 |
truthaction.org
9/11 TRUTH NOW
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
JoanJones
Joined: 28 Aug 2007
Posts: 70
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 2:49 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Further confirmation from Cindy Sheehan that she did not sign "The Kennebunkport Warning". Webster Tarpley is now accusing Cindy Sheehan, Dahlia Wasfi and Jamilla El-Shafei of lying and referring to them as "wretched individuals", while urging everyone to keep spreading the document far and wide.
Jon Gold reports on his correspondence with Sheehan and Tarpley:
Hi Cindy... A Question...
Did you sign this? According to DAHLIA WASFI, she did not sign it, but signed something else, and her name was added to this list.
Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Jon Gold
Her response...
the same thing happened to me as happened to dahlia
I just got this from Webster:
Dear Friends -
Please get organizations from the peace, impeachment, anti-globalization, 9/11 truth, and other movements, as well as high-profile personalities, celbrities, etc., to endorse, support, distribute, and publicize the Kennebunkport Warning. 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 to build support for this mobilization alert as we enter a very dangerous weekend. Please make a special effort to gather support.
Webster Tarpley
Cindy Sheehan doesn't strike me as someone who would cower from "threats of totalitarian forces" nor do I think of her as a "wretched individual."
http://www.911blogger.com/node/10947#comment-158784 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
JoanJones
Joined: 28 Aug 2007
Posts: 70
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 3:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here's on that speaks for itself:
Scholars stands with you. You may make Scholars for 9/11 Truth a signatory to your Kennebunkport Warning. [...] Keep up the great work! You are a clear, strong voice for truth!
Jim Fetzer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hocus Locus
Joined: 23 Aug 2007
Posts: 106
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 8:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thoughts on http://www.911blogger.com/node/10947
| Quote: | There has been some controversy about the Kennebunkport Warning. Bruce Marshall of http://www.actindependent.org has the original signed document, and sent in a scan of the document.
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. |
Hearsay and heresy and hesay and shesay, hisorher email blog say.
Doesn't anyone pick up a damned telephone anymore?!?
| Tarpley quoted by Jon Gold at 911blogger.com wrote: | Please get organizations from the peace, impeachment, anti-globalization, 9/11 truth, and other movements, as well as high-profile personalities, celbrities, etc., to endorse, support, distribute, and publicize the Kennebunkport Warning. 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 to build support for this mobilization alert as we enter a very dangerous weekend. Please make a special effort to gather support.
Webster Tarpley |
Did Tarpley really write this? If he did -- it is written like an insensitive, deliberately irresponsible tinfoil disinfo thug who is undergoing timed demolition charges, self-immolation of credibility.
If he didn't write it the trail leads through Jon Gold, duped or souped. I'm kind of interested to know if Tarpley would fess up to this particular snippet... because his response would reveal true character (regardless) and or, the true nature of the gambit being played.
Or he won't be asked to fess up about this or anything else because no one will bother, the noise will rise in tummult until the whole world is screaming about nothing, and who cares.
At the core of all this is a 'facsimilie' that is being presented as an original document, where a nasty looking greyscale JPEG file some 200 dots per inch is being passed off (and apparently accepted as?) some sort of 'clarifier'. Of anything at all.
Sorry, credibility for purported wet-ink signatures begins as 1200DPI, no-loss scan, RGB color. Nothing else is nearly as difficult to forge.
This goes for fingerprints as well. Remember the Alamo.
Oh look! There's "KENNEBUNKPORT WARNING "hoax" claim debunked" message on Yahoo! Where someone says "I have checked with Dr. Kevin Barrett and have it from him and Webster Tarpley that the warning is genuine." Must be true then. Gosh. Let's post that as if it was a news link.
OKAY. Playing devil's advocate -- so what do you do if two signatories sign on to such a thing as a Declaration of Independence, which this tactic was modelled after, and publicly refute it?
Would you percieve that such would betray public confidence in the document, give a measured and credible human response acknowledging the possibility of coercion in a respectful manner... and call an emergency Convention to produce a document that will stand up to the test...?
OR would you plow on through with a blatant and brutal turncoat attack on the detractors, who moments before had been compatriots, accusing them of spinless capitulation? Pushing the document in a 'hard' sell, like the glass is really half full, like an 'adverse reactions leaflet' included with a pharmacutical product that unfolds in fine print down to your ankles... where it gets down to "Don't believe them, they don't matter anyway... just believe us, we're the ones who matter."
If many gather to sign something like this, and even one refutes it, the whole thing is null and void, period. Calm and collected end of story. Why should there even be an emotional and 'scandalous' second page? They cannot be bothered to assemble a credible document?
Doesn't make sense unless people are less like people than I was, when I was a kid.
This is an 'IQ 83' test. I am poised so delicately on that bar... and so many are passing beneath...
___
New year's resolution: to become a useful idiot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
imgstacke
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Posts: 407
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 9:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
2 of the people listed on that document have directly stated they did not endorse that statement , but DID sign a statement for the Impeachment of Cheney, a third person says the same thing through one of the two people previously stated.
So they were present, did sign a paper, but not this document. It appears to be an open a shut case here, someone took the original statement of impeachment and digitally superimposed the 3 individuals signatures on the new document which contains Tarpley's warning.
Craig Hill states he did sign the document, which makes the situation a bit more complicated.
Tarpley acknowledges that there is a controversy and offers an escape hatch to avoid the implication that he is a party to this fraud, that the 3 individuals are being intimidated by the PTB and are lying in order to discredit the Warning Document and urges everyone to ignore the "wretched individuals" and keep promoting the document.
Sloppy Sloppy... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JoanJones
Joined: 28 Aug 2007
Posts: 70
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 11:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Webster Tarpley will be on Kevin Barrett's show tonight to promote the Kennebunkport Warning.
10pm eastern time http://www.wtprn.com/listen.shtml
Have any questions for these guys?
Call in: 888-202-1984
Tarpley and Barrett will also be speaking alongside Jim Fetzer and Alfred "extraterrestrial expert" Webre next week in New York City. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JoanJones
Joined: 28 Aug 2007
Posts: 70
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2007 12:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Tonight's guest on Webster Tarpley's show? Jim Fetzer! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
imgstacke
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Posts: 407
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2007 3:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dear Zlatko--
Thanks for writing. I signed a statement to endorse the impeachment of Dick Cheney, which is where they got my signature, but I did not sign what is being distributed as the Kennebunkport Warning. Please see my full statement at the homepage of www.liberatethis.com.
Many thanks,
Dahlia
So the scan is faked (photoshopped)?
Thanks for clearing that up, and furthermore, thanks for a quick reply, I’m sure you are swamped with dumb inquiries like mine.
Regards,
Zlatko Grozl
Dear Zlatko--
It was faked, because neither I nor Cindy Sheehan nor Jamilla El-Shafei signed to those words. (I'm not in contact with the others who signed, though at least one is the originator of the false message.)
Not a dumb inquiry....I appreciate your efforts to seek the truth in any context.
Best wishes,
Dahlia
source : http://www.truthring.org/?p=4852 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
imgstacke
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Posts: 407
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2007 7:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Worst Case Scenario
Ok, I have to preface this by stating I hope with all my heart that I am completely and totally wrong about my assessment of the events of this summer up to date. I am often wrong, and I hope this is one of these cases. This is an exercise in pure speculation based on fragments of information that read over this past summer.
First - I have always had my doubts about Alex Jones's *Warning* before 9/11. He makes a very accurate prediction before 9/11, the off the cuff matter in which he blurts out intimate details of the unprecedented attack has always made me wonder - How Did He Know. He didn't mention any specifics as to his sources he just saw it coming, but with such precision is still unsettling. After 9/11 Alex earn a premiere spot, he was alone in front of any one else for he was the one who predicted the attack. No one else could claim this thus he would always be seen as the defacto leader of any movement which was inevitable to spring up in the wake of such an attack.
Fast Forward to Chertoff's Gut Feeling. He proclaimed that an attack was looming, this summer. Chertoff got a lot of flack for this out of character remark, but he said it nonetheless. He soon recanted and then the flurry of warnings from all corners of the GOP. And finally the dated Osama video that turned up. With the flurry of Terror legislation and Executive Orders it seemed that everything was in place. If something were to happen it would surely invoke all the carefully laid legislation that has been put in to place before and since 9/11.
Now to an outsider of the 9/11 Truth Movement there would be no insight into the inner workings of an extremely complex and active infiltration operation at all levels of the 9/11 Truth Movement. It would seem all these organization have someone in place somewhere. From this vantage point suspicion of people in certain choke points in the movement would indicate that this infiltration is very well planned and carefully orchestrated. The movement has grown in awareness but has not grown to the critical mass state it always seems like everyone is waiting for Alex Jones, or someone to lead the march, but that has not happened.
So here we are at the very end of the summer, and this KENNEBUNKTPORT WARNING comes out - with great pains to make sure it is circulated far and wide via various viral methods , never peaking above the MSM radar, but very well known in the 9/11 Movement. After the information comes out that one of the signers of the document states she did not sign the warning, it causes a controversy, and a similar backwash of information spreads along the same channels that the warning was came out. Talks of hoax and talks of fraud.
This is on the heels of the PDX warnings, fear of a nuke of Portland, that spammed the indymedia site for quite a while during the exercise. Many smelled something funny about the volume of the warning coming out of this, Noble Resolve didn't seem to be an operation which could be flipped live, like on 9/11. So after the 24th everyone had developed a tolerance to these warnings right before the KENNABUNKTPORT WARNING.
So as all the lines seem to be converging and with the speculation that Alex Jones' WARNING was not a warning after all but a plant to insure his position in the front of the movement, I see this WARNING from Tarpley with similar intent. To proceed what the disinformation artists like to call 9112b. This along with other suspect leaders in the movement actions of late, like Barretts promotion of "Inside Job?" Banner rolls. All the while Fezter is no more than a step away.
This weekend the first trucks from Mexico will cross the boarder - they will not be subject to inspection until way inside the US, this labor day - the end of the summer. If there were to detonate a nuke of significant yield it could not possibly be small and easy to conceal, it would have to be assumed to be a crude nuclear device, something that some terrorist organization could manufacture. Something to track back out of the country - possibly via China from N. Korea.
Now this would certainly bring up calls that this was an inside job, of course, we have been watching carefully. But who would thus fill the void of Alex's place? After all Alex must of lost his stuff for his warning last year was a dud, promoted on Fox News of all places. Tarpley, Fetzer, Barrett.
With these men in front spewing out ludicrous theories and other such nonsense no one would hear our screams that this WAS AN INSIDE JOB.
I hope I am wrong, and If I am fine, I will spend all of my credibility with this one post. I don't care.
If there is a 9112B to come about, and we can do nothing to stop it, if I can insert some doubt about the legitimacy of these Disinformation Artists from moving into Fox News limelight, then it is all worth just one post.
Union: Mexican Trucks Begin Crossing Border Saturday
http://www.nbcsandiego.com/politics/14003768/detail.html?rss=dgo&psp=news |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hocus Locus
Joined: 23 Aug 2007
Posts: 106
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2007 8:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| imgstacke wrote: | Worst Case Scenario
Ok, I have to preface this by stating I hope with all my heart that I am completely and totally wrong about my assessment of the events of this summer up to date. I am often wrong, and I hope this is one of these cases. This is an exercise in pure speculation based on fragments of information that read over this past summer.
[...] With these men in front spewing out ludicrous theories and other such nonsense no one would hear our screams that this WAS AN INSIDE JOB.
I hope I am wrong, and If I am fine, I will spend all of my credibility with this one post. I don't care.
If there is a 9112B to come about, and we can do nothing to stop it, if I can insert some doubt about the legitimacy of these Disinformation Artists from moving into Fox News limelight, then it is all worth just one post. |
Very well spoken imgstacke, I recognize and sympathize with your discomfort too. They go on about hindsight being 20/20 but when we were kids... who ever told us how painful it would be?? And with inclusion of Dr. Judy wood, the ludicrous becomes unisex. What a species! ;-)
You may be interested to read a theory on Scholars in these two posts
Theory: Scholars' purpose is demotion of conventional demolition techniques
Clearly 'demotive' remarks by Fetzer non-sequitirs from just one imterview
((( please note that my assertions regarding the use of 'cutting charges', at least as applies to the Towers' core columns, are now dated. I am beginning to see that the implausibility of a plane or fire-caused, along with the preponderance of GZ evidence that core columns were broken along ~38 foot original weld planes, the relative scarcity of diagonal cuts visible in wreckage... and most especially, the eerie appearance and nature of similar core spires the apparently-dissimilar structural mechanics of the planes' impact points (whew!)... confidence is high in Evidence Based Research -- their observations and demonstrable method.
And I respectfully urge the 'real' Scholars to actively consider this weld-plane attack theory, and examine the spires and available photos of GZ in the context of this theory. Or say why not. )))
The full transcript of Fintan-Fetzer interviews (thanks to myself and indigitydogdignation)
07-Mar-2007: Interview #3: Fintan Dunne on Jim Fetzer and the Dynamic Duo and part 2
14-Mar-2007: Interview #3: Fintan Dunne on Jim Fetzer and the Dynamic Duo
15-Mar-2007 Interview #3: Fintan Dunne on Jim Fetzer and the Dynamic Duo
make fascinating reading.
| Dahlia S. Wasfi, M.D. at liberatethis.com wrote: | | I signed a statement in Kennebunkport to endorse the impeachment of Dick Cheney, but my signature has been used on this "Warning" without my consent. While I was humbled to have my signature misappropriated with such prominent voices as Cindy Sheehan, Cynthia McKinney, and Jamilla El-Shafei, none of us signed that document. |
She's certainly taking it calmly. If someone misappropriated my signature to pull a stunt like that I'd... um, off topic. ;-)
But was it in fact that particular signature that was misappropriated? That it was, is an assumption on her part. Which may not be the case. Who had possession of the "impeach cheney" petitions...? It seems finding a credible copy of that document could answer the question. If it does not match stroke for stroke, and it turns out they were collected from other sources (as McKinney's surely was) (EDIT: wasn't, my silly bad. But hmm...) it would take heat off some the (no doubt) good folk who volunteered on that day.
A suggestion: in a purely unoffocial capacity -- treat the issuance of the Warning, the misappropriation of signature as a crime: identy theft. In which we should mirror our own domestic criminal investigation modus and judicial process.
...
The KW document seems to be a deliberate attempt to marginalize 'Impeach Cheney' sentiment, and deliver to press and general buzz a scandal -- instead of a unified discussion along intended messages: false flag heads-up warning, impeach Cheney, investigate 9/11. This forgery is not the product of good intentions, and the document's promotion from the moment its veracity was first questioned is a clear friend-or-foe indicator.
I personally believe there are indeed firm intentions to go into Iran.
Like it or not, we're the stormcrows.
I also believe a series of stormcrow 'false alarms' has been deliberately fed, for years now. The same theme -- "Gulf of Tonkin!" "It's imminent!" "It's credible!" is The motive has been to corner activists into the position of harbringer for a series of Events which, turns out, do not happen. What is accomplished by this is to erode general credibility in a group over time; and increase the liklihood that -- regardless of its accuracy -- the group's actual influence is low when the time actually arrives.
And every time nothing happens, the troops do not move in, ground is lost.
Consider a natural human reaction to the 'Cassandra-chicken-little'. When it happens... idealists may imagine a dream world where those closest to them turn and admit "You were right!". But if the Event is a bad one, resentment is as likely: in this case the emotion might actually turn about -- something along the lines of, "If you hadn't been barking in my ear at six month intervals about this for the last two years... I might have spotted the actual warning signs myself." An intersection in the psyche where stress reaction from the unpleasant event is (conveniently) channeled as resentment.
I believe an Iran invasion is imminent, most likely a false-flag operation (as in NOT of Iran's direct action) is needed to bring it about -- but I am no Tarpley -- I do not choose to go on that the 'so-called Bush Adnministration' or even a entity or faction of the United States Government is the only 'one' that would feel compelled to conduct such an operation. Just what makes Tarply so damned sure who would be behind it? When there are so many other players out there who stand to 'benefit' from destabilization of Iran and the United States, both.
In the course of history -- distrust in one's own Government puts one's country into a position of weakness. Even if the worst suspicions should prove correct. For a Patriot to be successful in restoring justice and balance, and preserve one's own country when faces with a face-hidden foe or a complex destabilization Plan...
...
Even as an exercise, always try to think outside the box. Try a bigger box, layered scenarios. I'm interested to hear comment on my 'MIHOP+LIHOP scenario on 9/11' not as some take it or leave it sort of thing, as evidence based research, an exercise in hypothesis-fitting.
I feel that regardless of the merit or ultimate accuracy of the scenario, only good may result from weighing it. Which sabots 'fit' and which do not.
Because if it does turn out that there was evil complicity by a faction of the United States Government, who were 'sold' a traditional 'Pearl Harbor' 9/11 as a Pentagon-only event -- and were betrayed on 9/11, unexpectedly when the Event was seen to encompass a level of infamy they they would not have considered... well, then---
It would mean that since 11-Sep-2001 our leaders have been operating under a shadow of blackmail. Not just covering their complicity for the crime they thought was to be committed. Without liberty freedom to choose the course. Under credible mortal threat even! What we would have is a puppet regime -- souls bought and paid for many times over. In this scenario, which I beg consideration, there are two major adversaries to oppose.
Puppets and their masters.
Look at the principals of the Bush Administration. Empirically speaking: do they really look like they're having fun?
Always a worthy people-watching exercise in my book.
Thanks for listening.
___
Budget some time to think around and outside the box people, as a measured and rational exercise, always.
Last edited by Hocus Locus on Sat Sep 01, 2007 9:41 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arabesque
Joined: 08 Jul 2007
Posts: 1437
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2007 8:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Is the The Signed Kennebunkport Warning A Hoax? Here is what we know:
John Leonard denies hoax and says:
"As far as Dahlia Wasfi is concerned, I was a guest on Webster's radio show last night so I heard Bruce Marshall and Janice Weir say they saw her sign the statement."
http://www.911blogger.com/node/10925#comment-158932
It's fishy:
Dahlia S. Wasfi, MD: http://www.liberatethis.com/
"I signed a statement in Kennebunkport to endorse the impeachment of Dick Cheney, but my signature has been used on this "Warning" without my consent. While I was humbled to have my signature misappropriated with such prominent voices as Cindy Sheehan, Cynthia McKinney, and Jamilla El-Shafei, none of us signed that document."
Also: "I don't know about the validity of this "warning," but the people who put this list together were dishonest about signatories. They took our signatures for something else and put it on this. Very weird." http://www.911blogger.com/node/10925#comment-158583
Cindy Sheehan via MySpace: http://www.911blogger.com/node/10947#comment-158689
Further confirmation:
"the same thing happened to me as happened to dahlia" http://www.911blogger.com/node/10947#comment-158784
No, it's legitimate:
Kevin Barrett (according to Captain May see below)
Captain May http://ca.groups.yahoo.com/group/Portland-Nuclear-Inquest/message/543
Webster Tarpley http://www.911blogger.com/node/10925
Craig Hill
"I just spoke with Craig Hill, treasurer of the Green Party of Vermont who verified that he is indeed a signatory of this document and indicated to me that the document is very real." http://www.911blogger.com/node/10925#comment-158645
Who made the Kennebunkport Warning?
Webster Tarpley http://www.911blogger.com/node/10925
The attached document file has at the end comments by Webster Tarpley
Wretched Individuals? Liars?? Tarpley Says about the controversy: http://www.911blogger.com/node/10947#comment-158784
"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]"
Tarpley then interviews Jim Fetzer: http://www.911blogger.com/node/10947#comment-158797
"Scholars stands with you. You may make Scholars for 9/11 Truth a signatory to your Kennebunkport Warning. [...] Keep up the great work! You are a clear, strong voice for truth! Jim (Fetzer)
_________________
Arabesque: 911 Truth
2008 Declaration: Standards and Strategies for 9/11 Truth
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JoanJones
Joined: 28 Aug 2007
Posts: 70
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2007 10:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Craig Hill, in response to questions about the Kennebunkport Warning:
I cannot understand the supposed shadiness of this rather innocuous statement. I say much worse every morning in the shower, and again once fully awakened on the telephone. I most certainly signed it, and would sign a much sterner version of its conclusions:
The traitors who killed Americans on 9/11 did so not only to promote endless war and destruction of our constitutional liberties, but to fulfill Adolf's dream of corporations uber alles (Hitler attacked Poland on 9/1; Daddy Bush's team accomplished what Hitler could not, an attack on America on 9/11).
It's all right there in PNAC, released in September 2000: The catastrophic catalyzing event, the overthrow of Saddam and reorganization of Iraq, the control of what was then $7 trillion of energy resources in the region, which means control of Iranian oil as well, the encirclement of Russia and China, and the reestablishment of SAC as the newest branch of our bloated military, Space Command, with 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: A demonstration showing the world's leaders what will happen to their cities unless they accede to the domination of Neocon Amerika.
Cindy signed the Kennebunkport Warning. Her signature is clear and crisp. I know the man who circulated it. He does not invent. She scanned it and signed on. I would like to know why the language in the document is seemingly "shady". She certainly didn't think so when she signed it. I feel this is something Cindy may have been advised to think long after the fact, or say she thought. What other agenda might her gatekeepers be promoting? Read it for yourself. Nothing shady was done to obtain her signature. "Please read this and, if you can, sign it." Her oblique criticism is what is unfortunately murky, i believe to her detriment, and hope she will reread what she signed and see it as the call that must be made at this time to arrest the slide toward another much worse and bigger war.
The onus is on her not to remove herself from these sentiments but to elaborate on them, repeatedly, to use her station and her race against Pelosi to stop the next bigger round of mass murder before it begins, not once it begins. That is the only agenda of the KW, though not the agenda of the single war party that controls its justifiably unpopular governance.
~ Craig Hill / Signator, Kennebunkport Warning
Last edited by JoanJones on Fri Aug 31, 2007 10:52 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JoanJones
Joined: 28 Aug 2007
Posts: 70
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2007 10:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks to WoZ:
From: The Real Cindy Sheehan
Date: Aug 29, 2007 8:03 PM
dear woz
i am not saying that infowars is not a good site
a lot of times it is...
whoever had me sign something the other day in
kennebunkport misrepresented it to me and my assistant.
i would never have signed that "warning" the way it was written.
thanks
cindy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Col. Jenny Sparks
Joined: 15 Aug 2007
Posts: 2329
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2007 11:52 pm Post subject: Just sent this off to the "signees" |
|
|
Just sent this off to the "signees"...after 3 damn hours on-line hunting for their email addresses--if I ever find the twat who did this they will be sorry... 
Subject: Another Tiresome inquiry about the "Kennebunkport Warning"--thank you all in advance!
To: "Cynthia McKinney" <cynthia2006>, "Cindy Sheehan" <contact>, "Craig Hill" <craigbhill>, "Bruce Marshal" <brmas>, Send an Instant Message jamillaelshafei@xxxx, tarpley@xxx, "Ann Wright" <surgeprotection>, "Dahlia Wasfi" <info>, "George Martin" <george>, Send an Instant Message "John Kaminsky" <jkmaine>
CC: reprehensor.911blogger@xxxx, truthaction@xxxx
Hello all!
I'm a 9/11 internet activist who goes by the handle
"Jenny Sparks". I post at 911Blogger among other
places and I'm a bit of a loud mouth. 
Thank you all for your activism and efforts,
particularly, Ms. Sheehan, and the Honorable Cynthia
McKinney.
Now I'm about to ask another tiresome question about
the "Kennebunkport Warning". Apologies in advance if
you are sick to the teeth about this issue. Here's a
link to a version of the suspected fraudulent
document:
http://ca.groups.yahoo.com/group/Portland-Nuclear-Inquest/message/494
http://911blogger.com/node/10947
My question is: did any of you sign this document?
It seems too many people are spreading it around like
wildfire and this has the potential to split the
Anti-War activists communities and the 9/11 Activist
communities--possibly pitting them against each other.
Now we all know who would benefit from that...
So I'm making this foray to ask the "horse's mouths",
so to speak. Thank you in advance. Hopefully we will
all have more clairity about this issue soon.
Keep up the good work.
Cheers,
Jenny
PS: After three hours on-line hunting down all your
email addresses, I know I may have gotten some wrong,
or some may be old or unused. If you could all please
help this get to everyone who supposedly signed this
"Warning" so they can confirm or deny this, many
activists of all stripes will be grateful.
_________________
___________________________________________________
http://coljennysparks.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Col. Jenny Sparks
Joined: 15 Aug 2007
Posts: 2329
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 12:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| imgstacke wrote: | Worst Case Scenario
So as all the lines seem to be converging and with the speculation that Alex Jones' WARNING was not a warning after all but a plant to insure his position in the front of the movement, I see this WARNING from Tarpley with similar intent. To proceed what the disinformation artists like to call 9112b. This along with other suspect leaders in the movement actions of late, like Barretts promotion of "Inside Job?" Banner rolls. All the while Fezter is no more than a step away.
|
I had similar thoughts, re: propping up the credibility of a "plant". Especially with Captain "Mayday" et al, passing out the KoolAid and calling us debunkers, and "rats" and what have you. This is turning out to be a surreal experience...
Speaking of debunkers, should the Screw Loose Change crew be all over this? At 911Blogger, Brainster is strangely absent from the "Kennebunkport" threads. Just another bit of oddness to file away--I'd check SLC but they take forever to load these days.
_________________
___________________________________________________
http://coljennysparks.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JoanJones
Joined: 28 Aug 2007
Posts: 70
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 12:20 am Post subject: Re: Just sent this off to the "signees" |
|
|
| Col. Jenny Sparks wrote: | | if I ever find the twat who did this they will be sorry... |
Webster Tarpley, Bruce Marshall and Craig Hill.
With backup from Jim Fetzer, Kevin Barrett, et al |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
