The Kennebunkport Warning Hoax

Editors Note: Whatever the case with regard to the signatures of Dahlia Wasfi, Jamilla El-Shafei, Cindy Sheehan, and Ann Wright, it has been alleged, by these 4 signers, that they signed something else and not the so called “Kennebunkport Warning”. It doesn’t matter why they are making these claims and it’s not for anyone to make the determination that they are “liars” and “wretched individuals”. My question is this: If these 4 (and possibly others) claim that they didn’t sign the “Kennebunkport Warning”, then why not just remove their names and move on? If it were me and I was circulating something that “signers” had denied signing, I would remove their names immediately. That is the honorable thing to do. Why have the authors and purveyors of this “document” insisted on attacking and causing division and strife within our movement, something that is most dis-honorable? This is key in understanding the possible true intentions of the authors and those pushing this issue despite obvious and articulate denials of endorsement by the most prominent of the “signers”.


The Kennebunkport Warning Hoax
By Arabesque

August 31, 2007
Updated: September 2, 2007

The Kennebunkport Warning claimed that a group of 9/11 and anti-war activists joined together to sign a document warning of a false flag terror attack and resulting war with Iran. Like most, I first believed that the Kennebunkport Warning and the signatures were legitimate.

jumbo-jet-forgery.gifWe now have very strong evidence it is a hoax.

While the warning may be valid, the signatures of Cindy Sheehan, Dahlia S. Wasfi, and others appear to have been unethically used without their permission or knowledge.

When initially released, the warning claimed “massive evidence” without supplying any. Curiosity was justifiably invoked, so I independently provided a link to my own research. A few days later, Tarpley supplied his evidence, which included a fake “90 days” warning by FOX news—an exact word for word reprint of an article published in 2005.

While I strongly agree that there is a serious risk of an attack on Iran (and by extension a “trigger” to justify it), I strongly disagree with the unethical use of signatures to support such a warning. I do not know when or if another false flag attack will occur, but there is very strong evidence that the Bush administration intends to go to war with Iran.

[Read more…]

The Pentagon Honey Pot

The Pentagon Honey Pot

A collection of quotes on the Pentagon Controversy
by Arabesque

A honey pot, in intelligence jargon, is a tempting source of information or ‘dangle’ that is set out to lure intended victims into a trap. Ultimately the honey pot is violently and maliciously discredited so as to destroy the credibility of anything stuck to it by association – Michael Ruppert, “Crossing the Rubicon,” p. 184


Jim Hoffman of 9/11 Research:

The idea that no 757 crashed at the Pentagon is easily the most controversial and divisive issue among researchers of the 9/11/01 attacks. Effectively promoted since early 2002, this idea has enjoyed an increasing acceptance in the 9/11 Truth Movement, despite its blatant incompatibility with the extensive body of eyewitness evidence that a 757-like twin-engine jetliner flew into the Pentagon and exploded.

Few people have direct experience with the results of high-speed collisions of aircraft into strong barriers. Most aircraft accidents occur shortly after takeoff or during attempted landings, and do not completely destroy the aircraft. In contrast, uncontrolled crashes into terrain usually reduce aircraft into fine debris, leaving little if any parts identifiable by casual visual inspection. The debris fields of several jetliner crashes pictured here show the surprising paucity of apparent debris many crashes produce.

Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice

The aircraft impact punctured the facade over a contiguous area measuring approximately 96 feet wide on the first floor, and 18 feet wide on the second floor. Damage to the facade extended beyond the punctured areas.

Alex Jones and Paul Watson of Prison Planet:

Pentagon Video Is Giant Psy-Op: Intended to create circus of interest around ‘no plane’ theories, later debunk them:

For over four years we have remained neutral on the subject, agreeing that unanswered questions need to be explored but warning against the Pentagon issue becoming the core focus of the 9/11 truth movement. The danger is clearly that the government will use its media mouthpieces in particular Fox News to hype this until it becomes the de facto keystone of alternative explanations behind 9/11. At the point when that crescendo reaches its peak crystal clear footage of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon will be released, knocking down the straw man argument that the establishment itself erected. The government is steam valving this issue so as to garner as much interest as possible before blowing the entire matter out of the water. We know for a fact that the FBI seized the gas station camera footage and footage from hotels across the highway which would show the entire sequence of events and prove exactly what happened at the Pentagon. The fact that they have again chosen to release grainy and foggy images which only lead to more speculation tell us two things.

1) The government truly is frightened to death of releasing any images which accurately depict what happened at the Pentagon because it doesn’t jive with the official version of 9/11.

2) Or the government knows that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon and has clear footage of the incident, but is deliberately releasing these speculative images in order to stoke the debate so it can later release the high quality video and use it to debunk the entire 9/11 truth movement.

The media obsession with this one facet of an entire smorgasbord of 9/11 questions, and their refusal to address more hardcore 9/11 evidence, leads us to fear the latter explanation is the case.

Why no discussion of Building 7 and the comments of Larry Silverstein? Why no discussion of the hijackers being trained by the US government? Lt. Colonel Steve Butler of the Monterey Defense Language Institute was suspended from duty after he accused Bush of allowing 9/11 to happen. Why no discussion of the NORAD stand down? Because none of these issues are honey pots, none of them are speculation because the cards are laid out on the table for everyone to see and the evidence is clear.

[Read more…]

Top 10 reasons why the NIST report is absurd

Top 10 reasons why the NIST report is absurd
by Arabesque

In 2005, NIST released the results of a 20 million dollar investigation that attempted to explain why the World Trade Center towers completely collapsed.[1]

Many blindly point to this report (without reading a word of it) as rock solid proof that the official story is true.I am writing this list in order to help remedy this situation.All of my claims are documented—I am not making this up.Some of these claims may sound too outrageous to be true, but they are.I have provided the footnotes to prove it.

I present my top 10 reasons why the 10,000 page NIST report is absurd:

#10.Their theory is that “widely-dislodged fireproofing” was the primary reason the towers collapsed.[2]

#9.This theory ignores the fact that no steel framed building had ever completely collapsed due to fire in history.[3]

#8.They disproved their own “widely-dislodged fireproofing” theory with a shotgun experiment.[4]

#7.They ignore massive eyewitness testimony.[5]

#6.Their theory ignores a foundational law of physics.[6]

#5.Their steel tests contradicted their own theory and showed that the towers should not have collapsed.[7]

#4.They “proved” their theory with computer models that they refuse to release.[8]

#3.Their computer simulations used exaggerated data.[9]

#2.Their 10,000 page, 43 volume report explains (only in a footnote!), that their theory is a pre-collapse theorythey do not attempt to explain the “structural behaviour of the tower” after the collapse began![10]

NIST’s most absurd blunder of all?

#1.Their 10,000 page, 43 volume report can’t find the space to discuss molten and evaporated steel; outrageously claiming that it was “irrelevant to the investigation”![11]

This statement is stunning evidence that there needs to be a criminal investigation, as well as a new investigation.

Original article here.

[Read more…]

Journal of 9/11 Studies Letter: Disinformation and Misinformation

Journal of 9/11 Studies Letter: Disinformation and Misinformation

By Arabesque

Disinformation and Misinformation are defined and discussed.  Five levels of disinformation as defined by Jim Fetzer, as well as a sixth type of my own are defined and described.  It will be argued that the intent involved in the promotion of misleading arguments is irrelevant since misinformation and disinformation equally harm our ability to discern the truth about 9/11.  Relevant concepts including the straw-man fallacy, special pleading, ad-hominem, appeals to authority, poisoning the well, non-falsifiable theories, and other fallacies are discussed.  This paper argues that disinformation is the “major obstacle” in discovering and disseminating the truth about 9/11.  If we are going to discover the truth about 9/11 we have to discover what is not true.  The latter is frequently supported by disinformation and misinformation.


How can we discover the truth about 9/11? Is it possible to be led astray by misleading and incomplete interpretations of evidence? What is disinformation and how does it affect 9/11 research? For those interested in the truth about 9/11, evaluating evidence and explanations are essential considerations.

Disinformation is commonly defined as “deliberately misleading information.” According to Jim Fetzer, “disinformation… should be viewed more or less on a par with acts of lying. Indeed, the parallel with lying appears to be fairly precise.”
A similar concept called misinformation is defined by Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice:
“Misinformation is information that is incorrect but not necessarily an attempt to mislead. Misinformation often arises from poor research, biases, and misinterpretations.”

While disinformation requires motive and intent; misinformation does not. Jim Fetzer explains:
“While ‘misinformation’ can be simply defined as false, mistaken, or misleading information, ‘disinformation’ entails the distribution, assertion, or dissemination of false, mistaken, or misleading information in an intentional, deliberate, or purposeful effort to mislead, deceive, or confuse.”

The result is the same; the truth is obstructed with “misleading” information. How can we tell if someone is intentionally trying to mislead us? Is intent relevant? Not if the truth about 9/11 can be obfuscated by any misleading arguments regardless of intent. We do not need to distinguish intent to show that misinformation and disinformation equally harm our ability to discern the truth. Therefore, we should equally understand and combat both misinformation and disinformation.


Fifth Type of Disinformation:
“The fifth level of disinformation appears to occur when a source presents information that has been deliberately selected to misrepresent, distort or abuse sources with the intention to mislead. Citing only evidence that is favorable to one side as if no contrary evidence exists is known as SPECIAL PLEADING. The key aspect of fifth degree efforts is creating—usually by writing—entire new works (books and article), because of which it has the character of FABRICATING EVIDENCE.”

Fourth Type of Disinformation:
“The fourth level of disinformation appears to occur, not when a work (a book or an article) is being written from scratch, but in creating a highly biased impression of a study by simply IGNORING its most significant, important, or relevant features to mislead others about the contents of the work, which is another form of SPECIAL PLEADING.”

Third Type of Disinformation:
“The third level of disinformation occurs by abusing the man (AD HOMINEM) in attacking the author or the editor of a work on irrelevant or misleading grounds that have little or nothing to do with the position the author or editor represents.”

Second Type of Disinformation:
“The second level of disinformation occurs when relevant available evidence that ought to make a difference to a conclusion, hypothesis or conjecture under examination is simply dismissed or ignored. EVIDENCE IS RELEVANT when its presence or absence (physical evidence) or its truth or falsity (testimonial) makes a difference to the truth or falsity of the point at issue.”

First Type of Disinformation:
“The first level of disinformation might equally well be characterized as apparent incompetence by someone who assumes the task of offering criticism but for which he is not well-positioned to provide. This may be due to any number of factors, including lack of mental acumen, specific misunderstandings, or lack of familiarity with relevant evidence (simple ignorance).”

Jim Fetzer defined 5 levels of disinformation. I propose a sixth type:

Sixth Type of Disinformation:
The sixth level of disinformation is the promotion of theories that are unable to be tested or proven with available evidence. Such theories are called non-falsifiable:



“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about answers.” Thomas Pynchon, Jr.

Those who care about the truth about 9/11 should also care about disinformation and misinformation. All 9/11 “official story” skeptics agree that the 9/11 commission report consists of substantial disinformation.

9/11 disinformation and misinformation have been used to support the ‘official story’, create misleading accounts for what happened, ‘discredit’ alternative accounts, ‘turn-off’ potential ‘official story’ skeptics through “guilt by association”, create never ending debates, discredit honest and credible researchers, and as Thomas Phychon suggests; to leave us asking the wrong questions in an attempt to distract attention away from getting the important answers.

The truth about 9/11 is of primary importance. If we accept this to be true, then it is also true that all misleading arguments are harmful to this cause. Therefore, the intent involved in promoting misleading arguments is irrelevant. Arguments based on disinformation and misinformation will almost always result in false, incomplete, inaccurate, and misleading conclusions. As Jim Fetzer suggests in relation to JFK, disinformation is the “major obstacle” in discovering and disseminating the truth about 9/11—the key to unraveling the ‘myth of the 21st century.’

Read full article here:;DefinitionsAndExamples.pdf

Your Support Needed to Keep This Website and Podcast Available

Please consider making a donation to keep this website and podcast archives of Visibility 9-11 with Michael Wolsey available.