Nico Haupt - NY911Truth - Luke - Tom - Les - Drama
http://alexconstantine.blogspot.com/2006/12/nico-h...
TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum
Nico Haupt - NY911Truth - Luke - Tom - Les - Drama (23 posts)
-
Posted 17 years ago #
-
Sad but true...
The founders of TruthMove got our start in the 9/11 truth movement going to meetings at St. Mark's Church, and working with most of the people mentioned in this article. Unfortunately this article is a relatively fair, if moderately sensational, representation of just how unproductive that environment can be, and how unfocused NY911Truth has become.
The article is a bit rough on a couple of people who don't deserve it. Most everyone in NY911Truth is relatively friendly and cares about promoting the truth. And they all have many accomplishments to speak of. But unfortunately, in this case the whole is not able to represent the sum of its parts. The venue has become too notorious for its own good, and draws out of the woodwork an increasing number of those hostile toward members of the group. Within the group, people once able to work together, increasingly find that their strategic differences are causing contention. And the leadership of the group has not been able to resolve these issues.
TruthMove hopes very much that these problems will come to be resolved. We left the group over a year ago due to similar issues, and we are sad to see things over there apparently getting worse rather than better.
Either way, we'll still be standing along side these people promoting 9/11 truth on the steets of NYC. And maybe that's more important than all the rest of this drama.
Posted 17 years ago # -
and what's with the nico/alex constantine link?
http://alexconstantine.blogspot.com/2006/12/uranti...
things are getting pretty weird. sure glad we got out when we did.
if you're in the mood for some classic disinfo, check out gerard holmgren:
Posted 17 years ago # -
more accusations from 911blogger - who is this woman?
http://www.911blogger.com/node/4760
Luke Rudkowski and Les Jamieson are infilTRAITORS. Rudkowski can barely articulate a single correct english sentence and is doing more damage to the 911 truth movement by tripping over his own "eminem ghetto wannabe" tongue than his feeble acts of retarded protest. And as for Les (FBI) Jamieson, well this guy is a huge ZERO. His purpose is to make sure the 911 truth movement puts idiots like Luke Rudkowski in positions of "Power" in the movement so that the movement goes NOWHERE. Once these two clowns are removed from the 911 truth movement, then and only then will there be progress.
There are people in that movement like Tom Foti, Frank Morales and Nico Haupt and others who can bring positive direct results to the cause of exposing 911, but nut the Moronic Luke Rudkowski and the phony Les Jamieson are only HOLDING THE MOVEMENT BACK.
Donna Klein
Researcher
Columbia UniversitPosted 17 years ago # -
disruptors reveal themselves...things are getting hot
fetzer and jones debate:
http://911verses.com/underground/2007-01-17_Profes...
http://st911.org/ now gives you two options on the front page: fetzer's http://911scholars.org and jones' http://stj911.org
and this big banner link on the top of fetzer's site:
here their list of 9/11 research sites:
* 911Eyewitness New Hoboken TV136 Reveals Truth
* 911 Eyewitness Rick Siegel Speaks Out Live Skypecast
* NCST Refuses to Discuss Any Blast Analysis for 9/11
* 911Eyewitness Proud Sponsor of New 9/11 Researchers
* 9/11 Eyewitness Weekly Live Call In Radio
* 911 Eyewitness Rick Siegel Live Call In Radio
* There is No Secret to Government Complicity in 9/11 Frauds
* Rick Siegel, 911 Eyewitness Asked To Join Scholars Board
* Site Banned As Pornographic While Posting Ahmadinejad Text
* Steven Jones Rejects 911 Eyewitness Banning from Scholars ForumPosted 17 years ago # -
Sign created by Roman Shusterman
This is a post from 911Blogger.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/6001#comment
"Hello,
I have nothing to hide, my name is Roman Shusterman. I made the sign accompanied with an essay I was handing out at the time which you can read on my blog at http://nopolicestatecoalition.blogspot.com/2007/01...
MY discussion group is www.groups.yahoo.com/group/nopolicestatecoalition where we have also been discussing the death of Mr. Wallace and our members express our own suspicions. Hope you all enjoy. Good bye. and p.s. I am a pacifist and never encourage violence against anyone. I have the free speech right especially when I hand out an essay where I explain what I mean when I call someone a neo-nazi."
Posted 17 years ago # -
Posted 17 years ago #
-
Les expelling Tom. Who would have thought?
Wow! Back when we left NY911Truth over a year ago now to do our own thing, all those people were getting along just fine and everyone knew about Urantia, including Tom, and Nico who always used to bring this up.
Actually, NY911Truth has always been plagued by disruption and internal conflict. Being the most prominent local 9/11 group in the country, one can't be too surprised that it draws more than its fair share of negative attention.
But I'd be painting too rosy a picture if I suggested that all the people involved don't hold a certain degree of responsibility for the situation as it stands. Les and the group need to respond more vigorously to these problems. As Les says in one of those e-mails, he hasn't been that quick to acknowledge the problems of infiltration and disruption. I hope that is changing.
Posted 17 years ago # -
Having just started attending the meetings and offering some help just a few weeks ago, my timing seems terrible! 8-O
It's funny how me and my site became "part" of Nico's theory just for showing up at one meeting.
Oh, and hello everyone... first time posting here.
Posted 17 years ago # -
Good smiley.
Too bad that had to be your intro to 9/11 truth in NYC. Truthmove was actually created after the founders recognized that our energy and commitment to this cause were not being put to good use in such a contentious environment. As I've said elsewhere, NY911Truth, and St. Mark's church may be too high profile in the movement not to draw all the heaviest contention.
On one level I respect those who have stuck it out. On another level, the group has never been coordinated in a manner that would adequately address this problem. Many of the problems they now face are issues we addressed when we were participating. And at the time, our concerns were met with a 'stay the course' attitude, and eventually accusations of being divisive.
Now over a year later, things are as bad as we ever thought they could be. I would point out that some of the reason for this lack of response is the genuine trusting nature of many involved. But this set up a situation in which the group was open to infiltration, and not prepared for these problems when they escalated.
TruthMove is trying to avoid these pitfalls. One way we do this is to conduct our street action in different locations each week. This allows us to have a dialog with the public that is uninterrupted by those who are also out on the street trying to debunk our concerns. It also get the message out to different demographic groups. Our trip to Harlem was amazing! NY911Truth has been going to Ground Zero for over two years. And that's great. But as they are a sitting target, people now come out every week to Ground Zero just to kill the positive vibe. Lately with the encouragement of some of its more enterprising members, they have been venturing elsewhere.
I wish you luck in your efforts at discovering and spreading the truth. My best recommendation is to find one other person, make a big sign and some informative flyers, and go out yourself onto the street to educate people. Check out our Outreach Journal.
http://www.truthmove.org/outreach-category/outreac...
We've found that 9/11 street action is really rewarding, and that most people, at least in NYC, are either apathetic or supportive. And the fun part, is that our detractors, the honest ones you meet on the street, usually agree with you more about the problems of the world than they at first realize.
Posted 17 years ago # -
BTW...
I briefly checked out your website, and didn't immediately find anything that offended me. People aren't denying the holocaust or blaming the Jews for 9/11. You bring 9/11 truth to the table with UFO inquiry, which many in the movement would find suspect. But I could also turn that around and congratulate you for recognizing the importance of the issue, and doing something to promote awareness.
While I hope that people are not confused about the relative importance of these issues, and don't simply pursue "conspiracy theories" as a hobby, I've found that people are pretty good at making that distinction for themselves.
I really appreciated your new policy statement for the 9/11 forum. We've just put up forum guildlines with a similar tone.
Posted 17 years ago # -
I've been involved in conspiracy theory research, speculation, discussion, and publication since long before 9/11. The broader spectrum of "conspiracy theory" covers everything from UFOlogy to mass media disinformation and large-scale corporate malfeasance.
[rant hat on]
I'm going to say something that I know will get me in trouble with any fan of 9/11 Truth who encounters it, and likely result in many new "COINTELPRO" slings and arrows...The "9/11 Truth Movement" has catastrophically harmed the field of conspiracy theory. (there, I said it ;) )
They become classified as "CTers" when in fact most of the "truthers" I've encounter online and offline are activists who have latched onto select conspiracies as catalysts for their anger.
As a result, we now have an overwhelming morass of poor theories based on weak facts and/or fabrications with all to often incomprehensible authorship.
[/rant hat off]Now, I admire the passion and "boots on the street" mentality of activists who get off their rears and try and be a factor for change. But angry yelling on street corners will only get you so far... you reach a point where anyone willing to listen to that has listened, and then you begin offending those not willing. That delicate tipping point of transition where offense begins was unrecognized and has passed, it's time for new efforts... and I think the improved focus you have here could be a part of that.
I have some thought-starter questions...
Do you think the online dearth of horridly presented conspiracy theories related to 9/11 has hampered the desire of serious journalists to consider the subject?
Do you think there is merit to rise of the theories that many of the "laughable" online conspiracy theories are purposeful smoke screens?
Do you think it may be possible for events to have unfolded pretty much as "officially" presented, and still contain a deep and horrible conspiracy?
Do you think a refinement of the "9/11 Conspiracy" message to a simple and concise list of clearly provable items will help to refocus the "Truth Effort"?
You said: "You bring 9/11 truth to the table with UFO inquiry". That's not quite the case. Our site has been focusing on the broader spectrum of "conspiracy theory" and "alternative topics" for almost ten years. As it turns out, 9/11 issues are only about 2% of all posts. On the other hand, anyone getting serious about 9/11 conspiracies is obligated to understand the history of conspiracy research, and that history contains a great deal of documented disinformation about UFO's. It's interesting to note that, from a 10,000 foot level, the activity of the wildest 9/11 conspiracies "looks" just like the government sponsored disinformation efforts in UFOlogy in the '80's. With historical perspectives like that, current efforts in conspiracy theory take on a new light. ;)
Posted 17 years ago # -
Great post!
Thanks for your thoughtful answer.
You have a pretty unique perspective on the 9/11 truth movement that I find very interesting. 9/11 truth has hurt the field of 'conspiracy theory'. I never would have thought I would hear that. But you make it clear that we basically agree. Yes, there are a LOT of poor theories based on weak facts. Your rant has a great deal to do with why we founded TruthMove, separating the fact from the fiction.
Just as there is a strong core of the movement that is more scientific in its approach, there are also groups like TruthMove who do a lot better than just 'yelling on street corners' when we do public promotion. Our experience promoting 9/11 truth and our other concerns in NYC could not be so simply characterized.
We have interesting conversations with both supporters and detractors. We very often find that we can discover some level of agreement with even the most initially aggressive people. We are also handing out all sorts of promotional materials, stickers, flyers, educational pamphlets. In this process we are demonstrating to people in our community that 9/11 truth is not only pursued by the uneducated and incompetent. You need to keep in mind that at this very moment the reputable core of the movement is just now coalescing into a group of people aware of the extent to which they must distinguish their efforts from those who promote bad science and unreasonable speculation.
Let me address your question:
1) Yes.
2) Yes.
3) Now were talkin'. Were always questioning our own assumptions about 9/11. When we first got into this we had many periods of considerable, and justified doubt. But after swinging back and forth a few times, sluffing off the the dis and misinfo, we came to find that our concerns had a factual basis. Based on documentary evidence, we have probable cause to suspect some degree of government complicity in the events of 9/11. That's what TruthMove has to say about it, at least.
Please notice that this is a very specific and also general statement. Its also a legal statement. But unfortunately we alone can't make that trial happen. The 9/11 truth movement is generally committed to promoting a new inquiry in which that probable cause would be examined. And in order to get to that point, we are committed to increasing public awareness of the the issue in order to generate support for a new investigation. And the movement is having some degree of success.
One of the things the movement has done best uncovering the flaw and internal contradiction of the official story. If there is anything I can say with certainty, it's that the 9/11 Commission Report is no better than the Warren Commission Report. Total white wash. The Warren report was proved recently to be incomplete and misleading. The 9/11 report will be no different. And this time it's not going to take 40 years.
So no, I don't think events could have unfolded as officially presented, but yet there is something else important about your questions. We can not no the true scope of the operation. It likely involved very few people in our government, and relied heavily upon foreign intelligence. And it may have been primarily coordinated through Western European channels. But the operation could not have been successful in the manner is was without some participation from people in the US.
I actually have thought of the ultimate limited hangout explanation of the whole thing, that may even be the official explanation at higher levels of security. But that would involve intelligence leaking out of Dick Cheney's office, and still implies criminal negligence on some level. But on the other hand, we have a number of ex-intelligence workers who have stated emphatically that the whole operation had to be state sponsored, and could not have been pulled off solely by a small group of foreign terrorists.
And the issue this raises is that US intelligence is very cozy with most mid-east intelligence operations, having set most of them up in the first place. You can't say that Pakistani or Saudi intelligence were involved without assuming at least US foreknowledge, but more likely facilitation.
We don't have all the answers, but that's the point. We have a right to some of those answers. The government will not address our concerns, which as the movement grows, becomes a serious issue of representation.
4) Have a look at the rest of the website. We're all about concise and well founded summaries. We make an effort to provide editorial context, but only in support of the facts.
Your perspective on disinfo is definitely relevant to the 9/11 truth movement. I am familiar with, and quite fascinated by government UFO propaganda. I also think there is intelligent life out there, but that their culture peaked a million years ago, they never figured out how to fold space, and that any signal from their world will take 27 million years to get here. And that's an optimistic assessment of the odds.
Finally, yes, there are government sponsored disinfo agents infiltrating the movement. And as I said, the genuine and overly trusting people in the movement are just getting hip to how they operate. Don't mix apples and oranges. Fetzer/Seigel/Haupt do not share the same priorities as Thompson/Ahmed/Zwicker.
The 9/11 truth movement is labeled by the mainstream as 'conspiracy theory' with the explicit intent to discredit our work. While theorizing about conspiracies is essential, 'conspiracy theory' has become entirely pejorative in this culture. Now, while we shouldn't let the bastards define our terminology, much of the evidence we have transcends speculation. I don't have a theory. Its true that I have established probable cause, which while a theory in essence, is also a legal standing.
Anyway, thanks for filling me in on your angle. Sounds like you've got your head screwed on tight, which is not always the case with others who maintain sites very similar to yours. I'll stop by the forum again and see what's going on.
Posted 17 years ago # -
Re: Great post!
truthmover Wrote:
You have a pretty unique perspective on the 9/11 truth movement that I find very interesting. 9/11 truth has hurt the field of 'conspiracy theory'. I never would have thought I would hear that
I never wanted to say that. ;) But we saw the movement's birth on ATS in a sudden rash of very angry members who disliked some of the threads our members posted. While there is a great deal of speculative conspiracy theory on our site, there is also a great deal of well-grounded critical thinking applied. Most of our members are more concerned with discerning the truth than proving their pet theories to be correct. The people we saw claiming to be of the "truth movement" a few years back, we're clearly more interested in their theories.As an example, one member posted a critical analysis of the "No Plane" theory here:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg...
While it's one member of 80,000+, we've had to endure a flood of angry "truth movement" people claiming we're all kinds of nasty things.there are also groups like TruthMove who do a lot better than just 'yelling on street corners' when we do public promotion. Our experience promoting 9/11 truth and our other concerns in NYC could not be so simply characterized.
I didn't mean to extend that comment to characterize this group. What I'm looking for is the ultra-condensed and sanitized version of 9/11 issues that would be safe to bring up at a cocktail party or office water cooler. ;)We have interesting conversations with both supporters and detractors. We very often find that we can discover some level of agreement with even the most initially aggressive people. We are also handing out all sorts of promotional materials, stickers, flyers, educational pamphlets. In this process we are demonstrating to people in our community that 9/11 truth is not only pursued by the uneducated and incompetent. You need to keep in mind that at this very moment the reputable core of the movement is just now coalescing into a group of people aware of the extent to which they must distinguish their efforts from those who promote bad science and unreasonable speculation.
3) Now were talkin'.
Good! I think there is too much distraction in issues like squibs, molten steel, pods-on-planes, missiles, and so on. While these controversial items make for sensational web pages and discussion threads, it's meaningless to the average person, and "crazy" to any serious journalist.I firmly believe the path to conspiracy begins with this simple notion:
We (US) created Osama and funding his activities in Afghanistan, visited him when he was "the world's most wanted man", blamed his organization for 9/11, yet shifted focus from his capture to fabricated war elsewhere.
The Watergate investigation began with a less tenuous notion than that.The 9/11 truth movement is labeled by the mainstream as 'conspiracy theory' with the explicit intent to discredit our work. While theorizing about conspiracies is essential, 'conspiracy theory' has become entirely pejorative in this culture.
Not so fast! I think there is a nugget of gold here.Yes... "9/11 Truth" has baggage.
No... the term "Conspiracy Theory" is not automatically a bad thing. If it was, our site would not be one of the Internet's top-20 boards.
The US culture has a soft-spot for conspiracy theory... popular entertainment has proven this. Everyone loves a good conspiracy... everyone knows a few. The thing is to find a way to take advantage of the soft-spot and redefine the "9/11 conspiracy" message to hit a bulls-eye. With the public at large, it has always been, and always will be about presentation.
Posted 17 years ago # -
Nico Interview
http://vyzygoth.com/audio/haupt2-15-07.mp3
Some pretty sophisticated and out there discussion. Nico speculating on what his purpose/angle would be if he was an agent. Also says he think MIT was involved in "writing" 9/11.
Not all bad. As Nico admits himself, he's a bit emotionally unstable. He says Team8plus has it's own therapy group (commendable, seriously, as is his honesty).
Sadly, Nico is functioning to cause much distraction and disruption in the movement.
Posted 17 years ago # -
Sadly, Nico is functioning to cause much distraction and disruption in the movement.
So unfortunately, he needs to be treated as someone whose goal is to do this stuff. It was the same with Fetzer. They destroy efforts to promote hoaxes (TV fakery/Ray Beams). No matter how sad a case they are and how nice they seem, they need to be booted.
I noticed that screwloosechange is linking to this -
http://www.911truthnewyork.org/2007/03/ryan-commen...
"Nico Haupt was a well respected NY 911 truth activist before Les ever popped up and was declared leader. He is a well respected researcher, especially on the topic of war games, and his research is cited in several of the top 911 truth books that exist. (Crossing the Rubicon, Towers of Deception, and Synthetic Terror, perhaps others that I've yet to read)"
Wow. So TV Fakery is O-Kay because Webster Tarpley included someone in a reference? Scary.
Posted 17 years ago # -
And unpleasant chore
Very much like other bait and switch artists we've recently seen at work, Nico started out in the movement making some kind of valid contribution, and working with a number of the original local founders. He's been around since the beginning. He wasn't actually a part of NY911Truth, although was a presence during its foundation. Then, like Eric Williams, for instace, he takes that reputation he's developed and invests it in something that directly undermines the movement, like TV Fakery.
I'm whatever about Nico at this point. He's just one part of the Zetzer/Seigel/Haupt alliance that we face, and is talked about as much as he is because he says things our debunkers find useful, well serving his purpose in the process.
Honestly, as hard as it is, the less attention we pay to Nico, the better. He's too far out to pose a real threat. And he has no followers. Of the three, I'm a lot more concerned about Fetzer and Seigel, who command a great deal of public attention.
Nico is their man on the street, and he only embarrases himself and his associates in the process, which once again is probably his intent. Bleh...this stuff is the pits. We need to keep our eye on it, but its definately an unpleasant chore.
Posted 17 years ago # -
ugghh
http://www.911truthnewyork.org/
this is the first i've heard of this site. looks like all drama all the time. luke, les, tom, nico, and now some of these new people i don't know.
i'm all with you on booting nico (he's featured on our disinfo page). but one reminder: it actually makes les look good to be attacked by whacko nico. yet les is the one responsible for the dissolution of ny911truth (he controls the money, the website and listserve, and has done the majority of the programming for st. marks church). he's the defacto LEADER of the group, and the blame goes to him. his recent actions/statements regarding tom foti and luke rudkowski are unquestionably disruptive and deceptive.
are you sure nico wasn't a part of the original ny911truth crowd? membership probably wasn't really official back then (was it ever?).
Posted 17 years ago # -
Honestly, as hard as it is, the less attention we pay to Nico, the better. He's too far out to pose a real threat.
Your response was the position of most people early on -- just ignore him. But years later he was appearing in magazine articles as a representative of the truth movement, and now has taken over 911review.org which has a very high google ranking, so ignoring him only provided another easy way to discredit, like ignoring Bollyn or Hufschmidt and then having them appear on CNN as representative of the movement in general. If you ignore them they only continue to damage and discredit, they don't disappear.
I think the disinformation page on the site is a good cross-section of info. http://www.truthmove.org/content/disinformation/
It's good to have a static page to drop around on forums when someone says they think that someone like Nico is a good researcher . . .
Posted 17 years ago # -
The clown
Nick Levis said that Nico was not an official member, but that he was always around. I've been acquainted with him for a couple of years now, having talked with him a couple of times. I'm certainly aware of his history and reputation.
As I said, we can't ingore him, but Nico tries to make himself an easy target, and we can't ignore that either. He may just be the clown that draws our attention away from people who are causing us problems in a much more subtle manner.
Posted 17 years ago # -
Re: ugghh
truthmod Wrote:
http://www.911truthnewyork.org/
this is the first i've heard of this site. looks like all drama all the time.
Someone (Nico?) is re-publishing select e-mails from their CC e-mail list... without permission.
Not very ethical at all.
-edit to add-
With a mailto for my e-mail address included as a link! Who is running this site?
Posted 17 years ago # -
So why does "Ryan" think Nico is a good researcher?
Just as an aside, sometimes we've noticed a game played amongst the disruptor/disinfo in which they all start to attack one of their own so that that person then becomes the "victim," even though that person is just as damaging as the others. It's a way to build credentials when there actually are none.
And all other manner of games.
And then there's the complexity that 9/11 groups often attract good-hearted people who can be prone to less-than-critical thinking, or easily befriends someone who is actually disruptive (since we're all trying to save the world, we try to fix people too) and then protect them no matter what they do, etc., etc. Right now there is someone in our local group defending Judy Wood on and on, but won't respond to the actual science arguments. It happens. I think the local groups are the hardest part.
Posted 17 years ago # -
Can't they all just get along?
We went down to Ground Zero yesterday, and saw Tom, Luke, and some of the other regulars. It was all good vibes, despite some of our strategic differences.
9/11 truth in NYC will always be a motley crew. We have such a diversity of people here. This is an important reason why people need to pursue this cause with a democratic approach. Now, just because its democratic, doesn't mean that we all have the same education and experience. In the democratic process we certainly must respect the opinion of those who have greater knowledge. But transparency and accountability from our leadership is essential.
The new nyc911truth.org site was created, by whom I don't yet know, specifically to address a lack of democratic process in the ny911truth group, as led by Les.
"To put in checks for Accountability of Leadership, to Put in procedure for Accountability of Monies Raised, to Establish Clear Goals, to Require Transparent Decision-Making, to Keep No Secrets from the Membership or From the Public."
Not only does that sound good to me, its totally essential.
But that's not how Les has run the group.
Anyway, we really wish everyone the best, and hope that this conflict can be resolved in a manner that leads to greater productivity for all. Split the group or resolve the conflict, but everyone keep busy.
Posted 17 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.