The Kennebunkport Reality Check

("The Kennebunkport Reality Check" is the official response from to the controversy swirling around the Kennebunkport Warning. Notes have been added to the original posting, describing its origin, who physically signed the actual document, who had their names added by verbal consent, and a link to the statement posted at Dahlia Wasfi's website, relating to Wright, Sheehan, Wasfi and El-Shafei. We await an official written statement from (former) Rep. Cynthia McKinney or her representatives, and we will post it in full should one be produced. -rep.)

The Kennebunkport Reality Check:
The Danger of World War III is the Much Neglected Heart of the Matter

Most of the comments concerning the Kennebunkport Warning have avoided the main issue. The central point has nothing to do with any signatures or absence thereof. The key issue is whether the world strategic picture given by the Kennebunkport Warning is accurate or not. If the statement is true, as we firmly assert that it is, then the other issues can be seen in proper perspective, meaning that they are dwarfed by the threat of a world catastrophe.

If Cheney really is pressing for a new false flag terror provocation, to be followed by a nuclear attack on Iran and martial law in the US, then that fact certainly ought to command the attention of all thinking people. To duck such an issue would be despicable. Nobody with the vaguest notion of what is happening in the world can doubt that Cheney is doing this – it is written in the newspapers, it is written in the graffiti on the walls. At this point it becomes our duty to mobilize to the limit of our capacity to ward off such an immense evil. All the other questions are trivial by comparison. And you cannot be an antiwar leader and be an agnostic about this, claiming you simply do not know or that you do not understand the concept of false flag. If you choose that cop-out, what kind of a peace leader are you?

The Fear Factor

Naturally, the world described by the Kennebunkport Warning is a terrifying world. But our chances of survival will be better if we are able to face reality, rather than retreat into a dream-world of opinions, perceptions, and recriminations. This applies especially to those who claim to be antiwar leaders.

Reality is that the signers signed – the irrefutable, photographic, courtroom quality documentary proof is posted on the internet. In the light of this overwhelming evidence, it is understandable that most of the signers are reluctant to issue a flat denial that they ever signed. Rather, their denials are oblique and ambiguous doubletalk.

Adults Are Responsible For What They Sign

On the question of signing: under US law, if you are 21 years old and can read and write, if you put your name to something you are bound by it. If you sign it, you must accept the consequences. Your signature is your bond – ask anyone who has signed an adjustable rate mortgage lately. The only way you can get out of this is to prove that you are mentally defective, and nobody has tried that, so far.

Most of us were told by our parents that we should never sign anything unless we had read it carefully and considered it from every possible point of view. That is a very good maxim. We must assume that capable political leaders dealing with the life and death questions of war, peace, and martial law will pay close attention to anything that they are asked to sign. And the signers are serious political leaders who know what they are doing, are they not? Such people know very well that they must take responsibility for their own signatures, don’t they? Surely they cannot be in the habit of signing things without reading them. Considerations of this type lead us to us to the most embarrassing doubts about their competence and seriousness.

It is also worth noting that verbal contracts are valid in almost all states, as long as they cover the main points at issue -- such as a commitment to sign a statement in token of political support. Anyone who recalls the Texaco-Pennzoil case, when the fate of about ten billion dollars was sealed by a verbal contract knows this. It would be foolhardy for people in politics and government to ignore such matters.

Anyone who has ever organized support for a statement knows how such a process works. You get a bunch of copies of the statement. You go to a gathering and hand out the copies. You buttonhole influential people and urge them to read the statement, evaluate it, and then sign it. Anyone who signs something under such circumstances knows that as mature adults they must take responsibility for their own signature. The organizer cannot subject the signers to hours of psychiatric depth analysis to determine their mental state, or to establish whether they have fully grasped each detail of the statement. There is no way to bring a notary along. They are professional politicians, are they not? One or two are or have been candidates for important federal offices. Surely in their official capacities they plan to read things before they sign them, since they are sure to be held responsible. Otherwise, they will be a laughingstock. They knew exactly what they were signing and, if they deny it, they are unfortunately lying. Anyone who talks of forgery or trickery in gathering these signatures is compounding that lying with slander.

The Kennebunkport Warning is a statement of about a dozen lines. Any normal person can read it and grasp the main points in less than a minute. Nobody can be rushed or stampeded into signing something like this, because it is so brief. It is not an appropriations bill of 1,000 pages.

We cannot avoid the delicate question of cointelpro, the domestic sabotage and wrecking activities of the intelligence agencies. A current news item relates that the FBI spied on Coretta Scott King after the assassination of Martin Luther King. The reason was that J. Edgar Hoover feared that Mrs. King might continue her late husband’s efforts to unite the anti-Vietnam War movement with the civil rights movement. The Kennebunkport Warning attempts to do something similar: its entire logic is to unite the peace, impeachment, and anti-globalization and other movements on a platform which would be independent of the Democratic and Republican Parties, which would no longer be crippled by a single-issue focus, and which would acquire the decisive power of 9/11 truth. The intelligence community of our time is well aware of the vast potential that would be unleashed by such a convergence. This is the eventuality they are intent on preventing. So nobody should be surprised to see counter-organizing in general, or to see the individual signers of such a statement quickly leaned on, squeezed, intimidated, threatened, or otherwise counter-organized. How could it be otherwise? Under Reagan’s Executive Order 12333, many of the functions of the Cold War intelligence community were privatized into fronts and especially into foundations. Many foundations must thus be considered as tentacles of the intelligence community. The role of foundations in funding the peace movement and some of its leading activists is an immense factor of impotence and corruption. One such leader has commented: “I can’t say anything about 9/11 – I might lose my funding!” Well, the Kennebunkport Warning does talk about 9/11, and that may be the rub.

Is Cheney Pressing For a Wider War Via False Flag Ops, Or Not?

This brings us back to the issue of whether the Kennebunkport Warning gives an accurate picture of today’s world. We maintain that it does, and that it is true independently of who signs it or does not sign it. Those who have never learned to take responsibility for their own signatures will now fall by the wayside. But those who remain committed to operating in the real world as it exists independent of signatures or non-signatures must now redouble their efforts of mobilization to stop the Cheney neocon faction. Nobody should be demoralized or disoriented by the void of leadership which this matter has revealed; it is rather time to fill that void. We call on all persons and organizations of good will everywhere in the world to support the Kennebunkport Warning. We appeal to them to endorse it, to post it, to sign it, to publish it, and to recruit new signers as fast as they possibly can.

Frankly, it doesn't matter.

Whether they signed it or not, the 4 alleged signatories state that they do not agree with the message. The remaining signatories do agree with the message.

So let's move on. If we believe there is a false flag event like 9/11 in the works, let's talk about that. We need to get the word out, uncover it, get whistleblowers to speak out, and prevent it.

If we want to push for the impeachment of Cheney, let's do that. It sounds like the 4 signatories were on board with that. So let's continue to look for their support. And let's take the next step.

And we all know from Maccabee's diary on DailyKos that the heavy forces are moving in for war with Iran (link - where did Maccabee's diary disappear to?). So we should be doing anything in our power to prevent that from happening. Iran's up to 900,000 loyal troops and powerful allies around the world will prove to be orders of magnitude more disastrous than the war in Iraq. I shudder to think.

So if the message is important and urgent, let's not worry about the details of whether people who are not standing with us now signed a piece of paper. Let's move. Now.

Webster Tarpley Reaches A New Low

"Most of the comments concerning the Kennebunkport Warning have avoided the main issue."

Blatant evasion. The main issue is the fact that non-9/11 activists are being attacked as "liars" and "wretched individuals". The main issue is that they are being ATTACKED. PERIOD.

"Adults Are Responsible For What They Sign"

Adults are responsible for what they say.

"If you choose that cop-out, what kind of a peace leader are you?"

What kind of 9/11 truth "leader" attacks non-9/11 truth activists as "liars" and "wretched individuals", and writes divisive articles such as this?

"They knew exactly what they were signing and, if they deny it, they are unfortunately lying. Anyone who talks of forgery or trickery in gathering these signatures is compounding that lying with slander."

No less than FIVE individuals not only denied signing this document, the are claiming that they signed another document involving impeachment. Webster Tarpley has quite a conspiracy theory here: not only did these signers claim they didn't sign the document, they had the exact same story about what they DID sign. Think about that for a minute. So, you are saying that they decided to join together, deny signing, and then come up with the exact same story? That's quite the conspiracy theory.

"We cannot avoid the delicate question of cointelpro, the domestic sabotage and wrecking activities of the intelligence agencies."

Agreed. The purpose of cointelpro is to "divide, confuse, [and] weaken in diverse ways" activist groups.

Where is the civility? Where are the apologies? Where is any attempt to simply label this a misunderstanding, or give people the benefit of the doubt? Where are the calls for unity? It's not coming from Webster Tarpley.

Who is trying to bring the peace movement together with the 9/11 truth movement and who is trying to divide them? Frankly, it does matter.

I'll be the first to admit I can't prove that the signatures were faked. But if you are going to ask me who I believe--I'll take those who don't hurl accusations and insults and who support the truth movement over those who are divisive and insulting any day.

The Kennebunkport Warning: Hoax?
Space Beams, Incivility, Accusations, and CoIntelPro Style Division Tactics

This article is a disgrace.

I haven't seen enough

I haven't seen enough evidence to make a judgment either way on this one. On the one hand, Webster and company did not handle the dispute artfully (see "wretched individuals", etc), but on the other hand, I find it entirely plausible that the signatories signed something they didn't read too closely. I don't buy your argument that each of the 5 individuals independently came up with the same story. I think the similarities in their stories can perhaps be a result of the following: one person actually read what they signed, saw that it was popping up on dubious websites that they didn't agree with, and came forth with the "I didn't read it carefully before I signed it" excuse (which, as I said, may be perfectly valid). Others were notified of the issue and the controversy via email, and for any number of reasons (including the valid "I didn't read it carefully" excuse) did not want to be associated with the document or the controversy, and thought the first person's excuse was a good one, and used that. No back room deals or conspiracy, just groupthink.

Were the promoters of this document right to call the 5 that denied signing it "liars"? Technically, maybe, we just don't know for sure. Politically, though, absolutely not. Like I said, it should have and could have been handled better.

The only thing that bothers me about this whole thing is the association of several promoters of it with the thoroughly discredited space beam, mini nuke, no planes people. I'm pretty sure I've heard Webster backpedal away from the high-tech energy weapon idea, but I haven't heard such a renouncement from the others. I think it is safe to say that promoters of space beams/mini nuke/no planes are, at this point, guilty of being an intentional disruptor until proven innocent (unless they are truly insane, in which case I feel sorry for them).

Fair Enough

Thank you for your reasoned comments. You do make a point here about the signatures. But it is still very fishy. However, This is not the main issue--the main issue is the personal attacks. That's what I have a problem with.

I don't want to jump to conclusions about what did and did not happen. There is no reason for personal attacks.

The actual signing of the

The actual signing of the document itself may also have been the result of groupthink. Maybe everyone saw Cindy Sheehan or one of the other prominent anti-war people signing it and everyone thought "Hey, Cindy [or other individual] is signing it, I agree with her on most issues, so I'll sign it too." Again, this could have happened without anyone involved reading it very carefully. There are any number of plausible scenarios that don't involve fraudulent document alteration.

But, I wholeheartedly agree with you about the personal attacks. That is totally uncalled for, especially from a political perspective. Anything Jim Fetzer is associated with is automatically suspect.

Show "Fetzer not associated w/ Kennebunkport Warning" by Galileo

Fetzer signed it

Fetzer signed it.

He is one of 4 DEW supporters

Show "KW is about nuclear weapons, not DEW" by Galileo

Defending Fetzer makes you

Defending Fetzer makes you extremely suspect as well, FYI.

Show "Suspected of What?" by Galileo

PS the Truth movement has

PS the Truth movement has dumped Fetzer - he is hanging on like a psycho Ex-girlfriend.

Fetzer is NO FRIEND to the 9/11 Truth Movement. He's not fooling anyone.
11/11 Never Forget - Fetzer Flips
Zeitgeist Movie Torrent DVDRip (XviD)


Can we take out a restraining order ? ;-)
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Attacks not the signatures...

I can not prove the signatures were faked, and nor do I say that I have proven that in my blog.

I can only state the (incomplete) facts as they are and give you my opinion based on them so far.

Again, the point is NOT the signatures, it is the divisiveness, which is continued in this article.

I STRONGLY disagree with what you say

Quote: "I find it entirely plausible that the signatories signed something they didn't read too closely."

I have NEVER met anyone in my life (who wasn't an idiot and/or extremely young and/or naive) who, when asked to sign right here on the dotted line, didn't take an attitude of, "Whoa. Wait a second. Now, what exactly am I signing here? Let me read this first."

That is such a standard attitude and reaction that people have when asked to sign something that any other reaction is usually a surprise.

I think you are WAY off base here. And too much of an anti-apologist, if you will.

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

Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny. — Robert Heinlein

I guess we will have to

I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

I doubt very seriously that everyone you have ever met who is an intelligent, relatively self aware person has NEVER signed something without reading through it in great detail. The amount of care people take in signing something varies proportionally with how much the document in question will affect their lives. For example, binding contracts are likely to be read very carefully by those who are contemplating signing them. On the other end of the spectrum is something like a petition. I know I have signed petitions to Congress in the past without reading them in exacting detail. Mostly it's because my signature is essentially meaningless (I don't have a very high opinion of petitions) but at the same time my signature takes little effort and is a somewhat symbolic demonstration that I stand with the other people that are signatories.

I would say the KW document is far closer to a petition than a binding contract. And, as I said, I find it entirely plausible that the signatories simply didn't pay it much thought. Maybe some of them saw a prominent anti-war person signing and said "Hey, Cindy [or other] is signing it, I stand with her, so I'm signing it too." Again, I'm not saying they didn't read it at all, I'm just saying that it is plausible that they just glanced over it, saw the word "impeachment" and something about war with Iran, and signed it.

I'm not apologizing or anti-apologizing for anyone. I'm just calling it like I see it. Of course the document could have been altered. All I'm saying is that I don't see enough evidence in either direction to say definitively what happened.

Please don't post stuff with which I basically agree

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

Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny. — Robert Heinlein


Tarpley stated:
Most of the comments concerning the Kennebunkport Warning have avoided the main issue. The central point has nothing to do with any signatures or absence thereof."

Nobody I am aware of has denied the possibility that the message embodied in the 'Warning' may be accurate. What I am also aware of is that the - response- by the originators of the warning to the five persons who contest the validity of their purported endorsements has been mean-spirited and devisive. Their behaviors, not those of the five, have the characteristic flavor of cointelpro; that is, acrimonious slurs and mean-spiritedness. WT is guilty of one of the worst. Is this an attempt to alienate the peace movement from the 9/11 truth movement and/or to create division within the 9/11 truth movement itself? We have seen apparent cointelpro in the forms of Fetzer and Wood, et al. With their very similar acrimonious slurs advanced against Steven Jones and others. The main issue here does indeed have to do with the veracity, intent and behaviors of the KW originators.

just my 2 cents

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

Show "That's not two cents worth" by dave mann

Here's a reality check:

The promoters of this Warning are still urging people to keep spreading the document, WITH THE SAME NAMES ON IT, but with ASTERISKS next to the names of the people who have requested that their names be removed - along with an explanation of their "lies".

This is truly, outrageously antagonistic.

From Craig Hill:


This "explanation" is the same email that Hill circulated previously, containing phrases such as:

"The hoax lies in the lies of the signers"
"the stupefying behavior of so-called peace activists who seem bent on making sure disaster strikes again"
"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."
"Unlike Dahlia and Cindy, Bruce doesn't play gotcha or switcheroo with those he thought were natural allies."
"they are the ones of dubious integrity"
"Cindy's got a lot of 'splainin to do"
"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"

The people responsible for this continued course of antagonism do not and should not represent the truth movement.

They owe all of us, along with the women whose names they continue to drag through the mud, an apology.


Could this debacle go away already? Please?

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


Learn from it... and do it better next time.


Had NOTHING to do with it. If whomever caused the problems with this Warning to begin with was looking for a distraction to take the focus off of the activism we should be doing this time of year, and all throughout the year, they certainly have succeeded. I don't understand why it's getting so much play on Yes, the shit is hitting the fan, yes, it appears that something might be in the works, etc... etc... etc... I don't need a signed piece of paper to tell me that.

"To whom it may concern. We regret the fact that you dispute signing this document, however, we do not appreciate the accusation that it was somehow switched in some way. To ensure the credibility of the warning, we are going to remove your names from the list of signatures. We are sorry for any misunderstanding, and hope that we can work together in the future towards a better world."

How hard would that have been? Why couldn't they have just removed the signatures, and moved on? Why the need to make "wretched individual" accusations, and drag out this controversy for as long as possible?

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

Hell, I don't know, Jon

The 'shit hitting the fan' scenario was obvious long before Tarpley's Warning appeared. I, too, wish this distraction would 'go away'. But it isn't going to go away if Tarpley, et. al., do not consent to the five's wishes and remove their names. My understanding (limited as it is) is that Tarpley will promulagate it regardless. And that will hurt the movement even further. Better that they should simply toss it.

Perhaps others, with more savvy about such stuff than I, can come up with an alternate way to minimize the impact of this debacle upon the activism we need to promote, foster and implement right now. The only people I can think of who could do this effectively and immediately are in the KW group. That is, remove the names, apologize for the crap they've said, and move on. The relationship between 9/11 truth and the peace folks is simply too important not to make some effort to facilitate its healing.

But in a very small way to help let the brouhaha die its death, I won't comment on it further.

*on edit: sorry, Jon. I hadn't seen the second part of your post before writing this.

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

Show "Right on Jon!! Interesting Spark, Jones, et al are absent!!" by Styve

The statement is not by or from me.

Colonel Jenny Sparks on Truth Revolution Radio

with cosmos

Show "A need to win is so GOP..." by Styve

Not absent, sunbeam.

Unlike some, I can't spend ALL me time lurking on-line. Got other things to do.

But if I'm on-line, I aim to be useful. Like this:

"Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2007 14:22:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Jenny Sparks"
Subject: Our apologies from the 9/11 Truth Movement
To: "Dahlia Wasfi" , "Cindy Sheehan" , "Ann Wright"
CC: kris4143@xxxx

Hello all!

On behalf of the 9/11 Truth Movement, allow me to
apologize for the shabby public treatment you and your
lot in the peace movement are receiving from the likes
of Bruce Marshall and those who support his tactics.

As 9/11 activists one of our foremost goals is
exposing the history of false-flag operations, like
the Reichstag Fire and Operation Gladio, that are used
by the rich and powerful to manipulate populations
into accepting wars of profit. As such, we value our
alliances with the anti-war movement and it is
inexcusable that, even if this has been an innocent
gaff or misunderstanding, for anyone to label you as
liars because you honestly recall something different.

I understand and respect that many of you do not agree
that the attacks of 9/11 were a false flag event. It's
not a pleasant prospect and being faced with the
possibility that the situation is that intrinsically
corrupt is overwhelming.

And nonetheless you have given us, in 9/11 Truth, kind
words of support, whilst clarifying you did NOT sign
this Kennebunkport Warning as it is written. For that
we are grateful and will continue to work to build
alliances with and support the anti-war movement,
disruption be damned.

As has been said here:

"Forgive me if I take the word of Cindy Sheehan over a
bunch of space-beam LaRouchies who think Gandhi and
MLK had low self-steem. Yes, it's theoretically
possible that all five women are lying or backtracking
or what have you -- and I will gladly reverse my
suspicions if evidence arises proving as much -- but I
somehow doubt that will happen. Even if it does, you
might say that the damage has already been done.

The Bunkport crowd has behaved atrociously. Even now
they refuse to withdraw their (poorly) worded warning.
Instead they appear to be trying to aggravate the
situation by labeling Cindy Sheehan a "wretched liar".
I'm sorry, but even if their contention of what
occurred is entirely correct, their behavior in the
aftermath of the scandal has been even worse than the
original allegation. "

Again, we are so sorry you have been dragged into, and
subjected to, this rubbish. Be assured that 9/11
Truth is full of progressive people who want to work
for our common goals. And we will do everything in
our power(such as it is) to get to the bottom of this

Thanks again for your help in trying to sort this
rubbish. Together we can stop wars--FOREVER.

And that's what scares those in high places--that's
why they want to drive a wedge between us.

So let's not let that happen, eh? ;-)



"Col.Jenny Sparks" of 9/11 Blogger"

Much like in 9/11 activism, this will only go away when we get some bleeding answers.

And Marshall et al, apologize for calling our allies "wretched liars". >:(

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

To whom it may concern...

I saw it--the flicker of numbers going up and down. Lot of effort you lot are wasting. Not as clever as you think you are... ;-)
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

And their response:

From: info@xxxx
To: col_jennysparks@xxxx
Subject: RE: Our apologies from the 9/11 Truth Movement
Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2007 17:01:47 -0400

Dear Col. Sparks--
I thank you for your efforts to find the truth. I've checked the
internet on the "Warning" from time to time and found your honest posts
there; so I'm grateful for your efforts to get information from the
"wretched liars'" mouth, if you will. :)

I've watched several documentaries on 9/11, and I support the honorable
efforts of the 9/11 truth movement. I believe our work is synergistic
in the struggle for justice.

In solidarity,

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.


Thank you Sparks, for helping to re-span this bridge.

You're welcome.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

I agree with medicis,

This comment by Tarpley, some of whose work I've read and appreciated in the past, is excessively histrionic, personal and divisive, especially when compared to the response of the five renegade signatories.

I also agree with Jon Gold, there are other more important things to do than argue about this.

One thing we should note or keep in mind though is the people involved in this scuffle, and see what happens in the future with regards to conflictive polemic from this same camp.


"Nothing will benefit human health and increase the chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet." Albert Einstein

with all due respect

"The central point has nothing to do with any signatures or absence thereof. The key issue is whether the world strategic picture given by the Kennebunkport Warning is accurate or not."

with all due respect - the signatures DO matter.

many members of this movement have worked long and hard to forge relationships with the anti-war movement. an incident like this undermines all of those efforts and ONCE AGAIN undermines the credibility of this movement.

i always viewed it as extremely suspect that a document alleged to have EVIDENCE that Cheney was planning an attack against america with WMDs. this was an extremely serious charge that i do not believe has been proven. i see no such evidence.

yes - i see alarming trends and warning signs that a wider more tragic war is on the cusp of emerging. i see evidence in the world markets - and the ratcheting up of rhetoric - and dire warnings coming from Ray McGovern and Paul Craig Roberts and many many others. i see a US strike against Iran as highly likely.

but i can not begin to express the disappointment I feel that a prominent member of this movement is at the center of circulating what appears to be a fraudulent document claiming he - and he alone - possesses PROOF that Dick Cheney plans to use WMDs against americans.

do not misunderstand me. i worry every day that such a scenerio could come to pass. but - PROOF is something that we should never claim - unless we actually have it in hand.

Mr Tarpley - may I ask why you are choosing to interview Dr James Fetzer? surely someone with your intellect understands the ramifications of this act.

"Mr Tarpley - may I ask why

"Mr Tarpley - may I ask why you are choosing to interview Dr James Fetzer? "

Uh oh, did they get him too?? Seems the granddaddy's of this movement are all being co-opted into the false opposition movement, hopefully Tarpley isn't the next one.


Forgive my ignorance...

What is the "false opposition movement"? Or were you being sarcastic?

Everyone is accusing everyone of divisiveness and disinfo lately. Is that the type of thing you're referring to? Please explain if you would.

The most effective way to

The most effective way to control public opinion is to control both sides of a debate, hence the "false opposition"
11/11 Never Forget - Fetzer Flips
Zeitgeist Movie Torrent DVDRip (XviD)

Not all abuse is about angry words

I think we are unclear about who actually appears to have been the victim of abuse here. Well 1st off, we can all agree that the message and the truth of our dangerous moment have been the largest victim of the abuse. And it appears that we here in the 9-11 Truth "movement" who began throwing around accusations early on into an "investigation" actually helped stop this thing from being handled in a mature manner. If the KW side of things was completely honest in their intention and then had peace leaders who had given their potent support to it and then not only backed away, that would have been easily dealt with, but did it in a way that cast aspersions on the active leaders who were actually doing the work to et this message out.

Anger, especially when injustice is involved is NOT a sign of COINTELPRO. All the people who immediately jumped down the throats of the KW authors and distributors , offering apologies to the people who appear to have actually done the injustice, are the ones apparently "blaming the victim" and apologizing for the abuser. yes the some of the language was inflammatory, but how would you feel if your integrity around such a serious matter was immediately questioned in a very uneven manner, while what amounted to your accusers were being immediately defended but what you thought were allies in a common movement? Anger is not always abusive. Sometimes the most abusive, violent actions are done more quietly and passively. We must get past this idea that rancor is necessarily abusive.

Of course we all know that the warning itself has valid aspects of it, but knowing it for ourselves does not have the effect of a public warning with prominent individuals on it. That's why this Warning was put forth in the first place. I dont think we should undermine that effort unless we really are armchair truthers hoping that another DVD or blog is going to bring about justice.

The signatures should be dropped and the Warning put out there. If apologies are to be forthcoming, here's the order that makes sense to me,
1)those of us who failed to mediate this situation well from the get-go and sat back to see what would come out-- So, I apologize for not playing a more active role in facilitating a healthier course of dialogue earlier on
2)those that jumped immediately on the "hoax" bandwagon before the terrain was really clear and cast aspersions towards one group only
3) those who through their actions, no matter the loyal intention, cast aspersions on people's integrity
4) those who through their heated, angry words cast aspersions on people's character at a time when the argument was not helpful to healing

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

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

Now that's a balanced approach

Thanks Shumonik - I feel a bit like old King Solomon at the moment - though not as wise - but at least I can clearly see who loves this child and who really DOESN'T !!!

The fun continues

“Nobody should be demoralized or disoriented by the void of leadership which this matter has revealed; it is rather time to fill that void.”

With whom? Lemme guess: Uncle Fetzer, Judy Wood, Nico Haupt, Morgan Reynolds, David Shayler and most importantly, Lyndon H. LaRouche.

I’m disoriented! I’m a sheep separated from my flock. Can someone lead me? Please? Where oh where is my shepherd to guide me from this dark night into the glorious, space-beam illuminated morn?

I agree with the author on one score: this whole debacle reeks of an attempt to divide the truth movement from the anti-war movement (not that there’s really any difference between the two).

So now Cindy Sheehan’s on the Ford Foundation payroll too? As opposed to people whose “work” for 911 truth has consisted of attacking the quack science of Steven Jones while pushing rational concepts like “TV fakery” and “Space beams”? Guess what ma? Planes didn’t really hit the towers. Those were holograms. They only looked like planes on account of the mad CGI skillz of the interns at CNN. Oh yeah, and a beam from outer space destroyed the WTC. Wanna join my moovment?

Can we get David Icke in on this sucker too? We need unity dammit! Unity and Strength! HooRah! We can always squeeze one more person into the big tent – anyone except “wretched liars” like Cindy Sheehan.

So let me guess this straight. Five women claimed they signed a different document. Rather than withdrawing their names, apologizing for the confusion and urging more interaction between the 911 truth and peace movements, the response is to call Cindy Sheehan human garbage and label anyone who questions the authenticity of the document a “mole”? Is that about right?

And now we’re to continue to spreading the document far and wide complete with little asterisks next to half of the names indicating that some of the signees claim to have not signed the document at all – and in fact, claim the entire document to be a forgery -- but only because they receive money from the Ford Foundation? That’s a great idea!

I can just sense our collective credibility skyrocketing as the Bunk-port warning spreads, cancer like, across the internet.

Here’s a not-so-modest proposal: instead of pushing this thing we deep six it. We disassociate ourselves from quacks like Fetzer instead of giving him a platform to spew his drivel. We continue our efforts to reach out to the peace movement. We continue to warn people of the danger of a new false flag attack and subsequent war with Iran – without the baggage. And the next time we print out a document and ask for signatures, we do so with a modicum of responsibility.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

Spot on, Danse, spot on!

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

good post!

I totally agree with what you're saying, especially with this:

"We need unity dammit! Unity and Strength!"

"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." - George Orwell

one slight disagreement

re "I can just sense our collective credibility skyrocketing as the Bunk-port warning spreads, cancer like, across the internet."

I don't think we have to worry very much about our COLLECTIVE credibility. There is none. And I don't mean that in a negative way; just that there is no definitive "9/11-truth position", we've got people all over the map. The wingnuts accuse us of lack of credibility on guilt by association and we reject that notion, or at least we should. I don't see how we can reasonably use that charge against ourselves!

In a word, all our credibility is INDIVIDUAL. You are credible if what you say and write makes sense and isn't contradicted by accepted evidence, otherwise not. And the same for me, and the same for everybody else.

Personally I am not happy with anybody involved in this situation but I don't see it affecting my credibility at all.

And unless you're being accused of fraud or reneging on a signature you probably shouldn't either.

That's just my opinion and you're welcome to disagree ... but you're also welcome to share it.

“Nobody should be

“Nobody should be demoralized or disoriented by the void of leadership which this matter has revealed; it is rather time to fill that void.”

With whom? Lemme guess: Uncle Fetzer, Judy Wood, Nico Haupt, Morgan Reynolds, David Shayler and most importantly, Lyndon H. LaRouche.


No. With US!

It's more clear than ever that we have to rely on our own efforts and not those of the "leaders" of any particular faction.

Personally I'm fed up with nearly everybody involved here and I think both "sides" are more or less thoroughly discredited. That's my opinion and you are free to disagree but on the other hand I don't think OUR credibility depends on THEIRS and if we can morph into a more viral state with many many "leaders" then it will be very hard for anyone to play dirty little tricks on our "leadership".

Tarpley was right.

It IS time to fill that void and WE are the ones who have to do it.

Finding the common denominators

The fact that the dispute is ignored by those who created the document speaks volumes.

That's the same response that pervaded the scholars melt-down --

- describe it as a neutral "split" event (even have a "neutral" webpage)
- describe it as simply a "disagreement" amongst professors
- try to "bridge the gap" and keep everyone "together"
- rebuff anyone who tries to discuss the lunatic evidence as "biased" or just "disagreeing"

. . . . all so that Fetzer, the one man promotional machine for nonsense and disruption, can continue to work the room.

When things are at the point where "leaders" are being named advocating DEW, protecting forgeries, attacking left icons and yet are still given a free pass, the problem is glaring.


The ingenius innovaters who prepared the fabled Kennebunkport Warning have not disappeared.

They have posted the signed documents on the Net to prove who signed it.

It's funny how the people who reneged have disappeared.

I suspect they are left gatekeepers rather than 9/11 Truthers.

Why do people keep postiong messages about Fetzer? He has nothing to do with the Kennebunkport document. Webster Tarpley, the Vermont Green Party and Cindy Sheehan are behind it.

Congratulations! You have also just descibed...

...the highlights of a highly dysfunctional and/or infiltrated activist group! ;-)

I would quibble with the "split", because one can have a neutral split, but I assume you're speaking of cases where the split has an obvious cause all rational people can see.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

I hate to say "I told you so"

Not really, but it's not my favorite thing.

btw -- My request to see a scanned document implied a non-Photoshopped document

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

Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny. — Robert Heinlein


This has been up on After Downing Street for the last two days. I apologize if it's a duplicate, but I hadn't seen it before.
I hope it puts a lot of minds at ease. What we need now is forgiveness and reconciliation.

TITLE: I can also verify this statement

Submitted by Anonymous [she identifies herself as Laurie Dobson below]* on Tue, 2007-09-04 00:59.

*[I have signed it, but I am
Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 2007-09-04 01:03.
I have signed it, but I am not on this blog site. Someone else made me appear as anonymous. My name is Laurie Dobson.]

I held Camp Alex at my house, where the document was originally signed. I know most of the people involved, who signed. Most were campers at my house during the weekend rally. It started there.

I have tried to talk to the organizers, via one of their own, and they are frightened. I think this thing profiled them, unintentionally, by the appearance that they were the only signers. It put them into a position, in their eyes, that made them look like they had this thing in mind from the start. In fact, there were more of us who signed it first.

I can attest to the signing at my farm and I witnessed the signatures on the sheet at the rally, where I was at the rally tent where the signing was taking place later, by Cindy and the others, before the rally.

At the time that she and the others on her page of signers were signing, I observed it happening. Bruce showed me the list as it was being signed--he was happy that so many were willing to rise to the challenge, because it was a strong statement.

After seeing this petition/statement posted on the internet, a few of the signers became afraid that they would be 'wearing orange jumpsuits' because they signed the petition. I think they are being told that they will be targeted if they don't recant. This is unfortunate and unnecessary.

The answer is for more people to sign this statement and get it out there and back them up. We have enough evidence to act on our conscience to do what we can to avert a crisis; what we need is support for all the signers, who are out there being put in a position because of the charges that it was a forgery, which is untrue.

I attest to the fact that these were not falsified documents. They couldn't have been--the four signed pages were all identical and I saw all of them--the one I signed, the one my husband signed, the one the campers signed and the one that Cindy and the others signed.
Bruce did not have the time or the means by which to tamper with the documents during the times I saw them before, during and after they were signed at the rally event site, which is where the sheet was signed with Cindy's name on it and which occurred before people began marching.

Every page had the identical heading, which referred to the Kennebunkport Warning and they all said that we were opposition leaders, which I think was truthful, because I believe that anyone that is willing to sign a statement like that can consider themselves to be a leader in opposition.

I think that the original intent of this statement, which resonated with me and I think with others, too, was that we should do as we were encouraged at the rally to do, by Cindy Sheehan, when she inspired us by saying that we couldn't just sit back behind our computers--we had to DO something--meet Senators and engage in non-violent acts of civil disobedience.

I hope that whoever is pestering these four women who have backed off their statement will instead encourage them and walk with them in solidarity. There is relative safety in numbers, so they say.

I have actual proof that I can use to back up these statements. I respect these signers and look up to them and I don't want to put them into any further paranoia by producing this testimony which would further expose them--they are scared enough already. But I have it and I could show it to a reliable party, if it has to go that far to show that I am telling the truth.

I will continue to tell the truth and defend the legitimacy of this document, and not be cowed by accusations against those who carried these petitions. Tonight I read an email saying that I am being lumped into a group of people who are being 'divisive to the peace group' because I have refused to let these statements-- which have slandered Bruce and Jeanine-- stand without challenge. I feel it is my responsibility to vouch for what I saw and what I know, however, it is a drag that this is happening to good people on both sides.

Nevertheless, those who are accusing the petition bearers of falsifying the documents are acting dishonorably, considering their leadership positions, and they should heed the many requests to retract and/or modify their bald-faced assertion that these were not the original documents.

These are accusations of forgery and that is a very strong charge, and can't be made simultaneously with the admission that they didn't read the statement, which is what one of the 4 recanters told me. You can't be sure that you haven't signed what you admit you didn't read!

We are all leaders when we sign a document such as this. However, let's not assume that by being organizers of the rally, or leaders in the peace movement, that we are justified in denouncing other people for asking us to sign a statement that said more than we feel comfortable with, after re-reading it the next day, or want to put the blame on someone else because they posted the documents for others to read.

Instead, let us act as leaders by individually choosing the honorable high road. Above all, lets care about each other, tell the truth, and have fun! And please, let's stop being terrified!

Laurie Dobson

I don't believe you

But that's mostly based on a "gut feeling" / intuition.

For whatever that's worth.

Of course, I also wouldn't put it past someone like Sheehan to act and react the way you say. (others, not so much — like, for example, Ann Wright)

Typically, it's all more of the same old crap that has been going on for some time now, and, like The Terminator (or, worse, The Terminatrix), will never stop, and will probably get worse before it gets better, if it ever does get better, which it probably won't.

One of the primary problems with any movement, but especially so with one of this type, is that certain types of people are attracted to it, like clueless and worthless moths to a bright searing flame, among them assholes, idiots, scumbags, pathological liars, egotists, arrogant pricks, power mongers, attention seekers, the emotionally and mentally ill and unstable, and a whole host of other undesirables.

Listen. And understand. The Truthinator is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.

At least there's that.

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

Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny. — Robert Heinlein


Thank you Patriot, for helping to re-span this bridge.

Thanks, Erin. And a word to doughnut and other disbelievers.

Gut feeling / intuition may be a good place to start, but it gets trumped by common sense—and totally wiped out by hard evidence.

But at this point, I doubt any amount of evidence will change the minds of those who are deeply invested in the hoax theory. Joan Jones, Jenny Sparks, Arabesque et al. have put so much time and energy into persuading themselves that it was a hoax—based on “evidence” that is circumstantial at best, manufactured at worst, and inadmissible in any court trying this issue—that it may be impossible for them to let go of it.

Will you all be able to change your minds once the truth is proved scientifically? Or will Dahlia Wasfi and the others continue to deny that they signed the KW, despite verification by a handwriting and documents expert? And will you then accuse those of us who believe Laurie Dobson and Bruce Marshall and the scientific evidence of being conspiracy nuts?

Maybe there’s a lesson here… to help us understand how 9/11 truth is resisted by people who are deeply invested in the official story. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but I really think it's enlightening.

In any case, there’s no question that the whole thing was handled poorly on all sides, and it’ll take sincere apologies and forgiveness—on all sides—to get beyond it.

Can we all just admit our mistakes, forgive each other and heal before starting a weekend of commemorations for the sixth anniversary of 9/11?

Thanks, but there is more to this story

I emphasize:

This is not about signatures. This is not about a warning

This is about divisive attacks against non-9/11 activists.

Four of the promoters of this warning have ties to LaRouche (including the two people most responsible for it). Four of them have promoted DEW. The "eyewitness" you cited above and quoted in this blog above (another LaRouche associate) fails to account for a simple fact:

All of the signers have the EXACT same story about what the DID sign. If they were lying, it would mean that

1) They joined together to come up with the same story of what they did sign. That is a conspiracy theory my friends.
2) They would sign the document and then decide to come up with a story about why they didn't sign. Can you think of a motive why they would do this?

If these facts don't raise eyebrows, I don't know what will. I don't claim to have the full story. I am trying to get it.

This is about divisive accusations and attacks in an apparent attempt to split the 9/11 truth and anti-war movements.

It is important for THIS reason, and that is why I am trying to get to the truth of the matter. This article by Webster Tarpley is filled with divisive and inflammatory language.

Why? How does THIS help the 9/11 truth movement? How does THIS article by Webster Tarpley build bridges? Where are the apologies? Where is the unity?

Or, Door Number 3...

My silver-razor tongue lip/lashing at Webster (whom I almost fully detest for his "FEAR THIS NEXT" pedantic-ist-ry) on day two, caused a cascading confluence of interested-disinterest, whereby his inflamed auto-repulsion of my thumb-nose farting at his fear-is-try, and subsequent internet cut-n-pasting of his rash loathsomeness words for peace-nicks caused the Peaceful Truth Movement to bog itself down in speculating a multigenerational conspiracy of reptiod conspiracy...

My bad... if it was my bad!?

So sorry.


"...bog itself down..."

"...bog itself down..." Indeed, Erin. Thank you.

I don't have a stick in this fire, and I haven't weighed in because it's just such a cluster *uck all round. But when accusations of COINTELPRO-style maneuvering are being tossed about, the agitators should bear in mind that this is an historic and effective GOAL of COINTELPRO, no matter who did or said what -- to make everyone suspicious of others' motives, thereby increasing paranoia in a movement, and consume peoples' time with speculation, intrigue, and innuendo. There is nothing more gratifying to "them" than to see this sort of reaction, and I hate to give the bad guys a giggle.

Much of the "detective work" involving emailing and such could take place off message boards until there is more to show than speculation. (Which is not to suggest any sort of censorship in the broader sense.) People seem to have either made up their minds about it, remained neutral, or think of it as yesterday's news.

For the record, in my opinion, no one comes off smelling like a rose in any of it, but I don't yet have an opinion regarding malevolent machinations. I'm just offering a tepid suggestion that to keep beating this horse might be counterproductive.

You're quite right about this..

"Much of the "detective work" involving emailing and such could take place off message boards until there is more to show than speculation." :-)
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

There's A LOT More To The Story!!

(My first few comments are somewhat critical but they are meant constructively and I hope they will be taken in the spirit in which they are intended. The non-critical (but still hopefully constructive) comments come later.)

I'm not sure how much good one can do by telling others what "the issue" is. Everybody sees things differently, everybody has their own opinions, and by now I think most of us know that in politics, whoever defines "the issue" is gonna win "the debate". So I don't see any lasting value in trying to specify what "the issue" is, since that's widely seen as a propaganda technique. I don't see any problem with a statement like "To me the most important aspect of the story is ... " but that's a lot different from "The issue is ... "

It seems to me that you don't really mean "All of the signers have the EXACT same story about what they DID sign."

After all, if that were true, there would be no controversy and we'd have moved on to something else.

More accurately, perhaps, all of the people who have retracted their signatures are telling the exact same story. And this is not difficult to account for at all, unless you can prove that they have been unable to contact one another.

People do indeed collaborate to come up with a story which they all then tell. In fact it is obvious that this is what has happened in this case. Correct me if I'm wrong but it does not appear that they each independently provided their own versions of events, which could be cross-checked for consistency. They just put out a single statement with all their names on it. Cindy Sheehan added a few words, in email, if I recall, but not many. As far as I know, Ann Wright has not made any public statement whatsoever; clearly she's content to speak through the others ... so in this sense they haven't even made an effort to hide the fact that they're collaborating. Under such conditions it would be extremely odd if they weren't telling the exact same story.

And if they are lying, then this is indeed a conspiracy theory. But so what? Is your statement "That is a conspiracy theory my friends" intended to shut down the discussion? That's what it usually means when we hear it elsewhere.

We know conspiracies happen. We know all sorts of racketeering investigations are going on all the time. So the "conspiracy theory" tag is really no objection. And even if they are telling the same story but not lying, in other words if they're telling the same story because that's what happened, then in that case we have a conspiracy theory too: i.e. the Larouche-connected faux-Greens (Marshall, Hill, Tarpley and Dobson) conspired to fraudulently obtain signatures for one document by circulating another. I'm pretty sure these are the only two possibilities. I don't think it's possible to imagine a scenario in which the current state of affairs could have been reached without a conspiracy of one kind or another. So calling one alternative or another "a conspiracy theory" is not very helpful.

And YES, I can think of a motive why people would choose to lie about something like this. I can think of several different motives.So that part was easy.

In my opinion the story coming from Sheehan, Wright et. al. is very weak in several different ways. I've been trying to contact them to ask for clarification, hoping they might strengthen their tale to the point where I could believe it, but they don't want to talk. That makes their story even fishier in my opinion. But that just means both sides of the story are fishy.

Because you're quite right: The Larouche connection does raise eyebrows. Personally I am always wary of guilt by association, but this is hardly the only point on which Tarpley, Marshall and the others can be faulted. There are plenty of other eyebrow-raising aspects to their side of the story as well.


So what do we do?

Some people are saying "Just forget it and move on" and some other people are saying "How can we know which way to move if we can't get straight answers about this?" and I see a lot of merit in both perspectives.

It would be a lot easier to forget it and move on if we had some answers ... but It doesn't look like that is going to happen anytime soon ...

So now what?

Do we really want to unite the Anti-War and 9/11-Truth movements? If so, how do we do it?

Is anyone up for the challenge of writing a different document, one that could be a force for cohesion rather than division?

If we can come up with a good one, I think we could probably get a lot of people behind it. It could talk about the need to end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the danger of the coming war with Iran, and the need to impeach the MFs right now -- but without calling them MFs and without making accusations for which we have no rock-solid proof.

If we could produce such a document, and unite behind it, I think we could get a lot of friendly bloggers -- bloggers who, like myself, don't specialize in 9/11 although we do discuss it -- working together rather than sneering at the "hoax" or hiding behind a tree, afraid to mention any of this, just waiting and wondering how this is all gonna pan out. If we could get all these people focused on on what we need to to together ... well, that would be a lot more useful than fighting amongst ourselves.

I don't have any better ideas ... but I'm sure there are plenty of other good ideas out there ... and if you have one, please don't hesitate to mention it.


I don't have the time to make a lengthy reply except to say I think you make some good points here.

Those of us "conspiracy theorists" are used (or "ab-used") to the term, and I am fully aware that the opposite possibility is a conspiracy theory. I meant no bias in this characterization, and if it was interpreted this way it was not my intent.

What "hard evidence"?

And if there's anything lacking in this movement it's common sense.

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

Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny. — Robert Heinlein

Dobson, fourth promoter of KW with Larouche ties

The KW plot thickens as it is revealed that a fourth person heavily involved in promoting the Warning has connections to Lyndon Larouche:

Laurie Dobson (candidate for State Representative in Connecticut).

(thanks, Arabesque!)

Who is Lyndon Larouche?
The Kennebunkport Warning Hoax investigation

Plot Thickens

I have done some research, and found that Arabesque, Jim Fetzer, JoanJames, Webster Tarpley, and Colonel Jenny Sparks all have connections to the 9/11 Truth movement. Hmmm...???

And another.

You deserve a negative point... just because your screen name is "Galileo"!