Kennebunkport revisited - open source intelligence forecasting

The Kennebunkport Warning predicted an imminent false flag attack.

"Massive evidence has come to our attention which shows that the backers, controllers, and allies of Vice President Dick Cheney are determined to orchestrate and manufacture a new 9/11 terror incident, and/or a new Gulf of Tonkin war provocation over the coming weeks and months. Such events would be used by the Bush administration as a pretext for launching an aggressive war against Iran, quite possibly with nuclear weapons, and for imposing a regime of martial law here in the United States..."
http://www.911blogger.com/node/10905

Unsurprisingly, it caused much controversy.

It appeared on 25th August 2007 at the Kennebunkport peace protest, and was posted online two days later. On September 5th 2007 there were news articles like these:

"On Aug. 30, a B-52 bomber took off from Minot Air Force base in North Dakota with between five and six nuclear warheads.."
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/05/loose-nukes-warheads-in-the-sky/

“Nothing like this has ever been reported before and we have been assured for decades that it was impossible..”
“..absolutely inexcusable..”
"..deeply disturbing.."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20427730/

Because of this a commander was fired, and there was a stand down of all Air Combat Command bases on September 14th, involving around 100,000 airmen:

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/09/airforce_aircombatcommand_standdown_070807/

Most discussion of the warning took place before September 5th, however this was all 'chatter', regarding who had signed and said what, and the author's politics, as information regarding the loose nukes was not yet available.

I am not interested in those aspects here.

What concerns me is that of the few relevant articles I can find on 911 Blogger, none establish the rather obvious link between the nukes and the warning. Indeed, in the last few months, I've had to reply to several comments claiming the warning was a 'hoax', yet when I pointed out otherwise there was no reply. Further investigation reveals Blogger to be full of these 'hoax' claims.

Maybe this was understandable before September 5th 2007, but since then all such accusations are simply absurd. The Kennebunkport Warning was an amazingly successful attempt at predicting the future. It had peak internet saturation around August 30th, when the nukes came to a halt at Barksdale, so it is quite possible that it prevented disaster.

At the least, this sequence of events should give thoughtful activists further reason to dismiss personal politics and gossip, and instead stay focused on the salient facts and the big picture.

Is it possible that it prevented an attack?

Yes it is possible, but to prove it?

Any one that knows the "author" knows that he has made predictions about events on a near weekly basis for many years. He also often makes the claim that he prevents events by his predictions?

Unfortunately for the author we can not view him the way that you might as some of us hear have suffered his attacks based on evidence that exists in the authors head alone, not in the real world!

At the time of the "warning" another contextual event was taking place, that was the coming together of important elements of the peace movement and the 9/11 Truth Movement which was sent backwards over the "authors" warning and later attacks against those peace activist who he says signed it?

Anyway lets see the sources and the evidence that links the prophecy to the event?

Kind regards John

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!
www.truthaction.org.au

Show "Yes" by influence device

WARNING to commenters- insults and accusations

From the rules:
http://www.911blogger.com/rules
Be civil. There have been disagreements about what happened on 9/11 since it happened. If you feel compelled to point out factual errors in a blog entry, back up your observations with linked documentation. Calling another user a liar or a disinformation agent won't be tolerated. Don't make this site a rallying point for competing factions to battle and waste our bandwidth and time. (If the only comments that you bother making here are to tell others users how stupid that you think they are, your comments will be added to a moderation queue, and your user account may eventually be closed.)

Do not use the site to continue arguments with other users from thread to thread.

Post useful information and commentary, not ad-hominem attacks or insults.

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

As someone...

That was called out as COINTELPRO on a stage in New York City during an anniversary simply because I VERY MUCH DISAGREED with referring to Cindy Sheehan as a "wretched individual," I can honestly say that "hoax" or not, the "Kennebunkport Fiasco" was damaging to the 9/11 Truth Movement.

I remember sending Cindy Sheehan an apology, and doing my BEST to make sure she knew that the individuals causing the problems DID NOT represent the 9/11 Truth Movement.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

Show "The Capsmaster" by influence device

You make accusations that are simply untrue...

When have I accused an individual of being COINTELPRO publicly? Cindy Sheehan is VERY much an advocate for 9/11 Truth. He may be singing praise of Cindy Sheehan for the Peace Of The Action, but I'm actually working with her specifically for that event (as well as the 1/16/2010 CIA Protest she's working on).

I do not claim to represent the 9/11 Truth Movement. I do claim that I have busted my ass 1000x more than Webster Tarpley ever has for this cause.

Should the 9/11 Truth Movement embrace an individual that calls someone like Cindy Sheehan a "wretched individual?"


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

the lessons of the Kennebunkport Warning

[EDIT for clarity 12/16/09]

"the rather obvious link between the nukes and the warning". Given that "massive evidence" was claimed, but nothing amounting to 'evidence' was provided in the warning, there's no evidence for a link- so was it a coincidence, was Tarpley psychic, or did he have some inside knowledge he didn't share in the Warning?

Furthermore, the [so-called by Craig Hill and associates] "Dahliar 4" said they had signed a petition for impeachment, not the "massive evidence" KW paper- and they wished the 9/11 Truth Movement well. The original or a scan of the petition was never provided, only a fax- and Tarpley and associates attacked these peace activists in numerous statements. When certain truth activists objected to his attacks and called for civility, they too were attacked in statements, and all these people were attacked by Tarpley on stage at the Ready for Mainstream conference.

Arabesque did an excellent job of documenting, chronicling and analyzing the KW episode, which will forever be instructive:
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/search/label/Kennebunkport%20Warning

searching "Kennebunkport Warning" at 911Blogger and reading the comments will provide great insights to anyone who was not around at the time, or has not yet read up on it since (i was mainly posting at opednews, and missed most of the controversy).

props to influence device for dredging it up- may it never be forgotten.

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

Show "People find gossip easier than research" by influence device

"Of course...

...it turns out that Jon has the 'wrong' John Kaminski" as if there are SO MANY John Kaminski's that run in "our circles." And when that was pointed out to me...I said that I apologize to the other John Kaminski.

Should the 9/11 Truth Movement embrace an individual that calls someone like Cindy Sheehan a "wretched individual?"


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

Show "The movement.." by influence device

Then you obviously...

Don't care about building bridges, or about our credibility.

Really? I thought I was posting about it?

U.S. Mistakingly Flies Nuclear Missiles Over Continental U.S. - Video Inside
Staging Nukes for Iran?
Nuke Transportation Story Has Explosive Implications
Tough Punishment Expected for Warhead Errors
Gates Orders Inventory Of U.S. Nukes

If you want to get into the history of the Kennebunkport Warning, I suggest you read Arabesque's invaluable work on the subject.

Anything else you'd like to inaccurately state?


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

Show "Not until September 5th.." by influence device

Did Tarpley...

Talk about Nukes from Minot in the Kennebunkport Warning, or was it just a random warning? Ya know, if you make enough predictions, eventually, you might get lucky.

Edit: By the way... I gave my own warning on August 28th, 2007.

Did I know anything about the loose nukes? Nope...

Let's take a look at something... what did I do on 9/11/2007? I introduced my hero, 9/11 First Responder John Feal at Webster Hall... what did Tarpley do? Well, we all know what Tarpley did.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

I recall that evening, Jon

Isnt that where you and I met for the first time? I do believe I shook your hand, and you recognized my handle. Very cool.

Unfortunately I havent been able to make it up to NY since then.

________________________
In Their Own Words
"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." A. Einstein

You are correct.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

Show "Has he ever.." by influence device

Has he ever wanted to...

Splinter the movement before or since?

Edit: You know... I can answer my own question. During the "9/11: Revealing The Truth, Reclaiming Our Future" event in Chicago June 2006, Tarpley circulated or proposed circulating SOMETHING ELSE that he wanted signatures on. It was a statement that said you believe they "Made It Happen On Purpose" as opposed to "Let It Happen On Purpose." Two of the most divisive terms in this movement.

If Wolsey still posted here, he could probably verify that.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

Original never provided- why not, if it existed?

the jpg images influence device (id) linked to show a photo and a scan of a COPY- not a sheet of paper on which there are signatures in ink. Where's the original, if Sheehan et al signed the KW paper, and why wasn't it provided?

Also notice that while id has repeatedly pointed out the coincidence of the Minot nukes flying and the KW, id has not pointed to anything in the KW that amounts to evidence of an operation or impending attack, let alone "massive evidence". The risk of another false-flag attack w/ WMD has been pointed out by many, since 9/11, and the Minot nukes, incident in the Straits of Hormuz and other incidents have been publicized as possible attempts. id presented no evidence that KW had anything, or could have had anything, to do the Minot nukes theft being disrupted or exposed.

As can be searching "Webster Tarpley" at Spark's website http://coljennysparks.blogspot.com/search?q=%22webster+tarpley%22
and Arabesque's website http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/search/label/Webster%20Tarpley
and in Wolsey's review of the KW episode http://www.911blogger.com/node/11441

Tarpley's choice of theories, facts and people to promote has completely discredited him.

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

Show "Why do you think so?" by influence device

"Why do you think so?"

id: "I am no expert on photographic analysis, but the signatures are different colors, at least."

Why are you saying "the signatures are different colors", when, in the photo, they're all black?
The photo at the link you provided, http://www.actindependent.org/KWclose-up.jpg, is a color photo, but the document is clearly a black and white copy of another document. Bruce Marshall's signature is slightly lighter in tone; it may have been signed by a blue ballpoint pen, and the others in black ballpoint. The washed out appearance of Kaminski's K and Dahila's D also shows this is a copy, and is likely due to a ball point pen that wasn't writing well. There's no sign of indentation in the paper, which is always the case with ball point. However, even black felt-tip ink has a different tone in a photo, than a copy of black felt-tip; the color and appearance of the signatures is very flat. This document is a copy; the original document that these people signed has never been provided to the public.

id: "Though I don't see how whether peace activist X signed it is relevant, I am slightly curious."

How is it you don't consider it "relevant" that people alleged to have signed a document claim they didn't sign it? How is it not "relevant" that the peace activists said they signed an impeachment petition, not the 'Kennebunkport Warning'?
Tarpley et al considered it relevant; they attacked the peace activists when they said they didn't sign the document, and called for the 9/11 Truth Movement to reject them. Then Tarpley et al attacked 9/11 truth activists who called for civility and objected to the attacks. How is that you dismiss the critique of these truth activists as "gossip" and by saying "they are hardly unbiased observers", simply because they also became the subject of Tarpley et al's attacks, which they also documented and objected to?
Sources were provided for the words of Tarpley, Marshall, Hill, Barrett and others quoted in the articles I linked by Arabesque, Sparks and Wolsey. How is it you are unconcerned about Tarpley et al's repeated and escalated accusations and insults toward the peace and truth activists, and about Tarpley et al's attempt to divide the truth and peace movements over the incident?
How is it you are unconcerned about the failure to provide, to this day, the original document that Tarpley et al are claiming was signed, and over which they attacked the peace activists, for saying they didn't sign it?

id: "The warning was just that, it didn't claim to contain the evidence cited."

The KW paper cites "massive evidence", but doesn't provide it, as you note. Shortly after the KW release and the fiasco began, Tarpley issued some documents (you linked to them above) that laid out the alleged case for Cheney et al manufacturing a "new 9/11 terror attack, and/or a new Gulf of Tonkin war provocation over the coming weeks and months". There is no evidence in Tarpley's documents pointing to the Minot Nukes incident, or any terrorist plan or operation- false-flag or otherwise. You have not cited any evidence from Tarpley's documents showing otherwise, yet you are suggesting Tarpley is "prescient" and your post's title refers to the KW as "open source intelligence forecasting" Everyone already knew about Brzezinki's warning to Congress in Feb 07 about a "provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the US blamed on Iran, culminating in a ‘defensive’ US military action against Iran" http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/feb2007/brze-f02.shtml Truth and peace activists (including Cindy Sheehan in July 2007 http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2007/120707distinctchance.htm ) had expressed concerned about the possibility of manufactured pretexts for war- prior to the KW and the Minot Nukes incident.

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

Relevance

Actually the signature pixels are mostly shades of blue, but I guess this may be because of the light or jpg compression? Anyway so is the printed text at the top .. and they do look black. Your claim that this is a copy seems quite reasonable, if not totally convincing. Why do you suppose they are using a ballpoint (the lines appear quite wide to me)? Doesn't the compression make it hard to see indentations? Why do the washed out lines imply this is a copy, and not just that the pen was running out? And when you say the signatures look 'flat', do you mean literally?

Whether Sheehan etc. signed the final KW (I think they did) is irrelevant in the same way a contention over whether scientist X reviewed a paper by Newton, or what names Newton called a member of the Royal Society, are irrelevant to Newtonian Mechanics.

Anyway, if the '911 movement' is going to succeed in a democratic sense then it needs to find support from over half the population. How do you think this will be possible if anyone who ever made a derogatory remark is barred? Tarpley is known for his colorful language, and society is full of it (esp. politics).

That Sheehan believed a false flag attack possible does not constitute a 'warning' in the same sense as the KW. I don't understand how you cannot see this. On Aug 30th (Thursday) we find Tarpley saying '..as we enter a very dangerous weekend..'. This is a special kind of urgency; he put his credibility on the line and was completely vindicated (although not immediately). The nukes would come to a halt that very day. However it does make me more convinced she signed it.

I gather that for you to consider the warning prescient it would have had to contain evidence citing Minot specifically, but I have suggested that if it had (somehow?) the nukes would not have flown, at least from there.

It seems we come at this from different angles, and may disagree on philosophy. Thanks for staying on topic anyway, and Merry Christmas.

What goes around comes around

loose nuke, I definitely appreciate your efforts to cite relevant quotes, links, evidence, and more when addressing all issues, no matter what the issue is, or how the discussion might be deteriorating. By taking the high road, you maintain a level of maturity necessary for a movement driven by ideas, news, activism, and individual volunteerism, and with no compensation for most except the fulfillment of a need and desire to get to the truth.

Succumbing to our emotions leads to an immediate break down of any discussion which is consequently detrimental and divisive to the Truth movement. Even if any of one of us finds our self tripping into an attack/defense mode with others online or in person, it is never too late to check our self, regain our composure and continue the discussion from the high ground.

We are less likely to enlighten others if we by default take the position that they are no good, not able to discuss the issues rationally, and not worth the effort to treat with respect. Worse, by going into attack or defense mode we create a sphere of negative energy that is repulsive to all those who are present... an energy that drives others away, especially those who do not have the same drive we do to gain and share important information.

Thank you loose nuke for generally taking the time to keep to the high ground. I hope that others in the 911blogger community, including myself will make the effort to do the same at all times. I have learned that if I really want to contribute to the discussion, but I do not have the time or the patience at the moment, then I will come back and contribute when I am relaxed and have my head together.

With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
_____________________________________________
I work for the 9-11 First Responders, the 9-11 victims, and all those who are being slaughtered and tortured because of 9-11.

Thanks Bruno...wise words!

Unfortunately this situation was made emotive by the authors reckless personal attacks on front line activists and victims of war! Could it be more emotive?

But as you say we need to stay on the good path although I will always retain the right to be pissed off when my brothers and sisters are attacked, regardless of the popularity of the personality in question.

A Cosmos, Woolsey, Sheehan or Gold have given their soul to stop the killing by discovering truth, to be called agents and worse is emotive and it pisses me off!

With you in the struggle brother!

Regards John

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!
www.truthaction.org.au

Standing up

Back in February when I went up to San Francisco to support Richard Gage AIA at the presentation he was giving, a man kept interrupting the Q&A by standing in the middle of the room telling Gage and the rest of us that making presentations is not good enough, we need to get out in the streets. I finally told him that if he wants to get out in the streets, go ahead, but stop interrupting Richard because what he is doing is working on its own level or something to that effect. Though my words were coming from a good place, and they were strong and I believe correct, my tone was quite negative with a scowl on my brow. Some attendees were then made uncomfortable and began to gather their things to leave.

I talked to Richard afterward and apologized for the negativity. He agreed that my tone was inappropriate because it turned others away.

I think for us to advance the cause and to advance ourselves as representatives, we all need to rise to the next level in how we deal with those we disagree with, and with those we feel are insulting or attacking friends in the movement. Perception of the messenger affects the message. We are the messengers, so we need to keep in mind how others are perceiving us, and thus harness the power of our message.

Plus, most everybody in this movement means well, even if they come off as totally self-serving. It's a shame to write people off, no matter how much we feel they screwed up, and give them a nudge in the right direction, even if we hold a grudge against them. We are all doing some growing up in the movement on one level or another, and we should recognize that, and recognize the same in others. Most truthers screw up when they go on the defensive and get emotional, thus they personally attack those who they feel are disrespecting them, disrespecting their work, or disrespecting someone they consider a friend. And the battle escalates. What goes around comes around.

Kill them with kindness. It aint easy... I know.

Thanks for all your hard work John. Congrats on helping to make what looks like an incredible success for Richard Gage AIA and his team down under.

With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
_____________________________________________
I work for the 9-11 First Responders, the 9-11 victims, and all those who are being slaughtered and tortured because of 9-11.

good points by Bruno

i agree:

"Succumbing to our emotions leads to an immediate break down of any discussion which is consequently detrimental and divisive to the Truth movement. Even if any of one of us finds our self tripping into an attack/defense mode with others online or in person, it is never too late to check our self, regain our composure and continue the discussion from the high ground.

"We are less likely to enlighten others if we by default take the position that they are no good, not able to discuss the issues rationally, and not worth the effort to treat with respect. Worse, by going into attack or defense mode we create a sphere of negative energy that is repulsive to all those who are present... an energy that drives others away, especially those who do not have the same drive we do to gain and share important information."

At any given time there are 2-10 times as many 'guests' (hello, guests) at 911blogger as there are logged in users; even when we're responding to a comment made by another user, we're ultimately talking to the world.

We're human, so we make mistakes, but sincere activists would do well to consider the impression our words and actions have on others, especially members of the public who are seeking to understand 9/11 and the Truth Movement- imho.

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

You miss the ENTIRE point

Sorry to cast a dark cloud over one of your 3 postings at this website, but you don't know what you are talking about.

The issue isn't who agreed or disagreed with the warning, most people involved in KBW would have told you at the time they were concerned about what the government was doing outside of Webster Tarpley trying to panic everybody or take claim for predicting the obvious.

The Kennebunkport fiasco is important to the 9/11 Truth movement because it involved so-called "high-profile" members LYING, engaging in SLANDER, and exhibiting DIVISIVE behavior. Namely, these were the actions of Webster Tarpley and Bruce Marshall (and others), both whom having 3rd-party political agendas as demonstrated on their "Act Independent" website. Equally as informative, were the actions of a few who acted to cover-up this behavior, and still do, namely Kevin Barrett, Barrie Zwicker, David Ray Griffin and others.

If you want to talk about the KBW, then start by pointing out that Tarpley and Marshall worked very hard to drive a wedge between the 9/11 Truth and Anti-War movements by calling Cindy Sheehan and other respected activists insulting names, then not only refusing to apologize but to inflame a quickly deteriorating situation by comparing Truth Action (International 11th of the month campaign) to Al-Qaeda, calling others FBI agents, and then whining and crying about in PsyOp outlets like The Jeff Rense Show like fat, little bugged-eyed babies. We don't need Tarpley for that kind of publicity when we have Fox News and CNN. And, we don't need Alex Jones bringing this disgraceful "researcher" back into view after he showed his true colors.

This is dangerous stuff.

If Tarpley only made some innocent mistakes, then why commission a slanderous cartoon (see here), which incidentally looks exactly like his book cover (see here), in case there was any doubt, and then lie about it and say that it was submitted "by a friend", while he emailed it to many of us in the movement in a direct attempt to wage a smearing campaign.

So, after you address these major points, can we argue that Cheney tried to blow someone up to further his agenda, and you'll probably see that many people would find that not hard to believe.

Yeah that's what I remember happened...

Yeah that's what I remember happened...

So that it is on the record, Tarpley was dropped from events after this due to "dangerous behaviour" regardless of his popularity.

He basically attacked two of the most successful activists in the world just as the campaign had reached the third stage. Weakness was shown by elements in this movement and it was noted by the ones that were aware of how important these two activists were.

Jon Gold, myself and quite a few others suffered directly from this event also and for some they were damaged not by so much, what Tarpley did, but the fact many did nothing to address it?:( It was disappointing.

Many think it was ego's clashing, it was not; it was an ego crashing....

Regards John

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!
www.truthaction.org.au

Show "Ego shmego" by influence device

Hey John...

Do you remember when Tarpley had on Nico Haupt the day after he got National Exposure on the television? Man, that was great... definitely a good, well thought out decision that was clearly beneficial to this cause.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

Show "Yeah.." by influence device

Well if names and reputations don't matter....

and if what people say and do also does not matter, I put it to you sir that "you" do matter because your standards are in the toilet!

John

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!
www.truthaction.org.au

While reading this thread again....

...it seems at this point of the discussion id has demonstrated, in complete clarity he could care less about the 9/11 Truth campaign!

This post and the inferences of id in this thread have demonstrated to me clearly he has nefarious motives, why is the question?

He definitely has received enough info to concede to why many of us have the opinions we have about the author. Not one word of consensus seen?

Who is "influence device" and where did he come from?

id please explain who and what you are as your profile says nothing?

Why should you try to "influence" us when we know nothing about you?

Jon Gold and I are fully exposed and you are hidden...please step forward into the light?

John

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!
www.truthaction.org.au

The Kennebunkport Warning...

Was one of many seemingly designed efforts to break the spirits of those in the 9/11 Truth Movement. It ranks right up there with the shenanigans that took place at Scholars For 9/11 Truth, Victor Thorne and Lisa Guliani, and the multitude of ridiculous theories put forward over the years that make all of us look like idiots.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

Show "No, you miss the point" by influence device

Actually...

I don't mention Tarpley at all unless someone creates a blog specifically about Tarpley in an attempt to paint him as an ally of the 9/11 Truth Movement, which he most assuredly is not.

Here's a song for you.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

Not true..

You joined in with President Ford recently here:

http://www.911blogger.com/node/21610

And when people...

Need "back up" when making the argument that he should not be tolerated, promoted, endorsed, or associated with the 9/11 Truth Movement. Sorry, my bad.

However, I do NOT bring him up.

Should the 9/11 Truth Movement embrace an individual that calls someone like Cindy Sheehan a "wretched individual?"


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

Show "Over and out" by influence device
Show "Tarpley is an enthusiastic supporter of Cindy Sheehan" by Sheila Casey

"proof of this "wretched individual" phrase"

that's from an email that was sent to numerous people by Tarpley on Aug 30, 2007 (bolding mine)

From: Webster Tarpley
To: tarpley@[XXXXX].net
Subject: need organizations and groups to endorse the Kennebunkport Warning
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2007 04:48:15 +0000
Dear Friends --
Please get organizations from the peace, impeachment, anti-globalization, 9/11 truth, and other movements, as well as high-profile personalities, celbrities, 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

Sources for the above and many other appalling statements by Tarpley, Hill, Marshall, Barrett and others during the KW controversy have been documented by Arabesque:
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/search/label/Kennebunkport%20Warning

In addition, Tarpley has publicly promoted and associated with people promoting DEW, holograms, no planes and other dubious 'theories'- this is well-known, but sources documenting this can be found in the above, as well as by searching truthaction.org and truthmove.org
http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

Show "who is claiming to have received those emails?" by Sheila Casey

I received it...

What do you think prompted Webster Tarpley to call me out as COINTELPRO? I called him out for referring to Cindy Sheehan as a "wretched individual" in the email that he sent out. It is NOT a "nasty rumor." And Arabesque is a man, very credible, and I know his name.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

Show ""I know his name"" by Sheila Casey

Yeah, seriously

With regard to the Pentagon, for example. The fact that anyone would cite an anonymous cyber-entity like "Arabesque" as a credible source over two people who put their real names and faces to their activism and actually go to Arlington and do the type of investigation the media should have done, but didn't, is beyond me.

The rest of us would like to know Arabesque's name too. Oh, but he's afraid? Someone will come after him for his views? 9/11 truth is too hot for the people in his real world to handle and he's afraid of them googling his name?

Sorry, doesn't fly. Not when you have people like Gage and Ranke risking their lives every day by putting their real identities to their cause.

Please...

We can do without the melodrama. If he wants to remain anonymous, that's his prerogative. People DO know his name which is more than I can say for other anonymous posters here.

I despise the individuals of this movement who think you must believe A, or you are a B. The, "you are either with us or against us mentality." Such nonsense.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

Show "Sock Puppet!" by bbruhwiler8

I call out individuals...

That are anonymous that have been signed up for a matter of weeks, and who always seem to start trouble.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

Hey Bruno...

This thread was by an unnamed person....funny is it not?

I have a mixed view on this issue, If you wish to have an opinion and have it respected use your name! If you wish to correlate info and put up others articles being hidden is fine in my view.

Kind regards John

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!
www.truthaction.org.au

You're making up fairy tales...

There are several people on this site who knows who he is. Arabesque is not the issue. The issue is whether or not this movement should accept individuals that refer to people like Cindy Sheehan as "wretched individuals," that have people like Nico Haupt on their show the day after getting National coverage, that call out hard working members of this movement as "COINTELPRO" on a stage in New York City during an anniversary, etc... and so on, and since Tarpley has never attempted to correct or apologize for his mistakes, my opinion would be no.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

How can any argue with this point?

Jon as you say it is that simple!

I have had to apologise and admit I'm wrong many times, this displays grace and respect for others and builds credibility.

I remember many wrote to Tarpley and he would not even respond to the leading members of our movement about his disgraceful behaviour. Sorry would of seen this moving forward...

Regards John

9/11 24/7 UNTIL JUSTICE!!
www.truthaction.org.au

Is Tarpley denying he said it- or any other inflammatory quotes?

I got that email when it was posted by a Tarpley supporter to a 9/11 truth listserve- it was sent to Tarpley's own list as part of his call for everyone to promote the Kennebunkport Warning.

Sheila Casey and Adam Syed (formerly the anonymous 'Kameelyun'- and how do we know those are your real names, anyway???) on Arabesque:

Sheila: "He can't expect to be taken seriously unless he is willing to come out the shadows and put his reputation on the line"
Adam: "The fact that anyone would cite an anonymous cyber-entity like "Arabesque" as a credible source" and "The rest of us would like to know Arabesque's name too."

Actually, people have a right to anonymity. And until someone points out flaws, contradictions, falsehoods, etc. in someone's evidence and arguments, and unless they refuse to acknowledge and clean up their mistakes, their credibility remains intact. Afaik, the only legitimate issue that has been discovered so far is what Arabesque acknowledged at the top this list of a hundred eyewitness accounts of a 757 hitting the Pentagon:
"NOTE: there are some minor errors that I need to fix and that have been pointed out to me. A handful of witnesses described what they saw after the attack and are not first hand accounts. I will also be adding transcripts of of live television witnesses, never before transcribed."
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/04/911-and-pentagon-attack-what.html

Sheila: "I see numerous falsehoods on her blog and this could well be another one."

OK, what are the "numerous falsehoods"? I'm very interested to see what you point out.

Sheila, you seem disturbed by the "wretched individuals" quote; you know Webster Tarpley, why don't you ask him about it?
And what do you say about the other inflammatory quotes Arabesque cites- that were posted online or said on the radio?

Webster Tarpley: Arabesque, Cosmos, Jenny Sparks, Jon Gold, Michael Wolsey, and Truthaction are “disinfo”
Kennebunkport Warning Cartoon: We are Funded by the Ford Foundation Because we Oppose Divisive Language?

What do you think about Tarpley's association with 'no planes'?
Webster Tarpley interviews Nico Haupt and Jeff King: TV Fakery
I seem to recall that Tarpley promoted 'no planes' on Fox News as well; anyone got a link for that?

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

http://arabesque911.blogspot.

http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/search/label/Kennebunkport%20Warning

You must read the above website to understand exactly what the Kennebunkport Warning functioned as for the 9/11 truth movement. I personally went through the disgusting realization that Webster Tarpley, some one who's books I had purchased (even for friends) and studied, and his radio shows that I listened to religiously for over a year, was a serious liar and problem for the 9/11 truth movement. I heard Webster Tarpley personally attack a friend of mine whom I had spent lots of time with. Tarpley's attacks and rash responses toward those he claimed signed his document, and those who reported this, were both childish and unintelligent when at one point I personally viewed him as one of the most intellectually savy people in the 9/11 truth movement. The Kennebunkport Warning Fiasco and Tarpley's subsequent ridiculous public behavior was enough to show me he had become a serious liar and problem for the 9/11 truth movement. The political cartoon that was commissioned by Tarpley says it all. Why would a respected researcher, who often displayed an amazing sense of logic, take the time to attack bloggers with a commissioned political cartoon rather than responding to the bloggers claims with a logical defense or response? I then went back and listened to old radio shows of Tarpley's where he had on outlandish guests like the infamous Nico Haupt. Guests who rather than helping us with tangible info spend all of their time talking about the potential of fake video's and no airplanes at all like Jim Fetzer.

This KBW incident was a sad thing for the 9/11 truth movement but it was important for us to all study and learn from as well. This Warning gave us key insight into which people are supporting ideas which make the 9/11 truth movement appear extreme and easily discredited. The Tarpley fiasco showed us techniques used by trouble makers who end up wasting our time and our research. It is also fascinating that "influence device" brought up the incident with the idea of giving the KB Warning some sort of good light and credibility. Those of us who experienced or who have studied the KBW document and the subsequent actions related to it only have learned the KB Warning to be not just filled with fraud and a complete waste of 9/11 truths time. but also a clear indicator which our movement can use to point out specific people getting involved with our movement to deliberately slow us down, waste our time and attempt to discredit us from within.
I had not posted on the sight in a while, but I had such direct experience with this incident (seeing a friend of mine depicted in a political attack cartoon as a junkie for one) so I had to write about it. Amazing that the silly trouble makers are now attempting to re-write the fiasco. Keep helping us more easily see who the fakers and time wasters are! :)

wtc7.net ........

wtc7.net

........

Who's Slanderin' Who?

Anyone who has an opinion on the Kennebunkport Warning controversy should make sure they listen to these clips from World Crisis Radio and Truth Revolution Radio which were broadcast in the run up to the 9/11 anniversary events in 2007, an important chronological context to consider.

Highlights:

(World Crisis Radio) Webster Tarpley, who after announcing a "credibility" support list that starts with Jim Fetzer, takes credit for inventing "truth squads", and then engages in outlandish ad hominem attacks on truth activists such as Cosmos, Jenny Sparks, Arabesque, Jon Gold, and Michael Wolsey with statements that include "We don't know WHAT they are ... venum mongers ... wreckers and saboteurs ... merchants of puss ... poison pens ... faceless ... nameless ... from the shadows ... slander-snipers ... COINTELPRO ... FBI counter-gang ... sleezy ... smelly, etc.

Then, Craig Hill slanders the "9/11 Movement" and the "Peace Movement" and then even later singles out Reprehensor & 911blogger. The slanders the peace activists as "The DehLIAR 4" and links every one to Cindy Sheehan in particular, and the peace movement in general. Visibility911.com is smeared. The rest of the show they try to "prove" the KW but don't really address the fact that people are not necessarily disagreeing with the KW, as much as wondering why the creators of the warning won't remove the names at the polite request of the signers, and why some people associated with the project were basically slandering them. Next, Tarpley compares the truth activists to Bin Laden. (No, I'm not making that up.)

http://visibility911.com/downloads/mp3/KW/kennebunk01.mp3
http://visibility911.com/downloads/mp3/KW/kennebunk02.mp3
http://visibility911.com/downloads/mp3/KW/kennebunk03.mp3

(Truth Revolution Radio) Cosmos speaks to activist Jenny Sparks (both of whom are actual real people and apparently don't operate from the shadows because they are ON THE RADIO) to talk about the KW warning. Later in that same broadcast, (Kennebunkport Warning co-creator) Bruce Marshall interrupts an interview with Michael Wolsey and has a meltdown, they cut his mic for shouting so it gets a little choppy at that point. Then an unknown woman chimes in.

http://visibility911.com/downloads/mp3/KW/kennebunk04.mp3
http://visibility911.com/downloads/mp3/KW/kennebunk05.mp3

It's pretty clear to me in that cast of characters who I want to work with ... and I do.

And I am embarrassed by the behavior of the others. We don't need the abusive behavior when we have so much work to do together.

V for Visibility!
--------------------------------

Wow...

I forgot how disgraceful this man is... In the first 10 minutes of clip 1, he got SO MUCH information wrong... Wolsey, Cosmos, myself, have been around A LOT longer than Jim Fetzer, et al... we didn't come out in 2006... Cosmos invented the eleventh of every month action, and Tarpley seems to take credit for it, or at the very least, acts like Cosmos had nothing to do with it.


Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? The facts speak for themselves.

Thanks

Thanks for providing some documentation of the kind of nonstop abuse that was coming from Tarpley and company at the time. An attack cartoon was commissioned and widely distributed by Tarpley in which myself, Wolsey, Sparks and Arabesque are shown to be not only agents of the FBI and funded with Ford Foundation money but also somehow affiliated with Chip Berlet. A syringe is thrown in for good measure, I suppose to insinuate that one or all of us are drug addicts. This was on top of regular radio assaults by Tarpley and his friends Jim Fetzer, Captain May and Kevin Barrett. All of this is only scratching the surface of what was going on though - as someone said recently a book should be written about it. The list of lies that Tarpley told about me personally is so long and absurd as to be hilarious... but the whole affair had the stink of an orchestrated smear campaign.

It's interesting to see the effort being made to revise history and rehabilitate Tarpley and the KW fiasco.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

Thx Prez Ford

for posting the audio- Tarpley's own words and actions- and those who leapt to his side to justify him- are damning enough in themselves. I was already suspicious of him at the time due to the speculative assertions in Synthetic Terror, which he would then build on as if they were fact, and then using a national TV platform to promote 'no planes'. When the Kennebunkport Warning was issued, and no 'massive evidence' or original document showing signatures was ever provided, yet sincere peace and truth activists were viciously and repeatedly attacked for raising questions and criticizing the atrocious behavior of him and his allies, he'd burned his last bridge as far as i was concerned.

YT - "the whole affair had the stink of an orchestrated smear campaign."
"It's interesting to see the effort being made to revise history and rehabilitate Tarpley and the whole affair."

Indeed. An attempt was made to drive a wedge between the 9/11 Truth and Peace Movements, and to divide the 9/11 Truth Movement.
Also interesting this 'rehab' effort is coinciding with the lead up to Peace of the Action.

http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org

Don't thank me ...

... thank Shelia. I wouldn't normally go through all the trouble, but she asked for some proof so I gave her some. It's perfectly reasonable to ask for some proof. There's plenty more if we need to get into it. But, I thought it helpful for this thread to just get to the facts and post some of what was actually said by the actual people that said it.

The amount of ad hominem, slander and general divisive tone is so appalling and unbelievable that it really just speaks for itself. It gets even worse on other radio programs, but I think we should not go there.

Rehab? Tarpley is lucky he hasn't been sued yet. If true, whoever is advising that is really misinformed.

Concern

First, Happy New Year!

Now, the comments in the thread above above all focus on people being called names, but note that P.Ford says 'people are not necessarily disagreeing with the KW'.

To answer the allegations of disinfo, and the question of who I am. Well, currently I am anonymous. I have never communicated with anyone involved with the warning or blowback except on 911Blogger. I am not a disruptor, indeed I am not convinced that 'psyops' and 'cointelpro' in the movement are anywhere near as widespread as some seem to believe (but quite possibly through ignorance). In a movement such as this there's bound to be plenty of internal friction. I find most discussion of this sort a bit silly, even mildly amusing, and when placed in a 911 Truth context I think it comes across to many people as paranoia, and helps foster the 'crazy' meme (especially when it's applied to others in the movement).

Maybe I am too gullible, but while I am aware that some individuals mentioned (not Tarpley etc.) are also currently involved in possibly the movements two highest profile allegations of intentional disinfo (against CIT & P4T), I still don't suspect them of being 'on a payroll'.

So I agree that the name calling, from both sides, is unconstructive ('I am not interested in those aspects here'), and find the objective facts supporting both sides to be, to different degrees, inconclusive and speculative (from my perspective). However I am generally more interested in objective facts (including fuzzy probabilities) than public relations or bruised egos.

And I'm a damn sight more concerned about a nuclear attack.

Is that a crime?