Mirrored from http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2006/03/1725422_comment.php#1725541 How to get a cyber troll committee onto their knees and how they respond with censorship and bans An example situated with skyking@scientist.com who is suspected to be part of a brainwashed government operative. (please scroll below) *The timeline of CNN's "reality tv" hoax from Sep11th...* by Nico Haupt /Wednesday, Mar. 08, 2006 at 7:10 PM/ nicohaupt2@yahoo.com TV fakery on 9/11 The timeline of CNN's "reality tv" hoax from Sep11th and its impact. By Nico Haupt, New York City, March 8, 2006 How some black blurbs and orwell speak on 'televison', deceived a whole nation into the biggest "threataganda" and lies since 1945. (A to be updated review of deceptive and manipulative language and 'images' on CNN). *See above: Was it a commercial aircraft or cgi-upload? * The answer is clear. Much harder to answer, if sheeple, anti-war phonies and (left-)gatekeepers want to continue the cover-up of "Reality TV 9/11"? Answer (A.N.S.W.E.R.): Apparently yes. They also do not care about the next, most important pending world war between U.S., China and Russia. They will just blame it on the alleged opposition parties or other absurde "conspiracy theories". They will blame their lack of knowledge of electronic and digital know-how. They will present you the next false-hope campaign. Take a pick of your choice. (see also Proof That Blue Screen Technology Was Used to Fake the 2nd Plane -by Jimmy Walter We Have Some Holes in the Plane Stories -by Morgan Reynolds *Pt.1: The CNN Image fakery- The 'real' timeline from Sep11th* (Timeline Update 03/08/05 Pt.1 Focus on CNN 'live' footage September 11- 8:45 AM -10:45 AM EST (plus additional audio sources, i.e. FOX -to be revised) (NOTE: FOX split screen timeline ignored so far... to be updated and revised) (Screenshot/BTS-ACARS database: Flight 11 did not exist or depart!) 07:50 CT/8:50 ET Sean Murtagh, 'CNN witness' from window, claims it was a "jet, looked like a 2 engine yet...a large commercial jet...i'm on the 22nd floor..." (However Murtagh is not a real reporter. He was CNN's vice-president of finance. His office was on 33rd street. Was he (in conflicting versions), on the roof or did he catch everything out of his window? "...i'm viewing south...wingtips tilted back and forth..." 07:53 CT/8:53 ET Monitor shows burning North Tower, occasionally zooms onto the empty impact hole 07:54 CT/8:54 ET Interview with witness, who reported about windows coming out of tower, "didn't see any plane". (First attack was officially at 8:48 AM) 07:54 CT/8:54 ET Telephone interview with Lisa, who heard a "sonic boom", but didn't see any plane from her window: "I had no idea it was a plane, i turned on the tv, when i heard it was plane, which was strange" 08:00 CT/9:00 ET Witness Jeanne Yurman 08:02 CT/9:02 ET Winston Mitchell, WABC Interview, Live on the phone 08:03 CT/9:03 ET Then visibly on the monitor from the right a black flying object, vanishing behind one tower, then followed by an explosion. Reporter Mitchell, after a short delay: "...The Building is exploding right now (Mitchell doesn't mention that he saw any plane...) "everyone is panicking..." Mitchell is suddenly cut off by host, because he wants to 'hear other voices'. 08:06 CT/9:06 ET Producer of CNN decides to show again a replay from "Courtesy ABC" 08:07 CT/9:07 ET Another replay of the WABC Video on CNN ("Earlier") 08:08 CT/9:08 ET CNN switches to footage of WNBC (Courtesy WNYV) Street reporter "Arlie" says "it's possible that this was a missile attack". Then he gets corrected from TV Host, that "we have a witness who said it was a plane and as we watching the monitor we SAW a plane crashing to the other tower..." "...there it is.. (commenting on the NBC clip, object barely to recognize) 08:10 CT/9:10 ET ('moments ago', replay WNBC) 08:12 CT/9:12 ET Replay of older tape, but apparently with the 'wrong timecode' beginning: TV audience is presented with explosion/fireball at south tower only. Tape is stopped. 08:12 CT/9:12 ET Another replay of the NBC version "moments ago" (Reporter mentions a chopper, "is that ours?" 08:15 CT/9:15 ET Replay NBC version "moments ago", clip is now 'halting' the object twice and then zooms into the frozen object 08:17 CT/9:17 ET Replay NBC version "moments ago", clip is again 'halting' the object twice and then zooms into the frozen object 08:19 CT/9:19 ET Replay NBC version "moments ago", now with a special effect, bright round spot on black filtered background, halting the footage. 08:21 CT/9:21 ET Unidentified source on ? channel "it was a smaller plane, because it made some circles... ...cargo plane...didn't see any windows... 08:22 CT/9:22 ET Replay WABC video 2nd hit with earlier emotional response of Mitchell: "...The Building is exploding right now..." more at http://www.911closeup.com/nico/911chron_timeline_nico.html add your comments |The following post has status /hidden/:| *more bullshit* by stebs ? /Friday, Mar. 10, 2006 at 9:11 AM/ dqwjnkqdwfbe add your comments *response to st911 scholars* by Nico Haupt /Saturday, Mar. 11, 2006 at 2:05 PM/ My public response to st911 scholars, as CCed to 20, 30 of their members: Pt1: ...For sure i also believe since 2001, that no boeing hit the pentagon. For sure it was a missile. For sure also AA77 did not exist at all, because not listed at the BTS database. For me it's also sure, that additional explosions took place. It's also clear to me, that this attack did not take place at 9:43, but much earlier, at least 9:30 and maybe with an additional 'incident' at 9:20. st911scholars didn't do their homework yet on these matters. For sure i also want to have the videos released at the Pentagon. But i disagree strongly with some additional text in the text of the petition of Jim Fetzer. I also don't trust Judicial Watch. And that's why i didn't sign yet. The timing with the Zacarias Moussaoui trial is very fishy to me. I smack a setup against many 9/11 truthlings including st911scholars. I could imagine, that the Pentagon has already a fresh video produced which shows a pentagon cgi-plane rendered into the building. To come to the core: Instead of just switching back to the Pentagon (i thought sf911scholars had been created for the controlled demolition at WTC 1, 2, 7?), they should have continued to focus on NYC. I therefore would have asked instead for the following videotapes: The 911scholars should demand: -Name and biographies of all Sep11th "cameramen", who filmed the second hit of the World Trade Center - complete original footage from all second hit "videos" (that includes W-ABC, W-NBC and other local channels) -complete original footage from Evan Fairbanks' second hit "videos" -complete original footage from Scott Myers' second hit "videos" -complete original footage from CNN's exclusive second hit "video", filmed by an amateur camera team, not shown between 8:45 and 10:45 on CNN on sep11th. Name and biographies of these Sep11th "cameramen" -complete video footage of ex-FEMA videographer Kurt Sonnenfeld, arrested new years eve 2001/2002, meanwhile exiled in Argentina. -complete original footage and disclose of source for National Geographic Channel, as owned by Rupert Murdoch. Explanation of contradictive angle of 'incoming flying object' with other 2nd hit clips. http://webfairy.org/2hit/witness911.htm -complete missing frames of all original footage for second hit. It is clear to me, that either a very short distanced missile or "nothing" hit the south tower, synchronized with an internal explosion. It is also clear to me, that a missile hit the north tower, synchronized with an internal explosion. This missile was shown on the Naudet Brothers footage and is not the result of cgi fakery. It is a real object, filmed in real time and with prior knowledge and the best professional angle the Naudet Brothers could find. http://911foreknowledge.com/staged.htm This case is pretty much proven. It is also VERY clear to me, that all second hit clips are based on digital fakery. It is clear to me, that they used different methods of uploading or importing particular cgi-models into different sceneries. Many credits for alleged photos are based on lies. These 'photos' are instead screenshots from the TV clips. The credits refer i.e. to a 'fireman', while after comparison with video footage, it's the same angle. Also, Carmen Taylor's photo seems to be in reality from the CNN/Scott Myers gang. Her positions for all of her photos also contradict with each other by several miles!! Let's not focus on the photos though... I therefore concentrated on the South Tower VIDEO CLIPS, which include flying object, either vanishing behind buildings or buttered into a building front (the butter videos have NOT been shown on 9/11!, at least not in the first two hours after the attack!!), where we still have to decide between "missile" or "nothing": "...Suddenly, I saw a second explosion but did not see the plane. http://www.geocities.com/vnwomensforum/september11debate.html.." http://img357.imageshack.us/img357/4781/brooklynbridgehit0ji.jpg from an amateur camera clip, camera positioned on both towers: "...we just saw another explosion (TV comment)...." Person 1 in room: "...Another explosion Kate..." Kate: "...i know, i know..." (noone of both refered to any plane) http://www.911closeup.com/nico/day1-tower2-fireball-only.wmv Don Dahler vs. ABC Dahler: ...i didn't see any plane going in...that...that's just exploded...i... Gibson: We just saw another plane coming in from the side. Dahler: You did?? I...that was ..was...out of my view... Gibson: That was a second explosion. You can see the plane come in just from the right hand side of the screen... (= Dahler's witness report 'overruled' by a TV monitor) http://thewebfairy.com/911/haarp/reporter.didnt.see.plane.wmv The 911 Scholars should ignore the criticism of WING TV, which have not the technical expertise, - understanding, tools and know-how to respond on that matter. In other words, WING TV are no TV-/Video specialists and therefore present only an 'opinion', based on disinformation and calculated sabotage of this topic. Furthermore character assassination based on 3 persons does not confront their content at all. Please therefore skip the assumption, that if Haupt, Holmgren and Grable are assholes, their claims must be BS too. As a matter of fact, i want you to see me as an arrogant asshole, that it will be easier to me, to make my case, because i am 101% behind it. regards and respectfully, nico haupt aka ewing2001 Pt.2: Here is another scientific parameter i suggest: 1) to produce a professional video montage of every second hit clip, to prove, that they include contradictions on -geographical position of the flying object -size and form of this object -impact angle of the object -speed of object -timecode of explosion after object vanished behind building(s) 2) to produce a google earth reproduction of the flying object start positions to prove contradicting geographical coordinates 3) Super exposal of the flying objects to prove, that it shows -black blurb -an uploaded graphic in at least one case, impostering a photorealistic boeing 4) audio comparison of all reaction crowds (which do not react to any ingoing flying object) 5) disclosal of the whereabouts of Evan Fairbanks, Scott Myers and the "unknown amateur camera team" from CNN. 6) comparison of extended timeline, when which 2nd hit video was shown. I am only aware of 2 different clips in the first two hours at CNN and analyse currently FOX. All other clips at MSNBC, ABC co do show unprofessional black blurbs, and had not been shown immediately on their channel, as proven with original satellite footage from UK My media- and research activism bio on 9/11 is available here: http://www.team8plus.org/comment.php?comment.news.4 I hope that helps you enough to get a clearer picture on me. I am not a paid government employee or work for any private military- or intelligence contractor. I was never under medical observation or use any biopharmacy. I even boycott aspirine since 12 years, being aware of the biopharmarcy weapon apparatus. I also don't take any further drugs. I smoke cigarettes, though. I don't drink. Any character assassination on that matter (Karl Schwarz) might confuse them with Jolly Roger, a confessed alcoholic who started 911Truth Action, a group which i joined, after i left ny911truth.org, another group, which i co-founded in late 2003. I also founded during late 2002, "9/11 science and justice alliance" with Jeff "Plaguepuppy" King to prove controlled demolition and other scientific details around 9/11. Without them, noone of us would have met HERE, because their group members inspired WING TV, the Jimmy Walter project, 911physics.net, David Ray Griffin, Craig Hill and '911 scholars'. I reject the double standard of WING TV and i hope, you will be fair to the issue. add your comments *"9/11 truthlings" are too silent against bluescreen fakery* by Nico Haupt /Sunday, Mar. 12, 2006 at 12:29 AM/ nicohaupt2@yahoo.com "9/11 truthlings" are too silent against bluescreen fakery By Nico Haupt aka ewing2001 March 12, 2006 Since it is now becoming clear, that former saboteurs against the "bluescreen/cgi" thesis can't dance their distractive 'hologram dance' any longer (googlefight: 'holography 9/11' 141,000 results vs. 'bluescreen 9/11' 80,400 results), their next biggest weapon they have used so far, are insults, ignorance or character assassinations. A complete blackout on Scientific or electronic-visual expertises so far. Let us concentrate on what these biggest "saboteurs" actually really have to say against CGI-fakery. I can spoil it already: NOTHING! Which should not surprise, because most of them are no real 9/11 researchers, computer illiterate, gatekeepers or worse: cointel-pro assets. However i will try to be fair and concentrate on their responses of my article at: http://www.911closeup.com/nico/911chron_timeline_nico.html http://tinyurl.com/zca9n (DemocraticUnderground.com) http://www.911blogger.com/2006/03/massive-late-night-grab-bag.html http://culhavoc.blogsome.com/2006/03/10/nicos-timeline-cnns-reality-tv-hoax/ http://www.bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=10766 https://sf.indymedia.org/news/2006/03/1725422.php http://chapelhill.indymedia.org/news/2006/03/19100.php First of all, who are these saboteurs and why do they think, they're more credible than everyone else? The Saboteurs vs. 9/11 TV Aircraft Fakery 1) Mark Bilk, "hardevidence group", former admin of Dick Eastman, sf911 Truth Alliance etc... Thu, 9 Mar 2006: "...Holmgren and Webfairy can go on forever purposely misinterpreting what I wrote and thus trying to get me to waste my time. They just make stuff up... ...I recommend that people learn something about elementary physics -- energy, work, force, momentum, etc... ...On Jan 21 2006, I posted the last .. of a series of messages debunking the 9/11 disinformation coming from Webfairy (Rosalee Grable), Gerard Holmgren, and Nico Haupt. They claim that no large airplanes hit the WTC towers, that the government faked all the videos of those hits, and that all the witnesses to the hits were either lying or deluded..." Conclusion: Mark Bilk is not confronting the findings on cgi/bluescreen AT ALL and thinks, we make some things up. However what we use is mainstream media footage, allegedly not altered at all. Sometimes it's too fuzzy for Bilk and sometimes not. Furthermore Bilk's response is a combination of character assassinations, combined with a distraction on his alleged physical knowledge, while many 9/11 scientists already proved, that all aircrafts in the second hit (close-up) footage violated physical laws. Instead Bilk allows a violation against physical laws, but sometimes not. The alleged aircraft of the second hit is strong enough to not break apart, when entering the building, but then suddenly blocked and pulverized by sheetrock. Furthermore, no close-up footage, on what Bilk based his assumptions or 'conclusions', was either shown LIVE on TV, or in the follow-up 2 hours. Therefore enough chance to dub, edit, upload, rubber, render and confuse the audience with more bogus clips and ridiculous violations of physical laws. Bilk instead claims, the counter-evidence on our findings must be "witnesses". I disagree. I think, that witnesses are generally not helpful to make any case. But if Bilk wants, i can also refer to 6-8 witnesses, who support either missiles or "nothing" at all at the South Tower: 1) http://culhavoc.blogsome.com/2006/03/10/nicos-timeline-cnns-reality-tv-hoax/ "...I have witnessed a horrible history. I was supposed to go to NJ for a seminar. I was on the BQE bridge going into Chinatown, Manhattan, when I saw an explosion at exactly 8:48am on the first Twin Tower. The radio said that it was a plane accident. I immediately called my sister in NJ, who normally has to get to the World Trade Center station (she works for the Mayor's office, 4 blocks away from WTC). I told her that there has been an accident and told her to avoid that station. She said that my brother will drive her to Manhattan instead. I then placed another phone call telling my best friend to stay away from the area. My friend has jury duty and the Supreme Court is 3 blocks away. Suddenly, I saw a second explosion but did not see the plane. http://www.geocities.com/vnwomensforum/september11debate.html (NOTE: BQE Bridge is local slang for Brooklyn Queens Express running over the Williamsborough Bridhe) 2) http://www.panix.com/userdirs/timothy/wtc.html "...We all looked up at the WTC to see one tower on fire. There was a ring of fire encircling the building one floor...near the top. The floors above the ring were enshrouded in thick black upwardly rising waves. Every second or two the fire crept lower--floor by floor---dripping like wax down a candle. The thought of those people...they're being incinerated..there's no way to control that fire. Then a huge fireball--monstrous in size--shot out and up---like some horribly visible dragon's breath.(this was the fireball from the impact of the second jet--I didn't realize this until after viewing the footage of the attack)..." 3) http://www.asne.org/index.cfm?ID=4318 http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0110/images/m04.jpg "...Then out of nowhere came this noise. This loud, high-pitched roar that seemed to come from all over, but from nowhere in particular. AND THE SECOND TOWER JUST EXPLODED. It became amazingly obvious to anyone there that what we all had hoped was a terrible accident was actually an overt act of hostility. I DIDN'T SEE THE PLANE HIT,ALTHOUGH I WAS LOOKING AT THE TOWER AT THE TIME. I have no recollection of pushing the button, hitting the shutter, making the picture that appeared on Page 2 of the Daily News the next day, a picture that was taken milliseconds after the second plane hit that tower..." 4) http://www.bbc.co.uk/tyne/have_your_say/september_11.shtml ... Gemma McDonald, Houston, Texas: On the morning of September 11. I was getting ready to go to school, when the news station broke in with breaking news. They said a plane had hit the world trade center. They were in the middle of broadcasting that story live, whenever a big fireball appeared out of the other tower. In order to see what hit the tower. They had to replay the tape in slow motion. We didn't know what had happened because we didn't see the plane, because it was so fast. Whenever I did figure out what happened I got this weird feeling across my body that I can't describe..." 5) TV'"witness": http://www.vegasgangonline.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7574&page=2 "...stood there watching the coverage in the airport until my flight was called. I saw the explosion in the second tower and thought it was because of the first tower burning as I didn't see the plane hit. My flight was called about 9:20 and I boarded the plane, we all sat there until about 9:35 when the pilot announced taht all flights were cancelled. After I got of the plane I went back to the TV and saw what was going on.." 6) Hispano amateur cameraman, who didn't see any object hitting south tower, while filming both towers: http://www.cruzate.com/nyhell/3.jpg Compare with same geograpical position of towers aT Rosalee's site (Antenna is in the back of second= north tower) http://www.webfairy.org/2hit/blueplane.htm http://www.cruzate.com/nyhell "...When I was back in the roof I saw just before my eyes the explosion on Tower 2. I didn't see the plane, nor did any of the other guys on the roof. We speculated for a few minutes. The only thing we could imagine was on of the wings of the first plane hitting the other tower and provoking the explosion, but that was very unlikely...." 7) From an amateur camera clip, camera positioned on both towers: "...we just saw another explosion (TV comment)...." Person 1 in room: "...Another explosion Kate..." Kate: "...i know, i know..." (noone of both refered to any plane) http://www.911closeup.com/nico/day1-tower2-fireball-only.wmv 8) Don Dahler vs. ABC Dahler: ...i didn't see any plane going in...that...that's just exploded...i... Gibson: We just saw another plane coming in from the side. Dahler: You did?? I...that was ..was...out of my view... Gibson: That was a second explosion. You can see the plane come in just from the right hand side of the screen... (=> Dahler's witness report 'overruled' by a TV monitor) http://thewebfairy.com/911/haarp/reporter.didnt.see.plane.wmv Bilk furthermore claims, we are talking about the "government" reg 9/11 CGI fakery. I don't know where Bilk get his claim from, but i see the main suspects for 9/11 TV CGI fakery here, at the militarized media: -not necessarily at CNN only, because they premiered a second-hit video with a "camera" clip from W-ABC. THis was obviously the only LIVE footage, though at least broadcasted with a delay of 4-20 seconds. Therefore we need names of these unknown cameramen and their editors. New York's radio station WINS btw. did never refer to any 'plane' at the second hit, but a second 'explosion'. It's odd that radio street reporters see less than tv hosts in front of a studio monitor -associates of Evan Fairbanks and his current wherabouts Also his footage wasn't shown LIVE on TV, or in the following 2 hours. His tape was confiscated by the FBI and did not include any audio, according to one of his (conflicting) accounts. As a matter of fact, his final version did also not include any audio and a secret service agent on this footage did not react to any incoming sound, but only to the sound of the internal explosion. Furthermore Fairbanks apparently lied about his alleged power blackout in the studio. He was working for the Archbishop of Wales, who claimed otherwise: http://www.churchinwales.org.uk/press/0078e.html "...We were unable to leave the building, of course, for quite some time; when the South Tower collapsed, there as a power failure in neighbouring buildings and the physical impact of the explosion was enormous..." The 'power failure' was in a DIFFERENT BUILDING and at a different time! Faibanks instead violated his gig by leaving the Church, which is in same building of the studio. It's also odd, that Fairbanks didn't use his own camera. http://www.gvny.com/columns/linguvic/linguvic02-15-02.html "....Someone handed me a video camera and I ran outside," he said. " Another contradiction about the sound. Why did he turn it off? http://www.gvny.com/columns/linguvic/linguvic02-15-02.html "....FBI agents conducted me to a safe place...They have the original, which has five minutes of audio. This is a copy. Sorry there's no sound..." "...he was just too scared to get the audio or the focus right...." Scared? After an 'accident' (first impression of the first hit!)?? How did he know that a second aircraft would show up?? What was so scary about a fire, 100 floors above his head?? -associates of Scott Myers (see my article above) -associates of "unknown amateur camerateam" of CNN, which 'produced' a clip, which also wasn't shown LIVE on TV, or in the follow-up 2 hours after 8:45 AM EST. -associates or real identities surrounding 'Pavel Hlava' or an unknown "Al-Quaeda"-capture during 2003. These 2 'second-hit' videos had been released almost 2 years later and cannot be labelled as credible at all. (see http://911hoax.com/gMeetPavel.asp?intPage=23&PageNum=23 ) -associates of the source for the National Geographic video, not existing on Sep11th. see video "no. 3" at http://webfairy.org/2hit/index.htm -associates for all other second hit footage, which was not shown LIVE on TV, or in the follow-up 2 hours after 8:45 AM EST. 2) 911TRUTH.ORG Cointel-Pro asset 911truth.org (see http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=7803 ) was strangely quit on the bluescreen/cgi so far, possibly hoping that 911Scholars would do the dirty homework for them. But Nic Levis, east coast research coordinator tried to distract from my findings with an attack on Jimmy Walter, but noone really wanted to talk with Levis, with the exception of trolls like "Make7" or "KevinFenton": http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x74857 Sun Mar-05-06 "...In my book, millionaire idiots who flood the market with free bad DVDs (in his case, a perversion of what had been a pretty good program in New York on 9/11/04), promote obviously refutable non-evidence, and arrange European tours for the Nazi fringe of 9/11 skepticism do far worse to the cause than the "debunkers..." Conclusion: Nic Levis is using character assassination and is playing the holocaust denial association card. He's not at all responding to the content of our findings. Ironically another saboteur, Eric Hufschmid (planehugger and controlled demolition author) is backstabbing Jimmy Walter as well, with the reversed holocaust card. Now Walter all for a sudden is not a 'holocaust denier' anymore, but a zionist: 3) Eric Hufschmid http://www.iamthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmith_Walter.html March, betw. 5th-11th, 2006 "...This article comes from the same people who were previously trying to convince us that the airplanes were holograms, such as Gerard Holmgren and Rosalee Grable (the webfairy). ... ...Since most people are laughing at their hologram theories, these criminals have switched to the theory that the airplanes that hit the World Trade Center towers were creations of video editors at the television stations rather than real airplanes... ...If you do a good job exposing 9/11 -- or any other crime by the Zionist Mafia -- the Mafia will send agents to contact you..." Conclusion: Let's skip the irritating fact, that Hufschmid is insulting his former sponsor. What his article claims, which also doesn't mention my name, is that some researchers suddenly "switched" from some holography theory to 'bluescreen'. What Hufschmid doesn't tell the reader, that Webfairy already switched from her holography 'conclusion' almost 1.5 years ago and at that time even not based on all current findings. Furthermore neither Holmgren or me had been a supporter of the holography "conclusion". Reseach furthermore does not express any conclusion and that's wxactly what Rosalee Grable did. Researching on an existing military technology, recently also used for the Grammies and the Superbowl. Hufschmid tried a softer 'hologram dance', but realizes that it's not strong enough anymore. The rest is therefore pure character assassination from the finest and does not confront any specific details of our findings. Hufschmidt's conclusion is, that supporter of the bluescreen/cgi research must be "Zionists", "Useful Idiots", "Jews", "other Underdogs" and "losers". 4) QuestionsQuestions.net http://www.questionsquestions.net/ No response on the latest wave of bluescreen/cgi supporters (Walter, Siegel, Reynolds) yet. The Salter (Brothers?) seemed to have been retired or they're sweating right now on their technical expertise gibberish, which won't be understood or read anyway and just linked via any (left)gatekeeper- and disinfo portals. Theoretically they could quote from a dictionaire on quantum technology and ignorants would still link to their articles, in the hope, not to be questioned instead. (...i have no clue, but you should read the latest Salter article....) His latest article is pretty outdated by now, from 30 Oct. 2005 5) Kyle Hence ("9/11 Citizen's Watch") No response yet. According to Hence, "america is not ready" for the truth anyway. Also, it was Hence who influenced now also WING TV with the old George/Jonathan Soros Meme, that all this "could hurt or damage the movement".. (2002/03) My question: Which "movement"? The one on the streets? (hm, still empty here in NYC, since Les "Urantia" Jamieson took over) Or the one on cyberspace? (wow, that must hurt). Or the one of the alternative media? (yep, they're pretty damaged. They don't talk at all about it. I hear the cracks) Which brings us to WING TV, self-declared most honest alternative truth speakers: 6) WING TV http://www.wingtv.net/thorn2006/noplaners.html March 9, 2006 "... We too at WING TV have been unrelentingly pressured to publicly promote and support the no-plane blue-screen theory (as many others in this field have been), just like they did when strong-arming us with their ?hologram? theory..." Conclusion: WING TV has nothing at all to respond on our findings, just a repetitive denial. Furthermore the usual character assassinations, insults or belittling my language barrier on their show. However WING TV is meanwhile revealing the difference between their former "holo dance" and bluescreen/cgi, therefore confirmed, that they knew the difference all along: "...In case you?re not aware of what the WTC no-planers advocate, they?re pushing a theory of blue-screen fakery, ?butter planes,? ?cartoon planes,? video manipulation, and faked reality..." We don't need WING TV for this 'confirmation', Because that's indeed what you see on the second hit footage: Blue-screen fakery, ?butter planes,? ?cartoon planes, video manipulation, and faked reality. We explain why, how and who produced this footage, WING TV didn't. 7) Mark Rabinowitz aka "repost" and other silly hidden pseudonyms on indymedia.org http://www.oilempire.us/hoaxes.html Zero new updates or response on Walter, Reynolds, Haupt + co. by mid march 2006. Possibly he's only active, with more character assassinations, at Indymedia. As usual for a coward, by not revealing his real name, therefore siding with other anonymous cybertrolls or daisy committees like Skyking, LARED, Make7, Saddam Hunter, "Kevin Fenton", hack89, Hotdog "Jesus" and others, who never started their own websites or appeared in public and they're possibly either completely brainwashed, on the payroll for US Government and their befriended governments or associates of the Rendon Group. 8) RENSE Ignoring the CGI-issue with a blackout 9) Alex Jones Ignoring the CGI-issue with a blackout 10) RBN Network Ignoring the CGI-issue with a blackout, though Webster Tarpley mentioned it at least on his new radioshow, however opposed by 9/11 researcher Gerhard Wisnewski, who was confused, that his "remote-controlled plane"-theory might break apart instead. 11) GCN Network Ignoring the CGI-issue with a blackout 12) Alternative (left-)Gatekeeper TV and Radio Ignoring the issue, as all other 9/11 research anyway, with a blackout 13) Victoria Ashley, girlfriend of NSA/NASA associate Jim Hoffman Not much response yet either and her first remarks had been surprisingly weak: Thu, 09 Mar 2006 "...For those who don't know already, the '911closeup' website posted here by Nico is Gerard Holmgren's website. One of Gerard Holmgren's goals in life seems to be to attack and try to discredit local 9/11 researcher Jim Hoffman..." So no response on my article at all and a strange logic: My findings must be 'wrong', because posted on Gerard Holmgren's website, though it was registered by Rosalee Grable. Furthermore Vic writes: "...I request that no one post links to any sites to this list which promote personal attacks and harrassment of other researchers. Academic criticisms are different from personal attacks..." Victoria Ashley tries to shut down the issue with plain censorship. 13) Mainstream Media Interestingly also not bashing the findings at all since its first mentioning (already during 2002/03, as a competitive explanation for 'holography'), though it appeared to be a big opportunity, according to the 9/11 truthlings, that "it might hurt" the 'movement'. 4 years silence and just some bashing from MAXIM against David Icke? Why not 'bluescreen CGI'? Why no big laugh about "no planes" on FOX TV?? Exception, finally -though: Village Voice dedicates only 1/2 a line (from 4 pages about the 9/11 Truth Movement!): http://villagevoice.com/news/0608,murphy,72255,6.html "... Others claim the planes were remote controlled, were military aircraft, or did not exist at all..." But no further explanation, why they not exist. Yet another blackout and the planehugging continues. And that's what hurts!! Instead growing support of Morgan Reynolds and other 9/11 Scholars, Rick Siegel (911eyewitness.com), culhavoc.blogsome.com, seatnineb (team8plus.org), covertoperations.blogspot.com (spooked911), 9/11 Inside Jobbers Yahoogroup, Ray Ubinger (911foreknowledge.com), Lynn Ertel aka Saigirl (9/11 Truth Action), Ian McFerran and Nick Kollerstrom (of the british 9/11 truth movement) and many others... Yes, they're all just 'cyberspace', but who isn't? 14) 911 Scholars They didn't respond publicly on the CGI-issue yet, but fighting behind the scenes to shut it down. Though the only loudspeaker against 9/11-CGI is their leader, Jim Fetzer, a strong Mike Ruppert supporter. Everyone else is silent or even supportive of this topic. Furthermore, within less than 8 hours, Jim Fetzer shut down a public yahoogroup of the 911Scholars (created by 911scholar, Professor Michael Morrissey), where we explained our views on the TV fakery and he was willing to listen. From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu Sat, 11 Mar 2006 17:47:05 "...Most of us agree with Michael's sentiments, but the timing of his forum, given the petition and the similarity in the name of his forum, obviously invited confusion between his personal operation and st911.org. So I suggested that, at this point in time, it looked to me to be counterproductive to advancing the aims of the society. He agreed and took it down..." Conclusion: Jim Fetzer is not credible. Someone of the 911Scholars should replace him with someone else. 15) Fintan Dunne Since breakfornews.com declared the whole 9/11 truthling movement as active helping hands for the CIA, he's not credible anymore as well. But even Fintan is silent on the issue so far, instead he's talking about "the Ultimate Weatherman" (March 8) and pushing the global warming distraction again, as so many other 9/11 truthlings. No response also on his forum at http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=4 But Fintan is busy to point out, that it's "nice to see the CIA Fakes helping each other out" by mentioning that the "Scholars for 9/11 Truth brigade have now teamed up with Judicial Watch, who have a history of involvement in the Sibel Edmonds case" http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=38 Well i hope, that Fintan realizes that it's not the just whole group, who fell into the trap of yet another possible visual setup, but only Jim Fetzer again, who is misleading 48 other scholars into this false-hope campaign and thinks, he can speak for all of them. I call this a clear insult against 48 other scholars, questioning their intelligence. Let's see if "bluescreen 9/11" 'hit' otherwise? http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bluescreen+9%2F11&btnG=Google+Search Jimmy Walter, supportive, now ranking No.1 http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=bluescreen%209%2F11&btnG=Google+Search&sa=N&tab=wn not 'in the news' yet, not bashed by mainstream media. Ask yourself, why? The debate on TV 9/11 reality tv will continue, because the 'saboteurs' had not been loud enough this time... Nico Haupt aka ewing2001 (The research ?bio? of this author, and former 9/11 media activist, is available at http://www.team8plus.org/comment.php?comment.news.4 ) add your comments * What hit (or not hit) the second, south tower* by Nico Haupt /Thursday, Mar. 16, 2006 at 12:52 PM/ nicohaupt2@yahoo.com Since noone was able to debunk the evidence on the second hit footage fakery (including the very first only alleged LIVE footage from W-ABC, premiering on CNN), it's time for an updated list of what might have hit the south tower. This list is the current result of a brainstorm, if "nothing at all" hit the south tower, or if ANY kind of 'uav' formation hit the tower. (Thanks for spooked911 and some input from 911Inside Jobbers yahoo.) I modified it a little bit more for myself: Here are all the possibilities for the south tower hit. It's clear that the so called "no-planers" (they got labelled like this from outside saboteurs during 2004 ff) do definetely rule out 7 and 8. 1) nothing flying, purely pre-planted charges 2) cluster of visible UAVs (including entomopters) 3) cluster of cloaked (invisible) UAVs, maybe combined with pre-planted charges 4) cloaked (invisible) missile 5) visible large missile (one or two) 6) CGI (overpainted) projecting missile (showing a Boeing jet) 7) "UA175" 8) some other large Boeing, possibly modified Here is a comment of "spooked911", a very constructive 9/11 researcher and -blogger (covertoperations.blogspot.com) on this issue: "... Because pictures of the south tower "entry" hole show columns knocked inward, I tend to favor possibilities where some flying object hits the tower. Because videos show conflicting plane paths, this suggests to me the flying object was invisible or only weakly visible (a blur, perhaps only seen from certain angles). This basically leaves possibilities 3 and 4-- cluster of cloaked (invisible) UAVs or a cloaked (invisible) missile. The problem with missiles is how did they create the wing-scars? This leaves the cloaked UAV idea as the strongest possibility...." I'm personally also leaning between 1) or 3) combined with pre-planted charges, which had the very same impact shape like at North Tower. Note also, that if a weaponized entomopter (-formation) was used, that would explain why many different sources (and footage) did not include or prove ANY incoming sound (noise from either missile or commercial aircraft). In this case, an argument for an incoming missile will be OUTDATED. nico aka ewing2001 March 16, 2006 add your comments *Nico Haupt's 9/11 Denial Movement Spam* by S. King /Thursday, Mar. 16, 2006 at 2:56 PM/ skyking@scientist.com I am not sure why you're spamming this board, Nico, but we've pretty much nailed Gerard Holmgren and the Webfairy on this nonsense elsewhere here. add your comments *here's the problem I have* by Render /Friday, Mar. 17, 2006 at 7:05 AM/ MIT reported the speed of the 2nd aircraft, calculated by using the video shots, to be far in excess of the engineered speed limit the airframe could withstand at sea level. Now, unable to verify these reported speed estimates, myself, I would be very curious to hear from anyone, the specifics involving this issue. Aside from the extreme difficulty of guiding these air barges at such speeds, into relatively small width of the WTC by cutouts that were trained at secure military bases such as Pensacola and the Presidio Of Monterey and STILL couldn't fly a small single engine propeller driven puddle jumper. Things are very weird to begin with. And tossing a label like 'ridiculous' on the subject of high tech deception, when we realize the scale of the resources on hand to my personal prime suspects, is, shall we say, ridiculous. When you eliminate the obvious solutions as impossible, only the remaining possibilities contain the truth or facts. And E. A. Poe would agree with me. add your comments *Maybe it's not a problem* by S. King /Friday, Mar. 17, 2006 at 3:44 PM/ skyking@scientist.com Ask yourself some more questions, Render. For instance, ask why you don't hear an overwhelming protest from aircraft engineers around the world or structural engineers for that matter. Is it plausible that those tens of thousands of people would not say a word claiming that the aircraft could not go that fast at sea level? add your comments *why not?* by Render /Friday, Mar. 17, 2006 at 4:37 PM/ Why don't we hear any specifications on the Aircraft mentioned? I remember the top speed at sea level was about 350 mph. Can you show me other wise as you seem to have the wonders of all the government data at your finger tips. I think MIT arrived at a speed of over 450 mph. There were other different[?] results. add your comments *You missed my point* by S. King /Saturday, Mar. 18, 2006 at 10:13 AM/ skyking@scientist.com You missed my point, Render. Do you not think it is odd that we've not heard anything from the hundreds of thousands of aircraft engineers, structural engineers, physicists, chemists, and forensic scientists who exist worldwide *IF* there were anything amiss about the speed or mechanics of the airliners' crashes into both WTC 1 & 2? add your comments *To S. King* by Nico Haupt /Saturday, Mar. 18, 2006 at 1:31 PM/ S. King (or whatever 'daisy committee' is using this handle), you wrote "...we've pretty much nailed Gerard Holmgren and the Webfairy on this nonsense elsewhere..." You didn't nail ME so far. Feel free to attack ME on any detail. "Pretty much" is for me a freudian slip on "nothing at all". Please focus on the second hit footage. You might have noticed, that i proved, that the CNN clip, produced by "an amateur camera team" was not shown on TV between 8:45 AM and 10:45 AM, instead the black blurbs by W-ABC. You can clearly recognise that the alleged commercial aircraft is rotating suddenly around his own axis. This oddity can only be explained by a rotation of a CGI, not a real commercial aircraft. http://911closeup.com/nico/bizarro4.htm http://911closeup.com/nico/nico-closeup.htm add your comments |The following post has status /hidden/:| *To S. King* by Nico Haupt ? /Saturday, Mar. 18, 2006 at 1:34 PM/ S. King (or whatever 'daisy committee' is using this handle), you wrote "...we've pretty much nailed Gerard Holmgren and the Webfairy on this nonsense elsewhere..." You didn't nail ME so far. Feel free to attack ME on any detail. "Pretty much" is for me a freudian slip on "nothing at all". Please focus on the second hit footage. You might have noticed, that i proved, that the CNN clip, produced by "an amateur camera team" was not shown on TV between 8:45 AM and 10:45 AM, instead the black blurbs by W-ABC. You can clearly recognise that the alleged commercial aircraft is rotating suddenly around his own axis. This oddity can only be explained by a rotation of a CGI, not a real commercial aircraft. http://911closeup.com/nico/bizarro4.htm http://911closeup.com/nico/nico-closeup.htm add your comments |The following post has status /hidden/:| *To S. King* by Nico Haupt ? /Saturday, Mar. 18, 2006 at 1:36 PM/ S. King (or whatever 'daisy committee' is using this handle), you wrote "...we've pretty much nailed Gerard Holmgren and the Webfairy on this nonsense elsewhere..." You didn't nail ME so far. Feel free to attack ME on any detail. "Pretty much" is for me a freudian slip on "nothing at all". Please focus on the second hit footage. You might have noticed, that i proved, that the CNN clip, produced by "an amateur camera team" was not shown on TV between 8:45 AM and 10:45 AM, instead the black blurbs by W-ABC. You can clearly recognise that the alleged commercial aircraft is rotating suddenly around his own axis. This oddity can only be explained by a rotation of a CGI, not a real commercial aircraft. http://911closeup.com/nico/bizarro4.htm http://911closeup.com/nico/nico-closeup.htm add your comments |The following post has status /hidden/:| *To S. King* by Nico Haupt ? /Saturday, Mar. 18, 2006 at 1:39 PM/ S. King (or whatever 'daisy committee' is using this handle), you wrote "...we've pretty much nailed Gerard Holmgren and the Webfairy on this nonsense elsewhere..." You didn't nail ME so far. Feel free to attack ME on any detail. "Pretty much" is for me a freudian slip on "nothing at all". Please focus on the second hit footage. You might have noticed, that i proved, that the CNN clip, produced by "an amateur camera team" was not shown on TV between 8:45 AM and 10:45 AM, instead the black blurbs by W-ABC. You can clearly recognise that the alleged commercial aircraft is rotating suddenly around his own axis. This oddity can only be explained by a rotation of a CGI, not a real commercial aircraft. http://911closeup.com/nico/bizarro4.htm http://911closeup.com/nico/nico-closeup.htm add your comments |The following post has status /hidden/:| *To Skyking* by Nico Haupt ? /Saturday, Mar. 18, 2006 at 1:41 PM/ S. King (or whatever 'daisy committee' is using this handle), you wrote "...we've pretty much nailed Gerard Holmgren and the Webfairy on this nonsense elsewhere..." You didn't nail ME so far. Feel free to attack ME on any detail. "Pretty much" is for me a freudian slip on "nothing at all". Please focus on the second hit footage. You might have noticed, that i proved, that the CNN clip, produced by "an amateur camera team" was not shown on TV between 8:45 AM and 10:45 AM, instead the black blurbs by W-ABC. You can clearly recognise that the alleged commercial aircraft is rotating suddenly around his own axis. This oddity can only be explained by a rotation of a CGI, not a real commercial aircraft. http://911closeup.com/nico/bizarro4.htm http://911closeup.com/nico/nico-closeup.htm add your comments |The following post has status /hidden/:| *To Skyking* by Nico Haupt ? /Saturday, Mar. 18, 2006 at 1:51 PM/ S. King (or whatever 'daisy committee' is using this handle), you wrote "...we've pretty much nailed Gerard Holmgren and the Webfairy on this nonsense elsewhere..." You didn't nail ME so far. Feel free to attack ME on any detail. "Pretty much" is for me a freudian slip on "nothing at all". Please focus on the second hit footage. You might have noticed, that i proved, that the CNN clip, produced by "an amateur camera team" was not shown on TV between 8:45 AM and 10:45 AM, instead the black blurbs by W-ABC. You can clearly recognise that the alleged commercial aircraft is rotating suddenly around his own axis. This oddity can only be explained by a rotation of a CGI, not a real commercial aircraft. http://911closeup.com/nico/bizarro4.htm http://911closeup.com/nico/nico-closeup.htm add your comments |The following post has status /hidden/:| *To Skyking* by Nico Haupt ? /Saturday, Mar. 18, 2006 at 1:55 PM/ S. King (or whatever 'daisy committee' is using this handle), you wrote "...we've pretty much nailed Gerard Holmgren and the Webfairy on this nonsense elsewhere..." You didn't nail ME so far. Feel free to attack ME on any detail. "Pretty much" is for me a freudian slip on "nothing at all". Please focus on the second hit footage. You might have noticed, that i proved, that the CNN clip, produced by "an amateur camera team" was not shown on TV between 8:45 AM and 10:45 AM, instead the black blurbs by W-ABC. You can clearly recognise that the alleged commercial aircraft is rotating suddenly around his own axis. This oddity can only be explained by a rotation of a CGI, not a real commercial aircraft. http://911closeup.com/nico/bizarro4.htm http://911closeup.com/nico/nico-closeup.htm add your comments *Spam is Nico's MO* by S . King /Saturday, Mar. 18, 2006 at 4:04 PM/ skyking@scientist.com Nico, Just so it's clear and there is no misunderstanding, Boeing 767's hit WTC 1 & 2. You can play with videos all you want but you can't refute the overwhelming evidence of that fact. And you really shouldn't be spamming this board. add your comments *What hit the towers ?* by Gerard Holmgren /Saturday, Mar. 18, 2006 at 4:13 PM/ holmgren@iinet.net.au Trying to solve a mystery like this is a process of elimination. First , you eliminate the impossible. Then from what?s left, you weigh the evidence and the probabilities. Sometimes this may lead to a definite conclusion. Sometimes, it may leave you with a range of possibilities still to be considered, but without enough evidence to choose between them with any confidence. So before we start trying to provide a definite opinion on what hit the towers, first let?s establish what did not hit them. Stage one is that we can rule out a large passenger jet of 767 type proportions for either of them. For the Nth tower, this is easy to do, simply by looking at the video. It just isn?t the right shape or size, or the right kind of flight characteristics. Many of the videos for both towers strikes, and deeper argument and analysis related to them can be accessed from this link. http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/noplanework.html For the Sth tower, the problem needs to be approached differently, because we can?t see what the object actually is. What we see is a crude animation, which purports to be a large jet. That?s the fundamental difference between the two tower strikes, which I think creates a lot of confusion for novices to the issue. Nth tower: The real object is visible and it?s not a large jet. Sth tower: We cannot see the object, only an overlaid animation. So, at that early stage of the investigation, we have narrowed down the possibilities to different degrees on the two towers. Nth tower: Something smaller, and differently shaped from a conventional plane, with a different kind flight characteristics.. Sth tower: It still could be anything. One could even consider the counter ?intuitive possibility that it really was a large jet and for some reason they showed us an animation, rather then the real jet. Such an idea seems silly ? as in ? why would they do that ? But lets keep all possibilities open, until we?ve actually examined the evidence in greater detail. Similarly, it would seem intuitive to suggest that ?Blobs 11? the thing (s) which hit the North tower was also used for the Sth tower. Just as it?s easy to prematurely dismiss the counter intuitive idea of a real large jet, which was for some reason replaced by an animation, its easy to prematurely jump to the obvious intuitive conclusion of ?blobs 11? also being used for the Sth tower. Perhaps, the Sth tower was something different, neither of those ? Or perhaps nothing at all. just internally planted explosives ? Lets not jump to a hasty judgment until we look closer. So the next stage is to examine the forensic evidence. And for this, both tower strikes exhibit identical evidence. No identifiable wreckage and the same pattern of damage. In examining this, we can rule out a large jet, for the Sth tower too. The forensics are impossible. WTC forensics by Gerard Holmgren http://www.911closeup.com/index.shtml?ID=79 We have some holes in the plane stories. By Morgan Reynolds http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=we_have_holes So now lets examine the possibility of a much smaller conventional plane. For the Nth tower, this solves the problem of size, but shape and flight characteristics are still a problem. So we can rule out a small conventional plane for the Nth tower. For the Sth tower, since we can?t actually see anything other than cartoon 175, we again must resort to forensic evidence. If we look at the forensic arguments against a 767 size plane, in the articles linked above, a small plane thesis solves some of this problem, in at least we no longer have the absurd situation of an object making a cartoon type cutout shape of itself in the wall, while simultaneously destroying itself beyond evidence of its existence. So let?s examine the idea that it was a much smaller plane, loaded with explosives. This would account for lack of wreckage, and also solve a fatal problem in the idea of a 767 type plane loaded with explosives. That being, that the idea of a 767 sized plane would require us to believe that the explosives which blew the plane into oblivion, somehow had no effect on the building ? in that we see damage consistent only with the entry of the plane. Even conceding the absurd scenario that a 767 sized plane could cut a neat shape of itself in a building, the only way to get the plane to subsequently disappear into nothing would be if it were packed with explosives sufficient to obliterate it. And if so then if there was briefly, an approximate 767 type shaped and sized hole in the building, that would have been subsequently made bigger and differently shaped by such a devastating explosion. The small plane idea for the Sth tower, at least solves enough of that problem to get us to re-examine that question. In that a very small plane would make a smaller impact hole and then, in being blown into oblivion, would require less explosives, making it superficially reasonable to speculate that had the plane been small enough, it might have been possible to blow the plane into oblivion, and have the combined damage of the impact and the explosion approximately match that of a much larger plane. But this theory can be quickly dismissed with a little thought. Because although it might possibly satisfy the size of the damage ? and I say *might possibly* if we examined it closely, it cannot account for the calculated shape and the miraculous achievement of a 767 size. Simply placing planted explosives aboard a small plane and crashing it into the building would result in a much less predictably sized and shaped hole. Consider: We have established through the forensic arguments above, that the approximate 767 shaped and sized holes in both towers are actually proof that it cannot have been a plane of that size. But to those who haven?t thought this through properly, the size and shape of the damage gives a superficial appearance of supporting the opposite conclusion. Some have argued that the 767 sized and shaped holes are evidence that it was a plane of this size. While it?s understandable that someone might gain that impression if they don?t really think it through, once we properly examine the physics, we see that this conclusion belongs only in cartoon land. Nevertheless, the cartoon type holes have been an effective mass sell operation for the idea of 767s to a gullible and uncritical public ? which includes the truthlings. Are we then to argue that a small plane, loaded with explosives was crashed into the Sth tower, and somehow, miraculously, the size and shape of the damage finished up just right for the purpose of selling the idea of a 767 ? Such a crude method of crashing into the building would have little , if any chance of creating the exact damage pattern desired to sell the 767 story. The cartoon type shape could only have been achieved by planning and use of more precision technologies. Therefore we can also rule out a small plane for the Sth tower, unless accompanied by planted explosions to make the 767 wing shape. This then creates a further problem. We now have the combined effect of the crash of a small plane and enough explosive to blow it into oblivion and extra precision explosives needed to create the 767 wing shape. Again there is little if any chance that this messy combination would be controllable enough to destroy all trace of the plane, have no identifiable wreckage of it hit the streets, and also finish up with just the right sized shape and hole for the psy-op. So we must conclude that whatever was used was not a conventional plane. That leaves us the possibility of some kind of far more advanced and precision designed explosive missile(s) or UAV(s), capable of making exactly the desired shape in the building, or planted explosives only, or a combination of the two. Beyond that, I have insufficient evidence to narrow down the choices further than that at this stage. So while the question of exactly what it was, is still a subject of vigorous debate amongst advanced researchers, and perhaps one which may never be completely solved, there is sufficient evidence at this stage to at least say ?no planes.? members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren add your comments *W-ABC* by Nico Haupt /Saturday, Mar. 18, 2006 at 6:47 PM/ I'm not sure, why 'skyking' is switching the focus or is distracting with inane personality attributes. I'm writing about contradictive video clips, which do not show any boeing 767, and i'm talking the only available 'LIVE' video clip, which was a W-ABC clip. There also was no time to hit the South Tower with a boeing or some dove shit, AFTER this fake-clip was broadcasted. Skyking is chickening out and has nothing productive to say. He's not talking about visual evidence and tv fakery, but the product of his own imagination, which is the result of the officical story. There was no productive counter criticism of any detail so far, which means, what i already concluded above: There isn't any technical response by any 'planehugger'. That means, i can continue with my analysis, which is here: http://www.911closeup.com/nico/contradictions1.html add your comments *Dimwit Holmgren is back* by S. King /Saturday, Mar. 18, 2006 at 7:09 PM/ skyking@scientist.com Debunked Holmgren wrote: "Stage one is that we can rule out a large passenger jet of 767 type proportions for either of them. "For the Nth tower, this is easy to do, simply by looking at the video." It is well know that no one needs a video to know that each tower was hit by a Boeing 767. End of conversation. add your comments |The following post has status /hidden/:| *Dimwit Nico is back* by S . King ? /Saturday, Mar. 18, 2006 at 7:12 PM/ skyking@scientist.com Nico Haupt wrote for all to see: "I'm writing about contradictive video clips, which do not show any boeing 767, and i'm talking the only available 'LIVE' video clip, which was a W-ABC clip." It is well known that no one needs any videos whatsoever to know that Boeing 767's hit WTC 1 & 2. add your comments *videos* by Nico Haupt /Saturday, Mar. 18, 2006 at 7:50 PM/ Skyking wrote: "... It is well known that no one needs any videos whatsoever to know that Boeing 767's hit WTC 1 & 2. ..." But that's exactly what skyking is using: Videos. Because he can't provide any other evidence to back up his conclusion, based on an imagination. That means, that the quality of his source is not only not credible ('videos'), but he can't provide any other source to back up his claim (=> based on hearsay). Furthermore his strategy of deceiving the reader back and forth with absurde contradictions of his own points reveals something else: Skyking is not credible at all. It's also interesting to know, that the collective "skyking" seems to have monitored this thread. The response of skyking follows immediately after my posting (see above). Why? Is "Skyking" lonely? Apparently not. He's in company of "videos", which are supporting his view. That brings us to the only one logical conclusion about the purpose of Skyking. "Skyking" is in reality the product of a notional confusion agency, to produce confusion by disseminating confounding information (CGI "plane" vs. an imagined "boeing"). Skyking, a fictitious non-existent person is furthermore not able to provide a clear personality profile, while he desperately tries to discredit ("spammer") my own well known, and formerly visible personality, here in NYC and elsewhere. There is no own website of skyking, no identity, no photo, nothing. A cyber troll formation, with the only purpose to water down the result of any debate and not able to back up anything at all, while attacking the debater and researcher. Therefore we can continue to ignore the "skyking" formation, which also doesn't speak for 911truth.org or 911Scholars. These are other entities, which hadn't been able to respond on that matter yet. Whover nobody "skyking" is, he looks surprisingly pretty weak to me right now, with nothing in his cyber hands. add your comments *Spy Cretin Drivel* by Gerard Holmgren /Saturday, Mar. 18, 2006 at 8:35 PM/ holmgren@iinet.net.au Spy Cretin wrote [[t is well know that no one needs a video to know that each tower was hit by a Boeing 767. ]] Spy Cretin now admits that video evidence was never the reason for first fantasizing about 767s hitting the WTC. Because it doesn't show any such thing. In that case , exactly what was the reason for ever proposing this crazy idea ? Since Spy Cretin never answers questions, I can answer for him. Because the Govt tells us ! You see, Spy Cretin believes every word of the USG conspiracy theory. He believes in 19 deranged hijackers, clutching their little knives and slavering over their psychotic hatred of our freedoms. He believes that the WTC 1,2 and 7, all fell down by accident because the kero fire melted the steel. He believes that four hijacked planes could fly around US airspace for nearly two hours hitting important buildings, without the world's most powerful airforce knowing what to do. He thinks the OBL confession video is real. He thinks that a giant plane hit the pentagon and disappeared through a hole many times smaller than itself without scorching the lawn or leaving any wreckage. He thinks all of this because the Govt tells him. So its not surprising that even though he now admits that there is no video evidence of a 767 hitting the WTC, it still happened. Why? Because the Govt tells him. members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren add your comments *here's my question* by Sheepdog /Saturday, Mar. 18, 2006 at 9:07 PM/ A very minor detail that could be addressed. Very much has been made about the resolution of the 1st tower strike as having been labeled as a 'flying pig' etc... A phenomena occurs as the roots drop out of any data set ( like a frame raster) when you expand them to have their set filled with non data points... ahem..[ anyway, that's how I figure it] and expanding a video of finite resolution could, in my view, produce ghosting. I am, by no means, knowledgeable in this subject. I own a cam 'corder. I might film some airport shots if HLS doesn't nab me in the process. Is there a comparison video mimicking similar lighting, equipment and relative focal parameters be produced ( casual query involving hours of work ) or is that an unreasonable? It seems much time and labor has already been used to dig this wagon into the ditch. Too much heated speculation fixating on 'questionable sources.' Or have I missed this comparative analysis? Anyway, what the hell does the mechanism of Treason matter in all of its particulars? It could have been many technologies. Oh, nevermind; of course, to indite all the perps by following up on all the involved parties. Silly me. add your comments *Skyking lost in his marix* by Nico Haupt /Saturday, Mar. 18, 2006 at 9:12 PM/ Skyking's strategy to discredit the researcher does include also some mistakes. He claims, that Holmgren was "debunked", but didn't provide any link, where this debunkery took place. As a matter of fact, i can't recall any conversation, where Holmgren was debunked. Since i am also supportive of his view, even posting on his own website, why is it, that i wasn't "debunked" yet, as Skyking attributes correctly to me? Which brings me to the logical conclusion: If Nico Haupt wasn't debunked, then Gerard Holmgren wasn't debunked either. Next Skyking will distract with 'witness reports', which had been already nullified by me in my first posting. As a matter of fact, i presented 8-10 witnesses, which had been supportive of my own conclusions. So let's skip all of these 'witnesses', which haven't been my focus in the first place. Also, in case 'Skyking' will distract with physical analysis, he enters already successfully confronted violations of any physical laws. Therefore we have finally to focus on what this thread is about: the visual TV evidence on fakery. Since Skyking didn't contribute anything specific on this, i must be right and therefore it's indeed correct that i wasn't debunked. Btw., i personally support skyking's attribute "dimwit" on my person, which seems to be another weak attempt, to assassin my character. As a matter of fact, a "Dimwit" is something positive. Dimwit?s Dictionary describes thousands of "sharp alternatives" to tired words and phrases. Skyking is a good example for someone who desperately needs a dimwit dictionary, because he is using dried out phrases, which do not impress anyone at all. Dimwits instead create original, concise work that readers enjoy. The pseudo responses of the "Skyking" collective, which prefers interesting a phallus synonym for its handle, to booster his ego, are not enjoyable at all. They're boring, pretty old school for experienced trolls and meaningless, who occasionally also use character insults like "jews" or "nazis" to make their point and allegedly succeed. Maybe "Skyking" cannot come up with these kind of insults, because he's not programmed to do so and someone else will jump into his place to proceed these attacks. It's also very ironic, that i am able to succeed, while my own language barrier is allegedly 'handicapping' me. The only attack on his "what to do"-troll list, which Skyking did put on hold so far, might be a character assassination which will describe me as a "third grader" to weaken my argument. Possibly he put them on hold with the consideration, that he might look afterwards as a merge between kindergarten and first grader. Usually government operatives are using useful idiots or cyber puppets, who are very well equipped with proper english. It's therefore disappointing, that "Skyking", though properly speaking english, is not equipped with the proper counter argument. Skyking struggles visibly in an attempt to shut down the argument and is instead close to censorhip and denial of his own failure. The irony is, that skyking might be just a brainwashed collective, who continues to lie for the purpose of lying, otherwise his own matrix would break apart. add your comments *Fair question, Sheepdog* by Gerard Holmgren /Saturday, Mar. 18, 2006 at 9:48 PM/ holmgren@iinet.net.au [[Is there a comparison video mimicking similar lighting, equipment and relative focal parameters be produced ]] Yes. http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/planevideos.html Actually the comparison favours the official conspiracy theory, because they are mostly smaller planes and taken with an inferior camera. They are presented in mpeg format, which is a degraded resolution. The difference between them and blobs 11 is striking. Just in case Sheepdog missed it, remember that the Nth tower issue is different form the Sth tower. Nth tower: Real object, not a plane. Sth tower. Superficially looks like a big jet but critical analysis shows it to be a cartoon. In terms of proving guilt, I think Sheepdog needs to think through the implications of the Sth tower fakery more carefully. The cartoon plane adds a new dimension to who is guilty. Not just the Govt, but the media. Not just for covering up afterward, but as being a key player in orchestrating the entire psy-op. We need to widen the net of who the perps are. add your comments *2nd video focus* by nicohaupt2@yahoo.com /Saturday, Mar. 18, 2006 at 10:12 PM/ "Sheepdog", whatever brought you this thread, thanks for your input. However, let's focus on the purpose of this thread. It was the fakery of the "second hit" footage. I assume your feedback was triggered by distraction artist "skyking". My advice is therefore, that your posting might be appreciated at planehuggers yahoogroup, a kind of think tank in between a fighter club and therapy group for "planehuggers". I suggest you get in touch with one of their admins and we can pick up your thought over there :) Let's therefore come back to the topic of 'second hit footage', especially from W-ABC, which wasn't addressed by skyking yet. Instead i'm curious, why the skyking collective didn't come back yet and instead every other input seems to distract from the issue. I hope therefore that we can finally come back to the core. Skyking is meanwhile busy to attend other forums as well until the skyking collective is also using other handles to play the distraction game. A fresh screenshot of an email ID hunter reveals, that "skyking" is busy on opposite politcial forums from either the alleged left- or right wing: From 420 recent file addresses where "skyking" was active lately (and the grabber didn't even finish his searcg), he's responding at such almost every indymedia portal (from netherlands or canada to italy), exotic forums like newsbackup.com, wakeupfromyourslumber.blogspot.com, wirtschaftsgruppe.de, 2cs.cmu.edu, happyjoker.com, boardfuckyou.com (?) or scientificsonline.com. The intellect of this very busy collective also reveals, that it enjoys high standards like inaniloquent.com , but also profane message boards like fuckyou.com The Skyking collective must use super computers from the NGA or NSA to keep up with the debunking of the official conspiracy theory of 9/11. There are a lot of daisy committees like Skyking around. We can therefore expect some surprising twist this time, because nothing else happened and all these new sober worms, sent to my address, didn't impress me either - :) add your comments *Nico crashes again* by S. King /Sunday, Mar. 19, 2006 at 5:52 AM/ skyking@scientist.com Nico wrote for all to see.... "But that's exactly what skyking is using: Videos." Not at all, Nico. NO one needs videos to know that AA 11 and UA 175, both Boeing 767s on scheduled flights, crashed into WTC 1 & 2. As you well know, there were thousands of eyewitnesses in addition to all the other inconvenient evidence that you have to deny exists. Sorry, Nico, you hit a dead end with your nonsense as soon as you invented it. add your comments *Nico crashes again* by S. King /Sunday, Mar. 19, 2006 at 6:49 AM/ skyking@scientist.com Nico wrote for all to see.... "Skyking's strategy to discredit the researcher does include also some mistakes. "He claims, that Holmgren was "debunked", but didn't provide any link, where this debunkery took place." Readers of sf.indymedia.org are well aware that Holmgren was debunked four years ago and that neither you nor he are "researechers" of any sort. And I reminded him of the fact recently here: http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/01/332076.html Note that Holmgrem devolved into hysteria in order to get the thread killed and hidden, the same tactic you both are using here, Nico. That and the amount of verbiage to attack me personally doesn't hide the fact that you cannot deal with facts and physical reality. Those that frequent this board are far more intelligent than you and Holmgren think they are so it would be a good idea to quit insulting them. You both can join The Webfairy on her fantasy flight to nowhere. add your comments *Program continues* by Nico Haupt /Sunday, Mar. 19, 2006 at 8:31 AM/ Skyking, glad to see that your program is up and running again -:) You just hit the repeat button. Fine, i expected that. First of all you repeated, that "NO one needs videos to know that AA 11 and UA 175, both Boeing 767s on scheduled flights, crashed into WTC 1 & 2." So i have to hit my repeat button as well: As everyone can see above, i just pointed out that this is exactly the only thing, on what you based your conclusion: Videos. Then i pointed out, that you will grasp for "witnesses", while you 1) can't provide any 2) was already confronted with my own "witness" list, which showed, that there was no boeing or any plane at all (a list of follow-up conclusions was provided above). 3) tried to distract again from the analysis of the "second hit footage", especially W-ABC Skyking is therefore still not able to respond on the TV evidence of fakery. He just can't, because it's impossible to prove, that it wasn't faked. I agree with your assumption, that this debate might turn into a "dead end", because that is what the purpose of your existence is: Driving a debate into a meaningless cyber gibberish and endless loop of repeated claims, opposed by repeated facts. The fight against cyber roaches will therefore continue, until much smarter readers than us both will pick up the fight in 'the other reality', where fascists and neocons still suceed, with the help of the real 9/11 perps and idiotic collectives like you. Unfortunately Skyking can't show satisfaction, because it's actually 'him' who was debunked worldwide as, quote "a liar", "coward" or "wimp", hiding behind a fake identity. Skyking's cyber obsession, that "Holmgren was debunked four years ago" becomes not more true by repeating it all over again as well. Skyking can't even provide the link from "four years ago", because it never existed, not even in google cache or web.archive.org. It's also odd, that Skyking refers to sf.indymedia, while he is active in almost every branch of indymedia. Skyking knows that i am not active at other indymedias, therefore his 'program' produces this convenient answer. He also pretends, that i follow Gerard by devolving in "hysteria in order to get the thread killed and hidden", while i have no ability or wish to do so. I also didn't attack "skyking personally", but analysed the collective behind 'skyking', which is nothing more than a daisy committee, providing some particular characters here and over there. What this has to do with "intelligence" is out of my radar? It's a very pragmatic procedure which occasionally drives people away, because not entertaining enough. In this case, "skyking" succeeded so far, because he also is not really entertaining anymore. If he had a contract with Jerry Springer, they would have fired him a while ago. Skyking thinks, it is "intelligence" what people drives into political boards like this. I disagree. It's more or less curiousity. Maybe 'skyking' can explain to us, where he sees "those that frequent this board" and "far more intelligent than you"? I think, they're already joined me. However first they enjoyed the charade you did present here and then they leaft, and that's indeed a little bit more intelligent. They're not wasting time with you. But is this really "more intelligent"? Would it be more intelligent to fight 'digital roaches' worldwide? Possibly not, because they're too many of them. Here is an example, how 'skyking', who claims to be intelligent, left a pretty obvious profile at one his recent 450 stations. As a matter of fact, it's skyking who IS debunked, not Holmgren or Haupt: skyking@scientist.com is posting on a lot of sex forums, which are dealing with the WTC Collapse issue. His journeys are endless. On german wirtschaftsforum (a right wing magazine economy forum, like Forbes.com) he's opposing via an 'anonymous' handle who just link to his own messages. On flight.org he tries to distract with the religious card, on other forums it's global warming to keep 9/11 scientists busy. In the italian forum news.quipo he's using his handle to represent alt.investors,alt.conspiracy and argues with someone named Jason Christie http://tinyurl.com/z5dos Skyking's postings are multiplied via usenet and show up at alt.conspiracy,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics from there worldwide. "Skyking" , a master traveller is also ironcially active at travel groupsrv.com where he was revealed as a liar. They called him "Sky Twink" over there and he always claimed he "debunked Gerard Holmgren 3 years ago". (2003): http://tinyurl.com/s94mp "... Heh - "sky king" - the documented liar who cowered away - again - over two weeks ago after getting spanked repeatedly - same as last time (2/25/04). Howdya like it, wimp? Welcome back! Open wide! (Again ;-) I don't know the folks over at alt.conspiracy but if you post there, then they probably know you (like the rest of us do) as a spineless liar - and liars ain't worth spit (see: "moderator" and "nomail" - two of your fellow documented liars). And hey - are you really so afraid that you have to hide behind a bogus identity - that you stole from someone else? ..." On oneutah.org http://tinyurl.com/zyabg Skyking is pushing his obsession with "Dr Greening?s papers" again, which are available here: http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf This website was anonymously created on 13-Jan-05 and claims, that "spreading of false claims helps no-one, and we?d like to play a small part in revealing some of them. We?re not about debunking entire conspiracies, then, but will use this site to zoom in on what we think are the more dubious stories..." It's also very convenient that this website has no contact address at all and is recently promoted on some gatekeeper boards.... CONCLUSION: A cyber debate with 'skyking' proves, that digital cyber committees are only occasionally in the defense or appear to loose the argument, to produce a "false-hope" element of winning over the alleged enemy, while 'skyking' isn't the enemy but just a puppet of the enemy system. They are represented, as correctly pointed out by the collective "skyking" by too many of them, to win all of these cyberfights against collective puppet committees. What we're seeing however right now is, that even those smart and well trained committees couldn't find any intelligent counter argument so far, which is honestly surprising for me. That means, their repeat button vs. the digital TV fakery of alleged commercial aircrafts has to be upgraded with someone else. So far this didn't help at all: 1) insults 2) distractions with already debunked physical counter points. 3) distractions with alleged witnesses 4) repeating 1) to 3) in a random loop system The result: TV fakery of the planes was already proven anyway. Since no 'activist' group did pick up our evidence yet, it will remain in cyberspace and continue to be occasionally attacked by skyking and his other collective fellows. For those, who choose to pick this fight on cyberspace, they should refer to this thread. add your comments *loop* by Nico Haupt /Sunday, Mar. 19, 2006 at 8:48 AM/ Skyking, wasn't also the original purpose of your appearance, to debunk me, not Holmgren? Why do you always distract with Holmgren or Grable? Since you haven't been able to provide for us the original link from "3 years ago", because it doesn't exist. It also doesn't help you to instead refer to a secondary link, where you just "reminded" us on this non-existing link. That still means, Holmgren wasn't debunked either. Same to me, as confirmed by skyking himself, regarding to the issue and his own attribute to me, as documented here above. Instead, for the record, it is once and again 'skyking' who is debunked, as visibly proven HERE: http://tinyurl.com/f4brv (scroll below) add your comments *Loopy* by S. King /Sunday, Mar. 19, 2006 at 9:46 AM/ skyking@scientist.com Nico goofed for all to see..... "Since you haven't been able to provide for us the original link from "3 years ago", because it doesn't exist. I stated for the record: "Readers of sf.indymedia.org are well aware that Holmgren was debunked four years ago and that neither you nor he are "researechers" of any sort. "And I reminded him of the fact recently here: http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/01/332076.html Message #129, http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/01/332076.html?c=on#c142509, is quite explicit about the link. Too bad you have such trouble, Nico. And, as Gerard Holmgren well knows, he has been unable to answer my straightforward questions ever since. As you go around in circles chasing your tail, maybe someone here will come to the defense of your whacky fantasies. But I doubt it. No one is that dumb. add your comments *loopy 2* by Nico Haupt /Sunday, Mar. 19, 2006 at 10:43 AM/ "Skyking", why are you harrassing readers to visit UK Indymedia, instead of just copy and paste the link from "4 years ago" over here? Maybe you will find time to do so, but the problem is that the original link does not exist. Again you try to distract with Holmgren instead of concentrating on me. You also seem to ignore the embarrassing profile of yourself, which i documented here above. Instead you think, that describing some collections of facts can be belittled as "goofing". However 'goofing' is just a description of having a cyber coffee break with you. Or better: cyberslacking with you, while noone else is available. Never mind. I see you don't want to confront the visual evidence of fakery, which confirms what other netizens reported about you: You are a "coward". Not that it bugs me very much, but it doesn't lead to anything productive here and once again proves what i already pointed out with my very own repeat button: There is nothing to debunk. TV fakery took place and there is either UA175, a boeing or a commercial aircraft in any of the "second hit footage", including the only alleged 'live' clip from W-ABC. I'm also wondering, why 'skyking' gave up to confront the issue, instead refering to "someone here", who "will come to the defense" of my "whacky fantasies". Why not you, 'skybot'? Noone else is coming, because noone can't confront the tv fakery. That includes you, too. Poor Skybot. He is also not able to distinguish "video" from "fantasies". I refer to the actual video footage, which you describe as a "fantasy". Are you suggesting, that these videos did not exist? That would be awesome news. In this case, there is zero evidence of the official story at all. That makes it double zero: Faked Vidoes and fantasized videos. Which "zero" do you prefer? add your comments *Loopy revisted* by S. King /Sunday, Mar. 19, 2006 at 11:44 AM/ skyking@scientist.com Nico Haupt, in a daze, wrote for all to see.... "Maybe you will find time to do so, but the problem is that the original link does not exist." Yes, it does. It points to the original thread on sf.indymedia.org. It doesn't surprise me that you would deny it. "I see you don't want to confront the visual evidence of fakery, ..." There is nothing to confront. Videos are irrelevant to whether Boeing 757's hit the WTC or not. Everybody knows that. And we know a 767 hit each tower. Without videos. "Are you suggesting, that these videos did not exist? " Let's see if you can understand my past posts on the subject: "It is well known that no one needs a video to know that each tower was hit by a Boeing 767." "Not at all, Nico. NO one needs videos to know that AA 11 and UA 175, both Boeing 767s on scheduled flights, crashed into WTC 1 & 2. "As you well know, there were thousands of eyewitnesses in addition to all the other inconvenient evidence that you have to deny exists." Sorry you are so confused by those easily-understood facts, Nico. add your comments *What "thousands of witnesses* by Gerard Holmgren /Sunday, Mar. 19, 2006 at 12:57 PM/ holmgren@iinet.net.au Spy Cretin's program spewed out the following mass production line [[As you well know, there were thousands of eyewitnesses ]] - for a large jet hitting the Sth Tower ? Oh Really ? Perhaps Spy Cretin would like to provide 10 of these - with documentation ? members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren add your comments *loopy 3* by Nico Haupt /Sunday, Mar. 19, 2006 at 1:00 PM/ Skyking, it's you, who are doing the "confusion dance", not me. 1) You are confusing Holmgren with Haupt. If you want to confront Holmgren, why are you talking with me? It's therefore you, who is in denial and cannot even paste an original URL. 2) You are confusing video footage with witnesses. I help you out: The videos are available, your non-contradicting witness report are NOT. Therefore: a) Let's go back to Haupt b) Let's go back to the video footage and start with the W-ABC clip. Are your brain cells ready for another reset on this issue? Possibly not. Because we just established, that Skyking prefers to refer to 'witnesses', while i pointed out, that i refer to the visual evidence of fakery. That was the purpose of this posting. Why Skyking insists on his contradictive witness reports, shows not only an absurdity, he also confirms, that his intelligence is unable to confront video footage AT ALL. Maybe because Skyking doesn't even have a video recorder to have taped these videos. I give you a hint. There are all available online. I gave you also some screenhots at the top. Is your cyber finger able to scroll back to the top? Sorry you are so confused by those easily-understood facts, "Skyking". add your comments *Nico's Loopy Circles* by S. King /Sunday, Mar. 19, 2006 at 2:00 PM/ skyking@scientist.com You're just around in circles, Nico. No one gives a hoot about videos, much less your fantasies. And, yes, your in the same holding pen with Holmgren and the Webfairy. add your comments *Spot on Nico !* by Gerard Holmgren /Sunday, Mar. 19, 2006 at 2:09 PM/ holmgren@iinet.net.au Well said, Nico. Spy Cretin insists that we ignore the evidence which does exist - videos - in favour of evidence which doesn't exist - eyewitnesses to a large jet hitting the Sth tower. How loopy is that ? Let's not talk about the existing evidence. Let's just make up something up, and talk about that instead members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren add your comments *"Inconvenient " evidence* by Gerard Holmgren /Sunday, Mar. 19, 2006 at 3:00 PM/ holmgren@iinet.net.au Spy Cretin, having admitted that there is no video evidence for a large jet hitting the Sth tower, then tried the ?thousands of witnesses ? ploy. Having now tacitly admitted that there is actually isn?t any witness evidence either, by refusing to provide any, we can now note that he snuck in a few other lies and absurdities. For eample [["As you well know, there were thousands of eyewitnesses in addition to all the other inconvenient evidence that you have to deny exists."]] Having already beaten a hasty retreat from both the witnesses and the videos, then what is [[all the other inconvenient evidence ]] ? Ah?maybe it?s simply showing that such flights existed ? As if that proves anything about what happened to them... [[AA 11 and UA 175, both Boeing 767s on scheduled flights, crashed into WTC 1 & 2.]] Sorry, wrong again. The official flight logs of the US Bureau of transportation say that there was no such flight as AA 11 that day. What really happened to American Airlines flights 11 and 77 on Sept 11 2001. http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/1177.html And so its hardly surprising that they had to fake the passenger lists for the non existent flight 11. Media published fake passenger lists for American Airlines Flight 11. http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/fake.html UA 175 existed as a flight, but the plane which flew it ? N612UA was still registered as valid on the FAA aircraft registry more than 4 years later. Go to the FAA aircraft registry http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/acmain.htm and do an "n number" search for N591UA ( UA 93 on Sept 11) and N612UA (UA 175 on Sept 11). So ? as admitted by Spy Cretin ? there is no video or witness evidence to support the claim that large jets hit the WTC, one of the flights alleged to be involved didn?t exist and the other apparently didn?t crash anywhere that day and we didn?t have any identifiable wreckage. So what?s left of the Govt and media story ? Only their Spy Cretin Robot mindlessly spewing out its program over and over. members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren add your comments *Haupt and Holmgren exposed.* by S. King /Sunday, Mar. 19, 2006 at 3:16 PM/ skyking@scientist.com You and Holmgren are whining in the wrong place, Nico. No one here likes disinfo agents like you two and the Webfairy. WING TV made that QUITE clear when they devoted much of a program to your "crap" and "retarded nonsense." Listen to the whole thing: Are Scholars for 9-11 Truth Being Sabotaged? http://www.911underground.com/WING_TV_2006-03-09_Are_Scholars_for_9-11_Truth_Being_Sabotaged.MP3 Better hit the road, you two. add your comments *And your" thousands of witnesses", Spy Cretin ?* by Gerard Holmgren /Sunday, Mar. 19, 2006 at 3:44 PM/ holmgren@iinet.net.au No - I didn't think so. They can't been programmed into Spy Cretin's database, because they don't exist. You see Spy Cretin is not a person at all ,but a Troll Central Robot which spews out programmed responses to articles such as that by Nico above. That's why it is only ever vaguely related to the topic, because we are dealing not with human intelligence, but with artifical stupidity. The Spy Cretin Robot has been programmed with a primitive anger circuit which is triggered by the mention of my name. Already you can sense the oil pressure rising, and the warning lights flashing. I believe it was modelled on the neurology of a hungry crocodile. The Robot is incapable of viewing videos, which is why its program insists that videos are not admissible as evidence. members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren add your comments *wing tv +wackos* by Nico Haupt /Sunday, Mar. 19, 2006 at 4:04 PM/ Interesting distraction spin. Skyking doesn't want to loose his job at Jerry Springer, instead he applied now for Saturday Night Life. So now the "skyking" collective turns into a "WING TV" fan. Are you working for WING TV, sky? Is that the "someone" you refered here earlier, because you chickened out to address simple video footage? So you confess, thay you're too weak, that you have to come up with someone else to speak for you? Maybe you should ask WING TV also, where they're getting their evidence from, because they're couldn't provide it either? Please shoot us a fresh URL, please -:) Not sure, where exactly the 'disinfo' is, you desperately described, but if the video footage is just a fantasy, then you and WING TV should prove, that it didn't exist. Please also shoot a URL for 911Scholars, if they're able to. Wait, i save your time, because Jim Fetzer just confirmed, that he is on 'skyking's side: Jim Fetzer wrote: "...I had not noticed you were soliciting my opinion on this matter but, for what it is worth, I believe Boeing 767s hit both the towers, but there are questions I consider open about their precise configuration, whether they may have been military variations, whether they were -200s or -300s. I know you are raising questions about this, but that is my present view. To the best of my knowledge, both Steve and David Ray Griffin would agree...." So the "skyking" committee confirmed that is in the same company, who just "BELIEVE Boeing 767s hit both the towers..." Well, believing or proving is a difference to me, skysmurf. Maybe you shouldn't have asked 911scholars or WING TV for help, because they can't help you at all. Poor Skydwarf. So now the skydwarf committee is claiming that the TV broadcast was just a multi-dimensional holography, somehow planted in everyone's brain?? Wow! That's indeed a wackie technology i never heard about before -:) Well, maybe skyclingone really comes up with a fantastic conspiracy theory which might have been developed under the influence of LSD: Non existing TV broadcasts, but a big illusion by blackOPs, close to David Copperfield? ROFL. How wacked out is that?? Once that is proven, then your butter brain might realize, that it was the wrong spin. Because if video footage is just fantasy or does not even exist at all, where is your case?? add your comments *Nico Pretzel Twisting* by S. King /Sunday, Mar. 19, 2006 at 4:25 PM/ skyking@scientist.com Nico Haupt wrote for all to see.... "Because if video footage is just fantasy or does not even exist at all, where is your case??" Where it's always been, Nico. One doesn't need ANY videos to know that WTC 1 & 2 were each hit by Boeing 767s. Which leaves you where you've always been, Nico: in la-la land, twisting in the wind like a convoluted pretzel. I really hate to keep ruining your day, Nico. add your comments *Unanswered questions for Spy Cretin* by Gerard Holmgren /Sunday, Mar. 19, 2006 at 4:28 PM/ holmgren@iinet.net.au Heh ! Poor old Spy Cretin has got his circuits in a tangle. Now he's claiming that no video of the WTC strikes was ever shown on TV. Possibly this spin out is because the mere mention of my name raised his oil pressure to near dangerous levels, and seriously impairs the processing speed. Since we are meeting only confused robotic bluster on the issue of the TV fakery, lets test out how functional the circuits are in relation to other matters. Here are two totally contradictory statements from Spy Cretin from two different IMC debates - in relation the demolition of WTC 7. In a post at http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2005/11/1722079.php dated ,Feb 23 2006 Spy Cretin writes [[The WTC 7 collapse study has not even been completed by NIST. Until that investigation is complete, we have to rely on what we do and don't know.? ]] But at http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2004/04/1691636_comment.php#1725044 in a post dated May 4 2005 (nearly a year earlier) Spy Cretin wrote [[The April 5, 2005 NIST report covers the WTC 7 collapse very well: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final ]] Spy Cretin, which of these statements is true and which is false ? Spy Cretin has already refused to answer this question, 3 times at this debate http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2005/11/1722079.php and presumably would have gone refusing to answer it indefinitely, if I hadn't then switched to another question, which he's also now refused three requests to answer. Since he's so desperate to avoid discussing the WTC fake plane videos ( to the point that he's now claiming that no WTC strike videos even exist ! ), let's briefly indulge his pleading and whining to talk about something else, by asking him to explain these the two completely contradictory assertions above. Lets watch him refuse to answer that question for a fourth time. members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren add your comments *While he untangles his cicuits...* by Gerard Holmgren /Sunday, Mar. 19, 2006 at 4:57 PM/ holmgren@iinet.net.au While Spy Cretin continues to attempt to convince the world that no videos of the Sth tower strike exist - and for the fourth time refuses to explain his totally contradictory statements on whether a certain NIST report exists, the technicians are running around madly , trying to stop Spy Cretin's smoking embarrassment circuit from melting him like keroense fire. In the meantime... Where are those "thousands of witnesses" ? members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren add your comments *Skydwarf's Pretzelgate* by Nico Haupt /Sunday, Mar. 19, 2006 at 5:09 PM/ Skydwarf wrote: "...I really hate to keep ruining your day, Nico..." Huh? It's the opposite, Sky. I pretty much enjoy, that you constantly confess in an infinite loophole, similar like DoS (denial of service), that you're not able to address simple video footage. But that is what this thread is about: Video footage: In case you don't know what that is, please let me help out your butterhead again: The term video (from the Latin for "I see") commonly refers to several storage formats for moving pictures: digital video formats, including DVD, QuickTime, and MPEG-4; and analog videotapes, including VHS and Betamax. Video can be recorded and transmitted in various physical media: in celluloid film when recorded by mechanical cameras, in PAL or NTSC electric signals when recorded by video cameras, or in MPEG-4 or DV digital media when recorded by digital cameras. I have no clue, if my 'pretzels' (i hope you enjoyed them, too), might have damaged your brain, like once some pretzels allegedly knock-outed Bush, but if so, don't expect me to feel sorry for you, because i'm disappointed in your weakness. You constantly say, like an obsessed spammer, that "one doesn't need ANY videos". Maybe because you don't know what a video is and cannot decipher my definition above. We also know, that a hint on distractive witness reports does not help you either, because they contradict each other. Conclusion: Witness Reports do not support the official story, because too many exceptions claim the opposite. See my list of 8-10 witnesses which contradict the view of 'planehuggers'. So i'm still not sure, where your case is? Who is "one"? Is that WING TV or 9/11 Scholars? (see above) And when do we finally start to talk about the W-ABC footage? (PS: Tomorrow you can spam this place all by yourself, because i'm busy the whole day. I might be able to join in the evening, to figure, if you finally had been able to address the issue. Maybe you should play with a TV camera in between and see how it works. In case you're also not able to figure that out, let me help you with another URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_camera Maybe you can also provide me with the names of the camera crew of W-ABC. Maybe ask the NSA, i'm sure they're on your side as well and give you the names - :) add your comments *About those "thousands of witnesses"...* by Gerard Holmgren /Sunday, Mar. 19, 2006 at 5:59 PM/ holmgren@iinet.net.au Here?s what happened to the last person who claimed ?thousands of witnesses.? (although, strictly speaking, we are not dealing with a "person" in relation to the Spy Cretin program) You can see it at the debate I had with the discredited Eric Salter. http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/salter.html Salter (who unlike Spy Cretin) at least admits that video of the event exists ) opened the debate boasting of ?thousands of witnesses?. So I asked him to produce 50 with documentation. He failed to produce even one and then ran off in a huff, posting in an article on his website, the direct lie that he had asked me to produce witnesses and that I had refused. Which is what prompted me to post the entire exchange on my website, in order to correct the record. Not a word has been edited from the debate in the above link. After finishing up with a custard pie all over his face from his reckless and ludicrous ?thousands of witnesses? claim, Salter then started back flipping as fast as he could and posted this on his website. http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/767orwhatzit.html [[I don't think reasonable people have felt it necessary to collect eyewitness testimony to support the official story of 767 impacts. That doesn't mean that those witnesses don't exist. ]] Heh ! Not so bullish on the ?thousands of witnesses? now, Eric ? Just like Spy Cretin. They start off boasting about ?thousands? and finish up admitting that they don?t have any. And finish up with pie all over their faces, in their desperate attempts to avoid discussing the videos of the TV fakery on Sept 11 - which is what this article is about. members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren add your comments *Quite a Display of Fireworks* by S. King /Sunday, Mar. 19, 2006 at 6:11 PM/ skyking@scientist.com Nico, You and your Gerard ought to hire yourself out on July 4th. You really put on quite a display of fire and brimstone. It's quite amusing. add your comments *Since he's now finished never starting to discuss the issue...* by Gerard Holmgren /Sunday, Mar. 19, 2006 at 6:26 PM/ holmgren@iinet.net.au ...then we might as well have some more fun at the expense of Troll Central. Spy Cretin, would you mind refusing to answer this question again ? (5th time) Here are two totally contradictory statements from Spy Cretin from two different IMC debates - in relation the demolition of WTC 7. In a post at http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2005/11/1722079.php dated ,Feb 23 2006 Spy Cretin writes [[The WTC 7 collapse study has not even been completed by NIST. Until that investigation is complete, we have to rely on what we do and don't know.? ]] But at http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2004/04/1691636_comment.php#1725044 in a post dated May 4 2005 (nearly a year earlier) Spy Cretin wrote [[The April 5, 2005 NIST report covers the WTC 7 collapse very well: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final ]] Spy Cretin, which of these statements is true and which is false ? members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren add your comments *July 4th* by Nico Haupt /Sunday, Mar. 19, 2006 at 7:00 PM/ Skydrivel, thx for the props :) i wish you had the same "fireworks" to keep me awake, but your thin responses are getting weaker and weaker, that they made me absolutely sleepy right now -:) Is "4th july" a hint, that you figure out until then, about what kind of sep11th footage we're talking about? Does that also mean, that you need 100 more days to figure out, what a TV is? Maybe you want to watch the 4th july-fireworks on TV this year and then finally realize, what a "broadcast" is? Well, i give you 1 day. Buy some DVD about fireworks, if you miss us to much -:) Watch out that your candles don't burn out or whatever lighting electrodes you are using. See you tomorrow evening. In the meantime, maybe your cyber thumb will be able to scrawl right back to the top. Well, since i'm so bored about your desert responses, i'm not lazy enough yet, to repost you the latest link, you desperately try to escape from: http://www.911closeup.com/nico/contradictions1.html South Tower attack: Aircraft "Video" Contradictions add your comments *Lay off the ad hominems.* by one of the editors /Sunday, Mar. 19, 2006 at 10:36 PM/ Stick to the facts, all of you. Otherwise, I'll throw you all out. add your comments *Back to the Facts* by S. King /Monday, Mar. 20, 2006 at 4:37 AM/ skyking@scientist.com Thank you, "one of the editors", we needed that reminder. The evidence that a Boeing 767 hit each of the towers, WTC 1 & 2, comes from many different sources, including video sources. Much of the evidence can stand on its own strength demonstrating that a Boeing 767 hit each tower; all of the evidence put together tell us which Boeing 767s hit the towers, in this case AA11 hit WTC 1 and UA175 hit WTC 2. We do not need any of the video to tell us these facts. Neither is it plausible that anyone, the governmnet or newsrooms, would go to extent to deliberately alter video to make it "seem" something happened we already knew happened from all the other evidence. What the videos DID do was to provide a means of calulating the speed, and hence the kinetic energy, of each of the planes as they hit the towers. This is useful for calculation of the damage to the towers but by no means necessary in establishing that Boeing 767s hit the towers. The "no-planes-hit-the-towers" scenario is completely illogical and thoroughly discredited by the very evidence. In addition, as I proposed to Render above, one can ask him/herself other questions of what implications there would be if the"no-planes" scenario were to be a plausible scenario. add your comments *Flight 11* by backingblair /Monday, Mar. 20, 2006 at 7:38 AM/ S.,

i personally think that they used a remote controlled boeing, because flight 11 did not exist. Here is a screenshot from this old Jim Hoffman website:

add your comments *Flight 11* by S. King /Monday, Mar. 20, 2006 at 8:53 AM/ Have you talked to any of the crew who regularly flew Flight 11 whose day off was Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2001? What do they have to say about Flight 11 not existing? add your comments *Facts are a good idea* by Gerard Holmgren /Monday, Mar. 20, 2006 at 11:55 AM/ holmgren@iinet.net.au [[Have you talked to any of the crew who regularly flew Flight 11 whose day off was Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2001?]] Have you checked the official records from the US Bureau of Transportation ? http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/1177.html Have you checked the official records of the FAA aircraft registry, in relation to N612UA, the plane which flew UA 175 that day ? And seen that it was registered as valid for more than another four years? Go to the FAA aircraft registry http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/acmain.htm and do an "n number" search for N591UA ( UA 93 on Sept 11) and N612UA (UA 175 on Sept 11). Have you checked the documentation for the faked passenger lists for AA 11 ? http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/fake.html members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren add your comments *Video* by Gerard Holmgren /Monday, Mar. 20, 2006 at 12:33 PM/ holmgren@iinet.net.au Spy Cretin writes? [[The evidence that a Boeing 767 hit each of the towers, WTC 1 & 2, comes from many different sources, including video sources?.We do not need any of the video to tell us these facts. ]] Hmm?the evidence is the video ? as long as we don?t look at it ? Actually, I think Spy Cretin accidentally said something almost true. What is frequently misrepresented as evidence for planes is the unsubstantiated *belief* that there are videos of planes hitting buildings. In order to maintain this belief, it is necessary to avoid actually looking closely at those the videos . The great thing about video is that you can slow things down. That?s why we use it to find out what really happened on a sporting field in controversial and important moments. Those who are interested in seeing what?s really on the WTC strike videos can do the same thing. Slow it down and make it bigger. Isn?t video a wonderful witness ? Which is why Spy Cretin is insistent that we should not look at it. Much of this slowed down and enlarged video can be seen from links at this address. http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/noplanework.html They clearly show the following. For the Nth tower, the object is not a plane. For the Sth tower, the purported plane is a crude animation. members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren add your comments *Now, about those "thousands of witnesses"...* by Gerard Holmgren /Monday, Mar. 20, 2006 at 1:07 PM/ holmgren@iinet.net.au As we see above, Spy Cretin maintains that videos are the evidence for planes hitting the WTC, while at the same time claiming that the videos are not the eivdence. He also claimed "thousands of witnesses" ,a reckless claim which cannot be substantiated. But don;t expect a retraction of this reckless and unsubstantiated claim. Subsribers to the planes religion, think that they can just make stuff up, and then chant it with a religious fervor, as a substitute for producing evidence. Apart from that we've had vague claims of "other" evidence, which has never even been specified. members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren add your comments *Sticking to the Facts* by S. King /Monday, Mar. 20, 2006 at 4:26 PM/ skyking@scientist.com Sorry, Gerard, I'll respect the Editor's cautionary note above. add your comments |The following post has status /hidden/:| *Moron* by CB ? /Monday, Mar. 20, 2006 at 4:39 PM/ Don't trust this moron Skyking. He's spreading the same nonsense everywhere on the net. Face it, Sky. 9-11 was a hoax by the crooks that highjacked the republican party and then used the party to highjack the country. You do nothing but spew sh*t out. BWAHAHAHA, what a MORON..... Why don't you Laughing Stock entertain someone else with your hysterically funny nonsense?? add your comments *People who haven't made up their minds are* by one of the editors /Monday, Mar. 20, 2006 at 5:51 PM/ trying to learn something from you guys. We already know you don't like each other. Tell us something we don't know. add your comments *Sheen is no-planer* by Nico Haupt /Monday, Mar. 20, 2006 at 7:03 PM/ Something new? It's definetely not coming from Skyking. Instead we just received fresh support by NEW YORK METRO, though still scripting the 'hologram dance" and Charlie Sheen: http://www.infowarsmedia.com/audio/200306sheen_comm_free.mp3 http://infowars.com/articles/sept11/sheen_questions_official_911_story.htm "...Sheen agreed that the biggest conspiracy theory was put out by the government itself and prefaced his argument by quoting Theodore Roosevelt in stating, "That we are to stand by the President right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." "We're not the conspiracy theorists on this particular issue," said Sheen. "It seems to me like 19 amateurs with box cutters taking over four commercial airliners and hitting 75% of their targets, that feels like a conspiracy theory. It raises a lot of questions... http://www.team8plus.org/forum_viewtopic.php?6.2178.10#2580 Martin Sheen on Infowars Radio Show: ..."There was a feeling, it just didn't look any commercial jetliner I've flown on any time in my life and then when the buildings came down later on that day I said to my brother 'call me insane, but did it sorta look like those buildings came down in a controlled demolition'?..." http://www.infowarsmedia.com/audio/200306sheen_comm_free.mp3 http://infowars.com/articles/sept11/sheen_questions_official_911_story.htm add your comments *Bingo ! let's make it a half dozen* by Gerard Holmgren /Monday, Mar. 20, 2006 at 7:55 PM/ holmgren@iinet.net.au I'll accept Spy Cretin's surrender on the videos and on the "thousands of witnesses". So we can return to another matter which is still unresolved. Spy Cretin, would you mind refusing to answer this question again ? (6 th time) Here are two totally contradictory statements from Spy Cretin from two different IMC debates - in relation to the demolition of WTC 7. In a post at http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2005/11/1722079.php dated ,Feb 23 2006 Spy Cretin writes [[The WTC 7 collapse study has not even been completed by NIST. Until that investigation is complete, we have to rely on what we do and don't know.? ]] But at http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2004/04/1691636_comment.php#1725044 in a post dated May 4 2005 (nearly a year earlier) Spy Cretin wrote [[The April 5, 2005 NIST report covers the WTC 7 collapse very well: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final ]] Spy Cretin, which of these statements is true and which is false ? members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren add your comments *no planes* by cgi planes /Tuesday, Mar. 21, 2006 at 7:23 AM/ me@spam.net I totally agree with Nico here, I screamed "that was NOT an airplane, that was a fake airplane" - while watching live on TV on Sept 11 2001. It certainly got me active I assure you. http://www.positiontoknow.com/S-11/vid/wtc2-p.mpeg The USA is nothing but a murderous criminal conspiracy with no regard for anyone or anything on the planet, other than SUV driving soccer mom's and American Idol. 90% of the US morons have never seen an airplane. http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1535000/video/_1538186_wtc_firstcrash_vi.ram One of my blogs here. http://flight11hoax.blogspot.com/ add your comments *re: no planes.* by S. King /Tuesday, Mar. 21, 2006 at 11:26 AM/ skyking@scientist.com So that makes 4 people who believe real planes are imaginary - you, Holmgren, Haupt, and the Webfairy. And we have Gerard Holmgren, a guitar teacher who doesn't understand the first thing about physics and structural engineering, who still can't answer a simple question I asked 4 years ago about his claim that AA77, a real Boeing 757, did not hit the Pentagon. Are there any others here who don't believe real 767's hit WtC 1 & 2? add your comments *True to form* by Gerard Holmgren /Tuesday, Mar. 21, 2006 at 3:31 PM/ holmgren@iinet.net.au Well done Spy Cretin. That 6 times he's refused to answer the question about the the totally contradictory attributions to NIST. And how about those "thousands of witnesses" ? Obviously his primitive logic circuit just keeps churning out the same limited responses, regardless of what else is being said. It might even be one of those old tape systems, running on endless loop. members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren add your comments *True to form, GH evasions continue.* by S. King /Tuesday, Mar. 21, 2006 at 4:30 PM/ skyking@scientist.com True to form, Gerard Holmgren is still unable to answer my questions from 4 years ago. It's because he knows AA77, a Boeing 757, hit the Pentagon on 9/11/2001. And he knows AA11 and UA175, both Boeing 767s, hit WTC 1 & 2 respectively. We all know it, too. add your comments *4?* by Nico Haupt /Tuesday, Mar. 21, 2006 at 4:31 PM/ Skydwarf wrote: "...So that makes 4 people who believe real planes are imaginary..." What are you refering to? Real planes are not imaginery, as long as the exist. They did not exist as having crashed into the Twin Tower, so they do indeed exist as imaginary, but in YOUR brain, not in ours. In case you refer to the supporters of 'TV aircraft fakery research', well these numbers are steadily growing. I count in my mailing lists an acceptance of 100s. What researchers depends, it's maybe 2, 3 dozen by now. There are also many blogs and projects who are on our side. As already mentioned covertoperations.blogspot is one of them, 911chronology.com and many others as well. Recently also half-gatekeeper news portal 911blogger.com linked to my articles. Then we have prominent supporters like Morgan Reynolds, Rick Siegel and Jimmy Walter and apparently also Charlie Sheen. I expect the number of 'supportive intellect' much higher, maybe in the 1000s, but most of them are still too scared to speak out or wait for some more results. Furthermore: You cannot belittle a small number of researchers, if countless supporters agree with them. After all there never had been more than a few dozen researchers on 'controlled demolition' as well, with Jeff "Plaguepuppy" King as one of the first, already in late 2001. Also what the 'cell phone fakery' depends, there had been never than maybe 4-10 good researchers on that topic and it reached 10.000s of followers. If i would go by the amount of researchers who developed some specific details by itself which was so unique, that noone needed to follow up on that, i always refer to Larry Silverstein's "pull it", which was a cooperation job of just 1 author and one video encoder, then immediately picked up by Alex Jones. You do better count the cells in your brains, because THEY might not reach more than 4 -:) 4 is also the same number for your amount of repetitive drivel, before you start with another repetitive distraction. add your comments *They existed* by S. King /Tuesday, Mar. 21, 2006 at 5:02 PM/ skyking@scientist.com Nico Haupt wrote, "Real planes are not imaginery, as long as the exist. Correct. "They did not exist as having crashed into the Twin Tower," No, as I explained above, AA11 and UA175, both Boeing 767s, hit WTC 1 & 2 respectively. This is a matter of physical reality. AFTER, they hit the towers they no longer existed as aircraft. But they existed before and when they hit the towers. ALL of the evidence demonstrates it conclusively. It's time for you to come back to the real world, Nico. add your comments |The following post has status /hidden/:| *Real World* by Nico Haupt ? /Tuesday, Mar. 21, 2006 at 6:16 PM/ Skydwarf, it's you who is not representing the 'real' world, not me. Or can you explain to all of us, why you're able to show up at 450 forums worldwide? (see above) I analysed TV Footage and secondary footage from after sep11th, which was not even produced and broadcasted by me, so don't hold me accountable for it -:) It's indeed you, who is denying this 'tv world', though i tried to lay it out for you since days... Hold people like Scott Myers (NIST), the unknown W-ABC team and the unknown "amateur camera team" from CNN accountable, that your own brain is still not able to escape from this matrix or whatever your handlers are telling you to pretend to believe. The tv perps are the ones who did script this fake reality for people like you and seem to have either brainwashed or bribed enough to continue this charade. Your 'collective' might be busy enough to promote your own fantasy world of butterplanes, but the physical reality is, that those butterplanes would never have existed. Not in NYC, not in Disneyland, not even in Hollywood, where even their special effects are much more realistic than what was produced in a lousy job for us on sep11th-tv land. But your IQ is not even able to point on these butter videos, to make your point. Poor Scry. Instead you struggle to avoid talking about 'video footage', because 'one' (i still don't know who 'one' is) "do not need them..." When do you finally update your conversation database? You still bore me to death -:) add your comments |The following post has status /hidden/:| *Spy Cretin's brain does not exist* by Gerard Holmgren ? /Tuesday, Mar. 21, 2006 at 6:25 PM/ holmgren@iinet.net.au Nico, Spy Cretin does not have a brain. It's a primitive collection of tapes, which are always getting tangled. There's a whole team employed at Troll Central to try to keep straightening them out. That's why his program has not been able to process that fact that two of the allegedly hijacked flights did not exist. http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/1177.html And that for the two which did exist, they were still registered as valid aircraft on the FAA aircraft registry for more than four years after the Govt blew up the towers. Go to the FAA aircraft registry http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/acmain.htm and do an "n number" search for N591UA ( UA 93 on Sept 11) and N612UA (UA 175 on Sept 11). Spy Cretin's tapes are even in too much of a tangle to tell us whether a certasin NIST report even exists. In a post at http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2005/11/1722079.php dated ,Feb 23 2006 Spy Cretin writes [[The WTC 7 collapse study has not even been completed by NIST. Until that investigation is complete, we have to rely on what we do and don't know.? ]] But at http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2004/04/1691636_comment.php#1725044 in a post dated May 4 2005 (nearly a year earlier) Spy Cretin wrote [[The April 5, 2005 NIST report covers the WTC 7 collapse very well: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final ]] Spy Cretin, which of these statements is true and which is false ? members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren add your comments |The following post has status /hidden/:| *Ahem* by Gerard Holmgren ? /Tuesday, Mar. 21, 2006 at 10:28 PM/ holmgren@iinet.net.au Spy Cretin, about those "thousands of witnesses"... members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren add your comments *New York Magazine article on 9/11 conspiracy theories* by S. King /Wednesday, Mar. 22, 2006 at 3:56 PM/ skyking The Ground Zero Grassy Knoll A new generation of conspiracy theorists is at work on a secret history of New York?s most terrible day. By Mark Jacobson New York Magazine 03/27/2006 issue http://newyorkmetro.com/news/features/16464/index.html Money quote: --- Broached in 2002 by Thierry Meyssan in his French best-seller L?Effroyable Imposture (The Appalling Fraud), the idea that the Pentagon was struck by a missile instead of a 757 is the most controversial tenet of 9/11 Truth?iana. The claim is based on Meyssan?s reading of photographs (?Hunt the Boeing? at asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm) supposedly showing the hole in the building to be no more than fifteen to eighteen feet wide?far too small to fit a plane with a 125-foot wingspan. But there are problems, such as the many eyewitnesses who saw a plane flying low near the Pentagon shortly before impact. Disputing the no-crash theory, Jim Hoffman has argued, ?This is just the sort of wackiness defenders of the Official Story harp on to show how gullible and incompetent we conspiracy theorists are supposed to be.? In other words, Meyssan and other no-plane believers were either wrong, unknowing dupes or spreaders of disinformation. The D-word is nothing to take lightly in conspiracy circles. For, as Thomas Pynchon notes in his ?Proverbs for Paranoids,? if they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don?t have to worry about answers. At Veselka, the question was, if Flight 77 did not crash, what happened to the 56 people on the plane? This query did not sit well with Nico Haupt, a thin, black-clad man from Cologne, Germany, compiler of the 9/11 Encyclopedia (911review.org/Wiki/Sept11Topics.shtml). ?Gassed,? he hissed. ?Have you ever heard of gassing? It is very easy. You open the door of the plane, and it spreads.? ?You think they gassed them?? Would even the Illuminati stoop this low? Haupt cast a withering look. ?That, or some other method of murder. Assholes!? ?Nico, calm down,? said Tarpley. ?This is tactics. There?s no reason to make an enormous moral issue out of everything.? But Haupt was past consoling. ?You are motherfuckers. Stupid motherfuckers.? Slamming the tabletop, he gathered his things and stormed out. ?Nico is so emotional,? said one activist, returning to her plate of pierogi. --- add your comments *NY Metro* by Nico Haupt /Wednesday, Mar. 22, 2006 at 6:34 PM/ Skydrivel, thanks for promoting that article :) I thought, you would prefer to trashcan it? It's a shame that they didn't write about what else i told this reporter. He must be a friend of yours :) http://www.team8plus.org/forum_viewtopic.php?6.2178.10 (ed: The author is quoting two different conversations out of context. The 1:1 interview with me about "aa77" and some other non-existing flights took place outside, while the emotional outrage was directed inside against Les Jamieson. It was an 'insult' regarding the infiltration of ny911truth.org and their boycott of Greg Nixon's 9/11 March for the truth, which recently took place. Les decided then almost 8 weeks later to finally promote the event, 3 days before it took place...) add your comments *Ahem* by Gerard Holmgren /Wednesday, Mar. 22, 2006 at 7:04 PM/ holmgren@iinet.net.au Spy Cretin, about those "thousands of witnesses"... members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren add your comments *9/11: Conspiracy Theorists Run Amok.* by S. King /Wednesday, Mar. 22, 2006 at 7:23 PM/ skyking@scientist.com Nico Haupt wrote... "thanks for promoting that article :) I thought, you would prefer to trashcan it?" LOL! Why would I trash an article whose byline is: "9/11: Conspiracy Theorists Run Amok."? The article showed 9/11 conspiracists for the nuts they are with you as its prime example. "It was an 'insult' regarding the infiltration of ny911truth.org and their boycott of Greg Nixon's 9/11 March for the truth, which recently took place." Ah, yes, Greg Nixon. The character whom I personally advised not to hold that march, that it was counterproductive and would alienate the very core of those whom he was trying to attract, and that it would fail. No wonder you were upset. His march DID fail and he made an ass of himself. About 25 showed up. Face reality, Nico. Pretending no planes hit the WTC towers or the Pentagon is killing the 9/11 "Truth" Movement and you know it. With Holmgrem, Greg Nixon, and the Webfairy as your allies you are helping Bush beyond his wildest dreams. add your comments *" . . . nuts . . . . drivel . . . cretin . . . " etc.* by one of the editors /Wednesday, Mar. 22, 2006 at 8:16 PM/ I'm serious about this. Cut it out. We're trying to learn about 9/11, not your relationships with one another. This stuff is alienating the very people you're trying to talk to. Stop it. Stay on topic and away from ad hominems or I'll shut you off. add your comments *editors* by Nico Haupt /Wednesday, Mar. 22, 2006 at 8:53 PM/ To "one of the editors", if you are really "one of the editors", then it's skyking, who's distracting all over again. This article was posted to confront the fakery on TV. Noone addressed it in a productive way. Neither skyking or everyone else