December 11, 2007

The Sound of Disinformation: What Will They Say Next?

The Sound of Disinformation: What Will They Say Next?

By Arabesque

Disinformation is deliberately misleading information. In the 9/11 truth movement, this has been taken to the extreme. Often, this results in moments of hilarious, absurd, and unintentional comedy. Did they really say these things? What were they thinking? Listen for yourself and find out.

Jim Fetzer shows his love for... Judy Wood and beams from space?

Jim Fetzer: I must say I think we’re finding out Judy, what happened on 9/11. I’m just blown away by your work. This is the most fascinating development in the history of the study of 9/11… I’m going to make a wild guess Judy; I’m going to presume that these [directed energy] beams had to be located in Building 7?

Judy Wood: Nope. I don’t think so.

Fetzer: Planes?

Judy Wood: No… I think it’s very likely it’s in orbit.

Fetzer: “Oh Really?? Oh ho ho ho ho! Oh Judy. Oh my, oh my, oh my. This is huge… this is huge Judy.” [source: Jim Fetzer interviews Judy Wood, Non-Random Thoughts on RBN Live, November 11, 2006]

Morgan Reynolds embarrasses the real 9/11 truth movement by making the bogus claim that there were no planes used on 9/11.

"There were no big boeing crashes... I encourage everyone to do a frame by frame, penetration of the south tower, and what you will see is a fake, cartoon display. An aluminum plane cannot go through a building like the south tower was, as if it were thin air. We don't really understand how they did that... they are contrived." [source: Fox News, Youtube, Dr. Reynolds exposes 9/11 TV fakery on FoxNews, September 13, 2006]

Webster Tarpley rants about Arabesque, Cosmos, Michael Wolsey, and others in the Kennebunkport Warning controversy:

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 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... 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... 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... Then we have somebody else called Colonel Jenny Sparks in quotation marks... 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... 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... Another person who has been active in these slander operations is somebody called Arabesque... I think [his] 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 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... These are the poison pens and the slander snipers and these are the people you have to watch out for. [source: Webster Tarply, The Genesis World Report with Webster Tarpley, September 6, 2007]

Webster Tarpley praises... Nico Haupt?

Nico Haupt… is one of the leading researchers in the 9/11 truth movement. Indeed, he’s been called the enfant terrible of the 9/11 truth movement research. He’s always controversial, but he’s always on the cutting edge of research. He is the author of the 9/11 encyclopedia. He conducted for quite a while the 911skeptics.blogspot. I would point out that no matter how controversial some of his ideas may sound, over the years a lot of his discoveries have been indeed been incorporated into what is the conventional and accepted wisdom about these matters… Nico is the one who practically invented the terms LIHOP and MIHOP… Finally he is one of the leading people in the research on how the news-film of 9/11, that you saw on CNN and the other networks was doctored. He also has some… very controversial, but extremely heuristic findings about implications about doctored news-film and other considerations for what actually happened on 9/11… He has some very very interesting research results[source: Webster Tarpley, World Crisis Radio, March 25 2006 ]

Jim Fetzer almost cries and gets emotional about TV fakery research

When I discovered a scientist of the caliber of Judy Wood... [long pause--gets emotional] that I've spent so much time seeking to open minds. To broaden the imagination, to consider alternatives that one might prefer were not the case... [voice hoarse] And I'll say today... when it comes to the study of this video fakery, you've seen a brilliant, scientific objective analysis from this man... Ace Baker. ...I say that between the breath of study provided by September Clues and... Ace Baker, that there's a prima facie case that has to be overwhelmed by superior evidence if it can be produced--not only of the existence of video fakery, but the overwhelming probability to manage events... the whole thing through the media without planes--I'm telling you the evidence is growing... you have to take this seriously... we're down the rabbit hole. This whole thing has been a massive deception... it's objective and provable! ...we had Morgan Reynolds whose been pilloried like practically no one else has been pilloried for even advancing the idea that there's no planes... by God... we could listen to a patient explanation of what really happened in terms of methodical analysis of actual footage... and the point was proven! And it was brilliant! And you were here! You were here! [source: Jim Fetzer, Ace Baker Presentation, Scholars for 9/11 Truth, The Science and the Politics of 9/11: What's Controversial, What's Not, August 3-5, 2007.]

Do they actually believe what they are saying? What will they say next?

The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.” - Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science, section 191

December 10, 2007

Webster Tarpley interviews Nico Haupt and Jeff King: TV Fakery

Webster Tarpley interviews Nico Haupt and Jeff King: TV Fakery

Webster Tarpley: World Crisis Radio, March 25 2006.

Transcript by Arabesque

Webster Tarpley: Nico Haupt… is one of the leading researchers in the 9/11 truth movement. Indeed, he’s been called the enfant terrible of the 9/11 truth movement research. He’s always controversial, but he’s always on the cutting edge of research. He is the author of the 9/11 encyclopedia. He conducted for quite a while the 911skeptics.blogspot. I would point out that however controversial some of his ideas may sound, over the years a lot of his discoveries have been indeed been incorporated into what is the conventional and accepted wisdom about these matters… Nico is the one who practically invented the terms LIHOP and MIHOP… to distinguish the less radical from the more radical schools of thought on the 9/11 events. Nico is also the one who led a decisive workshop in San Francisco in March 2004 on the question of the war drills... and how they went live; how the operations were conduited through those... Finally he is one of the leading people in the research on how the news-film of 9/11, that you saw on CNN and the other networks was doctored. He also has some… very controversial, but extremely heuristic findings about implications about doctored news-film and other considerations for what actually happened on 9/11… I would like to give Nico the floor. He has some very very interesting research results

Nico Haupt appears on the back cover of Webster Tarpley’s 9/11: Synthetic Terror and is referenced several times in the book. Haupt is known for his harassment and ad hominem attacks against 9/11 activists including prominent figures like Steven Jones, Jim Hoffman, Richard Gage, 911blogger, myself, and others. Haupt is infamous for his extremely disruptive behavior at 9/11 truth activist gatherings. His terms LIHOP and MIHOP are frequently used to divide activists and disrupt discussion about the facts of 9/11.[1]

Nico Haupt [edited for clarity and grammar]: Let me first correct and thank you very much for the introduction. Though you labelled me as one of the leading researchers on this particular angle I want to talk about today, there were veterans who started this in 2002 and 2003. One of the most ‘so-called’ controversial figures was Rosalie Grable, a.k.a. the Web Fairy who first had conclusions about what exactly could have been manipulated in the video… different conclusions to what we have leading to now. [The Web Fairy] later corrected her conclusions, and that’s where we all agree. We agree that the first video footage was not faked—what you see in the first footage actually, is a combination of a missile or missile foundation, which targeted the towers and today, I would only like to talk about the [other] footage [of the south tower strike].

Webster Tarpley: You’re essentially saying that you accept the idea that some kind of aircraft hit the north tower?

Nico Haupt: No… [not explaining] The reason why I’m interested in video manipulation is that I was writing for a technical magazine in Germany and also in the U.S. in some blogs. I worked for Josh Harris, which was the entrepreneur of the hive. We work with video encoding—I also worked ten years at Television and I would like to point out, speaking for myself, Rosalie Grable has a very good own view of all of [her] findings [and] that Gerald Holmgren is a very good communicator on these issues… the last two years, I’ve tried basically to combine all of their findings for other researchers… I’m confronted with constant either sabotage or ignorance… knowing all these tricks, working for ten years at… TV, my first impression… when I first saw September 11, while already researching and updating on a Canadian message board, I saw this allegedly commercial aircraft, which was a clip on CNN… not shown between 8:45 a.m. and 10:45 a.m. I saw this alleged commercial aircraft coming from the north side to the south side and immediately said, “This looks weird—this looks pretty bizarre to me.

Webster Tarpley: We’re talking about news-film that was not shown on CNN between 8:45 a.m. and 10:45 a.m., but was later shown on CNN—am I right?

Nico Haupt: That’s correct… we have proof because we have the original footage… you can see the first two hours on CNN.

Webster Tarpley: Where… do [we] see this film clip. Where did we see it?

Nico Haupt: It’s actually on a split screen—it actually shows what Fox was also showing in the first two hours, and you need to go to… this footage was obtained on Ebay two years ago, and since then, basically [suppressed]. I wrote an article… weeks ago in the timeline to prove when exactly which clip was shown. What most people don’t know is that only 16-18 clips do exist. In the first two hours, they only promoted two of them. I would also like to point out, what I am doing here is not a distraction [from other] physical evidence. It’s basically a perfect alliance. I would like to… point out later why. It’s not an objection to… controlled demolition, it actually breaks the official lies completely apart.

A massive collection of videos and photographs of the attack on the World Trade Center have been assembled by various 9/11 researchers.[2] There exists at least 44 different clips of the planes approaching and striking the Twin Towers.

Webster Tarpley: What is your finding about this… CNN clip shown after 10:45?

Nico Haupt: First of all, you need to analyze the finding from a particular view. Some people argue on physical elements within this material. I say they can’t have it both ways. I call them the physical 9/11 truthlings… the truthlings. They argue that there was no physical violation at the entry of the alleged commercial aircraft into the towers, but then [inaudible] stop them before the exit… They ignore a physical violation on the first hand, and then they accept a physical rule at the back end. If you compared this with the Pentagon, you could argue the same… [The] sceptics against this hypothesis claim, “folding wings over there”, and then in New York they say, “It’s ok that these wings [were] buttering into the towers.” [As well], the kinetic energy contradictions, are not clear once you compare all 16 second hit footage clips, you see the aircraft is coming in with different speeds, different angles—even behaviour of the plane itself.

Jeff King: Just from a sheer physics view point, if you do try to believe the scenario that you see in this images that are presented, it simply doesn’t work physically. You see a plane which essentially just… seamlessly penetrates through the wall as if it’s not there—there no buckling, crumpling, nothing falls off on the outside of the wall. After it passes through, there’s only a partial entry hole there, and then nothing comes out the other side—these gigantic titanium engines, you see this funny little fireball that… comes looping out of the north wall and disappears before it hits the ground. Whatever else is going on here, the technology of the video simulations, it’s pretty clear that the physics argues against it being anything resembling a true airliner.

The misleading argument about plane deceleration during impact has been debunked by physicist Dr. Greg Jenkins in a letter to the Journal of 9/11 Studies.[3]

Nico Haupt: yep. On, the website from Gerard Holmgren, [it addresses] the point that allegedly thousands of photos exist. As a matter of fact, there are only a few photos that exist… those objects in those photos contradict each other. They’re also wrongly sourced…

A large collection of eyewitness testimony and photographs has been assembled by an unknown author at[4]

Webster Tarpley: You’ve done an exhaustive study of the video clips, the news-film of the whatever it is, the scene at the south tower, and you’ve found that there are 16-18 of these, and the evidence is mutually contradictory…

Nico Haupt: Exactly… Rosalie Grable had this footage on her website and was harassed and threatened, and basically sabotaged over the last three years. I picked up that footage and looked a little more carefully into this. We found… these contradictions… two years ago… my study was… to point out that the flights, flight 11 did not exist, to educate people from the front end… let me point out with this great breakthrough with Charlie Sheen, since we have all these new supporters, I worked behind the scenes to get WINGTV convinced—it didn’t work out. Then we got Jimmy Walter, Rick Siegel… who made footage from the day itself, and Morgan Reynolds, whose also very supportive on our issues… This ignored footage [911eyewitness by Rick Siegel] has… other smoking guns—clearly these 16-18 military helicopters and one of them is already shown on [other] footage… what happened in the last three weeks since Jimmy Walter supporting us, we got attacked with 4000 erotic spam emails. I got banned from Portland Indymedia for the first time in 4 ½ years—I couldn’t post about my findings… there’s no one who is constructively criticizing our findings—it’s the opposite. We’re getting a lot of new response from bloggers—I can recommend for example, it’s a very good blog which goes much more into the details about what I’m able to point out today.

The function of TV fakery/”no-plane” "theories" serves to discredit serious questions into the 9/11 attacks.[5]

Webster Tarpley: You’re arguing that the controlled corporate media enhanced and doctored the news-film that was shown, using what amounts to chromakey I believe, or blue screen? Can we go into this?

The ‘blue screen’ theory and TV fakery theories have been compellingly addressed and debunked by Salter in the Journal of 9/11 studies.[6]

Nico Haupt: People were [promoting] this kind of research confusing the hypothesis. The hypothesis is not to conclude what exactly hit or not the south tower. If we focus on this, we have eight different possibilities of what hit or might have hit the south tower. I’m not focussing on this hypothesis. Because we get opposed so much, we can’t continue improving this argument, but we know there are eight possibilities:

  1. Nothing was planted—purely pre-planted charges
  2. A cluster of unmanned vehicles
  3. A cluster of cloaked, invisible unmanned vehicles, maybe combined with pre-planted charges
  4. Cloaked and invisible missiles
  5. Visible and large missiles—one or two.
  6. What I want to focus on—computer generated images over-painting a projected missile
  7. Officially—United 175
  8. Other large Boeing, possibly modified—remote controlled

It’s not a no-plane theory—it’s a no commercial airplane we support. Some flying object might have hit the towers, but it was not what you saw on TV.

Webster Tarpley: You’re essentially saying, that in the case of the south tower, you’re essentially using a Pentagon style argument—in other words, not a commercial airliner, but some flying object. Is that accurate?

Nico Haupt: Well, it could have been… a missile formation already in place… that crashed into the tower.

In fact, the evidence for a missile, like TV fakery, is similarly nonexistent. The resulting holes in the World Trade Center tower closely match the size of the alleged planes to have struck them.


[1] Arabesque, Disinformation and the Misleading and False LIHOP/MIHOP Dichotomy,

[2] Arabesque, The World Trade Center Eyewitness Testimony and Video Footage of the Planes,

[3] Gregory S. Jenkins, Interpreting the Boeing-767 Deceleration During Impact with the WTC Tower: Center of Mass Versus Tail-end Motion, and Instantaneous Versus Average Velocity,

[4], Planes Hit the Twin Towers - No Planes Theory Counter Evidence,


[6] Eric Salter, A Critical Review of WTC 'No Plane' Theories,

December 7, 2007

Stories and Voting on 911blogger: Is There a Better Approach?

Stories and Voting on 911blogger: Is There a Better Approach?

By Arabesque is a great source of articles and information on 9/11.

However, stories on 911blogger are more valuable when the information contained is unbiased, accurate, and well sourced.

Information is valuable when it is true, and misleading when it is not true. Misinformation is defined as misleading information. For example, if a story is released and it contains information which is false--the story is inaccurate and misleading. How do we determine what is accurate and what is misleading? By allowing commentary on articles, users can inform and add additional sources of information to confirm, enhance, and improve articles. This is extremely valuable since evaluating information is critical for journalistic accuracy.

The Mainstream Media (MSM) on the other hand, frequently takes a different approach. Stories and articles frequently release only the information that the MSM chooses to release while blocking other information. This is a form of censorship and is a common technique of disinformation. For example, the MSM frequently blocks information on the 9/11 truth movement. There is a collective and impressive silence on much of the documented, credible, and newsworthy information about 9/11 that is published in a venue like 911blogger.

Unlike the MSM, 911blogger works differently. While there are equally a wide variety of opinions, commenting on news articles addresses the problem of inaccurate or incomplete information by allowing users to add additional information, correct errors, as well as vote on the quality of the article. This is an extremely valuable function of 911blogger.

However, voting on entries on 911blogger is ineffective and inaccurate as it stands currently. Many vote "1" on articles that probably don't deserve it, while the "average score" takes an unfair beating. Most 911blogger users seem to only vote either '1' or '10' on articles. If users only vote between these two extremes, this pretty much defeats the purpose of "keeping score" and "average scores".

Maybe a better measure of voting would be how many people vote on an article positively. If many users voted positively and only 3 or 4 vote "1" without even commenting on the article or explaining why they voted "1", this brings down the score unfairly.

However, if articles are judged by how many vote positively without a specific score (i.e. +1 or -1), this might be a stronger indicator of how much an article is valued. Like the Digg system of voting and how comments in threads are rated on 911blogger.

If 911blogger users aren't impressed by an article they frequently don't vote. If an article is well liked, many vote '10'. If users don't like an article they often just vote "1". Articles are also voted "1" for mysterious and unknown reasons.

However, if articles were voted in a Digg system, we could have 'top 911blogger stories' as voted by the users. That would be an effective way to get good 911blogger stories noticed; if people feel strongly about stories, they could get better recognition through this system of voting. As it stands, most articles appear and then pretty much disappear into the back pages of the site never to be seen from again.

If there was a weekly or monthly top 10 or 20 stories--or even of "all time", this would bring more attention to the great and valuable work continuously posted on 911blogger. A section of the site could effectively link to highly voted stories. And there is a lot of work on 911blogger that deserves to be highlighted and promoted.

911blogger is a major and valuable source of 911 stories. Part of an effective media is that good information and stories are effectively highlighted and promoted. Part of highlighting good information could be accomplished by implementing a system of voting where articles that are valued by the users get more attention with an effective ranking system. As it stands, the "average score" voting system can be easily manipulated by "1" votes. A Digg system would allow articles to be highlighted by popularity and amount of positive votes. As it stands, voting on 911blogger stories and blogs are pretty much irrelevant to how content is promoted by the site.

By promoting highly valued stories for more than just a few days on the front page, valuable and important information could be more effectively and visibly promoted. Stories that may not be chosen by moderators to be put on the front page could be partially selected based on how high stories are voted. Just like the Digg system.

Instead of a voting system that leaves 911blogger users scratching their heads about why some users voted so poorly on their hard work, this could be a more fun, effective, and media savvy centered way of presenting content.

What do you think? Just don't vote 1!

December 2, 2007

Cui Bono? The 9/11 Promotions

Cui Bono?  The 9/11 Promotions

By Arabesque

The 9/11 official story is a tale of outlandish incompetence.  We are led to believe that Al Qaeda successfully evaded a multi-billion-dollar defense establishment including NORAD, standard FAA intercept procedures, US airbases,[1] the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, international intelligence agencies and more, without any significant or effective resistance.  While any serious investigation of the 9/11 attacks was blocked by President Bush and Dick Cheney for more than a year,[2] a theory of systematic and incredible incompetence emerged: Al Qaeda got “lucky”.  Mindy Kleinberg, of the 9/11 Family Steering Committee in an opening address to the 9/11 Commission criticized this notion:

It has been said that the intelligence agencies have to be right 100% of the time. And the terrorists only have to get lucky once. This explanation for the devastating attacks of September 11th, simple on its face, is wrong in its value, because the 9-11 terrorists were not just lucky once. They were lucky over and over again. When you have this repeated pattern of broken protocols, broken laws, broken communication, one cannot still call it luck. If at some point, we don’t look to hold the individuals accountable for not doing their jobs, properly, then how can we ever expect for terrorists to not get lucky again?[3]

What happened to those who “failed”, and what exactly were their “failures”?

Former Senator Gary Hart observes that, “in terms of accountability, I think this is one of the great mysteries of the last three or four years. Three thousand Americans died three years ago, and no one lost his or her job over it. A president who says that he is a strong president, and those around him say he is, did not fire anyone. Either he was misled, in which case, somebody should have been fired. Or he misled us, in which case he should be fired.[4] Senator Charles Grassley similarly noted that “I can’t think of a single person being held accountable anywhere in government for what went on and what went wrong prior to Sept. 11.  It seems that nobody in government makes any mistakes anymore.[5] According to testimony given to Congress these statements are accurate; not one single individual within the CIA, FBI, and NSA has been reprimanded, punished, or fired for the events of 9/11.[6]

How could this be possible?  The 9/11 Commission admitted that its aim was “not… to assign individual blame.[7] Why not? Paul Craig Roberts notes that “the purpose of a government investigatory commission is to place blame where it does the least harm politically.[8]In… blaming everybody a little, the Commission blames nobody,” observed Harper’s Magazine.[9] But not only were no individuals seriously blamed, held accountable, or reprimanded for the 9/11 attacks, as observes, “officials who ‘failed’ (like Myers and Eberhard, as well as Frasca, Maltbie and Bowman of the FBI) were given promotions.[10] A Justice Department official commented that the FBI, “basically promoted the exact same people who have presided over the… failure.[11]

Who was responsible for these “failures” and who got promoted?

One major failure was the fact that none of aircraft involved in the attacks were intercepted, despite routine procedure.  On 9/11, according to Laura Brown of the FAA, “Within minutes after the first aircraft hit the World Trade Center, the FAA immediately established several phone bridges that included FAA field facilities, the FAA Command Center, FAA headquarters, DOD [meaning the NMCC in the Department of Defense], the Secret Service… The US Air Force liaison to the FAA immediately joined the FAA headquarters phone bridge and established contact with NORADThe FAA shared real-time information on the phone bridges about the unfolding events, including information about loss of communication with aircraft, loss of transponder signals, unauthorized changes in course, and other actions being taken by all the flights of interest.[12]

Aside from this statement, it was standard protocol to intercept off-course and/or non-responsive aircraft:

  • Consider that an aircraft emergency exists ... when: ...There is unexpected loss of radar contact and radio communications with any ...aircraft.[13] —FAA Order 7110.65M 10-2-5 (6)
  • If ... you are in doubt that a situation constitutes an emergency or potential emergency, handle it as though it were an emergency.[14] —FAA Order 7110.65M 10-1-1-c (7)

Given this standard protocol and Laura Brown’s statement, why were no planes intercepted?  The Pentagon gave three significantly different and contradictory explanations before the final version given to the 9/11 Commission.[15] NORAD’s final version blamed the FAA for untimely notification.[16] However, this was contradicted by Laura Brown’s statement and contrary to standard FAA procedure, as noted above.  Members of the 9/11 Commission reported that, “suspicion of [Pentagon] wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation.”[17] Not only this, Senator Mark Dayton claimed that NORAD officials “lied to the American people, they lied to Congress and they lied to your 9/11 commission to create a false impression of competence, communication and protection of the American people.”[18]

Despite these statements, Nick Levis observed that “[the] official investigation of the September 11th events has failed to explain or even to ask why the top officials in the U.S. military chain of command were missing in action during the attacks.[19] What happened?  Promotions.

Richard Myers, in charge of the Pentagon on 9/11—Promoted

Who was in charge at the Pentagon?  Richard Myers,[20] who gave several contradictory accounts of his actions on 9/11,[21] was promoted as a new Vice-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on August 24, 2001 by President Bush.[22] As Jim Hoffman notes, “General Richard Myers was Acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on September 11th… As Acting Chairman, Myers was the highest-ranking military official, and the principal military advisor to the President.[23] On 9/11, Myers was in charge because Chairman Henry Shelton[24] was out of the country.[25] Amazingly, just three days after 9/11, following NORAD’s stunning failure to intercept any of the planes on 9/11, he was promoted from Vice-Chairman to Chairman, replacing Henry Shelton.[26] A few months after this second promotion, Myers curiously said that “the goal has never been to get Bin Laden.”[27]

Ralph Eberhart, in charge of NORAD on 9/11—Promoted

On a day in which routine procedures should have prevented 9/11 from even happening, the attacks were mirrored in military drills.[28] NORAD commander-in-Chief Ralph Eberhart[29] was asked by the 9/11 Commission if these war games “helped” response to the 9/11 attacks and responded nonsensically, “sir, my belief is that it helped because of the manning, because of the focus, because the crews—they have to be airborne in 15 minutes and that morning, because of the exercise, they were airborne in six or eight minutes. And so I believe that focus helped.” This was clearly a false statement since none of the planes were intercepted during the attacks.  In fact, there is very strong evidence that these drills coordinated by Dick Cheney hindered the response since they moved air defenses away from New York and Washington,[30] added “injects” to radar screens, and created general confusion.[31] Like Richard Myers, Eberhart was promoted[32] shortly after 9/11; “nominated by President Bush to command the… U.S. Northern Command,”[33] a new creation of the Department of Defense which Eberhart said was “needed” after the attacks.[34]

The lack of response to the off-course aircraft could be clearly seen in the case of the Pentagon strike.  Over an hour into the attacks, Norman Mineta reported that a plane was flying towards the Pentagon while tracked from a NORAD-equipped bunker where Dick Cheney was in charge.[35] When an aide periodically reported the incoming aircraft’s distance from the Pentagon, he finally asked Dick Cheney “Do the orders still stand?[36] Cheney responded angrily, “of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!?[37] This embarrassing testimony, completely left out of the 9/11 Commission report, strongly suggested that the hijacked aircraft were deliberately allowed to hit their targets without response.  Despite knowledge of this aircraft by the FAA, Dick Cheney, and NORAD with its superior radar capability, no obvious action was taken to intercept or shoot down the planes.  Instead, while NORAD was nowhere to be seen, a C-130 cargo plane was sent by civilian air traffic controllers to intercept and observe the incoming aircraft from Andrews Air Force Base.[38] This base was 10 miles away from the Pentagon and had fighter jets available on 9/11.[39] Why weren’t fighter jets scrambled to intercept the incoming plane and defend the Pentagon?  Were civilian air traffic controllers left in charge of defense and intercepting planes on 9/11 in place of NORAD’s responsibility?  Why wasn’t the Pentagon evacuated when the White House was evacuated?[40] Why was Ralph Eberhart promoted

Captain Charles J. Leidig, acting NMCC Director—Promoted

Captain Charles J Leidig was asked by Brigadier General Montague Winfield the day before 9/11 to take over his responsibilities.[41] Leidig “assumed duties as the Deputy for Command Center Operations in the J3 Directorate of the Joint Staff… responsible for the maintenance, operation, and training of watch teams for the National Military Command Center (NMCC).[42] In testimony given to the 9/11 Commission, Leidig explained that “the Command Center then became a focal point for coordinating information flow… I convened a conference called a Significant Event Conference.  And what that does is that brings leadership and combatant commanders into the conference to start discussing what actions should be taken or might be taken… I… [controlled] the conference that gets all these folks on the phone.[43] Leidig was not reprimanded and was later promoted in 2004 to Admiral.[44]

Brigadier General Montague Winfield—Promoted

Brigadier General Montague Winfield was in charge of the National Military Command Center (NMCC).[45] But as Nick Levis observes, “Montague Winfield was originally scheduled to be at his command post on morning of Sept. 11. But on Sept. 10, he arranged for his deputy to relieve him the next morning at exactly 8:30 a.m. This turned out to be just eight minutes before the military was alerted to the diversion of the first flight.[46] Winfield’s absence was significant because the NMCC was responsible for coordinating information on the 9/11 attack.  In May of 2003, he was promoted to the two-star rank of major general.[47]  

Ben Sliney, in charge of FAA on 9/11—Promoted

9/11 was Ben Sliney’s first day on the job as National Operations Manager, described as “the chess master of the air traffic system.”[48] He successfully accomplished the landing of all commercials aircraft—an unprecedented event carried out “flawlessly”.[49] David Ray Griffin observes, “[is] it plausible that FAA personnel, on the same day that they carried out an unprecedented task so flawlessly, would have failed so miserably with a task that they, decade after decade, had been performing routinely?[50] While the 9/11 commission attempts to shift the blame away from NORAD to the FAA by completely omitting Laura Brown’s statement and other evidence from their final report,[51] the interception of aircraft was a routine protocol as noted previously.  Perhaps it was a bad day to start his job, but Sliney was not reprimanded and was later promoted.[52]

Steven Abbot, coordinator of Dick Cheney’s task force on problems of national preparedness—Promoted

Admiral Steven Abbot was appointed by Dick Cheney to lead the domestic terrorism task force in June 2001.[53] After 9/11, Abbot was promoted to become deputy director of the office of Homeland Security headed by Tom Ridge in October 2001.[54]

Marion (Spike) Bowman, blocked FBI investigations into the alleged hijackers before 9/11—Promoted

FBI director Robert Mueller awarded Bowman with a presidential citation and cash bonus of about 25 percent of his salary.[55] Bowman, who was head of the FBI’s National Security Law Unit, was given an award for “exceptional performance” after a 9/11 Congressional Inquiry report claimed that his unit gave Minneapolis FBI agents “inexcusably confused and inaccurate information” that was “patently false.”[56] As well, Bowman’s unit “blocked an urgent request by FBI agents to begin searching for Khalid Almihdhar after his name was put on a watch list.”[57]

Pasquale D’Amuro, in charge of counterterrorism in New York—Promoted

Pasquale D’Amuro,[58] was the FBI’s counterterrorism chief on 9/11 in New York City, and was promoted to the top counterterrorism post after the attack.[59]

Michael Maltbie, the supervisor handling the case at the FBI's Radical Fundamentalist Unit—Promoted

According to FBI Agent Harry Samit, he “wrote FBI headquarters about 70 memos about Moussaoui's likely terrorist plans between his arrest on Aug. 16 and Sept. 11, all to no avail.” He was warned by his supervisor Michael Maltbie that pursuing this could be “bad for his career”, and that he should not pursue this to “preserve the existence of his advancement potential” in the FBI.[60] Instead of being reprimanded, Michael Maltbie was promoted to the Joint Terrorism Task Force at the FBI’s Cleveland office after 9/11.[61]

David Frasca, head of the FBI’s Radical Fundamentalist Unit—not fired

It has been observed that when it came to the success of the 9/11 attacks, “most roads lead to counterterror chief’ David Frasca”,[62] head of the FBI’s Radical Fundamentalist Unit.[63] Interestingly, he came into the job a week before 9/11 and was not fired for his performance after the 9/11 attacks.[64] Paul Thompson observes that, “The Phoenix memo, which was addressed to Frasca, was received by his unit and warned that al-Qaeda terrorists could be using flight schools inside the US…[65] Two weeks later Zacarias Moussaoui was arrested while training to fly a 747, but Frasca’s unit was unhelpful when local FBI agents wanted to search his belongings—a step that could have prevented 9/11.[66] Time Magazine reported that, “The Phoenix memo was buried; the Moussaoui warrant request was denied.[67] The New York Times indicates that Frasca, “[threw] up roadblocks” even after 9/11 in the Moussaoui investigation.[68]

Apparently, the FBI was so “incompetent”, that some of the alleged hijackers lived with an FBI informant without intervention.[69] The Able Danger program similarly identified some of the alleged hijackers.[70] Not only this, some of the alleged hijackers trained on US military airbases.[71] Despite this, the hijackers themselves were widely described as “incompetent”,[72] and several were reported to be “alive” after the attack.[73] 

FBI: “Incompetent” then Suddenly “Competent” after the Attack?

Immediately following the attacks, the FBI suddenly changed from being “incompetent” to very competent.  Family member Kristen Breitweiser in testimony to the 9/11 Congressional Inquiry asked, “[how] did the FBI know exactly where to go only a few hours after the attacks? How did they know which neighborhoods, which flight schools and which restaurants to investigate so soon in the case? …How are complete biographies of the terrorists, and their accomplices, created in such short time?  Did our intelligence agencies already have open files on these men? Were they already investigating them?[74] Most of the hijackers were identified within hours of the attacks.[75] While the attack at the Pentagon was not prevented despite observations of an incoming aircraft on radar, videos of the Pentagon strike were confiscated from multiple locations by the FBI minutes after it happened.[76]

Failures Promoted, Whistleblowers Silenced?

While not one single individual was reprimanded for the 9/11 “failures”, many whistleblowers were punished for speaking out.  Coleen Rowley,[77] Sibel Edmonds,[78] Robert Wright,[79] Kevin Ryan,[80] and many others were silenced, fired, punished, and ignored for speaking out about what happened behind the scenes before and after the 9/11 attacks.[81] As well, many credible professionals, scientists, professors, and others have expressed their doubts about the 9/11 “official story”.[82] The mainstream media has been curiously silent about these facts. 

The US Government Knew the Date, Method, and Targets of the 9/11 Attack

Family member Patty Casazza explained that, “The Government knew… other than the exact moment… they knew the date, and the method of which the attacks were supposed to come... And none of this made it to mainstream media. None of it made it into the Commission.  And yet, again, all of your Representatives, on the day that the Commission book came out, were on their pulpits saying, ‘What a fabulous job this Commission has done. A real service to this nation.’ And it was anything but a service. It was a complete fabricationThey knew the targets.[83]

Cui Bono?

From Wikipedia:

Cui bono…  is a Latin adage that is used either to suggest a hidden motive or to indicate that the party responsible for a thing may not be who it appears at first to be… Commonly the phrase is used to suggest that the person or people guilty of committing a crime may be found among those who have something to gain, chiefly with an eye toward financial gain. The party that benefits may not always be obvious or may have successfully diverted attention to a scapegoat, for example.

To believe in the 9/11 “official story” is to believe in a massive, coordinated, and “coincidental” failure at many levels in which those most responsible for preventing the attacks were not fired or reprimanded and instead promotedThe 9/11 official story depends on your ignorance of these and other facts, not on your knowledge of them.  On top of this, there is very strong evidence to suggest that other parts of the attacks including the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7 were deliberately orchestrated to make sure that the attacks were successful.[84]

Who really benefited from the 9/11 attacks?  Why were whistleblowers silenced?  Why weren’t officials reprimanded?  Why were they promoted?  Why were routine FAA procedures to intercept aircraft not followed?  Why did the FBI suddenly become “competent” immediately after the attacks?  Who has profited from the billions of dollars spent on the 9/11 wars?[85] Cui Bono? 

[1], 35 USAF Bases Within Range On 911: The 7 Air Stations On Full Alert Covering The Continental United States And 28 More Air Stations That Were In Range Of The 4 Airliners On 911

The Memory Hole, Map: Hijacked 9/11 Flights and Military Bases,

[2] Mike Hersh, Bush and Cheney Block 9-11 Investigation,, Oct 24, 2002

Bush Occupation, Why is Bush Blocking A Public 9-11 Investigation?

[3] Mindy Kleinberg, Complete testimony of Mindy Kleinberg, to The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, 9/11 victim's wife asks uncomfortable questions,, March 31, 2003.  See also:

9/11 Family Steering Committee,

[4] Ron Gassaway, Some Important Quotes About 9/11,

[5] Jake Tapper, Senate report: FBI still unprepared,, March 3, 2003

[6] Paul Thompson, Complete 9/11 Timeline, October 17, 2002: None Punished at Agencies for 9/11 Failures

[7] The 9/11 Commission Report,, p. xvi

[8] Downsize DC, The Jersey Girls Deserve Answers,, June 9, 2007

[9] Benjamin DeMott, Whitewash as public service: How The 9/11 Commission Report defrauds the nation,, October 2004


Paul Thompson, Complete 9/11 Timeline, January 10, 2003: Government Employees Responsible for 9/11 Failures Are Promoted

[11] Romesh Ratnesar and Timothy J. Burger, The FBI: Does It Want to Be Fixed?

[12] Laura Brown, FAA Communications with NORAD On September 11, 2001, FAA clarification memo to 9/11 Independent Commission,  See also confirmation by Kyle Hence of UQ Wire: Statement from FAA Contradicts 911 Report.  Watch Richard Ben-Veniste read the statement to the 9/11 commission:

YouTube video, Comunicazioni tra FAA e Norad (Laura Brown memo), 

Statement archived here:

9/11 Commission, National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Public Hearing, Friday, May 23, 2003  

Former Counter-Terrorism coordinator Richard Clarke and Dick Cheney both confirmed this statement.  Dick Cheney admitted on a live TV interview that “the Secret Service has an arrangement with the F.A.A. They had open lines after the World Trade Center was…” Paul Thompson, Complete 9/11 Timeline, (After 8:46 a.m.) September 11, 2001: FAA Establishes Open Telephone Line with the Secret Service

[13] FAA, Order 7110.65R, Air Traffic Control, Chapter 10. Emergencies, Section 2. Emergency Assistance, See also:

Illarion Bykov and Jared Israel, Mr. Cheney's Cover-up: Part 2 of 'Guilty for 9-11: Bush, Rumsfeld, Myers',

[14] FAA, Order 7110.65R, Air Traffic Control, Chapter 10. Emergencies, Section 1. General

[15] David Ray Griffin, The 9/11 Commission's Incredible Tales, Flights 11, 175, 77, and 93,

[16] Ibid.

[17] Dan Eggen, 9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon: Allegations Brought to Inspectors General, Global Research, August 2, 2006.

[18] Nicholas Levis, Senator Dayton: NORAD Lied About 9/11

[19] Nick Levis, Press Picks Up on Sept. 11's AWOL Chain of Command,

[20] Paul Thompson, Complete 9/11 Timeline, Richard B. Myers

[21] Ibid. (After 8:48 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Joint Chiefs of Staff Vice Chairman Still Oblivious? Accounts Are Contradictory

[22] Ibid. August 24, 2001

[23] Jim Hoffman, General Myers: Cover Stories of the People in Charge,  See also:

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS), Chairman Responsibilities,

[24] Paul Thompson, Complete 9/11 Timeline, Henry H. Shelton

[25] Ibid. (8:00 a.m.-8:50 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Rumsfeld Holds Breakfast Meeting at Pentagon; Key Military Figures Present

[26] Ibid. October 17, 2001: Military Head Says He Hadn’t Thought of 9/11-Type Scenario

[27] Ibid. September 15, 2001-April 6, 2002: Bush Shifts Public Focus from bin Laden to Iraq

[28] Ibid. Military Exercises Up to 9/11

[29] Ibid. Ralph Eberhart

[30] Kane, Crossing the Rubicon: Simplifying the case against Dick Cheney

“One exercise titled NORTHERN VIGILANCE pulled Air Force fighters up into Canada simulating a Russian air attack, so there were very few fighters remaining on the east coast to respond. All of this paralyzed Air Force response ensuring that fighter jocks couldn’t stop 9/11.”

Mike Kelly, “NORAD confirmed two mock drills on September 11,”, December 5, 2003.

“NORAD confirmed it had only eight fighters on the East Coast for emergency scrambles on September 11. Throughout Canada and the United States, including Alaska, NORAD had 20 fighters on alert — armed, fueled up, and ready to fly in minutes.”

[31], The Wargames of September 11th (beta),, November 20, 2005:

“The use of ‘injects’ (phantom blips projected onto radar screens electronically) is a technique employed to test the defending side in air defense exercises.”

Michael Kane: Crossing the Rubicon, Simplifying the case against Dick Cheney, “Ample evidence gathered from mainstream news sources and compiled by Paul Thompson… indicates that the wargames served to confuse and stymie air defense response to the simultaneous crash-bombings.[31] Although Thompson avoids conclusions and merely presents a long series of verifiable facts, confusion appears to have been the exact result intended by at least some of the wargame planners. This was already a central thesis of Mike Ruppert's 2004 book Crossing the Rubicon.”, The Wargames of September 11th (beta)

Jim Hoffman, War Games: Multiple War Games Were Being Conducted on 9/11/01,

[32] Jim Hoffman, Aviation Post-9/11/01: Pentagon Rewarded; Flying Public Harassed,

“In the wake of the largest failure of the U.S. military to defend the civilian population in the country's history, there were no repercussions for people responsible for air defense. There was no serious investigation of the inexplicable failure to follow standard operating procedure and scramble interceptors promptly once each of the four jetliners started going off course. To the contrary, the people in charge of defending us were rewarded. General Myers, who was Acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on September 11th, was quickly confirmed as Chairman just two days later. General Ralph Eberhart, Commander in Chief of NORAD at the time of the attack, was promoted to head the new "Northern Command" a year after the attack.” 

He was also awarded a Meritorious Service Cross by the Governor General of Canada:

On behalf of Her Excellency the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson, Meritorious Service Cross presented to General Ralph Edward Eberhart,, November 5, 2004: “A Meritorious Service Cross… [for] his leadership, astute initiative and clear direction ensured the appropriate decisions were made during the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.”

[33] Gerry J. Gilmore, Eberhart Tabbed to Head U.S. Northern Command, American Forces Press Service,, May 8, 2002

[34] Gerry J. Gilmore, Eberhart: 9-11 Created Need for New Unified Command, American Forces Press Service,, June 19, 2003

Oilempire, Northern Command (NORTHCOM),

“General Ralph Eberhart, who was in charge of NORAD (air defense) on 9/11, was made the first commander of the new ‘Northern Command,’ the domestic unified military command established in October 2002. If the domestic use of the U.S. military escalates into full-scale martial law, the Northern Command would essentially manage it. If 9/11 had been an ‘intelligence failure,’ it is likely that General Eberhart would have been court-martialed instead of promoted.”

[35] ‘George Washington’, Mineta's Testimony CONFIRMED,

[36] Gregor Holland, The Mineta Testimony: 9/11 Commission Exposed,

[37] Ibid.

[38] Paul Thompson, Complete 9/11 Timeline, Steve O’Brien

[39] Illarion Bykov and Jared Israel, GUILTY FOR 9-11: BUSH, RUMSFELD, MYERS,  

[40] Paul Thompson, Complete 9/11 Timeline, Context of '(9:45 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Secret Service Learns Hijacked Plane on Route to Washington, Evacuates White House'

[41] Paul Thompson, Complete 9/11 Timeline, Charles Leidig



[44] Nick Levis, Press Picks Up on Sept. 11's AWOL Chain of Command,

[45] Ibid. Montague Winfield

[46], Press Picks Up on Sept. 11's AWOL Chain of Command,

[47] Tom Flocco, NMCC ops director asked substitute on 9-10 to stand his watch on 9-11

[48] Paul Thompson, Complete 9/11 Timeline, Ben Sliney

Newsday, FAA manager's performance of a lifetime on Sept. 11,  

[49] Paul Thompson, Complete 9/11 Timeline, (9:26 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Rookie FAA Manager Bans All Take Offs Nationwide, Including Most Military Flights? Mineta Asserts He Issues Order Minutes Later

[50] David Ray Griffin, 9/11 Live or Fabricated: Do the NORAD Tapes Verify The 9/11 Commission Report?

[51] 9/11 Commission, National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Public Hearing, Friday, May 23, 2003  

David Ray Griffin, The 9/11 Commission's Incredible Tales, Flights 11, 175, 77, and 93,

[52] Newsday, FAA manager's performance of a lifetime on Sept. 11,  

[53] Paul Thompson, Complete 9/11 Timeline, Steve Abbot

[54] White House, Office of the Press Secretary, Gov. Ridge Names Deputy Director of Homeland Security, October 29, 2001.

[55] Paul Thompson, Complete 9/11 Timeline, January 10, 2003: Government Employees Responsible for 9/11 Failures Are Promoted

[56] Ibid.

[57] Ibid.

[58] Ibid. Pasquale D'Amuro

[59] Romesh Ratnesar and Timothy J. Burger, The FBI: Does It Want to Be Fixed?

[60] John Riley, Agent: Suspicions of plot ignored,

[61] Ibid.

[62] Paul Thompson, Complete 9/11 Timeline, David Frasca

[63] Anthony York, Will David Frasca be the FBI fall guy for 9/11?

[64] Ibid.

[65] Paul Thompson, Complete 9/11 Timeline, July 10, 2001: FBI Agent Sends Memo Warning that Unusual Number of Muslim Extremists Are Learning to Fly in Arizona

Ibid. July 27, 2001 and after: Phoenix Memo Received by FBI Headquarters; Little Action Taken in Response

[66] Ibid. January 10, 2003: Government Employees Responsible for 9/11 Failures Are Promoted

[67] Romesh Ratnesar and Michael Weisskopf, How the FBI Blew the Case, Time Magazine, May 27, 2002

[68] Paul Thompson, Complete 9/11 Timeline, January 10, 2003: Government Employees Responsible for 9/11 Failures Are Promoted

[69] Ibid. Context of 'Mid-May-December 2000: Atta and Hanjour Reportedly Visit Fellow Hijackers at FBI Informer’s House'

[70] Ibid. The Able Danger Program

[71] Ibid. Context of '1996-August 2000: Ahmed Alghamdi and Other Hijackers Reportedly Connected to US Military Base'

[72] Ibid. Context of 'April 15, 1999: Hanjour Gets Pilot’s License Despite Dubious Skills'

What Really Happened, Hani Hanjour: 9/11 Pilot Extraordinaire,

[73] Paul Thompson, Complete 9/11 Timeline, Context of 'September 16-23, 2001: People with Hijacker Names and Identifying Details Are Still Alive'

[74] Ibid. September 11, 2001: Existing Files on Hijackers Enables Investigation to Start Within Hours of Attacks

[75] Ibid.

[76] Ibid. (After 9:37 a.m.): FBI Confiscates Film of Pentagon Crash

[77] Ibid. Coleen Rowley

[78] Ibid. Sibel Edmonds and Related Scandals

[79] Ibid. Robert Wright

[80] Ibid. Kevin Ryan, UL Executive Speaks Out On WTC Study,

[81] Gregg Roberts, Where Are the 9/11 Whistleblowers?

[82] ‘George Washington’, 9/11 Truthers are Nuts! Or are they?

Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice

[83] Jon Gold, 9/11 Family Members Patty Casazza And Bob McIlvaine 11/3/2007 Transcript,  

[84] Journal of 9/11 Studies, 9-11 Research: An Independent Investigation of the 9-11-2001 Attack, 911, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

[85] Know Your War-Profiteers Card Deck,  

The True Tale of the Mad Hatter

The True Tale of the Mad Hatter

By Arabesque

The dark underside of the 9/11 truth movement consists of a strange supporting cast of eccentrics, dis-informers, trolls, internet personas, general-all-around yahoos, and… who knows? This is a story about a Mad Hatter who sang a song of Death and Vengeance to the hooded and mysterious Arabesque.

The Hatter turned to Madness soon after Webster Tarpley infamously described Cindy Sheehan and others as “lying in appalling fashion” and a “wretched individual” in the Kennebunkport Warning controversy. Arabesque, TruthAction and others were reporting these attacks. While bringing attention to this subject, Arabesque wrote: “I am not advocating a conclusion on this controversy, but I am trying to bring attention to the claims and counterclaims of those involved. I believe the main issue of importance is that non-9/11 truth activists are being unjustly treated by promoters of the warning.” [Photo: Mad Hatter wearing one of his many disguises.]

Seemed reasonable enough, right? Or was it? In the 9/11 truth movement, Orwell is rolling in his grave. Reporting personal attacks are the same as making an attack! Speaking out against divisiveness is divisive! Unity is silence in the face of outrageous disruption! Or so some would have us believe… One such person was… we’ll call him the Mad Hatter. Hatter contributed some good analysis and his work was at least appreciated by a few. He was a long-time member of this group and contributed many insights with the appearance of a normal, every day researcher and activist. But after Arabesque initiated a discussion about the Kennebunkport Warning controversy, Hatter began to act very strangely. Hatter’s first comment sounded perfectly reasonable saying, “Misappropriating someone's signature is a crime. In this case I don't know if the typical punishment for such a crime is commensurate with the seriousness of the alleged misdeed."

“Fair enough”, thought Arabesque. “Nothing wrong here, although it has not been proven who has committed the crime.” One of Hatter’s next comments seemed to apologize for Tarpley’s divisive behaviour saying, “I've criticized Tarpley in the past for his acerbic tone. It's possible that Tarpley is simply an a** at times.” But then suddenly, Mad Hatter began to shift into strange territory: "Quite frankly I don't trust anybody completely, and I have considerable mistrust of most. I'm confident that you realize that by calling attention to this dispute while clearly taking a side, you set yourself up to be the object of suspicion."

Suspicion? What was the basis for this suspicion? To some in the 9/11 truth movement, everyone is a suspect. Arabesque responded decisively and concisely with the clear point of view that, “Yes I am taking sides. I am taking sides against personal attacks.”

But the 'Hooded One' had a feeling about Hatter that would not shake; “What is up with this guy?” Arabesque was about to find out. Hatter began to insist that Arabesque was intentionally trying to discredit Mr. Tarpley, and then Hatter appeared to have lost his objectivity, “It seems to me that discrediting Tarpley might be a top priority for those who want to derail the truth movementYou have yet to suggest any ulterior motive Tarpley might have for his actions.

Motive? Now, Arabesque suspected that the Hatter was up to something. It was not Arabesque’s responsibility to provide a motive for anything—only the facts as they stood. This appeared to be an attempt to derail the conversation and manipulate a response which could not be proven and then be attacked as a straw-man. Arabesque replied clearly and concisely, “I don't have to supply a motive for his actions. His actions speak for themselves.” Something was up. And then it got weirder.

Hatter turned to Madness—he posted images side by side implying that 9/11 activists at were communists. “Communism In America.”

“Well isn’t that pretty weird”, Arabesque thought. “What’s this guy’s problem? Who goes around insinuating that activist groups are communists?” It appeared that the Mad Hatter was trying to manipulate another response. Hatter’s comment seemed more than a little… Mad and not worth answering. At this point, Arabesque figured “he’s just a troll—that ever-so-present entity on 9/11 forums who go around trying to stir things up with nonsensical accusations and diversionary commentary.” But this was completely unexpected since the Hatter appeared to be a normal member of the group, and had never acted this way before! Was there something more to this behavior? Arabesque had a feeling there was.

And then it got weirder and even more transparent. Arabesque ignored the absurd insinuation that were communists and posted another thread about 9/11 activist Michael Wolsey. It became clear Hatter was not only a troll—he was trying to discredit the Kennebunkport Warning investigators with absurd insinuations—blatant and ridiculous disinformation! Mad Hatter asked in this thread if Michael Wolsey had “any relation to James?” James Woosley, no relation to Michael Wolsey (note spelling difference), was a former director of the CIA. The Mad Hatter did not give James' last name because he knew it was spelled differently. The Mad Hatter had dishonest intentions. To Arabesque’s surprise, Hatter was quickly given the boot from the forum by an administrator for these and other comments insinuating holocaust denial—of which, Arabesque was completely unaware about. Hatter had run out of warnings for his silly disruption, but Arabesque was nonetheless surprised that the HatMan was shown the door. Although it appeared to be the demise of the Mad Hatter, it was just the beginning.

The Mad Hatter is a man of many, often fanciful names and sock puppets—but easily identifiable. Often, Hatter attempts to let others know it is indeed the Madman wearing the Hat. Elsewhere, Hatter wrote “I stayed on the fence until someone pushed me off… I have to say, the evidence I have collected thus far tends to support Tarpley… When it comes to and, they appear to be connected by more than common purpose.” What was this common purpose? What was this evidence? Mr. Hatter of course, had none and never gave anyhe merely had insinuations. Statements without support or validation. Disinformation. Again, Hatter frequently made the absurd insinuation that was a communist front group or Communism In America, repeatedly hinting without evidence that it “looks as though Tarpley may be right,” referring to the unsupported accusation that Arabesque and others were disinformation operatives and even “COINTELPRO”. Where was this evidence? Neither Hatter or others have ever provided any. Hatter ironically commented again using innuendo to imply “Strange the focus is on Cindy Sheehan and not Arabesque… I think it's rather clear that you are trying to discredit Tarpley through innuendo and hyperbolæ. Why don't you let Cindy Sheehan speak for herself? As I've already pointed out, you appear to be attempting to discredit Tarpley by any duplicitous means at your disposal. Tarpley names names.” Hatman was exactly describing himself and even Webster Tarpley, not Arabesque! Everywhere, Hatter insinuated, suggested, and hinted without evidence, facts, or proof, “there is an even more insidious form of disruptor. There are several people who are presenting themselves as experts on disinformation, and are, themselves, acting as disinformation operatives. Naming them is tantamount to virtual suicide.” Arabesque responded sarcastically, “probably because I'm really good at debunking nonsensical and absurd… insinuations like this one.” Did Hatter have any proof at all? The Mad Hatter was only a Man of insinuations without facts.

If someone is accused of being related to a CIA director, but no proof is given, this is an accusation without confirmation. It may or may not be true. To the uniformed, accusations can be interpreted differently based on your awareness of the facts to confirm or disprove them:

  • If the necessary information is known to the intended audience, they can make a judgment as to whether the accusation is correct.
  • If the necessary information is not known, the suggested possibility or accusation is enough to create confusion and uncertainty—is this information true? Could it be true? Is it likely to be true?
  • A sceptic treats all information as unconfirmed until it is backed up with credible sources.
  • Those who do not examine information critically are more apt to accept misleading claims without questioning them. For example, the official story of 9/11. This is a psychological trick exploited by many manipulative promoters of disinformation who prey on this human weakness.
  • Disinformation entails the distribution of deliberately misleading information; accusations without confirmed sources or verifiable evidence qualify as such.

The Mad Hatter insinuated everywhere with poorly constructed, transparent, and even silly disinformation; misleading and unsupported insinuations that was a “communist group”, Michael Wolsey was “related to former CIA director James Woolsey”, Arabesque was a “disinformation operative”, and that,,,, and other websites were “owned” by the same people—a psy-op truth movement. Where was the proof? There wasn't any. These were all obviously and clearly absurd insinuations.

Why would Hatter do this? What was the motive? Was there money or financial benefit involved? If so, who did the Mad Hatter work for? Was Hatter just… Mad? He appeared to be only selectively absurd about certain topics, and the Kennebunkport Warning controversy was one of them. Everywhere, the Hatman “defended” Tarpley without relying on facts; instead attacking those who criticized him with baseless insinuations and absurd disinformation! In this regard, he was no different than Webster Tarpley. Hatter’s sudden turn from seemingly normal and rational changed to Mad disruption and relentless insinuation almost instantly. At one time, he was not a MadMan. Why did he go Mad? Turning to Madness is a common trait seen by agent provocateurs who at first pretend to be legitimate members of a group. Could the Mad Hatter be a Hat-wearing agent provocateur? This is someone who works in the interests of another group while provoking debate, spreading disinformation, and causing disruption. The Mad Hatter was doing all three. It was clear that he had relentless and deliberate intent. It was not clear why he was doing it. Only the Hatter himself could “suggest any ulterior motive”. Why are you doing it HatMan?

And this Hatter was anywhere and everywhere with different Hats to his name! MadHat had a dozen Hats—like a private army of Hatters. The Mad Hatting campaign of insinuations without evidence continued anywhere Arabesque and others resided: “I am left to question Michael Wolsey's motive for producing such a lengthy condemnation of Tarpley. Could he be making a mountain out of a molehill for some ulterior motive? Where can I find some example of Wolsey's original 9/11 work so that I can assess the sincerity of his efforts?” He further revealed with blatant insinuation, “I would expect a person determined to infiltrate and endeavor to disrupt or mislead the movement would provide a forum for those people and ideas which are already prominent, or which are inevitably going to become prominent. This latter category can be extremely valuable since it gives the illusion that the infiltrator is at the forefront of the effort, helping to dig up the latest dirt.

As the Mad Hatter should well know, accusations without evidence are worthless. This Mad Hatter had none, and he knows it. I know that he has no evidence, because I know none exists.

For his insistent insinuations without evidence and factually challenged disruption, Hatter was banned in multiple 9/11 forums again and again. But the Hatter kept coming back with different Hats! This Man with a Hat was on a mission of disruption, insinuation, and disinformation. An impartial observer commented that Hatter, “goes to extraordinary lengths in establishing that he is knowledgeable and erudite, which he must be given some of his posts… only to bring out low-grade disinformation (or is that 3rd grade?) like, ‘a lot of these sites register by a proxy service’ (a well-known one used by millions of sites - maybe because they don't want their address available for harassment?) and ‘ is communist’ because it uses the raised-fist symbol and (gasp) red letters. His apparent native intelligence is not an excuse; it only makes him look even worse for putting out such obvious junk attacks.” This correctly summed up the Matter—the Mad Hatter was both intelligent and absurd; his unfounded claims were only prolific insinuations.

This Hatter was clearly Mad in more than one sense. He issued a death threat disguised in the form of a song to Arabesque—one of his calling cards:

To Whom it May Concern

I will find you/ 'cause I will hunt you down / I will walk behind you/ Without a sound/ And I will strike/ When the time is right/ I will bring you down/ Oh, to the ground/ And I will make you bleed / Like you did me/ Oh once before/ And of this/ You can be sure/ I will hear you cry/ For mercy's hand/ But that will be/ At my command/ For you can't do/ What you have done/ And expect/ To stand, not run/ I spoke the truth/ And you spoke lies/ And for this/ You will die/ To taste your blood/ Is oh so fine/ And vengeance sweet/ She shall be mine/

This Death Threat was obviously directed at Arabesque for reasons that are not obvious, although the Mad Hatter disingenuously implies otherwise. The Mad Hatter WAS "walking behind" Arabesque and following him to every forum he posted in as implied in this song, so this was clearly evidence which could be interpreted as a Death Threat to Arabesque. Arabesque had nothing to do with The Man with The Hat and his initial banning—the HatMan was warned multiple times by an administrator. Arabesque had no control over Mad Hatter’s fate. Arabesque was not a moderator. Arabesque does not control who decides to ban the Mad Hatter, and the Hatman is simply mistaken, paranoid, or disingenuous for claiming otherwise. Nor did Arabesque accuse the Hatter of anything or even seriously engage him in discussion since much of what the Hatter said was… well—Mad. Arabesque largely ignored the Mad Hatter and his transparently passive-aggressive attempts at disruption and derailment. But clearly, Hatter wanted to know who Arabesque was. Hatter was Mad—asking for Arabesque’s name in emails to a prominent activist in the 9/11 truth movement. Hatter wanted the names of the Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice Steering Committee. The Hatter stalked Arabesque anywhere and everywhere for three months. The Mad Hatter gave Arabesque a Death Threat in the form of a song. The HatMan would not go away. He was either paid to do what he was doing, or he was a creepy Madman with an army of Hats in disguise.

The full story has not been revealed. The Identity of the Man under the Hat is known. The Rabbit Hole is gapingly open—how far it go? A scary place indeed. All has yet to be disclosed about this Man under a Hat.