Tarpley on the Kennebunkport Warning

Tarpley offers some evidence that led to the formulation of the Kennebunkport Warning, and will be dedicating his Thursday, August 30 GCN program, broadcast from 7-9pm Central on Network 4, to discussing "the evidence for the coming Bush-Cheney aggression against Iran, to be predicated on a new 9/11 and/or a new Gulf of Tonkin provocation."

Several readers of the Kennebunkport Warning have requested documentation on the evidence referred to in that document. I am enclosing my July 21, 2007 summary entitled "Cheney Determined to Strike in US with WMD this Summer," plus a portfolio of selected news stories covering July and August of 2007. (both items attached below) I have also included an early description of the Cheney doctrine by Philip Giraldi from August, 2005. This evidence could be supplemented, but it is already conclusive.

It would be foolhardy in the extreme for serious antiwar activists to ignore the grave danger of an upcoming attack on Iran, predicated on a new 9/11 and/or a new Gulf of Tonkin. I send this out in the hopes that it will promote a a vigorous open debate on these matters as we approach the sixth anniversary of 9/11.

A well-known Democratic member of the House of Representatives has repeatedly told individual supporters that the top leadership of the Democratic Party has explicitly approved an attack on Iran. Mrs. Clinton is openly offering herself as the politician best qualified to take over in the wake of such an event. It is therefore the task of genuine antiwar activists, together with institutional forces within the government and the military, plus certain international factions, to ward off this looming catastrophe.

Webster G. Tarpley
Washington DC


See also this new article at The Raw Story: Study: US preparing 'massive' military attack against Iran.

indications of iran attack.doc286 KB
war_alert___20july07.doc75.5 KB

Kennebunkport Warning Evidence

U.S. Terror Attack — 'Ninety Days at Most'
Wednesday, July 13, 2005

As you can see, this terror warning is a hoax/fake article. The printer friendly date reveals that the "new" 2007 article is a reprint of a 2005 article. See link below for more details.

If Tarpley wants more evidence he can use my research here:

How can it be 2 years old with all these new NeoCon hints?

I clicked on the link and there is a whole blog there.
Sure we have been having warnings for a while but where is the article this was supposedly copied from?

See here:

Sorry. See this note:

It's an EXACT copy of a 2005 article--word for word.

What is an exact copy of what?

At your link - which is a list of warnings - you have a copy of the Kennebunkport Warning with a date of Aug 2007 and a reference number of 38.
The first two words in it are Massive Evidence. This pair of words does not appear anywhere else on the page. Word for Word?
Or does one of us need to wipe off his reading glasses.
What is the reference number of the 2005 article?

The Kennebunkport Warning

Like most people I thought at first that the Kennebunkport Warning was legitimate. I thought the warning was real, and that the signatures were legitimate. After reading this warning and noticing that it had claimed "massive evidence" without supplying any, I provided a link to my own research that I have been doing for more than a month.

While I strongly agree that there is a serious risk of an attack on Iran (and by extension a "trigger" to justify it), I strongly disagree with the unethical use of signatures to support such a warning. I do not know when or if the next false flag will occur, but I do know that there is very strong evidence that the Bush administration intends to go to war with Iran. Many others have warned about this, which you can clearly see if you take the time to read my research.

The question then becomes, if the Kennebunkport Warning is a hoax, what is its purpose? Is its purpose to discredit future warnings, or even the Kennebunkport Warning itself? Is its purpose to discredit anti-war activists by associating them with Jim Fetzer, space beams, and TV fakery? Is its purpose to create division between 9/11 truth activists and the anti-war movement? Is there a deliberate attempt to discredit suspicions about the Bush regime orchestrating another false flag? Is this part of a psychological operation to seed the idea that any new warnings are also hoaxes, thus crippling our ability to warn about the next false flag attack?

I don't know the answer to these questions, but they are all worth asking.

As for the 90 days warning, it is a fake warning. If you do not believe me, do a google search for this warning and you will find it is an exact duplicate of an article printed and published in 2005. In fact the "2007" warning has no DATE on it--until you go to the printer version, revealing that it is 2005.

Jon Gold, Is Fox News Recycling Terror To Scare The Masses? 911blogger, August 2, 2007:

Obviously, I know now that the Kennebunkport warning is most likely a hoax, and I will have to update my post with the warnings to include it under the heading "Fake Warnings"--right beside the 90 days fake warning.

Kennedebunkport debunkers debunked

The Jon Gold link is to a Fox News story from 2005 citing counter-terror expert Juval Aviv predicting a mass-transit terror attack within 90 days.
This is the mass media hawking fear - that's what terrorism is all about.
I also sometimes get tired of chicken little and boy crying wolf stories and am relieved when they don't come true.

Nonetheless the Kennebunkport warning is in reaction to overt insinuations by neocon politicians this summer that America needs another 9/11.

You still haven't answered me - where is the document from 2005 that the Kennebunkport warning is a "word for word" copy of? It certainly makes no reference to the Fox story of 2005. Have you wiped off your reading glasses in the meantime and won't admit it?

You say, " I strongly agree that there is a serious risk of an attack on Iran (and by extension a "trigger" to justify it)". Well then, what is your purpose and motivation in trying to discredit Bruce Marshall and Webster Tarpley's efforts to forestall a war on Iran?

I can't see how what you are doing is constructive to our efforts here.

So now it's an "unethical use of signatures," rather than faked ones. Any brickbat is handy. What is an "unethical use of signatures," according to you? The warning they signed is a warning to the public.
Did anyone think that Bruce went to all the trouble to get well-known signatories so he could hide the statement away in a safe deposit box?

The "Signed" Kennebunkport Warning

I never said the Kennebunkport warning was a "word for word" copy of a 2005 article... you have obviously misread what I said. I said the 90 days warning was a word for word copy.

I think you should read what some of the other posters have said about this issue:
UPDATE: The Signed Kennebunkport Warning

"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."

That's ridiculous

90 days is word for word?
There are 16 million Google hits on "90 days."
Either Fox News or Jon Gold must have pretty powerful equipment to put out 16 million "word for word" copies, even if it's just two words.

And the words "90 days" aren't even in the K-Port warning. It says "coming weeks and months."

Why are you and your sock puppets burying my story Moment of Truth, which is the first first-hand report here from Bruce Marshall who actually got the signatures on the KPort Warning?

The Controversy So Far...

Is the The Signed Kennebunkport Warning A Hoax? Here is what we know:

Discussion on Truthaction.org
The Kennebunkport Warning: A Hoax?

John Leonard says:
"As far as Dahlia Wasfi is concerned, I was a guest on Webster's radio show last night so I heard Bruce Marshall and Janice Weir say they saw her sign the statement."

It's fishy:
Dahlia S. Wasfi, MD: http://www.liberatethis.com/
"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."
Also: "I don't know about the validity of this "warning," but the people who put this list together were dishonest about signatories. They took our signatures for something else and put it on this. Very weird." http://www.911blogger.com/node/10925#comment-158583

Cindy Sheehan via MySpace: http://www.911blogger.com/node/10947#comment-158689
Further confirmation:
"the same thing happened to me as happened to dahlia" http://www.911blogger.com/node/10947#comment-158784

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.

Jamilla El-Shafei
Cindy Sheehan
Dahlia Wasfi
Ann Wright


No, it's legitimate:
Kevin Barrett (according to Captain May see below)
Captain May http://ca.groups.yahoo.com/group/Portland-Nuclear-Inquest/message/543
Webster Tarpley http://www.911blogger.com/node/10925

Craig Hill
"I just spoke with Craig Hill, treasurer of the Green Party of Vermont who verified that he is indeed a signatory of this document and indicated to me that the document is very real." http://www.911blogger.com/node/10925#comment-158645

Who made the Kennebunkport Warning?
Webster Tarpley http://www.911blogger.com/node/10925
The attached document file has at the end comments by Webster Tarpley

Wretched Individuals? Liars?? Tarpley Says about the controversy: http://www.911blogger.com/node/10947#comment-158784
"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.[sic]"

Tarpley then interviews Jim Fetzer: http://www.911blogger.com/node/10947#comment-158797
"Scholars stands with you. You may make Scholars for 9/11 Truth a signatory to your Kennebunkport Warning. [...] Keep up the great work! You are a clear, strong voice for truth! Jim (Fetzer)

Jim Fetzer, "Scholars endorse 'The Kennebunkport Warning': Report ominous signs of a privatized takeover of the nation"


Craig Hill, in response to questions about the Kennebunkport Warning:

I cannot understand the supposed shadiness of this rather innocuous statement. I say much worse every morning in the shower, and again once fully awakened on the telephone. I most certainly signed it, and would sign a much sterner version of its conclusions:

The traitors who killed Americans on 9/11 did so not only to promote endless war and destruction of our constitutional liberties, but to fulfill Adolf's dream of corporations uber alles (Hitler attacked Poland on 9/1; Daddy Bush's team accomplished what Hitler could not, an attack on America on 9/11).

It's all right there in PNAC, released in September 2000: The catastrophic catalyzing event, the overthrow of Saddam and reorganization of Iraq, the control of what was then $7 trillion of energy resources in the region, which means control of Iranian oil as well, the encirclement of Russia and China, and the reestablishment of SAC as the newest branch of our bloated military, Space Command, with the immediate aim of the militarization of space via nuclear weapons and other exotic dangers orbiting Earth, pointing down and controlling entire societies under threat they, too, may suffer that which Dr Judy Wood persuasively suggests occurred in NYC on 9/11: A demonstration showing the world's leaders what will happen to their cities unless they accede to the domination of Neocon Amerika.

Cindy signed the Kennebunkport Warning. Her signature is clear and crisp. I know the man who circulated it. He does not invent. She scanned it and signed on. I would like to know why the language in the document is seemingly "shady". She certainly didn't think so when she signed it. I feel this is something Cindy may have been advised to think long after the fact, or say she thought. What other agenda might her gatekeepers be promoting? Read it for yourself. Nothing shady was done to obtain her signature. "Please read this and, if you can, sign it." Her oblique criticism is what is unfortunately murky, i believe to her detriment, and hope she will reread what she signed and see it as the call that must be made at this time to arrest the slide toward another much worse and bigger war.
The onus is on her not to remove herself from these sentiments but to elaborate on them, repeatedly, to use her station and her race against Pelosi to stop the next bigger round of mass murder before it begins, not once it begins. That is the only agenda of the KW, though not the agenda of the single war party that controls its justifiably unpopular governance.

~ Craig Hill / Signator, Kennebunkport Warning


Thanks to WoZ:

From: The Real Cindy Sheehan
Date: Aug 29, 2007 8:03 PM

dear woz


whoever had me sign something the other day in
kennebunkport misrepresented it to me and my assistant.

i would never have signed that "warning" the way it was written.



The 9/11 truth movement is being attacked!! We are having a major COINTELPRO incident!!

False Flag 9/11 Activism! Sound the Alarm!

Judy Wood Space Beams? Jim Fetzer Interview and supporting press release? This is a SETUP

Show "What's your real name, Mr. "Arabesque"?" by John Leonard

I keep trying to remember...

..."I am not the 911Blogger police". But you're making it very hard, "chum".

Now why don't you toddle off and read the responses to my email at TruthAction.org, starting here:

There's a good lad.

If you want to attack real people, can you use your real name?

Bruce Marshall is an activist who was trying to do something to stop the war on Iran.
Unfortunately, the ratio of doers to kibitzers, snipers and armchair pundits seems to be abysmally low.

If people can't read a short statement before signing it, that's their problem.
Our problem here is elsewhere:
It's scandalous how eager so many people were to dump Tarpley -- when he wasn't even in Kennebunkport.
IMO those who said Tarpley is busted, have busted themselves, have shown themselves up.

Tarpley and Barrett, remember, are the voices of reason and conciliation and unity in this movement (I know them well, as I happen to be their publisher).

Tarpley has already answered you. He enunciated what should be our policy in the movement on his radio show about the dissension and backbiting in the US Truth Movement.

His theme is Diversity and Civility in Discussion, Unity in Action. Sadly, those qualities have been missing on the part of the critics on this thread.

Please read it, Tarpley's Rx for the movement. It's on pp. 452-453 of 9/11 Synthetic Terror 4th ed. or at www.waronfreedom.org/synth/SynTer4ed.pdf

If you are so concerned about ethical behavior, do you think it is fair to anonymously gang up on folks like Webster or Bruce who are putting their names on the line - and maybe their lives, too, if the police state comes?

Tarpley "wasn't even in Kennebunkport"

Yet he feels confident enough in his estimation of Sheehan and the other alleged signatories' low moral character to call them "wretched individuals" and "appalling liars." Is this an example of his Civility in Discussion?

The Kennebunkport Warning: Hoax?

I just sent all the signees this email ..

...after 3 damn hours on-line hunting for their email addresses--if I ever find the twat who did this they will be sorry... >:(

Subject: Another Tiresome inquiry about the "Kennebunkport Warning"--thank you all in advance!
To: "Cynthia McKinney" , "Cindy Sheehan" , "Craig Hill" , "Bruce Marshal" , Send an Instant Message jamillaelshafei@xxxx, tarpley@xxx, "Ann Wright" , "Dahlia Wasfi" , "George Martin" , Send an Instant Message "John Kaminsky"
CC: reprehensor.911blogger@xxxx, truthaction@xxxx

Hello all!

I'm a 9/11 internet activist who goes by the handle
"Jenny Sparks". I post at 911Blogger among other
places and I'm a bit of a loud mouth. ;-)

Thank you all for your activism and efforts,
particularly, Ms. Sheehan, and the Honorable Cynthia

Now I'm about to ask another tiresome question about
the "Kennebunkport Warning". Apologies in advance if
you are sick to the teeth about this issue. Here's a
link to a version of the suspected fraudulent


My question is: did any of you sign this document?

It seems too many people are spreading it around like
wildfire and this has the potential to split the
Anti-War activists communities and the 9/11 Activist
communities--possibly pitting them against each other.
Now we all know who would benefit from that...

So I'm making this foray to ask the "horse's mouths",
so to speak. Thank you in advance. Hopefully we will
all have more clairity about this issue soon.

Keep up the good work.



PS: After three hours on-line hunting down all your
email addresses, I know I may have gotten some wrong,
or some may be old or unused. If you could all please
help this get to everyone who supposedly signed this
"Warning" so they can confirm or deny this, many
activists of all stripes will be grateful.

And the emails are coming in....

See them at:

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.


Cindy is contradicting herself

We all love Cindy and hope she'll become a strong supporter, but - well, nobody's perfect.

Above she says

"whoever had me sign something the other day in kennebunkport misrepresented it to me and my assistant.
i would never have signed that "warning" the way it was written."

Note well:
In the first sentence, she says she signed it
In the second, she seems to say she didn't.
And now, she has come out on Dahlia Wasfi's site saying no, she didn't.

The people who are saying they didn't sign do seem to be a bit muddled.

2005? Neo-Cons issuing terror threats non-stop since 2001

Arabesque wrote, "As you can see, this terror warning is a hoax/fake article. The printer friendly date reveals that the "new" 2007 article is a reprint of a 2005 article."
You wrote this at the top of the page, thus calling the K-Port warning itself a fake.
By the way, this claim of yours is a hoax in itself..

I finally figured it out.
The large Word attachment to this thread "indications of iran attack.doc" consists of 49 pages of press articles about terror threats.
Most of them are from 2007 but it includes the Fox News - Juval Aviv 90-day mass transit warning,
"U.S. Terror Attack — 'Ninety Days at Most' - Wednesday, July 13, 2005."

It is clearly labeled July 13, 2005. How does this become a fake copy from 2007?

I'm stunned at the gall of muddying the water with such a preposterous and incoherent claim.
You would have us believe that the statement is fake because there is a 2-year old article in the attachment?

Words fail me.

A pox on both your hoaxes.


U.S. Terror Attack — 'Ninety Days at Most'

U.S. Terror Attack — 'Ninety Days at Most'

The 2005 article has been circulating on the web in Aug 2007

The Fox News story Mass Transit Terror Attack in 90 days at most citing "counter terror expert" Juval Aviv has been revived and circulating on the internet recently
In some places the posters haven't noticed that the story is 2 years old (it is still a good story after 2 years) and have given it a date of Aug. 2, 2007.
On the Fox Fan Central site itself the article is shown without any date!
However in Tarpley's Word attachment with the 49 pages of articles on terror threats, the date is correctly shown as June 13.

So once again, "Arabesque," what is your motivation? What are you trying to prove?
What is the point? Who are you aiming to hurt or help with your misguided missives?

No Date Fox Article

"On the Fox Fan Central site itself the article is shown without any date!"

You don't think I didn't notice that? Try clicking on the "printer friendly version" of that "2007" article.

Now read back to me what it says. I'm waiting.

Moment of Truth

As far as Dahlia Wasfi is concerned, I was a guest on Webster's radio show last night so I heard Bruce Marshall and Janice Weir say they saw her sign the statement.
Bruce says Wasfi was a speaker there. He liked her speech, and he had a back stage pass. He went up to her after the speech, gave her the statement to read. Janice says she saw all this and saw her sign.
So what do you believe, 2 witnesses and a written statement? That's enough for a notary public!
Or somebody's memory after the fact?

Note that Tarpley was not even in Kennebunkport. He and Bruce wrote up the statement on the phone. So why is everybody jumping on Tarpley? IMO Those people are the ones who are really being shown up by this hoax of a hoax.

I figure this hoax stuff is actually giving the warning more press. The only bad publicity is no publicity.

Bruce also said it shows the statement is doing something right if it's strong enough to be controversial. He said people read something, and one thing pops out that they agree with, like impeachment, and they sign it. Maybe after the speech Dahlia was in an expansive mood?

Tarpley's take is that we should support, encourage and praise the signatories for their courage in signing the statement.

Re Cynthia McKinney, Bruce said she gave her verbal support, and I believe it was Janice Weir who said Cynthia's remark on it was that it didn't go far enough !

Go, Cynthia!

Kevin Barrett was also on the show and Tarpley says he was one of the first to post a warning of this kind this year - it's here on 911 blogger and also on his mujca.com site. NeoCon GOP spokesmen have been saying the country needs another 9/11. Since then there have been a couple more terror advocates like Stu Bybofsky

Say "Stick ' Em Up" to Terror Threats

Stu Bykofsky with a K.
Barrett's piece "Feeling Safe Yet? How YOU Can Stop the Next 9/11
–by stockpiling “INSIDE JOB?" signs !" is here is http://911blogger.com/node/10001 or on his website http://mujca.com/stopthenext911.htm where you can buy some of his banners.

It's classic satirical Kevin Barrett with a genial idea - to stockpile materials that we can post around the day after the Next 9/11 to warn people what's really happening.

I liked the idea so much that I've developed a variation on it, small labels and bumper-size stickers, that I'm spending a lot of time these days trying to promote. I'm giving away the bumper stickers for only 20 cents each and a sheet of 30 preprinted labels for only 15 cents each - at my cost.

STICK EM UP! is the motto - on lampposts, parking meters, in restrooms, wherever.

You can see an image of one version of the label at the top of the page on my website, http://www.progressivepress.com, next to the Progressive logo, which takes you to http://www.waronfreedom.org/labels.html.

I'll also do your custom design and text for you.
Where else can you get the word out on the street for only half a cent per ad?

Gang of Four Sock Puppets

There is a gang of sock puppets here.
Within minutes after posting Moment of Truth, it's buried under 4 minus -
and the latest irrelevant prevarication from Arabesque has plus 4.

More Evidence

Here's more possible documentation if anyone is interested.

Another 911 - Another Israeli (Mossad) Spy Ring

More to indicate....

that this work is indeed fraudulent, deceptive piece of dis-information. My good friend and colleague, Michael Anderson of Colorado 9-11 Visibility has contacted one of the "signatories" of this piece of work, Dahlia Wasfi. Not only is this work a fraud and a fake, at least one of the "signatories" has denied signing it. Here is Dahlia's response. re: Kennebunkport Warning:

Hey Michael--

I didn't sign this.

I don't know about the validity of this "warning," but the people who put this list together were dishonest about signatories. They took our signatures for something else and put it on this. Very weird.

Love, Dahlia

I am very curious as to why is Webster Tarpley spreading this around, putting his name on it, without verifying even the people who supposedly signed it, let alone any of the information contained therein. Sloppy work Webster. Was this an accident?

Bait and Switch?

Bait and Swap? The technique of a used car salesmen...
I wonder who else was duped on the list?
11/11 Never Forget - Fetzer Flips
Zeitgeist Movie Torrent DVDRip (XviD)

Keeping track

UPDATE: Kennebunkport Warning

I just spoke with Craig Hill, treasurer of the Green Party of Vermont who verified that he is indeed a signatory of this document and indicated to me that the document is very real. I know both Michael and Dahlia and when this news broke this morning, I of course, believed Dahlia without a doubt. Things looked pretty fishy from my point of view, and they still do. However, Craig Hill has indeed verified, at least his own participation, in the signing of this document. You can get in touch with Craig through the public Green Party of Vermont website if you want to verify what I am saying here:

Assistant Treasurer Craig Hill
802-229-1890 craigbhill@gmail.com

I also asked Craig if he believed the other signatories are bona fide and Craig told me that not only did Dahlia sign the document, but he believes that all the other signatures are genuine. There is an obvious dispute here and at this point, it will be up to the individual parties to prove or dis-prove the assertions. This should be something rather simple. If someone signed a document, there should be a signature. So if there is a signature on the document, I would like to see it and a comparison to known sample(s) of Dahlia's mark.

I expect things to develop in the next few days. It appears there is much more to this story than meets the eye and my apologies go out to anyone whom I may have been too quick to point the finger at.

Official statement from Dahlia Wasfi

The Kennebunkport Warning: A Hoax?

Official statement from Dahlia S. Wasfi, MD:

***Re: "The Kennebunkport Warning"***

The Bush administration has proven that sacrificing lives of Americans and other innocents around the world is a price worth paying in the name of criminal corporate profit. Dr. Phil says that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. As such, it is certainly within the realm of possibility for the neo-conservative junta in Washington to launch another war based on lies. However, I do not have "the smoking gun," if you will, to prove it.

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.

Therefore, please contact the statement's distributors for information on their evidence.

With you in the struggle until justice is served,



Comment from Cindy Sheehan via MySpace:

----------------- Original Message -----------------
From: The Real Cindy Sheehan
Date: Aug 29, 2007 8:44 AM

all i can say is that the entire thing is shady

Well that takes the mickey out of Mike

Or Craig. Someone's not on the up and up...

Here's a thought: If anti-war illuninaries like Sheehan and McKinney signed something as portentious as this, woudn't you expect them to post the event, links, and document themselves? And call for press confrences about it?

My money's on HOAX. Oh and anyone else with a "confirmation"? You'll want to add a link that goes back to the signatoree, luv.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Mr. Tarpley's proclamations

I've always been a bit skeptical of anything to do with Mr. Tarpley. I don't want to get into character assassination here, but when I read Synthetic Terror and came across the bit about Richard Clarke's "performance" in front of the 9/11 Commission, I was doubtful of his claims from then on. If you've seen the video of Clarke, he's either the greatest actor of our generation, or—in my opinion—he wasn't in on planning or allowing 9/11 (which isn't to say he's a good guy, either). Guilty parties never accept even partial responsibility, as he did that day. And if I recall correctly, he's the one that brought the August 6th PDB to light. Why would he do that?

Aside from that, I just don't think Mr. Tarpley is the best representative of the movement; he says way too many things that can be taken out of context and used against us. He often comes across as a bit of a "raver", in my opinion.

Anyway, I've digressed enough...


Check out this proclamation

Regarding the destruction of the WTC:

"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."

Synthetic Terror, page 244


Excellent example. I think I was turned off by that point.

More DEW

"The FBI was adamant that there was no evidence of explosives of any kind having been used. All of this led to speculation not only that United 93 had been shot down by the US Force, but that the plane had been destroyed – pulverized in mid-air – by a futuristic weapon based on new physical principles. Wallace Miller, the coroner, commented that he believed the plane had not been shot down, “unless there is some new technology we don’t know about.” (Longman 264) According to Longman, there was a military aircraft, a Lockheed Hercules C-130 transport plane, about 17 miles away. 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."

Synthetic Terror, page 245

I like the book, but there are passages like this once in a while that really make you scratch your head. I agree with individual7819...

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

What edition is it?

We forgive much speculation at the begining of the Truth movement, when, face it, we had little chance to compare notes.

It's the people 6 years later still spouting this stuff that makes you wonder.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

The current one

All of them have it. And all of them (including the current edition) carry an endorsement from Nico Haupt on the back cover.


You've probably sussed out Haupt is not my favorite prat--I mean, "person".

Someone need to give Tarpley a word before the 5th edition--no excuse for Haupt to be mentioned.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

And on the subject of my "non" favorite people...

...isn't it odd Brainster hasn't shown up on any of these Kennebunkport threads? Or that SLC hasn't even covered it yet? They've admitted being in the busness of "making twoofers look bad"--if their past is any indication, shouldn't they have been mocking us about this a WEEK ago?

It isn't like they can't know. This shite has flown around the globe and the "Truther embarresment potential' would be too tempting for any sincere debunk to over look.

And then one thread at JREF, started 8/27, has all but died:

What posts there are, are full of snark about Tarpley--but NOTHING about how we are all over the case.

Makes you wonder if THEY were supposed to expose the hoax... and that plan went tit's up.

The silence of the debunkers is very creepy--remember how they were able to find out about William's Holocaust revisim shite before anyone really knew about it, and spread it far and wide that Truthers are Nazis? And yet, after Captain "Mayday" and co. are pushing this "Warning", globally, mind, the debunks are quieter than mice? Hell, isn't debunking this sort of shite supposed to be THEIR job?

Just some paranoid musings to round out this farce...

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

3rd Edition: June 2006

3rd Edition has it... The fourth edition is published may 5, 2007.

By the way Mr. Haput (and his blog website address) are not only mentioned on the back cover--his name is referenced several times in the book. I do not wish to make too much of this since Mr. Ruppert also relied on Mr. Haupt once upon a time to discover the secret mystery of the war games in crossing the Rubicon.

I don't want to suspect Tarpley of joining the dark side, but unless I get some answers I am going to keep raising hell about it.

Book publishers be damned: