We Don't Need Any More Warnings

While busy with an event on September 10th of this year, I heard about some goings-on that resulted in bad publicity for the 9/11 Truth movement. Of course it is no longer surprising to many of us, who have been involved in fighting for the truth for years, that there would be some kind of hullabaloo just before the anniversary. This year the uproar included something called the “Kennebunkport Warning”, and a problem with this document as pointed out by some of the alleged signatories.

This warning document itself did not present any newsworthy information as far as I can see, other than the idea that some leaders of the Peace movement may have signed it. In fact, if it weren’t for these few signatures from prominent leaders of the Peace movement the warning would have been unremarkable. The message is fairly standard fare within the 9/11 Truth crowd, and is what many of us would be expected to say.

But when those prominent Peace movement leaders put out a statement suggesting that their signatures were either obtained under false pretenses, and/or they were less than fully aware of the entire message they had signed on to, the document gained attention. And as could have been predicted, that attention quickly turned into a divisive mess.

People asked how this could have happened. Then accusations were made, culminating in some ludicrous claims that some of our best leaders were disinformation agents for the government. How can we tell? Because, for example, one wears sunglasses and another has a beard. Brilliant.

Maybe this is just another ego problem, and maybe not. If it is, then it's another opportunity to better understand that common problem we share. After all, that is the game upon which we are, as a society, being played.

As usual, we’ll see how these things develop, but we don't really need any more warnings. We'll do what we can to communicate the vital need for 9/11 truth and reach out to others in our country who work for peace. Until then, my thoughts and support go out to the great Cindy Sheehan, my friends Jon Gold and Michael Wolsey, the fine writer Arabesque, and those others who were unfairly treated in this incident. Hang in there and don’t give up hope.

Well said, Kevin. I agree.

Well said, Kevin. I agree.


Damn right!

Damn right!

As usual,

Kevin's is the voice of sanity and reason.

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


please explain what's going on

OK, I have a question for you Kevin. If the anti-war activists hadn't made a stink about this and had actually read what they signed, would you still be saying "We Don't Need Any More Warnings"?

I thought Webster Tarpley's articles and warnings were voicing legitimate concerns about a future false-flag operation. Isn't that important? Why does it look like the anti-war activists have been very unprofessional, and you are siding with them? See the e-mails posted by Laurie Dobson here: http://lauriedobson.blogspot.com/

Please educate me otherwise to what's going on with this since I haven't had time to follow all of the intricacies. It seems this issue has created a nasty wedge between some of the best proponents of 9/11 truth, and that is truly a shame. And, as far as I can tell, BOTH SIDES are guilty of escalating this mole hill into a big mountain. I'm trying not to take sides -- but that's easier for me since I don't have a particular stake in either position.

And since many of you at 911blogger have sided with the anti-war activists, who, as far as I can tell, still distance themselves from 9/11 truth, I'd like to specifically like to hear from you all as to why I should side with one group over another, and why this issue should warrant even more inflammatory language from you, Kevin, who I greatly respect.



To answer your question - Yes, I would have said we don't need any more doomsday warnings even if the Peace leaders had knowingly signed this document.

we do need this warning

As a long-time Kevin Ryan friend and fan, allow me to express qualified disagreement.

While I agree that Webster's accusations were a huge mistake, here are some points to consider, which may explain if not excuse his bad behavior:

1) A US attack on Iran would change the world for the worse far more than even 9/11 did--a quick escalation to nuclear exchange would be likely, and even if that didn't happen, we would be on an irreversible course toward a war of civilizations -- endless fanatical, ever-escalating slaughter that nothing could stop. This may sound like hyperbole, but I'm afraid it's just reality. A US attack on Iran would be the point of no return. After that, activism would be moot. There would be no more talking, just killing. Websites like this would be useless even if they were permitted to exist, which they almost certainly wouldn't be.

2) Such an attack, spelling the end of the world as we know it, has moved from being a possibility (past three years) to a probability. There IS overwhelming evidence supporting this judgment, along with the judgment that an orchestrated trigger event would precede the attack.

3) Given the above, strongly-worded warnings ARE necessary. As Putin said, this is worse than the Cuban missile crisis. That was not true last year or the year before, which is why I did not spend much time with warnings then. It's different now. We're on the brink of the Last World War.

4) It is overwhelmingly probable that the people who say they never signed the warning are lying, and that they signed, then had second thoughts and backed out...or, just possibly, did not fully digest what they had signed when they signed it.

5) Given the above, the organizers of the statement have generally acted honorably, while their opponents have acted dishonorably, or, at best, out of ignorance. That does not excuse Webster's ridiculous and unfortunate accusations, but it certainly explains his more-than-justified anger and frustration.

My respected friend Kevin,

Your points are well taken, and you are more than welcome to express them.

But we do not need any more such warnings. I'm sure you know that there have been a number of these, some with exact dates given, that have come and gone.

We cannot solve a problem of fear and ego with more fear and ego. These things have been tried and have failed miserably.

Were you...

At the event in NYC where Webster claimed I and others were apart of COINTELPRO? If so, did you speak up in defense of those accused? If not, why not? Did Les Jamieson? If not, why not? I have defended BOTH of you on NUMEROUS ocassions. For Les, in regards to Urantia, and handing out anti-semitic literature. For you, for your comments regarding the Holocaust, and for your comments regarding Larry Silverstein.

Credibility is everything for this movement. Every word we say, every article we write is scrutinized. When the signatories disputed signing that document, why then didn't they simply remove the names, ask for an apology for the accusations, and voice hope for working together in the future? That's all that had to be done. Instead, we got what we got, and are here today still talking about it.

Why on Earth would you expect anyone to promote a document that could be so easily used against us like the Kennebunkport Warning? Should we be so careless with the information we promote, or do we live by the unspoken rule of promoting the best information possible?

That doesn't seem like a hard question to me.

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


"For Les, in regards to Urantia, and handing out anti-semitic literature. For you, for your comments regarding the Holocaust, and for your comments regarding Larry Silverstein.

Credibility is everything for this movement. Every word we say, every article we write is scrutinized."

What chutzpah... What happened to the latest Sibel Edmonds blog? Speaking of scrutinizing "every word we say" & credibility, that was an eye opener before it was yanked...


Deleted it because it was obvious to me that some of the individuals on this site could care less about Sibel, and care more about Controlled Demolition.

Is Sibel 9/11 related? Yes. Has her issue been resolved? No. Does the information she posesses lead the way to criminal charges for those that may have been involved in the 9/11 attacks? Yes.

Why ANYONE in the 9/11 Truth Movement would be opposed to such a thing boggles my mind.

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


You deleted a Sibel Edmonds blog because "some of the individuals on this site could care less about Sibel, and care more about Controlled Demolition"?

Sorry, you lost me there Jon. Is 911blogger just about controlled demolition now and that's it? Was her blog taking up bandwidth?! Please explain -- this makes no sense to me.


The comments were pissing me off. Especially one that, again, accused me of being some kind of "plant" for posting said information about Sibel. Since I was already accused once this week of being COINTELPRO, I was infuriated at the fact that I was, yet again, accused. That, and the comments from some were like, "Why should we believe her, and not the first responders who spoke of CD?" So, in a "fit of rage", I took it down. If you would like the blog to be back, no one's stopping you from posting it.

Incidentally, I have asked Lorie Van Auken to give me a written statement talking about the effort it took from the families in order to get Sibel in front of the 9/11 Commission. I should have something on Wednesday.

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

thanks for the explanation

thanks for the explanation

Show "LOL..." by Big_D


Must have missed the post above that prompted CV to thank me for my explanation.

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


I read the comments & you were showing your true colors, that's why you deleted it. It wasn't quite on the level of asking someone if they've "Burned any Jews lately" for questioning Israels role in 911, but it was close.

Anyway, I've said my peace, I'll (try) not contribute to another blog getting dumped.


That was for someone who supported a Holocaust Denier. Not for questioning Israel's alleged role in 9/11.

Thanks for lying though.

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

Oh, it's deleted!

That explains why I couldn't find it again.

And here I thought I'd gone blind....;-)
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

I agree it boggles my mind

I agree it boggles my mind to, even Dailykos and Democracy Now recognise how flammable Sibel Edmonds' info is. I guess some people are just mindless assclowns and you shouldn’t have deleted your blog for such people dude.

Show "Dailykos AND Democracy now!?!?" by Big_D

And those...

Who don't want this movement to succeed just hate her. You're right. Let's disregard the information that is accepted by more mainstream sites, and promote only that which they ignore. That makes complete, and total sense to me.

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

What are you talking about,

What are you talking about, almost everyone gets their curiosity sparked by 9/11 Truth issues that could be described as "limited-hangouts". It’s only later when people are even psychologically ready to contemplate something like MIHOP. Quit being so foolish as to discard the info Edmonds has just because you don't think it's juicy enough. She’s been gagged and is saying that top US officials "will be on trial" if she's allowed to disclose her evidence. THAT gets people thinking, THAT prompts even Dailykos and Democracy Now people to start pushing for a real investigation into 9/11. It's horses for courses.

Thanks and importance . ..

>>At the event in NYC where Webster claimed I and others were apart of COINTELPRO? If so, did you speak up in defense of those accused? If not, why not? Did Les Jamieson? If not, why not?

This is important.

The time to have spoken up came and went in the course of that event. It is important for people to understand that that audience has now dispersed and we no longer have access to them to make a corrective statement. The damage is done, and in some ways, cannot be undone. But such posts by people like Kevin Ryan show responsible ethical civil leadership, from someone who never asked or sought to be a leader, unlike almost everyone else we are talking about here.

That silence in the face of such behavior was a shock to many of us. In another way, it helps us to learn how very important it is to find the courage to stand up and speak up when we feel a wrong has occurred.

Thanks for this Kevin.

I agree that an attack on

I agree that an attack on Iran is insanity and I also believe that 9/11 Truth is perhaps the only issue capable of fully delegitimizing and derailing this war agenda.

But don't you think it harms relations between the 9/11 Truth and Anti-War/Peace Movements to attack members of the Anti-War/Peace Movements who are pro-9/11 Truth already, just because they're disputing a signature? It makes us look like unreasonable morons who don't know how to take the high ground even if they did indeed "sign".

Secondly don't you think any association between 9/11 Truth and Lyndon H Larouche is something we absolutely do not need? I mention that because it appears Webster Tarpley, Craig Hill and Bruce Marshall (some of the main pushers of the "Bunkport" warming) all have some form of a relationship with Lyndon H Larouche;

And finally do you not acknowledge that 9/11 Truth is less likely to succeed and as a consequence war with Iran more likely to ignite, if 9/11 Truth is slowed down and its credibility harmed by "no planes hit the WTC" theories? Because the VAST majority of us do! And that is why individuals like Jim Fetzer, Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood have been ostracized from the effort that's concerned with 9/11 Truth’s credibility and success. David Shayler came out and said first of all that he believes "holograms hit the Towers", now he's saying he's "The Messiah". Frankly I think he's clearly a disinfo artist who's still probably working from his “Ex”-Intelligence agency. Why should the majority of us who trusted people like Shayler, Fetzer and Reynolds and you initially, trust you any longer when you defend these ridiculous "theories" and in fact promote them as if they have any merit whatsoever?

Please answer this.

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

I agree...

"...do you not acknowledge that 9/11 Truth is less likely to succeed and as a consequence war with Iran more likely to ignite, if 9/11 Truth is slowed down and its credibility harmed by "no planes hit the WTC" theories?"

I agree, even though Mr. Barrett's statement doesn't quite amount to total embracement like it is the case with Fetzer et al.

What troubles me more, however, is the continued association of credible truthers, such as Kevin Barrett, David Ray Griffin, Robert Bowman and others, with Fetzer's Scholars organization. Why??? They should avoid Fetzer, Reynolds and Woods like a plague, and hope and pray that the MSM will never focus it's attention on their prior association.


See Victronix's Good 9/11 Activist Guidelines:

7-Reject efforts to pair leaders on stage with UFOs, Fetzer, DEW, "no planes," etc


You'd be amazed at the people who argue with this one...;-)
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

In response To Kevin Barrett

In response To Kevin Barrett

"It is overwhelmingly probable that the people who say they never signed the warning are lying, and that they signed, then had second thoughts and backed out...or, just possibly, did not fully digest what they had signed when they signed it."

Sheehan: Distinct Chance Of Staged Attack, Martial Law

Cindy Sheehan has already warned of another false flag and martial law. She did it on Alex Jones' radio show. She is already on board with the truth movement. She has already supported this idea, so I really don't see a reason why she would lie about signing a document claiming that there was going to be another false flag attack. Note the distinction here, she claims that there is a "chance", not "massive evidence" and these are two different things.

As Kevin Ryan has said, we don't need any more warnings. Even I collected "massive evidence" of an attack on Iran in the works, and I don't need to tell you that the threat is real.

Contrary to what a poster said below, the anti-war activists did not change their position. They have been consistent in claiming they:

1) Did not sign the K warning
2) Did sign a document involving impeachment.
3) Have not seen the "massive evidence" that another false flag is definitely going to occur
4) SUPPORT 9/11 Truth

No.4 is key. If these people support 9/11 truth, why are they being labeled as "wretched individuals" and "appalling liars", among numerous other ad-hominems? How does this abusive language build bridges for our movement? How does it make our movement stronger and give us a good reputation? How does it build our credibility?

I see a lot of people apologizing for Webster Tarpley's actions, but I have yet to see an apology anywhere from him or the others heaping copious amounts of abuse:

Again, I don't care so much if Mr. Tarpley apologizes to myself. I want to see an apology to the anti-war activists.

If we judge people by their actions, it suggests to me who is telling the truth. While this may be a matter of opinion, what is not--is that attacking these people is not conductive towards 9/11 truth and justice. In my humble opinion, it will never be. My main objection has and has always been that the personal attacks are inappropriate. I would like to see an apology.

I would like to thank Kevin Ryan, George Washington, Jim Hoffman for their well reasoned comments(http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/911mysteries/slander_researchers.html), and the many others who have supported myself and others who tried to bring attention to this issue.

You're being melodramatic, or worse

quote: "A US attack on Iran would change the world for the worse far more than even 9/11 did"

That's a bit of a bizarre statement.

quote: "a quick escalation to nuclear exchange would be likely"

Nice try, but no cigar. That's merely an uninformed statement of opinion, at best.

quote: "After that, activism would be moot."

You need to get a grip on Reality.

quote: "Such an attack, spelling the end of the world as we know it"


quote: "We're on the brink of the Last World War."

That is highly melodramatic to the point of making me wonder why you would make such comments publicly. If it's taken as mere opinion, I suppose one could just ignore it. But, along with the rest, it borders on fear-mongering, if not worse.

quote: "It is overwhelmingly probable that the people who say they never signed the warning are lying"

From what I know of Ann Wright, that is one of the stupider and more ignorant statements you made in your misguided post.

quote: all of #5

Are you serious? Give me a freaking break. It's attitudes and behavior like yours that cause the problems we've seen recently.

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


Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny. — Robert Heinlein

Show "Fearmongering is warranted." by smoothie


>>4) It is overwhelmingly probable that the people who say they never signed the warning are lying

Back here in the real world, we have NO evidence for this. More importantly, even if we did, we could make the adult decision to let it go and walk away from it.

Where I work there's a saying --' All gave some, and some gave all.'

Cindy Sheehan gave just about all for this war. I have stood in a fellowship hall and cried with her for what she and all the other mothers like her lost. She has no interest in lying about signatures, and if she made such a mistake or backed out, so what (!?), we are each human. Were she to name others as liars, I would be concerned. She never did, nor would she.

>>Given the above, the organizers of the statement have generally acted honorably, while their opponents have acted dishonorably

Don't think so for a second.

thanks Kevin...don't forget

thanks Kevin...don't forget Cosmos...time to put this behind us

Beyond Kennebunkport

The following is my take on the whole thing. Before you read it though, you should know that I wrote to Webster Tarpley and tried to convince him that he was hurting the 9/11 truth movement by driving a wedge between that movement and the peace movement by attacking 3 of its leading voices (Sheehan, Wright and McKinney), when he has previously said that creating a coalition between those movements is the most urgent task.

Please also note that I think Webster has engaged in ad hominen attacks against some really good people, like Jon Gold, etc. I tried to write my piece to be as neutral as possible -- to give Webster a chance to apologize -- and so did not come out and defend Jon and others. Now that Webster has decided not to apologize (enough time has past that that is the only logical conclusion), I feel more free to admit that I think he was wrong in the way he handled it, and defaming Jon, Arabesque, Michael Woolsey, Sheehan, Wright and McKinney was very very inappropriate.

WHICHEVER side you're on, please consider the points I make below (Kevin Ryan makes similar points).

Indeed, one of Webster's closest allies has said that Webster's ego has blinded him from seeing the harm he is doing. I don't know whether or not that is true. And I understand the stakes are high (as Kevin Barrett points out). But that is not an excuse for torpedoing a 9/11-peace alliance and sliming long-time 9/11 activists.

Beyond Kennebunkport

Let's put the Kennebunkport Warning in perspective. It is undisputed that:

A former prominent republican U.S. congressman stated that the U.S. is close to becoming a totalitarian society and that the current administration is using fear to try to ensure that this happens.

Current republican U.S. congressman Ron Paul stated that the government "is determined to have martial law", and that the government is hoping to get the people "fearful enough that they will accept the man on the white horse". He also said "a contrived Gulf of Tonkin-type incident may occur to gain popular support for an attack on Iran".

A former National Security Adviser told the Senate that a terrorist act might be carried out in the U.S. and falsely blamed on Iran to justify war against that nation.

The former assistant secretary of treasury in the Reagan administration, called the "Father of Reaganomics", who is a former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal, Business Week, and Scripps Howard News Service, has said:

"Ask yourself: Would a government that has lied us into two wars and is working to lie us into an attack on Iran shrink from staging "terrorist" attacks in order to remove opposition to its agenda?"***"If the Bush administration wants to continue its wars in the Middle East and to entrench the "unitary executive" at home, it will have to conduct some false flag operations that will both frighten and anger the American people and make them accept Bush's declaration of "national emergency" and the return of the draft. Alternatively, the administration could simply allow any real terrorist plot to proceed without hindrance."

(see also this even stronger statement).

A retired 27-year CIA analyst who prepared and presented Presidential Daily Briefs and served as a high-level analyst for several presidents stated that if there was another major attack in the U.S., it would lead to martial law. He went on to say:

"We have to be careful, if somebody does this kind of provocation, big violent explosions of some kind, we have to not take the word of the masters there in Washington that this was some terrorist event because it could well be a provocation allowing them, or seemingly to allow them to get what they want."

The former CIA analyst would not put it past the government to "play fast and loose" with terror alerts and warnings and even events themselves in order to rally people behind the flag.

General Tommy Franks stated that if another terrorist attack occurs in the United States "the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government".

Daniel Ellsberg, the famous Pentagon Papers whistleblower, said "if there is another terror attack, "I believe the president will get what he wants", which will include a dictatorship.

The former UN Weapons Inspector, an American, who stated before the Iraq war started that there were no weapons of mass destruction is now saying that he would not rule out staged government terror by the U.S. government.

And a member of the British Parliament stated that "there is a very real danger" that the American government will stage a false flag terror attack in order to justify war against Iran and to gain complete control domestically.

Given the numerous, credible people who have warned of the danger of a new false flag attack, the Kennebunkport Warning is not that important. Sure, if Cynthia McKinney, Ann Wright and Cindy Sheehan did sign it and were willing to stand behind it, that would add 2 or 3 more names to the above list (2 high-level former government employees and one high-profile civilian). But if they did not sign it, or signed but for political or other reasons decided to recant, the above list is still persuasive.

Given that each side has accused the other of disinfo regarding the Kennebunkport Warning*, and has threatened to split the 9/11 truth movement apart, are these 3 names really worth it? I would argue definitely NOT. We already have a sufficiently long and credible list of people warning of a false flag, for anyone open to hearing the truth. 3 more won't make a difference one way or the other.

Moreover, we should focus on what IS important, like the 9/11 General Strike and other ACTION.

Let's move BEYOND Kennebunkport.

At the very least, can everyone stop using ad hominens against each other? And can everyone stop talking about the warning at least until AFTER 9/11/07? It is disrupting and distracting at a time we should all be taking action (for example, the General Strike) and using the media coverage to focus on the BASIC issues of 9/11 and false flag terror.

The views expressed herein are NOT necessarily those of 911Blogger, I am speaking solely for myself, and none of the other moderators/owners of 911Blogger have even seen this before posting.

* I have a very strong opinion about which side is right, but will not share it publicly, because my whole point is that the debate about whether or not certain people signed the warning is distracting and divisive


This is much more helpful to me since, like I said above, I still don't really know exactly what happened. From what I can gather though, the anti-war activists got their egos in a huff (their stories apparently kept changing regarding whether they signed, didn't know what they were signing, etc.), and then some of the 9/11 truth big wigs defended the anti-war activists, which in turn pissed off Webster Tarpley (understandably, since he wrote the Kennebunkport Warning, although his reaction with the name calling was also based in ego and not wisdom).

Do I have the essence of the story correct? See, I'm still trying to determine what actually happened. A little like 9/11, ya know?

But, I appreciated your words GW. I'm trying not to take sides here, but I have to say that Webster Tarpley's contributions to the truth movement are monumental, which is why I cannot simply dismiss what he's saying -- especially given the gravity of what we're dealing with here: the possibility of the entire truth movement going up in smoke because of the next big 9/11. That's how I see it, FWIW. But, I'm willing to listen to more opinions.

The bottom line is that both sides need to apologize NOW. Continued in-fighting amongst the top people of the truth movement is going to kill it.

Something like this...

post of yours GW would have went over much better than something that smelled of hyperbole like the Kennebunkport warning.

Show "You need to not Cherry Pick so much, and..." by doughnut

Talk about missing the point

If I have made a mistake I will correct it. There is no need to be snide. In fact, I welcome honest criticism. What is the 9/11 truth movement if it is not an honest search for the truth? Respectful critique should never be off the table.

There is something to be said for respectful discourse, and that is something that you should learn doughnut. I don't know how many times I've seen you use abusive and sarcastic language to people on this site including myself.

Who benefits from creating a divisive atmosphere? The 9/11 truth community? Your ego? We have to reject the name calling and pointless divisiveness which was the whole point here which you so obviously and sadly missed.

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

No, as usual, you miss the point

I simply pointed out (and point out) some truth and reality and facts that you, and people like you, don't like.

When push comes to shove, you and facts and reality do not have a good relationship when it comes to your writing, as I have pointed out from time to time.

It's not my fault you choose to be the person you are, so don't try to blame it on me.

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


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

Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny. — Robert Heinlein

What the fuck is wrong with you people?

Do you not understand simple English? Simple logic? Simple truth? Simple facts?

Are you unable and incapable of reading something and understanding what it says?

What kind of a fucked in the head idiot would vote down what I pointed out?

People who have no interest in truth and reality?

You people are what's wrong with this movement and what's wrong with this country and what's wrong with this world.

You are jokes and worthless pathetics, at best.

Unfortunately, you are taking the rest of us down with you.

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


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

Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny. — Robert Heinlein

Glad to see this at 911Blogger--good job, Kevin!

As I said at Truthaction.org:


"Like kevin says--nothing new. Even the stuff Tarpley forwarded (26 articles in an attachement) were nothing new or notable, and in one case was 2 years old!

Not only do we not need anymore "warnings", we should really should suspect the sources of any "warnings", especially if they involve "sources I have in organized crime", or "I was told by people I know in the Pentagon", or "my friend's friend's cousin's dog groomer said".

The powers that be are not in the business of giving us warnings--and the quality of the "warnings" lately sound like so much planted noise. Let's say in theory that one of these say military excersises was going to be IT. Well, it would take more that Captain MayDay and a known 9/11 writer to break the story with so little to go on. The planners are the same bastards who managed the Manhatten Project--they do not let anyone know anything unless it's figured into their plans.

So scenario 1: there is no immenent false flag but they have a psyop "leaking" a whole bunch of superfulous "warnings" to:

a: Make 9/11 Truth look like a bunch of raving loons
b: based on (a), discourage any public moves for transparency in military exercises.
c: making future false flag's much MORE probable--long after they're out of office. Think long term here.

Or Scenario 2:

a: there is a false flag planned
b: but it's a shell game--NONE of the execises are IT
c:and while we run around screaming "Don't nuke us! Don't nuke us!" they are free to continue planning because they've bought the time they need and we're looking in the wrong dirrection.

There are of course more scenarios--these are just what occur in the moment. In any event, running around trying to second guess the bastards is a waste of time. But the following WILL keep thnem busy--and possibly prevent a FF if one is being planned:

1: Push for public transparency of miliotary excersise MAINLY because you pay ALOT of TAX for them--(where's our public report on Noble Resolve, BTW? Don't hear Portland Nuclear Inquest demanding that..)

2: Pressure to impeach the bastards

3: Pressure to end the War in Iraq

Focus on what we CAN do and, at the very least, keep them occupied. If we ever did get a leaked warning of impending doom, it would not be from B-list celeberty types like Captain May. It would be leaked to either media people the leaker knew, or, more likely--especially if authentification was unequivical, to the opposition leaders. Possibly to another Western forgien power(Germany, France) the whistleblower hoped had some international pull and who could maybe shelter them.

And, while the FF was prevented, we would likely never know about it, as such.

Which doesn't mean what we are doing is pointless. 9/11Truth helps by keeping the glaring search light on the bastards. And, educating the public about Falg Flags will eventually change the paradigm of understanding "why we have wars". I honestly doubt they will try another FF on US soil--a murder under the nose of an unsuspecting police force is one thing, but a murder while they are watching you like a hawk is asking for Nuremburg II.

Now a false flag in the Third World(or Second)would be completely plausable--an oppresed public, paid off police/military, complete access and control of information--now those are odds criminals love."

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.


Has not been deleted for those who thought that it was. Kevin made an edit, and it went back to the moderators to approve.

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

24 hours is a long time to

24 hours is a long time to be sitting in the queue...

The 9/11 Truth B-Team