Webster Tarpley interviews Nico Haupt and Jeff King: TV Fakery
Webster Tarpley: World Crisis Radio, March 25 2006.
Webster Tarpley: Nico Haupt… is one of the leading researchers in the 9/11 truth movement. Indeed, he’s been called the enfant terrible of the 9/11 truth movement research. He’s always controversial, but he’s always on the cutting edge of research. He is the author of the 9/11 encyclopedia. He conducted for quite a while the 911skeptics.blogspot. I would point out that however controversial some of his ideas may sound, over the years a lot of his discoveries have been indeed been incorporated into what is the conventional and accepted wisdom about these matters… Nico is the one who practically invented the terms LIHOP and MIHOP… to distinguish the less radical from the more radical schools of thought on the 9/11 events. Nico is also the one who led a decisive workshop in San Francisco in March 2004 on the question of the war drills... and how they went live; how the operations were conduited through those... Finally he is one of the leading people in the research on how the news-film of 9/11, that you saw on CNN and the other networks was doctored. He also has some… very controversial, but extremely heuristic findings about implications about doctored news-film and other considerations for what actually happened on 9/11… I would like to give Nico the floor. He has some very very interesting research results…
Nico Haupt appears on the back cover of Webster Tarpley’s 9/11: Synthetic Terror and is referenced several times in the book. Haupt is known for his harassment and ad hominem attacks against 9/11 activists including prominent figures like Steven Jones, Jim Hoffman, Richard Gage, 911blogger, myself, and others. Haupt is infamous for his extremely disruptive behavior at 9/11 truth activist gatherings. His terms LIHOP and MIHOP are frequently used to divide activists and disrupt discussion about the facts of 9/11.[1]
Nico Haupt [edited for clarity and grammar]: Let me first correct and thank you very much for the introduction. Though you labelled me as one of the leading researchers on this particular angle I want to talk about today, there were veterans who started this in 2002 and 2003. One of the most ‘so-called’ controversial figures was Rosalie Grable, a.k.a. the Web Fairy who first had conclusions about what exactly could have been manipulated in the video… different conclusions to what we have leading to now. [The Web Fairy] later corrected her conclusions, and that’s where we all agree. We agree that the first video footage was not faked—what you see in the first footage actually, is a combination of a missile or missile foundation, which targeted the towers and today, I would only like to talk about the [other] footage [of the south tower strike].
Webster Tarpley: You’re essentially saying that you accept the idea that some kind of aircraft hit the north tower?
Nico Haupt: No… [not explaining] The reason why I’m interested in video manipulation is that I was writing for a technical magazine in Germany and also in the U.S. in some blogs. I worked for Josh Harris, which was the entrepreneur of the dot.com hive. We work with video encoding—I also worked ten years at Television and I would like to point out, speaking for myself, Rosalie Grable has a very good own view of all of [her] findings [and] that Gerald Holmgren is a very good communicator on these issues… the last two years, I’ve tried basically to combine all of their findings for other researchers… I’m confronted with constant either sabotage or ignorance… knowing all these tricks, working for ten years at… TV, my first impression… when I first saw September 11, while already researching and updating on a Canadian message board, I saw this allegedly commercial aircraft, which was a clip on CNN… not shown between 8:45 a.m. and 10:45 a.m. I saw this alleged commercial aircraft coming from the north side to the south side and immediately said, “This looks weird—this looks pretty bizarre to me.”
Webster Tarpley: We’re talking about news-film that was not shown on CNN between 8:45 a.m. and 10:45 a.m., but was later shown on CNN—am I right?
Nico Haupt: That’s correct… we have proof because we have the original footage… you can see the first two hours on CNN.
Webster Tarpley: Where… do [we] see this film clip. Where did we see it?
Nico Haupt: It’s actually on a split screen—it actually shows what Fox was also showing in the first two hours, and you need to go to 911chronology.com… this footage was obtained on Ebay two years ago, and since then, basically [suppressed]. I wrote an article… weeks ago in the timeline to prove when exactly which clip was shown. What most people don’t know is that only 16-18 clips do exist. In the first two hours, they only promoted two of them. I would also like to point out, what I am doing here is not a distraction [from other] physical evidence. It’s basically a perfect alliance. I would like to… point out later why. It’s not an objection to… controlled demolition, it actually breaks the official lies completely apart.
A massive collection of videos and photographs of the attack on the World Trade Center have been assembled by various 9/11 researchers.[2] There exists at least 44 different clips of the planes approaching and striking the Twin Towers.
Webster Tarpley: What is your finding about this… CNN clip shown after 10:45?
Nico Haupt: First of all, you need to analyze the finding from a particular view. Some people argue on physical elements within this material. I say they can’t have it both ways. I call them the physical 9/11 truthlings… the truthlings. They argue that there was no physical violation at the entry of the alleged commercial aircraft into the towers, but then [inaudible] stop them before the exit… They ignore a physical violation on the first hand, and then they accept a physical rule at the back end. If you compared this with the Pentagon, you could argue the same… [The] sceptics against this hypothesis claim, “folding wings over there”, and then in New York they say, “It’s ok that these wings [were] buttering into the towers.” [As well], the kinetic energy contradictions, are not clear once you compare all 16 second hit footage clips, you see the aircraft is coming in with different speeds, different angles—even behaviour of the plane itself.
Jeff King: Just from a sheer physics view point, if you do try to believe the scenario that you see in this images that are presented, it simply doesn’t work physically. You see a plane which essentially just… seamlessly penetrates through the wall as if it’s not there—there no buckling, crumpling, nothing falls off on the outside of the wall. After it passes through, there’s only a partial entry hole there, and then nothing comes out the other side—these gigantic titanium engines, you see this funny little fireball that… comes looping out of the north wall and disappears before it hits the ground. Whatever else is going on here, the technology of the video simulations, it’s pretty clear that the physics argues against it being anything resembling a true airliner.
The misleading argument about plane deceleration during impact has been debunked by physicist Dr. Greg Jenkins in a letter to the Journal of 9/11 Studies.[3]
Nico Haupt: yep. On 911closeup.com, the website from Gerard Holmgren, [it addresses] the point that allegedly thousands of photos exist. As a matter of fact, there are only a few photos that exist… those objects in those photos contradict each other. They’re also wrongly sourced…
A large collection of eyewitness testimony and photographs has been assembled by an unknown author at 911disinformation.com.[4]
Webster Tarpley: You’ve done an exhaustive study of the video clips, the news-film of the whatever it is, the scene at the south tower, and you’ve found that there are 16-18 of these, and the evidence is mutually contradictory…
Nico Haupt: Exactly… Rosalie Grable had this footage on her website and was harassed and threatened, and basically sabotaged over the last three years. I picked up that footage and looked a little more carefully into this. We found… these contradictions… two years ago… my study was… to point out that the flights, flight 11 did not exist, to educate people from the front end… let me point out with this great breakthrough with Charlie Sheen, since we have all these new supporters, I worked behind the scenes to get WINGTV convinced—it didn’t work out. Then we got Jimmy Walter, Rick Siegel… who made footage from the day itself, and Morgan Reynolds, whose also very supportive on our issues… This ignored footage [911eyewitness by Rick Siegel] has… other smoking guns—clearly these 16-18 military helicopters and one of them is already shown on [other] footage… what happened in the last three weeks since Jimmy Walter supporting us, we got attacked with 4000 erotic spam emails. I got banned from Portland Indymedia for the first time in 4 ½ years—I couldn’t post about my findings… there’s no one who is constructively criticizing our findings—it’s the opposite. We’re getting a lot of new response from bloggers—I can recommend for example covertoperations.blogspot.com, it’s a very good blog which goes much more into the details about what I’m able to point out today.
The function of TV fakery/”no-plane” "theories" serves to discredit serious questions into the 9/11 attacks.[5]
Webster Tarpley: You’re arguing that the controlled corporate media enhanced and doctored the news-film that was shown, using what amounts to chromakey I believe, or blue screen? Can we go into this?
The ‘blue screen’ theory and TV fakery theories have been compellingly addressed and debunked by Salter in the Journal of 9/11 studies.[6]
Nico Haupt: People were [promoting] this kind of research confusing the hypothesis. The hypothesis is not to conclude what exactly hit or not the south tower. If we focus on this, we have eight different possibilities of what hit or might have hit the south tower. I’m not focussing on this hypothesis. Because we get opposed so much, we can’t continue improving this argument, but we know there are eight possibilities:
- Nothing was planted—purely pre-planted charges
- A cluster of unmanned vehicles
- A cluster of cloaked, invisible unmanned vehicles, maybe combined with pre-planted charges
- Cloaked and invisible missiles
- Visible and large missiles—one or two.
- What I want to focus on—computer generated images over-painting a projected missile
- Officially—United 175
- Other large Boeing, possibly modified—remote controlled
It’s not a no-plane theory—it’s a no commercial airplane we support. Some flying object might have hit the towers, but it was not what you saw on TV.
Webster Tarpley: You’re essentially saying, that in the case of the south tower, you’re essentially using a Pentagon style argument—in other words, not a commercial airliner, but some flying object. Is that accurate?
Nico Haupt: Well, it could have been… a missile formation already in place… that crashed into the tower.
In fact, the evidence for a missile, like TV fakery, is similarly nonexistent. The resulting holes in the World Trade Center tower closely match the size of the alleged planes to have struck them.
_________________
[1] Arabesque, Disinformation and the Misleading and False LIHOP/MIHOP Dichotomy, http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/
[2] Arabesque, The World Trade Center Eyewitness Testimony and Video Footage of the Planes, http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/
[3] Gregory S. Jenkins, Interpreting the Boeing-767 Deceleration During Impact with the WTC Tower: Center of Mass Versus Tail-end Motion, and Instantaneous Versus Average Velocity, http://www.journalof911studies.com/
[4] 911disinformation.com, Planes Hit the Twin Towers - No Planes Theory Counter Evidence, http://www.911disinformation.com/
[5] http://www.911proof.com/, http://www.journalof911studies.com/, http://911research.wtc7.net/, http://www.911truth.org/
[6] Eric Salter, A Critical Review of WTC 'No Plane' Theories, http://www.journalof911studies.com/
as this crash in 2005 showed:
