Personal attacks requires motive and intent. In my experience, personal attacks and irrelevant commentary are used to intentionally create hostility within the 9/11 truth movement, possibly with the intent of distracting attention away from facts, evidence, and legitimate debate. Personal attacks are a diversion and distraction similarly exploited by FOX propaganda specialists like Bill O'Reilly and Michelle Malkin. Likewise, the 9/11 truth "debunker" site "Screw Loose Change" strongly emphasizes personal attacks against 9/11 truth advocates instead of debate. As Jim Fetzer explains (note: see this article for my observations on Fetzer and his definitions of disinformation), Ad hominem attacks are disinformation:
As for CIT's claim that the plane flew "north of CITGO" gas station, this has long been debunked. Among the witnesses that CIT cites as "evidence" include witness accounts (5 years later) who said the plane hit the Pentagon (implicitly debunking the north flight path), appeared to show up on different location on the CITGO gas station video from where they claimed to be (CIT claiming that the perpetrators purposely altered the video), with another witness claiming that light poles were "not knocked down" where they were in fact, knocked down.
Disingenuously, CIT claims that these witnesses are somehow "smoking gun" evidence of a "military slight of hand deception" that "fooled" witnesses into somehow thinking that a plane hit the Pentagon despite the above and other glaring problems with the theory.
Arabesque is currently riding high as an authority on what is disinformation and COINTELPRO in the 9/11 Truth Movement. Arguments over this kind of claim to authority is one of the things that made Real Truther persona-non-grata at 911blogger, so its resurfacing with a veneer of sober objectivity begs for some good-ol' fashioned "disunifying" critique.
To my knowledge, I have never made such a claim that I am an "authority" or "expert". Obviously, Real Truther must think highly (enough) of me to put such effort into writing this factually challenged piece, and for that, well thanks—I’m flattered. I won’t dispute the fact that others have valued my work, but I can’t control what others think or write about me.
This pretense to sanctity on behalf of certain individuals, groups, or events is to me a fairly reliable red flag.
I do not disagree, but slander, false insinuations without evidence, and personal attacks are ad-homienm. However, if something can be proven it is fair game.
Truth is inherently immune from debunking, so why would anyone who knows that they are right feel threatened by questions, as opposed to relishing the opportunity to establish (as many times as necessary) the validity of one's position?
Indeed. But any good politician knows that you can smear your opponent with a false line of questioning and insinuations without a shred of evidence. This is a classic character assassination technique. It is helpful to look at the facts, rather than the man who is talking about them. After all, many times it is a diversion when it is the facts that are at issue, not the man.
Naturally I agree with Arabesque that COINTELPRO and disinfo are both real issues that must be acknowledged and dealt with.
I agree. This means that everyone has a right to discuss the relevant issues without falsely being labeled (even by those in disagreement with you) as “experts”. Unless it is meant as a compliment, of course.
But I would go a step further and point out the danger of simplifying the practice of determining who or what is and isn't. Arabesque's thesis centers around the premise that unity is good for the movement, that divisiveness is sown to derail it, and that the disinfo crowd does the sowing. I won't disagree, but I would say that we would be foolish to put unity above truth.
The key word here is “truth”. Who decides what is “truth”, and by whose “authority”? Here Real Truther reveals his hidden hypocrisy. He accuses me of a “false unity crusade” and of being an “authority” (when I have never claimed such a thing), and then he makes the statement we shouldn’t put “unity above truth” with the obvious, but hidden assumption that Real Truther knows the truth by virtue of his own "authority". This is very clear since his confidence in his own "authority" leads him to prolifically name “shills” based on their perceived heresy.
"Putting unity above truth"? This is a key point that is misunderstood by Real Truther. To explain, I would never advocate “unity by agreement”, since such a thing is impossible even in concept within the 9/11 truth movement. Instead, I am actually advocating “unity by common cause” with disagreements approached with civility. This is the main thesis of my article which Real Truther clearly misrepresents. Not surprisingly, if the “truth” is controversial there will always be disagreement. Free debate and acknowledgment of differing views without personal attacks and baseless character assassination can only help us get to the actual truth by focusing on the actual issues rather than the people advocating them. Mostly, this is a diversion--unless of course, some believe that the "purpose" of the 9/11 truth movement is to endlessly gossip about its members—not get criminals prosecuted and named for their obvious and blatant crimes.
Does 9/11 Truth really need the same kind of rhetoric? Are the democrats and republicans in any way overtly united?
Indeed, the 9/11 truth movement does not need rhetoric of any kind. We certainly don't need the personalized ad-hominem attack rhetoric campaigns of the kind commonly seen in many 9/11 forums. Aside from this point, the above statement is another false analogy unless it is assumed the 9/11 truth movement is not united in the desire for another investigation or agree with the basic premise that a crime was committed and that the true perpetrators were therefore not held accountable.
Indeed, my premise is that we don’t need the rhetoric that only certain members of the truth movement “have the truth” by some divine “authority” to name anyone who disagrees with this “obvious and unquestionable truth” a “shill”. Indeed, to complain about “authority” while calling people who disagree “shills” while naming oneself "real truther" is the ultimate form of "authoritarian" hypocrisy that I could possibly imagine. I offered the suggestion that we can treat each other as equals and discuss disagreement with civility. The result of this "suggestion" was to be called a "shill" by "Real Truther".
Moving on to the Pentagon, Real Truther writes:
Absent any conclusive evidence of a 757 having crashed into the Pentagon, evidence that should exist in spades given the video surveillance cameras all over the Pentagon, the burden of proof rests on those who claim that a 757 did crash there.
Of course, I don’t have a problem with this statement. Nor do I have a problem with anyone who is “agnostic” about what happened at the Pentagon. The US Government should end this intentional controversy and release the videos. Of course, how we get them is the real question--not who believes what happened.
The subtext is clear--let's leave the Pentagon out of our discussions...
I never implied that the Pentagon shouldn't be discussed. Another straw-man.
…or if we must discuss it, let's avoid making anyone look like a fool for supporting the OCT on that score. Let's pretend that it does not raise suspicion when people seem so willing to take on faith one aspect of the OCT but not others.
Not on “faith”, but “evidence”. Sometimes evidence is ambiguous and the truth is not obvious. I dare apologize for questioning Real Truther's divine “authority” over my “faith”, but many of the most credible 9/11 websites and researchers advocate pro-757 arguments. Of course, let's not get into arguments from authority, as that is an obvious fallacy already much discussed here. But it is interesting that even former hardcore "no-757" theorists like the Loose Change filmmakers and David Ray Griffin have changed their tune to “agnostic” from their previous and clear-cut “no-757” point of view. Why would they change their minds unless the evidence was far from conclusive?
When Arabesque talks about ‘divisive issues’, in other words, he seems to be referring to issues that should not be divisive.
That’s the point I was trying to make.
Why is he trying to make us think that those are divisive issues then? …Certainly he doesn't think that people will stop discussing them, does he?
What I actually meant is that ad-hominem attacks (i.e. “you friggin shill!!!!” --see below) and fighting that occur over disagreements are divisive, not the issues themselves. People, not ideas fight with each other. I already explained above that I don’t believe in “unity by agreement”. This is yet another straw-man in which Real Truther confuses “unity by agreement” with my thesis of “unity by common cause”.
Surely he can't believe that confronted with indisputable evidence that we were lied to about 9/11 in such a monumental way that the existence of disagreement on certain aspects is going to cripple the movement with disunity, or does he?
In fact, this is exactly how COINTELPRO has worked in the past to render movements ineffective. A major part of this strategy was to intentionally create hostility within activist groups to halt progress towards movement goals.
For the definition of an ad hominem argument, Arabesque just happens to find the perfect source in a site defending the official holocaust narrative… as far as authorities on disinfo and dishonesty go, Arabesque has just joined John Albanese in the Pantheon of Self-Referential Experts.
I have to admit I was very puzzled by this comment. Perhaps, I should have known better to accidentally and carelessly quote a website which discusses Real Truther's “Self-Referential” area of “Authority”--the Holocaust.
And finally, a word to Arabesque--kiss my divisive ass, you friggin' shill! [Helpfully written in a size viewable for the elderly and reading impaired.
My apologizes to "Real Truther"--the name of a self-appointed "authority" if there ever was one, but I don’t kiss burning straw.
What was this evidence for a plane flying over the Pentagon instead of impacting it on 9/11? CIT found four witnesses claiming that the plane flew in a direction that would place it north of the CITGO gas station on 9/11. Ranke explains what he believes to be the significance of this evidence, “[nobody] directly refutes the north side claim. NOBODY! …until you can counter this evidence with stronger evidence there is a much higher probability that north side claim is accurate.” However, three of these same witnesses strongly suggested that the plane impacted the Pentagon, which is in direct conflict with the claim that the plane flew north of CITGO gas station since the physical damage could only be explained by a south approach.
CIT is infamous for their “take no prisoners” debating style best explained by Aldo Marquis, “I hate to say it, but unless anyone here can provide any new information and not their OPINION to effectively refute any of the evidence we have obtained, they should politely keep their comments to themselves,sit their [sic] quietly, and LEARN… This is not a debate club.This is war. Either you believe 911 was an inside job or you don't.” Craig Ranke explains similarly, “I am not here for debate. Sure I can debate with the best of them and I may come off as heavy handed or even arrogant… but… I have done the work and came back with proof.” When challenged about peer review of his flyover theory Ranke replied, “Peer reviewed! Sure! We want the entire world to review it.”
Circular Logic and the “Proven” North of CITGO Gas Station Flight Path
What is the basis for this “proof”? Craig Ranke correctly explains the value of evaluating evidence through corroboration:
“Everyone knows that eyewitness accounts are fallible but as they become corroborated the claim becomes exponentially validated. With enough corroboration,ALL claims can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. When we are talking about a simple right or left claim of this magnitude this is particularly the case. To get the side of the station wrong for people who were literally on the station's property would be a ridiculously drastic and virtually impossiblemistake to make that would require hallucinations. For all of them to hallucinate the same exact thing is simply not a viable consideration.”
Nobody saw a Global Hawk or Missile hit the Pentagon [true]
Nobody claims a commercial airliner flew over the Pentagon [true]
ALL Witnesses who claimed to have seen a plane strike the Pentagon weresimultaneously “fooled”. The evidence for this is that four witnesses gave accounts years after the attack that the plane flew north of the CITGO gas station, but still hit the Pentagon. [The “PentaCon” Eyewitness Hypothesis]
Of these eyewitnesses interviewed by CIT, William Lagasse falsely indicated where light poles were knocked down, while denying that others were knocked down. Amazingly, CIT implies that this does not affect the reliability of his flight path account—in fact, Ranke brazenly and disingenuously claims that it makes his testimony about the flight path even more credible:
How could Lagasse “not see the light poles” as Ranke suggests if he claimed that “there was a light pole here that was knocked down [pointing to an incorrect location]… none of these light poles over here were knocked down”—a falsestatement? If Lagasse didn’t see or remember seeing these light poles on the ground on 9/11, he presumably would have replied “I don’t know”, instead of “none of these light poles… were knocked down”. Lagasse also misplaced the location of the taxi cab to the location where he thought the light poles were knocked down. This factual error strongly suggests that Lagasse witnessed the plane where the actual light poles were knocked down—not where he mistakenly thought they were knocked down. Along with incorrectly placing the location of the damaged Taxi Cab and light poles, at the very least this puts the accuracy of his “smoking gun” testimony in doubt.
In summary, CIT has made these misleading claims about Lagasse:
They claim that he “did not see the light poles” when Lagasse specifically claims that light poles were “not knocked down” and others were “knocked down” in an incorrect location.
They claim that because he misplaced the location of the light poles it makes his testimony of the flight path more reliable, despite giving factually incorrect information
A C-130 “Diversion”, “Planted” Light Poles, Psy-op Trees, Radar Data and Videos “controlled by the perps”, and “Ludicrous” Theories
Putting aside this implausible scenario, how then to explain the knocked down light poles? When asked if he believed explosives were used to take them out Ranke replied incredulously, “We have never claimed explosives were used to bring down the light poles. That is ludicrous.” What was CIT’s “non-ludicrous” explanation?
“I would almost say that you are slightly mentally challenged or you are a dishonest operative trying to attribute words to us we've never said. WE NEVER SAID EXPLOSIVES WERE INVOLVED. Light poles were removed months in advance. A VDOT representative said "anything is possible" when it comes to them not being aware of a removal. No one would notice 5 light poles missing, that were removed in the middle of the night… 4 prefabbed light poles were laid out in the grass in inconspicuous areas in the night time/early am hours. You can't see the poles from the elevated highway. No one would be paying attention to light poles on the side of the road that they can't even see. Most people were looking straight ahead, on their cell phones, listening to their radio for news in NYC.”
The light pole damage is compelling for another reason as I stated in my original review of the PentaCon, “Even more significant is that the structural damage inside of the Pentagon aligns perfectly with the flight path as suggested by the light pole damage and generator… The filmmakers even acknowledge this point when they claim that the plane could not have caused the structural damage inside of the Pentagon if it approached from north of the CITGO gas station. This is very strong evidence that the PentaCon eyewitnesses are wrong. Not only is there physical evidence suggesting a plane hit the Pentagon, there is compelling eyewitness testimony corroborating what happened.”
Were these specially designated psy-op trees another part of the spectacularly complicated and convoluted “military deception” successfully carried out by the Pentagon attack planners? This claim is extremely dubious since as you can see in the photos for yourself; while these trees partially block a view of the Pentagon, they would not block any view of a potential Pentagon flyover. It is a stretch to say that these trees would even fully block the view of the plane if it hit the Pentagon. This is clearly one of the most disingenuous arguments promoted by the CIT investigators, bordering on deliberate disinformation. The sound of the plane impact and resulting silence afterwards is noted by several witnesses. Firefighter Allan Wallace was mere feet away from the impact zone at the Pentagon and described “a flash and a horrific crunch.”
The Truly Massive COINTELPRO and Spook Campaign to Hound CIT and “Neutralize” their “Smoking Gun” Evidence
The CIT researchers give us equally convoluted and absurd insinuations that they are being “neutralized” by a “COINTELPRO team” and “spooks”. CIT research Aldo Marquis describes “the ‘team’ that came out after to help reinforce [the 'official story']. ‘John Farmer’, ‘Arabesque’, and ‘Adam ‘Caustic Logic’ Larson’. There is not a doubt in my mind that we are dealing with ops here. I dare Adam Larson to provide a history and proof of his identity. I defy Arabesque to do the same. You can all laugh, but what they do is called ‘neutralization’. This is exactly what COINTEL, does…” Craig Ranke has also insinuated that Caustic Logic “made a sad attempt to neutralize our info… and he's a bad writer too. It's like he is a cointelpro flunkie but he keeps trying!” While Ranke says “neither [Arabesque or Caustic Logic] are smart enough to be actual cointelpro,” he contradicted himself elsewhere when he called Caustic Logic “a brainwashed minion of the Pickering/Hoffman/Arabasque [sic] squadrather than a professional.” Ranke sums up his dismay that “people like the Frustrated Fraud havedirected so much energy to spin and neutralization [sic] of the facts…”
These accusations of a campaign to discredit CIT’s “smoking gun” evidence were not limited to only 9/11 researchers; Aldo Marquis accused an entire online conspiracy theory forum of a conspiracy to manipulate their research: “Craig, I told you. ATS [Above Top Secret Forum] is trying to control the information. This thread should not have been moved to our forum. Yet it was. I am not putting up with this spook operation at ATS.” Aldo Marquis continued this accusation against members of the ATS forum as well as the administration saying, “and for the record I was against this BS forum to begin with… There is no answer that will ever satisfy the idiots and spooks on this forum. They get an answer and avoid it and carry on with their agenda.”
Similarly conspiratorial thinking was seen after a FOIA request finally forced the release of the CITGO gas station video camera video discussed above. Craig Ranke was up in arms with disgust, claiming that the video was altered with the intent to discredit his “smoking gun” proof claiming “…the video has been proven to be manipulated/altered before and after its released… all the witnesses at the Citgo did not see ANYTHING fly on the south side of the station. The plane and the plane only was on the north side of the Citgo. This was clearly a hasty, desperate response and poor attempt by the perps to discredit Robert Turcios AND the north side flight path.”
Or was this yet more obvious evidence that the PentaCon witness statements aren’t the “smoking gun” the CIT researchers disingenuously claim it to be?
If you can’t Beat em’ Join em’—CIT: the “Light Side” of the Force?
It cannot be denied that CIT is adamant and unwavering in their controversial beliefs. As Aldo Marquis says, “We are the good guys. We are the guys with the evidence and know how. We are the guys who put out lives on the line so you all could know what happened at the Pentagon.”
Obviously frustrated after many skirmishes with the brilliant Pentagon researcher Caustic Logic, Craig Ranke wrote an open letter, “Caustic Logic… Consider this letter a plea for logic and a friendly reaching out to get you to come over to the light side… I think it would be very effective if you were able to concede that you no longer believe in a 757 impact and even join forces with us if you will.” After a phone interview in November 2007, Caustic Logic was given another offer of “choosing to side with the more logical, reasonable, and scientific conclusion that the north side evidence is valid and committing to helping us spread the word with your blog.”
Like Caustic Logic, after writing my review of the PentaCon I was similarly given an offer to “join” their effort by Ranke, and later “a truce.I use hard rhetoric with people who deliberately set out to discredit our research and you are currently the ONLY one who has an active article against us still online… Because of your direct attacks against our information I have been particularly harsh with you and I apologize. I believe that you have honest intentions but are misguided. I promise to discuss information with you in a civil tone.” I did not remove my review as requested, while Caustic logic removed his article because “I never felt it was written or approached quite right… I will direct readers to Arabesque's far-superior critical review.”
The “take no prisoners” approach by Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis is frequently antagonistic in tone to anyone who doubts their “smoking gun proof”; this is but a short sample of their work:
“The fact that they all saw the plane on the north side proves that the plane was on the north side. If you STILL don't understand the implications of this then I doubt you have the mental capacity to ever understand. Most likely it is just denial.”
“I am not surprised that you would refuse and once again bail on this discussion without EVER having addressed the north side evidence directly. Some call that the ostrich syndrome.”
“It's ok, take some time, look at the ASCE report and think about. You'll eventually get it. ;)”
The “smoking gun” assault of the CIT debating team turns harsher and more vicious the more skeptical the adversary. In particular, other Pentagon researchers are especially derided, insulted, and antagonized by CIT:
Aldo Marquis: “You screwed everybody. You didn't do your homework. You made a movie that got heavily debunked and yet you CONTINUED TO SELL IT!!!!! You should be ashamed of yourself. Now you are releasing watered down version which now makes you and everybody who supported you look like fools. I actually back up my accusations with facts, research, evidence, and logic Dylan. That's not your department.”
“You are a fraud Russell Pickering. You hide on that forum and conduct your operation from there. But this will soon come to an end. Rob and I are looking for you pal, give us your number so we can discuss this like men AND RECORD IT. If you are right, you shouldn't be worried… It is so obvious what you are Russell, in fact, I am sure it is why you ‘moved’ and changed your phone number. I spent hours with you Russell. Hours. Now it all makes sense. Everything you did, your motives, your actions. It's so evident."
Craig Ranke: “Farmer.....you are by far the creepiest of the group. Every sentence you type reeks of manipulation. It's like you simply don't have the ability to express yourself honestly or openly. Your blogs are so completely vacuous yet simultaneously pretentious. No matter how confusing and pointless you make them you simply can't hide the fact that you have ulterior motives for posting them in the first place. It's quite sad and the fact that you pop up within seconds in whatever forum your name is mentioned makes it clear that you are obsessed with the 9/11 truth movement and haven't even come close to disassociating yourself with it as you had claimed you were doing after your unprovoked irrational public blow up against us in the LC forum because I posted one of your images.”
Craig Ranke: “Funny how you still slobber over Arabasque's [sic] ill-informed cut and paste compilation. Dude has clearly not analyzed a single one of these witness accounts.”
Aldo Marquis: “He is seriously corrupted in his motive, because this is apparently about the ‘Russell Pickering Show’ as I call it. This is about his theory. Not about the truth.”
“Do you realize what an affront you are to 9/11 truth? To argue in FAVOR of the official story with nothing but government data while claiming you are fighting for 9/11 truth is beyond hypocritical and borderlines on treason as far as I am concerned. You should be ashamed of yourself anonymous blogger.”
“The vast majority of people on this forum "doubt" this testimony proves 911 was an inside job. YOUR own poll proved it. MANY people who are hard core troothers weighed in with comments in that thread and said the film was, basically, a non-event. You were outvoted by somewhere in the neighborhood of 10-1. Sure, you claim that the "JFER'ers" somehow stuffed the ballot box but that doesn't explain why only 7 people HERE, in the [Loose Change] forum, agreed with you and Merc. This is getting old. You think you have a smoking gun.”
“I watched that Pentacon Movie..... Name is PERFECT.... we were CONNED to watch it… This Jack guy states that all the witnesses agree of what side of the Citgo station they see the plane. ALL of these witnesses ALSO claimed to have seen the plane slam into the pentagon. So, we are to take what they say about the location of the plane as Gospel yet dismiss what they say about the plane hitting the Pentagon.”
“I think you get so freaking pissed off because you went and spent time, effort, and money to DC, created the Pentacon flick, and people still don't believe it. I think you go beserk because you REALLY believe it is a smoking gun but most people do not. I certainly don't. I respect the fact that you and Craig went there. I really do. But you have to respect the fact that it doesn't convince everyone. And just because we're not convinced, you don't know how to handle it without insults of "troll" and ‘JREF’er’.”
“The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.” - Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science, section 191
On the Scholars for 9/11 Truth Forum, Victoria Ashley correctly summarized the critical problem with the flyover hypothesis as promoted by the CIT researchers, “If I were a person trying to sell a product and I did a survey of people and found that people ranked my product the best, would you trust that survey? This is why there are scientific standards. You are not looking for the truth when you do not consider all the evidence as a body. You are looking for what people said that can then support your thesis, whatever it may be. This is non-scientific, unfortunately. I don't say that to be rude or to say what your intentions are, only to underscore that the only type of investigation of the Pentagon that is sincere about being a scientific investigation is one thatdoes not discard evidence or make claims about evidence as though the claims are factual when they are not.”
As for the flyover theory, it is not directly supported by any witness statements as acknowledged by CIT. Instead, CIT makes the claim that the witnesses who claimed the Pentagon were struck were “fooled”. In order to “support” this theory (frequently referencing the “proven” north of CITGO gas station flight path), CIT makes the following hypothetical and clearly deceptive and disingenuous claims:
A carefully timed “illusion” enabled a flyover
Witnesses were confused with the other planes in the area despite their significantly different appearances, locations, speeds, and altitudes
The fireball allowed the plane to fly past the Pentagon without anyone noticing
The Pentagon trees were used to disguise the plane from impacting the building, completely ignoring the fact that they would not prevent witnesses from seeing the plane fly over the building
The light poles were taken down in the middle of the night and planted on the crime scene without anyone noticing or reporting this happened
The video evidence contradicting both the north side claim and the flyover are “manipulated by the perps” to counter CIT’s “smoking gun” evidence
The alleged flight path North of the CITGO gas station is considered “proven” despite the contrary evidence that three of these same witnesses claim that the plane hit the Pentagon
Radar data which clearly contradicts the flyover theory is dismissed as “controlled by the perps”
The CIT researchers frequently and falsely interpret criticism of their theory as a personal attack along with accusations of government sponsored “neutralization”. As the flyover theory is clearly unsupported by any credible evidence, the CIT theorists frequently rely on vicious, slanderous, and libelous ad hominem attacks and antagonism to those who dare to question their flyover theory. Any disagreement with the “smoking gun” evidence is derided with hostility on internet forums, while any criticism of the theory is largely interpreted as an “attack” or “spook operation”. Pentagon researchers in particular, are highlighted for accusations including “treason”, “supporting the official story”, “COINTELPRO”, and “brainwashed”. Similarly, any witnesses who contradict the north claim are called “propaganda”, “agents”, and in the case of a taxi cab driver, “the devil”. Aside from the weakly supported flyover hypothesis,whether intentional or not, the ridiculous antics and outrageous behavior of the CIT researchers are damaging and destructive to the credibility of the 9/11 truth movement.
A comprehensive summary of the ongoing disinformation, ad-hominem attacks, threats, and accusations by supporters of the Kennebunkport Warning against Cindy Sheehan, the anti-war activists, and investigators of the controversy
Before we begin, let me provide some background. What promoted the deluge of inflammatory comments below? Cosmos said the following on his show Truth Revolution Radio:
[False Statements/Disinformation highlighted in Red. Ad-hominem commentary and Personal Attacks highlighted in Purple or HTML Links.] “Who opposes the Kennebunkport warning? We discovered going through this that if you take all the slanderous filth, counter-organizing, disinformation and so forth, about two-thirds of it comes from about half a dozen people as far as I can see. And let's tell you who they are. First of all, you have to look at the site called truthaction.org. As far as I can see about two-thirds of the site appears to be devoted to slanders and vilification of the Kennebunkport Warning.This shows what one can only call the typical style of the counter-gang. In other words it takes elements from lots of people's work including my own. They talk about truth squads, they have a candidate tracker, they talk about a general strike, they take things from Ron Paul, they take things from We Are Change, but then they mix in a huge dose of anonymous slander, vilification, denigration, calumny, libel, and defamation. The leading poison pen seems to be an individual called Cosmos. Now this I think is extremely objectionable. Here is somebody who will not tell you his realname but he demands the right to be a poison pen.Anonymous slanders are his stock and trade. He wants to slander you and vilify you from the shadows, spread disinformation, distortions. These are the venom-mongers, the merchants of puswho like to operate from behind the scenes.These are the wreckers and saboteurs, and of course the question is posed: Is this COINTELPRO?Is this the conform of the FBI counter-gang? Those are interesting questions. I can't answer them, but they are very interesting.
Then we have somebody else called Colonel Jenny Sparks in quotation marks. She shows herself as a cartoon figure prancing in an abbreviated costume before the Union Jack. Another poison pen slanderer, another wrecker and saboteur. The only questions we have are, is this COINTELPRO, is this the current style of the FBI counter-gang?
So here we have Cosmos who shows you he looks like he's trying to imitate Che Guavara or a member of the Sons of David baseball team. He's hiding behind a huge beard, looks like the Italian aviators in A Night at the Opera.He's got this army fatigue cap pulled down over his eyes so you can't see him, he might as well be anonymous. Jenny Sparks [is] completely anonymous.
Michael Wolsey, Visibility 9/11. He appears of course in shades, he's got some cool shades on,he doesn’t want you to see him. Remember visibility911.com is not the same as 911visibility.org. 911visibility.org is a reputable website; you have Janice Matthews and many others who work there. This is visibility911.com with Michael Wolsey. Another person who has been active in these slander operations is somebody called Arabesque. Arabesque has a blog devoted to discussing 9/11 news research and disinformation, and I think the disinformation department is absolutely admirable. He seems to have all the disinformation you could want.He's pushing it and peddling it on this sleazy, smelly website. So thats arabesque911.blogspot.com.
The interesting thing about these people is that they all appear in the year 2006, 2007. What's their track record in the 9/11 truth movement?Do they have any? Do they have contributions? Have they done anything to build the movement? Who are they? They come out of nowhere and then they set themselves up as leaders.Cosmos in particular starts saying that it's time for everybody to get active on the eleventh on every month. Well we don't need him to tell us this and to take credit for it.
I'm afraid also Jon Gold is somebody who has been in the movement,puts his blog at Arabesque and he has joined in the slanders. These people have practiced a constructive fraud on public opinion.I think they operate with multiple pseudonyms. We do not know who they are. Colonel Jenny Sparks for all we know may be a cigar-chomping FBI agent or a branch of Shin Bet somewhere in the Occupied Territories or a subcommittee of the National Security Council. We simply do not know.
Colonel Jenny Sparks appears with no face. Arabesque has no face. Cosmos has got the cap pulled down over his eyes. Michael Wolsey's got his shades on. These are the poison pens and the slander snipers and these are the people you have to watch out for.
And I think it is monstrous that a lot of people who have been in the 9/11 movement and have seen COINTELPRO in action in past years are now willing to go down this road once again with disinformation, distortion and the constant mania of people who insist on operating under false names,anonymous slanderers. It's a despicable way to wage political activity.” [transcript by CV]
"This next part is nothing that I wanted to do, but I have to include it because it's been forced on me. Who's against the Kennebunkport Warning? Who really doesn't like it? Who's out there slandering it—slandering the document? How about slandering me? I'm used to it. We have five experts in slander, with no track record in this movement—people who came out of nowhere, in 2006-2007. No achievements. No track record. No credibility.They come into the movement and say "alright, we're the bosses now; we're going to tell you what to do." And then they affect the [inaudible]. We've counted about five or six people as far as we know have written about two thirds of all the slanders. And this raises this unavoidable question—I know it's distasteful, I know it's [the 9/11] anniversary, but the situation is so extreme, that having a chance to talk to people about this, I'm afraid I have to do it. There's one called truthaction.org… and they have all the stuff—it's sounds like… Ron Paul. It sounds like We Are Change. It sounds like me! It sounds like truth squads, truth candidates, general strike—but, when you look at this site, about three quarters of it is devoted to slandering the Kennebunkport Warning. And for some reason, me. Me! [pointing to himself with both hands]
Here's the guy: Cosmos. This is a poison pen. Here is a guy who wants to slander you from behind a cover name. He won't tell you who he is. And look at him, where is his face? He's got that hat on. You can't see who he is, or he says: "I'm not going to show you my face and I'm not going to show you my name and I'm going to slander you." The guy is a weapon [?]. Is this COINTELPRO? Is this a [FBI] counter-gang? Thanks to my counter-intelligence, we've now figured out who's behind it. You may remember Shamil Basayev, the leader of the Chechen terrorists. The Russians think to have killed him in 2006—just about the time that Cosmos came forward. [photo shown]
Isn't it amazing? But he's not the only one.
Colonel Jenny Sparks. We're supposed to have a debate with Colonel Jenny Sparks, who has no face, and no name! Another one of the poison pen brigade.Thanks our counterintelligence, we know who Jenny Sparks is. [photo shown]She has a certain mystique.
How about Michael Wolsey? Anybody know him? He appears here… You think you know him—visibility 9/11. Notice the sunglasses.He wants to show you his face behind the shades. He takes the shades off, here's who he is. [Picture from X-men movie with character "Multiple Man" shown] Multiple Man.Because he has a thousand—multiple pseudonyms. He calls himself 911visibility or visibility 911? Do you think you're getting 911visibility—that's a reputable site. It has Janice Matthews and a lot of people from 911truth.org. But visibility911 is a completely different kettle of fish.
Then we have Arabesque. Another slanderer. He's got a whole blog—nothing but slander.We've been able to find his true identity. [photo shown] Jon Gold, writes for Arabesque." [Transcript by Arabesque]
[See a response to these accusations here, here, and here. Jon Gold has never posted on my site, but I have linked to blogs by him. We do not oppose the warning (in fact I offered my research to support it), we oppose the divisive conduct of the Kennebunkport Warning promoters, which is continued by Webster Tarpleyin his attacks against us. We are not "CoIntelPro", and we ask that Tarpley supply actual evidence to support this serious accusation (of which, we know he has none). Being opposed to divisive language does not count as evidence of being a "CoIntelPro agent" or "cigar chomping FBI agent".]
When you attack someoneinstead of answering their argument or complaint it is called an ad-hominem. The above passages have to be some of the most colorfully vitriolic examples seen so far in the 9/11 truth movement. From my paper, 9/11 Disinformation and Misinformation: Definitions and Examples:
These statements by Tarpley were just the beginning of the onslaught. Earlier, Webster’s publisher, John Leonard entered the fray calling 911blogger users “sock puppets” here, here, and here for being voted down and then posted a “call for unity” from of all places, Tarpley’s book. It was voted down unmercifully by 911blogger users.
Tarpley’s comments after this controversy began included:
“Reality is that the signers signed – the irrefutable, photographic, courtroom quality documentary proof is posted on the internet. In the light of this overwhelming evidence, it is understandable that most of the signers are reluctant to issue a flat denial that they ever signed. Rather, their denials are oblique and ambiguous doubletalk.”
“And you cannot be an antiwar leader and be an agnostic about this, claiming you simply do not know or that you do not understand the concept of false flag. If you choose that cop-out, what kind of a peace leader are you?”
"From the beginning, supporters of Kennebunkport have argued that the four signers who claimed they did not sign, and then deplorably covered their retreat with a barrage of wild charges of forgery, most probably did so because they feared that their foundation funding might be terminated."
"Some of the signers, under the obvious threats of totalitarian forces, are lying in appalling fashionabout what they signed and if they signed. You can see for yourself from the facsimile who signed. We need to move beyond thesewretched individuals.[sic]"
"From now on, as a rule of thumb, it will be fair to say that those seeking to tear down the Philadelphia and Kennebunkport convergence clearly represent the running dogs of the Ford Foundation, operating as stooges, pawns, foot soldiers and water carriers for the infamous Berlet, and deserving to be exposed as such.Whether they are conscious, paid agents or merely dupes can be determined later on."
"Thanks to Berlet, all foundation operatives in the domestic cointelpro apparatus now know who their immediate enemy is. Everyone who is foundation funded knows where their bread is buttered, and they are expected to earn their pay by reacting accordingly. Watch them as they come forward. Persons of good will can also use the Berlet slander as a reliable moral guide to what is actually going on here, and join the growing and distinguished list of supporters of the Kennebunkport warning at actindependent.org."
"We come now to the segment of counter intelligence andthis of course our dear friends over atthe Berlet Brigade, the Ford Foundation Berlet Brigade. These are the four individuals--psudomyms that you know--or don't know, the nameless, faceless ones....of course, Jenny Sparks, Cosmos, Arabesque and uh Micheal Wolsley.Some of them have a third of a face, some of them have three quarters of a face, most have no names... They have essentially been wrapped up into a neat package with their leader Chip Berlet as they march under the banner of the Ford Foundation--by an artist who portrayed them in a very ironic lampoonthat you can see up at actindependent.org or at the Rense.com, um, website."
"As for the scurrilous “Cosmos,” “Colonel Jenny Sparks,” “Arabesque,” and Michael Wolsey, to say nothing of their comrade in arms, the Ford Foundation’s favorite Chip Berlet, they have no interest in doing anything to stop the new 9/11 and the threatened war with Iran. Their sole focus is to harass and sabotage those who are undertaking action in that regard – and remarkably effective action it has turned out to be, despite the exertions of the wreckers."
[this was sent by email and is believed to have been written by Webster Tarpley]
"Dear friends - 9/11 blogger has been purchased by a mysterious millionaire from Texas, who for all we know could be Karl Rove or Neil Bush.
[911blogger] is being run by ['George Washington'],who has chosen to support the Ford Foundation's Chip Berlet and his allies (Arabesque, Cosmos, Wolsey, and "Col. Jenny Sparks", all unknown people who joned [sic] 9/11 in 2006 primarily) in a series of attacks on the Kennebunkport Warning and its supporters. Wolsey has also attacked Thierry Meyssan, Gerhard Wisnewski, and myself. [...] reprehensor, who had been my contact there, is a person of ability and character, but he has been driven out by the new management. 911blogger can no longer be relied upon for anything. We are trying to do an intelligence job to figure out who the new owner is. We also need to know more about this ['George Washington']. Our cartoon sums up the situation -- enclosed. We need to find other channels for publicity -- this one is useless for the moment."
US Senate Candidate Leland Lehrman, an associate of Webeter Tarpley writes:
"My first reaction to the controversy was to hope for reconciliation, but there appears to be no way to make this happen. Mr. Tarpley is adamant that the arrival of Chip Berlet of the Ford Foundation is evidence of a major counterorganizing initiative and he is decisive that even those who cannot be proven agents must be warned of the consequences of their alliance, intentional or otherwise."
[False statements/Disinformation labeled in red. Ad-hominem/irrelevant personal commentary highlighted in purple. See a response to these accusations here, here, and here.
Unlike Tarpley, we have accumulated "massive evidence" to support our assertion that the Kennebunkport Warning promoters are being divisiveand abusive.]
Tarpley’s fellow LaRouche associate and signer of the Kennebunkport Warning, Craig Hill piled on with gusto:
“I'm beginning to think more and more that the peace movement is very much more infiltrated, and controlled even by elements of the perpetrators, coming from the perpetrators than even the 9-11 movement... And the reason I say that is that it seems now on 911blogger, which is supposedly THE authority on the internet such as it is for all things 9-11, has taken the side of these people who I call the Dahliar 4. In other words, the Dah-Liar 4. D-A-H-L-I-A-R Just put an R at the end of the name Dahlia.”
Craig Hill also wrote the following to Kennebunkport Warning investigator Jenny Sparks via email:
"Unlike Web, who detects the smell of scum from the other side of the computer, i do not for a minute believe the cartoon known as Col Jenny Sparks draws a paycheck from the govt outside welfare. He (not a Jenny, tho probably a wannabe)is too young and too ignorant of too much and too many in the movement, by his own admission. His cutesypie writing style is immaturely directed to impress his little audience of equally insignificant fellow underachieving pseudo-9/11aware couch potato typists. He is likely a mischevious youngish man (lives at home with mom, bangs away all day at a computer in the basement) with way too much malicious time on his hands to do anything worthwhile with his little miserable bug-like existence. Thinks it's cool to say "squire", "guv", "sunbeam" (wow!) and (oh, that iconoclastic striking out at Authority!) "Webbie", which his little circle of even younger giggling apolitical boy/girl buds who look up to him think is so de rigeur. Thinks he reveals his worldy wise knowledge of inner circle talk to intro his gigglers to Nico as if Web didn't know him (yawn), "warning" Web that Nico means trouble, oooooh, "watch out!", you heard it first from the Drudge [his hero] of the pseudo-9/11 movement, the Cartoon Col. As if any of his drivel is important beyond his pathetic little ego, his laughable little cutesypie insistence to "Apologize!" to the Dahliar 4, who have done nothing to further anything ever in the 9/11 movement for which they have nothing but contempt for having lied about signing the sheet they knew they signed, not giving a flying fuck for the lives of the Iranians who could jolly well melt like a grilled cheese sandwich under the coming onslaught of the buscists [sic?] Jenny and they embraced by not denouncing the attack before the event, which is all Bruce and Web were interested in forestalling. But no, little boyJeniffer proves Dahlia is the idiot she really is for accepting his apology for the entire 9/11 movementhe has absofuckinglutely nothing to do with, at any point, ever, including before his pathetic bug-like existence down in mommy's basement." [False statements marked in red. 'Jenny Sparks' is indeed a woman]
As if this was not enough evidence of divisive behavior, Dan Abrahamson, a Tarpley associate and supporter/signer of the Kennebunkport Warning wrote:
"(Look at these poor saps... the sign blaming it all on the "neocons" is the biggest joke of all, not only unsupported by the facts, but also foolishly pitting the 911 issue in the left-right paradigm. As if these problems will stop after Cheney leaves office? This photo is yet more ammunition exposing how brainwashed the 911 conspiranoid cultists have become. There. I said it... And why do 911Blogger and similarlydemoralizing, heavily censored cult hangoutspromote these kinds of photos? Let us pity these three men, who probably think they are practicing "activism" with their public cult recruiting)." [False statements/Disinformation marked in red]
“Tarpley was making the point to me that in going into the emotionality of the various reasons why these people might be doing what they’re doing turns the whole 9/11 operation into an internal soap-opera activity which is from a disinformation or political standpoint ideal for our opponents in this struggle, because it makes it impossible for us to actually use our understanding to actively campaign against their current agenda… ” [Misleading Statements marked in red. Read this post for yourself and ask yourself why Mr. Tarpley and his associates have spent so much of their energy attacking us?]
These comments are attributed to emails by Captain Eric May, another supporter of the Kennebunkport Warning:
"I believe that... the more prolific of our antagonists in the Kennebunkport Warning matter were professional agitators. To take one example, 'Colonel Jenny Sparks' was harassing both the Oregon Truth Alliance and Portland Nuclear Inquest (which I lead) in the weeks before the Kennebunkport Warning. In typical agitator fashion, she claimed to do so in order to defend the 911 Truth Movement and debunk our "alarmism" for alerting Portland to the dangers the nuclear simulation, Operation Noble Resolve. She and cohorts infiltrated both group lists and hurled monkey wrenches in every direction before getting the boot. As a lasting memorial of the encounter, they then set up their own user group, made up of a mixed set of a dozen agitators and useful idiots, largely dedicated to damning me and browbeating [other local activists]. Every once in awhile I read it for amusement."
"I wasn't referring to Cosmos in my comments about the disinformation efforts being conducted at 9/11Blogger. Candidly, I can't remember any particular comments by Cosmos. As for the equally pseudonymic Jenny Sparks and Arabesque, it's easier for me to have an informed opinion about them. Were I not busier with more important things, I think I could come up with a pretty good article identifying those who are either actual COINTELPRO or merely useful idiots being manipulated by COINTELPRO, and perhaps even grouped them according to the cells within which they work. In some cases over the last four years, my associates and I have even been able to trice [sic] COINTELPRO agents back to their FBI handlers." [False statements/disinformation marked in red]
Eric May accused those of investigating the Kennebunkport Warning of being "trained COINTELPRO professionals" and "military assets" in an interview with Webster Tarpley:
"Uh, with Jenny Sparks I think you're at both ends--I think she uses professional cointelpro cooperation and then useful idiots where ever they can be found... They're... trained cointelpro professionals--agitprop activists--and their job is not to produce positive analysis.If you can look far and near for any article of any consequence, by any of these people and you'll not find it. But what you'll find is a constant rat-a-tat of criticism against anyone else's work. And that is because their mission is not to develop the area of 911 analyses, or the next 911 prediction--it's to impede 911 analysis and prediction. So, these are classic disinformation tactics… you have to realize there are organized cointelpro cells… I've run into half a dozen of them. Anything from military professionals who went by rank, although would not sign their work, to, you know, cute synonyms like Arabesque or Jenny Sparkswho would not sign their work… they usually coalesce and target specific points. You have to see them as military assets."
Jim Fetzer, a signer and supporter of the Kennebunkport Warning commented on Webster Tarpley's radio show:
Now, I think that those of 911Blogger need to wake up and smell the roses--the movement has been massively infiltrated, and they maybe unable to sort things out. One of the reasons being that is a closely closed operation on Blogger. They operate with a kind of group think, Webster, where anyone who veers outside of a certain narrowly defined channel of research is assaulted savagely, verbally on the list. [False statements marked in red]
In response to questions about the Kennebunkport Warning, LaRouche associate and (you guessed it), signer of the warning Bruce Marshall blew up in anger at Cosmos on his radio show:
Bruce Marshall: There’s a lot of divisiveness.
Cosmos: And calling people “wretched individuals” and “appalling liars” is not… bridge-building behavior...
Bruce Marshall: [interrupting] and who’s doing that? Who’s doing that? [inaudible]
Cosmos: I feel... these woman deserve an apology...
Bruce Marshall: Well, where were they being called wretched individuals?
Cosmos: ...they said they “wished the authors of this warning well… they were very courteous. So all the hatred, and all the animosity is coming from the people who promoted this document, and it really doesn’t add up… a lot of us in the movement really don’t want people who are claiming to represent us treating leaders from the anti-war movement in such a way.
Bruce Marshall: [In an angry voice:] You are talking to me in very disrespectful way. Do you know what you’re doing? [...] You are doing something that is—is despicable here! Now you listen up! [...] You don’t know the story, Sir. People have—you don’t have the story kid. […]
Cosmos: Do you think there’s any chance to heal this with these women, maybe offer an apology for the language that’s been hurled at them, publicly?
Bruce Marshall: [Yelling] Oh! Why don’t you talk about the language that’s been hurled at Janine! Calling her a liar, calling me a liar!
Cosmos: I haven’t seen any of that.
Bruce Marshal: [angry voice:] You, you, you aren’t understanding the facts, that’s why you interrupt me when I tell you about what things are! I really shouldn’t have come on this show, because I understand that there’s, there’s—it’s being negative towards healing. You are actually acting in a divisive way! Ok
Cosmos: Really?
Bruce Marshall: [angry voice:] You don’t understand what’s going on!
Cosmos: […] I don’t know what to make of all this, maybe if these guys want to calm down, and join us at a later time, we can try to resolve this a bit more.
Yet another LaRouche associate, Laurie Dobson speculated that the anti-war signers were afraid:
What evidence did she offer to support these statements? Nothing. Not only did they not present any evidence, Webster Tarpley admitted in his 9/11 power-point presentation that he was only guessing that the anti-war activists were afraid:
"They began to receive pressure, they were intimidated—I'm only guessing, I know how these things works.Intimidated. Threatened."
As for the investigators of the Kennebunkport Warning Controversy, Cosmos of Truthaction has been getting vicious “hate mail” from a signer of the warning for covering this controversy, warning him not to investigate it.An anonymous YouTube poster began posting videos of Webster Tarpley and Captain May attacking the Kennebunkport Warning investigators along with text messages accusing us of belonging to "Al Qaeda". Annonymous Blogs, Videos, and emails (quite possibily but not proven to be individuals associated with the Kennebunkport warning) posted objectionable content including threats of violence against 9/11 truth activists and those investigating the controversy surrounding the Kennebunkport Warning.
All of these statements are documented and many are linked to in their original sources. Others are emails, and a few of them are attributed statements.
9/11 activists Arabesque, Jenny Sparks, Cosmos, and Michael Wosley are COINTELPRO, "organized COINTELPRO cells","trained COINTELPRO professionals"
9/11 activists Arabesque, Jenny Sparks, Cosmos, and Michael Wosley are stooges, pawns, foot soldiers, or dupes
9/11 activists Arabesque, Jenny Sparks, Cosmos, and Michael Wosley work for the Ford Foundation
9/11 activists Arabesque, Jenny Sparks, Cosmos, and Michael Wosley work for Chip Berlet
9/11 activists Arabesque, Jenny Sparks, Cosmos, and Michael Wosley are slanders, poison pens, saboteurs, and wreckers
9/11 activists Arabesque, Jenny Sparks, Cosmos, and Michael Wosley are part of an "FBI Counter Gang"
9/11 activists Arabesque, Jenny Sparks, Cosmos, and Michael Wosley are "military assets"
9/11 activists Arabesque, Jenny Sparks, Cosmos, and Michael Wosley are "professional agitators"
9/11 activists Arabesque, Jenny Sparks, Cosmos, and Michael Wosley could be "working under multiple pseudonyms"
9/11 activists Arabesque, Jenny Sparks, Cosmos, and Michael Wosley have not produced"any article of any consequence"
9/11 activists Arabesque, Jenny Sparks, Cosmos, and Michael Wosley are members of "Al Qaeda"
9/11 activist Jenny Sparks is a "He (not a Jenny, [though] probably a wannabe)", a "little boy"
9/11 activist Comos is a "Chechen terrorist"
9/11 activist Jenny Sparks could be a "cigar chomping FBI agent"
9/11 activist Jenny Sparks could "work for a branch of Shin Bet somewhere in the Occupied Territories or a subcommittee of the National Security Council"
Cindy Sheehan and four other anti-war activists are "wretched individuals" and "appalling liars"--they joined together (in a conspiracy) to deny signing a document (after signing it) because they are scared of "losing their foundation funding" and "authoritarian forces".
I believe that the Kennebunkport Warning promoters should explain why they are acting in this divisive manner. It is not our responsibility to provide a motive for their actions.
Here is how respected 9/11 researcher Jim Hoffman characterized the Kennebunkport Warning Controversy on Cosmos' radio show:
It’s so clear. What possible motive would there be someone to go making these vicious characterizations of these really well known peace activists like Cindy Sheehan… When people like [Cosmos], Arabesque, and Wolsey report on it, to be viciously attacked by Tarpley with all these ridiculous accusations of COINTELPRO…?Very entertaining to watch, very vivid, just lurid—it’s ridiculous. It’s all just completely concocted, he makes it sound like you, and Wolsey and these people that he’s saying are COINTELPRO just popped up in the last year is just an utter lie. I think it’s a really good test of whether people are really in this in the benefit of our movement: are going to tolerate this sort of thing? Where are the voices of the alleged leaders of the 9/11 truth movement about this and similar incidents? I think the silence from some quarters is deafening.
A Blog Devoted to Discussing 9/11 News, Research, and Disinformation
"When we act, we create our own reality"
“The aide said that guys like me were ‘in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who ‘believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.’ I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ‘That's not the way the world really works anymore… We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.'"
“Arabesque is the best writer in the movement, bar none. Arabesque writes with great clarity on all areas of the 9-11 cover-up, meticulously documenting each point through the use of extensive endnotes. Arabesque has also proven that he isn’t afraid to take on the disinformation specialists who would serve to discredit legitimate questions, research, and evidence which would directly contradict the 'official conspiracy theory' about the events of September 11th, 2001. This, I believe, is one of the most important issues facing the 9-11 movement today.” — Michael Wolsey, Visibility 9-11
"Arabesque, I found a photo of you at a 9/11 conference... Oh yeah...by the way[...] the plane approached on the north side of the Citgo." 
