Support 911Blogger


Michael Wolsey, Col. Jenny Sparks and Bruce Marshall on Truth Revolution Radio

Michael Wolsey of Visibility911.com was the guest on the Sept. 3 edition of Truth Revolution Radio. We discuss his work as a truth activist and radio host, with a special focus on his series on cointelpro. We are also joined by 911blogger's own Col. Jenny Sparks and discuss a bit of the controversy behind The Kennebunkport Warning. Bruce Marshall joins the show during the last segment to discuss his role in promoting The Warning.

http://mp3.wtprn.com/TRR/0709/20070903_Mon_TRR.mp3

TRR Archive

Great show, cosmos!

;-)
_____________________________________
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Yeah agreed, 30mins in and great so far...

Who was that wonderfulful sounding (and sexy) lady that was on first...

She had an excellent knowledge on 9/11 and False Flags...

Many thanks and best wishes

I don't know about her---

I hear she's a loud-mouthed trouble-maker! ;-P
____________________________________
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Too bad there wasn't enough

Too bad there wasn't enough time to get to the Quiz. Maybe next time.
--
11/11 Never Forget - Fetzer Flips
Zeitgeist Movie Torrent DVDRip (XviD)

Welcome to the Debunkers, Jenny!

That got a laugh out of me. Kudos for your (you, Arabesque and Joan Jones) efforts to sort this out honestly.

They have always been

They have always been Debunkers - of the 9/11 Myth...
--
11/11 Never Forget - Fetzer Flips
Zeitgeist Movie Torrent DVDRip (XviD)

Thanks

Thanks for the words everyone...

“We're an empire now, and when we act we create our own reality."

Ugh...

Finished Listening, Great composure there COSMOS !!!

I don't reckon that Bruce Marshall will be getting many votes, especially if he acts like that when standing as a "green" candidate !!!

You obviously struck a nerve and he was trying to "Bill O'Reilly" you out of the discussion.

He was way over-the-top and really needs to drink some camomile tea...

A must listen show, done very well

Many thanks and best wishes

un-Greens

I can't listen to this at my work (they block all audio & video), but as an elected Green Party person I'd be interested to hear more about Bruce Marshall, Craig Hill and anyone else who appears to be aggressive, un-Green, LaRouchite or promoting of nonsense within the Greens. McKinney may run with the Greens and so the hoax advocates will be trying to attach themselves to her. The party makes mistakes often - real Democracy at work, but also personalities at work, or worse - and it would be good to know more if anyone can consolidate info here in a post, or send me an email.

Thanks.

Nice job Jenny. The

Keep your guard up.

Make no mistake: We are under attack by a CoIntelPro operation. This is an attack against 9/11 truth. There are people in this movement who are trying to sabotage us. It's a sad reality.

With the 9/11 anniversary coming, and increasing exposure, this is to be expected. Keep your guard up.

I wish I was being paranoid, but I am not... anyone who believes 9/11 was an inside job... let me ask you this--do you honestly think we would not be infiltrated? This has been documented in the past. PEACEFUL civilian movements have been infiltrated, and this has been recorded in newspaper reports. The example in Canada at the SPP conference is just one example. They even admitted to it for crying out loud!

The strength of the truth movement is its size in numbers. We can't be defeated when we work together. Turn the attacks around by exposing them, and turning them into an advantage. Look at who is being divisive for no good reason. Look at those who support divisiveness and who apologize for them as enablers.

Listen to the end of this interview... instead of answering questions, Marshall gives us diatribes and evasions.

I want to have a reasonable dialogue about what is going on

I feel myself to be a very neutral observer of all of this. i don't have any direct personal connections with any of the immediate people involved. I have alot of respect for Cindy Sheehan's work, even if I wish she would really get serious about 9-11 Truth and push it like she has been able to the anti-war movement. I have alot of respect for Webster Tarpley's work, even if I disagee with his tendency to be strident and too speculative at certain moments.

I have great respect for the leadership towards action and the vision articulated by Cosmos, though I didn't feel he really gave Bruce Marshall a chance to say his piece last night. I have much respect for the work of infowarrior bloggers such as Arabesque, Victronix, Ms. Sparks to suss out dis and misinfo, cointel pro ops and best info, even if I think they have approached this one with prejudgements.

So I want to hear exactly what it is that suggests a cointelpro op is coming from within the intention of any of the people directly involved. So far, i hear the 4 testimonies of the women who said they didnt sign that specific statement, the angry, attacking rhetoric on the part of those who have been implied to have formed and pushed the Warning in a hoaxical (can you say that?) manner and these men's relationship to Larouche, DEW statements and Jim Fetzer. Do I have this right?

There are two distinct possibilities here that we must weigh right?

1) Bruce Marshall, Craig Hill and/or Webster Tarpley are involved in a pretty major hoax of forging or frauding signatories with two potential reasons to logically point to if you believe this, either to give extra credence to what they see as a serious warning or a direct COINTELPRO-like operation to both discredit the message and the 9-11 truth movement's relationship with the peace movement

2) Cindy Sheehan, Ann Wright, Jamilla El-Shafei and Dahlia Wafsi are circling the wagons in order to back away from this statement that they did sign for two possible reasons if you believe this, either they didnt realize the extent of the message they were signing and decided it was too much and inaccurate for them to support or someone (possibly Ms. Wafsi) was warned or threatened by someone not directly involved in all this to back out in a way that also cast some doubt on the entire message

This is what we are left with right?

“Strange times are these in which we live when old and young are taught in falsehoods school. And the one man that dares to tell the truth is called at once a lunatic and fool.” –Plato

"We must speak the truth about terror." --George W. Bush

Opinion versus conclusion

Well spoken...

I would just like to clarify one thing: I do not know who is telling the truth and who is not. All I know is some people are being attacked pretty viciously over this, and they have not returned the abuse.

Regarding your two possibilities, yes you are right. I can point to certain facts (like 5 corroborating stories of an alternate signing of an impeachment resolution, and a scanned copy of signatures, the involvement of Jim Fetzer and DEW supporters, etc), but I don't have the ultimate answers here. I can only give you my opinion based on the incomplete facts so far. I admit I have a strong opinion on this subject based on a strange collection of facts..

I readily acknowledge this, and I have no desire to create more divisiveness than has already been created.

In other words, my opinion is that Cindy Sheehan and Co are telling the truth.

The truth is I can't prove it.

Thank you for your response

So, in your opinion, how are we going to resolve this? We are not in a good state as we sit right now with trust all raggedy and allegations.
Here is what I wrote over @ truthaction in regards to the lack of anger coming from Sheehan and co. It's funny, the anger of the KW'ers is evidence to some of their role as hoaxers and the lack of anger from Sheehan and co. is indicative to me of a strange response to what is being alleged. This was in response to the proclamation that my "contorted apologetics for abusive individuals is quite nauseating." A beautiful use of words but very unfair I thought.
---------------------
At least admit this
If Marshall, Tarpley and Hill ARE on the up and up (theoretically speaking), isn't there at least a little place in your heart for understanding why they might be a bit mad after having produced evidence at each step of the way here and having had their character and deep integrity questioned in this situation. If Ms. Sheehan, Wright, El-Shafei and Wafsi have really been hoaxed in all of this, they should be mad, not supportive of the people who used their name against their will. I dont care the message, you dont use someone's name with deceptive measures. Yes, of course everyone wants to be cordial and poltically polite, but if these women support our movement and really do think that these individuals deep within it hoaxed them, they owe it to us to suss and call them out not give their support while pulling out their names. Cmon now.
_________________

“Strange times are these in which we live when old and young are taught in falsehoods school. And the one man that dares to tell the truth is called at once a lunatic and fool.” –Plato

"We must speak the truth about terror." --George W. Bush

I really would expect more from my sisters of peace

I know these are strong, articulate women. If our movement is being represented by people tricking them and hoazing us all, they owe us the solidarity of helping suss these actions and individuals out, not a lukewarm pat on the back as they remove their support from the statement. This coming from a man who has given alot of his time and energy to the peace movement.

“Strange times are these in which we live when old and young are taught in falsehoods school. And the one man that dares to tell the truth is called at once a lunatic and fool.” –Plato

"We must speak the truth about terror." --George W. Bush

Resolution

"So, in your opinion, how are we going to resolve this?"

I believe the first step is to stop the insults and accusations against the anti-war activists. It has yet to happen. The next step would be a serious apology.

"If Marshall, Tarpley and Hill ARE on the up and up (theoretically speaking), isn't there at least a little place in your heart for understanding why they might be a bit mad after having produced evidence at each step of the way here and having had their character and deep integrity questioned in this situation."

My response is this: I do not know who is telling the truth, I only have my opinion. Perhaps my opinion biases me on this question, but I can not give an answer until I see more facts emerge. All I know is that Mr. Tarpley, and Mr. Hill have targeted the anti-war activists with inappropriate accusations. This divisiveness is my primary concern and all other issues are secondary.

an apology

for name calling you mean? But if they are the KW'ers are telling the truth, should they apologize to people who have politely thrown them under the theoretical bus ? A big conference call of course would be great but we know that's not going to happen and it might just turn into a yelling match. I really think we need to clear this up before DC, but it is possible some of this must happen face to face. I just dont know. I can see that a little sign oif compassion from the KW'ers would potentially go a long way towards clearing this up. However, if they are telling the straight up truth, I can see why they might not want to, think it appropriate or of integrity or even desirable. But for all of our sakes, it would be a great little gesture.

These are crazy times. But some sanity must emerge and be combined with intense, focused action and strategy.

“Strange times are these in which we live when old and young are taught in falsehoods school. And the one man that dares to tell the truth is called at once a lunatic and fool.” –Plato

"We must speak the truth about terror." --George W. Bush

Show "Arabesque; Why do you" by Galileo

DEW signers

I agree that DEW is discredited, which makes you wonder why so many of the warning supporters are endosoring it. Jim Fetzer was interviewed by Tarpley, endorsed it, signed it, and even issued a press release.

I am not endorsing a conclusion, I am only observing the fact that DEW promoters are heavily involved in this controversy. In fact, one of the signers is a "CANDIDATE FOR US CONGRESS, VERMONT GREEN PARTY". In between attacking Sheehan as a "liar" he says (and I quote):

"the immediate aim of the militarization of space via nuclear weapons and other exotic dangers orbiting Earth, pointing down and controlling entire societies under threat they, too, may suffer that which Dr Judy Wood persuasively suggests occurred in NYC on 9/11.”
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/08/kennebunkport-warning-hoax-cont...

If you want my opinion (again not conclusion), on this subject I would say this:

The association with DEW promoters serves these functions:

1. To advance their theory by association with Sheehan and anti-war activists
2. To use this exposure to discredit 9/11 truth in time for the anniversary

Maybe this was the initial plan, and since this has mostly failed they moved on to plan B: Attack the anti-war activists in an attempt to separate it from 9/11 Truth.

Again, I can't PROVE this is what they intended to do, but this is my working hypothesis based on what I have seen.

Here's my working hypothesis...

There is a group of individuals that have tried to take control of the 9/11 Truth Movement's message from day one. They are not people that support the family members, or their call for a new investigation. They are not people that know how to ask questions and demand answers. They are not people that support the 9/11 First Responders. They are people who's sole purpose is to make sure that those of us that do the previously mentioned things, spend an inordinate amount of time fighting with them, spend an inordinate amount of time debunking their "hypotheses", and most importantly, have lost our message in the sea of static that includes, "Jews, Space Beams, Mini-Nukes, Holograms, TV Fakery, Pods, Cartoons, Missiles," and so on.

I would recommend that people try spending less time on the Kennebunkport Warning, and more time planning what they're going to do for the 6th anniversary of 9/11.

That's my personal opinion. Thank you to those that have tried to rectify/resolve the Kennebunkport situation, as well as those who have tried to save our relationships with the AW Movement. It's a shame it even had to be done.


A "Full And Complete Accounting" Of The 9/11 Attacks

yes, but

That's a good point Jon, and well put, but the KW is also a good concrete example of a situation that can be very educational for people. The damage is already being done for the anniversary -- Fetzer in NYC and Von Kleist in LA. These should be spoken out against too.

We tried pretending the hoaxes would go away. They don't, they only multiply if you aren't on top of them and then appear on FOX News for the Anniversaries. The question is what's the most effective way to take down the hoaxes efficiently, while educating the most people? How can we give people the strength to be able to reject the offensive ideas and personal attacks and instead join efforts to promote our best evidence?

Finally, people have to each follow their own interests -- some of us have genes that turn on when we see deceptions and hoaxes within, and cannot simply turn away. The challenge is to make the response as effective as possible, as broad as possible.

Hence, the best thing we can do is support those who need to respond to the hoaxes in whatever way we can -- votes, links, quoting them, etc -- and each follow our own path.

"There is a group of individuals that have tried to take control of the 9/11 Truth Movement's message from day one. They are not people that support the family members, or their call for a new investigation. They are not people that know how to ask questions and demand answers. They are not people that support the 9/11 First Responders. They are people who's sole purpose is to make sure that those of us that do the previously mentioned things, spend an inordinate amount of time fighting with them, spend an inordinate amount of time debunking their "hypotheses", and most importantly, have lost our message in the sea of static that includes, "Jews, Space Beams, Mini-Nukes, Holograms, TV Fakery, Pods, Cartoons, Missiles," and so on."

Great job on that summary.

I don't have the patience anymore...

To deal with those that attack the good people in the movement (Nico Haupt, Lisa Guiliani, Victor Thorne, etc...), those that promote crazy bullshit (Jim Fetzer, Nico Haupt, Morgan Reynolds, Rick Siegel, Judy Woods, etc...), and those that condone/support/promote the actions/messages of the previously mentioned individuals with a cloak of unity/simple curiosity (Kevin Barrett, Webster Tarpley, Les Jamieson, etc...).

I realize that there is a value to calling those people on their bullshit because newcomers have to see clarity in the sea of static I mentioned. They don't know any better. However, those of us that have been around for a long time, simply don't have the patience to deal with them anymore. At least, I don't.

As you said, people have to choose their own path.

BTW... It seems there are individuals that don't like my "hypothesis". Guess what? I don't care. ;)


A "Full And Complete Accounting" Of The 9/11 Attacks

Will agree with most of what you say...

..but some of us can walk and chew gum at the same time. We know this because we do this all the time when investigating 9/11 Truth.

We got a bone, and we're not letting it go until it's sorted to our satisfaction. Not dropping this until that happens. But don't worry--because we're clever buggers we'll be able to work on the 9/11 anniversary at the same time. ;-)
_____________________________________
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

I agree Jon

I know how valuable it is to create unity and have people join our movement. I know how valuable it is to get EVERYONE, (yes, everyone) on our side. I appreciate the work of those who have accomplished much when it comes to bringing people to the movement.

When I see people attacking honest and good people like Dr. Jones, and Cindy Sheehan, it pisses me off . It pisses me off to the point where I'm going to do something about it. I'm not just going to sit here and stay quiet while the false flag 9/11 truthers attack at will.

Having said this, I understand there is a very important point to be made here. We do not need to create FALSE enemies. The entire false LEFT/RIGHT, US versus THEM (as adopted by Bush's "war on terror") paradigm will not bring an end to our nightmare. The US government is ultimately responsible for the "failures" and blatant anomalies of 9/11. They are ultimately responsible for accountability. Not me, not you, not Webster Tarpley or Jim Fetzer or anyone else.

Fighting among ourselves is not the answer, and doing this is EXACTLY what the CoIntelPro operation wants us to do. They want us to fight with FAKE enemies so that we do not focus our energy on THEM. That is what they fear most of all.

I believe however, this does not mean that we can ignore legitimate problems. We simply have to find the correct approach to dealing with them.

Take for example the SPP conference and the agent provocateurs. When certain individuals engage in destructive activity such as inciting violence (or any destructive activity) that is harmful to the cause of 9/11 justice, we must deal with it in the most appropriate manner, whatever that may be. Letting internal division or attacks (deliberate or otherwise) destroy us and hamper our effectiveness is not in our best interests for seeking justice.

Show "Left-wing 9/11 Truth" by Galileo

You don't seem to understand the problem

There's nothing wrong with democratic socialism--if the government is of, by and for the people. The reason we don't want the feds running anything now is they are currently corrupted and co-opted. Looks like you don't understand what socialism is. HINT: nothing to do with Soviets, or Chinese "communism". Take a look at Canada, Sweden, Germany and France for your answers.

So it sounds like you've just given up on the whole "take our government back and make it work for us" thing. That's what democracy is-- not "no government", or "small government", but government "by the people". Which actually means its a big damn thing when done right.

Makes me wonder why you're involved in 9/11 Truth in the first place. We aren't going to succeed until the government is US, and is listening to you, me and every other working citizen.

Beginning to see how big the job is now, eh?
______________________________________
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.