Colorado 9-11 Visibility Does Not Endorse Webster Tarpley at the Mercury Cafe

Below, please find a message from Michael Wolsey of Colorado 9-11 Visibility-

If you are on the Colorado 9-11 Visibility mailing list, you might have seen a couple of e-mails recently which deviate from the topic of September 11th.  From the beginning, it has been the policy of Colorado 9-11 Visibility, which include our public events, website and e-mail list, to focus only on information which directly relates to the events of September 11th.  It was agreed by all that there could be no compromise on this policy and as a result, our group has been able avoided controversies surrounding such topics as immigration reform, gun control, left/right division, UFO’s, etc.  However, two recent e-mails sent out to the Colorado 9-11 Visibility e-mail list has broken this policy and should be disregarded.

On March 17, 2013, an email was sent via the Colorado 9-11 Visibility e-mail list titled “Another Opportunity for Transparency: UFO Forum at First Universalist Church of Denver”.

While we encourage research on topics important to the human race, Colorado 9-11 Visibility neither encourages, nor discourages research conducted into understanding the world-wide UFO phenomenon.  We simply leave this work to others whose interest leads them down that path.  While we acknowledge an individual’s right to pursue research into subjects to which they find of interest, as a group, Colorado 9-11 Visibility remains neutral on the topic of UFO research.

Webster_TarpleyOn April 7, 2013, another announcement was sent out via the Colorado 9-11 Visibility email list titled “Webster Tarpley at the Mercury Cafe on Sunday”.  This was the second of two questionable emails which should have never been sent because it was not approved by the group.

Those who know me well and have been involved in the 9-11 movement for some time, know and understand why I oppose any affiliation or endorsement of Webster Tarpley.  Fran Shure was and is well aware of the events which shaped my opinion of Mr. Tarpley, yet still chose to send out an e-mail endorsing an event where Mr. Tarpley was scheduled to be the keynote speaker.  I cannot, in a few sentences, sum up why I believe Mr. Tarpley to be a disinformation specialist.  However, below please find a brief synopsis and links to a few sources which explain in great detail why Mr. Tarpley should be avoided by any serious activist.

Webster Tarpley has a very dubious background going back many years.  For a long time, Mr. Tarpley was a key figure in the Lyndon LaRouche political cult.  This group is well known for it’s racist and anti-Semitic views and even though Mr. Tarpley claims he is no longer part of the LaRouche cult, his views remain largely unchanged.  Mr. Tarpley is also a big supporter of disinformation surrounding the 9-11 attacks and those personalities who push disinformation.  He consistently has used his speaking engagements and radio program to push unproven theories about September 11th and to attack and demonize legitimate 9-11 and anti-war activists, including myself.

As you will see if you take the time to research Webster Tarpley, I have first hand knowledge of the underhanded tactics used by this disciple of Lyndon LaRouche.   You see, a tiger cannot change its’ stripes and Webster Tarpley is no different.

My experience with Mr. Tarpley began as a result of the efforts of many 9-11 activists who had for years been trying to forge alliances with the anti-war activists.  After all, none of the wars would have been possible had it not been for the events of September 11th, so we saw anti-war activists as our natural ally.  We understood that if we could get them to just look at the 9-11 evidence, they would join us and together we would be a viable force for truth and an end to the 9-11 wars.

Webster Tarpley, for reasons only known to him, using well known LaRouche tactics of deception, forged a document known as the Kennebunkport Warning.  This “document” purported to predict another 9-11 style attack and appeared to be signed by 4 well known and prominent anti-war activists.  It was later revealed that these signatures were either forgeries or obtained using dishonest means and all 4 of these anti-war activists denied signing such a document.  In what appeared to be a coordinated and orchestrated event, Mr. Tarpley then proceeded to attack these anti-war activists as liars and worse.

When this scandal, initiated by Mr. Tarpley became public, I was among a handful of 9-11 activists who publicly spoke up in defense of the anti-war activists.  As a result, we were attacked by Mr. Tarpley and very publicly referred to in many derogatory ways including references that we are part of the FBI and COINTELPRO.  This was done both at a 9-11 anniversary event in New York City as well as on Mr. Tarpley’s radio program.

If you would like to learn more about these events and Mr. Tarpley’s shady past, please see the links below.

Webster Tarpley has deep and longtime connections to Lyndon LaRouche.  This information is key to understanding who Webster Tarpley really is.
LYNDON LAROUCHE: NO FRIEND OF THE BLACK COMMUNITY
http://www.lyndonlarouche.org/larouche-obama-menu.htm
http://www.lyndonlarouche.org/obama-KKK-new-york-post.htm
Lyndon LaRouche Watch
http://www.lyndonlarouche.org/index.html

The Kennebunkport Warning Hoax
http://www.visibility911.org/the-kennebunkport-warning-hoax/

9-11 Synthetic Error – The meltdown of Webster G. Tarpley

9-11 Synthetic Error – The meltdown of Webster G. Tarpley

Kennebunkport Warning Cartoon: We are Funded by the Ford Foundation Because we Oppose Divisive Language?
http://www.visibility911.org/kennebunkport-warning-cartoon-we-are-funded-by-the-ford-foundation-because-we-oppose-divisive-language/

The Kennebunkport Warning Controversy Reviewed
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/09/kennebunkport-warning-controversy.html

 

Denver and Boulder Meetings: David Ray Griffin: “9/11: Why Do Bill Moyers and Robert Parry Accept Miracles?” Grand Junction: “Gasland”: February 2012

Scroll down for announcements of events by other organizations, with a few corrections.

This month Colorado 9/11 Visibility is proud to present Dr. David Ray Griffin’s brilliant challenge to the progressive media:  9/11: Why Do Bill Moyers and Robert Parry Accept Miracles? (1 hour, 15 minutes)

Hosted by philosopher, educator, activist, and author Dr. Richard Curtis, Professor Griffin explores at Town Hall in Seattle why some of the best independent journalists in America accept without question the official conspiracy theories put forth by the 9/11 Commission and NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) in their investigations of the tragic events of September 11, 2001.
Using Bill Moyers and Robert Parry as examples of journalists who have previously demonstrated notable courage, objectivity, and a willingness to examine crucial events in depth, rather than simply accepting a single-minded source, Dr. Griffin challenges their current disregard of the overwhelming scientific evidence uncovered by the growing number of professionals openly supporting the 9/11 Truth Movement and calling for a proper investigation.

Dr. Griffin explains how careful examination of the official conspiracy theories regarding the unprecedented collapse of the three tallest World Trade Center buildings reveals contradictions and violations of the laws of physics, which he rightly points out as being impossible, and therefore would require “miracles” to achieve, unless carried out by the use of explosive, controlled demolition techniques.

Please join us and bring a friend!  This is an excellent film for your friends who are new to this issue as well as for those who are informed yet perplexed by the reaction of some of our media’s best journalists.

Bio: Dr. David Ray Griffin, Emeritus Professor of Theology and Philosophy of Religion at Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Graduate University, is one of the world’s most influential proponents of the 9/11 Truth Movement and author of 11 books questioning the official accounts of the events of September 11, 2001.

[Read more…]

9/11 and Skeptic Magazine’s ‘Science’ of Controlled Demolitions

The debate of March 6, 2011, at the Boulder campus of the University of Colorado, between Richard Gage, AIA, and Chris Mohr, Denver investigative journalist, continues with this excellent rebuttal by Jeremy Hammond to Chris Mohr’s claims.  A dialog between Mr. Hammond and Mr. Mohr is also posted at the end of this article.  Here is the audio of that debate hosted by Colorado 9/11 Visibility and co-sponsored by Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center, and We Are Change Colorado.

 

Foreign Policy Journal 9/11 and Skeptic Magazine’s ‘Science’ of Controlled Demolitions

by Jeremy R. Hammond

September 16, 2011  Chris Mohr at Skeptic magazine writes that “conspiracists are working hard to publicize their claims of scientific validity to the conjecture that the World Trade Center buildings were destroyed through controlled demolition.” He mentions a debate he had with Richard Gage, the founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, where more than 1,500 professional architects and engineers who question the official explanation for the collapse of the three World Trade Center buildings have signed a petition calling for a new—that is to say a real—investigation. “I thought initially that Gage might be on to something,” Mohr writes, “until I examined his science carefully” and debated him. In his article, he lists his responses to the controlled-demolition hypothesis. Sticking to the question of World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7), let’s examine Mohr’s arguments against the science behind the controlled-demolition hypothesis and in favor of the fire-induced collapse hypothesis. If you’re unfamiliar with WTC 7, you can watch it collapsing on 9/11 in the video below. Mohr begins his case with the argument that “You cannot secretly prepare a controlled demolition of the two World Trade Center buildings … without anyone noticing anything unusual.” He does not mention it, but we may presume he thinks it would be just as impossible in the case of WTC 7, the third WTC building to collapse completely on 9/11. The main point to be made about this assertion is that it is not a scientific argument, but speculation. It for starters assumes that nobody noticed anything unusual in the days, weeks, and months before 9/11. But is that true? Since this possibility was never actually investigated, and thus building workers were never interviewed and asked whether they noticed any suspicious activity going on, we don’t really know. Also, while it may seem unlikely that this could be done, if the actual scientific evidence disproves the fire-induced collapse hypothesis and proves the alternative, then one has a priori knowledge that however unlikely, this must have occurred. So we must turn to the science, which Mohr does get to, eventually, as we shall see.

Mohr writes, “Though it is true that no tall steel frame buildings ever collapsed due to fire alone prior to 9/11, since then, other tall steel framed buildings have.” He is referring, of course, to WTC 7, which wasn’t hit by a plane. It did suffer significant debris impact damage from the collapse of the North Tower, but the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the government agency responsible for the investigation into the building’s collapse, acknowledged that the damage was neither an initiating nor determinative factor in the collapse. As the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) noted in its initial report, “Prior to September 11, 2001, there was little, if any, record of fire-induced collapse of large fire-protected steel buildings.” Following up on FEMA’s preliminary investigation, NIST noted in its final report that the collapse of WTC 7 “was the first known instance of the total collapse of a tall building primarily due to fires.” Richard Gage has observed that in every instance where a tall building (that is, a steel-framed skyscraper) has collapsed with characteristics like those of WTC 7, it was a known controlled demolition.

But Mohr says that it has since occurred that “other tall steel framed buildings have” “collapsed due to fire alone”. His example? “On May 13, 2008, a large part of the tall concrete-reinforced steel architecture tower at the Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands caught fire and thereafter had a very fast, nearly straight-down collapse mostly into its own footprint.” The first problem with Mohr’s [Read more…]