Skip to content or view screen version

"From Guy Fawkes to 911" UK tour - 400 Years of State Sponsored Terror

Tony Gosling | 22.10.2007 15:45 | Analysis | Anti-racism | Terror War

U.S. 'Terrorologist' author Webster Tarpley tours Britain starting this tour in London on Guy Fawkes night. History is full of examples of elements within the state using fake 'terrorism' to drive the political classes and people into the hands of despots and as an excuse for the loss of civil liberties. Since 9/11, evidence has come to light that contradicts that day's infamous terrorist attacks. American historian Webster Tarpley argues that this is nothing new, serious inconsistencies have been associated with terror attacks for hundreds of years throughout the Western world.

Whilst much post 9/11 evidence has been well sourced it has trickled out, having far less impact than the official narrative which holds Islamic fanatics entirely responsible. The end result is that press and public are left confused and disorientated by a lack of resolution to one of the biggest stories of our age. Terrorology is a growing discipline that seeks to bring academic rigour and reasoned argument to analysing this highly emotive subject.
Author of two books about connections between the US state and organised crime Tarpley scours the world for answers to the growing mountain of contradictions about 9/11 and develops an alternative account which counts Islamic ‘extremists’ among the victims. He finds evidence for the roots of 9/11 in the Western establishment, what he calls a 'rogue network' embedded in the secret state and military apparatus.

Amongst the unanswered questions Tarpley addresses are why…
 the US Air Force for up to one-and-a-half hours failed to intercept hijacked airliners.
 there was no apparent wreckage of an airliner at the Pentagon.
 ‘Put options’ on United Airlines and American Airlines shares placed before 9/1 were traced back to the Executive Director of the CIA.
 Building 7 at the WTC site in Manhattan collapsed without being hit by a plane.

And he goes on to ask is the “War on Terror” really an Orwellian programme designed to take away peoples’ hard won civil liberties?
Tarpley's analysis comes as music to the ears of the growing number of Britons uncomfortable about the suspension of habeas corpus and the racist overtones of internment of Muslims.


Tour schedule
Tickets £5.00 donation on a strictly first come-first served basis. No-one turned away due to lack of funds.
LONDON, Monday 5th November, 7pm - St. John’s Church, Waterloo Road, London, SE1 8TY. (by Waterloo Main Line Stn.) - Ticketline – 07947 593825
OXFORD, Tuesday 6th November, 7pm - Council Chamber, Town Hall, St Aldates', Oxford, OX1 1BX, Ticketline – 07714 364140
BRISTOL, Wednesday 7th November, 7pm - QEH Theatre, Jacob's Wells Road, Bristol. BS8 1JX - Ticketline – 07786 952037
LEEDS, Thursday 8th November, 7pm - Lecture Theatre B2, Lesley Silver Building, Leeds Metropolitan University, Civic Quarter Campus, Calverley Street, Leeds, LS1 3HE. - Ticketline –07733 323841
LANCASTER, Friday 9th November, 7pm - Hugh Pollard Lecture Theatre, St Martin’s College, Cumbria University, Bowerham Road, Lancaster LA1 3JD - Ticketline – 01524 388868
EDINBURGH, Saturday 10th November, 7pm - Friends Meeting House, 7 Victoria Terrace, Edinburgh, EH1 2JL - Ticketline – 07809 365609

Biography
Webster Griffin Tarpley is an activist and historian best known for his George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography (1992), which has become an underground classic.
An expert on international terrorism with decades of experience, he directed the study Chi ha ucciso Aldo Moro? (Who Killed Aldo Moro?) which was commissioned by a member of the Italian government and published in Rome in 1978. [Aldo Moro was an ex-prime minister of Italy who was murdered by the "Red Brigades," who were ultimately found out to be a front for a fascist state terror group.]
Against Oligarchy, a collection of Tarpley's essays and speeches, appeared on the Internet in 1996. He also wrote Surviving the Cataclysm (1999), an analysis of the world financial crisis.
In 2005, Tarpley's ‘9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA’ gained a following and is now going into a fourth edition. On October 7, 2006, Amazon.com's top non-fiction book reviewer, Robert David Steele, called it "the strongest of the 770+ books I have reviewed here at Amazon."
Tarpley has appeared on CNN Crossfire, FOX News, Charlie Rose, talk radio, and cable access television across North America.


Websites
Tarpley’s own website - www.tarpley.net
Progressive Press, Tarpley’s publisher - www.waronfreedom.org
Tarpley on 911 blogger.com -  http://911blogger.com/taxonomy/term/100

Tony Gosling
- Homepage: http://www.gunpowder-plot.org.uk

Additions

This is a 911 disinfo tour

22.10.2007 15:59

Webster Tarpley is now totally discredited *within* the 9/11 truth movement:

9-11 Synthetic Error - The meltdown of Webster G. Tarpley
 http://911blogger.com/node/11441

Whopper Traply


Webster Tarpley: Your services will no longer be required

27.10.2007 02:56

From: the 9/11 Truth Movement,
an unincorporated international association

To: Webster Griffin Tarpley,
author and a self-stylized leader of 9/11 Truth

Subject: Your services as a "leader" will no longer be required in the 9/11 Truth Movement

Mr. Tarpley:

It is with regret that we inform you that your services as a "leader" of 9/11 Truth will no longer be required from this point forth...

READ MORE HERE:
 http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2501

Jenny Sparks


Comments

Hide the following 14 comments

holy fuck

22.10.2007 19:03

What does it take to be discredited within the 9/11 movement? Tin foil hat the wrong shape?

truth decay


What does it take to be discredited?

22.10.2007 22:18

You mean you missed the disinformation about 9/11? Where the hell have you been!

In a nut shell: the disinformation refered to here centres around idiotic claims, like there were "No Planes", there was "TV Fakery", "Directed Energy Weapons" (DEW) were used to bring the 3 towers down, there were "Pods" on the planes etc etc

If you want to catch up you could start here:

 http://www.truthmove.org/content/disinformation/

Or here:

 http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/search/label/Disinformation

But if you want a laugh then you have to start with this video, it's a must watch one:

 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-558096240694803017

Which has this text with it:

Dr. Judy Wood is the lone 'scientific' pillar behind the theory that directed energy beams demolished the world trade center towers. Dr. ... all » Greg Jenkins, a physicist, poses a few simple questions to Dr. Wood regarding her research. The full interview was left uncut to allow the viewer to fully and accurately assess the credibility of Dr. Judy Wood and her work.

Read the article and letter published in the Journal of 9/11 Studies by Dr. Jenkins for answers to all the questions posed in the interview, as well as an in-depth analysis thoroughly disproving DEWs demolished the WTC towers:

 http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200702/Implausibility-Directed-Energy-Beam-Demolish-WTC-by-Gregory-Jenkins.pdf

 http://journalof911studies.com/letters/b/interview-judy-wood-at-national-press-club-regarding-the-use-of-directed-energy-beam-in-the-demolition-of-the-wtc-by-dr-gregory-jenkins.pdf


Pay Attention


not a lot has changed has it?

23.10.2007 09:38

Still faced with the lowest form of counter-argument, when presenting theory & evidence (Note: evidence & proof are different creatures) ... ie the shoot the messenger option.

Moving swiftly past the obvious 'tin foil' brigade and the associated Schopenhuaseric riducule therein ...

Dr Wood postulates a hypothesis and then seeks to place the verifiable evidence within this hypothesis ... this is the correct scientific method ... hypothesis, evidencial testing & then assessment of results relivant to hypothesis.

In order to discredit someone - or their hypothesis - two things are necessary:

1. An oposing hypothesis
2. A desire to discredit

We are provided with half of the first criteria and twice the second.

For example: in an exchange with Dr Jenkins, in an informal journalistic piece (see link:  http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/Wood-JenkinsInterview.pdf) - in which Dr Jenkins maintains sole editorial control, and thus allows [himself] sole right of response, elaboration and correction, there is some attempt to fathom the science behind the 'collapse'.

This rapidly becomes an unbalanced and selective attempt to discredit anothers hypothesis without ever referencing an alternative. This is not a proper scientific method.

Incidently, when - no doubt - those interested enough in the issues do a search on the proponants covered here, they might come acroos the fact that Dr Woods has followed up her claims, investigations and reports with one of only 3 RFC's with NIST's 911 report (Request for Correction under the Data Quality Act with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)). This is not the act of a disinformationalist - who would eschew any further technical methodology.

Yes, there are competing hypothesis on 911 ... you will find that some hold more validity than others. This too is the scientific way, to paraphrase that great fictional detective: 'once you have eliminated the impossible ... etc' ... well in order to eliminate hypothesis, they have to be tested alongside competing hypothesis.

This is NOT tantamount to disinfomation, to suggest otherwise IS.

Now, use your search engines to follow up the main players and terms boys and girls (or go the pub or somit).

Lets face it, the most crazy of all the 911 theories is the one put forward in quasi-religious terms by the forces of western neo-liberalism (ie they hate our freedoms, we is totally innocent and loverly) ... and since this is the most convienient position in which to launch and maintain THEIR war on Terra, one has to accept that it is most probably false.

jackslucid
mail e-mail: jackslucid@hotmail.com


Judy Wood's work IS disinformation

23.10.2007 11:08

Jack, did you watch that video? How can you take this woman seriously?!

It's clear that the buildings were blown up, Judy Wood's DEW nonsense however serves only one purpose: to make anyone questioning 9/11 look like a loon.

"Dr Woods has followed up her claims... not the act of a disinformationalist" sorry but it is, the legal case that she is taking with Morgan Renyolds is going to be laughed out of court, it's not going to help 9/11 truth in any way. Her RFC is taken apart here:

A Brief Analysis of Dr. Judy Wood’s Request for Correction to NIST: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
Dr. Greg Jenkins Co-author: Arabesque
 http://www.911blogger.com/node/8294

Also Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins has two more follow-up essays on the DEW nonsense:

Solving The Great Steel Caper: DEW-Demolition Contrary Evidence
 http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/Fe-DustStudies44.pdf

Supplemental: DEW-Demolition Contrary Evidence
 http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/JenkinsFe-DustSupplemental.pdf

Pay Attention
- Homepage: http://www.911disinformation.com/


Quite a lot has changed

23.10.2007 11:21

Jack - what has changed is that a most of the 9/11 Truth Movement has seen through the crazy disinformation from people like Judy Wood and moved on: debunk her and then ignore her.

Of course people like her are still the ones that the MSM likes to feature in order to make anyone questioning 9/11 look like a idiot.

The 4 one hour radio shows that Michael Wolsey did on the matter of 9/11 disinformation are very good -- this is essential listening:

 http://www.visibility911.com/reports-cointelpro01.php

Pay Attention
- Homepage: http://911review.com/infowars.html


At last the truth about 5/11

23.10.2007 13:58


.

catholofascismawarenessweek


disimformationalismisation

23.10.2007 16:42

I am agnostic to all information before processing ...

... as for looking like a 'loon' ... well, I remember a time when questioning ANYTHING about 911 had one called a loon.

I also am aware that the military industrial complex do not tend to throw their [sic] money away on fantasy ... why then spend multi-billion $$$ on 'useless' directed energy weapons?

I am a proponant that there is more in heaven and earth than in my philosophy ... and yours.

It might be useful to gen up on Dr Jenkins too ... yes?!?

I appreciate your conviction in predicting the outcome of a scenario that might not even be allowed to play out in full ... vis a vis the RFC ... but I wil allow my opinions to be formed by facts, not another opionion.

I was not aware either, that the 911 'movement' was an homogenous affair. I thought anyone could have a go!?!

But, painfully, I will RE-read the Dr Jenkins vs Dr Woods thingy ... and collate with that which I discover about the duo.

Neat pastiche of the associated ridicule that adds signal noise to any controversy/conspiracy ... although I couldn't quite laugh at it ... under the impression that the poster has their own agenda to divert ... guilty of paranoia and not trusting any of you barstards ...

love and peace

jackslucid
mail e-mail: jackslucid@hotmail.com


Re: disimformationalismisation

23.10.2007 17:50

Jack said: "I also am aware that the military industrial complex do not tend to throw their [sic] money away on fantasy ... why then spend multi-billion $$$ on 'useless' directed energy weapons?"

Well they are designed for doing things like taking out incoming ICBM's not vaporising huge skyscrapers...

In one the the PDF's and in the video Greg Jenkins makes reference to the quantity of energy required for a laser (photon) or particle weapon to turn the towers steel into dust and it's just not feasible, Judy Wood also thinks that it was a space based DEW which further complicates matters...

This article by John Doraemi is good:

The 9/11 B. S. Movement: Blatant Insanity = Intentional DIS-information
 http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/2007/07/911-b-s-movement.html

Jack said: "It might be useful to gen up on Dr Jenkins too ... yes?!? "

Sure, I haven't done this, but the fact that he is writing for Steven Jones' journal,  http://www.journalof911studies.com/ indicates that he is aware that the building were blown up -- look at the other articles there.

Jack said: "I was not aware either, that the 911 'movement' was an homogenous affair. I thought anyone could have a go!?!"

Hmm, well there are two huge piles of bullshit associated with 9/11, the official fantasy and then the nonsense disinfo from people like Judy Wood. The MSM laps up the disinfo, for example the latest article from Mark Steel,  http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/mark_steel/article3067204.ece -- it is necessary for people who want the truth to come out to point out that the crap from "within" the movement is crap -- the "Big Tent" approach is not good, see:  http://911review.com/denial/bigtent.html

And something else that is missing is a anarchist / left wing to the 9/11 truth movement -- see this interesting article on this matter:  http://activistnyc.wordpress.com/2007/09/29/the-911-truth-movement-needs-a-more-visible-better-organized-left-wing/

Finally, in case you didn't notice, all the things I have been linking to are from people who know that the official story is a fraud, that the buildings were blown up, that it was a fabricated event to justify an imperial grab for energy resources and domestic repression.

In fact the 9/11 truth movement is doing a far better job at shining a light on the disinfo nonsense than those who proclaim that this is what they are about, eg  http://911cultwatch.org.uk/

Oh and yes the 5/11 spoof was a bit lame, clearly done by someone who supports the official fantasy... but of course Whopper Fruadly deserves sending up -- "leaders" like this are not needed or welcome.

Pay Attention


cheers

23.10.2007 18:51

... innarestin lot of info ... will attempt to absorb ...

Agree with your assessment of [their] modus interuptus ... however, disinformation is a very slippery customer and thus, I remain open to any coherent possibility, for there certainly seems to be a lot of interference on the info channels regarding the fate of the material structure of WTC 1&2.

I will attempt to check back into this thread in the next few days ...

Peace.

jackslucid
mail e-mail: jackslucid@hotmail.com


Some other sources on 9/11 Disinformation

23.10.2007 19:47

These are also worth checking out:

Peter Tatchell: 9/11 – The big cover-up?
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/09/380880.html?c=on#comments

The "Patriots and 9/11" Trap
 http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2006/12/14/18337689.php

Why is Seattle Hosting 9/11 Disinformation Promoters?
 http://seattle.indymedia.org/en/2006/10/255413.shtml

Chris


911 INSIDE JOB

23.10.2007 20:53

come on people lets run by it again- no conspiracy, no direct energy beams , no holographic planes but a controlled demolition of the twin towers and tower 7 -a missile strike on the pentagon-carried out by members of the usa government and others-wake up take note, before it does become too late to do anything about the sad state of affairs we now find ourselves in. If we do not act soon and collectively, world war 111 as anounced (threatened) recently by bush, is not that far away-we have been warned. good luck people si

si
mail e-mail: josila@hotmail.com


has anyone considered

25.10.2007 21:42

the possibility that there were no towers? The planes hit holographic images that were able to accurately simulate collapse, modelled on accurate physics?

Just thinking outside the box people.

winston smith, truth seeker


has anyone considered

25.10.2007 22:09

that the two towers may have been holograms? That when the planes 'hit' them, the computer controlled images 'collapsed', suspiciously and meticulously obeying the laws of physics?

Just thinking outside the box here people. Planting seeds, fighting the good fight.

winston smith, truth seeker


Ask Tarpley why he hasn't apologized to Cindy Sheehan & others:

03.11.2007 04:30

 http://arabesque911 .blogspot. com/2007/ 09/kennebunkport -warning- controversy. html

"The Kennebunkport Warning Controversy Reviewed"



On August 29th, 2007, Webster Tarpley issued the Kennebunkport Warning. It claimed "massive evidence" suggested that a US-Sponsored false flag terror attack would be orchestrated in "the coming months". The original document listed signatures by Cindy Sheehan, Ann Wright and others.



Or did it?



At least five anti-war activists including Cindy Sheehan denied signing the document and an ensuing controversy erupted. While those who denied signing the document were civil and cordial, those who created the warning offered insults, accusations, and divisive behavior. Later, those investigating the affair were targeted with accusations and insults along with false allegations that they "opposed" the Kennebunkport warning and "worked for the Ford Foundation". Charges of incivility against the warning promoters remain unacknowledged.



While many offered their take on the controversy, a "9/11 truth leader" responded without naming names or taking sides; giving advice on how to deal with disinformation, infiltration, and agent provocateurs. Jim Hoffman offered his thoughts on Cosmos' radio show:



"It's so clear. What possible motive would there be someone to go making these vicious characterizations of these really well known peace activists like Cindy Sheehan… When people like [Cosmos], Arabesque, and Wolsey report on it, to be viciously attacked by Tarpley with all these ridiculous accusations of COINTELPRO…? Very entertaining to watch, very vivid, just lurid—it's ridiculous.. .

 http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/10/cosmos-on-his-radio-show-truth-action.html

I think it's a really good test of whether people are really in this in the benefit of our movement: are going to tolerate this sort of thing? Where are the voices of the alleged leaders of the 9/11 truth movement about this and similar incidents? I think the silence from some quarters is deafening."



See also:



Arabesque's investigation into Webster Tarpley's

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

Kennebunkport Warning and a summary of the divisive language, accusations, and ad-hominems in the controversy by Webster Tarpley and his supporters:

 http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/09/webster-tarpley-arabesque-cosmos-jenny.html

against Cindy Sheehan, the anti-war activists, and those investigating the controversy.

Jack Hawksmoor