9/11 Truth – The Key To Stopping World War III

Resolution submitted to the 911 Chicago Truth Conference by Webster Tarpley.

I was talking to Webster at the conference and he asked me to post this on the Blogger. He had been distributing the following document to everyone at the conference and was hoping to have a vote on it either during or after Robert Bowman's speach. Unfortunately, I had to catch a train and couldn't wait for the speach, so I'm not sure if a vote was ever taken.

Anyway, download the document Here.

In the document, Webster plainly states that the notion of LIHOP is gravely deficient to the movement since it suggests that independent entities as "Al Qaeda" might actually exist and could possibly orchestrate an event such as 9/11.

Because of this, Webster is asking all of us to commit to the MIHOP scenario and form a united front of groups and organizations for action on thes points over the remaining months of 2006:

  1. The Vermont Green Party is the first state party to call for the impeachment of Bush-Cheney based on their 9/11 crimes, with the first article against Bush for misprision of high treason. This approach should be replicated everywhere. Our movement is the cutting edge of impeachment, and we must guarantee that the impeachment groundswell includes the 9/11 element without which it will falter.
  2. We will take back the air waves from the corporate media with a relentless barrage of phone calls to C-SPAN, Air America, and to every television and radio talk show in this country and beyond, all for the purpose of placing 9/11 truth at the top of the national agenda. This guerrilla war can bring our message to tens of millions of people every day, circumventing the gatekeepers.
  3. We will support candidates of any party or of no party who embrace 9/11 truth. We will focus national attention on key candidacies like those of Carol Brouillet for Congress in California, Bob Bowman for Congress in Florida, Craig Hill in Vermont, and others. We also wish to direct international attention to the candidacy of Irish 9/11 truth movement leader Morgan Stack to the Dail (Parliament of the Republic of Ireland) for the district of Cork South Central.
  4. We will continue our surveillance of drills and exercises to raise the political price the invisible government must pay if it seeks to carry out new crimes.
  5. While stressing that the MIHOP historical and political analysis of 9/11 is already conclusive, we urge that 9/11 deep throats and whistleblowers come forward, both to testify and to produce additional written or recorded evidence of courtroom quality on the scale of the Watergate tapes that can put the September criminals behind bars.
  6. In the event that Bush-Cheney seek to impose martial law, we will agitate for an open-ended general strike of the civil rights movement, the labor movement, immigrant groups, minorities, students, and all persons of good will to demand the restoration of Constitutional rule.

This resolution by Webster is sponsored by numerous groups, all of which are listed in the full document. Please download the entire document and read it through, maybe we'll get a chance to vote on it. If anyone knows if it was actually voted on at the conference, please let us know in the comments below.

MIHOP is the only way 9/11

MIHOP is the only way 9/11 could have been guaranteed a success.i dont think this group would have risked a LIHOP failure.they had to make sure things went smoothly.that means MIHOP to me.
Chris | Homepage | 06.05.06 - 5:45 pm | #

Agreed... i think the

Agreed... i think the difference between LIHOP and MIHOP is pretty slim anyway.

i mean is EGLS a lihop...? seems to have MIHOP undertones...

i mean is EGLS a lihop...?

i mean is EGLS a lihop...? seems to have MIHOP undertones...
Anonymous | 06.05.06 - 6:12 pm | #
yeah,some of it, but EGLS made an obvious effort not to broach subjects like controlled demolition that would no doubt be MIHOP. still a great film,its just ashame it didnt take the fianl steps.

EGLS starts with LIHOP

EGLS starts with LIHOP groundwork instead of jumping into speculation. Of course 9/11 is MIHOP. When I've argued LIHOP, it's simply to say to the people calling us tinfoils that "at the very least, it was allowed to happen".

However, I strongly differ with Tarpley who says al Qaeda is a myth and had no part of 9/11. He obviously has no idea then who funded and trained al Qaeda, the Pakistani ISI close ties, rogue agencies of the US and how the US needed Arab hijackers on those planes.

pocky, here is what Tarpley

pocky, here is what Tarpley says about al qaeda being a myth:
they assume that some such independent entity as “al Qaeda” really exists, and really has the capability of producing the results seen on 9/11.

do you disagree with that? it looks like you probably do agree with Tarpley, just not his wording.i dont think Tarpley is suggesting there is absolutely no such thing as al qaeda, just thats its not what most think it is.i could be wrong though.

Tarpley used the phrase

Tarpley used the phrase "independent entity" to describe Al Qaeda. His point being this group did not originate on its own, it was created by the globalists.

A bunch of guys living in caves didn't get together and create "Al Qaeda".

Ok, by that I definately

Ok, by that I definately agree. I just get annoyed when people say "no Arabs were involved in 9/11". No, that would be a massive mistake to not have had Arabs involved.

The fact that the 19

The fact that the 19 drug-trafficers-in-training were far too incompetent to mastermind & carrying out this thing (even with Osama) tells me MIHOP.

I can fully support the

I can fully support the resolution. Thankyou to all the people who participated.

Tarpley is a fear-monger. It

Tarpley is a fear-monger. It UPs his ratings and makes him seem important.

Conceded. Much of his stuff SHOULD be mainstream and isn't. Yet he must stop pushing the nuclear war line. He is not the PrimeMinister of any country.

Most PMs have advisors who know exactly whats going on. They do not want war. Tarpley may find it personally echilarating to uncover the spookery, but there is sooo much more... if he only knew.

Oh, I forgot. A sure sign he

Oh, I forgot.

A sure sign he knows of his limitations is that he finds scornful words for Chomsky.

Unlike Tarpley Chomsky knows more than he lets on, but is disciplined to not scare the people, and insisting that people learn about stuff Chomsky is 100% SURE that is will be helpful and can be used for CONSEQUENTIAL action.

Tarpley, like Alex Jones, is not disciplined... both are happy sensationalists.

Not that the topic the talk about isn't sensational.... it is.

But they like most half-witted guestimator truthers do not take care to be helpful and honorable.

OK that may not be their task in life. There must be rabblerousers, too.

But please take THEM with a grain of salt... but take Chomsky 100% seriously.

If you don't belive me... take the test:

listen to an hours worth of TARPLEY
and hr of Chomsky

listen to it 20 times

listen to it over the course of 5 years.

tarpley with make you puke after a while.

chomsky is a breeze.

"Chomsky is 100% SURE that

"Chomsky is 100% SURE that is will be helpful and can be used for CONSEQUENTIAL action."

Exactly where is that "consequential action"? I once followed the established left closely but don't see them making a bit of difference in stopping the neocon sociopaths despite all of the book sales.

I agree with what Webster

I agree with what Webster Tarpley wrote in his Resolution. The massive amounts of hardcore evidence prove the 9/11 attacks were staged by the U.S. government from beginning to end, and al-Qaeda was created by the CIA and has never been anything other than a tool of the Western intelligence agencies.

Concerning Noam Chomsky, he knows which side his bread is buttered on, and he knows who's doing the buttering: the U.S. Department of Defense, as well as a number of other U.S. government agencies, which give a great deal of funding to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. MIT is the number one non-profit Department of Defense contractor in the U.S. For more on that, see:

"MIT research heavily dependent on defense department funding," Daniel J. Glenn, The Tech, Vol. 109, No. 7, February 28, 1989, pg. 5:


See also the below article by Benjamin Merhav ( http://www.geocities.com/bmerhav/ ), an Israeli Jew, in which he analyzes Noam Chomsky's motivations in regard to supporting the government of Israel, in addition to the MIT funding issue:

"More on the Treachery of Noam Chomsky," Benjamin Merhav, Double Standards, September 27, 2005:


See also:

"Noam Chomsky vs. Noam Chomsky," Frank Speiser, LewRockwell.com, March 30, 2005:


Frank Speiser's above article references the below article by Noam Chomsky, wherein Chomsky supports enacting the draft (i.e., what Chomsky calls "a citizen's army"):

"The Draft," Noam Chomsky, ZNet Blogs, December 17, 2004:


Chomsky is a gatekeeper. to

Chomsky is a gatekeeper. to say he is better than Alex Jones in any way is disgusting based on what Chomsky doesnt report on. im so far to the left, i would obviously agree with Chomsky over Jones on most issues,but this is about more than politics, and Chomsky is a coward. you say its being tactful, i disagree, i think hes just a money hungry coward.say what you will about Tarpley and Jones, at least they dont hide what they know because: "Chomsky knows more than he lets on, but is disciplined to not scare the people". screw the people if they cant take getting scared, its not like Chomskys writings have made a lick of difference anyway. all he does is preach to the converted. the least he can do is tell his flock all he knows.but no, then he wouldnt get paid as much for his speaking engagements.

thank you James, i couldnt

thank you James, i couldnt have said it better myself.

It might be an unwise move

It might be an unwise move to push completely for MIHOP. Though it is certainly true that the government and media definition of "Al-qaeda" is incorrect. Clearly what the majority of Americans perceive as Al-qaeda, is in reality nothing more than an arm of the CIA. But perceptions are all that really matter.

Osama and his gang of terroists have been in the American psyche for over a decade. The idea of groups islamic terroist has been cemented in the minds of the population from years of bombardment by MSM and especially Hollywood(We can't forget "True Lies" and all the other propaganda block busters spawned from the supposed bastion of Liberalism.)

I think we would have far more success pushing 9/11 truth via LIHOP. For if this could be proved to the majority of America, it would knock down many of the mental barriers that prevent the belief MIHOP.

By arguing exclusively for MIHOP, no matter how probable it may seem, would not create a completely united front. It would in fact create some holes in our defense. For it is factually incorrect that al-qaida doesn't exist in some capacity. The Very policies of the War on Terror and American imperalism ensures that terroists/insurgents will always spring up.

The MSM and government officals are constantly saying that we don't want to believe that terroism exists, so we make up government involvement as some form of psychological ploy to ease the burden on our minds. By arguing exclusively and broadly that al-qaeda simply does not exist, plays right into their hands. Of course this is the intent of their propaganda.

But I can see tarpley's point as well, but I would suggest that if MIHOP becomes the standard, we cannot broadly say that al-qaeda does not exist, but rather that Al-aqeda is simply the government in disguise.

"For it is factually

"For it is factually incorrect that al-qaida doesn't exist in some capacity."

It's not that Al Qaeda doesn't exist, and Tarpley doesn't say that either. Rather, at issue is the working relationship b/w al qaeda and western intelligence. The alleged hijackers may/may not have been involved with al qaeda but all indications are that they certainly had involvment with US intelligence.

regarding the possibility of

regarding the possibility of martial law being imposed, it might help to write letters to as many police departments throughout the country as possible letting them know of Robert Bowman, Morgan Reynolds, Ray McGovern, and others

Duh. I've said it before and


I've said it before and I'll say it again: there is simply no way to take the LIE out of LIHOP! (I heard one LIHOP practitioner actually resort to pronouncing LIHOP as "leehop", so desperate was he to try.)

IMHO, the most insidious danger of "LIHOP" is the "I". The limited-hangout, perpetrator-bacon-saving notion that "IT" (9/11) was basically what the government says "it" was.

See, 9/11 was an extreme example of lies based upon lies. (My favorite simple example is when Rumsfeld said, when discussing [the possibility of] WMDs in Iraq, "We know where they are." That lie-based-upon-a-lie was only 5 little words, without any graphic images connoting massive loss of life, and look how effective they were. They totally shifted the "playing field" away from wondering if Iraqi WMDs existed (nevermind why that was suddenly seen as such a big deal) to wondering where they were, or whether or not Rumsfeld really knew where "they were". IOW, most people then found themselves thinking in terms of the 1st lie -- that Iraqi WMDs must exist -- so all their subsequent thinking was no longer based on (or in) reality.

(Note how, in his 10:32 pm post, "Anonymous" wrote about "the alleged hijackers". By using "alleged", the writer has seemed to be careful to not presume, however (I presume) he has written about "them" as if we know for a fact that "they" really existed. But we don't have any solid evidence that "they" did. And between how many things we've been told about 9/11 that we know are not real, and the maxim that "fraud vitiates everything", and the recognized power of predicating lies upon lies that make up legends like 9/11, we should probably not take the existence of any hijackers for granted! On-board human hijacking of the 4 flights in question remains unproven and unknown [and, IMHO, highly unlikely].)

Anyway, as I was saying, LIHOP is particularly dangerous because both it's predicate and its stance is based upon the bogus belief that most people already know what 9/11 -- "It" -- really was.

Even the MIHOP label contains that confusing/misleading element.

The key to getting the truth about 9/11 to break free is for people to (finally!) learn that they don't know what 9/11 was. That, according to the govt's own evidence, it was not a 757 that hit the Pentagon. That (therefore, and according to the evidence) it is extremely unlikely that it was the 767s we were told which hit the WTC towers. And, further, that only some highly unconventional massive energy release can account for the many consistently ultra-fine dust particles (nanoparticles) which blanketed the sadly-appropriately-named "ground zero".
In order for the truth to really move (IOW, break through), people must be disabused of the government's core lie of 9/11 -- the one which says it's OK to go on fearing and loathing Muslims because of the synthetic 9/11 legend of hijackers and hijackings. That is the core lie upon which the entire bogus glogal war on terrorism is loosely, illogically, but definitely based.

And that is why I consider it to be very wrong for honest rigorous 911 truthers to be talking about "hijackers" as if they were real. For to talk about "them" as if "they" were real is to reinforce and strengthen The Big Lie of 9/11, regardless of what is said about "them". (IOW, talking about the fictitious elements of The Big Lie as if they were real cannot ever cause The Big Lie to be vanquished.)

Tarpley's resolution was

Tarpley's resolution was adopted and approved by an overwhelming and raucous, ala british parliment, vote with no objections before Robert Bowman's speech.!!!!!!!!!!!

U2R2H- stop the personal attacks on Tarpley and start organizing the unions and workers in your area for the general strike that Tarpley calls for!!!!!!!

The Tarpley resolution was

The Tarpley resolution was adopted by voice vote without opposition.

Dennis Morrisseau
Running AT Congress (in VT)

sounds good Dennis.good

sounds good Dennis.good luck.

Dennis Morisseau, The

Dennis Morisseau,

The picture of you on the Patrick Henry statue at NBC came out great!!!!

I'll be sending it to you as soon as possible.

Tarpley is LYNDON


These guys have only ONE interest:

their income! and power.

Wife Helga ZEPP-LaRouche tries to get elected in germany .. ultra-right wing, confused and POPULIST (promise anything to get votes).

Tarpley isn't far away from that.

Chomsky does not need extra $$$, he is tenured. MIT, like EVERYTHING in the racist-capitalist USA is paid for by military. Chomsky opposes that.

Haven't seen consequences of Chomsky and the left?

Where have you been since 1968?

911 truthers are the ones WHO HAVE NO RECORD OF ACHIEVEMENTs in the real world.

Its good to be a lefty and go to union meetings, but loose.

The opposing forces, (heard of the mowhawk valley folmula?) are superbly funded and the neo-con network is vast.

But as any interest group that is founded on money and power-over-others it will fail one day. POWER is no basis that anyone will acccept as GOD-GIVEN. Whereas JUSTICE and EQUALITY is not hard to explain, and universal.

So you propagandised souls hate chomsky.

Did you see what he had the guts to say on Lebanese TV? His soft-spoken, clear statements have an effect. IMHO many people refrain from violence and instead quietly work for change BECAUSE of having exposed to CHOMSKYs words. He *is* a lone voice.

So, you chomsky-haters with your ankle-biting arguments...

How can social justice achieved in your country full of propagandized arseholes?

right. Chomsky said it:

join the ICC, Kyoto, abolish UN veto.

We must protect these institutions and by solidarity under the rule of law (EQUALITY! JUSTICE!) we can pry these institutions oen to become more meaningful for us.

THE OWNERS of this world have not desire to be UNDER the rule of law.
They rule by deception, force.. you know all that.

But are your propagandised brains clear enough to be able to HAVE SOLIDARITY?

Common sense is all you need.

Chomsky is all common sense.

guess where Chomsky

guess where Chomsky ultimately gets his money? government grants. i'll take Tarpley, who isnt afraid to speak about false flag terrorism over Chomsky, who is a bitch when it comes to the subject, any day.