The timeline of CNN’s "reality tv" hoax from 9/11 and its impact

Forum posts

• 12 March 2006, 09:36

  

  "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 alert>

  – 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".

  (End of Pt.1)

  • 12 March 2006, 09:37

    (Pt.2)

    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 )

• 12 March 2006, 10:21

  "...It’s odd that radio street reporters see less than tv hosts in front of a studio monitor..."

  This was a ’sarcasm alert’, which wasn’t edited correctly in the first posting - :)

  • 12 March 2006, 19:46

    Addendum "Saboteurs" vs. 9/11 TV fakery:

    15) Democraticunderground.com

    This self-declared ’new-s and discussion forum’ is sabotaging and censoring 9/11 research since late 2001. Their owner, "Skinner" was or still is a well known employee of the DNC, itself infiltrated by republican- and neocon plants.

    Links to my findings had been constantly discredited, removed, or censored.
    I was banned over there in late 2002.

    Here also in the latest case:

    From: Lithos
    Date: Mar-12-06 02:05 PM

    "...Belleciao is considered biased and unreliable for linking and
    citation from DU..."

    Lithos
    9/11 Forum Moderator

    For those, who don’t feel comfortable with bellaciao.org, i can also refer to SF Indymedia:
    http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2006/03/1725422_comment.php#1725565