Four Signatories of the Kennebunkport Warning say the Document was "altered" after they Signed.

(See updates at bottom of post. -r.)

From Dahlia Wasfi's website;

To Whom It May Concern:

Each of us were approached during the rally at the Kennebunkport event on August 25, 2007, to sign a statement calling for the immediate impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney. Since then, the statement has been altered and posted on the internet, making it appear as if we have evidence that this administration will carry out a "false-flag terror operation."

None of us have such evidence, and therefore, none of us signed a statement stating that we do.

We wish the authors of the document well in continuing much needed investigations of all aspects of 9/11.

Signed:

Jamilla El-Shafei Cindy Sheehan Dahlia Wasfi Ann Wright

This is a strong accusation, an accusation of fraud, in less direct terms. Visitors to, and users of this site should be aware of this firm, public declaration.

They should also be aware that more evidence of the verity of the signed document was sent in today by Bruce Marshall...

Marshall had the actual signed documents photographed, and sent in. Here are the photos of the documents, with lots of other signees for your consideration:


Large: http://www.911blogger.com/sites/default/files/001_1.jpg
Larger: http://www.911blogger.com/sites/default/files/001-close-up.jpg


Large: http://www.911blogger.com/sites/default/files/002_0.jpg

EDIT: Due to multiple requests for anonymity, jpeg #3 has been "pulled". - 9/3/07
The photo may still be obtainable from www.actindependent.org

Where, specifically, were these documents "altered"? Admittedly, it's difficult to ascertain this from a jpeg, if indeed they were altered. What I can say is, that every time I have challenged Marshall to produce evidence verifying his version of what happened in Kennebunkport, he has done so.

For those who listened to Tarpley's radio show last night, Marshall produced an eyewitness to the signing of the Kennebunkport Warning to tell what she saw. What she saw was Dahlia Wasfi physically sign the Kennebunkport Warning. The name of the eyewitness is Jeanine Weir of Vermont.

If some of the signees of the Kennebunkport Warning want to distance themselves from the message, then the particular signees should word their public statements in such a fashion. However, accusations of fraud or forgery, (however carefully worded), are indeed serious, and must be proven.

For conversation's sake, let's say that the Founding Fathers of the United States of America blew it. George Washington just couldn't get it together. Didn't quite make the trip across the Delaware on time. Sank halfway, etc., etc.

Can you imagine Benjamin Franklin, John and Samuel Adams, John Hancock and Thomas Jefferson getting together and deciding which parts of the Declaration of Independence that they didn't endorse?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ORIGINAL POST ENDS

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Laurie Dobson's post at the Daily KOS;

Dear Editor,

I ran Camp Alex (Camp Casey Two) out of my farm during the Aug. 24-26 Peace Rally in K'port, Maine. I can verify the legitimacy of the Kennebunkport Warning. Many of us at the camp signed it--I saw the one with Sheehan and the others while it was in the process of being signed-before, during and after. It was the same as the one we all signed, which is posted on 911blogger.

I had at least 75 campers stay here who would probably be able to attest to their awareness of the document and many would be able to share their evidence, if they chose to get involved, to prove that the document was authentic. Fifty of us heard Bruce speak about it while we were waiting to board the bus to go to the peace rally. We were all, it seemed to me, in general agreement about the dire state of the nation due to the Cheney faction.

We were mostly all together at camp during much of the time when it was being signed at camp and many of us were witnesses to it being signed by others at the rally-- myself included, as I had a stage pass and was there at the stage tent when they were being asked to sign. There are pictures on the web which will verify my presence, talking to Kucinich's staff person, Michael Klein.

Based on emails I have received, it is obvious to me that the big name people are afraid, but I believe that they should not defame those who asked them to sign the petition.

In my view, this accusation of falsified documenting casts a cloud of suspicion over the brave efforts of those signators who are standing by their decision to sign the petition. I stand with those who signed it who are not backing down.

Laurie Dobson

by lauriedobson on Sat Sep 01, 2007 at 08:40:38 AM PDT

AttachmentSize
001.jpg240.77 KB
001-small.jpg43.53 KB
002.jpg566.39 KB
002-small.jpg44.19 KB
001-close-up.jpg625.62 KB

This is very very strange.

This is very very strange.

All four of these individuals claim to have signed a different document. Can someone produce this document and these signatures? It must exist right?

Frankly I'm inclined to believe that these people are telling the truth. The reason is that they specifically said they signed a DIFFERENT document. I think they would know what document they were signing and the reasons why they signed it. If they felt so worried about signing it why would they do it? If they didn't want to be associated with it, why would they sign it in the first place?

Think about this: FOUR people saying the EXACT same thing. Now if this was one person, then maybe it would be a misunderstanding. But Four people?

According to 911blogger JoanJones, Craig Hill, who claims he signed it says: “I most certainly signed it, and would sign a much sterner version of its conclusions:.. the immediate aim of the militarization of space via nuclear weapons and other exotic dangers orbiting Earth, pointing down and controlling entire societies under threat they, too, may suffer that which Dr Judy Wood persuasively suggests occurred in NYC on 9/11.” http://www.911blogger.com/node/10925#comment-158995

Judy Wood and Space Weapons? Is it merely a coincidence that Jim Fetzer happened to be on a interview with Tarpley mere days after this warning, and then issues a press release confirming that scholars for 9/11 truth is signing it? http://www.inteldaily.com/?c=172&a=3378

We need more answers.

Yep, great deduction there

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

What more do you want?

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

So expain why someone would TYPE Mckinney's name...

..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.

It suggests she endorsed remotely.

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

A Fifth Refutation

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

selective quoting...

Not so fast, JoanJones!

That is highly selective quoting you've done there. Lets see more of the quote:

2: Were you in Kennebunkport, Maine, Aug 25-25, 2007?

Yes. I camped at Camp Alex Friday night, attended the rally and march, and left around 6 PM.

> 3: Did you sign anything while you were there?

Yes. That is my signature on the .jpg on the 911 blog site.

> 4: Was what you signed this document:
> http://911blogger.com/node/10997#comment-159035

Here's where it gets a little sticky. We got in to Camp Alex at 11:45, had to move our car to the Ice Rink parking lot, and then set up our tents in that deadly heat. I got very little sleep, and we got up early to help Ms. Dobson with breakfast and such. The point being, I was a little groggy (a lot groggy actually) but this is what I remember. I recall signing which I thought was a call for impeachment, which I fully support. I DEFINITELY did NOT sign a paper with the Kennebunk Warning physically on it. My memory is of signing a piece of paper that simply had columns for signatures and email addresses, and perhaps a brief statement calling for impeachment at the top. I find it interesting that the top of the sheet I signed is covered up in the .jpg that was provided by Mr. Marshall. If I thought my signature was associated with anything it was with the more general Philadelphia Platform. 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. As to Mr. Marshall, while I find his passion and knowledge impressive, he seems (based on our talk while waiting for the bus) to be of a sort that is rather shrill and didactic, and not terribly interested in listening to other more nuanced opinions. I have, however, no evidence as of this moment that he has committed fraud of any kind, but am submitting these slightly hazy recollections in the hope that the truth will emerge.

Peace.
Matt
matt@9eleven.info

Keeping Score

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...

I apologized...

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.


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

Thanks Jon

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

[...] 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)

I posted the most definitive lines of the email

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."

McKinney gave her endorsement to Bruce Marshall verbally

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

Strange that she was advertised as a signatory

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

"She gave her endorsement to Marshall verbally,...."

"... 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.

Such arrogance from CJS...

makes me want to hurl!

You got a complaint, tell the mods

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

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Show "Still proclaiming your relevance, huh?!" by Styve

What ARE you on about? Joan Jones broke this story!

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

Im just helping, sunshine.

_____________________________________
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Show "I said nothing about "breaking the story"" by Styve

"We are on the same team,"

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.

Show "Too funny!!" by Styve

The joke's on you then

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.

You’re right, Jenny. But you’re not being fair.

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.

Sorry, "negative" positive indicators dont cut it

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.

For the record: Bruce's reply to Jenny (from Friday 8/31)

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.

Marshall's rebuke of the alleged signatories

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

Excellent point re the wording of the denial!

...and the importance of looking at the big picture. Gotta question the motives behind dwelling on this when there are much more significant issues and activism to address!!

Does anyone else find it odd

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

Too right

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.

Who is Lyndon LaRouche?

Danse did some research: Who is Lyndon LaRouche?

I agree.

This is a very simple matter and a serious one.

Did they sign a document that was altered? If that is the case, we need to know who is responsible?

And if this could be an attempt to create a split/divide( my limited English) between 911 truth and the peace movement?

They signed it

After looking through all the evidence I could find regarding this incident, it looks like they signed it.

The website deniel posting is vague.

Fetzer has nothing to do with this either.

It was a brilliant PR move by Webster Tarpley.

The Kennebunkport Warning could be the talk of the nation this month.

At least the left gatekeepers will take notice.

Arabesque is a good guy, but lacks, in my opinion, media experience.

9/11 Truth is discredited by the MSM because we are "conspiracy theorists" and think 9/11 was an "inside job" orchestrated by Dick Cheney. We are not discredited by Dr. Judy Wood or Dr. Fetzer, as most people in the US have never heard of these people. If the MSM brings them up, then they are forced to acknowledge they have PhDs in impressive areas like Philosophy of Science or Mechanical Engineering. Fetzer was in the marines as well and has published 28 books.

I don't agree one iota in the directed energy weapons theory, I think its crazy, and have been telling Fetzer this since last fall, but he won't listen. It's too bad he is wasting time on DEW when he should be focusing on WTC 7 and failure to intercept.

Good point...why waste time focusing on the Kbpt Warning?!

The Kennebunkport Warning could be the talk of the nation this month.

This circular debate about who signed, who didn't, who didn't know what they were signing, who didn't care what they signed, etc., is an enormous waste of time. It was prepared and signed during the peace rally in August. Maybe the choice of words about "massive evidence" was unwise, and general fear of BushCo personal attack, is making people try to distance themselves from the document. Who cares??

That energy could be better spent reading the Taibbi article in Rolling Stone on the war profiteering and fraud so rampant in the Iraq occupation, maybe relating that to the heinous fraud that is still ravaging New Orleans, and looking for connections to the players involved in the events of 9-11!?!?

The Great Iraq Swindle: How Bush Allowed an Army of For-Profit Contractors to Invade the U.S. Treasury
by Matt Taibbi http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/31/3519/

Yeah, lets just drop the fact that Fetzer has shown himself...

once again to be lacking any credibility.

And lets just forget someone TYPED McKninney name, as if she had signed, knowing she didnt and knowing people would be missled--AND HAVE YET TO ACKNOWLEDGE OR APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.

And lets just forget that NOTHING should have hit the Pentagon.

And forget that the towers couldnt have exploded just from jet fuel, or in fact that they exploded at all. CD is such a distraction.

And lets forget that we have disruptors intent on bollocking things up for us--hell, lets help by NOT HOLDING them accountable!

And if were not going to hold them accountable, why waste time holding the perps of 911 accountable?I mean WHO CARES? Why bother? 911 is just a distraction, right?
________________________________________________________________________
What you have just read is SARCASM. Anyone one who wants to push us along with "nothing to see" bollocks is in for a kicking. And just because some cant "multi-task" in their activism doesnt mean the rest of us cant.

_____________________________________
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

This from the guy who

for the last month or more has been busy "saving us from the Portland Nuke!" (sic) that was a bunch of guys sitting in a room talking about an earthquake and a dam... just like they said.

And while we're at it, why don't you take some time to deepen your analysis and drop the references to "BushCo" and the "GOP". Peter Dale Scott's "Road to 9/11" would be a great place to start.

Arabesque just wrote an

Arabesque just wrote an excellent review of the new Debunking Benchmark hit piece by the history channel.

Therefore, Arabesque knows that that the space beams of Fetzer are not an effective way to dedunk the 9/11 Truth movement anymore, as they are never mentioned in the hit piece. Everyone seems to know these days that space beams are not part of the 9/11 Truth corpus of consensus views.

So bringing up Fetzer is disengenious and really just another type of fear mongering. Fetzer is no threat to anyone. He actually believes his theories, it's as simple as that.

But now calling the Kennebunk Warning fake is really no different than calling the phone calls fake or the passenger lists fake.

Why a prominant 9/11 Truth activist, Arabesque, would favor non-9/11 Truth activists over 9/11 Truth activists is a good question. Bruce Marshall has posted the petitions on the Net for us all to see. Against that, you have an anonymous statement on a website that has NO SIGNATURE.

Most people are going to focus on the message of the Kennebunkport document rather than engae in endless squabbling about who signed it.

PS - Galileo Galilei argued that the tides were caused by the motion of the earth. He was wrong. But no one accussed Galileo discrediting the Coperican mopvement because one of his theories was wong.

The Fetzer appearance is not

The Fetzer appearance is not a good omen. I'll bite my tongue until more info becomes available.

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

FFETZER & LEFT GATEKEEPERS

# 1) Fetzer has nothing to do with the Kennebunkport Warning. Fetzer saw the Warning postied the Internet, thought it was important, and then issued a press release. After the release came out, Webster Tarpley saw the release and invited Fetzer onto his radio show to talk about it. This is all very simple and there is no conspiracy here.

# 2) The Kennebunkport Warning looks legit, and the group producing it has posted it on the Internet, and supplied several witnesses. Despite this, several left gatekeeper type people are declaring the document to be a fraud and are discredititing themselves.

This is important to the 9/11 Truth movement. The left gatekeepers holding back 9/11 Truth need to be discredited. The Kennebunkport Warning is drawing them into a situation where they must make a choice. All the left gatekeepers are aware that an Iran False-flag event is a distinct reality, and it's impossible to talk about this withoiut the 9/11 False Flag event looming in the background.

# 3) The document uses the term "massive evidence". Every time you hear about Iran trying to build nuclear reactors, and every time you DON'T hear that Iran is a democracy, is evidence that someone is trying to make the people of the USA dislike Iran. If the people of the USA dislike Iran, then it will be much easier to invade Iran. The massive evidence refers to, in part, the massive numbers of times the above info on iran is propagated.

What the?

What in the hell is going on here? This is extremely strange. Did all the signatories sign a document before reading it, but are now denying they signed it? Or did someone "transfer" the signatures from one document to another? I am confused. Anyone??

Humans are unreliable witnesses with faulty memories

Let's analyze the statement on D. Wasfi's website. The four signatories write,
"None of us have such evidence, and therefore, none of us signed a statement stating that we do."

This is reverse logic. You don't need evidence to sign, only a pen.

What is a logical statement - and what this wishful thinking apparently means - is:
"None of us wish to endorse such evidence, and therefore, we wish we had not signed such a statement."

The Warning doesn't even say the undersigned have the evidence, only that it has been brought to their attention. (By now, it should have been - the massive file is attached at http://www.911blogger.com/node/10925)
The person collecting signatures would need to show some of these articles, or mention some of the threats we have heard from the Neocons lately, thus bringing it to the signatories' attention so they could sign.

The four women then say,
"Since then, the statement has been altered and posted on the internet."

I would translate this as :
"Our mood has changed a lot since we signed it, and now we have änother look at it, it looks different from what we thought."

Earlier we have seen one or more of the women imply that the document was "misrepresented," or that they didn't get a chance to get a good look at it.
The new and the earlier versions cannot both be true.
If they didn't get a good look at it, then they can't swear this is not the statement they signed.
This is the very common phenomenon of a witness changing their story with the passage of time and changing pressures.

So much for subjective factors. Let's talk about physical evidence.

The only way you could alter such a statement would be to leave the lower part blank and then try to print some more lines after it was signed.
This would be next to impossible here, since all the statements in the photos are the same length, and it would be extremely difficult to get the added text to line up so exactly on a laser printer.

Moreover, the text the four women object to, "Massive evidence has come to our attention," is the very opening line of the KPort warning. That means it would have been necessary to leave the beginning of the document blank, and add those lines later.

This is impossible because after the first sentence, no sentence starts at the beginning of a line.

The first two sentences are controversial and disliked by the four women. They agree with the third sentence, "We call on the House of Representative to proceed immediately to the impeachment of Cheney."

This 3rd sentence starts about in the middle of the page and almost at the end of the line -- an impossible place if anyone wanted to start the original document there and add lines above it later.

You can see the text formatting at http://www.911blogger.com/node/10947. If someone had wanted to add text later, they would have put in paragraph breaks so they could add new lines. There are no breaks in this document - it's one long seamless paragraph and impossible to alter.

The four women open their witness statement with "Each of us were approached during the rally at the Kennebunkport event on August 25, 2007, to sign a statement calling for the immediate impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney."

Evidently, impeachment was the issue, and the reason presented for impeaching Cheney was presumably the feared Next 911 terror attack. But impeachment was foremost in their minds before, and remained so in their minds as the main point of the document. They conveniently forgot the rationale given for impeachment.

After the third sentence are two more sentences about the threat of false flag terror by the Cheney faction. It's very clear what the statement is about. It is not only very straightforward and anything but misleading, it's also very short, consisting of only 211 words, on half a page to leave space for signatures below.

Conclusion: Some people simply did not pay much attention before signing. It happens all the time with petitions and the like.

It is my opinion that you should consider the physical evidence and logical impossibilities here, and not put too much stock in subjective impressions and memories.

This is how a notary or a judge would proceed.

What counts in court is your signature, not your state of mind the following week.

In this overly long post he actually makes one good point..

People DO often sign things they haven't read completely.

Thing is, don't you think Dahlia et al, would have just said something like:

Wow! That's not what I thought we were signing. Maybe we should have read it better--oops our bad."

Or

"Well, I didn't read it though as thourogly as I should, but someone explained what was behind it and it seemed okay. Guess I should have read it more closely."

No.

They say what they signed WAS DIFFERENT.

Ahem. Back to the "spin" drawing board, JL.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Show "*" by John Leonard

Okaayyyyyyy, Mr. COURAGE.COM...

Are you really that new around here? Maybe you should take a wee click on me name, search the site ---and find out you're not impressing me by half, squire.

Save yourself further embarresment, sunbeam.

You owe Bruce and Webster an apology anyway.

You guys owe Bruce and Webster both an apology, regardless.
BTW what's with the baby talk?
Are you regressing?

Lookie, lookie, someones come out to play.

The ratings on this comment have gone up and down, with a high of 3 at one point and a low of 0--until now.

What I find most intriguing is someone felt the need to rate it into negatives--AFTER the comment it was responding to was removed by the mods.

Whoever you are, youre just calling attention to yourself, squire. ;-)

EDIT: Cheers to the mates who voted me up!

The controversy is not over the evidence.

In case you missed the point:

The controversy is not over the evidence. The controversy is whether or not people actually signed a document or not.

Please provide answers to this controversy or be silent. We want answers. If we don't get them, we will not be happy. Threatening people is really lame.

If you have so much to say (like that mini-essay of yours), why is it that you are providing us with so few answers?

Is this a problem for you, or do you have a different agenda here? We are growing tired of the games, and your act is wearing thin.

I supplied the answers above and you buried them in 2 minutes

I supplied the answer - that it is impossible that the statement was altered - in my "mini-essay" above entitled "Humans are unreliable witnesses with faulty memories."
You, Jenny and your two alter egos, the Gang of Four Sock Puppets, buried that post within a couple minutes.
You now have your usual gall to ask me to provide answers, after burying them.
"do you have a different agenda here? We are growing tired of the games, and your act is wearing thin."
Said to the mirror.

You have a financial interest in this issue

As Tarpley's publisher, you have a financial interest in this issue.

Consider that it may be clouding your judgement.

how many books you think i'll sell from this? blogs are a loss

I'm wasting my time and losing money too on this.
I was supposed to be trying to contact customers for 9/11 events the last two days, instead of this idiotic blogging.
That's why this dissension is so destructive.
We shouldn't be fighting each other for goodness sake!
Whether or not any of us is an angel, Tarpley's Prescription for US Truth Movement, Diversity and Civility in Discussion, Unity in Action, is right on the mark.
Did you read it?

I'm very hurt to see people turn so quickly on Tarpley.
This has been a litmus test that a lot of bloggers here failed.

I don't agree with Webster on everything, but yes, I will stand up for him.
Call it clouding judgment if you like.
But aren't you loyal to anybody?
Or are you just another anonymity?

"Gang of four sock puppets"?

What is he on, and where can I get some?

Right, this is moving into "troll feeding" territory. And much as I'd like to give the wanker a kicking for giggles,

a: we promised to be good now real time comments are back, and
b: I'm knackered and I should get some kip.

But before I go, I'm sending a wee email to a higher Authority...;-)

Ta for now...

The real issue is, Will we see a false flag attack, war, and

a police state?
"The time spent by a discussion group on an issue tends to be in inverse proportion to its importance."

Shame

All this confusion is the worst that could happen to the reputations of these people and the entire movement.
I think that this matter was too important.

These are very valid points.

These are very valid points.

Perhaps it was a bit of misunderstanding and misstatement on both sides? Perhaps the document was slightly - VERBALLY in person - misrepresented, up-playing the impeachment, and downplaying the false flag bits? And maybe the four who now object didn't read close enough at the time of signing? Don't these two factors seem very likely, or at lease quite possible? In which case no one is to blame really, and we can still be friends?

I don't understand why this is so hard. Can't a correction be issued about the details of these four people?

There IS evidence of a false flag attack, and impeachement IS necessary. Now, I agree that Webster Tarpley is spirited and strong in his rhetoric, moreso than many are willing to sign on to, but I also strongly believe his motives are sincere and more than likely correct. It is wrong to vilify him for this so quickly and carelessly. He has done A LOT for 9/11 Truth, and no doubt will do a lot more. You can't blame Webster Tarpley for writing the Kennebunkport Warning, as it is consistent with his position, and you can't blame him for the four misunderstandings - he did not collect the signatures.

My sincere thanks.

Thank you very kindly for your well-balanced comments.
You have some points there I have been trying to make, but you have done it better.

If I may say so, for me the issue is actually not so much the facts, although those are certainly important. More poignant for me was the too-eager propensity to attack a great activist whom I respect, before the facts are in (even if I don't agree with every word he says - as Wisnewski says, none of us can agree on everything, but we still need to work together.)

So to me the biggest issue was disloyalty, the old problem of dissension, backbiting and lack of cohesion that plagues the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Dahlia Wasfi may be a great person, but I don't think she is a member of our movement or an active supporter. So to those who jumped Tarpley, I ask,

Why not have just a little loyalty and team spirit, and try not to be so quick to throw over your own side, if you want to support a cause?

Facts

>>If I may say so, for me the issue is actually not so much the facts

It should always be a concern when the facts are not the issue.

Sometimes there are only a few facts. One fact here is that there is disagreement. A related issue then is that dividing our 9/11 community from the left icons would be an extremely obvious goal here and thus, that should have been protected. Assumptions of what anyone did or didn't do should be cast aside.

Issues of "disloyalty" have nothing to do with facts and everything to do with how the mis- and disinformation remain alive and well, along with their advocates.

With each day I see more clearly that those connected to, supporting, working with and giving a podium to a person now months ago BANNED from this forum should be reconsidered as far as their role in the 9/11 community, that person being Jim Fetzer. Who is supporting him now? Out of loyalty? Most everyone on here understands his deal, so why wouldn't people who are put in front of the news cameras and speaking on the stages get it? It's not too hard to figure out.

Who is supporting Judy Wood? If they are saying they think that space weapons were used on 9/11/01, we need to question a lot of other things they are saying and probably never give them a microphone. Support for Judy Wood generally leads back to support for Fetzer, Reynolds, Siegel, etc.

This is simple stuff.

Protect alliances
Treat ALL with respect - including military, government, journalists, etc.
Call out and separate from those who abuse others
Call out and separate from those who protect transparent baseless claims (nukes, DEW, etc)
Allow strong civil debate and critique to guide us to the scientific truths
Reject "Big Tent" (pairing of baseless claims with strong evidence)
Reject efforts to pair leaders on stage with UFOs, Fetzer, DEW, "no planes," etc
Reject all forms of racism
Reject efforts to mix holocaust discussions with 9/11/01
Keep speculation in our own forums, reject those who put it on FOX News, YouTube, etc.

A-bloody-men

--------

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Well said!

Well said!

needs repeating

Protect alliances
Treat ALL with respect - including military, government, journalists, etc.
Call out and separate from those who abuse others
Call out and separate from those who protect transparent baseless claims (nukes, DEW, etc)
Allow strong civil debate and critique to guide us to the scientific truths
Reject "Big Tent" (pairing of baseless claims with strong evidence)
Reject efforts to pair leaders on stage with UFOs, Fetzer, DEW, "no planes," etc
Reject all forms of racism
Reject efforts to mix holocaust discussions with 9/11/01
Keep speculation in our own forums, reject those who put it on FOX News, YouTube, etc.
--
11/11 Never Forget - Fetzer Flips
Zeitgeist Movie Torrent DVDRip (XviD)

How very quaint

"Keep speculation in our own forums, reject those who put it on FOX News, YouTube, etc." And if I don't happen to bow down to people dictating to me what I shall believe while they make no case to persuade me, then I am banned.


Vehmgericht
Remember the Maine!

If the documents are genuine

it should be easy enough to verify that. The documents must be provided to an independent third party with no vested interest and who has a verified background in doing such authentications. Provide him/her the documents. Live with the results.

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

A notary who can say they are ink signatures and not photocopied

If the signatures are in ink, the documents should be genuine.
Bruce, would a notary be able to confirm that the signatures are in ink on the document?

Looking at http://www.911blogger.com/files/001-close-up.jpg, it's not conclusive because it's so dark, they all seem to be in black ink - which does not exclude a photocopier.
On some of the other pix you see blue ink.

If you read my comment "Humans are unreliable witnesses with faulty memories" below, http://911blogger.com/node/10997#comment-159044, you should understand that altering the signed document itself would have been impossible.
If you read it also please give it a thumbs up if you can because I got some people trying to bury everything I write here, including posts that are informative.

The only way to fake them in ink would be to forge the signatures, but no one has yet claimed that these are not their real signatures. Let's hope they don't escalate to that.

IMO, it shouldn't go that far. It would seem that if one signature on the page is fake, then it's not the original paper, and they all would have to be fake, wouldn't they?

A notary would settle this real quickly

If they won't take it to do so, then well, that's pretty suspect.

Your assuming if the

Your assuming if the signatures are fraudulent that the notary selected would not be.
--
11/11 Never Forget - Fetzer Flips
Zeitgeist Movie Torrent DVDRip (XviD)

The notary would not lie but you need to see it physically

Notaries get a few bucks per signature and have a lot invested in their profession.
They tend to be real sticklers and a fraudulent notary is almost an oxymoron.
However, you would still need to see the physical document.
That might be sent by Bruce to 911 Blogger.
So as is often the case, the notary only helps because it allows you to mail a copy instead of the original.

No, there are a lot of things notaries can't do.

Altho I suggested a notary give an opinion whether it's pen and ink or photocopy toner, they have very strict rules, and i only have a 50% degree of confidence they would do it.
It might also vary a little by state, or by the notary.

I don't think a notary would do that.

I don't think a notary can vouch for a signature unless they witness the signing.

Peace.
Matt
matt@9eleven.info

Who in real life...

..signs anything with "US diplomat who resigned"--even if they are and they did?

That's after Ann Wright signature.

Okay, that last pic, the two parter? Who's to say something simular wasn't done--with a different document on top, and an "extra" paper for overflow underneath--except it wasn't a blank paper--this "warning" was hidden underneath what they thought they were signing?

I find a couple of things curious:

1: As soon as we called "hoax" info wars pulls it, but doesn't retract it.

2:We've had the top one available for a week now--why are we just seeing these others? Okay, I'm about to go into really paranoid land--who's to say these "other" pages weren't just made up in the last week?

3:Why weren't these other names mentioned before? Why only a page with all the anti-war heavy hitters?

4: This is supposed to be signed by a group of opposition political leaders. Which makes sense for the first one. Has anyone else heard of the rest of these names as "opposition political leaders" on any sort?

God damn it--if I have to hunt down everyone else on these lists and email them, I will @#$$!!#@$!! .>:(

Sorry, my vote is still for fraud.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

And no one tried to sneak a peek?

'Okay, that last pic, the two parter? Who's to say something simular wasn't done--with a different document on top, and an "extra" paper for overflow underneath--except it wasn't a blank paper--this "warning" was hidden underneath what they thought they were signing?'

Then in that case, they should have moved the paper that was on top to reveal the sheet of paper that lay underneath, the one to which they were actually affixing their signatures, to make sure that it was the same document (or part of the same document) as the top sheet. Wouldn't the risk of someone sneaking a peek like this deter anyone contemplating such a hoax?

Wouldn't the risk of someone just saying...

"Oi! Fire didn't bring those buildings down--it's obviously a controlled demolition!" stop the perps from using an obvious controlled demolition?

Um, no.

The name of these games isn't just keeping yourself from being busted. It's also being ballsy enough to take outragous chances, for outragous rewards---and having enough overwealming power to control the fall out after wards.

And the "signature" "A US diplomate who resigned" is right up there with "Hi mom! It's Mark Bingham. You believe me, right?" No one signs their like that, except for laughs.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Excellent points by Hocuc Locus at TruthAction.org

http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=5647&sid=8ae261e95817f16e78...

"The person who sent out the text for purposes of disinfo is sincerely hoping that all discussion forthwith on the matter does not center on the (blatant) inclusion of Senator McKinney's name and what it implies at the outset -- rather let us babble on about other persons... yadda yadda. "

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Bruce Marshall

I said this before when he was running as a Green in Vermont: the guy is a LaRouchite. Do you know who Lyndon LaRouche is?

Do research, find out how his group attacked unionists and leftists in the 70s with baseball bats and chains. They started on the left, then went proto-fascist, then went pro-nuclear and were famous for hanging around airports politically attacking Jane Fonda and making all political activists look like nuts.

Q: What kind of person would simultaneously discredit the peace movement, the 9/11 truth movement, and the Green Party?

A: Bruce Marshall

BRUCE MARSHALL STARTED THIS DOCUMENT--HIS NAME IS FIRST.

DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH!

Reading me mind!

In hunting down the email addresses of the first list I had come across that. I was going to wait until later to hit him ..I mean "ask him" about it.

Oh well. ;-)

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

the LaRouche issue is not black or white...

there are differing points of view about LaRouche and I suggest considering the complexity before painting with a broad brush. I should mention though that Tarpley was associated with LaRouche a while ago. But again, what precisely might that mean if anything at all. I ain't got a clue.

It is too easy to avoid the hard work of analysis. I don't thing there are any easy answers here unless the document is examined. Seek, obtain and then use the data from empirical research. We are supposed to be scientists.

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

LaRouche eh? I've heard of

LaRouche eh?

I've heard of him, don't know much about him. Perusing his bio I was disturbed to learn that he has a "LaRouche Youth League". Huh? This also jumped out at me:

"LaRouche became interested in the possible uses of lasers and other directed energy weapons during the 1970s. When Ronald Reagan took office in 1981, LaRouche says that he sought to share his knowledge with the new administration, hoping that these weapons could be used against nuclear missiles. Later that year, Lyndon and Helga Zepp-LaRouche met with CIA Deputy Director Bobby Ray Inman. [52] [53]

Oh no, not space beams again! ;)

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

Tarpley was a member of the LaRouche inner circle

- a high ranking LaRouchian operative for nearly 20 years.

Tarpley was a frequent host on The LaRouche Connection cable television show and ran for Senate on the LaRouche platform.

Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism

Tarpley & LaRouche: there should be a reckoning

I knew Tarpley was involved with LaRouche and it is troubling, the most troubling thing about his past. I've met him and he seems like he no longer "speaks in LaRouchisms" (as did Bruce Marshall in his campaign as a Green--go back and see my questioning thread way back when he first posted on this site in the last election). I think Tarpley has done some interesting work, but in reading his "Synthetic Terror" book, I realized it was NOT up to academic standards of scholarship that I'm used to (as a university PhD candidate). Tarpley is not a reliable researcher IMO. Nevertheless, he has been a leader and spokesperson for the 9/11 truth movement and I have a neutral opinion about him as such. For the most part, he's had what I take to be a very positive role in practice. I found his recent analysis of the banking crisis insightful.

However, the LaRouche phenomenon cannot be easily forgotten or brushed aside. I'm old enough to remember the role they played in the 70s/80s. A suspicious lot.

At some point, there has to be a reckoning about that connection. LaRouche is still around and theories about whether or not he is an operative or simply insane have been an issue since the 70s. I always believed he was an operative and his minions worked to discredit activism in a manner that was infuriating. They were rude, wacky, and acted like they were paid to peddle nonsensical documents.

But you'd have to be a 50-year old+ activist to know what I'm talking about, to have experienced the LaRouche people on campuses and at airports; that is why I have such deep apprehension.

I encourage others to research LaRouche and question Webster about this matter. I would hope Tarpley would distance himself from LaRouche?! Otherwise, I would advise the 9/11 movement to look more deeply into LaRouche and ask tough questions. I haven't made a fuss about this before and since Tarpley doesn't talk about it, I was hoping he had 'passed through' the group in a naive way.

This matter comes to the fore only because of this bizarre incident spearheaded by Bruce Marshall, someone who, on this very web site, defended LaRouche's ideas in a conversation with me! I recognized key buzz words in his platform and queried him. It's public record.

Historical info on LaRouche & the weird group in Europe

http://www.justiceforjeremiah.com/content/case/greyzone_engl.html

weird world:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Lyndon_LaRouche

There's lots of info out there--no one can read this stuff about LaRouche and shrug it off--it's TOO WEIRD. This is NOT anyone that can be spun into an ambiguous figure who 'has a good side.' LaRouche is not an ordinary man! I don't want anything to do with him.

But neither does it escape me that Chip Berlet is one of his critics and was called upon to attack DRG on Democracy Now. Truly, we live in strange times!

Another email sent:

Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2007 01:06:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Jenny Sparks"
Subject: The Kennebunkport Warning-- hope this isn't too tiresome. ;-)

To: info@actindepentent.org, rickburnley@riseup.net, lauraokin@hotmail.com, Send an Instant Message davydupes@yahoo.com, PDITI@mac.com, auidavis@aol.com, cccppock@aol.com, Send an Instant Message docrod13@yahoo.com, rawlings@maine.edu, maizy46@aol.com, kris4143@comcast.net, patmech@comcast.net, maegenb@comcast.net, rightwingrachel@hotmail.com, Send an Instant Message kinicmurph@yahoo.com

Hello,

I'm Jenny an activist who is just trying to clear up a couple of things. If you don't mind, I need to ask you all several questions:

1:Do you consider yourselves "opposition leaders"? That is, being in opposition to the neo-con regime generally, and the Bush administration in particular?

2: Were you in Kennebunkport, Maine, Aug 25-25, 2007?

3: Did you sign anything while you were there?

4: Was what you signed this document:
http://911blogger.com/node/10997#comment-159035

5: If so, what "massive evidence" had been brought to your attention to make you believe a false flag attack was imminent?

6: if your answer to 4 was "no", then what type of document did you think you signed?

We 9/11 activists appreciate all the efforts of our counterparts in the Anti-war movement. As such, we take any attempts to poison our relationship with our allies very seriously. It is becoming a growing suspicion that activists such as ourselves are being manipulated through this "Kennebunkport Warning". Your help in clearing this up will be appreciated.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Jenny
_______________________________________________________________________________

NOTES: email addresses "info@actindepentent.org" and "cccppock@aol.com" failed to go through. Whether fake or hard to read, dunno. ;-)

EDIT: email addresses "auidavis@aol.com" and "kinicmurph@yahoo.com" have just failed. If anyone has a better guess at decoding these illegible emails, don't be shy...still can't tell if they're fake or just hard to read.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Got a one reply so far...

See it at TruthAction.org:

http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=5649#5649

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

kmicmurph@yahoo.com

This appears to be what she wrote...

Another reply--from Kris:

See it at TruthAction.org:
http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=5694#5694

Seens like everyone's scarpered for the weekened...

____________________________________
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

possible corrections

"info@actindependent.org"

"coppock@aol.com" (must be his last name)

also try;

"karenmurph@yahoo.com"

Cheers, chum! ;-)

I'm holding off on sending it out again until more replies come in, but these might help!

_____________________________________
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

I trust Webster

I personally know Webster, and he is an honest and honorable man. He produces an eyewitness to the signing who corroborates his story, and the images agree.
Do these people who signed and are now backing down have an agenda, or were they pressured into backing down? Who knows, only they know the answer, but I believe that they did know what they were signing and did indeed sign it. So, what do we do now? I say we go forward and get as many signatures as possible.
The proof is in the proverbial pudding.

Taking the truth about 911 to the streets. www.911truthsquads.org

Martial law?

The text of the warning seems a little odd. The idea that Bush is going to "impose a regime of martial law here in the United States" does not seem very likely to me. Now I'm sure we're all worried about some sort of event serving as the flashpoint for war with Iran, but martial law in the US? The document takes one idea that has a lot going for it (war with Iran due to manufactured terror or Gulf-of-Tonkin style provocation) and groups it with martial law in the US, which is not likely. I cannot but ask myself: if you wanted to discredit the idea of a staged incident with Iran leading to war, how would you do it? By grouping it with a farfetched idea, making it seem farfetched too?

I am wary of Tarpley. As has been pointed out on other threads on this topic, he has some ideas about futuristic weapons that do not serve us well.

I don't know what happened, but there's four people who say they signed something different. This is really weird.

Agree and Disagree

Agree that the wording of the document is very poor indeed, but Martial Law is not quite as farfetched as it might at first appear.

Interning US citizens would not be a novel practise, as Japanese Americans are all too aware. Neocon pundits are already calling for the internment of Muslim Americans. Contigency plans for Martial Law in the US have been around for a long time, presumably long before President Reagan signed Presidential Directorate 54, which "allowed FEMA to engage in a secret national "readiness exercise" under the code name of REX 84. The exercise was to test FEMA's readiness to assume military authority in the event of a "State of Domestic National Emergency" concurrent with the launching of a direct United States military operation in Central America."

Dave Lindorff sums up what has happened since:

"From the looks of things, the Bush/Cheney regime has been working assiduously to pave the way for a declaration of military rule, such that at this point it really lacks only the pretext to trigger a suspension of Constitutional government. They have done this with the active support of Democrats in Congress, though most of the heavy lifting was done by the last, Republican-led Congress.

The other thing we saw early on was the establishment of an underground government-within-a-government, though the activation, following 9-11, of the so-called "Continuity of Government" protocol, which saw heads of federal agencies moved secretly to an underground bunker where, working under the direction of Vice President Dick Cheney, the "government" functioned out of sight of Congress and the public for critical months.

Put this together with the wholly secret construction now under way--courtesy of a $385-million grant by the US Army Corps of Engineers to Halliburton subsidiary KBR Inc--of detention camps reportedly capable of confining as many as 400,000 people, and a recent report that the Pentagon has a document, dated June 1, 2007, classified Top Secret, which declares there to be a developing "insurgency" within the U.S, and which lays out a whole martial law counterinsurgency campaign against legal dissent, and you have all the ingredients for a military takeover of the United States.

As we go about our daily lives--our shopping, our escapist movie watching, and even our protesting and political organizing--we need to be aware that there is a real risk that it could all blow up, and that we could find ourselves facing armed, uniformed troops at our doors.

Bruce Fein isn't an alarmist. He says he doesn't see martial law coming tomorrow. But he is also realistic. He says, "This is all sitting around like a loaded gun waiting to go off. I think the risk of martial law is trivial right now, but the minute there is a terrorist attack, then it is real. And it stays with us after Bush and Cheney are gone, because terrorism stays with us forever

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/9014

It may be that the Martial Law scenario never pans out, but it is a very real possibility that should not be ignored, especially when viewed over the long term. The old adage that [insert scary animal here] is far more afraid of you than you are of it applies equally well to elites. They are terrified of their subjects, and spend long hours dreaming up plans for what to do with us when the "dam finally breaks". This may happen ten years from now, or it may happen tomorrow, or it may happen at a boiling frog's pace but sooner or later the system is going to break down, and elites are well aware of this. Take the Pentagon's report on global warming. Regardless of whether you think global warming is man-made, it is happening, and one of the MIC's head spooks (Andrew Marshall, also known as Yoda) commissioned a report on the likely consequences.

"A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.

The report was commissioned by influential Pentagon defence adviser Andrew Marshall, who has held considerable sway on US military thinking over the past three decades. He was the man behind a sweeping recent review aimed at transforming the American military under Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld."

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=5019

On the one hand I agree that we should not be chicken little alarmists, but the more you read about elite planning behind the scenes the more martial law doesn't seem quite so kooky. Christ, just look at the weapons they're manufacturing for "crowd control".

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

Thanks, Danse.

I saw this article posted at informationliberation as a comment (http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=23547) and thought is was interesting, especially the line: “They [The illuminati] know their rule is ending but they do not want it to end in an ugly way,”. Could there be any truth to it?

"
Secret government promises big changes

By Benjamin Fulford

The secret government of the US and EU has promised a major overhaul in the wake of the warning it got from the Chinese secret society, according to a senior Japanese public security police officer and Freemason who has been acting as an intermediary with the Chinese secret society. “Expect big changes this autumn,” he said in comments confirmed by a member of the Japanese royal family. “What you will be seeing is the unwinding of George Bush senior’s 50-year campaign to turn the U.S. into a fascist regime,” the secret police agent says. “George Bush senior is now a broken man showing signs of senile dementia,” he adds.

If the sources are to be believed, U.S. President George Bush’s government will resign, before his term expires, and will be replaced by an interim regime headed by Al Gore. This will start a 2-3 year transition period during which suppressed technology, such as free energy, will be released and a new system for running the planet will be implemented, according to these two sources. “They [The illuminati] know their rule is ending but they do not want it to end in an ugly way,” the security police source says.

The recent market turmoil, including the Chinese threat to sell dollars, was part of the bargaining towards major changes in the secret balance of power, we are told.

Certainly there are some encouraging signs. The tearful resignation of U.S. presidential “brain” Karl Rove removes a central lynchpin of Bush’s regime. Since it follows six other resignations; it does look like rats abandoning a sinking ship.

In Japan, meanwhile, the victory of the opposition Democratic Party in the recent upper house elections could lead to the end of the Iraq and Afghan wars. Japan Democratic Party leader Ichiro Ozawa has promised to block renewal of an “anti-terrorist” bill that allows Japan’s Self-Defense Forces to provide considerable logistical support to the U.S. sponsored wars in the region. Without that support, it is unlikely the U.S. will have enough money or military might to continue the wars.

Since this follows UK Prime Minister Brown’s vow to remove British troops with or without U.S. approval, it will mean the Bush regime has lost its last big war allies. Brown also publicly rebuked Bush during a recent visit by doing such things as pointedly refusing to take home a souvenir he was given.

There are also signs the Japanese election was manipulated behind the scenes to promote a Democratic Party victory in Japan. Just before the election, the Japanese mainstream media suddenly began reporting heavily about a pension scandal the JDP has been talking -unreported- about for at least 5 years. This was crucial for their victory. We may see a general election as early as this fall, followed by the birth of a JDP government and an end to the post-war Japanese regime. It could be a sign of diminished Rockefeller influence in Japan. However, it is not a sign of diminished illuminati control of Japan since Ozawa is himself a Freemason.

Despite the positive developments, the biggest worry is all the public hints about a new “terrorist attack” on the U.S. to be used as an excuse to trigger martial law. However, such an attack at this time “would fool nobody,” the sources said. Many U.S. citizens might be fooled but no other government in the world would believe it. “The secret government knows they cannot use their old tricks anymore,” the sources said.

The Chinese secret societies meanwhile, are watching carefully for any sign of new attempts to spread disease or otherwise carry out genocidal attacks. They only give one warning and have now initiated a news blackout. I am not in the loop about what they would do if a new breach was found but, they did say whatever action they took would be “unpredictable and worse than expected.”

At the same time, an anti-Rothschild alliance has been formed in Tokyo. They warn that the entire Bush regime was probably set up as a “bad cop” to scare people in the arms of the EU “good cop.” They say there may be other surprises, possibly including a fake UFO invasion that Henry Kissinger hinted at during the 1991 Bilderberg meeting. “We will have to look at least four or five steps ahead in order to keep on top of these people,” the alliance says.

So far, the EU only consists of governments that are controlled in secret by the Rothschilds etc. (Turkey is also a Rothschild fief). Their secret parliament, the Bilderbergers, have already shown they are racist by refusing to allow any Japanese to join. As a result, any effort to turn the EU into the base of a world government is doomed to fail.

The anti-Rothschild alliance, (with the discreet backing of the Chinese secret societies), will be contacting leaders of Russia, China, India, the Muslim countries, South America, Africa etc. to create a global alliance that will demand a new way of running the planet.

The UN Security Council will have to be replaced with a new grouping that more accurately represents the people of this planet. As it stands, 4 out of the 5 permanent Security Council members are representatives of Caucasian nations even though only 17% of the world’s people are Caucasian. This global apartheid will have to end.

The world’s financial system will also have to be replaced with a more transparent and equitable system that relies on more than simple human selfish greed as the main incentive for transactions.

Once this is done, a three-year campaign against the five curses of humanity: war, poverty, environmental destruction, ignorance and disease could be carried out. This could be a test case for replacing the Hegelian system of pitting opposite forces against each other in war with a system for people to compete towards agreed upon peaceful goals.

The industries and lobbies that have depended on war and turmoil will have to be given new goals and direction. One possibility would be a long-term campaign to terraform Mars.

People will have to be patient, however. These changes will happen over a period of years, not months. In the meantime, let us see if the autumn surprise appears as promised.
"

Let's ride this intrigue on out into the light of day and MSM

Though it might be maddening in its weirdness and the shockwaves of mistrust it may send out, I think if we continue to work through this while holding to the truth and where the evidence leads us rather than suppositions and attacks, we can potentially amplify the deeper message here that we all can agree upon: We have mass-killing criminals and liars in charge of things in the most powerful country in the world. They're capable of just about anything horrific, if they can get away with it and it serves theirs and their masters larger goals and we are the people who can and must do something about it. Though we dont want to be alarmists, the alarm sounded a long time ago (9-11 was like at least the 33rd go around on the illuminati snooze button) and we're just trying to wake everybody still slumbering while continuing to wipe the sleep out of our own eyes.

Now I think Cynthia McKinney, who sounds like she is ready to go, and Mike Gravel should get together and call a press conference: 1st of all announcing Gravel's signing on to the Kennebunkport Warning after he is quickly brought up to speed about the time constraints of our historical moment. McKinney saying she is running for President with Gravel saying he is dropping out of the jellyfish (sting you softly), war-criminal Democratic Party to be her vice-president. And most importantly, that they are filing treason papers against this administration for its giving aid and comfort to the enemy by enabling and enforcing the 9-11 cover-up. That should make some news, at least a hit piece on Fox News. It's time for big, dramatic moves. Remember, a dirty bomb will hurt alot of innocent children and a new gulf of tonkin could help trigger regional, if not global WWIII, thousands and thousands will die in Iran alone on our first strikes. And remember also, they were trotting out Bin Laden's "American Hiroshima" threats earlier this summer, which calls for multiple nukings of cities at the same time, enough to attemtp martial law. I dont think it would be successful, but it wouldn't be pretty. Don't underestimate them. This is way over Cheney's head.

It's time for serious, disciplined, creative and expansive actions. This intrigue, and the statement behind it, might provoke just what is necessary in our situation, as long as we dont let it trip us up. Let's, all of us, make something so powerful and beautiful happen before this fall is over, that agents, misinfo artists and the like are pulled into a tidal wave of transformation. Most anything we can imagine is possible...

“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

This was my take a couple of crazy nights ago.

This was my take a couple of crazy nights ago. It still holds i think:

"Intrigue Hits the 9-11 Truth Movement: We Have the Evidence, Now Where is the Love?!"

The Kenne'bunk(?)'port Warnings have touched a raw nerve it appears for all involved and not so involved. Clearly, things need to be cleared up. Apologies, if appropriate, should come freely and just an overall sense of making things right. Meanwhile, it is striking to me to have just gone trolling at dailykos and glimpsed comments to the effect, "yeah, Cheney's capable of that and some of the signatories are credible, but show me the evidence and a notarized copy of signatures if you want me to really bug out at my computer screen." I swear to God, I am in the twilight zone, we all are. "Yeah, I can believe that the man second in line to protect the American people is capable of taking out a city or three with mini-nukes, or at least with radiological devices of some sort. But not necessariy right now, or next week. Yeah, possibly to probably before the next elections."

And we don't yet have a Truthtown USA providing round the clock news from outside the gates of the White House?! Where are we, Siberia?! How many more books, DVD's, websites, warnings need to be produced before we act like things are as serious as they are? Oh don't worry, Bush and Cheney didn't fully architect 9-11, they mainly just let it happen and covered up mass murder and treason. No don't worry, they're only covering-up gross criminal negligence using it to propel us into Total War with the Middle East.
Wait, I need another few professors and TV stars to come out in order for me to really feel comfortable in making a serious shift from LIHOP to MIHOP. All my progressive friends'll think I'm crazy. They already make fun of me and bring tin foil to parties for me just because i don't toe the "Bush is an idiot" line.

But at least we firmly in the 9-11 Truth movement have our back-up plans if the ish does completely hit the industrial strength fan. I have my FEMA camp-pack ready to go- a bag of walnuts for the ride. Who knows, maybe there will be basketball courts and a dope spoken word artist out there on the yard like Saul Williams. Well yeah, he'd probably be there. though Not in my name. Who knows, maybe we're not giving Halliburton and Blackwater a fair shake. It could be lovely, almost as good as suburbia. maybe we'll even meet Ken Lay's double there and put all our minds to rest. I can't wait though. Where's Bugliosi when I need him?

Where are the Congresspeople? Paul, Kucinich, Bueller? Don't worry Dennis and Ron will help us figure it all out if we can just get them elected. Yeah, elections happening in '08 are betting even in Vegas, but some luck's better than no luck right? Where are the vast majority of intellectuals? Where are the celebrities? Where are the big name journalists who might like to make Woodward and Bernstein look like McDonald's employees of the month? Where even are Sy Hersch and Amy Goodman? Where is Noam Chomsky?has he finished his 28th book on American Imperialism yet? The 26th was another classic. Good he stayed out of the blackhole of 9-11 Truth with Cockburns, Monbat and Tai-BB. I'll bet the revolutionary platform for the neo-New Left is almost done. Where are Cornel West and Toni Morrison (oh yeah, maybe they are our Amerithrax culprits)? No, Cornel didn't fight with Summers until after the fall of '01 right? When is Mike Gravel going to strap a collastamy bag on and say the T(reason) word on live TV? When is Cynthia McKinney gonna announce her intention to be the 1st black and woman president all in one fierce package with a press conference laying it all out, including why certain security guards don't like black people? When are Kanye and Fiddy both gonna say "George Bush doesn't care about people. period., 9-11 Was an Inside Job, and now holla at your boy by buying more of my records than his!"? When is someone going to paint a big "Google WTC 7" on top of their porsche turbo and try to outrun the cops (safely of course) and get some serious tv-time going? Don't do it S, I was just joking, though I know if it came down to it, we could all count on you. When will we call radioshows across the political spectrum seriously and imitating the Decider for a week and see what happens? When will we have another Constitution Day (September 17) to get serious about mending and rejuvenating our own hanging-by-a-now-well-worn-thread, half-dead letter of one?

Maybe the 9-11 Truth Movement needed a little intrigue at suh a serious time. Naw, but for real, I'm sorry if good people got misrepresented. However, this can only add some fecund real talk at a time when the surreal-meter is hitting red. He said what? She said who? What's Tarpley gonna say about DEWs and dont's? Crowley's W's Grandpa did you say?! Benito Mussolini signed how through the Ouija Board? Christopher Hitchens and Mother Teresa sitting in a tree...

When will I stop being hippocritical? Soon I hope, if ever.
When am I going to go to sleep? Now. For now.

“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

The thing...

That I find interesting is that both Dahlia, and Cindy expressed their support for the truth in the correspondence I had with them. In the letter above, they state, "We wish the authors of the document well in continuing much needed investigations of all aspects of 9/11." They don't seem like the types of individuals that would want to sabotage or discredit the movement.


Donate To 9/11 First Responders

Fake until notarized

That's what I'm feeling is the logical course of action right now, and it would make it a better piece of evidence if done.

What an interesting inauguration

or should I say 'return' to open posting.

Get the evidence. Follow the evidence. Deal with it.

That is what the 'truth' movement is all about. It is no different in this instance. The ball is back in Bruce's court.

(I know everybody knows this but forgive me, I just woke up.)

Marshall Law is a possibility

People, who don't consider at least the possibility of Marhall Law, are simply ignorant of two ACTS from late last year: Military Commissions ACT of 2006 and John Warner Defense Authorization ACT of 2007. There is also the National Security Presidential Directive 51 signed by George W. Bush just three months ago.

The above developments stick out hugely in my mind! It's true, Marshall Law may never be realized, but to deny the possibility is just plain ignorant! Jerome Corsi and Ron Paul are two prominent names who take these ACTS seriously.

I welcome all input on the LaRouche factor. It appears, LaRouche is no more nutty than the Bush family, at this point! LaRouche may be an operative, but hardly anything about our government is at it appears? It still doesn't dismiss these ACTs and Cheney's and Chertoff's statements in the press this year! Does everyone realize that you may turn on your TV to find a blasphemous event has transpired and our President has declared Marshall Law? It's closer than you think!

...don't believe them!

One of the troubles with the

One of the troubles with the whole 'marshall law is coming' stuff is that my friends and i were saying the same thing back in the 80's when Reagan first set up FEMA do it. Another is that it is a last resort option. There is simply no need for it right now. The current system of gov't has been so corrupted that Bush can openly defy the law and Constitution w/o any penalty. As long as the MSM stays firmly in the pocket of the gov't (and it doesn't matter who is in power anymore, does anyone really think Hillary or Obama don't want the same powers that Bush has and wouldn't use them?) the population will be under control. All these waring seem to be a rather obvious attempt to make the Truth movement seem overly paranoid as well as to serve as distraction to those who might be paying attention. Get people on the Left and Right debating this and it's easier to keep rigging the game.

One last note, not only would the logistics of enforcing ML in a country this size with most of the troops overseas be almost undoable but said ML would have to include at least Canada as well or there would simply be a mass exodus. From what I've seen of Cnadian news (and I watch the National almost nightly) it seems rather unlikely our friends to the north would be so gulible as to belive ML is needed. Not that I doubt that Harper would welcome US troops with open arms.

Why would they not welcome

Why would they not welcome US Troops with open arms, they did it during the SPP Talks in Montebello just a couple weeks ago. US Troops performing police action (security) on Canadian Soil.

What we thought can happen and what IS happening is very different, it seems to change every day.

Today being Mexican trucks roaming US highways before getting inspected for security or safety. They have rewritten the rules in their favor in the guise of National Security or have written no laws at all.
--
11/11 Never Forget - Fetzer Flips
Zeitgeist Movie Torrent DVDRip (XviD)

Sorry, maybe I wasn't very

Sorry, maybe I wasn't very clear. I meant that I believe Harper would welcome US troops with open arms. As for the Mexican trucks, I don't see the connection. It's more of am economical warfare type thing- allow cheap uninspected trucks to drive down the prices US truckers can charge. Sure it'd make it easier to smuggle a WMD in but the reality is that any WMD used in a false flag attack is already in the US, no need to put in a Mexican truck.

connection....

could be to place blame on our open borders in the event of some kind of WMD being transported and set off...then permanently close off the borders. But then the whole NAFTA, NAU, SPP thingy wouldn't make sense. The mexican truck situation is huge and an ominous sign of something to come...not sure why I think this.

Any other comments out there on this one????

It would facillitate the

It would facillitate the creation of the North American Superstate. Pushing our boundaries to Canada and Mexico - the Super Highway would assist in any logistical needs to transport heavy materials in the middle of heavily guarded Air Space. Its a pretty brilliant move.

I don't think the Soviets are blind to this either - asserting sovereignty over the North Pole Arctic region recently. Pushing the boarder outward, and ressurecting the strategic bomber fleet, first time since 1992.

I think these madmen are silently gearing up for WWIII. But again I tend to think big.
--
11/11 Never Forget - Fetzer Flips
Zeitgeist Movie Torrent DVDRip (XviD)

Yup...

I tend to think big too...and I agree they are gearing up for WWIII, but I can't help but wonder after reading articles like the following, how technology like this will affect their war strategy.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/24718-investment-implications-of-china-s...

I don't think China is in

I don't think China is in their sights - they are too integrated into our economy as it is now - besides they technology can be used on Russian sats too ;)

Besides - Russia is the one with mucho oil and natural gas deposits.
--
11/11 Never Forget - Fetzer Flips
Zeitgeist Movie Torrent DVDRip (XviD)

No, not in their sites...

but we are in great competition with China for oil, although they approach the issue diplomatically with oil-bearing nations, we simply take over and steal it. China and Russia are very chummy with Iran, working on many creative projects for the purchase/transport of natural gas and oil. If we bomb Iran, as I think Cheney will do here shortly, will China (and Russia for that matter), come to Iran's rescue? If that is the case, we are doomed. Militarily combined, the two countries will nail our@sses to the wall. In addition, China simply dropping the dollar as global currency will send us into a tailspin.

True - I have no idea what

True - I have no idea what these guys really have in mind - but the days of global conflict in such an interconnected economic system spells disaster for everyone.

Thats why I believe these people are truly mad, they flaunt with a total and complete meltdown of the entire system - perhaps this is the goal - out of the ashes and all that?
--
11/11 Never Forget - Fetzer Flips
Zeitgeist Movie Torrent DVDRip (XviD)

Yes...

It's like Helter Skelter on a grand scale.

Um, it's "Martial" law, everyone...

...not Marshall Law.

I usually don't care about this sort of thing, but I JUST COULDN'T TAKE IT ANY MORE!!!

There is a "Marshall Law" superhero comic, and there was a Marshall Plan, but we're pretty much safe from "marshall law". ;-)

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

"There is simply no need for

"There is simply no need for it right now."

I agree. But the universe is in a state of constant flux. This seems like an obvious point but we sometimes forget that the world will look very, very different five years from now. Could you have predicted the current state of affairs on the eve of 9/10? Could you have predicted that Blackwater Mercs armed with assault rifles would be patrolling the streets of New Orleans prior to Hurricane Katrina?

Yes, RIGHT NOW there is no "need" for martial law (nor is there ever, imo), but following economic/environmental calamity, an epidemic or a nuclear false flag attack, to name a few examples, it would be foolhardly to imagine that martial law will not be on the table. Remember, "they" view us as a herd to be corralled, not as individuals to be set free. Some power is never enough. Challenge that power and they will react with brute force.

They're planning for it. So should we. They're manufacturing "Less-than-lethal" weapons designed to burn your skin from a safe distance and make you shit your pants and convulse like an epileptic. They're decorating their bunkers. A "siege" mentality in which we hunker terrified in our own little bunkers is obviously not the correct approach, but nor is old head-in-the sand trick.

If you want to get philosophical, I consider martial law -- or some variant thereof -- inevitable. Human beings were not designed to live like this, nor can the Earth go on supporting us in the manner we are currently living. Sooner or later the dam will break.

The only question in my mind is what do we do then? Do we abandoned the failed pyramidal power structure or continue on with mega-states and slavery for the next thousand years?

The Eleventh Day of Every Month

My two cents

For what it is worth, I was in Kbpt. I held and read the document and saw the signatures. That said, the only signature I remember seeing clearly was Sheehan’s ~ I was most interested in the content of the warning. So, when the denials and allegations by the signers surfaced, I was not sure what to think since I was not present when the document was signed. I never questioned the integrity of Bruce, Webster, or the signers but I needed to know what was really going on for myself in order to continue to support the document.

After doing my own research and communicating with many others including Craig Hill, my belief is that the ladies are back peddling out of fear. I do not know this beyond a shadow of a doubt, but it is what I have concluded.

We all know that “questioning 9/11” and talk of “false flag terrorism” is a huge hot potato. In January, DC 9/11 Truth was not allowed a speaker at the big march on the Mall. There was no mention by Kennebunkport speakers of the importance of exposing the 9/11 lies as the key to ending the war. At the March 24 Anti-War Rally in Boston, our 9/11 Truth signs were repeatedly torn down and put in the trash can. 9/11 remains the pink elephant at every event I attend and I continue to be shunned and ridiculed by people in my local “peace community”.

Sadly, the artificial divide between the Peace and Justice Community and 9/11 Truth community is what it is. Let’s ALL learn from this, move on, and not waste any more precious time pointing fingers in any direction regarding this document. We are fast approaching the 6th anniversary of 9/11/01. Let’s get off the computer. We have a lot of work to do.

I'm going to respectfully disagree...

..at least about the part about "moving on" before this is sorted.

Or, more precisely, sorting this isn't keeping us from doing other things at the same time. I find it intersteing Tarpley hasn't responded to my first email. Yeah, he's busy, but he should know this would happen and been prepared for it. Far as I'm concerned, that's his problem.

We can't let any git think they can just throw shite like this out and walk away. Not going to happen on my watch.

And the artificial divide between 9/11 and anti-war activists was made by people, and can be fixed by people. Maybe we should get working on that, eh? ;-)

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Your eye witness testimony holds weight

But I really think only a notarization of the document will bear the burden of proof, showing that they are indeed back peddling, which did cross my mind. It reminds me of the hacker who had the cia info recently then backed down on cnet news the very next day.

Belief

>>my belief is that the ladies are back peddling out of fear

Emphasis: MY BELIEF

Belief is very different from evidence

EVIDENCE OF CUT AND PASTE

Look at the largest photo, and specifically at the lower right part of the paragraph. The last 7 lines show a very straight vertical division between light and dark on the paper.

Is this "proof?" No. Let's see the original with the ink on it.

Antagonism The Key

Since the individuals to whom the signatures refer, have acted in good faith and been consistently transparent in their motives regarding the issues that face us, we have to give them the benefit of the doubt and accept what they say. They are a priori without fault.

However the antagonism evident from those who contradict the owners of the signatures is irrational and obfuscates the original important issues.

I posted a link to this at TruthAction ....

http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=5694#5694

But I think we need a copy here:

And here's another email, from Kris:
From: kris4143@xxxx
To: "Jenny Sparks"
Subject: Re: The truth is never tiresome. Wink
Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 16:36:29 +0000

Hi Jenny,

I got your email this morning, and find the whole matter unsettling.

Here is what I recall...

> 1: Do you consider yourselves "opposition leaders"? That is, being in

opposition to the neo-con regime generally, and the Bush administration
in
particular?

I am certainly in opposition to the Bush administration, but do not consider myself a "leader" in any way, shape or form. I'm just an ordinary schlub trying to do what I can while struggling to keep myself and my family's
collective head above water. I wish I had the freedom and/or resources to be a leader; but I don't. I did not sign the petition with the intention of signing on to the Kennebunk Warning, which I did not even fully read 'till we were at the rally.

See below for more on this.

> 2: Were you in Kennebunkport, Maine, Aug 25-25, 2007?

Yes. I camped at Camp Alex Friday night, attended the rally and march,
and left around 6 PM.

> 3: Did you sign anything while you were there?

Yes. That is my signature on the .jpg on the 911 blog site.

> 4: Was what you signed this document:
> http://911blogger.com/node/10997#comment-159035

Here's where it gets a little sticky. We got in to Camp Alex at 11:45, had to move our car to the Ice Rink parking lot, and then set up our tents in that deadly heat. I got very little sleep, and we got up early to help Ms. Dobson with breakfast and such. The point being, I was a little groggy (a lot groggy actually) but this is what I remember:

I recall signing which I thought was a call for impeachment, which I fully support. I DEFINITELY did NOT sign a paper with the Kennebunk Warning physically on it. My memory is of signing a piece of paper that simply had columns for signatures and email addresses, and perhaps a brief statement calling for impeachment at the
top. I find it interesting that the top of the sheet I signed is covered up in the .jpg that was provided by Mr. Marshall. If I thought my signature was associated with anything it was with the more general Philadelphia Platform. 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.

As to Mr. Marshall, while I find his passion and knowledge impressive, he seems (based on our talk while waiting for the bus) to be of a sort that is rather shrill and didactic, and not terribly interested in listening to other more nuanced opinions. I have, however, no evidence as of this moment that he has committed fraud of
any kind, but am submitting these slightly hazy recollections in the hope that the truth will emerge.

> 5: If so, what "massive evidence" had been brought to your attention
to make
you believe a false flag attack was imminent?

None. See above.

> 6: if your answer to 4 was "no", then what type of document did you
think you
signed?

See above.

Jenny, I appreciate your tone of genuine inquiry, and I hope that these
comments help in some way. I do not belong to the 911 Blog, and am on vacation
at the moment; you may feel free to post my reply on the blog and attribute it to me, if
it will help.

Please keep me posted,

Kris

NOTE: I reformated Kris' responses slightly to make them more readable. My post at TruthAction is the format has the email as it arrived.
_____________________________________
Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Circumstantial evidence

"B. I have no such evidence whatever."

Thsi reminds me of Media talking heads who say there is no evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.

The 9/11 Truth movement is continually citing circumstantial evidence, like stock oput options, war games, suspicious actions by bush, etc.

The same is true regarding a possible attack on Iran. The evidence is massive, but all cicumstantial.

Someone needs to contact those who signed the Kennebunkport Warning and explain this to them.

(this is not supposed to be

(this is not supposed to be here...just ignore it :)

::poke:: -- 11/11 Never