September 30, 2007

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


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, [+ Add keywords]

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

September 27, 2007

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.

September 26, 2007

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.

September 25, 2007

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.

September 21, 2007

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.

September 17, 2007

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

September 10, 2007

Michael Wolsey and Launches Newsletter

Michael Wolsey and 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

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"?

September 6, 2007

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

Another former government official calls for new 9-11 investigation

Joel S. Hirschhorn, PhD, former Senior Staff Member of the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), called for a new investigation of 9/11. "First, let the technical truth emerge. Then, if necessary, cope with the inevitable political, conspiracy and other questions."

read more | digg story

September 4, 2007

The Latest on the Kennebunkport Warning Controversy

The Kennebunkport Warning Controversy has had many developments (newest first):

Jenny Sparks writes When Prophecy Fails:

First there was "Noble Resolve". Then came the "Kennebunkport Warning". Now we're living through the "End Times"--ahem, I mean "TOPOFF 4"---notice a pattern?

There seem to be interests who want to enable and encourage an "End Times" meme in 9/11 Activism. Captain May's Portland Nuclear Inquest--and, to a lesser extent, Ginny Ross' OTA-- has some of the hallmarks of cult manipulation:

Selected from How Cults Work

-cult leaders will tell you can only be "saved" (or can only be successful) in their organization alone.
-Character Assassination
-In a mind control cult any information from outside the cult is considered evil, especially if it is opposing the cult. Members are told not to read it or believe it. Only information supplied by the cult is true.
-End of world pressure.
-Secret knowledge.
Jenny Sparks writes Activism is Counter Intelligence:
Course, as 9/11 activists, our application of the above tools will be wildly different from what Olson conceived. We are not a centralized organization and there is no bureaucracy. And we'll need to go our of our way to liaise with independent 9/11 groups working the CI angle. But our effectiveness has the potential to become exponential once we do. This is of course in addition to all the excellent work already being done. One idea is to make non-public viewable on-line networking groups, focusing on whatever aspect of activism has your interest. Again this is in addition to what you do that is in the public domain. Invite only people you know or can be vouched for. Review these tools, Olson's comments and see what imagination produces.

Jenny Sparks writes Is the Oregon Truth Alliance Grassroots or Astroturf?

We're going to play "connect the dots". Whether it's fair or not, we are judged by our allies and supporters. Unless we go out of our way to qualify the relationship, people will make assumptions by association, whether explicit or implicit.

Arabesque makes a summary of all of his posts on the controversy.

Jenny Sparks writes:

It ocured to me that Dkos readers might want to know more about the behind the
This is a brief acccount of how a group
of activists at exposed an attempt to drive a wedge between the
Peace movement and the Truth movement. For a more detailed account, go to
Arabesque's blog:

Suffice it to say, Webster Tarpley has burned his bridge with the Truth movement. Until such a future time that he apologizes in public and in full for his shabby treatment of brave anti-war activists like Cindy Sheehan and Dahlia Wasfi, he has no place among us. We will not tolerate this behavior from those who claim to be part of the Truth Movement.

Michael Wolsey writes:

Despite a courteous denial [of signing the Kennebunkport warning], supplying their reasons and wishing those in the 9-11 movement luck, these messages [by anti-war activists] were met with extremely harsh rhetoric coming from the supporters of the KW, led by its author, Webster Tarpley himself...

Why then, immediately before the 6th anniversary 9-11 events, 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.

I have to say that it is more than puzzling to attempt to explain Mr. Tarpley’s behavior toward the alleged signers of the KW. It is completely contrary to his previous statements calling for unity, and goes against his efforts to promote the KW as an important document. I cannot speak for others but I would think a reasonable individual who wanted to promote a certain cause, or in this case, a “document”, would want to avoid controversy. If you really wanted widespread attention for your cause, controversy would be detrimental to your credibility and would turn people off to your message. So why then, did the active supporters of the KW do everything possible to create as much controversy as possible?

Unfortunately, Mr. Tarpley again ignored his own advice, when on September 6th, 2007 he renewed his attacks on the “Dahliar 4”. On his radio program, Mr. Tarpley again used his platform to attack those who claimed that they did not sign the KW, but this time his derogatory rhetoric included ad hominem attacks on me, Cosmos and, Arabesque and his website, meticulous 9-11 researcher Jon Gold, and blogger “Col. Jenny Sparks”. We were 5 people who had the courage to stand up and say “Hey wait a minute here!” when we saw Mr. Tarpley and others attacking these ladies in the Peace movement. Many of us who have been involved in the 9-11 movement for a long time have worked hard on forging relationships between our movement and the Peace movement. We saw these attacks as detrimental to all of our hard work and called Mr. Tarpley and Mr. Hill out on their reprehensible behavior. We have said all along that we do not totally disagree with the content of the KW. What we do object to is the way the alleged “signers” were treated by the author and purveyors of this document. We have also asked the question, and still do, why don’t you take these signatures off your document? Why did you not address our concerns Mr. Tarpley, but instead, chose to engage in the exact behavior we abhor from the mainstream media? Instead of answering our questions, you attacked us Mr. Tarpley. Answer our questions won’t you? Why did you attack these ladies in the Peace movement? Why don’t you take them off your document?

May I be the first of many to denounce such behavior from Mr. Tarpley and I demand a public retraction and apology, to myself, and to all whom Mr. Tarpley has attacked, including the ladies in the Peace Movement who want their names removed from the KW. Mr. Tarpley, you also owe the entire movement an apology for such juvenile actions and behaviors...

In closing I will say that what Mr. Tarpley has done to cause the controversy surrounding the KW is nothing short of despicable. Additionally, he has for years promoted some of the worst information regarding the 9-11 cover-up, a fact that seems to either have been ignored, or hidden in plain sight, or both. Today, instead of practicing what he preaches, he simply attacks anyone who might dare stand up to his egomaniacal little tirade against the Peace Activists. I am aware of calls to move past the KW, and yes, I would like nothing better. This has cost me many hours of valuable time that I could have used much better. However, the fact remains that Webster G. Tarpley has behaved in a way that cannot and should not be ignored. 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. These outrageous actions by Mr. Tarpley cannot, and will not go unchallenged by me. 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.

9/11 Whistle blower Kevin Ryan comments:

People asked how this could have happened. Then accusations were made, culminating in some ludicrous claims that some of our best leaders were disinformation agents for the government. How can we tell? Because, for example, one wears sunglasses and another has a beard. Brilliant.

Maybe this is just another ego problem, and maybe not. If it is, then it’s another opportunity to better understand that common problem we share. After all, that is the game upon which we are, as a society, being played.

As usual, we’ll see how these things develop, but we don’t really need any more warnings. We’ll do what we can to communicate the vital need for 9/11 truth and reach out to others in our country who work for peace. Until then, my thoughts and support go out to the great Cindy Sheehan, my friends Jon Gold and Michael Wolsey, the fine writer Arabesque, and those others who were unfairly treated in this incident. Hang in there and don’t give up hope.

Jim Hoffman comments on the controvery:

Webster Tarpley described five individuals investigating claims surrounding
the "Kennebunkport Warning" as COINTELPRO in an ad-hominem filled commentary delivered in his September 6, 2007 edition of his radio show World Crisis Radio, and on September 8 to an audience at a New York City sixth anniversary event.

I know something about 3 of Tarpley's accused ... I support:

Michael Woolsey
A Colorado activist who has worked for years on 9/11
Strives for reasoned dialog, strong evidence.
Has the courage to discuss COINTELPRO (to understand its workings, not label individuals.)

A Bay-Area activist who I met in 2003.
Has worked for years for 9/11 truth.

A thoughtful, painstaking researcher.
Examines the disinformation muddying 9/11 research(to shows its workings, not label individuals.)

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.

From Michael Wolsey:

Visibility 9-11 welcomes peace activist Dr. Dahlia Wasfi to discuss her connections to the war in Iraq, her activism against the war, and her views on the 9-11 cover-up. Dr. Wasfi also responds to recent ad hominem attacks aimed at her and other alleged “signers” of the Kennebunkport Warning

From Michael Wolsey:

Cc: chrisemery@[redacted]
Date: Sun, 9 Sep 2007 20:46:51 -0400

To Webster Tarpley and Bruce Marshall:

After careful review of the conduct and statements made by some individuals responsible for the drafting and promotion of the KW document and subsequent postings of that document on various websites showing various signatures that are NOT approved by the signees; I am withdrawing my support of the KW document and my signature from the list off signees offering such support.

It is unfortunate that verbal attacks have been made against personal friends of mine during the promotion of the KW document. I know first hand that these verbal attacks are unfounded and counterproductive to the 911 Truth truth movement.

Please make no mistake that I do support the principle of the document calling for the immediate, resolute impeachement of VP Dick Cheney.

I DO NOT agree with the unfounded statements made about some 911 truth activists and radio show hosts that are trying to present the KW document in an even handed, level headed manner.

Therefore: I am withdrawing my name from the list of signatories supporting the KW document - effective immediately - 7:45 PM - CST Sunday - September 9, 2007
Respectfully submitted:

Chris Emery
OTR Films, LLC

From YT of Truth Action:

Michael Wolsey of was the guest on the Sept. 3 edition of Truth Revolution Radio. We discuss his work as a truth activist and radio host, with a special focus on his series on cointelpro. We are also joined by 911blogger's own Col. Jenny Sparks and discuss a bit of the controversy behind The Kennebunkport Warning. Bruce Marshall joins the show during the last segment to discuss his role in promoting The Warning.

TRR Archive

I’d like to give thanks to YT, JoanJones, and Col. Jenny Sparks, for their efforts and collaboration in discovering the truth about this affair.

I would also like to officially apologize for the actions of "supposed" members of the 9/11 truth movement. In fact, Col. Jenny Sparks has written an apology to Cindy Sheehan and the anti-war activists and I heartily endorse it. I commend the courage of the anti-war activists and strongly support their aims to end pointless and destructive wars. I thank them for their statement of support for 9/11 activists despite the shameful accusations and insults from the Kennebunkport Warning promoters.

Shortly after the controversy erupted, Webster Tarpley provided inflammatory and divisive comments against anti-war activists:

"Most of the comments concerning the Kennebunkport Warning have avoided the main issue."

"Adults Are Responsible For What They Sign"

"If you choose that cop-out, what kind of a peace leader are you?"

"They knew exactly what they were signing and, if they deny it, they are unfortunately lying. Anyone who talks of forgery or trickery in gathering these signatures is compounding that lying with slander."

The strange insinuation that the Kennebunkport Warning is the main concern is frequently heard from those pushing it; but it is a deliberate evasion. The main issue is the fact that non-9/11 activists are being attacked. This is a black and white issue that does not require speculation about what did and did not happen.

Yes, "adults are responsible for what they sign," but they are also responsible for what they say. What kind of 9/11 truth "leader" attacks non-9/11 truth activists as "liars" and "wretched individuals"? Certainly not one that I will support.

Webster Tarpley has quite presented us quite the conspiracy theory. Not only did these anti-war activists claim they didn't sign the document--they had the exact same story about what they DID sign--a resolution involving impeachment. Think about that for a minute. Did these signers all decide to join together, deny signing the document, and then come up with the exact same story about what they did sign? This conspiracy theory on its face seems very implausible.

I'll be the first to admit I can't prove that the signatures were faked or forged onto the warning. But, this is not the issue—the issue is one of divisiveness. Who is trying to bring the peace movement together with the 9/11 truth movement and who is trying to divide them? Observations about this are simple and clear.

"We cannot avoid the delicate question of cointelpro, the domestic sabotage and wrecking activities of the intelligence agencies."

I agree. The purpose of cointelpro is to "divide, confuse, [and] weaken in diverse ways" activist groups.

Where is the civility? Where are the apologies? Where is the unity? Where is any attempt to simply label this a misunderstanding?

I don’t have to tell you it's not coming from Webster Tarpley.

September 1, 2007

The Kennebunkport Warning: Hoax?

The Kennebunkport Warning: Hoax?

By Arabesque

August 31, 2007

Updated: September 9, 2007

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

Discussion on The Kennebunkport Warning: A Hoax?

The Kennebunkport Warning claimed that a group of 9/11 and anti-war activists joined together to sign a document warning of a false flag terror attack and resulting war with Iran. Like most, I first believed that the Kennebunkport Warning and the signatures were legitimate.

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

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

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

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

Here is what we know:

John Leonard, Webster Tarpley’s book publisher says that "as far as Dahlia Wasfi is concerned, I was a guest on Webster's radio show last night so I heard Bruce Marshall and Janice Weir say they saw her sign the statement."

The controversy however is not the fact that a document was signed—the controversy is over which document was signed.

Dahlia S. Wasfi, MD says "I signed a statement in Kennebunkport to endorse the impeachment of Dick Cheney, but my signature has been used on this "Warning" without my consent. While I was humbled to have my signature misappropriated with such prominent voices as Cindy Sheehan, Cynthia McKinney, and Jamilla El-Shafei, none of us signed that document." Elsewhere she told someone that "I don't know about the validity of this ‘warning,’ but the people who put this list together were dishonest about signatories. They took our signatures for something else and put it on this. Very weird."

Cindy Sheehan via MySpace called the warning “shady”, and confirmed that "the same thing happened to me as happened to dahlia"

And then, this joint release was posted:

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

Jamilla El-Shafei
Cindy Sheehan
Dahlia Wasfi
Ann Wright

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After the controversy of faked signatures emerged, Webster Tarpley, the supplier of the “massive evidence” outrageously asserted:

"Some of the signers, under the obvious threats of totalitarian forces, are lying in appalling fashion about what they signed and if they signed. You can see for yourself from the facsimile who signed. We need to move beyond these wretched individuals.[sic]"

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

In Summary:

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

· Claim they did not sign the Kennebunk Warning

· Say they did sign another document

· Independently claim the document signed involved impeachment

· Support 9/11 questions and another investigation

· Have not attacked the authors of this document

On the other side we have:

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

· No apologies for these accusations and ad-hominems

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

· Four individuals who appear to be associated with Lyndon Larouche

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

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

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

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

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

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