truthaction.org

[casseia]

Styve is an acolyte of aayers and I don't know WHAT they're up to, other than giving waaaay more credibility and exposure to Capt DisMay than he warrants.

[Col. Jenny Sparks]

[JoanJones]

Who is Lyndon LaRouche?

Thanks, Danse!

[Col. Jenny Sparks]

And here's another email, from Kris:

From: kris4143@xxxx
To: "Jenny Sparks" <col_jennysparks>
Subject: Re: The truth is never tiresome.
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
_________________
___________________________________________________
http://coljennysparks.blogspot.com/

[JoanJones]

Great wok, Jenny!

[Col. Jenny Sparks]

[JoanJones]

This bit doesn't directly involve the Hoax (or does it?) but perhaps might contribute some understanding to the larger picture:

Dave Slesinger, from 911courage.org, writes:

I have been removed from the 911truth.org grassroots contact list after having been an active truther since 2002, having given out over 55,000 deception dollars and having spoken on nonviolence at national 911 conferences in 2005, 06, and 07. The reason is that I'm seriously considering taking nonviolent sanctions against dc911truth.org, a group I co-founded, and against Webster Tarpley, a DC area resident. Before I take action, I will give the rest of the movement a chance to mediate.

I do this out of respect for the rest of the 9/11 truther movement, which could experience some problems as a result.

All I ask is a full discussion with Webster and the DC group (separately is acceptable) of the issues I have attempted to raise for over a year. I do not require that others agree with me. I only require FULL discussion.

To give perspective to this problem, wouldn't most truthers be ecstatic if those who refuse to examine the evidence of government involvement in 9/11 were to agree to a full civil discussion of the evidence? If truthers refuse to discuss nonviolence, an approach to social problems based in respect, why should defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT) be respectful enough toward 9/11 skeptics to discuss 9/11?

Webster Tarpley

Webster has repeatedly spoken in my presence against the example of Gandhi and King. He has stated in my presence that there is no such thing as moral force. (Even Lee Hamilton acknowledges the Jersey Girls had a lot of moral force.) He has stated that the oligarchs wanted Ellsberg to release the Pentagon Papers. (He doesn't go so far as to say that Ellsburg, one of the greatest moral figures alive in the US, was a pawn of the oligarchs). He has stated more than once that people who do civil disobedience have low self esteem. Since no one is perfect and most people can have higher self esteem, is using such a psychological put down a reasonable way to dismiss a legitimate political tactic? Using personal attacks has been the stock and trade of debunkers. Am I out of line for expecting truthers to act better than these misguided people who substitute venom for evidence and logic? Sadly, Webster uses personal attacks regularly.

The sanctions I am considering against Webster are to contact the mainstream media wherever he has been scheduled to speak so that the local reporters are more likely to ask him questions he has been unwilling to answer in the past.. For him to prevent this, he will need to discuss his background with Lyndon Larouche in depth and explain why he should not be held at least partially responsible for many of Larouche's misguided activities. Webster was Larouche's intelligence chief until the mid-nineties. In addition, He needs to show why we should not be concerned about his use of Larouche's demagogic tactics. Keeping in mind Webster's psychological tactics mentioned above against those who might potentially practice civil disobedience, Larouche used to counter political disagreement by accusing youths in his group of projecting their unresolved conflicts with their parents onto him. Everyone has unresolved conflicts with important people in their life. Is that a reason to avoid discussion of political issues on their merits? In addition, Webster has shown himself to be contemptuous of the democratic process repeatedly in my presence.

Lastly, he needs to discuss the relative value of facts versus concepts, and why at this stage of our 9/11 truth organizing that he emphasizes concepts. While the evidence versus theory issue might be categorized as more of a content issue than a process issue, Webster's penchant for theory over evidence is part and parcel to the demagogic style he learned from Larouche. An emphasis on theory without evidence implies the speaker is deserving of a sort of unquestioning faith it his veracity and ability.

On July 4 in Philadelphia after waiting at least five hours to speak for 3 minutes, and after the facilitator announced that I was to speak next, Webster ordered the facilitator to let him speak next (for hours). He had already spoken before that day. I had called THAT facilitator, Paul Deslauriers, the night before (he had left a message for me earlier that night referring to me as "buddy") and checked in with Paul minutes after I arrived at 1:10PM. My presentation was clearly the most daring of any proposal made that day. It called for setting up a website listing both the suspicious and laudable FBI activity regarding 9/11 and standing outside the Hoover Building in DC as FBI workers leave for the day holding a banner with the website's URL in order to weaken the will of FBI employees to support the cabal. It has so far proved to be too bold for the dozens of truthers in the room. (See accounts of similar past activity at 911courage.org.) Because Webster's lecture was so long, there were no breakout groups (as promised by Paul), and no one has even contacted us anonymously by mail, it is unlikely such effort will proceed.

More here: A Call For Mediation http://911courage.org/article.php/20070807183314258

He goes on to talk about being silenced at 911blogger for bringing this up there as well as Matt Sullivan's role in banishing non-violence from discussion in the DC group. Sullivan has recently shown up on blogger as an unquestioning defender of the Kennebunkport Warning.

[Hocus Locus]

For her persistence and on-task performance above and beyond in the front lines at 911blogger.com... I hereby virtually remit, to one 'Col. Jenny Sparks' via 1-800-FLOWERS -- a spare clip and a thousand extra rounds, in a hand-woven wicker basket perfect for those Sunday picnic sorties. And a nice frilly and hearty 'Thank You' card.

___
Even reading comics again. Secret History of the Authority -- nice.

[casseia]

Tarpley and Slesinger seem to have irreconcilable differences, and it would appear to me as a very peripheral observer that Tarpley has gotten the upper hand and has succeeded in shutting Slesinger out of DC 9/11 Truth. I'm not sure why Tarpley is so vehemently opposed to civil disobedience, but OTOH there is something disturbing about Slesinger's extreme zeal for it.

Actually, one thing I know is that Tarpley has been very concerned with Slesinger "syphoning off" Truthers, who presumably would be following a Tarpley-led (?) program otherwise. Discouraging transparency and autonomy and not allowing people to freely choose between the two is creepy, and does seem rather LaRouche-esque.

[imgstacke]

I see it as one who promotes ACTION (non-violent) verse another who promotes THEORY (without evidence).

The conclusion is clear to me, Web would rather keep people in a holding pattern while accumulating more power. As opposed to executing action. This is deplorable.
--
And Jenny - You are the bestest!

[Arabesque]

[JoanJones]

Craig Hill's truckload of abuse is culled from the email he sent Jenny.

His blistering ode to Judy Wood is from an email sent to Tim.

[JoanJones]

[JoanJones]

[Arabesque]

http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/08/kennebunkport-warning-hoax-controversy.html

I've updated with more information and the 5th report of a hoax.

Radio Interviews.

Morgan Stack on Kevin Barrett & Webster Tarpley Radio Shows.
http://www.911truth.ie/

You said he supports space beams?

Captain May on the Dynamic Duo with Jim Fetzer. Part 1 of 8. (Discusses the Warning)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Du0pIMFzXk4&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2E911truth%2Eie%2F
_________________
Arabesque: 911 Truth
2008 Declaration: Standards and Strategies for 9/11 Truth
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog