Tuesday, May 29, 2007

Nico Haupt banned on 911blogger

Ewing2001 ?? What the? 911blogger gone elitist? Is 911blogger something better? Time for me to go, too?

noplane | npt

You censored a fellow 911 truther? For what?

Own up!

Apart from the odious concept of censorship per se...

Are you sure you censored him justly? Like, have you applied the EXACT SAME rules and EXACT SAME STRICTNESS to others? Otherwise we can call you hypocrits, you know that.

I know that HERESY is a condition prevalent in the USA. But to me, it does not exist. Even insults and bad behaviour... look, we US-americans cannot really start throwing stones here, eh?

Do you think DRG would have banned and excluded Nico from partaking in discussions here?
Read this: http://www.911blogger.com/node/3692#comment-79612

Funny, now I can no longer confront him without feeling that I WAS NOT EXCLUDED.. You bastards made me into an INSIDER now... and made Nico an outsider.

Urrrgh!! spew!!

Remember Marx's rule where you shouldn't join a club that accepts you to be a member.

So, please re-instate ewing2001 or I will remind yous in every future post that you have censored Nico.

You probably bann me too then.. Maybe it is COMMERCIALLY harmful to have skeptics ruin the mood of advertisers and donors, huh? Oh yeah.. Capitalism is a great culuture... makes you love life... (on a far away island ;-)

Here, I have some consolation for the ANTI-ewing2001 crowd. Maybe this will make you happy again and tolerate dissent.

(big version: http://www.hybrideb.com/images/newyork/wreckage.jpg )


Don't forget to close the

Don't forget to close the door on your way out.

Try to love ... You don't

Try to love ... You don't even know me. Why get worked up about it..

Love and sensible discussion can be such a wonderful soothing thing to the soul of every human being..

Oops, maybe not in America.
I am just listening to V911T.ORG interview on http://vyzygoth.com

and what they say about the germans under hitler... I get the feeling that the WHOLE US SOCIETY is "hardened" for the "big one".

Sorry. I'm just sick of the

Sorry. I'm just sick of the no plane/holocaust denying crowd.

nico is banned from 911

nico is banned from 911 blogger? why? has any explanation been given? nico is banned yet dem bruce lee's foul-mouthed disinfo is the norm? you guys suck and i advise you guys to now block my IP because i am going to fill every thread with comments about your collective 1/2 truth lameness!

what the eff is this?:

I'm just sick of the no plane/holocaust denying crowd.

you equate no-planes with holocaust deniers?
truly you do suck. - james ha.

Screaming no planes borders

Screaming no planes borders on the lines of missiles into the pentagon. It really doesn't matter. There is so much evidence out there about other issues that don't require such exhaustive specialization. Put simply, drop it. You do nothing for the movement and only to alienate it from the mainstream. Move on, no one cares about your crusade to noplanes.

Both Bring 9/11 Down, but Neo-Nazis Eat the Cake

It's one thing to be illogical in terms of what battles should be fought to make 9/11 truth succeed, which is what the no-planers are all about. The best of them seem to ignore the following: IT MAKES NO SENSE FOR THE BUSH CABAL NOT TO USE REAL PLANES (perhaps remote controlled, it does not matter) to hit the WTC, because no matter WHAT HIT THE WTC, it was PRE-PLANTED EXPLOSIVES that brought them down.

On the other hand, holocaust deniers and neo-nazis are the lowest form of slime around. Even the original Nazis had the cojones to state they hated Jews. The neo-nazi holocaust deniers are the castrati version of the original.

Let them have free speech on the streets, let them run around foaming at the mouth; just keep them out of the 9/11 movement. Even zoos do not need to worry about free speech for the wild beasts.

Amen: NoPlaners and Holocaust Deniers are LOSERS

Why should we let them take us down with them ?

Do they really believe their own crap, or are they moles who wish to destroy our movement ?

Either way, good riddance to bad rubbish.

Everybody knows...

that in all likelihood, Nico could have been here forever espousing the NPT if he hadn't played fast and loose with the facts on many occasions, consistently insulted anyone who disagreed with him or even questioned him, and with a few people even went further, into the realm of slander.

Oh, I'm sorry

I meant "tv fakery."

where are the open minded

where are the open minded and what the fuck is this shit about? you can not exclude a fellow truther like nico. he has done a great job so far and in 2003 he was allready about the explosives before a lot of you even thought about 9/11 being a conspiracy!!
where is the FREE SPEECH?

I can't believe this. Kinda reminds me of...

Bill O'Reilly

Nico is literally insane.

Nico is literally insane. Look at the garbage he posted on my San Diegans for 9/11 Truth board. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SanDiego9-11Truth/. He deserved being banned because he attacked anyone who did not agree with him. He spammed our beloved website, 911blogger, with crazy insulting bullshit that only stood to turn people away from the 911 truth movement. Anyone who wishes to drive a wedge into the 9/11 truth movement has no place here. Dont pretend like he is a victim.

A wise man of sorts said it best:

"If you look at any organization or movement, it invariably follows the same pattern. First it emerges to question the status quo of the time with another set of beliefs. Then, instead of evolving in the light of new information and experience, it solidifies and turns those original beliefs into a dogma which becomes the status quo of the next generations. This dogma is defended with the same unyielding vehemence as the old dogma displayed in the past. Anyone who continues to seek and move on in their thinking and perceptions, is condemned as 'extreme', 'loony' and not to be taken seriously--the same response of the old dogma when it was defending itself. At this point, such a movement ceases to be a vehicle for positive change and becomes a block on that change."

--David Icke, ...and the truth shall set you free

Principles work well in

Principles work well in theory on paper, bad in practice in the real world. This martyrdom crap is old.

It's not about dogma.

And it's not about the fact that Nico may seem crazy at times. It's about the fact that he has misrepresented other posters and made erroneous statements that he has corrected very belatedly, if at all.

"David Icke" a "wise man"

"David Icke" a "wise man" HAHAHAHHAHA, GET... THE... F*CK... OUTTAHERE! David Icke thought he was JESUS! So he certainly does think he's a "Wiseman" in his world, but in that thing called reality he's a... wait for it... TOTAL NUTBALL! He now thinks 12foot LIZARDMEN run the planet, end of story! "Wiseman" hahahahaha.... unbelievable.

Hence the "of sorts"

You'll be a force to be reckoned with, if you ever learn how to read the content of people's postings before launching into sophomoric tirades.

David Icke is a nutball who

David Icke is a nutball who thinks we're ruled by lizard people.

I have just gotten around to

I have just gotten around to emailing this user as to why his account was temporarily blocked, if he wishes to share that email here then he can. It was not my intention to 'make an example' of him, nor to publicly denounce him in any public explanation as to why he was temporarily banned, which is how any public posting as to his ban would have been interpreted.

With that said, I will however respond to the criticisms which I received in this thread.

Maybe it is COMMERCIALLY harmful to have skeptics ruin the mood of advertisers and donors, huh? Oh yeah.. Capitalism is a great culuture... makes you love life...

this statement is completely baseless and undeserved. i personally have never received a single penny from running this website, in fact i have spent something over $4,000 out of my own pocket in running this site and advertising for 9/11 related items. I will NEVER make a penny from running this site, and any suggestion otherwise is a baseless insult which I do not appreciate. Any advertising on this site is there for the simple purpose of funding ads which we run for 9/11 related items, not to go into my pocket, this is quite clearly stated in our faq. When these funds are used I personally will post about how they are used as I did a few weeks ago here.

Furthermore, the insinuation that this user was removed because of his personal opinions or theories is ludicrous given that this site currently allows blogs on any subject related to 9/11 so long as they are within our rules, and given that these blog entries have not been removed, nor have we made any rules regarding what subjects can and cannot be discussed here. The fact that this blog entry is still here should quite clearly show our lack of 'censorship'.

The suggestion that we are somehow like bill o'reilly, have gone 'elitist', or can't tolerate dissent is equally as ridiculous given the openness of this site. Quite frankly, if you find this site to be in line with nazis in our moderation then I suggest you try to find somewhere else any better.

The fact that the temporary ban of one user could illicit such responses without so much as an email inquiring about it is quite telling, as was the desire to spam the rest of the site with comments regarding our moderation. Likewise the fact that this spam itself contained insults against other users for their opinions, and called for their banning is 'hypocritical' (as you accused of me) - while complaining about our moderation you in turn call for the moderation of others to be 'fair' despite your insistence with how moderation of another user is completely unfair.

I'm not trying to be a 'nazi' here, but likewise I do not appreciate the easy willingness of some to so quickly (and openly) criticize how this site is run, especially given all the positives of the site which apparently can be so easily overlooked, especially when the poster doesn't even know the reasoning behind the decisions being made.

I don't really know Kurt Nimmo...

But everyone should read this.

O’Reilly Sets Up Truthseekers To Be Disappeared

Now is a time to stick together. Now is not the time to attack each other. If you listened to my show on Visibility 9-11, you'll hear me say at the end of the show that people, including myself, try to answer the unanswerable. We spend an inordinate amount of time trying to do so. We get into arguments, and spend time bickering when we should be doing activism. When we should be visible, and in the streets. Tell people the story of 9/11. The story speaks for itself.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."


I would like to think that the 9/11 Truth Movement has mine, and MANY other peoples' backs.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

Your timing is so off.

Go put this somewhere else

Now is a time to stick together. Now is not the time to attack each other.

You can diss others and run them off the board. And as soon as you get your way it's all:

"Let's be friends and not bicker."

Just the Bushies line when they got the White House:

"We ran Clinton down. [But that was OK] Now that we are the top dogs- keep your mouth shut and keep the peace."

What a hypocrite.

Nico was "dissing" me...

LONG before I ever "dissed" him. Nico attacked 911Truth.org, Janice Matthews, and David Kubiak all in one post. I don't know if you noticed or not, but 911Truth.org was recently "made fun of" on South Park.

Tell me... why is it ok to spend your time writing articles about other people or other organizations? Why is it ok for a supposed member of the 9/11 Truth Movement to investigate other members of the movement, and then promote their "investigation" (that is full of lies) to damage the reputation of another? Why is it ok to spend your time blatantly lying about 9/11 related information? Why is it ok to take your time correcting those lies, or not even correcting them at all, and instead, argue to keep the lie alive?

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

What's so scary?

The very fact you had to shut Nico off by running him off the board shows that your arguments are no good.

If your arguments were good, they'd have stood on their own and everyone could've seen that for themselves.

It wouldn't have bothered you so much.

However, the only way you could win the argument was to constantly agitate for Nico to be banned from the board and have his blogs taken down. The only way you could win, in your own mind, is to remove him. If you really knew inside yourself you were correct and your argument was good, you would've ignored him.

The same psychological issues which cause you to think you "know what's best" for everyone, and for the movement as a whole, are the same issues which cause much of the general public to laugh at our arguments before even investigating. And cause even some, not to be able to see the obvious even when it's right in front of them.

The "South Park' episode was the best coverage we've received. It's more watched than "Time", "U.S News and World Report", and "Vanity Fair" are read. Most people in the U.S., now, do not read. They get their info from TV. If you think the "South Park" coverage was bad, it means you are not even confident in your own arguments. You are swayed when someone calls you a name. And think the power is in "what people think" and not the truth or falsity of an argument.

You think, "It's OK. All the bad news is going to be over now," now that you got rid of Nico. And you can do your little self-congratulatory, self righteous, smug little happy dance.

Tell me... why is it ok to spend your time writing articles about other people or other organizations?

I think he was rightly pointing out the fact that Janice Matthews let the ball drop on a very important opportunity.

How many other "articles" did he write about other organizations?

Why is it OK for you to back stab and disparage other 9/11 truth activists with your superior attitude and snide humor, but not OK for others? That's why I say, "hypocrite"

You see Nico's faults very well but you don't seem to see your own. It was OK with you when others said Nico was an "infiltrator" and against the movement. But he can't say that, even if he gives his reasons.

Also, if you notice, he put a little happy face after what he said, implying that he was less than serious.

You are not reading what is there. You are reading what others are telling you to think.

Why is it ok for a supposed member of the 9/11 Truth Movement to investigate other members of the movement, and then promote their "investigation" (that is full of lies) to damage the reputation of another?

If you don't know the answer to that I can't help you.

Do you honestly think that the people who pulled off 9/11, JFK, RFK, MLK assassinations, October Surprise, numerous coup d'etat in other countries, who run torture outfits, who are making trillions on this, who are now trying their hand at Empire.....are going to let people like you and me defeat them with our little keyboards and fliers - without a fight? A dirty fight?

Do you have any idea about history - about what happened to reformers and anti-Vietnam activists back in the day?

It all has to do with why we are where we are, now.

Do you have any idea what happened to 100's of Kennedy Assassination witnesses?

I have many friends who are long time activists. I hear the history from them.

Do you really think that if governmental parties pull this off - which implies collusion of large numbers of people as well as the Media - that they don't have the means, nor the motive, nor the smarts, to control the opposition groups and/or infiltrate?

So you really think that people who have high profile positions should not be questioned?

This might all sound "crazy" to many people. But that is exactly the point.:

If it didn't sound "crazy" to many people, if great numbers of individuals hadn't been convinced that no such thing is going on, nor could it go on, the perpetrators would not be getting away with it.

What the Perpetrators are doing, which it is glaringly obvious to most thinking people by now - so it is finally sinking in, (which is why I get the response, "I wouldn't be surprised" when I pass out my fliers now), would be impossible to talk about without it sounding "crazy." That is the point of the Big Lie.

Is there anything intrinsically "funnier," or less plausible, from a conditioned person's POV, about our narrative as represented on South Park, with or without the No Planes or Video Fakery information. (Which BTW, was not included)?

To really make our story palatable to the masses, I guess all we have to do is not have a story at all!

That is the whole point of framing us as crazy.

That is the whole point of the Big Lie.

You don't like being called "crazy" or being made fun of, and I don't blame you - so you disparage someone like Nico, at a schoolchild level of discourse, in order to feel better about yourself. "See, I'm not the crazy. It's all Nico."

"We have 'crazy' people in our movement, sure. But it's not me. It's those horrible NO PLANE PEOPLE. wooo. hoo"

"They are the one's ruining it for all of us. They are the ones who are stopping our success."


Why is it ok to spend your time blatantly lying about 9/11 related information?

That's your opinion. You haven't demonstrated to me that Nico was "blantantly lying" about anything.

Isn't it true that for many years while you believed the government's story Nico was being slandered, smeared and slammed for promoting ideas that were "crazy" and that were "hurting the movement?"

Why is it ok to take your time correcting those lies, or not even correcting them at all, and instead, argue to keep the lie alive?

Maybe if you could actually show the lie was a lie then it would go away?

Like I said: It's your opinion that what he said is a lie. You just make that contention, but go no where near demonstrating that. You smear him instead.

You can't prove him wrong. So the only way to save your little fantasy of "what the truth should be in order for us to win" is to throw tantrums and hound him until he's thrown off here.

And you actually haven't a clue of what is needed in order to "win."

"In matters of science, the authority of thousands is not worth the humble reasoning of one single person."
- Galileo Galilei

Peggy, you're being dishonest

or you haven't been paying attention. If Nico had been banned because of his opinions, then you'd be gone, CB_Brooklyn would be gone, james ha would be gone, and so forth. I can think of two instances right off the top of my head where Nico was caught making blatantly false statements (aka "lies") and either never fixed them or fixed them much, much later than he should have and only after being told to do so. Moreover, posts from him that didn't include completely gratuitous, shrill insults were few and far between.

Finally, he was repeatedly warned to spell "Orwellian" with a capital "O," and flagrantly defied this instruction.

"Peggy, you're being dishonest"

'nuff said.

"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."

You must be joking

Nico "flagrently defied [your] instruction" to spell "Orwellian" correctly?


Please tell me you're not serious?
You can't be. Please tell me it was your lame attempt at a joke? If it was, it was way over my head.

Oh yea, and please give me those two obvious examples that sprung immediately to mind, where he lied and didn't correct it after your command to do so.

Excuse me for being skeptical, but your chief spelling-police enforcement specialty (You said, "Finally, ..as if this was the last straw !- -haahhahhaha) doesn't support, for me, a great deal of confidence in your reasoning powers.

"When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains - however improbable - must be the truth!" - Doyle

Peggy, While casseia is


While casseia is looking up those two examples, why don't you go correct your own blog: http://www.911blogger.com/node/3212

7800 mph? 4 inchs thick? At a certain point uncorrected errors become lies. Yeah, yeah, you admitted your mistakes in the comments. That's great. Now go fix your post so that someone with even poorer math skills than you doesn't get sucked in by it. Or do you not care if that happens?

I amend the posts where that is possible

The ones that can't be amended, since they've been responded to, obvously must stay.

Also, if I change it, the sense of the posts which follow are lost.

I think it should be kept, for the proper history/documentation, and I can just write something at the top to warn the reader. Trial and error is no shame. That's how science works.

Thank you for your advise.

"When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains - however improbable - must be the truth!" - Doyle

No time limit for editing blogs, however

I don't believe -- and those errors are still present in the one BCS is referring to. You're right, there's nothing wrong with making mistakes and being honest about it gets you a lot of cred in the eyes of most people. But you should fix them and you could always do it in the form of a parenthetical "note."

Bookmark and Share
posted by u2r2h at 1:41 AM


Post a Comment

<< Home