Support 911Blogger


9-11 Synthetic Error - The meltdown of Webster G. Tarpley

Please Note: Use the comments section for civil discussion of this matter, any misuse of the comments will result in your account being flagged for moderation. -sbg

GW's comment: I had hoped that we could put the entire Kennebunkport Warning episode behind us and focus on the core facts about 9/11 and false flag operations. However, people are apparently continuing to go on the radio and disparage others, and so the pot is getting stirred up again and again. I also believe that the Kennebunkport Warning is not that important, given that many credible people have ALREADY warned about false flag attacks, such as Paul Craig Roberts, Ron Paul, Ray McGovern, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Scott Ritter, George Galloway and others. In any event, those who disagree with this post by Michael Wolsey can post their responses and point out what they believe to be factual errors in the post, as long as they remain civil.

9-11 Synthetic Error

The meltdown of Webster G. Tarpley

by Michael Wolsey September 17, 2007 From the original article posted here.

"In our movement there has to be a sphere of theoretical discussion, which has to be done in a business-like and respectful manner, without slander, without defamation, without ad hominem attacks on every page." Originally broadcast on World Crisis Radio with Webster Tarpley, Sept. 9, 2006.

wtart02.jpgJohn Leonard, who as far as I can tell is the publisher of Webster G. Tarpley's book, 9/11Synthetic Terror, Made in the USA, posted a blog entry at 911blogger.com dated September 6th, 2007 and titled Tarpley's Rx for US 9/11 Truth Movement: Diversity and Civility in Discussion, Unity in Action.   As you can see from the above quote attributed to Mr. Tarpley, he is asking the 9-11 movement to conduct themselves in a "business-like and respectful manner, without slander, without defamation, without ad hominem attacks on every page."

I agree wholeheartedly with the above statement by Mr. Tarpley.   I have been aware of the divisions within the 9-11 movement for years now and know that they have slowed our progress toward the truth behind the events of September 11th.   We do need to come together around the best possible evidence we have and get behind the best researchers to keep propelling our 9-11 questions to the forefront of the public eye.   So I was a bit surprised to find out that the very day that this article surfaced at 911blogger.com, Webster Tarpley was publicly attacking me, Cosmos, Col. Jenny Sparks, and Arabesque on his radio program GCN World report.   In order to understand better what prompted this attack, it is important to step back in time and examine the circumstances surrounding the emergence of what is known as "The Kennebunkport Warning", hereafter known in this article as the KW. It is also worth a look at Mr. Tarpley himself and what he believes and advocates.

As news of the KW began to surface on the internet in late August, 2007, I received an email from a fellow activist here in Colorado who is a friend of one of the alleged "signers" of the KW, Dr. Dahlia Wasfi.   This email contained a statement by Dr. Wasfi saying that she did not sign the KW despite the fact that images being passed around the internet showed her signature among others including Cindy Sheehan on the document.   I immediately posted this discrepancy to the KW thread at 911blogger.com, which began the entire controversy.   Dr. Wasfi first issued a statement which read:

"I signed a statement in Kennebunkport to endorse the impeachment of Dick Cheney, but my signature has been used on this "Warning" without my consent. While I was humbled to have my signature misappropriated with such prominent voices as Cindy Sheehan, Cynthia McKinney, and Jamilla El-Shafei, none of us signed that document"

She later released a joint statement, originally published at her website and from herself and three of the other "signers" which read:

Each of us were approached during the rally at the Kennebunkport event on August 25, 2007, to sign a statement calling for the immediate impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney. Since then, the statement has been altered and posted on the internet, making it appear as if we have evidence that this administration will carry out a "false-flag terror operation."

None of us have such evidence, and therefore, none of us signed a statement stating that we do.

We wish the authors of the document well in continuing much needed investigations of all aspects of 9/11.

Signed:Jamilla El-Shafei, Cindy Sheehan, Dahlia Wasfi, Ann Wright

Later, Dr. Wasfi also appeared on my program for a frank discussion about the KW and the abusive treatment offered by its author and supporters.

Despite a courteous denial, supplying their reasons and wishing those in the 9-11 movement luck, these messages were met with extremely harsh rhetoric coming from the supporters of the KW, led by its author, Webster Tarpley himself.   In an email circulated to various 9-11 researchers and activists, Mr. Tarpley wrote:

Dear Friends --Please get organizations from the peace, impeachment, anti-globalization, 9/11 truth, and other movements, as well as high-profile personalities, celebrities, etc., to endorse, support, distribute, and publicize the Kennebunkport Warning. Some of the signers, under the obvious threats of totalitarian forces, are lying in appalling fashion about what they signed and if they signed. You can see for yourself from the facsimile who signed. We need to move beyond these wretched individuals* to build support for this mobilization alert as we enter a very dangerous weekend. Please make a special effort to gather support.Webster Tarpley

*emphasis added throughout

In looking back at the sequence of events, it is not hard to see why someone might be puzzled at the recent boisterous rantings coming from Mr. Tarpley.   Many have seen this and regard his actions as contradictory, if not hypocritical.   Is it not strange that less than a year prior to these events surrounding the KW, Mr. Tarpley issued his call for unity and civility, and even reprinted the appeal in the 2007 4th edition of his book, pp. 452-453.    Why then, immediately before the 6th anniversary 9-11 events, did Mr. Tarpley and other supporters of the KW viciously attack leaders of the Peace Movement?   Why did you and your followers do this Mr. Tarpley, and why did you lead the way in these attacks?   Apparently the call to respect others and act in a "manner, without slander, without defamation, without ad hominem attacks on every page" does not extend to members of the Peace Movement. We find out later that they do not extend to the 9-11 Truth Movement either.

Unfortunately, the harsh rhetoric aimed at the "signers" of the KW did not end with Mr. Tarpley.   Craig Hill, who has been a KW supporter from the beginning, has supplied us with some of the most vicious attacks to date on these Peace Activists, referring to them as "The Dahliar 4". From a posting by Joan Jones at the truthaction.org forum come the following statements attributed to Mr. Hill:

"The hoax lies in the lies of the signers" "Dahlia Wasafi is the original instigator of the campaign to destroy the messenger and the message of the Kennebunkport Warning" " Dahlia is worse even than a liar, she is either part of the war effort she claims she denounces or an idiot out of her depth ." "The hoax here consists of a rally, essentially, by some of the signers to protect Dahlia's family by amazingly, clumsily, arrogantly and stupidly destroying the credibility of a patriot who is simply trying to do what they have not the guts or brains to do on their own." " the bitterly dubious integrity of Cindy Sheehan or her crapulous judgment"

Here is a quote from Mr. Hill when he was a guest on Mr. Tarpley's radio program on September 6, 2007:

"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."

Isn't that cute Mr. Hill?   Not bad for a 4th grader, but a grown man?   And you want to be part of the US Senate?    You can't be serious.

Another supporter of the KW has been Bruce Marshall.   As you can hear from listening to the final segment of the September 3, 2007 edition of Truth Revolution Radio with Cosmos, Bruce Marshall is not interested in the "business-like" and "respectful" behavior that Mr. Tarpley advocated.   In fact, Mr. Tarpley himself was unwilling to abide by his own words and set the example.   His followers quickly followed suit, even using Mr. Tarpley's radio program as a platform to ruthlessly slam "The Dahliar 4".     

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

It is important now to go back to where we began this article.   On September 9, 2006 Mr. Tarpley made the following statement:

"In our movement there has to be a sphere of theoretical discussion, which has to be done in a business-like and respectful manner, without slander, without defamation, without ad hominem attacks on every page."

A transcript was made from a segment of the radio program, which included the above quotation in the context of a larger discussion about the divisions within our movement.   This transcript, as previously mentioned, was posted at 911blogger.com on September 6th, 2007 and also printed in the 4th edition of Mr. Tarpley's book, pp. 452-453 and titled Tarpley's Rx for US 9/11 Truth Movement: Diversity and Civility in Discussion, Unity in Action.   What exactly does Mr. Tarpley mean when he uses the word "diversity" in this title?   Is this another word for the "big tent" analogy?

After being involved in the 9-11 movement for several years now, I have seen first hand how the disinformation is introduced and promulgated.   I have seen the instigators and been the target of their assaults because I would not circulate ridiculous theories about what happened on 9-11.   I have seen how these divisions are nurtured and I have seen how the disinformation has been injected into the pool of reputable 9-11 information.   The above remarks from Mr. Tarpley were delivered in a larger context as an appeal for all 9-11 truth activists to come together despite our differences. In the larger context, Tarpley was calling for unity and civility around the information , think "diversity".   Mr. Tarpley is suggesting a coming together, if you will, under what is known as the "big tent", all in the name of "diversity".   What if scientists and engineers used this diversity argument in their research and practice?

While I agree with Mr. Tarpley's call for unity, I do not agree with the context in which this appeal has been delivered.   I believe it is essential that we only present to the public the best information that we have in our attempts to awaken the sleeping masses.   If we are to convince the average skeptic that "9-11 was an inside job", then we had better be able to provide convincing proof if we hope to get that person on board with the movement.   Be very cautious of anyone who says differently. If you don't believe me, tell your friends that you think there were no planes on 9-11.   Tell them that the images they saw on TV that day were inserted real time into the live video AND all the still photos that were taken on that day.   Tell them that explosives were detonated inside the towers in the exact shape of an aircraft to imitate a plane hitting it.   While you are at it, tell them a missile hit the Pentagon and then tell them that space beams brought down the World  Trade Center and see how they react.    Don't be surprised if they discount your notions out of hand and laugh at you; maybe even call you a few names.   Would you be surprised if you found out that Mr. Tarpley advocates and supports these ridiculous theories?   It sure surprised me.

All this is not to say that I think that the work of researchers should be censored.   On the contrary, I think that a person has a right to pursue whatever line of research he or she decides.   If someone thinks that they have research that deserves attention, Dr. Steven E. Jones has provided an outlet for such purpose called the Journal of 9-11 Studies.   This site was set up and invites all theories to be submitted for peer review by other 9-11 researchers.   As Dr. Jones has said, all theories are welcome at the Journal, indeed encouraged.   While most 9-11 activists and researchers invite new and credible research to support our assertions (isn't that what we all want?), we also recognize the need to use caution when presenting information to the public.   It goes without saying to most reasonable people that if you are going to talk about 9-11 to the public, you better have your ducks in a row.

Let us now take a look at the big tent that Mr. Tarpley wants us to come together under, and see who else would be there with us when we get there.   A good place to start is Mr. Tarpley's book, 9/11 Synthetic Terror , published through Progressive Press.   This book was hailed by many as one of the better books on the subject of September 11th.   Upon closer examination, there are many clues which would tell us Mr. Tarpley's version of who would be joining us under his big tent.

Mr. Tarpley includes in his book, a foreword written by a man named Thierry Meyssan.   In his article 9 /11 Conspiracies: When a Knock is a Boost , which was a response to the History Channel hit piece , Mr. Tarpley heaps praise upon Mr. Meyssan, writing:

  " Thierry Meyssan, the founder of our worldwide movement, got more recognition tonight than he has ever received in this country, and it is about time – his book the Big Lie is and remains a classic."

Far from the "founder of our worldwide movement", Mr. Meyssan has been the original source for the "no plane" theories which have so divided the 9-11 movement.   Mr. Meyssan gave us the original "straw man" argument, which first surfaced as the idea that a truck bomb caused the damage at the Pentagon.   This story later morphed into the claim that a missile or a global hawk hit the Pentagon.   Later, these Pentagon theories gave birth to the ridiculous notion that no planes were used on 9-11 whatsoever.   Mr. Meyssan and his theories, and all those related to his original claims have been widely rejected by serious 9-11 researchers and activists for years.   Is it reasonable to assume that Mr. Tarpley is unaware that most of the movement has soundly rejected Mr. Meyssan's work?   Why does Mr. Tarpley feature Mr. Meyssan so prominently in his book, and speak so highly of him and his work?   I submit that the reason for this is not ignorance, but acceptance and endorsement. Let us now turn to the back cover of Mr. Tarpley's book.   We see that Mr. Meyssan is handsomely represented there too in one of a series of short endorsements of the book.    Almost surprisingly, among the other short endorsements is one written by the notorious blogger and troublemaker, Nico Haupt.   Mr. Haupt, well known as a disinformation specialist has been extremely vitriolic toward any 9-11 researcher or activist (or anyone for that matter) who refuses to accept and promote his unproven theory that not only were there no planes on 9-11, but what he calls "TV fakery" was used to superimpose the images of planes hitting the towers in real time, on live TV.   Mr. Haupt has repeatedly attacked me and many others and it is believed he is in part responsible for the dis-informative and derogatory websites 911truthy.org, 911 Truthlings Watch, and 911researchers.com.   In this article from the Rolling Stone magazine, Matt Taibbi refers to Mr. Haupt as "the movement's house lunatic", citing an anecdote where Mr. Haupt tried to provoke him into a fight while picketing his office.   It is beyond debate that Mr. Haupt is one of the worst problems facing the 9-11 movement, yet he is featured prominently on the back of Mr. Tarpley's book and has been a guest on Mr. Tarpley's radio program.   Why?   Can we consider this an endorsement of Mr. Haupt and his ludicrous behavior and theories? Another standout personality featured on the back of Mr. Tarpley's book is a man named Gerhard Wisnewski who is coincidentally a supporter of the KW.   Mr. Wisnewski's website is in German but also contains a rudimentary English translation. Despite what is probably a rough translation, there seems to be indications that Mr. Wisnewski also believes there were no planes on 9-11. One quote I did find to this effect reads:

"Two passenger planes (at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania) disappear without a trace – the two others leaving no trace of a voice recorder and, in the case of the World Trade Center, most likely not even bodies."  

From A Medieval Myth by Gerhard Wisnewski  

One thing that is certain when you look at his website is that Mr. Wisnewski believes that the landing on the moon was all a hoax.   He has, in fact, written two books on the topic titled One Small Step? and his new book, Lies in Space.    While I do not fall on either side of this debate, the fact still remains that if the opportunity were to ever present itself to the mainstream media, they would use these "moon landing hoax' theories to discredit Mr. Wisnewski's 9-11 work and the movement in general.   If we welcome Mr. Wisnewski under our big tent, why not bring in the holocaust deniers, anti-Semites, and alien abductees?   Is that what you want Mr. Tarpley? We can also look to supporters of the KW for clues as to who would be joining us under our big tent, here constructed by Webster Tarpley.   On his September 6, 2007 edition of Genesis World Report, Mr. Tarpley said:

"Who supported the Kennebunkport Warning?   Well, as you heard last week, generally speaking, recognized leaders who have built the 9-11 and the peace movements over many years.   That would include Jim Fetzer, you've seen him fighting with Hannity and other people on television, Kevin Barrett who fought at the university of Wisconsin, Daniel Abramson of False Flag News, Jimmy Walter, who put on the biggest single 9-11 meeting we've ever had in New York City in September of 2004, Morgan Stack, a heroic 9-11 fighter from Ireland, Gerhard Wisnewski, he's got two books out plus the first big special on prime time network television in one of the larger NATO countries, and now Yumi Kikuchi of the Global Peace Campaign in Japan, a very important group, and of course Bruce Marshall who's been instrumental in fighting the impeachment battles up in Vermont."

We have already discussed in detail some of these supporters of the KW.  Let us take a brief look at some of the others not previously mentioned.  Under Mr. Tarpley's big tent of diversity, we would obviously have Mr. Jim Fetzer.  This is the same Mr. Fetzer who is responsible for the break up of Scholars for 9-11 Truth.  Among other things, Mr. Fetzer ruthlessly attacked Dr. Jones on several occasions, and Dr. Jones responded with facts and answers in a peer-reviewed letter.This is the same Mr. Fetzer who openly supports divisive people like WING-TV and Nico Haupt, the same Mr. Fetzer who promotes the junk science of "TV fakery", space beam promoters Judy Wood and "no planes on 9-11", Morgan Reynolds (at the st911.org site).  Fetzer has threatened legal action against several 9/11 researchers but fortunately failed in his legal action against 9/11 researcher Fred Burks.   Mr. Fetzer's "Scholars" group has shrunk by about half since his attacks on others in the 9/11 Truth community.  This also happens to be the same Mr. Fetzer who has been widely rejected by serious 9-11 activists.   Jim Fetzer is far from a "recognized leader" who has "built the 9-11 and peace movements over many years".  It is a huge distortion for Mr. Tarpley to include Jim Fetzer in such a list.  Is it possible that Mr. Tarpley is unaware of the movement wide rejection of Mr. Fetzer and his Orwellian "Scholars for 9-11 Truth"?  (Fetzer's small group was, however, identified with the 9/11 community in the History Channel attack piece.)  Or does he support the use of absurd theories in presentations to the public?  Below is an excerpt from an email I recently received from someone who had looked into our movement for what he calls "an inordinate amount of time".   Take a good look at the handy work of Mr. Jim Fetzer.

"The 9/11 attacks were the deliberate action of Al Qaida, they planned it, confessed, they had the means and the motive. Last year I spent an inordinate amount of time reading up on various 9/11 claims and found them not credible. The self named "Scholars for 9/11 truth" contained almost no scholars with any relevant expertise……"

How about the "heroic 9-11 fighter from Ireland", Morgan Stack?   A quick look at his website reveals him to be a big supporter of the KW.   Mr. Stack is also, apparently a big supporter of Scholars for 9-11 Truth, "TV fakery", and "no planes on 9-11" advocate Morgan Reynolds.    

These are the promoters of the Kennebunkport Warning according to Mr. Tarpley.   Is it a coincidence that most of them, including Mr. Tarpley himself, are also pushing the worst dis-information about 9-11?   Is this your idea of "diversity" Mr. Tarpley?   Why did Mr. Tarpley not mention some of the plethora of solid researchers and activists who have really built our movement?  

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

Below is a short transcript of the main part of Mr. Tarpley's attack on me and the others.   The audio of the 2nd hour of his program, where these remarks can be heard is found here.

"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 real name 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 pus who 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 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 that's 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]

These are the same kind of ad hominem attacks that come from the mainstream media when we try to talk about 9-11.   The big difference here is that these attacks are being orchestrated by a high profile member of the 9-11 movement, aimed at other members of the same movement.   Worse still, is the fact that these unfounded and unproven allegations are very serious and include accusations of being government agents.   Throughout this attack, Mr. Tarpley engages in ridiculous and transparent arguments, instead of addressing the concerns we have.   Sound familiar?   This is exactly what the main stream media does to us as a movement.   The above rant is a text book example of an ad hominem.   Dictionary.com defines an ad hominem as:

2. attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.

A Latin expression meaning "to the man." An ad hominem argument is one that relies on personal attacks rather than reason or substance

Why did you not address our concerns Mr. Tarpley, but instead, chose to engage in the exact behavior we abhor from the mainstream media?   Instead of answering our questions, you attacked us Mr. Tarpley.   Answer our questions won't you?   Why did you attack these ladies in the Peace movement?   Why don't you take them off your document? During this rant, Mr. Tarpley relied exclusively on personal attacks or ad hominems.   You attack me because I have sunglasses on in a couple of pictures at my website? I don't want anyone to know who I am?   Is this for real?   If Mr. Tarpley had bothered to look, he would have found this picture of me, without sunglasses.   And by the way, I do use my real name.   How am I anonymous Mr. Tarpley?   And so what if I was?   Does anonymity automatically make one COINTELPRO?   Or is it anonymity, together with standing up to you that invites this designation?   What about "George Washington" over at 911blogger Mr. Tarpley.   Is he COINTELPRO too?     Mr. Tarpley, how do your transparent attacks make us COINTELPRO?   How does the fact that Arabesque and Col. Jenny Sparks chose to write under pen names make them COINTELPRO?   How does having a nickname, or a beard, or a hat make Cosmos COINTELPRO?   Where is your proof of these allegations Mr. Tarpley?   Apparently, Mr. Tarpley chose to take these attacks to the 6th anniversary events in NYC.   According to a posting at truthmove.org stating:

"im at the conference right now. tarpley just called cosmos, jenny sparks, arabesque, michael wolsey, and john gold all cointelpro. he even put pictures of some of these peopleup on the screen."

If it is true that Mr. Tarpley did indeed make theses accusations against me, Cosmos, Arabesque, and Jenny, these are serious claims that I do not take lightly.   As they say out here in the West, Mr. Tarpley, either put up or shut up.   Provide the evidence to back up your claims, or shut up. Of course, Mr. Tarpley cannot "put up" and that is why he chose to use ad hominems in a feeble attempt to demonize me and my colleagues.   May I be the first of many to denounce such behavior from Mr. Tarpley and I demand a public retraction and apology, to myself, and to all whom Mr. Tarpley has attacked, including the ladies in the Peace Movement who want their names removed from the KW.   Mr. Tarpley, you also owe the entire movement an apology for such juvenile actions and behaviors.   Another equally unfounded statement by Mr. Tarpley is as follows:

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.

This statement constitutes a gross distortion at best, and at worst, a blatant lie.   Speaking for myself, I can say that this statement is an insult to the selfless work I have done in the 9-11 movement for years now.   Others have recognized my work as well, here, here, and here.   Did you bother to look into my work at all before you made the decision to attack me Mr. Tarpley?   Not even a google search?   It seems to me had Mr. Tarpley done just a bit of homework, he could not have, with a clear conscience, said the things about me that he did. I know there were lies and fabrications and ad hominems aimed at my colleagues Cosmos, Arabesque, Jon Gold, and Col. Jenny Sparks, which I will leave for them to address individually.   It should be known that I denounce Mr. Tarpley and his ad hominem attack on all of us in the strongest of terms and that the others who were attacked have my full and undivided support. In closing I will say that what Mr. Tarpley has done to cause the controversy surrounding the KW is nothing short of despicable.   Additionally, he has for years promoted some of the worst information regarding the 9-11 cover-up, a fact that seems to either have been ignored, or hidden in plain sight, or both.   Today, instead of practicing what he preaches, he simply attacks anyone who might dare stand up to his egomaniacal little tirade against the Peace Activists.   I am aware of calls to move past the KW, and yes, I would like nothing better.   This has cost me many hours of valuable time that I could have used much better.   However, the fact remains that Webster G. Tarpley has behaved in a way that cannot and should not be ignored.   In the past, and using the mantra "for the sake of the movement", it has been the practice to ignore these disruptors.   What has ignoring these people done?   Have things got better as a result of ignoring them?   Have they gone away?   On the contrary, like busy little termites, the have been slowly eating away at the foundations of our movement.   These outrageous actions by Mr. Tarpley cannot, and will not go unchallenged by me.   We as a movement need to come together on how we handle such disruptors and re-evaluate the unwritten, failed policy of ignoring them and hoping they will just go away.

There is an italics formatting error

That is causing everything below it to be shown in italics rather than just the quoted sections.

----
Senior 9/11 Bureau Chief, Analyst, Correspondent, Principle Investigator, Forensic 9/11ologist

http://www.chico911truth.org/

Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny. — Robert Heinlein

Ah, that would explain the strange sensation...

I feel as if I'm about to fall off the right side of my chair....
______________________________________
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Italics are fixed, sorry...

Italics are fixed, sorry...

Cheers!

______________________________________
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Show "So Ironic..." by morganstack

The original hit-piece was Tarpley's

Michael Wolsey has been highly active in the movement since at least 2004, at that time in Denver with the original 9/11 Visibility Project, and he was a board member of 911Truth.org. His excellent website is at www.visibility911.com.

See http://www.visibility911.com/archives.php for the archives of dozens of one-hour weekly radio shows Wolsey has produced with a long series of distinguished guests.

Wolsey's site represents many hundreds of hours of dedicated work undertaken in a modest, selfless fashion. It provides a vital and effective educational service, and in my view is worth a lot more to the world than the exciting and novelistic approach of Tarpley's "Synthetic Terror," which admittedly is a great read.

However, Wolsey did not attack Tarpley. Tarpley attacked first, starting with the peace movement leaders who said they had not signed the KW. (Whether or not they really did, whether there is misunderstanding or lying at work here: It would have been very easy to give all the benefit of the doubt and just remove their names, damn it, without launching a jeremiad. What was the point?)

Then Tarpley attacked the people who questioned his behavior, including Wolsey, directly accusing them of being COINTELPRO.

In doing so he leaned on the "who the hell is Michael Wolsey" argument, implying Wolsey showed up yesterday, which is untrue and would be invalid even if true. Simple research on a search engine (google his name) will tell you right away who Wolsey is. Tarpley's accusations against him are little more than insults. He employs no facts and laughably spurious arguments, such as the fact that in one picture, Wolsey wears sunglasses.

If Tarpley had not attacked Wolsey as an agent in a series of public forums, you wouldn't be reading Wolsey's response to Tarpley.

I don't know Tarpley's motivation. "Synthetic Terror" is comprehensive, well-argued and at points brilliant; it also derails constantly into long and usually daring but factually insupportable speculations (around the idea that 9/11 was a coup against Bush himself, for example). Subsequent chapters treat earlier speculation as established fact, which is then used in deriving further speculation. If any one of these foundations proves false, most of his edifice comes down.

It makes for great reading, thanks to Tarpley's talent as a stylist, and no doubt hits a lot of truths, but the method is not scholarly and unlikely to arrive consistently at truth.

Nor is the book doing the necessary political work in the case of 9/11, where the most important task remains establishing *for the majority* that the official story is a cover-up and that the truth must be known; a task that Wolsey devotes himself to with vigor, and that Tarpley mocks as naive and hopeless ("unanswered questions," ha ha, "demand answers," hee hee, what a bunch of "LIHOP" suckers, ho ho).

No doubt, 911visibility.com is less sexy than "Synthetic Terror." And Tarpley is better known than Wolsey, but then again Tarpley works hard to be well-known.

For the record, during a phase when I tried to forge unity among the factions in New York and at a time when I was still organizing most of the events there, I invited Tarpley to a lecture at St. Mark's Church in Jan. 2006. The event was well-attended and went well. We had a great time drinking afterwards. The lecture and the drinking were covered in a long article for New York magazine, at a time when the 9/11 truth movement seemed fresh and constructively provocative. People really like Tarpley personally, and so do I.

I didn't imagine then that Tarpley would one day pick such a stupid and wrong-minded fight and act in such a destructive manner. Why he would do so, only he knows. It's wrong, but I won't and do not need to speculate about the background of his decision.

---

"Truth is not measured in mass appeal."
summeroftruth.org

Show "It's Still Typeset Incorrectly" by James Redford

LOL -- Ya know...

I really think you SHOULD have been severely voted down for your hi-fallutin' post.

Not!

ROTFLMAO!

----
Senior 9/11 Bureau Chief, Analyst, Correspondent, Principle Investigator, Forensic 9/11ologist

To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men. — Abraham Lincoln

Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny. — Robert Heinlein

I find it hard to accept that he means what he's saying...

I am immensely more comfortable with the KW being a cocktail of bumbling with equal parts ego, but I just don't know anymore. Putting their pictures up and basically calling you traitors? What the hell is going on here? Coming from a fellow that was called a traitor for not subscribing to Judy Wood, this all hits close to home. We need to see some rational discussion, apologies, and alot less bashing on this issue so we can all move on to our more pressing concerns... I mean come on we're supposed to be building bridges at this point, not taking irresponsible potshots.

www.vancouver911truth.com

Your feelings are entirely understandable

I was never a serious Tarpley fan, though I was moving in that direction before I was slowed down by the Larouche connections. Then this hit.

Eh, it's just more of the same for me--like all that rubbish Nico writes. But for someone not used to it--or being asked to do a 180 on their man Tarpley--I don't envy that position and I won't push anyone in it. Do you're own research. ;-)

Read these TruthAction threads if you haven't already:
http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2123
http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2143

The second one in particular gives me the willies.
______________________________________
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

"How we broke the Kennebunkport Hoax Story"--posted at Daily Kos

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/21/143911/917
______________________________________
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

doughnut - FYI

It is my humble opinion that the Secrecy began in 1947 with the creation of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
The Wikipedia file has changed numerous times in an attempt to hide the fact that 2 of the 3 functions originally listed were direct violations of the Charter of the United Nations that was signed by 49 countries in 1945.
The Eisenhower/Nixon administration funded recruitment, training and weapons for covert operations in Cuba in the 1950s.

I don't have the time right now to provide you links to the websites which I have used to support my above statement nor the websites and pages to the John F Kennedy speech that he gave to the press in 1961 regarding "Secrecy being repugnant in an open society".

The CIA has recently released something that they call "Family Jewels" which admits that they were guilty of breaking not only the laws of the United States but also international laws.

I will be glad to provide you with what I have discovered.
Had the Warren Commission Report been attacked when it was issued like the Official 9/11 Commission Report is now I don't think that 9/11 would have ever been attempted.

The Florida Voter fraud in the 2000 Coup of the US Government was necessary because there were to many powerful people who had spent billions of dollars planning 9/11 for to many years. Without the 5-4 US Supreme Court miscarriage of Justice putting Bush in power 9/11 would not have occurred.

9/11 was a joint secret international covert operations. They needed Bush in office push their agenda through and they haven't let up. I am not even sure that the United States of America will be permitted to vote for president in 2008.

In 1918 President Woodrow Wilson gave a speech to Congress 10 months before the end of World War I. It is known as his 14 Point Speech and can be found on the internet.
Although many of the points of that speech did not become reality since WWI had not yet ended, you may want to read it since his first point concerns how he thought future wars could be prevented.
OPEN GOVERNMENTS resolving their problems Diplomatically with meetings in public view and not behind closed doors.

The NSA was also created via

The NSA was also created via the same act but was not disclosed until the mid 80's.

Off-topic: Little known facts - Reston, VA was a sheltered planned community that was planed in the 50's and built in the 60's just as was Columbia, MD, again planned in the 50's and built in the 60's. Reston is between Dulles and DC and right next to CIA HQ in Herndon, Columbia is between DC and Baltimore, and right next to NSA HQ in Ft. Meade.
Oh and the people who pretty much built Columbia died in a small plane crash in the 80's (Rouse Family)
Edit: Ed Norton is the grandson of James Rouse - the Founder of Columbia.

--
The 9/11 Truth B-Team

Well... actually... CIA HQ

Well... actually... CIA HQ is in McLean, VA not in Herndon.

I stand corrected. I used

I stand corrected. I used to live in Columbia as a kid...
--
The 9/11 Truth B-Team

However, the NEADS command

However, the NEADS command center is in Herndon.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=northeast_air_defen...

Just saw that there was an

Just saw that there was an Ebola Virus outbreak there (contained) in 1989 - Ebola Reston strain I think is named after it , and the premise behind the book "The Hot Zone".
--
The 9/11 Truth B-Team

"Dahliar 4"???? He's burning his bridges and not looking back

For more disinfo fun, at youtube you can see this lovely video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeiMj7lqqRQ

Apparently, according to the red "Star Wars" scrolling style script, I'm guilty of "microwave harrassment"--whatever that is.

;-/
______________________________________
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

"Microwave harassment?" I

"Microwave harassment?" I think that's one of those "non-lethal weapons".

-----

If you're talking Bush and Cheney, you're talking Israel.

BBC's "War Party": a 49 Minute Documentary about the Neocons
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4667039539703585825

Infantile name calling

Re: "Dahliar 4":
"Isn't that cute Mr. Hill? Not bad for a 4th grader, but a grown man? And you want to be part of the US Senate? You can't be serious."

The same goes for Webster Tarpley. It has always bothered me that whenever he refers to Noam Chomsky, he seems to be unable to avoid the obligatory g-word (gnome). What is it with these people and their 3-rd grade jokes? Sure, Noam is a left gatekeeper but that doesn't mean you have to take such childish stabs at him every time, ad nausaem.

Speaking of which... Isn't it curious that people with the same childish habits and gullible minds, ready to accept even the most ridiculous theories, group together? (Witness also Fetzer and Reynolds in their attacks against Dr. Jones.) In an odd way, this may even be good (as much as there can possibly be any good in this whole sad division of the Truth Movement) -- that people with character flaws -- infantile, gullible mindsets and big egos -- tend to group together. It makes discrediting them so much easier.

The flip side of the above is, of course, that the serious researchers and activists need to distance themselves from these people as fast and as far as they can. Which makes me wonder, what are Drs. David Ray Griffin, Robert Bowman, Kevin Barrett (and any other respectable truthers) still doing in Fetzer's Scholars gang?

Barrett is there by choice,

Barrett is there by choice, I can't support the guy anymore he's for "no planes" and all the other disinfo, defends Reynolds and everything.

We don't need "leaders" we need to be our own leaders working from our own initiative.

A Defense of Dr. Kevin Barrett

Bruce;

I urge you to reconsider your abandonment of support for Dr. Kevin Barrett.

Barrett is a ceaseless activist for 9/11 Truth.

* He wrote 2 excellent 9/11 truth books (one edited).

* He has a radio show on 3 different Internet networks.

* He has an extensive email list for communicating 9/11 information.

* He has garnered more national news than any other 9/11 Truth leader.

* He got a full page ad for 9/11 Truth placed on the strategic back page of a major Wisconsin Newspaper (the Isthmus).

* He gets letters to the editor published on a regular basis (although i did like his most recent letter, all of his other ones have been excellent).

* Here in Madison, Wisconsin, he organizes meet-ups, meetings, street marches, conferences, presentations, movie showings, etc. on a regular basis. His work ethic for Truth is untouchable.

*He arranged speeches here for Griffin (2005 - show on C-Span), Morgan Reynolds (2006 - before he descended in to wackiness), and Willie Rodriguez (2007)

Barrett does not "believe" the "no planes theory".

Rather he is open minded, probably too open minded, and pays lip service to the "no planes" theory, as he does not want to be divisive and insult his fellow 9/11 Truth Activists.

Nobody is perfect, but Dr. Barrett comes close when you consider all he has done for the Truth.

damage is done . . .

FlashBack: Kevin Barrett: Beam weapons critics making 'a tactical mistake' http://www.911blogger.com/node/4980

"I would urge people to go take a look at this material".

''I think we don't really need any kind of unanimity from researchers''

''I don't think this is doing any permanent harm to the 9/11 movement ''

-----------

The defense of Fetzer'sconference on MUJCA -

http://www.mujca.com/madisonconference.htm

"Ace Baker followed Reynolds' talk by presenting his research on the alleged live South Tower strike videos—research that seems to show that at least one "live news video" of the South Tower strike is a special-effects "cartoon" not an actual video of a plane strike. (See Baker's argument, Eric Salter's rebuttal, and Baker's response to Salter.)"

-----------

Latest Hoax Article: Fetzer & Barrett Promote TV Fakery

Kevin Barrett, the founder of MUJCA and a member of Scholars, reports he is troubled by these new studies. “I guess I’ll have to take this possibility more seriously now,” Barrett said. “In the past, I have assumed video fakery was far-fetched and that anyone who endorsed it was probably a crackpot! Now I’m not so sure.”
http://www.truthmove.org/forum/topic/575

And for someone who is so

And for someone who is so learned in a literature, arts, culture how could he chose the title "My Epic Struggle" which translates literally to "MEIN epischer KAMPF".
One could argue that it is a derivation of the word Jihad, which means Struggle, but to place that next to "MY" is deliberate and insulting, as well as coded to offend those who know better.

--
The 9/11 Truth B-Team

LOL

Oh, you were serious?

My Oops.

Or should that be "Mein Oopsenhoffer"?

LOLOL!

I got a million of 'em.

*snark*

----
Senior 9/11 Bureau Chief, Analyst, Correspondent, Principle Investigator, Forensic 9/11ologist

To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men. — Abraham Lincoln

Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny. — Robert Heinlein

thanks

Great!

Be sure...

And check out Michael's series on COINTELPRO, and what I think, personally, he should receive an award for, The 9/11 Dust Series.

Thank you Michael for taking the time to write this piece. I know that it took a lot of it.


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

They need only occasionally

They need only occasionally stir the pot. Paranoia does the rest.

Stay calm. Stick to the facts. Fear is the mind killer.

http://tinyurl.com/2g878l
http://tinyurl.com/22t47z
http://tinyurl.com/2nyoue

Watch the end of the last clip. This is what is happening to the movement. We are millions. We don't need "leaders", only information and inspiration.

“On the altar of God, I swear eternal hostility against all forms of tyranny over the mind of man."--Thomas Jefferson

i loved michael's series on

i loved michael's series on cointelpro, i learned a lot from it. I also learned that people who are very knowledgeable on cointelpro can also fall victim to resorting to defemation to prove their otherwise valid points, which is a tragedy. I wished michael did not do this, but i understand the temptation if you have been personally attacked by someone. I just wish people would grow up and be the symbolic bigger man in this scenario.

Thanks for the writeup.

One thing that bothers me (not specifically related to the blog).... WHY DO WE HAVE SO MANY ANONYMOUS PEOPLE in the movement?

What is everyone afraid of? The gov knows who you are anyway.

Scared of the people? That's cowardly.

Justin A. Keogh
Tucson, AZ

Jumbo Jets Can Not Demolish Skyscrapers.

Its not so monolithic as you

Its not so monolithic as you think, why make it easier for some PR desk jockey shill to make your life difficult.
--
The 9/11 Truth B-Team

Beards, Glasses, and Che Guavara

I'm scared Tarpley will make fun of my glasses too. If he gets a hold of a picture with my beard I'm really screwed.

"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."

"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."

You don't really seem all that spooky to me

Col. Jenny, Arabesque, Jon Gold, et. al.

I encountered more spooks than I care to count in my stint(s) in aerospace/defense/scientific research (indirect research for the DOE among others). None of you seem all that "spooky" to me- your speech patterns and writing styles don't really fit the part, but I wasn't playing with FBI types per se, and you were collectively accused of COINTELPRO specifically.

The "spooky" types I have met also value anonymity to a high degree and aren't all that fond of having their picture taken or voice recorded (perhaps something to remember at "activist" gatherings). I fully support your desire to stay anonymous on the internet (I resemble that comment too)- perhaps Tarpley's people are trying to "leak" or discredit some personal identities in the Rove/Libby/Valerie Plame sense ("out" didn't really seem like the right word- definitely has some other connotations- not going there).

Thanks again for all your investigative hard work, diligence, thick skin, dark glasses, and fake beards! Besides, according to MSNBC & Dateline, all the FBI agents are busy posing as 13 year old girls in the chatrooms, not as 9/11 Truth Seekers

He would probably flip if he

He would probably flip if he saw the picture of Cosmos and me(beards and glasses) talking to the local news here in SF.....Sometime I feel like I am on the outside looking in with this movement....

Who wants to

know?

9/11 Truth Ends War

It ain't "the CIA" I worry about...

...At this point, I'm not worried about visits from the real intelligence community. Most trouble for most dissidents comes from low-level flacks with little comprehension of the issues, but a chip on their shoulder and who think a badge gives them an excuse to push "wierdos" of any kind around. I doubt the cops and security guards who try to throw around their weight at demonstrations have any numbers from Washington on their speed-dial. But it's people at their level, either out of spite or fear of retribution against themselves, who will give you the most trouble, at least until you're much more active.

If I'm going to be bothered, let it be by someone who has enough authority, connections or savvy to figure it out... I'm not just handing out my ID for every right-wing idiot in the country to play with. Obviously, not everyone feels the same way, or has the same situation. We all have to figure out what works best for us.

It would make sense, though, for any of us using a nom de plume to keep in mind how that looks to others. That goes both for our manners and ethics in discussions, as well as the cogency of our arguments on-line. In fact I'd say it raises the bar... we should be held to a higher standard (which I can only hope to meet as well). After all, we're represented by nothing except our conduct under that name. If we value that reputation at all, it's best to defend it with our own best behavior.

Good point about the higher standard.

The fruit people bear is the easiest way to understand their motives anyway.

Jumbo Jets Can Not Demolish Skyscrapers.

I would like to hear from hsgsj.

Kind sir, are you following this disturbing development?

OK

I have been following this issue only peripherally. The situation is very straight forward in my opinion.

There are two issues, one which leads to the next, but the two are not interdependent.

The first is the actual issue regarding the KW report. That is, were the signatures forged or were they not. On this particular issue, I could honestly care less. It does not matter to me in the least. Based upon the feedback I have from various people that I trust, I would guess at this point that the signatures were not forged. I could be persuaded either way with the right 'proof', but like I said, the point is moot since the real crime was with the subsequent handling of the issue.

The response of Tarpley et al to the accusation that the signers did not sign the document is outrageous. Here is where the issue is cut-and-dry. If we assume that we give Tarpley the full benefit of the doubt, and the signers DID sign the document, then his handling of the situation was atrocious --- I can not think of a less graceful response. If the signers want their name removed from the document/petition for ANY reason, then you remove their names. It is common decency. What you do NOT do is attack them, especially when one has gone out of the way to obtain a significant bridge to the peace movement by attempting to obtain the signatures in the first place.

What Tarpley has done is burn the very bridge he states he was attempting to build. This was either a very foolish act by a reasonably intelligent man, or a very irrational act fed by healthy doses of paranoia (since he thinks it was an intentional act to derail the KW report!). To accuse 4 or 5 members who have diligently worked and slaved to advance 9/11 truth of being traitors, COINTELPRO ops, without a shred of evidence is completely and utterly an irrational act. From 'everybody look what's going down', an apt tune for the moment --- "Paranoia strikes deep, into your life, it will seep, it starts when your always afraid......" --- I would definitely classify Tarpley's relentless warnings as paranoia sprung from fear. He has done some thoughtful analyses, but the heavy doses of fear-based crystal-ball readings woven within everything he utters grows tiresome and is, as demonstrated, ultimately destructive.

There is MUCH too much of this within the 9/11 truth community. People accusing each other of COINTELPRO --- it is causing the continual self-destruction of the Truth Movement, and paranoia will continue to do so until people stop acting from fear.

Erin, you asked ;)

Yes, I did ask...

and welcomed your response. Thank you.

At the very core, I fully agree. Giving Mr. Tarpley complete benefit of doubt, that he initiated the warning and sought signatures of support without any intentional harm to either parties... I non-the-less felt the ensuing fiasco stemmed primarily from his stubborn disinclination to simply remove the names of anyone who rescinded their interest for whatever reason they may have had, be it by writing or even rumor. This was never a "Legal Document" of any kind.

(Come on, what are ya gonna do... sue someone over this?).

The eventual size of the fiasco now some three weeks later, evident by the popularity of this very blog... THEN fell upon the un-checked or hard to keep in check tendencies and frustrations of a somewhat weary crowd of people struggling many years in an information battle field of injustice. We may be weary and frustrated at even just the hint of cointelpro, but there is NO ONE ELSE who can overcome it for us.

Webster's cyclic 'warnings of eminent doom' have spurned me too, and he knows it. Yet I can get my words in front of him far easier than I can slip a word into a cacophony if an internet a-buzz with dispersions cast into all four winds. So it was unfortunately Mr. Tarpely personally who so galvanized my attitude for him into reluctant opposition.

And to your last... I again agree that it is fear itself that has no place here if We are to be champions of truth. The ugliest truths of this dark age in our humanity must be overcome if we wish not to live forever in chains of lies.

Take care hsgsj, and thank you.

Greg 'hsgsj' Jenkins built directed-energy lasers for NSA ...

... so he has a "special perspective" on COINTELPRO and 9/11.

References:

http://www.physics.buffalo.edu/cerne/reprints/ybco_prl.pdf

http://www.physics.buffalo.edu/cerne/reprints/au_prb.pdf

Good thing Steve Jones told him there something fishy about 9/11! Dr Jenkins may not have been bright enough to figure that out himself. (?)

Disreguard this.

Disreguard this.

What's up with Tarpley?

Well, this is certainly a surprise about Tarpley, if the allegations are true, and after reading something like this, it is hard to know WHAT is true. It's news to me that Tarpley supports Fetzner and the Directed Energy Weapon theory -- there's nothing about it in his book. Has his position changed since writing 9/11 Synthetic Terror? If so, can Wolsey or someone provide a link to anything he has written or spoken in support of DEW, no planes, "faked video" and other weak arguments? Given how riven our movement is with disinformation peddlers, we have to be careful to document ALL our claims, particularly about other prominent members of our community. Wolsey has not done this, unless I missed it.

I'm not saying I defend what Tarpley allegedly did vis a vis the KW. I had "issues" with Tarpley's book from Day One, but I considered them relatively trivial next to the many aspects of 9/11 truth he was highlighting. I didn't like his past links to LaRouche, or his lame position on the Clinton bombing of Yugoslavia, or his silly denial of Peak Oil. His "Angel is Next" chapter doesn't pass muster either, exonerating Bush from foreknowledge of 9/11.

So I would reject any notion that the 911 Truth movement must embrace a "big tent". Too late for that. People like Judy Wood and Fetzer have in my opinion failed the test of credibility. Fetzer broke up Scholars for 9/11 Truth and supports, like Wood, a theory for which there is little or no evidence. The movement can embrace SOME diversity, e.g., I think the question of WHAT hit the Pentagon remains a subject of legitimate dispute among "serious" researchers. But alleging video fakery and no planes hitting the towers is, I think, way outside of what about 90% of 9/11 truthers believe. As such, we should distance ourselves from those who promote such unproven and questionable theories.

Page 245 of the 2004 Edition, PDF File

Tarpley speculating about a C-130 shooting down Flight 93:

"Such a plane could easily have carried a powerful airborne chemical laser, and this type of directed energy weapon based on new physical principles might have accounted for the physical effects actually observed on the scene."

flight 93

Brainster, I was referring to theory that directed energy weapons brought down the Twin Towers and WTC 7. I don't find that a tenable hypothesis. As far as some such weapon shooting down Flight 93, that's another matter entirely, and in fact it seems very plausible from what I've read.

"For a possible explanation

"For a possible explanation of what kind of energy source could have been at work, we must turn our attention to the realm of new physical principles, and thus to the class of directed-energy weapons which are probably most familiar to the general public in connection with President Reagan's so-called Star Wars speech of March 23, 1983."
Webster Tarpley, Synthetic Terror, 3rd Edition, page 244

--
The 9/11 Truth B-Team

This post proves that the Screw Loose crew are amateurs...

..at REAL debunking.

That, or lazy. ;-)
______________________________________
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Nope, I Knew The Other Two Quotes

(imgstacke missed one) Were Tarpley gently deriding DEW at the Twin Towers. Of course, some (like Memory Hole) may think that DEW at the Twin Towers are obvious disinfo, while DEW used to bring down Flight 93 is legit, but I certainly don't see it; this is like that "No-Planers at WTC are nutty, but No-Planers at the Pentagon make a lot of sense."

You've got "Victronix's Good 9/11 Activist Guidelines" by now..

Should be driving some of your mates spare.... ;-)
______________________________________
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Try again

Yeah, well, that quote hardly constitutes an endorsement by Tarpley of the Directed Energy Weapon thesis of Wood & Fetzer. In fact, if you read the sentence before it, you see that Tarpley is quoting Jim Hoffman, saying that Hoffman "notes a number of features of the Twin Towers' collapse which suggest they may have been 'demolished through some entirely different process, perhaps involving some form of directed energy weapon.'" (244) I think this is a reasonable and accurate observation. However, it does not discredit Jones' controlled demolition thesis, nor does Tarpley imply such.

So, once again, I invite Mr. Wolsey to substantiate his claim that Mr. Tarpley endorses Wood & Fetzer's DEW theory, or video fakery, or no planes at the WTC.

The arguement is a straw man

The arguement is a straw man - the issue is the big tent.
--
The 9/11 Truth B-Team

Show "There are no part time" by FredHendrik

Great post. To clarify one

Great post. To clarify one point, Tarpley mentions the viability of the "exotic" methods of demolition in the physical evidence chapter of the third edition of Synthetic Terror. He also had Fetzer on his radio show regarding KW and Tarpley's apprentice, Dan Abramson, had Nico Haupt on shortly there after.

In recent weeks Tarpley has shown himself to be at least a disingenuous "Big Tent" guy, and he very well may be a leader of the Truth "Mau Mau", built and promoted to destroy our credibility.

Show "Good Article" by Galileo

This is bulls#it

"If you don't believe me, tell your friends that you think there were no planes on 9-11. Tell them that the images they saw on TV that day were inserted real time into the live video AND all the still photos that were taken on that day. Tell them that explosives were detonated inside the towers in the exact shape of an aircraft to imitate a plane hitting it. While you are at it, tell them a missile hit the Pentagon and then tell them that space beams brought down the World Trade Center and see how they react. Don't be surprised if they discount your notions out of hand and laugh at you; maybe even call you a few names. Would you be surprised if you found out that Mr. Tarpley advocates and supports these ridiculous theories? It sure surprised me."

Except for questioning what really hit the pentagon, Webster Tarpley has NEVER advocated any of these ridiculous assertions. This is a flat out lie, made up with no basis in fact, and it calls into question the legitmacy of the rest of this article and it's author.

He makes his case..

in the later paragraphs - Its the Big Tent Issue.

he does make a case at all.

he does make a case at all. I read the entire article and synthetic terror and i see no convincing evidence whatsoever that webster tarpley supports a tv fakery angle.

so what?

tv fakery or energy weapons from space -- what diff does it make? Neither have any basis in the evidence.

Show "Naracissim and nit-picking leads to nothing." by iamthewalrus109

That is an awful lot of time indeed

to convince us that Tarpley is human.

Nice graphic. Where did you get that?

Have any of the other signers denied their involvement? Don't we all agree we were all freaked out over the billion dollar put option and general state of paranoia that is going around?

What if what Tarpley said was true...wouldn't you be incredulous too?

I know nothing except I think people do believe what they believe, and if they are on the side of truth, shouldn't we praise what he has done so far?

Also, while I'm at it...There is no-one who adores Dr. Jones more than I do...he's so sweet, charming and courageous...HOWEVER...it is difficult to think that thermate cutter charges could have produced all that damage, and there is nothing wrong with exploring other possibilities...bombs, alternative weapons...WE DON'T KNOW and nor should we even really care.

We know for sure that we don't know. Taking a play out of the enemy rule book..."There are known knowns, there are known unknowns and there are unknown unknowns"...yeah, it's stupid, but it's a strategy.

Right now, we look worse than our poor soldiers (POW's) in Iraq.

Jones has never stated

Jones has never stated thermate alone is responsible, but he has stated Superthermite - which is very well researched in fields of energetics (i.e. Explosives for Warheads) could have been used aswell as the signatures are present in the dust.
--
The 9/11 Truth B-Team

Redundancy

Hi peaceful soldier,

Your point about thermite and exploring other avenues is well made. We had a concept in aerospace engineering called [double/triple] redundancy on structural and other systems. It is human nature to look for ONLY one "smoking gun" or root cause- this is rather simplistic in my opinion (which includes physics/engineering/ironworking education and experience) for a monumental task like demolishing WTC 1, 2, & 7. We've been beat over the head with Occam's Razor by the "debunkers" for several years now, and I don't think we should let the "skepters" dictate our investigative methods to us- I haven't found that group to be all that consistent, well-researched, objective, or scientific. I also don't want to take anything away from Dr. Jones- his contributions have been massive and he has endured a large portion of the character assassination ("DiscrediTroll?"), ad hominem attacks personally in addition to the professional "blowback" he and Kevin Ryan endured.

Kean-Hamilton, FEMA, NIST, and the Anglo-American Corporate Media do seem thoroughly convinced that 2 planes and approximately one hour of office furnishing fire (after brief, diffuse orange-black jet fuel fires in air) can bring down 3 professionally-engineered steel skyscrapers with "factors of safety" near 300% (roughly like a "redundancy" for structures) from the very little I've been able to gather about WTC safety margins. I think most of us here at 911blogger, with the exception of the lurking debunkers (Hi Pat and R. Mackay if you're there), find this explanation to be inadequate and problematic at the very least.

Hypothetically speaking, if I was assigned the problem of bringing down a modern skyscraper(s), there would be more than one method used and considerable "overkill" to accomplish that goal- redundant explosive and cutter charge systems at the very least (but I don't work for Controlled Demolition, Inc., who apparently facilitated/expedited the removal of the WTC evidence). I have seen several building demolitions in Las Vegas firsthand. I've also studied military strategy for many years and watched media footage of the Pentagon-planned "Shock and Awe" in March 2003 Baghdad, which appeared to involve considerable "overkill" too. The question remains- exactly which person(s) were responsible for the "shock and awe" observed on 9/11/2001?

I don't know what to think

I'm not up on all this inside politics of 9/11 truth scholarship, but from what I am familiar with I was inclined to agree with the tenor of this author's commentary.

Then he threw me for a loop. He refers to Jon Gold as one of the good guys in the whole dispute.

Now, if memory serves me -- maybe I've got the name wrong -- Jon Gold had a blog item up here recently (which has since mysteriously disappeared) promoting the weakly corroborated claims of Sibel Edmonds (the general implication of those seeming to be that the real fault of U.S. foreign policy as it pertains to 9/11 is that the U.S. is too easy on allied Islamic regimes) and that the WTC was *not* destroyed by controlled demolition.

So here we have on the one hand a claim that serves Israel's interests, then another that tosses out the centrally most important factual assertion of the 9/11 truth movement. Sounds an awful lot like Mossad-ish disinformation to me.

So this Wolsey is saying that the far-fetched claims of Tarpley and certain of his associates smacks of disinformation, then he upholds another guy who to my mind similarly smacks of disinformation.

Am I missing something here?

"Am I missing something here?"

Nope. Sounds like you've been paying attention & aren't fooled by the not-so-obvious Shills. The no-planers, video fakery & space beam Shills are easy to spot. I feel sorry for those Tarpley fans that feel scorned, but this is no surprise. There will be a lot more Shills outed on our path to the truth, and some, like Tarpley, are always on the verge of outing themselves by pushing their LIHOP agenda & trying to confine & decry other important area's of research.

Keeping the pace up. Staying Focused.

So Webster Tarpley tries to trick celebrities and 9/11 Truth leaders into endorsing a statement about an event , that may or may not happen, in the future and tells us to be polite, respectful, and courteous to those that we disagree with.

I say we don't fall for either temptation.
1) predicting the future.
2) being nice to our oppressors.

Other than that this is cool. And by the way. Cosmos kicks ass!!!!

"You can control lazy people and hysterical people... you can't control determined people."

Show "Webster Tarpley has always" by malaprop aka izzy
Show ""Like the game "ultimate" by FredHendrik
Show "Complete rubish" by zorglub

Know your former CIA Directors

The crackpot neocon former CIA director's name is James Woolsey, not Wolsey. So that's not a very promising line of inquiry.

I don't believe a jumbo jet hit the Pentagon, but...

I also believe it's pointless to argue among ourselves about it because we don't have to.

NOTHING should have hit the Pentagon.

If we started asking "How could anything have hit the Pentagon", instead of arguing over what did(That IMHO is the real motive for hiding the footage--NOT "springing it at a later date"--cause we've passed that date, mates)--people in high places would start peeing their pants.

Okay, maybe not, "peeing", exactly, but they'd have to work harder to cause disruption.

Oh, and this is all beside the point of Webster Tarpley destroying his credability by verbally attacking anti-war AND 9/11 activists publically.

In case you missed that. ;-)
______________________________________
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

I have gone back in forth

I have gone back in forth about what hit the pentagon myself, and I agree the point that should always be thrown back in their face is the fact that Nothing should have hit the Pentagon, the most secure building in the world.
--
The 9/11 Truth B-Team

Too right

And if the military headquarters of the last supposed superpower can be hit by a bunch of overseas goats herders with a negligable ops budget, what does that say?

Either we're dead incompetent and can't be trusted with "the global war on terror", or we're in it up to our eyeballs.

More I think about it, that is part of the psyop--"if the US, with all it's planes and all its tanks, isn't safe, who is?"
______________________________________
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

No terrorism occurs in the

No terrorism occurs in the US without the knowledge of the Government, the only exceptions is the Unabomber/Eric Rudolph because they existed completely outside of the "system".
--
The 9/11 Truth B-Team

Very interesting

Thanks for posting.

Show "to the original poster:" by videohoax

whoa videhoax

This piece does not "perpetuate in-fighting" but rather attempts to reestablish cohesion within the movement by regulating a member who is being counterproductive. As the entry astutely concludes: "We as a movement need to come together on how we handle such disruptors and re-evaluate the unwritten, failed policy of ignoring them and hoping they will just go away." I could not agree more. Tarpley has clearly crossed the line and exposed himself as someone not working in the best interests of the group as a whole. To allow him to continue unabated is to invite further disruptions and in-fighting down the road. It is imperative that we manage our own ranks, and remain ever vigilant for that which moves beyond reasoned research.

Unless Tarpley can credibly defend himself (and quickly), his credibility and power within this movement will be properly destroyed.

So thank you for your well written and illuminating piece. There aren't many boring days in the life of a 9/11 Truther.

:P

i didnt say i was bored,

i didnt say i was bored, angry or disappointed is probably a better word. Whoever spent the time writing this hit piece on Webster Tarpley has their priorities severely out of order. It disgusts me when i see people spending hours writing such in fighting jabs rather than being real activists. sad day

to me this blog posting further illustrates exactly the danger of letting ego run the show.

be active, do visibility, spread information, please stop wasting time and perpetuating in fighting and keep it to your private e-mail exchanges.

don't get my wrong here, i think Tarpley's on air comments are immature and destructive as well, i just think this graphic of an a-bomb going off behind his head and the subsequent extreme time waster heresay article are pathetic. IT reminds me f the stuff nico haupt was doing when he put a tin foil hat on steven jones next to a dog turd.

edit: i just realized who Michael was, and frankly i dont understand why someone who sounds very well informed and so intelligent on the radio would perpetuate stuff that creates more in fighting. i love his radio show, i just lost a lot of respect for the man with this posting.

Peter, im abby's brother. And we are both ashamed by this perpetuating of in fighting.
If you dont think this article is perpetuating in fighting, i would like you to explain why its not. after reading this article i have lost mucho respect for a lot of previously respectable 9/11 truthers.

Off Topic- New "Big Bin" video

It seems the NWO boys are at it again. I just spotted this on Yahoo news. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070920/ap_on_re_mi_ea/al_qaida_video Bin Laden sure gets around for a dead man............. I wonder how many of the sheep will buy this one?

Thank you Michael.

I welcome your clear and evidence-based analysis. Clearly, the ball is in Tarpley's, et. al. court. I suppose, pessimistically speaking, that we can probably expect more of the same disruptive ad hominem. That appears to be the modus operandi of those folks. Disappointing. Revealing.

m

======================================================
"There are none so hoplessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free." (Goethe)

All i can say is....

Cosmos never hit me up for his books sales money immediately following a speech at 911 truth events. Oh sh*t cosmos doesnt sell books ( or anything). But WT does. And as for the statement people appearing in the movement since 2006 or 2007. Well Mr. Tarpley if you knew anything you'd know that the 70% of the people now in the movement joined since 06 and present day.
One more thing I've never seen Webster Tarpley take action other then his speeches to the choir or book sales. When i was in Philly July 4th he had an opprotunity to confront the media whores with a group of us real truthers right outside the event . Instead he choose to stay in the building awaiting his turn to preech some more to the choir. I've seen Bob Bowman, William Rodriguez, Alex Jones, Cosmos, and many other familiar faces in the movement do street actions. Never saw Tarpley .

(I have no stake in either

(I have no stake in either defending or vilifying Webster. Just as a correction, he HAS done street actions in front of the White House and around Washington, D.C. where he lives. Just because you've "never seen him" doesn't mean you're correct ;-) )

I do have some observations after watching this spectacle play out, here and on other sites, and over several radio programs. Maybe I'm playing devil's advocate a bit, but everyone desperately needs some perspective here.

Congratulations on a truly ugly gang-bang, folks. Watching and reading everything from the outside, EVERYONE has behaved badly here. Calling the KW a hoax was ridiculous. It may have been a misunderstanding (don't forget that the woman on whose property the KW document was signed says that the anti-war folks' are not telling the truth), Webster may have behaved narcissistically and egotistically by not making nice in the aftermath, the anti-war women might better have dealt with their retractions privately without inciting public reaction, but none of this is properly defined as a "hoax."

Webster seems pretty myopic and focused on his own line of research, and clearly is not a "warm and fuzzy people person." Maybe more of a "runs with scissors" guy than "plays well with others" guy. I doubt he spent any time before this debacle reading blogs and comments, so he probably had no idea who the 9/11 people were who were engaged in attacking him for the KW. Maybe he thinks he's above all that. But the police squad here demonstrated ego issues as well by assuming that he knew who they were and what celebrity their contributions to the movement should have afforded them in his eyes. Piety and umbrage all round. Pass the syrup.

I remind you that if there were any aspect of COINTELPRO going on here, 80% of its success can be attributed to the weeks of allegations, pages of nasty threads on websites, and everybody getting their shorts in a bunch because each side has been called kettle by the pot. I am tremendously disspirited that you've made the bad guys happy, however it came about. Let's spend hours and hours a day "eating our own" -- it's a lot cheaper than paying others to do it for us. Let's keep tearing down one faction, building up another, tearing it down, etc. like a remake of "And Then There Were None."

What next? Whisper, whisper...." Bob Bowman stepped in some caca today. You know that he worked for defense contractors and space weaponization programs and all kinds of things.... odd background for a truther, no? Lots of spooky stuff there. Worked for the globalists, ya know. Let's blog endlessly about how that influences where he will and won't go in discussions of 9/11, whose interests he may really be representing. Hey, wasn't he on Fox too?..." It will never end, folks. This has been a truly ridiculous time sink. I could post all of my suspicions about the people who have attempted to turn discussion of lack of Boeing evidence at the Pentagon into "COINTELPRO or disinfo," but what would be the point? In the end, everyone will decide for himself or herself where they believe the evidence leads.

As a personal note, I am no longer really interested in laying cloaks over puddles for the anti-war leaders, hoping to catch a crumb here or there, or adopting any of the tragically ineffective efforts they have demonstrated -- all the while KNOWING that they KNOW the power of 9/11 truth in obtaining their apparent goals while refusing to go there in a mainstream manner. The fact is that the rank-and-file of the peace and impeachment groups are very open to, and in many cases, conversant with, the details of the 9/11 movement. The bottleneck is at the top, with the celebrity leaders and their handlers. So if not NOW, ladies, while the American and Middle Eastern bodies continue to pile up, WHEN???? I've seen posts here indicating the belief that we only have a year left to get the message out to the tipping point. Sorry to say, there is no evidence that they will be the vehicle.

By the way, Washington area Larouche-ites are not supportive of 9/11 truth, at least the ones we've encountered handing out literature on the street. (They call US "the crazies.") I covered them in a very oppositional newsletter series 23 years ago, and I can tell you that it's not nearly as monolithic as portrayed here.

Sorry to go on such a rant. I guess it's been building!

Pace e Bene

I noticed a high percentage

I noticed a high percentage of people that appeared on Fox News has been involved in some very shady activity (Walter, Fetzer, Barrett, Reynolds and Tarpley) Bowman on the other hand was approached with the topic of DEW by Fetzer in this broadcast on his radio show and doesn't take the bait. mp3
So it would be reasonable to check for supportive comments and statements for Woods DEW theory by Bowman as he would be cited to have a unique perspective, right?

Well I am sure Fetzer would have loved for Bowman to jump on board, but he doesn't. Bowman keeps his distance and passes the smell test with flying colors.
--
The 9/11 Truth B-Team

I wasn't casting aspersions

I wasn't casting aspersions on Bowman at all -- just making an example of how the mob could turn on and review his (or anyone else's) entire history in a very suspicious light if he said something with which we didn't agree.

It has been suggested before that an appearance on Fox should raise flags. I can see why that would be so, but Bowman is the exception that may nix the rule.

I agree...

That Bowman kind of puts a damper on the theory that everyone that appeared on Fox is suspect. That being said, it wouldn't surprise me if some of the individuals that appeared on Fox did so because of those red flags you mentioned.

I also agree with a lot of what you said in the above post. I wish this wasn't dragged out like it was. I wish it never happened. When the KW came out, I posted it. When it was questioned, I took it down.


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

It was never a theory but an

It was never a theory but an observation that developed into a hypothesis. But 5 out of 6 just goes to show that FOX News is actively cherry picking individuals and putting them forward to define US. I would like to see Steven Jones, DRG, Kevin Ryan, Sibel E., Hoffman, or you Jon, on a MSM round table over the likes of the above mentioned shady people.

The MSM, esp. Fox, portrays us as loonies, therefore they must put forth an persona that characterizes this. MSNBC atleast had the guts to put Steven Jones and DRG on the air, even though the platform was quite hostile.

I remember when CNN was going to put William Rodriguez on the air but cancelled at the last minute because he would not attack Charlie Sheen (I think - was early 2006 I think).

Point is MSM has been paying attention, especially Fox News, and they seem to know who is who earlier then we do.
--
The 9/11 Truth B-Team

FOX NEWS

Fox News's agenda is to paint the 9/11 Truth movement as "leftist" or "liberal".

So it picks the 9/11 Truth leaders whose general views lean to the left.

Bowman was selected because he was running for congress as a democrat.

They have avoided Griffin, who also leans left, because he is a better 9/11 spokeman than Tarpley, Fetzer, or Barrett.

But Fetzer, Tarpley and Barrett all did well in their Fox interviews.

Which one of Fetzers did he

Which one of Fetzers did he do a good job on, the one where he looked like he had suffered a stroke, with the mouth contortions, or the one where he had those huge glasses on and pushed out his double chin?
--
The 9/11 Truth B-Team

Your Turn

If you can do a better job on Fox News up against O'Reilly, please let us know.

Fetzer got many good points in edgewise in both interviews, and never mentioned ray-beams, TV fakery, etc., all the stuff people here are always complaining about, so you should be happy about that.

PS - My mom in not a Truther, and she thought Fetzer did well, and that O'Reilly's yelling was apalling.

Fetzer is fairly old, so he will not look young and dappy, and a huge number of people don't like people like O'Reilly who yell at old people.

For one I wouldn't act like

For one I wouldn't act like i had suffered brain damage. So yeah I could do a better job.
--
The 9/11 Truth B-Team

Brain Damage?

Who exactly are you accussing of having brain damage?

I think that type of language used against fellow 9/11 Truth Activists is unacceptable.

For once I agree but since

For once I agree but since we are talking about Fetzer, it does not apply. And again ACTING like you have had a stroke while arguing for 9/11 Truth is about as underhanded trick at disinformation as you get, brilliant, but despicable.
--
The 9/11 Truth B-Team

very well spoken LEH, im

very well spoken LEH, im pretty ashamed of a lot of the behavior taking place here.

"The bottleneck is at the

"The bottleneck is at the top, with the celebrity leaders and their handlers."

Yea, unlike all the ones who have their "signatures" on the document who were ALL PRO 9/11-TRUTH! The reason people here are outraged at Tarpley et al is because they ATTACKED ALREADY PRO-9/11 TRUTH BIG ANTI-WAR/PEACE PEOPLE! It's called BURNING BRIDGES and was not APPRECIATED!!

Show "this blog and a lot of the" by videohoax

Hang on, I'm not picking

Hang on, I'm not picking fights here. You don't need to shout, I hear you just fine :-)

My reference included the KW signatories. I disagree with the idea that they are "pro-9/11 Truth," at least in the sense that we usually mean.

Cindy Sheehan has at least two op-eds published per week all over the country. Dahlia has at least one. They have an enormous audience and following. Speaking to the choir by saying that she has doubts about the OCT on Alex Jones' show (Sheehan), or tepidly saying that they support a new investigation when asked directly, or even agreeing with the idea that another false flag is possible (after all the mainstream warnings), is NOT making 9/11 an issue in their anti-war platforms. They have been exposed to this material for years, they have been tutored in the notion that 9/11 truth blows the anti-war message into the stratosphere. And yet...it just sits there, like the red-headed stepchild in the corner.

I just don't think those bridges were really there to begin with, Dem I think many of them don't want to burn bridges with US, so they toss a 9/11 crumb now and again (like Paul and Kucinich). We have asked them over and over to allow a 9/11 speaker at the DC protests -- not to publicly concur or endorse, just to present the info -- and have been turned down every time.

I've come to know over many years in DC -- and this is completely divorced from the KW issue -- that the anti-war folks are entirely controlled and purposefully deflected from the most devastating forms of counter-propagada at their disposal (whether they know it or not). It's depressing to say it, even as I type now. I will be THRILLED to be proven wrong. But I think the "damage" done to the movement is less about offending nebulous, unproven comrades, and more about the feeling that I and many others get when this kind of thing occurs -- "Jeez, this is such an effing cluster eff, what's the point?" And that's how the three letter agency dudes like it.

Again, this is not about the merits of Webster or Webster vs. whoever. At least not for me. Just offering a different perspective.

Sheehan has denounced all

Sheehan has denounced all the bullshit in the "anti-war/democrat" false opposition charade. She's leaning towards us now and people like her need encouragement not cold shoulders and insults. Tarpley and the others were out of line to attack the people they did, it was entirely counterproductive and an immense frustration for those who are building bridges and feel that uniting with the broader genuine anti-war/peace movement is paramount.

Show "yeah and boy it sure is" by videohoax

Probably just pulled the one

Probably just pulled the one off the cover of Synthetic Terror.

-----

If you're talking Bush and Cheney, you're talking Israel.

BBC's "War Party": a 49 Minute Documentary about the Neocons
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4667039539703585825

Thank you for sharing this info...

This is very disconcerting. I, for one, have been a big fan of Webster Tarpley's work and his book 9/11 SYNTHETIC TERROR.

It makes me understand why so many people do not want to talk about 9/11, do not want to look at it, and have basically subscribed to the beliefs:

"There's nothing we can do"

or

"We'll never know the truth, so why bother?"

or

"In the overall scheme of things (i.e., eternity) it doesn't really matter. There have always been mass murders by governments and international players and there will always be mass murders by governments and international players".

People have their lives to lead, money to earn, families to take care of, friends to love, pets to take care of, and significant others with whom to spend time. When convoluted messes like this arise, it's no wonder the masses run screaming in the opposite direction.

Michael Wolsey, I, for one, salute you for writing this detailed account and sharing it with us. I also salute you for the work you are doing to keep 9/11 in the consciousness of the people and for seeking truth. From your work and that of innumerable others, I hope we will move in the direction of having a better world.

dont be fooled by Michael

Michael wants to come accross as angry but reasonable, so why does he write this:

'While you are at it, tell them a missile hit the Pentagon and then tell them that space beams brought down the World Trade Center and see how they react. Don't be surprised if they discount your notions out of hand and laugh at you; maybe even call you a few names. Would you be surprised if you found out that Mr. Tarpley advocates and supports these ridiculous theories? It sure surprised me.

All this is not to say that I think that the work of researchers should be censored. On the contrary, I think that a person has a right to pursue whatever line of research he or she decides'

=====
Missiles and space beams???
Whats wrong here? Well, hes taken a plausible idea: missile hits pentagon, and mixed it up with implausible ones! Yet he claims to not want to censor ideas....But isnt this tactic of ridiculing an idea by associating it with the ridiculous, also a form of censorship?

He acts as if hes never heard of Thierry Meyssan ('a man named Thierry Meyssan'), the man who back early in 2002 kickstarted on the net the investigation of the pentagon strike, with his video : Hunt the Boeing: test your perception.
Michael, who adheres to the flight 77 hit the pentagon, prefers to attack Meyssan as some sort of loony. Isnt this creating divisiveness?

Theories evolve as evidence is gathered...hence the truck bomb is rejected in favour of the missile...as that better fits the evidence. It may not be true, but it is plausible and a lead worth following, as we know cruise missiles tipped with DU CAN penetrate 6 thick walls with small round holes! Something a soft nose boeing cant do.
Michael also tried to associate Meyssan with Nico Haupt...talk about chalk and cheese!

Meyssans work has been used and endorsed by people like David Ray Griffin, or hasnt Mike read Griffins books!

Let's avoid groupthink

Ok, so I went to the truthout link on the KW Hoax and noted that Cindy Sheehan and three others denied signing the Kennebunkport Warning. There was also an alleged email from Tarpley excoriating them. This is disturbing, for I cannot believe these individuals have any reason to sign this statement and then deny doing so. It raises questions about Tarpley's honesty.

HOWEVER, Michael Wolsey has yet to substantiate HIS claim in the article above that Tarpley is no planer, believer in video fakery or directed energy weapons bringing down the WTC buildings. So, unless and until he can substantiate these grave charges, they must be taken as UNTRUE, and, possibly, lies.

I have to state, again, that it is irresponsible to make such charges without backing them up.

"HOWEVER, Michael Wolsey has

"HOWEVER, Michael Wolsey has yet to substantiate HIS claim in the article above that Tarpley is no planer, believer in video fakery or directed energy weapons bringing down the WTC buildings. So, unless and until he can substantiate these grave charges, they must be taken as UNTRUE, and, possibly, lies."

absolutely , and im even more shocked that someone who has done so much positive things for the movement like Michael is going to start stretching the truth to slander Webster Tarpley. it makes both of them look very very bad and working against the goals of this movement

Show "Next Book-Burning Rally" by Beef Stew

Let's get the facts about

Let's get the facts about what's going on; see my multiple choice question below.

In the meantime, Tarpley and his wrecking crew are on some kind of 'roid-rage-esque rampage.

-----

If you're talking Bush and Cheney, you're talking Israel.

BBC's "War Party": a 49 Minute Documentary about the Neocons
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4667039539703585825

LaRouche and his followers have a history

As I've said in my rare posts to this site, Bruce Marshall and Tarpley have been associated with Lyndon LaRouche. This is not just a minor problem, it is on par with being into Scientology or Reverend Moon. That Tarpley has been productive and has done ANY good work has always surprised me given this past association. I had hoped that he had 'moved on' and yet I always hoped for a public disassociation from LaRouche. It never happened. And now the frothing, nutty LaRouche-like behavior has bloomed. As I've warned followers of this site, do your own research on LaRouche--NOW. I'm not even going to provide links as I have done in the past.

When I first read Synthetic Terror, I was troubled. It is NOT an academic work; it is NOT written in the meticulous manner of an academic like David Ray Griffin. Instead, Tarpley's work is poorly substantiated and makes wild speculations, some so strange they have little in common with the rest of the 9/11 movement for truth. For example, his thesis that 9/11 was a coup and that Bush was threatened ("Angel is next") is inconsistent with everything that we know about who would have been involved in an inside job of this scale. To suggest Bush was out of the loop is speculative and unfounded. Tarpley is certain about this based on a single source?

Again, we can thank Tarpley for any positive work he has done, but I'm glad that people are calling him on the KW issue. His behavior is now on record as outrageous and out-of-control. The LaRouche in him has come to the fore.

For Tarpley to redeem himself, in my view, he needs to renounce his connections to LaRouche and apologize for his rabid attacks upon a growing number of activists. This is indeed a meltdown and it is tragic for the 9-11 movement.

My warnings have been borne out.

I support this 100% and I

I support this 100% and I want to see Mr Tarpley explain to us his history with Lyndon LaRouche.

"Lyndon LaRouche's "War on

"Lyndon LaRouche's "War on Drugs" committee told us that, along with new marijuana laws, they expected to implement their most important goal: anyone in the future playing any disco, rock 'n' roll, or jazz on the radio, on television, in schools, or in concert, or who just sold rock 'n' roll records or any music that wasn't on their approved classical lists would be jailed, including music teachers, disc jockeys, and record company executives."

-Jack Herer, "The Emperor Wears No Clothes Chapter 14: More Than Sixty Years of Suppression & Repression"

http://www.jackherer.com/chapter14.html

-----

If you're talking Bush and Cheney, you're talking Israel.

BBC's "War Party": a 49 Minute Documentary about the Neocons
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4667039539703585825

Great article... It's time

Great article...

It's time for an explanation Mr. Synthetic Truther

Check what I've just found

Check what I've just found on Dailykos;

Webster G. Tarpley’s Toxic Waste is Polluting the Antiwar Movement
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/9/19/151343/009

ah, the CIA's favorite

ah, the CIA's favorite political blog. i wish Tarpley would just go away and i wish everyone would stop giving him airtime at this point. just ignore him like we basically ignore Fetzer. i dont understand the fanning of the flames, devoting whole blogs to this KW shit yet again and dragging it on even further. let it die. and fuck Daily KOS. i couldnt care less what Markos(i almost worked for the CIA like Anderson Cooper almost did!)Moulitsas thinks. it should be clear what his DLC agenda is by now. the boy loves his DC dinners and CNN plugs......

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

I agree about Dailykos, the

I agree about Dailykos, the thing is that “diary” shows how this is being played – i.e. “look at this LaRouche inspired 9/11 “Truth Movement” blah blah blah”. It’s Tarpley’s connection to LaDouche that is the most damaging aspect of his association with us I think.

Dailykos

The author of the Dailykos attack piece on Tarpley is Chip Berlet, who has doubtful credibility. For one thing, he appeared in the History Channel hit piece supporting the official story, and some have characterized him as a "character assassin". He debated David Ray Griffin on Democracy Now. Like all sources of dubious credibility, we must confirm their facts and sources independently and make careful judgments based on this understanding.

What people have to realize is that Cindy Sheehan and the anti-war activists support 9/11 truth. Cindy Sheehan appeared on Alex Jones' show and talked about 9/11 and her questions. So why are they being attacked? It's a simple question. Instead of answering it, Tarpley has decided that those questioning him must be attacked. People have been getting "hate mail" for covering this story. Tarpley has attacked us multiple times since on radio shows, and I have decided to basically ignore him. I don't even listen to what he has to say anymore.

The only thing I want to hear from him is an apology, and I don't care if he has anything else to say. I've never objected to the warning. I've researched this on my own time. If Tarpley is going to criticize us for debating the warning, he is missing the point here. Why is it that Tarpley has refused to acknowledge our real problem? Has he even admitted that he is attacking people yet? No--he's trying to make this into we're "against the warning". We're not.

I'd make additional points here, but Danse has brilliantly summarized most of what I would have said below.

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

Show "misleading" by Galileo

The BuzzFlash guy

The BuzzFlash guy does.

-----

If you're talking Bush and Cheney, you're talking Israel.

BBC's "War Party": a 49 Minute Documentary about the Neocons
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4667039539703585825

Why are putting faith in dailylkos?

It reject 9-11 truth in favour of the Official CONspircay theory AND it uses the antisemite canard to censor critics of israel.

eg:

'I have watched "Loose Change," the popular 9/11 Truth Movement videos. They are compelling works done by earnest, well-intentioned men who should continue to explore advocacy documentary work--they are incredibly good at it. Unfortunately, the selective use of expert testimony and facts, in my opinion, leaves their results fatally flawed.'
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/9/12/171658/153

So thats what IVE found....

In a peaceful demonstration

In a peaceful demonstration setting, when members of the demonstration turn violent, it is wise for others to immediately form a human chain around them and rope them off before they do any damage. And when one finds oneself turning to Craig Hill and Bruce Marshall for aid, one must realize that one is in deep shit.

So, these people's signatures are on the piece of paper. Multiple choice:

A) They signed knowingly signed the KW and now are unhappy with what they signed
B) They signed a piece of paper which was later altered with the text of the KW on top
C) The signatures are forgeries
D) ?

-----

If you're talking Bush and Cheney, you're talking Israel.

BBC's "War Party": a 49 Minute Documentary about the Neocons
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4667039539703585825

Great piece

Many thanks to the mods for posting this. As a former admirer of Mr. Tarpley I think I speak for everyone when I say that I wish this episode had never occurred. But it did. And it needs to be addressed.

I’m glad to see that most people are not trying to defend Tarpley’s appalling behavior. Rather, the main argument being put forth in opposition to Mr. Wolsey’s critique is that it is “divisive” and a “waste of time”.

On the first point, I would point out that division is not always a bad thing. A lumpectomy, for instance, is designed to divide cancer cells in a woman’s breast from the rest of her body. If the operation is not performed, the cancer invariably spreads, resulting in death.

There is harmony and then there is unity. Unity is not desirable. Unity is the communist party in China under Mao. According to experts on the concept of “groupthink”, the single best way of preventing a slide into totalitarian ideology is rigorous self criticism. That includes criticism of leaders. The key is to try to keep things respectful and avoid ad hominem attacks. Tarpley has failed miserably on both scores.

I would also point out that it’s easy to tell everyone to “move on” when you yourself have not been the target of such vicious slander. Being a somewhat marginal figure I managed to escape Tarpley’s jabs, but some very decent and hard-working folks in my acquaintance were not so lucky.

For the most part I think the 911 truth movement has dealt with disinformation extremely well. Very few of us took the bait of “space beams” and “no planes at the WTC”, for instance. Surprisingly, Tarpley not only took the bait but was one of the original baiters. As others have pointed out, Tarpley obliquely endorses the space beam theory in Synthetic Terror. Along with his acolyte DL Abrahamson, he has also consistently given a platform to disinformation artists such as Jim Fetzer and Nico Haupt. One criticism I have of Mr. Wolsey’s piece is that it conflates “no plane at the Pentagon” with “holgrams hit the WTC”. I am by no means certain that a jumbo jet DID hit the Pentagon. There are interesting arguments on both sides. Anyway, back to Tarpley…

He was an early supporter of WING TV, a notorious disinformation outlet which devoted nine-tenths of its time attacking researchers in the 911 truth community in a transparent attempt to promote in-fighting. He also has a disturbing history with Lyndon H. LaRouche. A poster on truthaction pointed out that Tarpley considers non-violent civil disobedience “a sign of low self esteem”. Given his previous association with LaRouche, this should not be surprising. One of LaRouche’s exploits was “operation mop up”, a violent campaign involving hordes of LaRouchie cult members attacking leftist groups with nunchaku and other weapons.

On the second point, that talking about this stuff is a “waste of time”, I would argue that weeding out disinformation and its purveyors is a form of positive action. It’s not an enviable task, but it’s necessary. Without the noble efforts of intra-group debunkers we’d all be pushing holograms and space beams. I agree that we should not spend an INORDINATE amount of time dealing with disinformation. It needs to be addressed, but we should not succumb to the temptation of making it our central focus.

The best way of dealing with these individuals, imo, is to marginalize them. They should not be invited to conferences, and when they are, others should refuse to attend. Their literature should not appear on tables at said conferences. Enablers who give them air time on radio or other media should be criticized. Eventually they will simply be viewed as a joke. Which they are.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

True dat! "I wish this

True dat!

"I wish this episode had never occurred. But it did. And it needs to be addressed." - that's the way I feel about 9/11.

Show ""Eventually they will simply" by videohoax

"embarrassing gang bang"

"embarrassing gang bang" hahahaha, what a phrase. Get a clue man, it's time we get answers from Tarpley in regards to his history with LaRouche in the least.

Show "sure it is , but in this" by videohoax

can we afford to be neutral on this issue?

The threat of cointelpro or some variation thereof is indeed a very real threat to our solidarity and progress however is this such a case? It is possible that some form of agentry is the progenitor of this divisiveness however from personally knowing Webster and John Gold within the time and space of several occasions and the fact of having worked side by side with both parties, I cannot state whether or not a guilty specter is in our midst. The most important issue here however is reconciling our difference if at all possible and continuing the pursuit upon which this movement is founded. We at Temple University will not take part in any further discourse on this topic if it remains at this current level of detraction, but if it continues to go any further we will be forced to intercede.

For Temple 911 Truth,
Nicholas from Philly

WWW.PHILLY911TRUTH.ORG

"There is no fury like that of a man scorned for expressing truth!"

i think we can afford to be

i think we can afford to be neutral on this issue and t o focus on 9/11 truth visibility not slamming others who have big egos in the movement (jones, tarpley, jim hoffman) because even people with big egos do good research and have great points.

I honestly couldnt give a shit about Cindy Sheeans comments about 9/11, she has remained severely wishy washy on the subject for some time. If people here thought that she was going to come over to our side had it not been for this Tarpley incident, i have to say that is a very naive assumption.

Videohoax, your arguments

Videohoax, your arguments are going down the tubes. Egotists are useful for a while but eventually die by the sword of their egoes because ego is alienating. 9/11 Truth started out with the big-name authors but is now breaking down into leadership by "unknowns", i. e. "regular" (but actually quite exceptional) people. Those who follow the egotists devolve into cult-like arrangements. Maybe this is just the sound of Tarpley et al. flushing themselves down the toilet to make way for the next development. Frankly, a guy selling that many copies of Synthetic Terror and still requesting plane fare, lodging AND a $500 honararium just to flap his gums for an hour or two outside his area is a bit needy to be a long-term leader.

What are the goals of the 9/11 truth movement?

-----

If you're talking Bush and Cheney, you're talking Israel.

BBC's "War Party": a 49 Minute Documentary about the Neocons
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4667039539703585825

Marginalize disrupters

Good points, Danse. I too must now count myself a "former admirer" of Tarpley. As I have read through the responses to Wolsey's article, and the some of the links included, the egregiousness of Tarpley's behavior toward other activists has sunk in.

Even if Wolsey's claims about Tarpley being a no-planer, video hoaxer, and DEW theory proponent turn out NOT to be true, Tarpley's outrageous slander of four activists warrants a public apology and explanation from him. Moreover, it is high time he explain his past (and present?) connections to the infamous LaRouche. In the absence of those, he should be marginalized from the 911 Truth Movement, along with Fetzer, Wood, & Shayler.

I actually agree with what

I actually agree with what your are saying, but if you think a headlining blog posting on the "news" part of blogger with a childish graphic is the proper way to marginalize someone i have to strongly disagree. Ignoring him is the best course of action if this is what the movement thinks is best. People didnt need to write 10 page articles about why Fetzer should be marginalized, it was blatantly obvious why he should be. When Shayler said he was Christ someone didnt NEED to write an article about why him saying he was the new coming of Christ was a reason to ostracize him from the movement. When i read an article like this that is using selective quotes to straw man tarpley as a no-planer all bets are off and i find this article highly disingenuous and manipulative. People can make up their own minds about tarpley and we dont need to waste our time reading trash like this. Even if in the words of some of the posters here 'He started it' are true (which they most likely are). What are we 5 years old? jesus christ

i will still listen to Michael's great show, but if this type of babyish drama carries over into it i suspect he will loose a lot of listeners including myself.

this indicates a very disturbing trend within our movement. If so many intelligent people can fall victim to such time wasting activities then the movement is in big trouble. If a real cointelpro campaign was to be launched by the us government to destroy us, i fear what would happen.

i wish people would would intelligently reply to the points i am making instead of voting my posts down so they get hidden. Ironic how people in the 9/11 truth movement uses censorship on others who disagree with them.

Videohoax, I notice you tend

Videohoax,
I notice you tend to disparage the 9/11 Truth Movement in many of your posts in this thread. Why is that? If the debate is pointless and stupid, why do you participate in it?

As to marginalizing Tarpley, which you agree with, you can't do it by ignoring him, since the current discussion involves the question of WHETHER he should be marginalized, and if so, why.

I strongly disagree that this discussion is a "time wasting activity" and wonder why you participate, if you think so.

You write, "IF" a real COINTELPRO campaign were launched against us -- you can't be serious if you don't think there is already such a campaign ongoing against us. It is BECAUSE there is such a campaign to divide and destroy our movement that these discussions become so important, and not the time wasters you think they are.

listen

listen , im not disparaging the movement itself, but the group think behavior going on in this forum. I feel like a lot of people are forgetting the value Synthetic Terror had for them and many others in the movement. Webster Tarpleys speeches on occasionally were very enlightening. It just seems like there is a lot of rewriting of history going on in this thread, people pretending they've ALWAYS thought synthetic terror was propaganda but just decided to speak out now. I find that very dishonest. A lot of people who haven't read Synthetic terror and have been following Tarpley for as long as i have might actually believe a lot of the false no-planer and space beam assertions in this article. And that is a tragedy. The man has problems as we all know, but i think this is going too far. This article like a fox news hit piece may convince some outsiders of Tarpley's dubious 9/11 beliefts.

someone gave me a classroom analogy to explain why Tarpley is being outed. He is like a disruptive student and both the teacher and the students want him to leave. That is fine with me, unfortunately Michael Wolsey took it further to unwarranted territory i and many others (who do not post on this forum) are uncomfortable with. Its like not only did the teacher try to kick the student out, he also accused the student of being a holocaust denier in front of the whole class based on non existent evidence to make his case for kicking this student out stronger. that is a manipulative and dishonest tactic.

He tries to paint Synthetic terror as some of the 'worst disinformation' in the 9/11 truth movement. Hold on a second, is this really an honest or fair assertion? He also tries to portray Webster Tarpley as being a no-planer and a promoter of tv fakery by taking selective quotes and questionable associations he has made. If we judged 9/11 truth members based on their questionable associations we would seriously have to kick out Dylan Avery (who has killtown on his show regularly), Kevin Barret (who still lets fetzer have a platform to talk about space beams), and Alex Jones (who continuously discredits himself by calling any member of the elite a luciferian).

This discussion is not wondering IF he should be marginalized like you claim, the article is basically telling us in the movement why HE SHOULD with REAL FACTUAL information combined with CHARACTER ASSASSINATION AND SLANDER. If the latter was not contained in that article i m ight have a different opinion on what Michael is doing. Unfortunately it does and to me this heavily undercuts the seriousness of the entire thesis of the article.

maybe michael was upset after he got personally attacked, anyone would be. I understand this entirely, what i dont understand is why he makes several unfounded accusations about Webster Tarpley towards the end. If he kept it on the proper playing field instead of acting like Bill Oreily on Fox news i might not be as upset as i am now.

I dont think webster tarpley is cointelpro at all. He has a gigantic ego and all of these mistakes he made seem to be caused by that.
To me using slander and lies to out a member of the movement is scarily close to what Cointelpro people actually do, and if Michael is merely doing this in retaliation for being slandered himself, he should really rewrite the article and just stick to the facts. He being very well researched on the subject of couintelpro should be more careful when he writes articles like these, he has frankly lost a fan (me).

Tarpley is yesterdays man! I support YT(Cosmos) 100%!!

Regards John

WE GOT TO TAKE THE POWER BACK!... rage against the machine!!

do you think the best way to

do you think the best way to take the power back is to write articles about people or to ignore the people in question?
i personally subscribe to the latter. Alex jones had to bite his tongue on many ocassions when it came to Fetzer a, If he hadnt and shouted off his mouth constantly and immediately about Fetzer i honestly might not be still listening to his show because i feel doing so is very counter productive and frankly childish. I have not excluded Tarpley from this childish behavior, i take extreme issue with him or anybody blindly calling other important people in this movement disinfo. There are proper ways to decide if Tarpley should be part of our movement or not, but this article is in my opinion extremely out of line and blatant reaching character assassination on many levels. I do have a lot of respect for Jim Hoffman as well, but look at how many bridges he's burned. through his repeated attacks (some admittedly justified) on other members of our movement.

we are all astute enough to know that Fetzer was a bad apple without having to read someone else telling us so.

i just think we are all intelligent enough to think for ourselves, group think mentality scares me just a little bit.

I will never, no matter how assinine Tarpley becomes say his book Synthetic terror wasnt a valuble asset to my learning about 9/11. Just as i would never say Michael Ruppert's book 'crossing the rubicon' is piece of shit even after i lost all respect for him because of his ego. Synthetic terror, although has a lot of reaching and speculative claims is imo a very good read. Its only because the loose change crew has gotten so famous that people have backed off on them and their potential for causing erroneous and unfounded claims in their films. A lot of people here are very quick to judge Synthetic terror for its inaccuracies but the same people let A LOT of other harmful things in our movement slide.

I don't wish to bitch! That's why I will voice my support for..

who are right and forget about Tarpley asap. He I believe has done this all on purpose, whether he has been gotten to is my only concern. For if he has I wish him and his family all the best in the future and I hope he ceases to do any more damage to the movement!

As I said he is yesterdays man and by that I mean forget him in the future but still value his past work, which was prolific and thought provoking!

Regards John

WE GOT TO TAKE THE POWER BACK!... rage against the machine!!

I'm listening...

Show "Tarpley's appearance made imposing by the pix!" by alllans2k7

Unfortunate Divisions

Being fairly new to all of this, I am dismayed at the divisions within this movement; but not surprized. Don't get me wrong, in 2002 I was hopping around yelling about the invasion being illegal and Article VI being ignored. But I was more of a LIHOPer up until about 7 months ago when I started really looking into the evidence available.
And I have Tarpley as well as Woolsey to thank for my many sleepless nights and endless days of mulling over scholarly articles and videos and still frame pictures till my damn eyes hurt.
Always looking for that one thing...
So what if someone puts forth an idea that you think is a distraction. The DLC thinks all of us are a distraction (that's what those Globalists say anyways). If someone wants to go out there and say the ground-hogs blew up the buildings with Ferret Poo, what difference does it make?
Ferret poo, space ray guns, sound machines, no-planes, who cares? We know one thing, it wasn't box cutters! and it wasn't "fire" that shoved those floors and the core columns out of the way as they fell.
Now, looking at this from the outside, I can clearly see that the majority of the childish rantings and name calling seem to be coming from the Tarpley camp. I can't tell if that is merely distraction or something more premeditated, but it certainly seems like it is definately uncalled for.
Unfortunately when an investigation of this nature draws on for years and years the investigators will sometimes begin to feed on each other. The attention span of the general population needs to constantly be tweaked to keep their intrest and with more people signing on but relatively little new evidence, it is completely understandable that conflicts like these will arise.
It's like a lot of massive coy in an ever decreasing pond.
I am also concerned that Tarpley seems (from this article at least) to be driving a wedge between 9/11Truth and the Peace Movement. That is a critical bond which will produce a great deal of legitmacy within the near-main-stream left. Bring us MIHOPers off the "fringe" just a bit more.

My arguments are going down

My arguments are going down 'the tubes'? The internet is not a series of tubes ... What are you Ted Stevens? What so you actually think Tarpley is a no planer or believe in tv fakery? Please explain. Nobody is addressing my most important point : Why the need to lie and stretch the truth about Tarpley when his own actions have been bad enough? Michael makes several UNFOUNDED claims about Tarpley on top of FACTUAL ones. Why does he have to go this far? why is this such a wrong question to be asking?

Videohoax is making some

Videohoax is making some good points, and frankly it seems to me that most people here are way too quick to jump on the Tarpley haters bandwagon. Personally, I'm going to hold back on judging the man until I know more about what is going on. I always liked him...I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt for now.

Sad that there is so much division in the movement. It's the last thing that we need.

I see you're in B.C.

Do you know Steve Beckow?
______________________________________
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

big problems with Michaels story

Michael wants to come accross as angry but reasonable, so why does he write this:

'While you are at it, tell them a missile hit the Pentagon and then tell them that space beams brought down the World Trade Center and see how they react. Don't be surprised if they discount your notions out of hand and laugh at you; maybe even call you a few names. Would you be surprised if you found out that Mr. Tarpley advocates and supports these ridiculous theories? It sure surprised me.

All this is not to say that I think that the work of researchers should be censored. On the contrary, I think that a person has a right to pursue whatever line of research he or she decides'

=====
Missiles and space beams???
Whats wrong here? Well, hes taken a plausible idea: missile hits pentagon, and mixed it up with implausible ones! Yet he claims to not want to censor ideas....But isnt this tactic of ridiculing an idea by associating it with the ridiculous, also a form of censorship?

He acts as if hes never heard of Thierry Meyssan ('a man named Thierry Meyssan'), the man who back early in 2002 kickstarted on the net the investigation of the pentagon strike, with his video : Hunt the Boeing: test your perception.
Michael, who adheres to the flight 77 hit the pentagon, prefers to attack Meyssan as some sort of loony. Isnt this creating divisiveness?

Theories evolve as evidence is gathered...hence the truck bomb is rejected in favour of the missile...as that better fits the evidence. It may not be true, but it is plausible and a lead worth following, as we know cruise missiles tipped with DU CAN penetrate 6 thick walls with small round holes! Something a soft nose boeing cant do.
Michael also tried to associate Meyssan with Nico Haupt...talk about chalk and cheese!

Meyssans work has been used and endorsed by people like David Ray Griffin, or hasnt Mike read Griffins books!

It’s About the Divisiveness

A Message for Webster Tarpley and the Supporters of the Kennebunkport Warning: It’s About the Divisiveness

In examining the divisive behavior surrounding the Kennebunkport warning, many of those who brought attention to this issue are in turn being accused of divisiveness. In fact, some of Tarpley's supporters have said that we are being "divisive" by even bringing up this issue.

That's an interesting point of view, since "divisiveness" is the core issue that we have been trying to emphasize in the first place; we felt that Tarpley, and the Kennebunkport supporters were being divisive and we tried to bring attention to it. Calling us “divisive” for talking about this behavior is intellectually dishonest since the divisive behavior of the Kennebunkport supporters is our central complaint.

“Who opposes the Kennebunkport warning? We discovered going through this that if you take all the slanderous filth, counter-organizing, disinformation and so forth, about two-thirds of it comes from about half a dozen people as far as I can see." Webster Tarpley, Genesis World Report

There is just one problem with this claim: We have never objected to the Kennebunkport Warning. In fact, I supplied my own research to support the warning when it first came out.

Instead, the promoters of the KW refuse to even acknowledge our actual complaint; that their divisive language serves only to split apart the 9/11 truth movement from the peace movement. Has Tarpley even acknowledged the fact that we are objecting to his divisive behavior? Has he said, "I know this is your problem, but I'm doing it for this reason"? No. He has never acknowledged our criticism. Not once in the month since this controversy erupted has he answered our criticisms, admitted his language is abusive and uncalled for, or apologized.

I totally understand and this is why these issues must be..

adressed fully as I and many, many others supported the report as well! "Poison pens" he must be deluded or gotten at! He can not be this stupid!

That's is why it has pissed me off sooooo much! It was all in Tarpleys hands he could have reversed this problem in seconds. Tell me who talked to him directly about these issues and who is talking to him now?

What are people like Carol, David or the Kevin's doing and saying. Don't you guys ring each other on the phone over there in the US?

What you've said here should be the focus and Arabesque once again have brought needed perspective to the argument!

I hope I'm making sense? It's 2am here..

Regards John

WE GOT TO TAKE THE POWER BACK!... rage against the machine!!

Double

Deleted

Show "Well, Tarpley meant every word!" by alllans2k7

I heard that too

Webster Tarpley and his guest Jim Fetzer certainly sounded like they mean business!

What kind of business that is I can only imagine but here's the audio file: mp3

In his rush, Tarpley stumbled into the gap ...

Of course I initially thought it might be undue haste, shortsightedness and poor judgement, that led Tarpley to WEB -publish those signatures without ensuring that the fools who signed them, were fully responsible for what they had actually signed on to.

He knew what they implications were, just as soon as he was cognizant of Wright's and Sheehan's signatures.

Why do I think that Tarpley "knew better", and simply took advantage of Bruce stumbling on to the signatures of anti-war sacred cows like Sheehan and Wright ?

For very simple reasons:

1) Because Tarpley and Co., of all people in this movement, not only KNOW, but have documented the Ford Foundation funding of various projects by Medea Benjamin and the "Code Pink" approach to politics.

http://freedomofthepress.net/leftgatekeeperschart.htm
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/Regulated_Resistance.htm
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/07/01/18432047.php?show_comments=1

Webster had to know that Ford cut-outs would be on the horn to some of the signatories, almost immediately, demanding to know what the hell they had signed.

.. and ..

2) Did he never dream they would renege on him and pull the plug on the whole "false-flag alert" meme, once they realized what they had signed ?
No .. he thought he could pull it off.
Webster dreams of merging the "9/11 truth movement", with a toothless utterly-controlled and foundation funded "peace movement".
And Webster knows that the foundation (501 C-3 blah blah) and NGO types often get those fat, juicy grants and MSM promotion, precisely BECAUSE they are often naive, easily manipulated, easily corrupted by funds or attention ..
or just plain clue-less.

Like the rest of you, he'd rather toady to the official "anti-war movement", as just another kind of annoying secondary "constituency" ...
getting to have one-speaker-a-demo up there on their stage-managed podium once in a while.

Why would you want to be submerged beneath the pacifist memes of "Code Pink" or "The Raging Grannies".... or "moveon.org." ?

What do you think the majority of active duty, reserve and associated friends and family think of "Code Pink" ?

What do you think their gut reaction was to that "moveon.org" ad in the NYT ?
Do you think the ad "reached out" effectively to our troops and their families ?

When what George Soros would really like to do, is to replace our traditional "national" military, for some kind of UN or NATO-run "globo-cop" military.

That's why "moveon.org" thought it was so clever to bait General Petraeus with just the right phraseology to psychologically and counter-empathetically,
WIDEN the GAP,
between a "peace movement" (that is effectively controlled and marginalized anyway)
and the most important population for any semblance of "truth" about 9/11:
The Troops and their families.

Why are so many of you so eager to carry water for the "peace movement", when you know outright that half of its bought and paid for with foundation money; and the other half are COINTELPRO agents and dupes outright: like Ramsey Clark and ANSWER Coalition....
"Coalition" .. " ???
Who the hell are they kidding ?

In the end, I'm glad this has caused a tsk-tsk "SPLIT" ...
although, fortunately, the split is NOT between the "peace movement" and the "9/11 truth movement" ... not really.

It's a split between those already compromised by foundation money and control ...
versus those yet to be compromised...

Show "Were the signers under hypnotic control ?" by theSaiGirl

Your post only makes sense if you believe in "Space Beams"

Now, honestly, tell us what you think of these guidelines:

Victronix's Good 9/11 Activist Guidelines
http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2216
______________________________________
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

im against space beams too........

but i think the guidelines would be more credible if they didnt come from a divisive figure like Victoria Ashley.(do we really need guidelines anyway? do you really think the space beam pushers will be swayed by it? whats the point?) she and Hoffman know whats best for us though right? they know what makes a "good 9/11 activist" after all. because i know that i need Victronix(Hoffmans online hatchet woman) to tell me whats ok to talk about and what makes a "good" 9/11 activist........

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA

You're missing the tactics behind this

First, they are GUIDELINES, not "do this or else". ;-)

Second, the only reason I put Victronix's name on them is because she posted them first. Credit where credit was due. imgstake reposted them, and I suppose I could have used his name, but using mine would have been rude. Plus, I have enough shite to my name. Oh, and they were posted as a comment, not as anything official--I'm just running with them.

Now tactics: guess which group of people SCREAM their objections to these the most? That's right, the same people we don't want to be associated with, space beam, chemtrail, moon hoax nutters. I've watched this in real life: while some people have your honest take(a little put off because it stikes you as telling you what to do), the disinfo folks are ENRAGED at even the thought of guidleines being considered. Nice litmus test, eh?

I'm through pissing about. Anything that makes the disinfo crowd SCREAM in pain, thus exposing themselves, I'm into.

But reasoned concerns and simple disagreement are perfectly welcome. Hell, use them as a starting point for dialog on what YOU think will work and why. :-D

BTW: why don't we have cool smilies anymore?

______________________________________
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Nope

For the record 911researchers does not speak for me--nor will it ever. Sorry "theSaiGirl"

Suckling the techno-peasants

I've noticed that one of the most frequently recurring methods used to subvert, dilute and manipulate dissident movements is the old
"Keep 'em in the dark and feed 'em lots of shit."

We seem to have a cadre of professional regulators here at 911blogger, who assume the responsibility of ensuring that both long-time members and new arrivals to this site, are preserved in their intellectual stasis as "techno-peasants".

As is so typical in the long and venerable tradition of popular American anti-intellectualism, 911blogger aims to be the vanguard of the most committed "Know Nothing" Tendency; actively faction-alizing within the generic "9/11 truth movement", for a principled stand against learning anything new.

Especially with respect to the development and deployment of hitherto classified weapons and psyops technologies.

I guess I can see why someone would want to keep their loyal followers and new recruits as far away as possible from this data.
The active agents would do so for obvious reasons.

Having slept though most of their high school or college science classes,the unconscious collaborators, opportunists and chumps, would figure that ... anyway ...
"Not knowing" t saves them the time and effort of doing their homework.

Then they might actually have to learn something new about what's been happening in the world of classified weapons development, over the last few decades.

The "neo-cons" are proud of it:
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Events/ev112905a.cfm

The private contractors love it:
http://www.ionatron.com/lipc.html

The speculative and venture-capital investment folks love it:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/drs-ionatron-to-cooperate-on-energy-...

Academics and educated military officers have taken note:
http://pmcterrordrillresearch.blogspot.com/2007/09/usjfcommodsim-expo-fc...
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/fcs-back.htm

But here at 911blogger, we know its all just that silly "Space Beam" stuff, right ?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-394521736042612673

Open Letter

My name is Michele Little, sister of Fallen Firefighter FDNY, David M. Weiss of Rescue 1, Midtown Manhattan.

I met Jon Gold in Chandler, AZ at the 9/11 Accountability Conference in February 2007 where I was an invited to speak as a family member. Jon and I became fast friends and we speak on a consistent basis.

Jon is known by many family members as a compassionate man who stands by our side for truth and justice. Through the 9/11 Truth Movement, he speaks out sharing his knowledge for truth and justice with anyone who is ready to wake up to facts that are pivotal to being an American.

To hear anything to the contrary as many people heard through Webster Tarpley’s words and finger pointing in New York City the weekend before September the 11th Memorial was unimaginable and unexpected.

Jon is a good man with good intentions and should be honored for his kindness, thoughtfulness and outspokenness on behalf of the 9/11 Family Members, Survivors and 9/11 Responders.

It is astounding to me that six years later, as we find that most of the conspiracy theories that we started out with have become irrevocable facts, we can still find ourselves fighting and pointing fingers at one another. What is the sense of this?

Unless we have something to hide, by this point we should have had some reconciliation of September the 11th, 2001 and the family members and our loved ones who were murdered would have some completion.

Isn’t it time to stop the finger pointing? Isn’t it time to unite together and bring hope to the world? Do you believe that hope and justice are essential for our children and for the generations to come?

I believe that this is the only moment we have; make it the most precious moment we’ve got! How about you?

Sincerely,
Michele Little
Sister of Fallen Firefighter
FDNY David M. Weiss
Rescue 1 Midtown Manhattan


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

re: Michele Little



http://www.uniteinpeace.org/home/index.php
http://www.uniteinpeace.org/peaceProjects/pinwheels.php
======================================
9/11 Spokesperson and Family Member
Advocate for Children's Voices
Implemented the first Community Outreach Town Meeting immediately following the 9/11 Tragedy, delivering a strong connecting message of peace in October 2001 and continuing that message of peace through Unite In Peace organization with benefit concerts from January 2002 and peace projects implemented from the local level to global gift giving from youth to youth.
Created Pinwheels Of Peace sending children's inspirational messages on pinwheels and shipping their Pinwheels Of Peace to children in the midst of adversity globally.
We've outreached our efforts with over 13,000 pinwheels received all over the world!
9/11 Event Coordinator creating revenue through fundraising initiatives ($240,000.00 for one event) within a four month period for the first Firemen's Burgers on the Grill in NYC reconnecting Firefighters with their families in August 2002
Guest Speaker in elementary, middle and high schools talking about how one's inner peace can change the world with positive solutions and right action. (Park Dale Lane Elementary School, Oak Crest Middle School, San Dieguito Academy, Rose Elementary School...)
Opening Ceremony Guest Speaker for the Institute On Violence, Abuse and Trauma (IVAT) International Conferences, San Diego, CA in 2002, 2005, 2006
Spokesperson for Torches Across America 2005. Motorcycles Riders nationwide ride from Oceanside, CA to Shanksville, PA to Ground Zero, New York City, NY, to The Pentagon, Washington D.C. honoring all First Call Responders and our Fallen Heroes. Thanks to the founder of Torches, Gary Covert and all of Michele's newer brothers and sisters who she met through their 4th nationwide ride, Michele was in perfect timing to be in NYC to read her brother's name, FDNY Firefighter David M. Weiss, Rescue 1 Midtown Manhattan on the morning of September 11th, 2005 at Ground Zero
Guest Speaker for 9/11 Truth Conference held in Chambers, AZ, 2006
9/11 Family Member Spokesperson at the National Press Conference, Washington D.C. September 11, 2006
Michele continues to engage high school students to discuss their concerns about global challenges and the action it takes to secure world peace
References Upon Request
http://www.choice2voice.com/Speakers.html
=====================================

======================================
Mission Statement
Unite in Peace is a non-profit youth-led, adult-supported grassroots effort enabling our youth to speak out how they feel about the world through the creation and implementation of peace projects and for adults to listen to the solutions our youth have for the challenges we face today through peace efforts globally, starting at home.
Description
Unite in Peace, initiated by Michele Little, sister of Fallen Firefighter, David M. Weiss, FDNY Rescue 1, September 11, 2001; a man who believed in brotherhood and unity; a man who was here in this world to serve.
The intention of Unite in Peace is to connect heart to heart knowing that this is the only moment we have, make it the most precious moment we've got.
http://www.volunteermatch.org/orgs/org33355.html
===========================================

If you were trying to make a point, you need to be clearer, luv.

Like this:
http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2290
;-)
______________________________________
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

this site has been infiltrated

Looks like you've been portrayed as a witch, luv.

http://www.rense.com/general78/blt.htm

We work for the Ford Foundation because we oppose Insults?

Kennebunkport Warning Cartoon: We are Funded by the Ford Foundation Because we Oppose Divisive Language?

http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/09/kennebunkport-warning-cartoon-w...

Micheal's been portrayed as a witch? Shocked! I'm shocked!

You want to learn how to thread your comments, squire--as written you were responding directly to this blog. ;-P

______________________________________
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

oldschool cointelpro tactics

Cartoons

In their chapter on COINTELPRO and the New Left in The COINTELPRO Papers: Documents from the FBI’s Secret Wars Against Dissent in the United States, Ward Churchill and Jim Vander Wall reproduce an FBI memo [pages 1, 2] which lays out the Bureau’s plan to disrupt the New Left:

“Consider the use of cartoons, photographs, and anonymous letters which will have the effect of ridiculing the New Left. Ridicule is one of the most potent weapons which we can use against it.”

A further memo [pages 1, 2] details the plan to disrupt Students for a Democratic Society at Temple University through the use of cartoons, pamphlets and anonymous letters.

Social Design Notes: The Art of the FBI

And Tarpley's at it again with the help of Captain May

Got this from a mate:

Captain May wrote:

To: Portland Nuclear Inquest
,
Ghost Troop
From: Captain May
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2007 11:57:34 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Portland-Nuclear-Inquest] Webster Tarpley & Captain May: Interview, 9/27 (Thursday)

Dear Mr. Tarpley,

I would be happy to discuss these pseudonymic "Colonel Jenny Sparks" and her disinfo efforts against those of us who were trying to make the public aware of Operation Noble Resolve's danger to Portland. 10 minutes should be plenty of time for this. I hope that you will be exploring other areas of hard disinformation activities, such as those aiming at compromising The Kennebunkport Warning.

Best regards, Captain May.

PS: I found an interesting blog entry on the KW matter, which includes the well rendered editorial cartoon you recommended: http://winterpatriot.blogspot.com/2007/09/over-top-march-of-berlet-briga...

Webster Tarpley wrote:

Captain May --

Could we get you on the radio tomorrow Thursday between 9 and 10 eastern = 6 and 7 pacific to give a concise summary in about ten minutes of the intervention of "Col. Jenny Sparks" as saboteur against the Portland Oregon group? Because of the time constraints we would have to stick closely to this issue.
If you can make it, please send me a good stable land line phone number, not cordless, and Gensis will call you.
Enclosed a lampoon of the Berlet brigade.
WGT
_______________________________________

Gotta wonder why they feel the need to try so hard, chums..
______________________________________
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Blame Game

Sorry, no absolution for Michael Woolsey for beeing part of a movement for some years. Last time I checked him he accused We are change NY of beeing CoINTELPro, IMO a horrendous claim. You may think whatever you want about their street actions, but they get their asses up and do something at least.

Oh, and the other time I checked him he accused 911veritas WTC7-BBC story as a fraud because of mixed-up time zones. Later he have to retract this accusation, but some damage was done- e.g. Larissa from Rawstory never touched the theme again because of the same fraudulent argument.

So whoever accuse others of beeing CoIntelPro-Agents should be checked if he himself could be one. One of the first aims of CoIntelPro was to accuse everone of beeing an agent to plant distrust and anger in a movement to divide it in full.

I want to make up my mind on my own and still have more reservations about Woolsey than about Tarpley.