George Washington: Everything You Need to Know about Disinformation in 2 Minutes

George Washington on Disinformation:

The topic of disinformation is a very complicated one. Essays, lengthy papers and whole treatises have been written on the subject. But the very length of most discussions overwhelms people, so that they never get an accurate picture of what disinformation looks like.

So I thought I'd take a crack at a very simple definition of disinformation, something that is short enough to read in two minutes.

Disinformation is:

* Repeating the same false claims over and over even when people have proven that such claims are contrary to the evidence (for example, the claim that no planes hit the Twin Towers)

* Spending more energy causing in-fighting and disruptions then helping to promote the truth, and causing dedicated activists to waste time rebutting obviously false claims and theories

* Unnecessarily alienating large sections of the population by attacking victims' families, certain religious or ethnic groups, or political parties with no reason

* Calling someone names instead of addressing that person's theories or claimed facts

* Making knowingly false statements about someone

* Threatening people or their families with violence, job loss, or other forms of intimidation or harassment

* Acting as provocateurs to disrupt peaceful groups or gatherings

People who repeatedly do one of the above things even after people have pointed out what they are doing, are spreading disinformation -- consciously or unconsciously. Indeed, because disinformation may be an unconscious activity, I prefer to call it "disruption". These actions disrupt the ability to spread 9/11 truth and to obtain justice against all of those who carried out the attack.

No matter how much seemingly good 9/11 truth work someone has done in the past, if someone starts causing more disruption than good, than he or she should not be followed any more. This is especially true if people have pointed out that person's disruptive behavior, but he or she has carried on disrupting 9/11 truth work anyway.

Part II, The 5 Goals of Disinformation by George Washington:

The 5 goals of infiltrators of the 9/11 truth movement (or any movement challenging fascism) are to: Distract, Disrupt, Divide, Discredit and Derail.

Specifically, avoid people whose actions mainly have the effect of:

* Distracting, disrupting, or derailing 9/11 truth efforts;

* Dividing the truth movement; or

* Discrediting leading 9/11 activists

To remember this list, just think of "the 5 D's of Disinformation".

Part III, If It Quacks Like A Duck... by George Washington:

9/11 activists spend a lot of time trying to figure out who is a government "disinformation agent" and who is not.

I would argue that it is a total a waste of time.

If someone is being disruptive, and seems to pursuing one of the 5 goals of disinformation, then he or she is causing problems and should be avoided or at least not given a megaphone. It doesn't matter what the motivation is: whether ego, confusion, or a government paycheck.

Sure, some people might want to understand someone's motivations to know whether or not to give them a second chance. That's fine.

But if it quacks like a duck, its probably a duck. Its a waste of time to try to figure out why it quacks, or whether its a mandarin duck or a mallard. Just treat it like a duck.

For more on Disinformation:

9/11 Truth Leader on Disinformation and Infiltration

Articles by Arabesque:

9/11 Disinformation and Misinformation: Definitions and Examples

9/11 Truth and Division: Disinformation, Agent Provocateurs, and False Adversaries

9/11 Truth and Division: Disinformation, Agent Provocateurs, and False Adversaries

9/11 Truth and Division: Disinformation, Agent Provocateurs, and False Adversaries

By Arabesque

The subject of this essay is divisive.[1]  In fact, it’s about divisiveness.  In response to the problem of divisive posts at 911blogger, Reprehensor wrote:

“911blogger.com has been used as a tool to identify and amplify wedge issues that divide 9/11 skeptics and researchers, and this has occurred primarily in the comments area.”[2] 

Divide and Conquer: History and Purpose

Why do people attack each other?  There are several reasons and many attack with deliberate intent.  In fact, there can be ulterior motives for divisive behavior.  Historically, Divide and conquer was an intentional strategy used by the OSS during World War II:[3] 

“Psychological warfare, as the term is used by the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff ... comprises all moral and physical means other than orthodox military operations which tend to destroy the will and ability of the enemy to resist, to deprive him of support of allies or neutrals and to increase in our own troops and allies the will to victory. The implements of psychological warfare are: open propaganda, subversion, special operations (sabotage, guerrilla warfare, espionage), political and cultural pressures, economic pressures. The principal effects sought are persuasion, sympathy, terrorization, confusion, division and physical interference.”[4]

This is not a new concept.  In the 1950’s, the ancient strategy of divide and conquer was continued in COINTELPRO, “an acronym for a series of FBI counterintelligence programs designed to neutralize political dissidents.”[5] FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, in a letter entitled Disruption of the New Left explained that activist groups would be neutralized through various means including “the instigating of or the taking advantage of personal conflicts or animosities existing between New Left leaders… hostility should be exploited wherever possible…”[6] According to Brian Glick, this would be partly achieved through infiltration, “[agents] and informers did not merely spy on political activists. Their main purpose was to discredit and disrupt… set up pseudo movement groups run by government agents.”[7]

Does this happen in the 9/11 truth movement?  From historical examples and COINTELPRO, the possibility cannot be ruled out that these tactics would be used against current day activists.  Having this problem in mind, Barrie Zwicker commented about possible disinformation and infiltration within the 9/11 truth movement:

“What’s needed is politically relevant education. Education about agents of all kinds, especially agents provocateurs, their history, who employs them, their tactics… While educating ourselves and others we can simultaneously actively combat agents of the state by refraining from engaging in the types of behaviour they employ to sow dissention: name-calling, rumour-mongering, insinuation. Especially specific name-calling. Refraining from this does not stifle vigorous discussion and debate, based on observable facts, statements and patterns.  Education drains the swamp. Most of [the] agents will stand out. It’s happening already. Other agents are deeper. Understanding their purposes and identifying them and dealing with them depends on more education yet.”[8]

What is an agent provocateur?

According to Wikipedia:

“An agent provocateur (plural: agents provocateurs, French for "inciting agent") is a person who secretly disrupts a group's activities from within the group. Agents provocateurs typically represent the interests of another group, or are agents directly assigned to provoke unrest, violence, debate, or argument by or within a group while acting as a member of the group.”[9] Provocateurs “try to disrupt a group by creating discord between group members” in a deliberate attempt to get the targeted group to fight between themselves, rather than their intended opponent.[10]  This is the concept of divide and conquer.

What causes divisiveness within the 9/11 truth movement?  We can mainly summarize it in one word: Ad hominem.  This is how it works:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.[11]

The “attack” can come in the form of insult, accusation, or irrelevant commentary. In fact, one does not need to hurl insults to commit ad hominem.  Any commentary that distracts attention away from an argument to an individual belongs to this fallacy:

“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.”[12]

It can be observed that ad hominem is one of the most effective forms of disinformation because it engages individuals at the emotional level.[13] While anyone can employ ad hominem commentary, the 9/11 truth movement is especially noteworthy for its usage:

“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.”[14]

Agent Provocateurs emphasize:

1. Attacking individuals for what they believe/advocate (ad hominem)
2. Divisiveness to the exclusion of constructive debate; avoidance of civility and polite discussion
3. The use of ridicule, divisive labels, sarcasm, accusations, and ad hominem to bait fights rather than constructive dialog.  As well, personal commentary, past battles, group associations, etc. are all highlighted for the purpose of divisive arguments
4. Straw-man (often with divisive labels): distorting the position of your opponent in order to make them defensive and bait an argument
5. A refusal to fairly debate or acknowledge contrary opinions/evidence and instead attack individuals for what they advocate

In short, an Agent Provocateur is an expert in ad hominem:

1. Attacking an individual rather than critiquing their position
2. Attacking an individual while critiquing/attacking/distorting their position

Accusation—the Provocateur’s Most Effective Weapon of Psychological Warfare

False and misleading accusations are frequently and effectively used by agent provocateurs.  The most common accusation within the 9/11 truth movement is that a 9/11 researcher or activist is an “agent” working for the US government:

“…we're all agreed that Jim [Hoffman] is a disinformation creep, so now we're discussing whether he is actually a cointelpro agent, or whether he has some other motive.”[15]

Accusations are one of the most effective weapons used by agent provocateurs for several reasons.  They can be used to:

• Poison the well.  Shift attention away from relevant issues to personal battles and infighting
• Attack the credibility of an individual or group; ad hominem 
• Function as disinformation; create confusion for the audience.  Is this accusation true?  Could this accusation be true?  Is it likely to be true?
• Bait intended subject(s) into divisive battles; potentially spreading to uninvolved bystanders—divide and conquer

False and misleading accusations employed by provocateurs are more effective when the given audience is less aware of relevant facts to make a judgment on their accuracy:

“I have raised objections on moral, legal and intellectual grounds and I am categorically opposed to it. But he appears to be persisting in what might be described as a ‘hostile take over’ to control Scholars.”[16]

To the uniformed, any claim or accusation could be interpreted as possibly true, creating confusion and uncertainty if relevant facts are unknown. Consequently, misleading and false accusations are effectively used by provocateurs to discredit, divide, and confuse activists.

To further explain, if someone is accused of a “hostile take over” and no credible evidence is readably visible, this is an accusation without confirmation or validation. Any assertion could be interpreted differently depending on the awareness of relevant facts to confirm or disprove the claim.  Those who do not examine information critically are more apt to accept misleading claims or accusations without seriously questioning or examining them.  This is a psychological trick exploited by many manipulative promoters of disinformation who prey on this human weakness.  Furthermore, this is especially true when the information comes from an authority; for example, the official story of 9/11. Disinformation entails the distribution of deliberately misleading information; accusations without confirmed sources or verifiable evidence qualify as such.

9/11 activists should be wary of any and all accusations that are not readily supported by credible evidence, facts, or documentation.  Ultimately, false and misleading accusations create divisiveness and encourage hostility.  Agent provocateurs can skillfully use false accusations to create an environment of mistrust, suspicion, and divisiveness.

Divisive Labels and Issues

Divisive labels function as ad hominem when they are used for the purpose of attacking your opponent and intentionally creating divisiveness.  Examples include: “Conspiracy theorist”, “Agent”, “LIHOP”,[17] “MIHOP”,[18] “Limited Hangout”, “Plane Hugger”, etc. 

While these labels may or may not provide an understanding of the events of 9/11, they are also primarily used to create division by labeling individuals.  When this happens, their function shifts from their original meaning to divisiveness and ad hominem.  For instance, when used to label an individual, LIHOP is no longer a critical understanding of what happened on 9/11—it’s a divisive label to attack or even illegitimately discredit activists: “Don’t listen to what he says—he promotes LIHOP.”[19]

Divisive labels such as these are used to highlight points of difference and instigate disruption and battles.  There is nothing wrong with disagreement if civil critique and dialog is allowed.  On the other hand, divisive and overly-simplistic and inaccurate labels are frequently used to avoid civility and to create division.  Divisive labels are among the most potent weapons of divide and conquer—whether or not those who use them realize it. 

Divisive Labels and Issues as Straw-man

Divisive topics abound in the 9/11 truth movement.  The single most notable and divisive issue is the Pentagon.  Many will agree to disagree with what happened at the Pentagon.  However, no matter what the subject, advancing knowledge and understanding is accomplished with civil and respectful discussion; without personal attacks or divisively labeling individuals as “agents”, “supporting the official story”, etc.  These kinds of labels shift debate away from relevant issues towards infighting and divisiveness. 

For example, to say that a 9/11 activist “supports the official story” at the Pentagon is a commonly used divisive straw-man label given to those who believe it was hit by a 757.  There are many 9/11 activists who believe that the “official story” of what happened at the Pentagon is absurd enough as it is—no missiles, global hawks, or unnoticed flyovers required.[20] From 911truth.org’s top 40 reasons to doubt the official story of 9/11:

“3) Pentagon Strike
How was it possible the Pentagon was hit 1 hour and 20 minutes after the attacks began? Why was there no response from Andrews Air Force Base, just 10 miles away and home to Air National Guard units charged with defending the skies above the nation''s capital? How did Hani Hanjour, a man who failed as a Cessna pilot on his first flight in a Boeing, execute a difficult aerobatic maneuver to strike the Pentagon? Why did the attack strike the just-renovated side, which was largely empty and opposite from the high command?”[21]

Accusing 9/11 activists of “supporting” the official story because they believe it was hit by a 757 is a divisive straw-man.  This accusation can be used in an attempt to get 9/11 activists to fight with each other rather than emphasizing agreement that the official story at the Pentagon has many problems.  This is not a unique area of divisive disagreement among 9/11 truth activists.

Another example of a divisive straw-man would be to label someone who believes that the Pentagon was hit by a 757 as “LIHOP”, while ignoring the fact that elsewhere it was argued that Building 7 was destroyed by controlled demolition.  This is how divisive and overly-simplistic labels can be effectively used by agent provocateurs.[22] Of course, one does not need to be an actual agent provocateur to engage in provocateur behavior.  Straw-man assertions and accusations (i.e. “supporting the official story”) are frequently used to encourage divisiveness and defensiveness, baiting diversionary arguments and infighting.  If this fails, the provocateur hopes that others will agree with these straw-man assertions and join the divisive battle.  On the other hand, if a response is given the provocateur frequently has a ready supply of sarcasm, insults, and accusations to follow the initial bait and continue protracted and divisive arguments.  These tactics are even more successful when the intended subject hurls divisive language and labels back at the instigator; this is a tempting opportunity for others to join the divisive debate.  Often, those who join in are just simply offended by how someone responded to the divisive language.  Divide and conquer has commenced.

The Provocateur as False Adversary: Effective versus Ineffective Approaches

One important and overlooked function of the agent provocateur is their role as intentional distraction.  If provocateurs can successfully create adversarial conflicts, they function as false adversaries.  Their ultimate purpose serves as straw-man; deflecting valuable attention and energy away from intended opponents.

However, if ignoring a problem is more destructive than countering it, common sense dictates that an effective response should be taken.  For example, in the situation where a provocateur could turn to violent acts in a protest setting, harm relations between activist leaders, or cause impressive disruption—simply ignoring the problem could adversely harm activist groups.  As such, it can be observed that there are effective and ineffective ways of dealing with the issue of agent provocateurs.

If the very purpose of the provocateur is to engage in fake debates, disruption, and disinformation, an ineffective response would be to fall into the trap of engaging in what the provocateur is exactly attempting to facilitate.  Often, divisiveness with ad hominem attacks, accusations, and protracted debates are precisely what the provocateur desires.  But if the provocateur can significantly damage, distract, or discredit the 9/11 truth movement, action should be taken to effectively counter it.  While ignoring provocateurs is effective in most situations, in others it is not. 

Dialog and Critique versus Ad hominem

“In our movement there has to be a sphere of theoretical discussion, which has to be done in a business-like and respectful manner, without slander, without defamation, without ad hominem attacks on every page.”[23] Webster Tarpley

There is a distinct difference between ad hominem and respectful discourse.  The latter is emphasized in the Journal of 9/11 Studies by Kevin Ryan:

“[We] hope to emphasize the importance of legitimate scientific discussion (which the Journal welcomes), as opposed to inappropriate personal attacks (which we do not publish).”[24]

There is nothing wrong with disagreement.  However, we will never advance our knowledge and understanding if we are focused on attacking each other.  Because personal attacks work at an emotional level, they are very effective at poisoning the well and shifting the debate away from the relevant issues of 9/11 to essentially a mudslinging contest.  Actual critique and dialog effectively occurs when ideas are presented and responded to in clear and accurate language.  Weakly defined labels such as “conspiracy theories”, “LIHOP”, and “MIHOP” often result in confusion and straw-man arguments instead of debate and constructive dialog.[25]

Conflating Ad Hominem with Critique

As observed, one of the primary purposes of the agent provocateur is to disrupt and derail activist groups.  In 9/11, where the validity of facts, evidence, and explanations are so critical for the credibility of the truth movement, hostility to critique is antithetical to successfully establishing that the official story is false.  Consequently, one of the less obvious ways in which provocateurs can disrupt the 9/11 truth movement is to falsely conflate ad hominem with critique:

“[Jim Hoffman’s] stance on attacking those who don't agree with his take on the Pentagon is unfortunately very divisive.”[26]

In examples like these, provocateurs can falsely frame civil discussion, criticism, and critique of a theory as an “attack”.  This is a straw-man effectively used to shut-up dialog and critique by closing down and attacking legitimate criticism.  Jim Hoffman observes that, “[to] be successful [the] '9/11 community needs to create a culture conducive to critique… Yet… Abusers are tolerated… Rational critique is discouraged and reframed as… censorship… divisiveness… [and] infighting.”[27] 

The scientific method depends on critique and peer review as noted by Jim Hoffman and others in the 9/11 truth movement.[28] Hostility to critique can only benefit weakly supported theories which function to discredit the 9/11 truth movement.

Although critique and dialog are essential for advancing our understanding of 9/11, it can also be observed that is impossible to have dialog with those who refuse to legitimately answer critique:

“I do not find it necessary to respond directly to the interview criticism in either its original content or in the further criticism in the new letter. My line of research in furtherance of DEW causal theory has taken a different direction that neither benefits nor suffers from public criticism of the theory. Opinions on the matter differ and I respect those who have differing opinions.”[29]

Similarly, evasion of critique through the use of straw-man arguments is another effective strategy employed by provocateurs to avoid legitimate dialog and debate.  This is particularly true when false explanations are being promoted deliberately. 

Agent Provocateurs, Divisiveness, and Unity

Dialog and unity is not always maintained through ignoring disruption and disrupters.  In fact, ignoring destructive behavior is often what allows it to be successful and continue without interruption.  Activist Ginetta Sagan says, “[silence] in the face of injustice is complicity with the oppressor.”[30] For example, if you believed that there was insider complicity for the events of 9/11 and did nothing about it, would that result in constructive change?  Ignoring a problem rarely results in a constructive solution.  Michael Wolsey comments on the problem of disruption:

“In the past, and using the mantra ‘for the sake of the movement’, it has been the practice to ignore these disruptors. What has ignoring these people done? Have things got better as a result of ignoring them? Have they gone away? On the contrary, like busy little termites, the have been slowly eating away at the foundations of our movement… We as a movement need to come together on how we handle such disruptors and re-evaluate the unwritten, failed policy of ignoring them and hoping they will just go away.”[31]

Approaching a problem with the wrong solution doesn’t help either.  If the problem is divisiveness, it is not effectively countered with more divisiveness.  What are some possible effective strategies to effectively combat this behavior?

1. Refuse to be a divider or engage in ‘agent provocateur’ behavior.  Avoid the use of ad hominem and divisive labels and “fight back” with reason and civility—not insults
2. Counter the destructive behavior by offering solutions, respectful critique, and civility
3. If possible, discipline the bad behavior through comment moderation, part-time and permanent bans, removal from speaking engagements, removal of links to websites, etc.  Complain to moderators instead of fighting with those who only want to fight
4. Encourage dialog with those who will respond to critique.  Ignore those who will not respond to critique and are only interested in fighting
5. Avoid accusations that can not be convincingly proven.  Instead, report facts and statements with an unbiased point of view to let others reach their own conclusions      

What is the goal of the 9/11 truth movement and how can we be diverted from this goal?[32] Ultimately, divisiveness disrupts progress towards another 9/11 investigation and justice. While civil criticism and analytical critique are essential for 9/11 analysis, poorly defined and divisive labels, accusations, and ad hominem attacks can only function only as evasion and disruption.  Jim Hoffman suggests that we need to establish basic guidelines of behavior within the 9/11 community to help create an environment that is sympathetic to our goal of justice:

“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… the nature of this 9/11 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 [behavior]. 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.”[33]

Understanding the Psychology of Disruption

While it is human to be upset or angry, those who disrupt intentionally are on a mission.  They hope that moderators, those in control of forums, and everyone else will ignore their destructive behavior so that they can keep doing it.  They want to fight—they do not want to have dialog.  Their only purpose is to disrupt.  Their chief weapons are divisive labels, accusations, straw-man arguments, controversial issues, and ad hominem.    

The 9/11 truth movement is what its members make it to be.  Either we can work together by critiquing each other in a civil and respectful manner, or we can fight with ourselves indefinitely while the crimes of 9/11 go unanswered.  It is clear that staying silent or ignoring the problem of disruption will not effectively provide a solution.  While the approach of ignoring a problem allows it to continue successfully without interruption, there are ineffective and effective responses to counter disruption.  Establishing guidelines of behavior and protocol for when they are broken could easily and effectively combat this ongoing issue and would only help facilitate the 9/11 truth movement forward towards justice instead of endless and diversionary fighting. 

The agent provocateur is as virulent a form of disinformation that exists within the 9/11 truth movement.  Their ultimate purpose is to distract, discredit, and weaken the movement through the creation of false adversaries, disinformation, and disruption.  As such, these false adversaries encourage activists to fight between themselves rather than challenging their intended opponent.  Whether by intent or ego, those who emphasize attacking individuals rather than critiquing ideas in a respectful manner are working against the 9/11 truth movement, not for it. 

---

[1] A different version of this essay was published in the October 2007 Visibility9-11 Newsletter

[2] Reprehensor, Significant Change to Comments at 911blogger.com, http://www.911blogger.com/, July 3, 2007

[3] ‘IgnoranceIsntBlisss’, Above Top Secret, Lessons From The OSS/CIA: 9/11 ‘Disinfo’ Vs. ‘Actionable Consensus’, http://www.abovetopsecret.com/

[4] OSS - The Psychology of War, http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/oss/ossmo.htm 

[5] COINTELPRO, http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/cointel.htm

[6] COINTELPRO letter from J. Edgar Hoover to Special Agent in Charge, Albany 5, July 1968. http://www.namebase.org/foia/fbi01.html

[7] Public Eye, Don't swallow the Deep Throat hype! http://www.publiceye.org/

[8] Barrie Zwicker, 9/11 Truth Leader on Disinformation and Infiltration, http://911blogger.com/

[9] Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_provocateur, accessed: October 5, 2007

[10] Sourcewatch.org, Agent Provocateur, http://www.sourcewatch.org/ 

[11] Nizkor.org, Ad-hominem, http://www.nizkor.org/ 

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made.

[12] Arabesque, Webster Tarpley: Arabesque, Cosmos, Jenny Sparks, Jon Gold, Michael Wolsey, and Truthaction are “disinfo”, http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/

[13] Arabesque, 9/11 Disinformation and Misinformation: Definitions and Examples, http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/

Jim Fetzer explains why the ad-hominem is disinformation:

“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, Signs of Disinformation. http://www.assassinationscience.com/  

[14] Victoria Ashley, Steven E. Jones, A Physics Professor Speaks Out on 9-11: Reason, Publicity, and Reaction, January 14, 2006. http://911research.wtc7.net/. 

[15] Jim Hoffman, Personal Attacks Against Jim Hoffman, http://911research.wtc7.net/

[16] Jim Fetzer, An Open Letter about Steven Jones, http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/

[17] LIHOP: Let It Happen On Purpose.  The hypothesis that 9/11 was intentionally “allowed” to happen.

[18] MIHOP: Made It Happen On Purpose.  The hypothesis that 9/11 was intentionally “made” to happen.

[19] Arabesque, Disinformation and the Misleading and False LIHOP/MIHOP Dichotomy, http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/

[20] Arabesque, The Pentagon Honey Pot, http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/

[21] 911truth.org, THE TOP 40 REASONS TO DOUBT THE OFFICIAL STORY OF SEPTEMBER 11th, 2001, http://www.911truth.org/

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

[23] Originally broadcast on World Crisis Radio with Webster Tarpley, Sept. 9, 2006.  See also:

Michael Wolsey, 9-11 Synthetic Error: The meltdown of Webster G. Tarpley, http://visibility911.com/

[24] Kevin Ryan, News from the Journal of 9/11 Studies, http://911blogger.com/

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

[26] Jim Hoffman, 911 Mysteries—A Critical Review, Stigmatizing Critique, http://911research.wtc7.net/ 

[27] Ibid. Critique and Theories of the Attack

[28] Ibid. The Necessity of Critique

[29] Judy Wood, Reply to ‘Greg Jenkins interview Judy Wood: An Interview and Analysis’, http://www.journalof911studies.com/

[30] Ginetta Sagan, http://www.amnestyusa.org/, The Ginetta Sagan Fund

[31] Michael Wolsey, 9-11 Synthetic Error: The meltdown of Webster G. Tarpley, http://visibility911.com/

[32] Steven Jones, What is the Goal in the 9/11 Truth Community? Debates, or Justice? http://stj911.org/

[33] Arabesque, Cosmos on his radio show: Truth Action Radio: September 3, 2007, http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/.  Originally broadcast on Truth Revolution Radio with Cosmos, October 15, 2006.  Transcript by Arabesque.

9/11 Truth: Dialog, False Adversaries, and Civility

9/11 Truth: Dialog, False Adversaries, and Civility

By Arabesque

Kevin Barrett commented after the conference, The Science of 9/11: What's Controversial, What's Not:

"The way I study [social interaction] is through dialog... I think we could use a little more conviviality within the Truth movement... one reason for that is that we want people to join us... by reaching out to them in a conviviality way... people will come on board... I think we need to enjoy dialog including with people that we don't agree with... [especially] non-9/11 truth people... I want dialog with [people who support the official story]--dialog is good... this is the key to the politics that we need to practice..."

I agree completely with this statement by Mr. Barrett and I endorse it. I believe the importance of open and civil dialog is critical for the 9/11 truth movement. However, for dialog to be possible, one side must respond to critique. If one side refuses, then dialog is impossible.

I do not find it necessary to respond directly to the interview criticism in either its original content or in the further criticism in the new letter. My line of research in furtherance of DEW causal theory has taken a different direction that neither benefits nor suffers from public criticism of the theory. Opinions on the matter differ and I respect those who have differing opinions.

Clearly, this is an example where dialog has been closed. Furthermore, while I agree completely with Mr. Barrett's views on dialog, I believe that he has not followed his own advice:

"As I understand it, the usual penalty for treason is hanging, not death by firing squad. In that case, it is likely that Mr. Bush will be hanged, not shot, for treason. By making this prediction, am I running the risk of having my clothesline confiscated? I also think that there is a real possibility that Mr. Bush will be electrocuted for the mass murder of 2,500 Americans in the World Trade Center. By stating this, am I risking a court order shutting off my electricity? I also foresee a small but very real possibility that Mr. Bush will die in the gas chamber. Does raising this possibility mean that my gas could be cut off?"

"As the example of Nuremburg suggests, journalists who act as propagandists for war crimes may one day find themselves on the scaffold. You would be well advised to strive for more balanced and accurate coverage in the future."

"Amy [Goodman], you will one day find yourself on the scaffold, condemned to hang alongside the other Goebbels-style traitors and mass-murder-coverup-conspirators from the corporate media you pretend to criticize."

"The State Department doesn’t know what it is talking about, but what else is new? Frankly I wonder who wrote this for the State Department. We need to find out because they are going to have to go up there on the scaffold with the other people who planned the attacks and more importantly the people who covered them up. The people complicit in the attacks need to be tried, condemned and sentenced."

"First Kevin Barrett said that Fox News employees should be hung. Then he said that the producers of United 93 should be tried for inciting war crimes, now he is expanding his list of those on death row to include just about every journalist in the world, while discussing an e-mail exchange he had with a journalist for Harper’s Magazine:

My response to that was, you know, I think that anybody who has drawn a paycheck from the major mainstream journalistic outlets in the past should be up on the scaffold for the crimes of high treason and crimes against humanity."

"If you are not aware that you're covering up for that traitor and mass murderer and yes insurance fraudster Silverstein, you'll figure it out when you're beside him on the scaffold. I'll be saving this email as evidence for your trial."

"The Capital Times ownership and editorial decision-makers, like those of other mainstream U.S. news outlets, are setting themselves up to be prosecuted as war criminals. By publishing the endless stream of lies that brought us into the Iraqi and Afghan quagmires, without exercising duly diligent skepticism, journalistic decision-makers are following in the footsteps of Joseph Goebbels -- a path that ends at the scaffold."

"Kevin Barrett contacted me after he heard that Kevin Ryan backed out of a debate opportunity with me. Barrett wanted to know if I was interested in debating him on his radio show, or perhaps in a live debate when he is in New York. In his email to me, he copied a response he had sent to a listener, in which he said that I was complicit in mass murder and a candidate for a war crimes tribunal, with the gallows perhaps in my future. I guess that's his idea of an inducement to debate."

In my opinion, these comments are antithetical to the possibility of dialog. Is it necessary to make these statements against journalists and defenders of the official story? How can this approach open others to considering the possibility of 9/11 truth? Indeed, why should it be necessary to make statements such as these when the truth about 9/11 is a powerful enough message?

Paul Thompson's Complete 9/11 Timeline: A Short Review

Paul Thompson's Complete 9/11 Timeline: A Short Review

By Arabesque

Paul Thompson's Complete 9/11 Timeline is an excellent resource. Browsing news entries frequently elicits thoughts of "isn’t that an amazing ‘coincidence’”, or “why didn't I ever hear about this before?”

There are effective ways to reference it. For example, individuals have their own entity tags, often with direct links to the news articles pertaining to them:

George Bush

Dick Cheney

Richard Clarke

Donald Rumsfeld

Other information is grouped in a more selective way and is available from the side of the website. For example:

All Day of 9/11 Events

Military Exercises

Pentagon

Able Danger

The Alleged 9/11 Hijackers

With so much information, it is often helpful to quote relevant information from selected sources to make research articles.

8:01 a.m.: Flight 93 Is Delayed for 41 Minutes

(8:46 a.m.): Janitor Hears Explosion from WTC Basement

(8:47 a.m.-9:50 a.m.): Engineer Finds Major Damage in Basement and Lobby of North Tower

(Before 9:59 a.m.): Giuliani Apparently Told WTC Towers Will Collapse When Fire Chiefs Think Otherwise

9:59 a.m.: Some Witnesses Think South Tower Collapse Resembles a Controlled Demolition

(4:15 p.m.-4:27 p.m.): CNN and Others Report WTC 7 May Have Collapsed

4:54 p.m.-5:10 p.m.: BBC Reports WTC 7 Collapse, Well before it Happens

(5:20 p.m.): WTC Building 7 Collapses; Cause Remains Unclear

Paul Thompson gives short excerpts of multiple and corroborating mainstream news articles with links to original sources for consultation. For example:

(After 9:37 a.m.): FBI Confiscates Film of Pentagon Crash

An employee at a gas station located across the street from the Pentagon servicing military personnel later says the station’s security cameras should have recorded the moment of impact. However, he says, “I’ve never seen what the pictures looked like. The FBI was here within minutes and took the film.” [Richmond Times-Dispatch, 12/11/2001] A security camera atop a hotel close to the Pentagon also records the impact. Hotel employees watch the film several times before the FBI confiscates the video. [Washington Times, 9/21/2001] The Justice Department will refuse to release the footage, claiming that if they did it might provide intelligence to someone who would want to harm the US, but some Pentagon officials say they see no national security value to the video. [CNN, 3/7/2002] The gas station footage and video taken from one nearby hotel, the Doubletree, will eventually be released in 2006, but do not show much (see September 13, 2006-Early December 2006). Reporter Sandra Jontz, who is evacuated from the Pentagon some time after it is hit, notices a Department of Transportation camera that monitors traffic backups pointed towards the crash site. [Bull and Erman, 2002, pp. 281] As of the end of 2006, the footage from this camera has not been released.

While the site is excellent, and I highly recommend it for 9/11 researchers, I do not use the search engine on the site because I find it to be unreliable. Instead I use Google:

Google Search, site:cooperativeresearch.org [+ Add keywords]

This method usually provides much more reliable results and can be used to find information that you are looking for.

9/11 Truth Leader on Disinformation and Infiltration

George Washington writes:

A prominent 9/11 truth leader sent the following email about disinformation and disruption in the 9/11 movement. I'm waiting for permission to use his name. I assure you, though, that he is someone with no axe to grind, and who is not in "one" camp or the "other". He cares only about truth.

His message provides a road map for how to deal with the infiltration, co-option, disruption and disinformation which has been unleashed against the 9/11 truth and justice movements, since those movements have the power to pull the rug out from under the whole fascist enterprise.

This 9/11 truth leader writes:

Allow me to suggest that we don’t need to choose between denunciation, on the one hand, and silence, on the other. That is an unnecessary choice, a false dichotomy.

Denunciation plays into their hands, which is unintended complicity.

Silence is also complicity, as Dr. Martin Luther King pointed out.

Instead of these two approaches, what’s needed is politically relevant education.

Education about agents of all kinds, especially agents provocateurs, their history, who employs them, their tactics.

There is a huge literature on this. We do not need to start at square one. Read about Operation Mockingbird. Read about COINTELPRO. Apply what we learn to today’s situation.

Keep digging, learning, discussing, educating.

This can be done without inflammatory language, without denunciation, without even mentioning names. I mention none here.

When names are mentioned, it should be in connection with observable facts, with evidence. There is a world of difference between saying “A claimed not to know about X, but on [date] he stated “[I know about X],” on the one hand, and saying “A is a liar,” on the other.

While educating ourselves and others we can simultaneously actively combat agents of the state by refraining from engaging in the types of behaviour they employ to sow dissention: name-calling, rumour-mongering, insinuation. Especially specific name-calling. Refraining from this does not stifle vigorous discussion and debate, based on observable facts, statements and patterns.

Education drains the swamp. Most of agents will stand out. It’s happening already. Other agents are deeper. Understanding their purposes and identifying them and dealing with them depends on more education yet.

Believe me, I come from three generations of the spied-upon and harrassed. Doing nothing plays into their hands. We can’t pretend they don’t exist. Ignoring them will not make them go away.

How will younger people learn about the Agents of Deception unless there’s an ongoing education effort?

“History is a race between education and catastrophe,” wrote H.G. Wells.

One of the aims of the 9/11Truth movement inevitably must be to expose, oppose and work to dismantle the grotesquely huge organizations of spies, agents provocateurs and covert agents of all kinds. They are an insult to democracy and honest discourse.

We cannot gain the peaceful world we want as long as billions are spent on spies and spying – many of those billions on disrupting the lawful activities of us, citizens striving for a safer, saner world. The standard New York Times figure for the budget of “America’s intelligence community” – how homey – is $44-billion. That’s on the books. Add the black budgets and you have a higher figure.

It’s been a long time since spies and spying were a political issue. The Church Committee of the 70’s was the last time the lid was lifted on the creepy crawlies that scuttle about whole countries tricking whole populations.

It’s time we renewed the conversation about the immorality of spies and spying. No doubt largely through their own propaganda efforts, they’ve gone from being pariahs to being heroes, from necessary evils to top dogs, romanticized by the entertainment” industry (although with many honourable exceptions) and uncriticized sacred cows in political circles.

Now that we are experiencing their dirty work on our own doorstep we must educate – with principle, passion, courage and understanding.

A Response to Winter Patriot about the Kennebunkport Warning Controversy

A Response to Winter Patriot about the Kennebunkport Warning Controversy

By Arabesque

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

Winter Patriot has written a lengthy piece and comments on Kennebunkport Warning controversy. He makes a number of points that I will respond to:

Arabesque continued to push the notion that Webster Tarpley must be lying, because all four women were telling exactly the same story.

While I may have an opinion on who is telling the truth, I have not claimed that "Tarpley must be lying". I have acknowledged many times that I can not prove who is telling the truth about signing the document. Here are my words in my original article on the Kennebunkport Warning:

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

I acknowledged that the truth about the signatures is unresolved:

It is not confirmed at this point that the signatures were taken from another document and put onto the Kennebunkport Warning.

My investigation began soon after Mr. Tarpley called Cindy Sheehan and the anti-war activists "appalling liars" and "wretched individuals". Leaving the controversy over what happened with the signatures aside, I have observed the fact that Webster Tarpley and his associates have hurled abusive language towards the anti-war activists. In response to my claim that this is a "central issue" in the controversy Winter Patriot comments:

I'm not sure how much good one can do by telling others what "the issue" is. Everybody sees things differently, everybody has their own opinions, and by now I think most of us know that in politics, whoever defines "the issue" is gonna win "the debate".

I am not trying to “win a debate”. My complaint is that the issue of incivility is not being acknowledged by the promoters of the Kennebunkport Warning. The purpose of my investigation was to first detail the claims of those involved and highlight why this is a controversy. It is a controversy for two main reasons:

1) The denial of signatures by the anti-war activists
2) The use of incivility against the anti-war activists by Webster Tarpley and his associates

Having established that I can not determine the truth about the signatures due to the contradictory evidence available to us, I have emphasized the clear and case-closed nature of the incivility.

Winter Patriot asks:

If I could, I would… leave them polite comments asking why Tarpley should apologize? Why those who accused Tarpley and Marshall of fraud were never asked to provide evidence supporting their claims, which were lauded immediately as obviously true, even though there was no actual evidence supporting them, and even though they had obviously agreed to corroborate one another before issuing their supposedly definitive "group statement".

Again, I emphasize what I have already said here and in my original article: I do not claim to have proven the truth about the signatures. I reported the claims and counterclaims of those involved in the controversy. I quoted statements prior to the joint statement as well as the statement of a fifth alleged signer. Dr. Dahlia Wasfi, one of the alleged signers appeared on Michael Wolsey's radio show to discuss the controversy and give her account of what happened and comment on the personal attacks. From this controversy, five anti-war activists gave corroborating statements that they signed an alternative document involving impeachment. I believe this constitutes strong evidence that can not be ignored or dismissed easily--certainly, it's more than "no actual evidence".

The divisiveness surrounding this incident was not an unprecedented event within the 9/11 truth community. A previous "event" involved the divisive breakup of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. In this altercation a prominent leader of the truth movement was accused of ridiculous "hostile takeover" charges. Witnessing the characteristic signs of relentless and vicious ad-hominem attacks and accusations (both online and offline) strongly suggested to me who was telling the truth in this affair early on. There becomes a point where "protesting too much" becomes a reasonable question. But as I have said repeatedly, I can not prove who is telling the truth, so I have focused on the behavior of the Kennebunkport supporters.

One effective way to “win a debate” is to refuse to answer or even acknowledge the actual complaint of your opponent, or misrepresent their claims. If I say "I have a problem with your shoes", and you reply "my shirt is fine", there is no honest or legitimate response my complaint. Following this analogy, in response to our charges of incivility Mr. Tarpley has made the lame counter-charge that we “oppose” the Kennebunkport warning. This is false, as I have said all along in my original post; we object to Tarpley's divisive language, which he has now employed against us for pointing out his behavior.

Jim Hoffman, one of the most respected 9/11 researchers said of the controversy:

Attacking Sheehan and others peace activists with insults and accusations of lying ... To what end?
Is hurtful to the victims of the attack.
Is hurtful to common cause between 9/11 truth and peace communities.
However gracious the immediate targets are, it sends a message: don't come anywhere near 9/11 truth.

This is how Michael Wolsey characterized the controversy:

Why... did Mr. Tarpley and other supporters of the KW viciously attack leaders of the Peace Movement? Why did you and your followers do this Mr. Tarpley, and why did you lead the way in these attacks? Apparently the call to respect others and act in a “manner, without slander, without defamation, without ad hominem attacks on every page” does not extend to members of the Peace Movement. We find out later that they do not extend to the 9-11 Truth Movement either.

Here is what Cosmos said on his radio show:

“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… it really boils down to are we going to act civilly, or are we going to be divisive.”

If those involved in this controversy are engaging in destructive and divisive behavior, does it really matter who is telling the truth about who did or did not sign a document? In my opinion, the answer is no. Mr. Tarpley should apologize for his behavior if he wishes to regain any semblance of credibility.

Kennebunkport Warning Cartoon: We are Funded by the Ford Foundation Because we Oppose Divisive Language?

Kennebunkport Warning Cartoon: We are Funded by the Ford Foundation Because we Oppose Divisive Language?

By Arabesque

In yet another strange twist in the Kennebunkport Warning Controversy, a professional-quality cartoon suggests that Cosmos, Michael Wolsey, Arabesque, and Col. Jenny Sparks work for Chip Berlet and the Ford Foundation. Let's examine this hilarious cartoon, shall we.

First of all, I have spoken out about Mr. Berlet; he has been opposed to 9/11 truth and unanswered questions in the past and some have questioned whether he is credible source of information. We believe his material must be examined carefully and corroborated before acceptance at face value.

On Digg, Mr. Berlet left the following comment:

"Nice caricature of me. I especially like the syringe. Alas, none of it is true, but a great cartoon nonetheless."

In the cartoon, we are seen marching against 9/11 truth and the Kennebunkport Warning with "FBI marching orders", "poison pens", and "funding" from the Ford Foundation. The claim that we "oppose" the Kennebunkport warning is demonstrably absurd. Take a look at the original post of the Kennebunkport Warning on 911blogger. Who supplied evidence to support the warning? It wasn't Tarpley--he simply claimed "massive evidence" without at first providing any in the original post. It was me. If I "opposed" the warning, why would I support it with my own research? In fact, I've said all along I don't oppose the warning.

In reality, Mr. Tarpley and his associates have continued to evade our complaint about the divisive language and accusations hurled against the anti-war activists. When we brought attention to this issue, Mr. Tarpley and his supporters started hurling the accusations at us.

Now let's put this in perspective: Is Mr. Tarpley calling us "funded by the Ford Foundation", and "CoIntelPro" because we oppose his divisive language?



If so, that is one of the most ridiculous accusations I have ever heard. It's too bad I don't have the "funding" to commission hilarious and professional-quality cartoons in response.

A Message for Webster Tarpley and the Supporters of the Kennebunkport Warning: It’s About the Divisiveness

A Message for Webster Tarpley and the Supporters of the Kennebunkport Warning: It’s About the Divisiveness

By Arabesque

The Kennebunkport Warning has been a source of much controversy.

In examining the divisive behavior surrounding the Kennebunkport warning, many of those who brought attention to this issue are in turn being accused of divisiveness. In fact, some of Tarpley's supporters have said that we are being "divisive" by even bringing up this issue.

"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." Dan Abrahamson, False Flag News

That's an interesting point of view, since "divisiveness" is the core issue that we have been trying to emphasize in the first place; we felt that Tarpley, and the Kennebunkport supporters were being divisive and we tried to bring attention to it. Calling us “divisive” for talking about this behavior is intellectually dishonest since the divisive behavior of the Kennebunkport supporters is our central complaint.

Lately, we have been accused of “CoIntelPro” by Webster Tarpley and his supporters.

First of all, the purpose of CoIntelPro is to weaken activist groups. One of the chief ways of accomplishing this is through divisiveness with accusations (i.e. "you are a CoIntelPro agent"), name calling, and other disruptive behavior. For more discussion, I recommend Michael Wolsey's radio show series on this subject with respected 9/11 researchers Jim Hoffman and John Albanese.

In accusing us of "CoIntelPro", the supporters of the KW are focusing on their primary straw-man argument: "We 'Oppose' the Kennebunkport Warning".

“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." Webster Tarpley, Genesis World Report

There is just one problem with this claim: We have never objected to the Kennebunkport Warning. In fact, I supplied my own research to support the warning when it first came out. The claim that we "oppose" the content of the Kennebunkport warning is demonstrably and offensively absurd. Here is how Cosmos explained the controversy early on in the affair:

“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… it really boils down to are we going to act civilly, or are we going to be divisive.”

Indeed, the promoters of the KW refuse to even acknowledge our actual complaint; that their divisive language serves only to split apart the 9/11 truth movement from the peace movement. Has Tarpley even acknowledged the fact that we are objecting to his divisive behavior? Has he said, "I know this is your problem, but I'm doing it for this reason"? No. He has never acknowledged our criticism. Not once in the month since this controversy erupted has he answered our criticisms, admitted his language is abusive and uncalled for, or apologized. Instead, we have been attacked.

This should end the debate. To refuse to acknowledge the complaint of your opponent and pretend he has a different one is intellectually dishonest at best; it's called a straw-man. Why are you hiding from our real complaint Mr. Tarpley? Is it because you can't explain away your inexplicable behavior? Is it because you can't blame us for calling you out on it?

What better way to accomplish divisiveness then to hurl accusations, insults, and engage in persistent name calling against the peace activists and the 9/11 truth activists who defended them? Tarpley's real problem seems to be that we spoke out and said "this is wrong". When the attempts to get the peace activists angry failed, he started throwing the accusations at us instead. Nice try, but you'll have to come up with better insults to get me upset.

Why did Tarpley and his supporters do this? As I have responded to one of Tarpley's defenders: I don't have to explain the motive for why Tarpley did what he did. That's his responsibility. All I know is that he hasn't apologized for what he has done, and neither have his associates.

I don't know why most of the divisive accusations are coming from LaRouche associates. I don't know why Tarpley decided to call us CoIntelPro for bringing attention to his behavior on the anniversary of 9/11. What I do know, is that Tarpley and his associates are engaging in behavior that is divisive and detrimental to the cause of 9/11 truth. It is enough to know this; motive is a secondary issue that can only be answered by Mr. Tarpley. The attempts of the KW supporters to shift the debate away from the core issue of their divisive behavior is intellectually dishonest and extremely suspect. We object to the divisive behavior of Webster Tarpley and the KW supporters, and we are calling them out on it.

To those who say that even discussing this issue is "divisive":

Does pretending a problem does not exist make it go away? Does ignoring a problem because it might cause controversy make things better? Let’s take the example of 9/11. If you saw the evidence 9/11 was an inside job, what good what it do if you did nothing about it? Are you going to say: "I'm not going to deal with this problem because it's going to create too much divisiveness and controversy"? How would that lead to constructive change? Similarly, if your uncle was having financial problems, or was engaging in destructive behavior that impacted your family should you ignore it? If you think that we should ignore problems simply because they are "divisive", why are you reading this blog, why do you care about 9/11 activism, and why do you care about world peace? The first step is acknowledging that there is a problem; the ultimate solution is for the “family” (i.e. the 9/11 truth community) to decide.

Having brought attention to this issue, it is up to the 9/11 truth community to decide how to respond to Mr. Tarpley and his associates.

Still more on the Kennebunkport Warning

We Don’t Need Any More Warnings
by Kevin Ryan

9-11 Synthetic Error: The meltdown of Webster G. Tarpley
by Michael Wolsey

Keeping track of it all here:
The Latest on the Kennebunkport Warning Controversy

Michael Wolsey and Visibility911.com Launches Newsletter

Michael Wolsey and Visibility911.com Launches Newsletter

Michael Wolsey writes:

Dear Friends,
I want to take this opportunity to thank all of my listeners for the support and words of encouragement I have received. Generous support from listeners makes this broadcast possible and we will continue to work on ways to make the program and the website better in our mission of spreading the truth. My heartfelt gratitude goes out to those who have helped me along the way.

Thanks to some generous donations to the program, I was able to obtain some new equipment and software to produce the program on. The transition between the old and the new has been much more difficult than I had imagined both in terms of getting the new system set up, and learning how to use it. While I expect that this new set up will improve the quality of the program, and decrease the time it takes to produce a program, the learning curve has been much more difficult. You may have noticed that the last few programs are a bit rough around the edges, however, with each program, I learn more about the software and get more efficient.

As I write, the 6th anniversary of the September 11th Attacks is fast approaching. With large truth events scheduled for New York and Washington D.C., there are ample opportunities for all activists to get out and protest the 9-11 cover-up. If you are like me and can’t make it to the east coast, I hope that you will hit the streets in your own area, not only for the 9-11 anniversary, but on the 11th of every month. Each month, more and more activists are joining the 11th Of Every Month Actions, a campaign of Truth Action. You can learn more about this campaign by going to truthaction.org.

Thank you.

-Michael Wolsey

Click here to view the entire newsletter.

Click here to subscribe and have it delivered to your inbox.

This first issue features articles by:

Kevin Ryan, Three Years Later: Another Look At Three Claims from UL

Arabesque, The World Trade Center Building Designers: Pre-9/11 claims strongly implicate that the Towers should have remained standing on 9/11

George Washington, What Is a "False Flag"?

In Their Own Words: The Untold Stories Of The 9/11 Families

In late 2006, the movie 9/11 Press For Truth became a worldwide underground hit. It exposed the story of the "Jersey Girls" and their allies -- the 9/11 families who had fought for the Commission but ultimately failed in seeing 70% of their questions answered...

read more | digg story