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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

thanks for the explanation

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

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

Thanks for lying though.

That explains why I couldn't find it again.

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

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

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

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

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

This is important.

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

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

Thanks for this Kevin.

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

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

Secondly don't you think any association between 9/11 Truth and Lyndon H Larouche is something we absolutely do not need? I mention that because it appears Webster Tarpley, Craig Hill and Bruce Marshall (some of the main pushers of the "Bunkport" warming) all have some form of a relationship with Lyndon H Larouche;
http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=5868#5868

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

Please answer this.

"Kevin Barrett, the founder of MUJCA and a member of Scholars, reports he is troubled by these new studies. “I guess I’ll have to take this possibility more seriously now,” Barrett said. “In the past, I have assumed video fakery was far-fetched and that anyone who endorsed it was probably a crackpot! Now I’m not so sure.”
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_james_fe_070726_mounting_evidien...

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

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

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

See Victronix's Good 9/11 Activist Guidelines:

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

http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2216

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

In response To Kevin Barrett

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

Flashback:
Sheehan: Distinct Chance Of Staged Attack, Martial Law
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2007/120707distinctchance.htm

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

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

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

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

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

I see a lot of people apologizing for Webster Tarpley's actions, but I have yet to see an apology anywhere from him or the others heaping copious amounts of abuse:
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/09/webster-tarpley-arabesque-cosmo...

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

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

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