The Philadelphia Platform - fusing 9/11 Truth with Anti-War activism.



We meet in response to a grave political crisis. We see before us a society careening towards disaster. Bush-Cheney and their Republican allies flout the popular will and are determined to wage endless war, expanded beyond Iraq and Afghanistan to Iran and other countries, including with nuclear weapons. At the same time, they are transforming this country into an authoritarian police state. The Democrats, loyal to their own wealthy backers, ignore the Constitutional imperative of impeaching Bush and Cheney, despite crimes and abuses which cry out for impeachment. Now, the Democratic Party has voted to fund an escalated and expanded version of the very Iraq war they had pledged to end. Their excuse is that they did not have the votes. But they only needed to block the Iraq funding bill – something Pelosi could have done by herself as Speaker of the House. This massive betrayal has thrown the peace movement into disarray. Peace activists had taken seriously the Democrats’ pledge to end the war, and this approach has proven ineffective. In the background there are rumblings of a financial panic set off by the mortgage crisis, and by the ongoing death agony of the US dollar, which increase the hysteria of the ruling circles. The Republican presidential candidates eagerly debate the use of tactical nuclear weapons against Iran – a sure path to World War III – while Giuliani preens himself as a future dictator, and Mrs. Clinton can hardly conceal her enthusiasm for the coming attacks on Iran and Sudan. But the American people deserve something better than a choice between competing Republican and Democratic warmonger elitist cliques.

In her farewell message, Cindy Sheehan called on the peace movement to organize independently of the bankrupt two-party system. She also supported a new inquiry into 9/11. The peace movement needs a new strategy, and we are here in Philadelphia because we have taken Cindy Sheehan’s call seriously. We appeal to leftists, progressives, conservatives, libertarians, independents, and those entering or re-entering politics to transcend the artificial divisions that have diminished their impact. The anti-war, impeachment, anti-globalization, labor, civil rights, veterans, anti-tax, civil liberties, honest election, and 9/11 truth movements – along with civic and progressive religious groups and other issue groups -- have been weakened too long by single issues and narrow focus. It is time for these movements to unite as a national coalition on a common platform for independent action. We call for a united front of all organizations and persons of good will based on the following:

1. Impeach, remove, and indict Bush-Cheney and their henchmen (Gonzalez, Chertoff, and Rove) as an urgent measure to avoid wider wars, including, for illegal NSA wiretaps, the lies and war crimes of Iraq and Afghanistan, and their nonfeasance, malfeasance, and the misprision of treason around 9/11. Bush and Cheney may also be subjected to court martial. Break up the vote fraud machines, and impeach Supreme Court justices found to complicit in the 2000 and 2004 stolen elections, such as Scalia. Restore legality starting with the government itself.

2. End all wars. All US troops must be brought home at once from Afghanistan and Iraq by any means necessary, including the immediate cutoff of funding. Stop all US acts of war and provocations against Iran, Somalia, Lebanon, and Sudan. No attacks, whether directly or by proxies, on Syria, Pakistan, Venezuela, North Korea. The US must not seek confrontation with China, Russia, or any other nations, under any pretext whatsoever. End the US military posture of “Global Strike” preventive war. Restore the ABM treaty and respect existing disarmament treaties. No US star wars missile bases in Poland and the Czech Republic. No extension of NATO to Ukraine and Georgia. No more color revolutions and CIA people power coups abroad. The future of China and Taiwan should be solved by negotiation. Two state solution for Israel and Palestine according to the Geneva accords of November 2003. Stop US support for terrorism worldwide. Negotiate nuclear weapons disarmament with all nuclear powers, including Israel. All sanctions, embargoes, and economic warfare must be terminated. The US industrial-military complex must be drastically reduced.

3. No to Bush’s police state dictatorship. We demand an immediate end to NSA wiretaps, tampering with the US mail, the Patriot Act, espionage against political dissidents, CIA, FBI, and Pentagon domestic spying, kidnappings, renditions, secret prisons, and the US gulag archipelago from Guantanamo Bay to Abu Ghraib. No person shall be held as an enemy combatant. Restore full habeas corpus, respect the Bill of Rights and the Geneva Convention. Tear down all concentration camps built under US jurisdiction or control anywhere in the world. All precedents, signing statements and executive orders issued under Bush-Cheney must be abrogated, rescinded, and declared null and void – with extreme prejudice.

4. Government by the people, not by cliques of bankers and financiers. End the power of the Federal Reserve, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the Bank for International Settlements. No more government under the thumb of the Council on Foreign Relations, the American Enterprise Institute, the Bilderberger Group, the Trilateral Commission, and the Bohemian Grove cult. We must stop genocide and establish economic justice in the developing countries, including through monetary reform. Drive the neocons out of public life. The US population must be educated in the use of the general strike as a tool of self-defense against martial law, the suspension of elections, and illegal foreign wars. We intend to maintain a permanent presence in Washington DC through demonstrations, protests, and public agitation.

5. 9/11 truth. We reject the demagogy of fear, terror, and demonization. We condemn the fraud of the global war on terrorism as the basis for US national life. We demand immediate measures to end Cheney’s campaign for a new 9/11 with weapons of mass destruction or a new Gulf of Tonkin incident, as outlined in Zbigniew Brzezinski’s February 1, 2007 warning to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Publish the full 9/11 documentation, and re-open the investigation.

At minimum, we aim to shape the climate of public opinion. We may become the focal point of a new political regroupment. These questions will be decided in the struggles that lie ahead. We suggest that questions of economic and social policy be deferred for now, and that they become the object of ongoing discussion. We also urge that organizational questions be postponed until a later time. We call on all organizations to join in launching the following urgent actions in support of the policies outlined:

A. We will nominate and support independent political candidates of public office at all levels of government in the 2007 and 2008 elections. Because of the problems of ballot access, such candidate may need to enter the primary elections of the Republican, Democratic, Green, Libertarian, or other political parties.

B. Truth squad interventions taking advantage of the new media (using camcorders to capture political content which is then posted on the internet) to intervene in the ongoing presidential primary campaigns of the Democrats, Republicans, and others, to focus public attention and political debate on the urgent questions outlined above, rather than on the divisive and artificial wedge issues preferred by the corporate media

C. Mass political education, through internet web sites, conferences, books, dvds, and a sustained to write our own fairness doctrine by using radio, cable access, and call-ins to take back the public air waves from the right-wing extremists and left gatekeepers.

D. This united front will exist as a process of political discussion, deliberation, mass organizing, and open debate open to political forces of all types who agree with its platform of ideas. Special attention will be given to campus organizing.

E. Carefully selected legal actions, as typified by the civil RICO suit against Bush-Cheney as a continuing criminal enterprise.


Show "I wish Webster really opposed artificial divisions" by David Slesinger


"I am the primary advocate of nonviolence in the 911truth movement..."

What in the name of God is that supposed to mean?

"He speaks strongly against the example of Gandhi and King."

Give us an example.

"there is not one person in the 911truth movement who is willing to give more than lipservice to nonviolence."

Again, what in the name of God does this mean?

And saying you are the 'only person in the 911truth movement' doing ANYTHING is beyond arrogance.


Response to morgan stack

All I mean by the assertion that I am the primary advocate of nonviolence in the 911 truth movement is that I spoke at national 911 conferences in 2005, 2006, and 2007 on nonviolence. No one in the movement has spoken on the topic outside of MIa Hamel's sharing the talk with me in AZ.

I've personally heard him say this at least 3 times. I give Webster praise as much as I can and dishonesty is not particularly one of his vices. Ask him about his opinion on this issue. Check the Q and A from 11/11/06 in Virginia. I greeted him warmly when he was near at the July 4 Philly event. I gave him a description of my proposal in the hope he would be pleased that I was not calling for civil disobedience. His response was,"Remember, no civil disobedience."

Id doubt I excluded my friend and webmaster Dan Nalven from the lipservice quote. I'd be happy to be proven wrong about my lipservice quote. Anyone who has any credentials in nonviolence should contact me at and I'll be happy to apologize to them AFTER we have a phone conversation.( I hunt and peck).

I can't imagine anything I've said could be twisted into "I'm the only person in the 911truth movement doing anything".


"Web has stated more than once that anyone who does civil disobedience has a lack of self esteem"

Citation please.

Are you familiar with Tarpley's Chicago resolution of last year, read to the attendees, and enthusiastically, vocally endorsed by the conference? Which in part reads:

"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."

Response to Reprehensor

First let me than you for allowing my concerns the light of day.

Let me also thank you for the work you do at 911blogger. It is my primary source for news. The rancor you are attempting to mitigate concerns me greatly. I spend more hours than I care to count pleading with truthers to stop being hateful.

Please note that the resolution you refer to has no reference to civil disobedience.

Please also note that in Chicago Web manipulated the situation into approval of his proposal without there being any process for considering such proposals. Those like myself who has a serious concern for good democratic process should have been troubled. I had no objections with the content except that civil disobedience was left out. A general strike is , of course a form of nonviolence. I'd love to discuss with Web or anyone how a general strike, with all its risks, can be promulgated without in depth nonviolence preparation for retaliatory state action.

response to Reprehensor

I've heard Webster make this statement about self esteem twice in person.

I ask you to consider that the goal of this dialogue is not for me to prove anything, though I'll be happy to help interested parties find whatever evidence they need.

The goal needs to be the generation of enough concern for justice within the 911truth movement to convince me to not become what most truthers would consider an adversary of the movement. I'm ready to be hated by every truther. I'm ready to die RIGHT NOW.

non-violence,. its not only getting arested!

I have heard Tarpely speak againt getting arrested as a tactic,. however that is not the only form of non-violent resistance,. I tend to agree that sitting in a road, of in front of some gov. building and being pepper sparyed, beaten, and arested is of little use,.. It could raise awarness if it was reported,. however we have all been at such events, and then watched the 'news' coverage only to see the corpo-fascist agenda superimosed over the events of the day,. what use is that ? activists are then forced into lengthy trials and wast their time defending against fines and imprisonments,. I agree with mr. Tarpley that media activism is much more imporatant,. web, radio, public-acesss, flyers, handbills, posters, raising awareness,. we have to break into peoples media induced trance and pull them out of it,. this is hard to do if you are incarcerated or in hospital,. .
Other wise all he has suggested is non-violence,. he only speaks agains the tactic used unsuccefully in the vietnam era of intentionally getting arrested,. as far as I can tell,. am i wrong? why you whould devot yourself to undermining him is strange, you are free to push for your ver. of non-violent resistance feel free. However, don't start attacking people who you otherwise agree with because of a difference of opinion on a single tactic,. we need to stick together! If you want to pull some form of resistance that other dissagree with just do it with out those people,. no? didferent strokes for diferent folks,. but we must stick together. please.

Response to jph_ wacheski

You seem like a sincere person capable of civil dialogue.

I absolutely agree that there is much more to nonviolence than civil disobedience. If you knew what I stood for you would realize I am critical of lengthy trials because I prefer to plead guilty as Gandhi did. You would also know I don't prefer blocking anything. I do believe these are legitimate approaches.

I'm sorry you are so sure the civil disobedience against the Vietnam war was misguided. I doubt that is the conclusion of history. I'm sure the leftgatekeepers would use your opinion to remain distant from our very compelling evidence.

You seem not to address the problem of Tarpley's efforts to keep the CD actions you mentioned and other forms of civil disobedience from being considered. I'm not trying to stop people from calling talk shows. I do so regularly. Ironically, when I call you use ideas I regularlly attribute to Web.

Web has successfully convinced, a group I co-founded, to stand strongly against ANY discussion of nonviolence.

If we can have access to the footage of our interaction in Philly you will see that Paul Deslauriers, the facilitator told Web I was the next speaker. Web said,"Skip him" and then Paul announced Web would be the speaker. Web had spoken before and would speak for dozens of times longer than I would speak .

I am facing homelessness and was being irresponsible for not trying to earn money that day. The proposal I was about to make was both legal and far more daring than any proposal made that day. The proposal was to set up a website critical of the FBI actions surrounding 911 and to hold a banner with that website outside the Hoover building as FBI employees leave work..

Paul has presented himself to me as my"buddy" on the phone the night before when I called to assure time to speak. I told him earlier in Atlanta over dinner that Tarpley would try to prevent my speaking. Paul suggested the problem was my personality.

I believe that almost everyone in this movement will bend to Tarpley's bullying tactics. Hardly anyone seems concerned that Tarpley learned politics under the demagogue Larouche. The dc group defends Tarpley's ability to avoid a full discussion of the problems with Larouche's tactics. I don't think should exist. I am it's co-founder. I'm giving the 911truth movement a chance to convince me NOT to get rid of dc911truth. I'm reasdy to have EVERY truther hate me. I'm ready to die RIGHT NOW.

I'm used to being active with people who are more honorable. When I was in the antinuclear movement in the late 70's and early eighties, I was in a situation where I was totally isolated in my support for classical nonviolence. The integrity of that group of very sour radicals puts this movement to SHAME. This movement much more resembles the unprincipled people I worked with in the Democratic Party in 1972.

Tarpley also regularly uses epithets against various mainstream politicians. I regularly have to take time to plead with folks like those in WE ARE CHANGE to ask the hard questions but only politely, which they do sometimes.

Using epithets is not nonviolence. My main complaint about the use of the term nonviolence by most citizens is that they use it only to mean the persons taking action did not strike anyone.... at least recently. Nonviolence is an approach with a power dynamic. To allow nonviolent to be equally applied to the efforts of Gandh's satyagrahi campaigns as to bad check writing( one of several crimes considered nonviolent) is to trivialize a potentially powerful process.

web is not the focus

What Web says about cd or nonviolence re 9/11 is neither here nor there. He cannot stop any employment of either tactic. He merely recommends against, take it or leave it. His opinion is as legitimate as Dave's or mine or yours. Rather than focus on what Web says, ACT as you see fit. Just make sure you think it thru thoroughly before acting, assuming those of us who type on blogs ever leave their couches. ~ Craig Hill

Response to Craig Hill

In a democratic process, your comments would have more validity. Considering Web learned demagogic tactics from LaRouche, and repeatedly refuses to allow discussion of nonviolence, a serious problem exists.

Just to remind all truthers, if you want to defend Web and, I won't stop you. I'll respond politely. If you can't convince them to have full mediation, my sanctions will have to proceed. YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO HEAD THIS OFF!!!!!!!!!!

Just as American citizens generally avoid their responsibilities to prevent martial law, 911 truthers criticize me politely like Craig or not so politely like others and avoid even talking to Web or

Bruce Marshall praised King in Philly on July 4 and made fun of me when I stood for fairplay .

Mike Berger emphasized to me that one can not force to discuss nonviolence. Why should you call nonviolent sanctions and speaking truth to power force instead of persuasion? This is a profound misunderstanding of what nonviolent struggle means.

Ironically, Ward Churchill, who Web considers a terrorist, is not afraid to discuss nonviolence in depth. He is the most important opponent of nonviolence in the progressive movement in this country. He is willing to give Gandhi and King some credit and is open to nonviolent resistance having a place in the struggle for peace and justice. He has a far superior understanding of nonviolence than the VAST MAJORITY OF 911truthers. What a sad state of affairs.

Quite a bit to chew there....

I think the cart is following the horse there just a little, not that the sentiments and actions called out here aren't desirable (with a few exceptions like color revolutions? I think of the young optimistic and united Ukrainians during the 'orange revolution') The coalition called for, will experience a drastic reduction in the unwillingness to unite provided that they have a secure victory for a starter. Like an expanded movement reflected in numbers, successes at getting more high profile people to call for re-investigations, a major revelation- the initiator of mass public support, more feature type films at the cinema, same for tv and net tv,
and all types of artistic expolsion......perhaps an "international re-investigation"?.....

I don't know what Tarpley's

I don't know what Tarpley's response would be to those accusations, but I have to agree that anyone who opposes non-violent civil disobedience either A) doesn't understand its effectiveness throughout history, or B) is actively working to steer genuine activists from promoting real progressive change.

Non-violent civil disobedience is UTTERLY necessary in today's climate and anyone who works to undermine that effort is an enemy of justice and freedom. Whether Tarpley falls into that category is unclear however his most recent appearance on FOX was a pure embarassment to the 9/11 truth movement. While I don't yet question his motives, I wouldn't propose to have him be the main spokesperson of this movement. Out of curiousity I'd like to know David Griffin's view on civil disobedience and non-violent direct action.

Response to truthnow

Nice post. Please contact me at or call at 410-499-5403.

I don't understand why the folks at blogger hid your comment. It is troubling.

Response to Truth Now.

Why is is comment hidden? Do you really believe the 911truth activists deserve any support from Cindy Sheehan? I am angry at many 911 truth activists. I'm sorry to admit that I am not spiritually advanced enough to rise above those feelings. If any of the other comments are superior to those of truthnow, please explain.

G. Edward Griffin mp3s on getting organized.....

.....effectively against the NWO:

From a different political perspective, but a must listen:

Pt. 1:

Pt 2: