottom).
Extreme contrast reveals all the clues this crappy video has to offer as latent mid-tones pop out more sharp. It seems part of the shadow may also appear on the far right, on the other side of the support pole – If this is so, then we have big dot – small dot – big dot – line. Note that the left spot extends further towards the station’s sunken parking lot, and seems warped in shape, possibly from its interaction with the raised sidewalk, obscuring its true length on the roadway behind that.
The blue arrow in this graphic shows not only the direction but also the rough location of the “official” flight path. I re-did the shadows here, elongating the southern one to flesh out what I wanted to see and to reflect the likely sidewalk effect noted above. In this scheme, big dot – small dot – big dot – line – becomes fuselage – wing root - engine - wing edge of a plane on a heading of about 60 degrees. I’m entirely open to suggestions that I’ve read this wrong, but as far as I can see this is a good overall fit.
Having possibly explained the ‘two dots’ as two of a 757’s three leading prongs, the absence of everything else also needs to be explained. This is more tricky, but my best guess is that only the shadow falling on the darker roadway came through, while everything on or behind the narrower, lighter-colored median (see above) is effectively invisible. Supporting this possibility is how the visible shadows line up fairly well with a cut-off line at the median curve, and that the median appears nearer the top edge of the video frame; its foreshortening and fisheye distortion are worse. It seeems feasable that some combination of optical effects has left everything from there back invisible on the video even though it was there in real life.
Solar Geometry: Location and Altitude
Regardless of how exactly it came out looking, the best evidence for this being from Flight 77 is what the sun can tell us about its location. Here are the sun angles for 9/11/01 at the Capital, verified with this this solar calculator.
Azimuth is the direction to the sun measured in degrees from north. Azimuth change from sunrise (84° or just from the north of due east) to solar noon is 96° in 379 minutes, an average change of about .25 degrees/min. Presuming steady change between these, a mid-point of 132° would be reached at 9:57 am, and it would be at 126° at 9:38. However, the change is not steady and linear but follows a curve, and in this case reaches an azimuth of 113° by the official impact time of 9:38.
The plane placement here is based on the mechanical damage path, and verified by the black box magnetic heading (60.0°) and ground track true (61.2°) traced back from impact. I drew the sun angle from the shadow location to points intersecting that flight path and there is where I placed the plane at the moment that shadow was recorded. The dots actually appear slightly offset on the road, matching the wing axis at this heading. The shadow seems to be about 190-195 feet from corollary spots directly beneath the plane (all approximate). From this and sun altitude angle we can deduce the plane’s altitude.
Solar altitude (also called elevation) is the angle of solar rays relative to the horizon (0 at sunrise and sunset, highest at solar noon, 55.5° at 1:05 pm at the Pentagon). On its curving path, at 9:38 the sun would have reached past its mid-point from sunrise to high solar noon, beaming down at about 32°.
The distance from shadow mid-point to a corollary spot directly beneath the plane being about 195 feet, a vertical line beneath the plane the right height to cast a shadow that far away happens to be something like 115 feet higher than the shadow, perhaps 105 feet above ground level, which seems to be several feet higher under the plane than under the shadow. The area has a general altitude of 50-65 feet above sea level compared to about 30 at the Pentagon.
Speed and Pitch: More Math and a Slight Problem
The distance from shadow-casting position to impact point, measured again, looks like almost exactly 1560 feet. With something like 130 feet descended as well, I’ve used a total distance of 1,690 feet.
Speed – 530 mi/hr = 777.3 ft/sec
1690ft / 777.3 ft/sec = 2.174 seconds
Compare this to the 2.167 seconds between the shadow’s appearance in the video and the first light effects on the building.
Working the other way back, we get
1690 / x = 2.167 -- x = 779.88 ft/sec = 531.7 mi/hr
Compare this to the ‘official speed’ of 530 mph.
So that's a perfect fit, and next we’ll look in greater detail at pitch, or ascent/descent angle; a level plane has a pitch of 0 degrees, while nose down pitches are recorded in degrees minus. From its altitude of 115ft AGL just south of the station, a required average pitch of about -6° would be required to reach impact altitude. A steady descent at that pitch would not allow the plane to hit all the light poles as happened, so changes of angle would be required. If it was descending at roughly –8.5° as the shadow was cast, leveling to –7° and to about –6 one second later, and over the next second passing through -5° and finally settling on –3° as it crossed the lawn and knocked down the last pole, this yields a 2.5° change and one of 3 degrees in the two seconds before impact. As seen below, it doesn’t look insane or anything, but we must remember the plane would have been moving quite fast and this distance and all this change covered in a hair over two seconds.
(r-click, open in new window for larger view)
How plausible is this steep-then-shallow pitch playing out this fast? When I’d mentioned a shallower change rate than this, Rob Balsamo told me it would rip the plane’s wings off. 8.5° is a steeper than usual pitch angle, and this overall curve is in fact extreme by my cursory look at pitch readings recorded in the FDR.
So I looked closer at the period of final descent seen in the CSV file, about 9:20 till last numbers. For the first ten minutes of this, pitches between –4 and +4 predominate, mostly at fairly mild angles of between 1 and 2 degrees from level. Pitch changes during most of that period are also subtle, fractions of a degree, with 0.0-0.2 deg/sec prevailing. This steadiness and moderation of angles begins to break up noticeably around 9:33 as the plane nears the ground, with second-to-second changes of 0.5, 0.7, 0.9° and higher creeping in. The pitch activity is fairly steady then during the grand right hand loop from 9:34-36 after which larger shifts of 1.2, 1.4, and higher become more common along with more extreme pitches like 6, 7, even 9° degrees from level recorded. The single largest one-second change I located was at 9:37:19-9:37:20, where a 2.1° decrease follows immediately after a 0.9° increase in pitch (-2.5 –1.6 –3.7 –4.9).
So by previous trends the required actual pitch changes required for that shadow to be real and properly located in my analysis - 2-3 degrees per second - seems extreme and unprecedented – just more so than the frames before, and just less so than the impact that followed. And what might seem a troublesome pitch forecast for my overall case, considering the slight fudge factor inherent in placing both the shadow and the flight path above, and that previous readings prove at least 2.1 degrees is possible, this curve doesn’t seem at all to be off in the realm of “Bush lie” sc-fi. The fudge factor of this ballpark approach could shift the numbers closer to or further from the ‘official story,’ depending, but not by a very large factor. We’re looking at an extreme but quite possible curve here.
It’s true no such changes are not reflected in the final recorded seconds of FDR data, 9:37:40-9:37:44, which shows angles between 4.9 and 6.7 degrees minus, and changes of 0.9 or less. Of course it also shows the wrong altitude and wrong bank angle for the wings to fit the above profile. But some clues, like location recorded in the L3 file 'readout 2', and John Farmer’s comparative analysis of FDR and radar records [PDF link] place it nearly a mile short of the building as those pitch numbers were recorded, so this could in fact have happened after that unexplained truncation. (This is its own whole fascinating and troubling issue far beyond the scope of this piece). Judging by much evidence, there’s a good chance it did just that, and was pitching at an average of -6° between this shadow and the final video captured at the Pentagon showing it low and fairly level from about the location of the last light pole.
Conclusion: Valid Evidence?
Charges or hints of image manipulation started from the CIT end as soon as the Citgo video was first released last September. They have no problem asserting Turcios was edited out from this same frame to weaken his testimony, but Craig has been strangely reticent to address this shadow which had to be inserted into this same camera view by his theory. Instead he’s taken to writing off the video entirely and forfeiting the chance to analyze this twice-over fakery more closely.
Their case for this dismissal rests largely on others having ‘proven’ the video altered via key cameras views not included in the final video when they were apparently on the original tape, and the cameras themselves being phyisically removed. This take is attested by the station’s manager, the same one who offered up Turcios, and taken, as Craig explained in his ATS ‘thread,’ as “Proof The Citgo Security Video Was Manipulated.” The findings of Russell Pickering, John Farmer, and CIT ally ‘Interpol’ are said to support this finding, though Farmer and Pickering have both lodged complaints with CIT, both during the course of Dylan’s thread, for using their findings to imply this.
So it appears that Aldo and Craig are in a fairly lonely spot in believing this, and rather than using the evidence for anything, they’ve declared the data irrelevant. As Craig explained to me when I brought this shadow work up at Above Top Secret, “no legitimate investigator would accept data controlled and provided for solely by the suspect as valid evidence in support of the suspect's innocence.” 
The finer points of this argument are too much to address in detail, and I’ve not had the time to dig into the issues, so I’ll remain agnostic for now on how much of a case there is to be made for manipulation. Likewise I leave it up to the reader to decide whether or not these possibilities render the data totally invalid or make it something that should be looked at as it is, in its proper, somewhat ambiguous context. Whether real or inserted, it seems to show Flight 77, or whatever plane we’ve been calling that, the one that pierced deep into the Pentagon two seconds later.
And however likely this shadow being inserted truly is, it appears that Aldo and Craig must continue to argue it’s either unreal or irrelevant, because if it’s authentic, this single camera’s view clearly and fatally contradicts their witnesses’ north-of-the-Citgo testimony. If true, that would leave the only question as HOW these erred recollections managed to line up so on something consistently contradicted at every other turn.
So considering we don’t know if this shadow was actually recorded or airbrushed in later, Avery's original question of why the video counters the PentaCon must be left open. The real question should have been how exactly it does so, but this was not explained until I popped into the thread on page 13 nearly two months after Dylan’s first and last post. I hope this analysis sheds some light on how the video actually does contradict the claim, just one more point in an already imposing roster of clues that should leave any rational person, at the lest, doubting CIT’s claims that their overall case is ‘proven’ in any way.
Above Top Secret Thread - more discussion
 “Why does the Citgo video contradict the North Side claim?” Loose Change Forum -> 9/11 Research -> The Pentagon. Posted by Dylan Avery August 9 2007, 02:21 PM.
 See .Posted by Pilots For 9/11 Truth. Aug 10 2007, 01:32 PM. http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=13548&st=20
 See . Page 5. Craig Ranke CIT. Posted Aug 11 2007, 01:39 AM.
 See . Page 10. Spcengineer. Posted Aug 14 2007, 02:51 PM
 See . Page 2. Aldo Marquis CIT. Posted August 10 2007, 01:23 PM
 See . Page 15. Posted by Avenger October 5 2007, 06:35 PM http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=13548&st=280
 E-mail from Farmer to me: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 15:52:01
 Above Top Secret.com -> 9/11 Conspiracies -> Flight 77’s Shadow?.-> Page 5. Post by Craig Ranke CIT. Posted October 29 2007 @ 11:04 PM. http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread311324/pg5
October 30, 2007
AN ANALYSIS OF... FLIGHT 77'S SHADOW?
October 22, 2007
George Washington on Threats of Violence to 9/11 activists:
The only people threatening the lives of 9/11 activists are also promoting the theories that
(1) directed energy weapons brought down the Twin Towers and/or
(2) the videos of Boeings crashing into the Twin Towers were fake.
Many of us have emails and phone messages of threats being made against us. We are not whiners. In fact, we have largely held our tongues on the threats of violence we have received, because we did not want to make a mountain out of a molehill or distract the 9/11 movement. But videos are now appearing on the web impliedly advocating violence against certain 9/11 activists.
Who made the videos? Folks promoting the theories that (1) directed energy weapons brought down the Twin Towers and/or (2) the videos of Boeings crashing into the Twin Towers were fake.
Is there any importance in the fact that the people making the threats happen to also be promoting the above theories?
Is there any importance in the apparent fact that the threats are made against people when they refuse to endorse the above theories?
Why are these threats of violence being made?
Why are they being made against people who are working as hard as they can to spread 9/11 truth and to obtain justice against the perpetrators of 9/11?
Why do these threats appear to be made whenever sincere 9/11 activists refuse to promote theories which they believe contradict the factual record and the laws of science?
Why do these threats seem to be made right when 9/11 activists actually start being effective in spreading 9/11 truth?
What should we conclude about the purpose of these threats of violence?
October 16, 2007
Cosmos interviews Jim Hoffman of 911 Research: Discussion of Disinformation, Disruption, and the Kennebunkport Warning Controversy
[Edited for brevity and clarity]
[Cosmos opens with discussion of Every 11th Day of the Month Activism for October 11, 2007]
Cosmos: Our guest tonight is Jim Hoffman of the long running wtc7.net site… We met in early 2003 before he got the site up and he was showing people video clips of the towers demolition on his laptop at meetings and getting some fliers together… let me welcome… Jim Hoffman.
Jim Hoffman: Thank you for the introduction. I heard the reports of the ongoing [every 11th day of the month campaign], that’s great.
Cosmos: There’s growth all over the place… especially with this October 11 action… Why don’t we talk about how you got involved with 9/11 research… what you thought of the events? Were you questioning from the beginning?
Jim Hoffman: On the day of the attack I tuned in on TV… I just watched it with my mouth gaping, “what was this all about?” [I had] suspicions right away. “This is all too convenient—what are they going to do, attack Afghanistan? This whole next pretext for a war”… the attack on the Pentagon—the wing that had just undergone blast resistance… and they so quickly uncovered the trail of the… villains—the rental cars with the flight manuals…
Cosmos: That was one of the things that really kicked it in for me… [I thought] “this stinks”.
Jim Hoffman: …It wasn’t until the spring of 2003, that I went back and looked at the events again with fresh eyes and looked at the buildings coming down… there’s an article that came out in 2001… “Muslims suspend the laws of physics”. All of a sudden I just had this “aha” moment—it became glaringly obvious that the buildings were blown up. I couldn’t even see it the way I had previously assumed… [or continue going] along with the official explanation. I had seen the NOVA series, “Why the towers fell” and just bought it “hook, line, and sinker”… It changed everything for me, because from that point forward, I felt that I had to tell people about this… I started passing out fliers… within a few months I got the website going, by late 2003, I had 911research as part of wtc7.net, and 911review.com…
Cosmos: You personally were the one who really got me looking at what happened at the Trade Center with those clips that you started collecting and were showing people…
Jim Hoffman: I noticed that if… I could actually get people to look at [footage of the WTC destruction]—most people would have the same basic understanding of it that I did… When you immediately see the explosiveness of those events, or I would just show them building 7 …because it’s such a fundamental thing to come to grips with—to change your view that… these towers collapsed [due to fire], or something entirely different—that the towers were blown up. Building 7, you can take that out of context and show it… people… say “that’s obviously controlled demolition.” …the Twin towers… are the heart of the whole event… the core of the psychological trauma. The thing that put people so deeply in shock to the point that they would accept anything that was explained to them. That’s certainly the effect it had on me—I was just in this uncritical state… even though I had suspicions about who was behind the attack. I didn’t even think rationally about how those buildings came down… until 2003.
Cosmos: It’s really amazing the [effect] that blowing those buildings up had on so many… and their ability to deal rationally with this topic about 9/11… I cannot look at that without saying, [it’s] being blown up right in front of our eyes. At the time, I just took it in—“Whoa—that’s not right”, but not really registering… it really is a hurdle for people. Although it seems so obvious for us.
Jim Hoffman: …Watching the NOVA documentary “Why the towers fell”, the floors collapse inside the building—that was all done with animation. They didn’t actually show any of the actual imagery of the event… One of the first things I started doing was just collecting all of the photos and videos I could find of it, and archiving them on the site, as a way of creating an archive of that evidence to look at. At least the visual evidence of that event survived—there’s a lot that can be determined just by that. Those visual records of that event are physical evidence.
Cosmos: …To this day, wtc7.net is one of the best sites for 9/11 research. It’s right up there, it’s always one of the first that I recommend to people who are looking into [9/11] for the first time. You’ve also done a lot of work in the study of disinformation and disruption. I’d really want to talk about [this]… a long overdue topic in the [9/11 truth movement]. Some of us have started giving it attention and have come under severe fire. I know that you’ve been attacked yourself for just being involved in critique of different work. Also, for the first time, I am going to be documenting for the first time on this show the full outrageous and ongoing attacks against myself and other activists from TruthAction.org that have been going on for over a month now. It’s pretty crazy. I’ve sort of avoided dealing with this on this show, because I generally just want to focus on getting people out there and getting active. But, in reality, if you’re involved in activism… disinformation and disruption is a key topic that needs to be addressed, because… if you have the potential of being successful, you become a target for disruption, and this is documented throughout history…
Jim Hoffman: It’s unfortunate that you’ve been… experiencing all of these kinds of attacks… but it’s also an opportunity to kind of bear how this whole psyop [and the cover-up of 9/11] works. This can be extremely valuable. It’s a measure of your success [the 11th day of the month campaign], that you’re getting these kinds of attacks.
Cosmos: …[We’ve got to] turn it around and turn it into a positive thing. [Commercial break]
Cosmos: Jim’s also done a lot of work in the study of disinformation. What is that? …so many movements have been disrupted, some destroyed by disinformation campaigns. To think that you can be an activist or promote activism and not have to deal with this topic at all is very uninformed, wrong-headed, and quite frankly dangerous. If you focus on disinformation… all these people will say… “this is distracting, don’t talk about it”—I just want to read a quote from my colleague Arabesque, who is a brilliant researcher and great writer, very meticulous, and also in possession of what my friend Scott Nobel calls “superhuman civility”. He says: “The official story of 9/11 is disinformation, which means that the subject of disinformation is a vital and essential topic of 9/11 discussion. The opinion that disinformation is ‘extraordinarily low’ in this movement misses the mark by a long-shot since the very purpose of our movement is to expose the disinformation of the official story of 9/11. We cannot avoid the subject of disinformation.” I think Arabesque says it very well right there.
Hoffman: I think it’s useful to put it in a little broader context… if you look at the history of disruption in [other movements] in the past, the disinformation component isn’t as large or as important as it is in the case of 9/11… articles about COINTELPRO list… infiltration, psychological warfare, harassment through the legal system, extra-legal force and violence—those are the types of tactics that were more prominent in those operations. With 9/11… the facts of the attack are so important just disinformation… takes on a much bigger component… the main [purpose of this disinformation] is to ridicule sceptics of the official story. It becomes less viable to do really nasty things like killing people… that would actually give us more credibility. That puts all the more emphasis on the necessity to muck things up by promoting false theories, bad information, muddying the waters—all kinds of disruption to create a hostile environment in which rational critique is not possible… shrouding the verifiable evidence, clear case for an inside job—a key component of the cover-up of 9/11.
Cosmos: I would suggest that what we’re facing in terms of disinformation and disruption is way more than other movements have faced… this is a very touchy topic, because if you are dealing with people who are intentionally disrupting, it makes it very difficult to deal with, because just by talking, addressing it, the potential is there to create more disruption. There’s some key things to focus on [to get around this problem]. The answer is not to ignore this, because then we’re screwed… if we’re willing to continue supporting people who engage in vicious attacks on others, people who pass on bad info repeatedly. The way to deal with this, is not to focus on individuals, but to focus on the form and content of what people are doing. To focus on civility. A key component of disinformation and disruption is ad-hominem attacks.
Hoffman: Civility, having guidelines of behavioural norms, that there are some things that are over-the-line… If people are going to inject racism or ad-hominem attacks, and disruption—why do we waste our time opening our forums to people who do that? There should be these basic guidelines, norms that we follow, and I’ve seen so much resistance to establishing that kind of environment from some of the leaders of the movement. [It’s essential to have a] civil environment in which we can [critique each other] and show that 9/11 was an inside job.
Cosmos: I hesitated to really pull everything out on this show… but I think it’s irresponsible to continue promoting activism without giving out good information about what’s going on in terms of disinformation and disruption. [Commercial break]
Cosmos: How do we deal with [disinformation and disruption]? Education, and activism. We can’t ignore the disruption attempts—some of the quite successful, some of them busted. Michael Wolsey has put together a compilation of information on disinformation and COINTELPRO… then there’s the aspect of dealing with the actual disruption as it’s happening in the movement. The key… is civility because [those] who are [trying to create disruption] spread a lot of ad-hominem attacks. Not discussing things civilly. Stirring things up and creating disruption. By example, we are going to address the attacks against a number of activists, namely myself, TruthAction activists, Michael Wolsey, Arabesque, Col. Jenny Sparks for the last month. Ongoing for the last month. We’re building a case here, we’re documenting it—I’m basically at the point where it’s so outrageous, it’s getting more and more vile… I announced three 9/11 truth resolutions:
1. We have a really solid case, we don’t need extraneous stuff
2. Keep a clean house: Dealing with disinformation, misinformation, and disruption. Avoid naming names.
3. Keep Kicking Ass.
This all started with Webster Tarpley, Bruce Marshall, and Craig Hill and the Kennebunkport Warning… this was spread everywhere. Then word started coming in that [Cindy Sheehan and others] claimed that they didn’t sign it. They weren’t making a big deal of it. The response to this [by the Kennebunkport Warning Promoters] was to heap abuse on these anti-war activists: “wretched individuals”, “appalling liars”. I took issue on this and reported [what happened] on my show, and I didn’t even mention names. I was disgusted that someone representing themselves as a leader of 9/11 truth [said they were building bridges] with anti-war war leaders, and then [heaped] abuse on them. I really took great offense… so I brought it up on the show. What happened next was the onslaught of attacks—non-stop, to this day by Webster Tarpley and his associates, just getting more and more ridiculous as time goes by. It started off with him calling us COINTELPRO agents. This is slander, this is a lie. Then he said we founded by the Ford Foundation. Another lie. He commissioned a very professional kind of political cartoon with FBI [marching orders and FORD Foundation] money in our hands. He took the opportunity of the 6th anniversary speech in New York, [to include] a slide show… we have an entire list of accusations [by them] and it’s really quite hilarious if you read through it. But the ridiculousness of it doesn’t take away from the viciousness. It’s wrong, it needs to stop. [Commercial break]
Cosmos: Slander, Libel and Harrassment… you try and summarize but it’s just so huge, so ridiculous and ongoing to this day: “COINTELPRO”, “Funded by the Ford Foundation”, “Chechen Rebel”, “Jenny Sparks is a Man”, Political Cartoons, Hit Pieces, vile and vicious hate mail from Tarpley’s protégé warning me not to look into this. It’s degenerated into this new kind of psy-op, using YouTube to attack activists. This reeks of a professional operation because there’s about 50-100 of these videos with Webster Tarpley and Eric May… trashing us, saying that we’re Al Qaeda cell members. It’s time to speak up about this, and get some kind of response from our movement.
Hoffman: It’s so clear. What possible motive would there be someone to go making these vicious characterizations of these really well known peace activists like Cindy Sheehan… When people like [Cosmos], Arabesque, and Wolsey report on it, to be viciously attacked by Tarpley with all these ridiculous accusations of COINTELPRO…? Very entertaining to watch, very vivid, just lurid—it’s ridiculous. It’s all just completely concocted, he makes it sound like you, and Wolsey and these people that he’s saying are COINTELPRO just popped up in the last year is just an utter lie. I think it’s a really good test of whether people are really in this in the benefit of our movement: are we going to tolerate this sort of thing? Where are the voices of the alleged leaders of the 9/11 truth movement about this and similar incidents? I think the silence from some quarters is deafening.
Cosmos: When people who are respected just stand by when people are viciously attacked, we saw this happening with Steven Jones all through the year. When people just stand by… with the veneer of non-partisanship.
Hoffman: Or make excuses for it: “I don’t want to get involved, it’s just a personal conflict”, completely smearing over the details of it. The effect that it’s having is to alienate other groups that should be our allies with the most vicious stuff. It’s completely irresponsible not to address it—worse, to make excuses, or even worse, to continue to promote the people involved in this. So-called Captain May… do a little googling on him and you’ll find all these associations to anti-Semitism.
Cosmos: Captain May has been involved in slandering and stalking activists from truthaction.org, [saying:] “we are trained COINTELPRO professionals”. Five days later… videos start showing up attacking us on a bunch of blogs, with encouragement to [harass] us. I [question why] these supposedly prominent people in the truth movement who wish to remain silent and sweep this under the rug, and watch these kinds of attacks go on. If you want to see a truth movement be strong and continue to grow, you won’t let that happen. I’ve given my whole life to [9/11 truth action]. It’s hard enough to do this without being viciously attacked, slandered, and harassed. If you want to see people to continue to give everything they got to exposing 9/11 truth, then you won’t stand by and watch as they are attacked.
Hoffman: And you’ll educate yourself about the whole issue of COINTELPRO and what the nature of this cover-up is—to inject nonsense into the investigation, surround our valid analysis of the attack that can be used in straw-man attacks in the Media, and to create this culture within the movement that is hostile to critique. Our challenge is to create a culture that has these guidelines that doesn’t accept this over-the-line, outrageous [behaviour]. What people are making excuses for it, and what people are pointing it out? Maybe that’s a better indicator of who should be recognized as who is really contributing to this movement.
Cosmos: If you support disruption, and you abide by it, and you keep promoting people who are disruptive, then you become an accessory to it. That’s at odds with “we want unity”. [One of] the tactics [from the 60-70’s employed to allow disruption] that they’ll throw at you is “you’re dividing the movement”. That’s hilarious. People who stand by and watch people get attacked and not do anything about it in the name of unity.
Hoffman: At the same time, you [get] attacked for merely reporting on things, for critique—as if that’s the same thing as an ad-hominem attack. You see people who are making the worst kind of ad-hominems, conflating ad-hominem with critique. That’s a key tactic to shut-up the kind of critique we need to really hone our case. [Pretending that] there’s no such thing as critique, to disagree or to discuss something—[claiming criticism without ad-hominem is] all attack—it’s ridiculous.
Cosmos: The key is civility. That is our weapon in dealing with disruption because that is the heart of disruptive efforts.
Hoffman: We’ve just scratched the surface. It’s so interesting to see this happening to you—it’s just, I’ve seen this, almost like a whole different era. Obviously you’re doing good work to be getting this kind of flack.
Cosmos: We’re just going to take it as encouragement. [End of Show]
October 15, 2007
Cosmos on his radio show: Truth Revolution Radio: September 3, 2007
The Kennebunkport Warning Controversy
Transcript by Arabesque
Mon., September 3, 2007: Playlists: M3U RAM (Individual MP3: Click Here)
Michael Wolsey of Visibility911.com is the guest and we discuss his work as a truth activist and radio host, with a special focus on his series on cointelpro. We are also joined by investigative activist Col. Jenny Sparks and discuss a bit of the controversy behind The Kennebunkport Warning. Bruce Marshall joins the show during the last segment to discuss his role in promoting The Warning.
9/11 truth activist Cosmos of Truth Action gives his take on the Kennebunkport Warning Controversy:
One thing about this that really disturbed me… it’s something that potentially [caused] this antagonism between the truth movement and the anti-war movement, when the whole thing was intended to building bridges. As someone who’s put effort into building bridges—individually, and with groups in the anti-war movement… I just don’t take it well to have these women’s names put on this document, and when they curiously differ, and say no, they signed a different document, and include in their refutation a message of support for 9/11 truth! …and then to have the people promoting this turn and viciously attack them. It’s just… [later] ...it really boils down to are we going to act civilly, or are we going to be divisive.Later in the Radio show, Bruce Marshall, a collector of signatures for the Kennebunkport warning gives his side of the story. In his comments, Bruce Marshall curiously evades the central complaint of divisiveness as articulated by Cosmos above. Instead, he emphasizes the warning, and erupts in anger when questioned about the divisive behavior of those involved in the controversy:
Cosmos: Bruce Marshal is on the line, he’s actually the person who apparently responsible for gathering signatures—including the disputed signatures on this document. I guess you’ve been following… [the controversy]?
Bruce Marshall: Not really. Frankly, not really. I think this is a big problem getting caught into the minutia of it. There’s a problem, and the problem has been going on for quite a long period of time. Actually, what this is, is a healing process. What we’re starting to see is what we need to deal with the crisis. The crisis is the fact that the world is about to go to thermal nuclear war potentially. The crisis is that we can have another 9/11 attack. The crisis is that we can have a gulf of Tonkin incident.
Cosmos: I don’t think anyone involved with this has any dispute with that whatsoever. I haven’t seen any people contradicting the need to warn people, this is quite likely to happen—that’s not really the issue. The issue is the disputed signatures and also the treatment towards the people in the peace movement who are disputing signing this document, which is very divisive.
Bruce Marshall: There’s a lot of divisiveness.
Cosmos: And calling people “wretched individuals” and “appalling liars” is not… bridge-building behavior. That’s really a key problem here because one thing we really do want to do is unite the peace movement and the truth movement—which are really the same movement at heart. So that kind of behavior is really troubling and I’m feeling--
Bruce Marshall: [interrupting] and who’s doing that? Who’s doing that? [inaudible]
Cosmos: I feel at a very basic level that at the very least, these woman deserve an apology for the way that they’ve been treated by the promoters of this warning… none of these women deserve to be called wretched individuals or appalling liars.
Bruce Marshall: Well, where were they being called wretched individuals?
Cosmos: That’s actually a Webster Tarpley quote. That’s from an email that he sent around last Thursday [August 30, 2007] morning.
Bruce Marshall: Oh, this is interesting. I think what we need to do here is look at this from the perspective that you asked me to come on the call, so, let me… put this all in perspective. This wouldn’t have happened in certain ways if wasn’t for Cindy Sheehan. It was… us, myself, who recognized that Cindy Sheehan called to meet in Philadelphia on July 4th, was historically important for the country. What we were trying to do, was to bring together the various movements in this country, to work on this. So, to say this is where we’re going, this is what we’re trying to bring forth. I put this into the perspective of… who signed what, and why they said they didn’t sign what they signed, and this type of thing… is, you know, all this hullabaloo is, I mean it’s acrid, it’s an aspect of the human condition. And there’s… [Interrupted by Cosmos]
Cosmos: Right, but when Cindy and the rest disputed signing, and they specifically said that they signed something, but that they recalled it being a different document. Now, whatever you think about that, and whatever your take on that was, you were the one collecting the signatures, they offered their refutation of signature in a very courteous way, and then offered their support to the 9/11 truth movement. And then they said they “wished the authors of this warning well… in getting the truth about 9/11—that they were very courteous. So all the hatred, and all the animosity is coming from the people who promoted this document, and it really doesn’t add up… a lot of us in the movement really don’t want people who are claiming to represent us treating leaders from the anti-war movement in such a way.
Bruce Marshall: [In an angry voice:] You are talking to me in very disrespectful way. Do you know what you’re doing? [Microphone cut off]
Cosmos: Webster Tarpley and Craig Hill have talked to Cindy Sheehan and the rest of the signers in a disrespectful way. And we don’t really appreciate it. Now did you personally obtain a signature from Cynthia McKinney on this warning?
Bruce Marshall: [In an angry voice and shouting] You are doing something that is—is despicable here! Now you listen up! [inaudible—Microphone cut off]
Cosmos: I think you need to calm down Bruce. I really don’t need you shouting on here. And I think this is indicative of… where the people promoting this… are coming from. Can you calm down a bit?
Michael Wolsey: Cosmos, I think this is very indicative of the way that these people have been treated, and I’m just appalled at this sort of behavior from someone who admitted that he hasn’t kept up on this.
Cosmos: This is him saying they want to build peace and… build bridges. If you’re going to go about and say that you’re building bridges with people, then… why all of the sudden heap abuse on them…
Michael Wolsey: I would suggest it doesn’t matter why they want their names off. The caller suggested that they need to know why—no they don’t need to know why. The simple matter of the fact is that the promoters of this document—if somebody was… disputing the signatures, they should have just immediately taken it off and [moved on]. My question would be: why didn’t they do that?
Cosmos: That’s a good question. Bruce do you have an answer for that?
Bruce Marshall: […] You don’t know the story, Sir. People have—you don’t have the story kid. […]
Cosmos: [We’re running low on time.] Do you think there’s any chance to heal this with these women, maybe offer an apology for the language that’s been hurled at them, publicly?
Bruce Marshall: [Yelling] Oh! Why don’t you talk about the language that’s been hurled at Janine! Calling her a liar, calling me a liar!
Cosmos: I haven’t seen any of that.
Bruce Marshal: [angry voice:] You, you, you aren’t understanding the facts, that’s why you interrupt me when I tell you about what things are! I really shouldn’t have come on this show, because I understand that there’s, there’s—it’s being negative towards healing. You are actually acting in a divisive way! Ok
Bruce Marshall: [angry voice:] You don’t understand what’s going on. The door is open towards healing, towards creating leadership here. The people that signed something—the people who signed something. [Microphone cut off with cross-talk]
Cosmos: Well if you’d like to take a breather and continue this later, we can do that. […] I don’t know what to make of all this, maybe if these guys want to calm down, and join us at a later time, we can try to resolve this a bit more.
October 14, 2007
Webster Tarpley: Arabesque, Cosmos, Jenny Sparks, Jon Gold, Michael Wolsey, and Truthaction are “disinfo”
A comprehensive summary of the ongoing disinformation, ad-hominem attacks, threats, and accusations by supporters of the Kennebunkport Warning against Cindy Sheehan, the anti-war activists, and investigators of the controversy
updated: October 23, 2007Truth Revolution Radio:
One thing about this that really disturbed me… [about the Kennebunkport warning controversy] it’s something that potentially [caused] this antagonism between the truth movement and the anti-war movement, when the whole thing was intended to building bridges. As someone who’s put effort into building bridges—individually, and with groups in the anti-war movement… I just don’t take it well to have these women’s names put on this document, and when they curiously differ, and say no, they signed a different document, and include in their refutation a message of support for 9/11 truth! …and then to have the people promoting this turn and viciously attack them. It’s just… it really boils down to are we going to act civilly, or are we going to be divisive.This was my main objection as well. What was the response to this complaint?
[False Statements/Disinformation highlighted in Red. Ad-hominem commentary and Personal Attacks highlighted in Purple or HTML Links.]
“Who opposes the Kennebunkport warning? We discovered going through this that if you take all the slanderous filth, counter-organizing, disinformation and so forth, about two-thirds of it comes from about half a dozen people as far as I can see. And let's tell you who they are. First of all, you have to look at the site called truthaction.org. As far as I can see about two-thirds of the site appears to be devoted to slanders and vilification of the Kennebunkport Warning. This shows what one can only call the typical style of the counter-gang. In other words it takes elements from lots of people's work including my own. They talk about truth squads, they have a candidate tracker, they talk about a general strike, they take things from Ron Paul, they take things from We Are Change, but then they mix in a huge dose of anonymous slander, vilification, denigration, calumny, libel, and defamation. The leading poison pen seems to be an individual called Cosmos. Now this I think is extremely objectionable. Here is somebody who will not tell you his real name but he demands the right to be a poison pen. Anonymous slanders are his stock and trade. He wants to slander you and vilify you from the shadows, spread disinformation, distortions. These are the venom-mongers, the merchants of pus who like to operate from behind the scenes. These are the wreckers and saboteurs, and of course the question is posed: Is this COINTELPRO? Is this the conform of the FBI counter-gang? Those are interesting questions. I can't answer them, but they are very interesting.
Then we have somebody else called Colonel Jenny Sparks in quotation marks. She shows herself as a cartoon figure prancing in an abbreviated costume before the Union Jack. Another poison pen slanderer, another wrecker and saboteur. The only questions we have are, is this COINTELPRO, is this the current style of the FBI counter-gang?
So here we have Cosmos who shows you he looks like he's trying to imitate Che Guavara or a member of the Sons of David baseball team. He's hiding behind a huge beard, looks like the Italian aviators in A Night at the Opera. He's got this army fatigue cap pulled down over his eyes so you can't see him, he might as well be anonymous. Jenny Sparks [is] completely anonymous.
Michael Wolsey, Visibility 9/11. He appears of course in shades, he's got some cool shades on, he doesn’t want you to see him. Remember visibility911.com is not the same as 911visibility.org. 911visibility.org is a reputable website; you have Janice Matthews and many others who work there. This is visibility911.com with Michael Wolsey.
Another person who has been active in these slander operations is somebody called Arabesque. Arabesque has a blog devoted to discussing 9/11 news research and disinformation, and I think the disinformation department is absolutely admirable. He seems to have all the disinformation you could want. He's pushing it and peddling it on this sleazy, smelly website. So thats arabesque911.blogspot.com.
The interesting thing about these people is that they all appear in the year 2006, 2007. What's their track record in the 9/11 truth movement? Do they have any? Do they have contributions? Have they done anything to build the movement? Who are they? They come out of nowhere and then they set themselves up as leaders. Cosmos in particular starts saying that it's time for everybody to get active on the eleventh on every month. Well we don't need him to tell us this and to take credit for it.
I'm afraid also Jon Gold is somebody who has been in the movement, puts his blog at Arabesque and he has joined in the slanders.
These people have practiced a constructive fraud on public opinion. I think they operate with multiple pseudonyms. We do not know who they are. Colonel Jenny Sparks for all we know may be a cigar-chomping FBI agent or a branch of Shin Bet somewhere in the Occupied Territories or a subcommittee of the National Security Council. We simply do not know.
Colonel Jenny Sparks appears with no face. Arabesque has no face. Cosmos has got the cap pulled down over his eyes. Michael Wolsey's got his shades on. These are the poison pens and the slander snipers and these are the people you have to watch out for.
And I think it is monstrous that a lot of people who have been in the 9/11 movement and have seen COINTELPRO in action in past years are now willing to go down this road once again with disinformation, distortion and the constant mania of people who insist on operating under false names, anonymous slanderers. It's a despicable way to wage political activity.” [transcript by CV]
A Similar commentary by Webster Tarpley took place soon after on the anniversary of 9/11. This power point presentation included comparing Cosmos to photos of Chechen terrorist Shamil Basayev, and Arabesque to the deceased and former director of the FBI, Edgar Hoover. Watch these attacks against the Kennebunkport investigators below [1:32:59 to 1:36:24]. A moderator at truthmove.org reported about the conference “[Tarpley] just called cosmos, jenny sparks, arabesque, michael wolsey, and john gold all cointelpro. he even put pictures of some of these people up on the screen.” Jon Gold echoed my thoughts exactly when he replied, “Oh well, at least I'm in good company.”
Webster Tarpley - September 11, 2007 in New York
"This next part is nothing that I wanted to do, but I have to include it because it's been forced on me. Who's against the Kennebunkport Warning? Who really doesn't like it? Who's out there slandering it—slandering the document? How about slandering me? I'm used to it. We have five experts in slander, with no track record in this movement—people who came out of nowhere, in 2006-2007. No achievements. No track record. No credibility. They come into the movement and say "alright, we're the bosses now; we're going to tell you what to do." And then they affect the [inaudible]. We've counted about five or six people as far as we know have written about two thirds of all the slanders. And this raises this unavoidable question—I know it's distasteful, I know it's [the 9/11] anniversary, but the situation is so extreme, that having a chance to talk to people about this, I'm afraid I have to do it. There's one called truthaction.org… and they have all the stuff—it's sounds like… Ron Paul. It sounds like We Are Change. It sounds like me! It sounds like truth squads, truth candidates, general strike—but, when you look at this site, about three quarters of it is devoted to slandering the Kennebunkport Warning. And for some reason, me. Me! [pointing to himself with both hands]
Here's the guy: Cosmos. This is a poison pen. Here is a guy who wants to slander you from behind a cover name. He won't tell you who he is. And look at him, where is his face? He's got that hat on. You can't see who he is, or he says: "I'm not going to show you my face and I'm not going to show you my name and I'm going to slander you." The guy is a weapon [?]. Is this COINTELPRO? Is this a [FBI] counter-gang? Thanks to my counter-intelligence, we've now figured out who's behind it. You may remember Shamil Basayev, the leader of the Chechen terrorists. The Russians think to have killed him in 2006—just about the time that Cosmos came forward. [photo shown]
Isn't it amazing? But he's not the only one.
Colonel Jenny Sparks. We're supposed to have a debate with Colonel Jenny Sparks, who has no face, and no name! Another one of the poison pen brigade. Thanks our counterintelligence, we know who Jenny Sparks is. [photo shown] She has a certain mystique.
How about Michael Wolsey? Anybody know him? He appears here… You think you know him—visibility 9/11. Notice the sunglasses. He wants to show you his face behind the shades. He takes the shades off, here's who he is. [Picture from X-men movie with character "Multiple Man" shown] Multiple Man. Because he has a thousand—multiple pseudonyms. He calls himself 911visibility or visibility 911? Do you think you're getting 911visibility—that's a reputable site. It has Janice Matthews and a lot of people from 911truth.org. But visibility911 is a completely different kettle of fish.
Then we have Arabesque. Another slanderer. He's got a whole blog—nothing but slander. We've been able to find his true identity. [photo shown]
Jon Gold, writes for Arabesque." [Transcript by Arabesque]
[See a response to these accusations here, here, and here. Jon Gold has never posted on my site, but I have linked to blogs by him. We do not oppose the warning (in fact I offered my research to support it), we oppose the divisive conduct of the Kennebunkport Warning promoters, which is continued by Webster Tarpley in his attacks against us. We are not "CoIntelPro", and we ask that Tarpley supply actual evidence to support this serious accusation (of which, we know he has none). Being opposed to divisive language does not count as evidence of being a "CoIntelPro agent" or "cigar chomping FBI agent".]
When you attack someone instead of answering their argument or complaint it is called an ad-hominem. The above passages have to be some of the most colorfully vitriolic examples seen so far in the 9/11 truth movement. From my paper, 9/11 Disinformation and Misinformation: Definitions and Examples:
“The third level of disinformation occurs by abusing the man (AD HOMINEM) in attacking the author or the editor of a work on irrelevant or misleading grounds that have little or nothing to do with the position the author or editor represents.” Jim Fetzer
“One of the telltale signs of disinformation is that the people promoting it engage in personal attacks.” Jim Hoffman
“Another important aspect of how disinformation in the 9/11 Truth Movement functions is through the use of attack and vitriol. While all types of people—professionals, academics and average people—can resort to nasty or inappropriate personal attacks when defending or promoting theories which conflict, the 9/11 Truth Movement has been packed with such attacks.” Victoria Ashley
These statements by Tarpley were just the beginning of the onslaught. Earlier, Webster’s publisher, John Leonard entered the fray calling 911blogger users “sock puppets” here, here, and here for being voted down and then posted a “call for unity” from of all places, Tarpley’s book. It was voted down unmercifully by 911blogger users.
Tarpley’s comments after this controversy began included:
“Reality is that the signers signed – the irrefutable, photographic, courtroom quality documentary proof is posted on the internet. In the light of this overwhelming evidence, it is understandable that most of the signers are reluctant to issue a flat denial that they ever signed. Rather, their denials are oblique and ambiguous doubletalk.”
“The only way you can get out of this is to prove that you are mentally defective, and nobody has tried that, so far.”
“The role of foundations in funding the peace movement and some of its leading activists is an immense factor of impotence and corruption.”
“And you cannot be an antiwar leader and be an agnostic about this, claiming you simply do not know or that you do not understand the concept of false flag. If you choose that cop-out, what kind of a peace leader are you?”
"From the beginning, supporters of Kennebunkport have argued that the four signers who claimed they did not sign, and then deplorably covered their retreat with a barrage of wild charges of forgery, most probably did so because they feared that their foundation funding might be terminated."
"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]"
Later, Tarpley started throwing accusations at the Kennebunkport warning investigators, and even made a professional-quality cartoon accusing them of working for the Ford Foundation:
"From now on, as a rule of thumb, it will be fair to say that those seeking to tear down the Philadelphia and Kennebunkport convergence clearly represent the running dogs of the Ford Foundation, operating as stooges, pawns, foot soldiers and water carriers for the infamous Berlet, and deserving to be exposed as such. Whether they are conscious, paid agents or merely dupes can be determined later on."
"Thanks to Berlet, all foundation operatives in the domestic cointelpro apparatus now know who their immediate enemy is. Everyone who is foundation funded knows where their bread is buttered, and they are expected to earn their pay by reacting accordingly. Watch them as they come forward. Persons of good will can also use the Berlet slander as a reliable moral guide to what is actually going on here, and join the growing and distinguished list of supporters of the Kennebunkport warning at actindependent.org."
"We come now to the segment of counter intelligence and this of course our dear friends over at the Berlet Brigade, the Ford Foundation Berlet Brigade. These are the four individuals--psudomyms that you know--or don't know, the nameless, faceless ones....of course, Jenny Sparks, Cosmos, Arabesque and uh Micheal Wolsley. Some of them have a third of a face, some of them have three quarters of a face, most have no names... They have essentially been wrapped up into a neat package with their leader Chip Berlet as they march under the banner of the Ford Foundation--by an artist who portrayed them in a very ironic lampoon that you can see up at actindependent.org or at the Rense.com, um, website."
"Captain [Eric May]... do you have any idea now who [Jenny Sparks] really is? And where she's located? And how is it possible to do this destabilization and wrecking simply through the internet, at long range? Does she depend on dupes? Or backward elements? How does she do it?"
"As for the scurrilous “Cosmos,” “Colonel Jenny Sparks,” “Arabesque,” and Michael Wolsey, to say nothing of their comrade in arms, the Ford Foundation’s favorite Chip Berlet, they have no interest in doing anything to stop the new 9/11 and the threatened war with Iran. Their sole focus is to harass and sabotage those who are undertaking action in that regard – and remarkably effective action it has turned out to be, despite the exertions of the wreckers."
[this was sent by email and is believed to have been written by Webster Tarpley]
"Dear friends - 9/11 blogger has been purchased by a mysterious millionaire from Texas, who for all we know could be Karl Rove or Neil Bush.
[911blogger] is being run by ['George Washington'], who has chosen to support the Ford Foundation's Chip Berlet and his allies (Arabesque, Cosmos, Wolsey, and "Col. Jenny Sparks", all unknown people who joned [sic] 9/11 in 2006 primarily) in a series of attacks on the Kennebunkport Warning and its supporters. Wolsey has also attacked Thierry Meyssan, Gerhard Wisnewski, and myself. [...] reprehensor, who had been my contact there, is a person of ability and character, but he has been driven out by the new management. 911blogger can no longer be relied upon for anything. We are trying to do an intelligence job to figure out who the new owner is. We also need to know more about this ['George Washington']. Our cartoon sums up the situation -- enclosed. We need to find other channels for publicity -- this one is useless for the moment."
US Senate Candidate Leland Lehrman, an associate of Webeter Tarpley writes:
"My first reaction to the controversy was to hope for reconciliation, but there appears to be no way to make this happen. Mr. Tarpley is adamant that the arrival of Chip Berlet of the Ford Foundation is evidence of a major counterorganizing initiative and he is decisive that even those who cannot be proven agents must be warned of the consequences of their alliance, intentional or otherwise."
911 blogger has not been "purchased" by anyone, and certainly not by Karl Rove. We request/invite Webster Tarpley to supply actual evidence to support the claim that we work for the Ford Foundation and are affiliated with Chip Berlet. Being opposed to divisive language of Webster Tarpley and his associates does not constitute evidence that we are being funded by the Ford Foundation.
Unlike Tarpley, we have accumulated "massive evidence" to support our assertion that the Kennebunkport Warning promoters are being divisive and abusive.]
"The hoax lies in the lies of the signers"
"The stupefying behavior of so-called peace activists who seem bent on making sure disaster strikes again"
"Dahlia Wasafi is the original instigator of the campaign to destroy the messenger and the message of the Kennebunkport Warning"
"Unlike Dahlia and Cindy, Bruce doesn't play gotcha or switcheroo with those he thought were natural allies."
"The hoax here consists of a rally, essentially, by some of the signers to protect Dahlia's family by amazingly, clumsily, arrogantly and stupidly destroying the credibility of a patriot who is simply trying to do what they have not the guts or brains to do on their own."
"The bitterly dubious integrity of Cindy Sheehan or her crapulous judgment"
“PLEASE REPRODUCE THE SHEET WITH CINDY AND DAHLIA'S SIGNATURES ALONG WITH THE ONLY EXPLANATION I CAN COME UP FOR THE UNDERSTANDABLE REASONS DAHLIA LIED AND CINDY WENT ALONG WITH IT.”
“I'm beginning to think more and more that the peace movement is very much more infiltrated, and controlled even by elements of the perpetrators, coming from the perpetrators than even the 9-11 movement... And the reason I say that is that it seems now on 911blogger, which is supposedly THE authority on the internet such as it is for all things 9-11, has taken the side of these people who I call the Dahliar 4. In other words, the Dah-Liar 4. D-A-H-L-I-A-R Just put an R at the end of the name Dahlia.”
Craig Hill also wrote the following to Kennebunkport Warning investigator Jenny Sparks via email:
"Unlike Web, who detects the smell of scum from the other side of the computer, i do not for a minute believe the cartoon known as Col Jenny Sparks draws a paycheck from the govt outside welfare. He (not a Jenny, tho probably a wannabe) is too young and too ignorant of too much and too many in the movement, by his own admission. His cutesypie writing style is immaturely directed to impress his little audience of equally insignificant fellow underachieving pseudo-9/11aware couch potato typists. He is likely a mischevious youngish man (lives at home with mom, bangs away all day at a computer in the basement) with way too much malicious time on his hands to do anything worthwhile with his little miserable bug-like existence. Thinks it's cool to say "squire", "guv", "sunbeam" (wow!) and (oh, that iconoclastic striking out at Authority!) "Webbie", which his little circle of even younger giggling apolitical boy/girl buds who look up to him think is so de rigeur. Thinks he reveals his worldy wise knowledge of inner circle talk to intro his gigglers to Nico as if Web didn't know him (yawn), "warning" Web that Nico means trouble, oooooh, "watch out!", you heard it first from the Drudge [his hero] of the pseudo-9/11 movement, the Cartoon Col. As if any of his drivel is important beyond his pathetic little ego, his laughable little cutesypie insistence to "Apologize!" to the Dahliar 4, who have done nothing to further anything ever in the 9/11 movement for which they have nothing but contempt for having lied about signing the sheet they knew they signed, not giving a flying fuck for the lives of the Iranians who could jolly well melt like a grilled cheese sandwich under the coming onslaught of the buscists [sic?] Jenny and they embraced by not denouncing the attack before the event, which is all Bruce and Web were interested in forestalling. But no, little boy Jeniffer proves Dahlia is the idiot she really is for accepting his apology for the entire 9/11 movement he has absofuckinglutely nothing to do with, at any point, ever, including before his pathetic bug-like existence down in mommy's basement." [False statements marked in red. 'Jenny Sparks' is indeed a woman]
"Those who seek to discredit the Kennebunkport warning exhibit a devastatingly tragic myopia (or worse), as they selfishly attempt to engineer a divisive conflict entirely of their own creation, while foolishly ignoring the material substance of the document."
"This picture encapsulates everything that's wrong with the typical 9-11 conspiracy lemmings and losers, who are completely useless, and in fact, counterproductive to progress. It's a self-contained pyramid scheme psy-op now, with ignorant followers resorting to pathetic street recruiting like Hari Krishnas, attempting to wake up people to "the truth" (which is about as deep as their idiotic bumper sticker slogans). If anything, these 911 cultists are lost souls who deserve pity."
"(Look at these poor saps... the sign blaming it all on the "neocons" is the biggest joke of all, not only unsupported by the facts, but also foolishly pitting the 911 issue in the left-right paradigm. As if these problems will stop after Cheney leaves office? This photo is yet more ammunition exposing how brainwashed the 911 conspiranoid cultists have become. There. I said it... And why do 911Blogger and similarly demoralizing, heavily censored cult hangouts promote these kinds of photos? Let us pity these three men, who probably think they are practicing "activism" with their public cult recruiting)." [False statements/Disinformation marked in red]
Elsewhere, Mr. Abrahamson had a "FFlagNews Brand New Quiz Game: 'Guess that 911 cultist!'" In these videos, he continued his personal attacks against Cosmos, (a Kennebunkport Warning investigator), Alex Jones, and Steven Jones.
Kevin Barrett, yet another supporter/signer of the Kennebunkport Warning wrote:
Forgery is a serious crime, and falsely accusing someone of forgery is an even more serious crime. Yes, I think Webster Tarpley made a terrible mistake by accusing his misguided, ignorant, badly mistaken opponents on this issue of being infiltrators. Webster should apologize forthwith. But Tarpley’s ill-considered accusation is nothing next to the mendacious fraud accusations put forth by the four regretful signatories. It is they, far more than Tarpley, who must apologize quickly if they want to retain any credibility. Frankly, if I were one of the Warning’s organizers, I would be strongly considering legal action. The possibility of cointelpro involvement in this affair is not to be dismissed. It is hard to imagine how anyone could be so stupidly unethical as to make transparently false accusations of forgery without some form of pressure having been applied. That pressure could come from threats; or, more likely, from “nice antiwar friends” from the foundation-funded pseudo-left... the kind of people professional 9/11 coverup agent Chip Berlet hangs out with. Cindi Sheehan and her foundation-funded fake-peace-movement “friends” are easy targets for this kind of manipulation by professional psy-oppers. Wake up, Cindi! Anyone who takes foundation money is on the CIA payroll. The foundation-funded “left” magazines, radio shows, and organizations are CIA propaganda outlets. It really IS that simple. [comment by Arabesque: We oppose divisive language like "fake-peace movement 'friends'" and "stupidly unethical" as seen prolifically in this post--not the warning. See what Cindy Sheehan and the anti-war activists actually said.]Barrett was less dramatic on his radio show, 9/11 and Empire with his guest Leeland Lehrman on October 2, 2007:
“I think [Webster Tarpley] went too far and made a serious blunder when he sarcastically these four people on the other side of him on this Kennebunkport issue and suggested that they were infiltrators in the 9/11 truth movement. I know a couple of those people who clearly are not infiltrators, they were just somewhat mistaken in how they dealt with the Kennebunkport issue. I think Webster was so upset, and I can understand why about this whole thing that he made this mistake. I have urged him to apologize to these people, but he’s sticking to his guns.”
Leeland Lehrman replied:
“Tarpley was making the point to me that in going into the emotionality of the various reasons why these people might be doing what they’re doing turns the whole 9/11 operation into an internal soap-opera activity which is from a disinformation or political standpoint ideal for our opponents in this struggle, because it makes it impossible for us to actually use our understanding to actively campaign against their current agenda… ” [Misleading Statements marked in red. Read this post for yourself and ask yourself why Mr. Tarpley and his associates have spent so much of their energy attacking us?]
These comments are attributed to emails by Captain Eric May, another supporter of the Kennebunkport Warning:
"I believe that... the more prolific of our antagonists in the Kennebunkport Warning matter were professional agitators. To take one example, 'Colonel Jenny Sparks' was harassing both the Oregon Truth Alliance and Portland Nuclear Inquest (which I lead) in the weeks before the Kennebunkport Warning. In typical agitator fashion, she claimed to do so in order to defend the 911 Truth Movement and debunk our "alarmism" for alerting Portland to the dangers the nuclear simulation, Operation Noble Resolve. She and cohorts infiltrated both group lists and hurled monkey wrenches in every direction before getting the boot. As a lasting memorial of the encounter, they then set up their own user group, made up of a mixed set of a dozen agitators and useful idiots, largely dedicated to damning me and browbeating [other local activists]. Every once in awhile I read it for amusement."
"I wasn't referring to Cosmos in my comments about the disinformation efforts being conducted at 9/11Blogger. Candidly, I can't remember any particular comments by Cosmos. As for the equally pseudonymic Jenny Sparks and Arabesque, it's easier for me to have an informed opinion about them. Were I not busier with more important things, I think I could come up with a pretty good article identifying those who are either actual COINTELPRO or merely useful idiots being manipulated by COINTELPRO, and perhaps even grouped them according to the cells within which they work. In some cases over the last four years, my associates and I have even been able to trice [sic] COINTELPRO agents back to their FBI handlers." [False statements/disinformation marked in red]
Eric May accused those of investigating the Kennebunkport Warning of being "trained COINTELPRO professionals" and "military assets" in an interview with Webster Tarpley:
"Uh, with Jenny Sparks I think you're at both ends--I think she uses professional cointelpro cooperation and then useful idiots where ever they can be found... They're... trained cointelpro professionals--agitprop activists--and their job is not to produce positive analysis. If you can look far and near for any article of any consequence, by any of these people and you'll not find it. But what you'll find is a constant rat-a-tat of criticism against anyone else's work. And that is because their mission is not to develop the area of 911 analyses, or the next 911 prediction--it's to impede 911 analysis and prediction. So, these are classic disinformation tactics… you have to realize there are organized cointelpro cells… I've run into half a dozen of them. Anything from military professionals who went by rank, although would not sign their work, to, you know, cute synonyms like Arabesque or Jenny Sparks who would not sign their work… they usually coalesce and target specific points. You have to see them as military assets."
[False statements/disinformation marked in red. Ad-hominem commentary in purple. See a response to these accusations here, here, and here. Again, I supported the Kennebunkport warning with my own research. My main objection is the divisive language and accusations of the Kennebunkport Warning promoters. See also: Praise for Arabesque: 9/11 Truth. See also: Jenny Sparks' response to some of these false claims.]
Jim Fetzer, a signer and supporter of the Kennebunkport Warning commented on Webster Tarpley's radio show:
Now, I think that those of 911Blogger need to wake up and smell the roses--the movement has been massively infiltrated, and they maybe unable to sort things out. One of the reasons being that is a closely closed operation on Blogger. They operate with a kind of group think, Webster, where anyone who veers outside of a certain narrowly defined channel of research is assaulted savagely, verbally on the list. [False statements marked in red]
In response to questions about the Kennebunkport Warning, LaRouche associate and (you guessed it), signer of the warning Bruce Marshall blew up in anger at Cosmos on his radio show:
Bruce Marshall: There’s a lot of divisiveness.Yet another LaRouche associate, Laurie Dobson speculated that the anti-war signers were afraid:
Cosmos: And calling people “wretched individuals” and “appalling liars” is not… bridge-building behavior...
Bruce Marshall: [interrupting] and who’s doing that? Who’s doing that? [inaudible]
Cosmos: I feel... these woman deserve an apology...
Bruce Marshall: Well, where were they being called wretched individuals?
Cosmos: That’s actually a Webster Tarpley quote.
Bruce Marshall: Oh, this is interesting... [later] I put this into the perspective of… who signed what, and why they said they didn’t sign what they signed, and this type of thing… is, you know, all this hullabaloo is, I mean it’s acrid, it’s an aspect of the human condition...
Cosmos: ...they said they “wished the authors of this warning well… they were very courteous. So all the hatred, and all the animosity is coming from the people who promoted this document, and it really doesn’t add up… a lot of us in the movement really don’t want people who are claiming to represent us treating leaders from the anti-war movement in such a way.
Bruce Marshall: [In an angry voice:] You are talking to me in very disrespectful way. Do you know what you’re doing? [...] You are doing something that is—is despicable here! Now you listen up! [...] You don’t know the story, Sir. People have—you don’t have the story kid. […]
Cosmos: Do you think there’s any chance to heal this with these women, maybe offer an apology for the language that’s been hurled at them, publicly?
Bruce Marshall: [Yelling] Oh! Why don’t you talk about the language that’s been hurled at Janine! Calling her a liar, calling me a liar!
Cosmos: I haven’t seen any of that.
Bruce Marshal: [angry voice:] You, you, you aren’t understanding the facts, that’s why you interrupt me when I tell you about what things are! I really shouldn’t have come on this show, because I understand that there’s, there’s—it’s being negative towards healing. You are actually acting in a divisive way! Ok
Bruce Marshall: [angry voice:] You don’t understand what’s going on!
Cosmos: […] I don’t know what to make of all this, maybe if these guys want to calm down, and join us at a later time, we can try to resolve this a bit more.
“Based on emails I have received, it is obvious to me that the big name people are afraid, but I believe that they should not defame those who asked them to sign the petition.”
“After seeing this petition/statement posted on the internet, a few of the signers became afraid that they would be 'wearing orange jumpsuits' because they signed the petition. I think they are being told that they will be targeted if they don't recant. This is unfortunate and unnecessary.”
What evidence did she offer to support these statements? Nothing. Not only did they not present any evidence, Webster Tarpley admitted in his 9/11 power-point presentation that he was only guessing that the anti-war activists were afraid:
"They began to receive pressure, they were intimidated—I'm only guessing, I know how these things works. Intimidated. Threatened."In fact, Cindy Sheehan has not backed down from her previous comments about 9/11, nor on her previous statement on Alex Jones' radio show that there is a distinct chance that a false flag attack could occur.
It is apparent that Mr. Tarpley is also "guessing" that Arabesque, Cosmos, Jenny Sparks, and Wolsey are "COINTELPRO", and "work for the Ford Foundation" since he has provided no real evidence to support these claims. Is it a coincidence or conspiracy that most of the attacks against the anti-war activists are all coming from LaRouche associates?As for the investigators of the Kennebunkport Warning Controversy, Cosmos of Truthaction has been getting vicious “hate mail” from a signer of the warning for covering this controversy, warning him not to investigate it. An anonymous YouTube poster began posting videos of Webster Tarpley and Captain May attacking the Kennebunkport Warning investigators along with text messages accusing us of belonging to "Al Qaeda". Annonymous Blogs, Videos, and emails (quite possibily but not proven to be individuals associated with the Kennebunkport warning) posted objectionable content including threats of violence against 9/11 truth activists and those investigating the controversy surrounding the Kennebunkport Warning.
All of these statements are documented and many are linked to in their original sources. Others are emails, and a few of them are attributed statements.
If the point of CoIntelPro is to divide and weaken activist groups, then why are all of the signers affiliated with LaRouche and their Kennebunkport Warning supporters trying to do their dirty work by engaging in copious amounts of divisive behavior? When almost all of the Kennebunkport Warning supporters engage in vitriolic name calling, and prolific accusations (mostly without evidence), the possibility emerges that this could be a coordinated campaign of disruption. For discussion of Agent Provocateurs and their tactics, read my essay 9/11 Truth and Division: Disinformation, Agent Provocateurs, and False Adversaries.Here is a summary of the many accusations by Webster Tarpley and his associates:
[provably disinformation/false marked in red]
- 911Blogger.com has been purchased by a millionaire and could be run by Karl Rove
- 9/11 activists Arabesque, Jenny Sparks, Cosmos, and Michael Wosley "oppose the Kennebunkport Warning"; they "have no interest in doing anything to stop the new 9/11 and the threatened war with Iran." [see Arabesque's research, Cosmos' radio show, and Michael Wolsey's article on the controversy]
- 9/11 activists Arabesque, Jenny Sparks, Cosmos, and Michael Wosley are COINTELPRO, "organized COINTELPRO cells","trained COINTELPRO professionals"
- 9/11 activists Arabesque, Jenny Sparks, Cosmos, and Michael Wosley are stooges, pawns, foot soldiers, or dupes
- 9/11 activists Arabesque, Jenny Sparks, Cosmos, and Michael Wosley work for the Ford Foundation
- 9/11 activists Arabesque, Jenny Sparks, Cosmos, and Michael Wosley work for Chip Berlet
- 9/11 activists Arabesque, Jenny Sparks, Cosmos, and Michael Wosley are slanders, poison pens, saboteurs, and wreckers
- 9/11 activists Arabesque, Jenny Sparks, Cosmos, and Michael Wosley are part of an "FBI Counter Gang"
- 9/11 activists Arabesque, Jenny Sparks, Cosmos, and Michael Wosley are "military assets"
- 9/11 activists Arabesque, Jenny Sparks, Cosmos, and Michael Wosley are "professional agitators"
- 9/11 activists Arabesque, Jenny Sparks, Cosmos, and Michael Wosley could be "working under multiple pseudonyms"
- 9/11 activists Arabesque, Jenny Sparks, Cosmos, and Michael Wosley have not produced "any article of any consequence"
- 9/11 activists Arabesque, Jenny Sparks, Cosmos, and Michael Wosley are members of "Al Qaeda"
- 9/11 activist Jenny Sparks is a "He (not a Jenny, [though] probably a wannabe)", a "little boy"
- 9/11 activist Comos is a "Chechen terrorist"
- 9/11 activist Jenny Sparks could be a "cigar chomping FBI agent"
- 9/11 activist Jenny Sparks could "work for a branch of Shin Bet somewhere in the Occupied Territories or a subcommittee of the National Security Council"
- Cindy Sheehan and four other anti-war activists are "wretched individuals" and "appalling liars"--they joined together (in a conspiracy) to deny signing a document (after signing it) because they are scared of "losing their foundation funding" and "authoritarian forces".
9/11 whistle-blower Kevin Ryan observed:
People asked how this could have happened. Then accusations were made, culminating in some ludicrous claims that some of our best leaders were disinformation agents for the government. How can we tell? Because, for example, one wears sunglasses and another has a beard. Brilliant... As usual, we’ll see how these things develop, but we don’t really need any more warnings. We’ll do what we can to communicate the vital need for 9/11 truth and reach out to others in our country who work for peace. Until then, my thoughts and support go out to the great Cindy Sheehan, my friends Jon Gold and Michael Wolsey, the fine writer Arabesque, and those others who were unfairly treated in this incident. Hang in there and don’t give up hope.Here is how respected 9/11 researcher Jim Hoffman characterized the Kennebunkport Warning Controversy on Cosmos' radio show:
It’s so clear. What possible motive would there be someone to go making these vicious characterizations of these really well known peace activists like Cindy Sheehan… When people like [Cosmos], Arabesque, and Wolsey report on it, to be viciously attacked by Tarpley with all these ridiculous accusations of COINTELPRO…? Very entertaining to watch, very vivid, just lurid—it’s ridiculous. It’s all just completely concocted, he makes it sound like you, and Wolsey and these people that he’s saying are COINTELPRO just popped up in the last year is just an utter lie. I think it’s a really good test of whether people are really in this in the benefit of our movement: are going to tolerate this sort of thing? Where are the voices of the alleged leaders of the 9/11 truth movement about this and similar incidents? I think the silence from some quarters is deafening.