Yep, great deduction there man this is looking just a bit dodgy now.

Bruce has produced every piece of evidence that's been asked of him. Facsimile of the signed document, photos of the documents, witness statements (Laurie Dobson) saying they saw the documents being signed, and heard Bruce speaking publicly to groups about the contents of "Warning." How many of you, if you've ever had a petition signed, would be able to produce more evidence than this?

As for the contents of the document itself, while we can quibble about the wording, it merely points out that the US leadership is threatening to attack Iran. Does anyone doubt this? The "massive evidence" of this is the administrations own public statements and the overt military preparations they have made. The only thing that is unique to the "Kennybunkport Warning" is the contention that this attack will likely come in response to a fake provocation; a "new 9/11". It is that last part, the "new 9/11" that is undoubtedly the sticking point for some who signed and are now having misgivings. Clearly they feel that they have been somehow "tricked" into endorsing the equivalent of "9/11 was an inside job", so now they are trying to back out of it.

I'm convinced that no deception was intended, but given the evidence provided, I'm equally convinced that they did in fact sign the petition.

If the signers wish to withdraw their names, fine. But if they insist on accusing the petitioners of fraud, the burden of proof is on them.

Peace.
Matt
matt@9eleven.info

..on the text documents that were first released, knowing full well Mckinney DIDN'T sign it?

No excuse for that, luv. An apology on that count might go a long way.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Look, I don't claim to have any specific knowledge of Cynthia's endorsement, but a typed name on a petition suggests to me that she endorsed the document either over the phone, or via e-mail or some way other that in-person. I don't find see why they shouldn't add her name to the petition if she endorsed it.

Does she deny it?

Peace.
Matt
matt@9eleven.info

From: kris4143@xxxx
To: "Jenny Sparks"
Subject: Re: The truth is never tiresome.
Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 16:36:29 +0000

[...]
I DEFINITELY did NOT sign a paper with the Kennebunk Warning physically on it.
[...]
I find it interesting that the top of the sheet I signed is covered up in the .jpg that was provided by Mr. Marshall.
[...]
I would not have knowingly signed the "warning" as A. I am not, as previously mentioned any sort of leader, and B. I have no such evidence whatever. I personally feel that while the Bush administration is certainly MORALLY capable of orchestrating a 911 false flag attack, and that there are definitely unanswered questions about 911, I have seen no evidence which proves it to me. In short, while I am very committed to finding the truth, I'm not "there" yet, and as I stated above, I have no evidence relating to a Iran 'false flag' event whatever, though I certainly would not put it past them.

Still no word from McKinney, but we're working on it!

The Kennebunkport Warning Hoax

That is FIVE people who:

1. CLAIM they Did NOT sign the Kennebunk Warning
2. Say they DID sign another document
3. INDEPENDENTLY claim the document signed involved IMPEACHMENT
4. SUPPORT 9/11 truth and another investigation
5. HAVE NOT attacked the authors of this document

On the other side we have:

1. Multiple accusations of "liar", ad-hominems, and unproven speculations about "fearful signers"
2. No apologies for these accusations and ad-hominems against non-9/11 truth activists.
3. Direct support for DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS (Fetzer, Tarpley, Craig Hill (citing Judy Wood), and Morgan Stack have ALL supported DEW in some form).
4. No indications that the signatures will be removed from the warning.

Keeping Score here:
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/08/kennebunkport-warning-hoax-cont...

To both Cindy and Dahlia. When this first occurred... in the hopes of saving any kind of bond we're currently trying to build with the AW Movement.

Thanks Jon

Cindy Sheehan and everyone involved deserve apologies for these comments:

"Some of the signers, under the obvious threats of totalitarian forces, are lying in appalling fashion about what they signed and if they signed. You can see for yourself from the facsimile who signed. We need to move beyond these wretched individuals.[sic]"
Webster Tarpley in an email

"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"
Craig Hill in an email, http://www.911blogger.com/node/10997#comment-159360

Does this behavior represent the truth movement? The purpose of CoIntelPro is to “divide, confuse, [and] weaken in diverse ways” activist groups. It is enough to know that this behavior is divisive and destructive--and that's all that we need to know.

[...] I DEFINITELY did NOT sign a paper with the Kennebunk Warning physically on it.

Thanks - that clears it up...
--
11/11 Never Forget - Fetzer Flips
Zeitgeist Movie Torrent DVDRip (XviD)

And indicated that it was an edited text. The entirety of the message is available here: The Kennebunkport Warning Hoax - a link I provided earlier. The email had also already been posted to this thread in its entirety by Col. Jenny Sparks. Thanks for posting it again, Matt.

"I DEFINITELY did NOT sign a paper with the Kennebunk Warning physically on it."

Reprehensor clearly stated this in a previous post . No one's trying to pull any fast ones.
"Note that McKinney's name is on not the document. She was not physically present to sign when the other signees were around. She gave her endorsement to Marshall verbally, according to Marshall."
http://www.911blogger.com/node/10947

right up until the moment that the first document scan was produced.

"... according to Marshall."

Sorry, when it comes to showing a document as PROOF of something, unilaterally typing someone's name as a signatory just because you had a conversation where you are pretty sure they'd support it, IS NOT DONE, mate.

Ever. Full stop. End of story.

Marshall is free to testify, based on his own RECALL, that McKinney said words to that effect, but he DOES NOT get to type her name as a signatory, knowing full well people will be missled into thinking she actually signed the document.

And if it is an honest gaff on his part, Marshall needs to PUBLICALY APOLOGIZE ALREADY.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Just click "contact us" under the 911Blogger logo. There's a good lad.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Thats "Joan Jones"--not "Jenny". Maybe all the "J"s are confusing you.

Im just helping, sunshine.

_____________________________________
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

I doubt that.

I made a post where I patted EVERYONE on the back--not just myself. That's miles away from claiming responsibility for breaking this story.

Now link to this post where I supposedly take responsibility for breaking this--or shut the hell up.
_____________________________________
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

What you said:

"Now I see that CJS is claiming responsibility for exposing the Kennebunkport deal as a hoax!?"

My paraphrase:

"claiming responsibility for breaking the story"

Most reasonable people will make the conncetion that "the story" I refer to is "exposing the Kennebunkport deal as a hoax" you refer to.

I'm glad you have better things to do--that's probably for the best, all 'round. Ta.
______________________________________
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Yes, Cynthia McKinney did not physically put her signature on that document. But she could certainly have “signed” it by proxy, giving Bruce authority to put her name down as an endorser. Do you know that she didn’t? As Matt says, Does she deny it? Wouldn’t she have done so by now? Webster Tarpley didn’t put his signature on it either, but does that mean he didn’t “sign” it? Or that it’s a forged document? Or a hoax?

Why aren’t you questioning the “signatures” above that say “Signed: Jamilla El-Shafei Cindy Sheehan Dahlia Wasfi Ann Wright?” Do you know that they actually “signed” that statement? Did you ask Dahlia Wasfi for absolute proof? Why impose a different standard on Bruce Marshall?

If you’re going to be so legalistic, why not examine the logic of Dahlia’s statement above: “None of us have such evidence, and therefore, none of us signed a statement stating that we do.” Does that sound like a categorical denial of physically writing their names on a document—or more like a later regret that they did? If the latter, wouldn’t the honorable thing be to admit it, instead of recklessly accusing someone of tampering with the document, just to save face? That statement is an absurd non-sequitur, and she’d be laughed out of court for it.

It’s wise to question evidence, but at some point you start getting bogged down in technicalities and legalisms and losing sight of the big picture. Look at all the time and energy spent on this "hoax" rumor you've been chasing. It’s one thing to challenge evidence from NIST or FEMA, but quite another to attack your own allies, only to create a huge distraction and keep feeding it. Have we become so paranoid or so trapped in our mental cages that we start turning on each other?

Here’s some big picture stuff for you. Look at travellerev's blog entry yesterday "We Are Going To Hit Iran. Bigtime"
Or this one: Pentagon ‘three-day blitz’ plan for Iran

This is exactly what the Kennebunkport Warning is all about. Please take it seriously.

Ive never seen a unicorn in my life--but that doesnt mean one isnt out there, right?

Cynthia NOT denying it means nothing except that it may not be on her radar yet. Youre thinking "but its all over the place" but, as has been pointed out it been strategically spread all over INSIDE THE TRUTH MOVEMENT.

When Cynthia gives a statement in response--that will mean something.

And its not our responsibility to "be fair", anymore than its our responsibility to prove 911 was an inside job. It is THEIR responsibility to be as clear and transparent as possible--not dole out bits and peices of info while we wait with bloody baited breathe.

And Im getting dead suspicious of any suggestions we should drop this matter. We CAN work on this and other things AT THE SAME TIME. So this is not "distraction".
______________________________________
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Posted here.

“Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2007 20:22:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Bruce"
To: "Jenny Sparks"
Subject: Re: Another Tiresome inquiry about the

Dear Jenny,

Thanks for sending a letter of support to Cindy and Cynthia.
It is very important that The Kennebunkport Warning and all of its
signers and supporters be given full support for this is quite an
important message that is very much needed at this time.

For your information, I am the one who obtained the signatures and
other forms of support. Everyone read the document as adults and chose to
sign it. Some did not such as Debra Sweet from "World Can't Wait". There
were no tricks, no forgeries, just one person who became scared and
infected others. This is unfortunate.

My colleagues and I have been slandered, but that is not the issue, the
issue is saving this planet and our nation from a grave disaster in
the making. Digital photos of the documents will be online soon.

Now everything hopefully will be taken care of very soon and this
will serve to bring everyone together in a positive way.

That is what I intend. The door is still open, open to do the right
thing, together.

All the best,

Thank You

Bruce Marshall"

--Jenny continues:

"Well, that's 5 out of 10 so far. Even without my "pro-hoax" predjudice, Bruce's patronizing tone would rub me wrong. And doesn't he know digital photos are hardly tamper proof

Hang about, who's Debra Sweet from the "World Can't Wait" "please don't notice we are a front" wankers? Why would he even bring her up? And, as it has been pointed out, McKinney didn't sign it.

I'm holding off on responding to Bruce for now. Instead I forwarded Dahlia his email. Let's see how that plays out..."

--I'll leave it to others to judge who really has the "patronizing tone," and who is really concerned about the bigger picture.

is certainly mild compared to Tarpley's excoriation of "wretched individuals" who are "lying in an appalling fashion".

And positively tame compared to the truckload of abuse Craig Hill heaped on the women in one response to an inquiry about the Warning:

"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"

Why wouldn't the promoters of the KW seek to resolve the matter in a civil manner and instead stoop to such derogatory language?

Compare the above nastiness to the statement from the alleged signatories:

None of us have such evidence, and therefore, none of us signed a statement stating that we do. We wish the authors of the document well in continuing much needed investigations of all aspects of 9/11.

A fifth alleged signatory has now refuted signing the document. She, like the others, wishes the truth movement well but says she did not the sign the document.

The Kennebunkport Warning Hoax

That all 3 of the main promoters of this affair have ties to Lyndon LaRouche?

Tarpley was a member of the LaRouche inner circle - a high ranking LaRouchian operative for nearly 20 years. He was a frequent host on The LaRouche Connection cable television show and even ran for Senate on the LaRouche platform. Many in the Vermont Green Party have claimed that both Marshall and Craig's campaigns were stealth LaRouchian campaigns - the kind that the LaRouche movement was notorious for running in the 80s and 90s using the Democratic party. On this very forum, Bruce Marshall has testified to his abiding admiration for the LaRouche ideology: you can read it here.

Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism

I thought LaRouche was just this fringe nut with too much $$$$ and not enough sense. But the key for me is the bit where someone TYPED Mckinney's name, knowing full well she never signed it.

That proves premeditaion.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.