Wednesday, 25 July 2007


So what did all the agents of deception that have been outed here have in common?

Well firstly they all supported Wood's UNPROVEN DEW hypothesis.
What would be the point in that?
Maybe to cover up the destruction of building by other methods?
Given the incredible things associated with those destructions it seems that the cover-up would be to disguise the fact that NUCLEAR WEAPONS WERE IN FACT USED IN NEW YORK.

Something else was the discussion of apparent black-ops vehicles.
These are pointed to in videos that we know are not untouched originals.
The vehicles are alleged to prove the involvement of the American Black military.
If that was a lie, what would be it's purpose?
Well, it covers-up the possibility of the september 11 attacks being perpetrated by an outside force.

Oh, but we must remember that Grable was happy to consider 911 to be an attack from Russia using beam weapons.
Well why not consider that it could have been an attack from an outside force using NUCLEAR WEAPONS?

The idea of black-ops vehicles firing a missile also cover-up the possibility of a roof-launched missile having being used.


Tuesday, 17 July 2007

Coffinman bows out of 911researchers

Coffinman bows out of 911researchers

Coffinman's picture

Do you know what?

It seems to me that I am talking to myself here.
There are trolls that want to cover up the political exposures happening within our community, and people who present as good researchers yet stand back and say nothing.
The exposed liar, attempted character assassin and tacit bodyguard of Loose Change and 911mysteries, Haupt is back posting as if nothing has happened, and nobody has any problems with that.
I could go on, but I don't think that it would be worth the wear on my keyboard to continue.

I am going to end with a quote from Holmgren:

[CM stood up for basic principles of truth, integrity and logic and “letting the chips fall where they may”]

And another:

[Griffinization of no planes is complete. You all think that victory is within your grasp. Well in a way it is. Very soon, Fetzer will be standing up on a podium with the webhag behind him, aanouncing that if you throw a grand piano at a hologram of a pod, it proves that we have dozens of highly qualified experts (and no bus drivers) to prove that planes both did and did not hit the WTC, thanks to the ground breaking physics research of Moregames Reynolds and the magnificent "911 mysteries video".]

At least Gerard can get to see one of his hopes fulfilled:

[I just hope that CM has enough strength and clarity of vision to walk away on his own terms before you cunts crucify him completely.]

None of you could ever crucify me, because I fight with the truth, and there is no defence against the truth.
And I am walking away on my own terms.




Coffinman's picture
Submitted by Coffinman on Tue, 2007-07-17 02:42.

This was a post that I made early on against Grable's bodyguarding of Wood.
Grable had already put forward that Wood was silent because she did not want to go against Leaphardt's advice.
She had said that this was because women were like that when they had been protected by a man.
It was in response to this post that she made her now famous sexist comment:
[When a man protects a woman it just about guarantees she will not speak out against him. The fear of losing that protection is too great.
I'm a case in point.

I disagree with Holmgren on a number of issues, but I kept quiet out of respect and subservience, cos he bodyguarded me.

I made this post on 13/6/07:

There are different types of bodyguarding.
1. When you assist somebody who is engaged in debate.
2. When you support their credibility in advance of any attack being made.
3. When you jump into a fight that they are avoiding, and fight on their behalf. Version 3 allows the person who is subject to the attack to be unaccountable. Nobody should be unaccountable. Stalin was unaccountable. If the group wishes to have unaccountability for certain members I want no part of it.
Any person considering version 3 bodyguarding should feel beforehand that they know exactly why the person they are fighting for has not spoken up, and should be able to relate that circumstance to us all. Otherwise they are acting according to something they presume. It's okay to presume things, but just don't fight with them. "Women's problems" don't cut it.
Version 3 bodyguarding is what the followers of all the other 911 gurus practice. You can see it on YouTube threads and etc.. At least on YT threads they can say "Well ..... isn't here to speak for themself".
Suddenly I see this question of version 3 bodyguarding as being the most important of all. As long as it remains acceptable practice here then any enemy can always be protected by loyal colleagues. This is the way the elite all over the world operate.


Now think about that, and then read this:
And then think about what Nico has done.
They are a bunch of traitors.
And they are supported by the idiots:
C.B. Brooklyn
Total Idiot (I can't call him anything else)
and a few others that may not deserve to be singled out right now.
This isn't about being nice, you know.
There was nothing nice in NY on 911.
There is nothing nice in Iraq now.
And we are dealing with the same people.
So if you want a "nice" search for truth and justice, forget it.
These people do their utmost to cause maximum damage when they loose their control.
You have seen it.
They are nasty pasties.
Just like Rumplestiltskin was.

Webfairy, Nico and the smokescreen and smear campaign.

Webfairy, Nico and the smokescreen and smear campaign.

Coffinman's picture
Submitted by Coffinman on Mon, 2007-07-16 05:33.

I have proven that Nico told a lie in order to discredit me and then refused to acknowledge the lie when it was proven.
He repeated to attribute to me a statement that was made by Webfairy even after I had proved that she had said it, and when.
He tried to destroy my reputation.
Once I had done this he deleted my account, and then tried to delete all of my work here.
Fortunately Rick had removed his moderator status by that time.
Now we need to move forward, out of the rut (troll fruit-loop) created by Nico.

Why on Earth would Nico feel the need to tell such a vicious lie and attempt to destroy my credibility?

I will examine the events which provoked Nico Haupt and Rosalee Grable to personally smear me with the lies I have documented in the Post titled “Nico Haupt”:

Holmgren exposed the double thinking and duplicity of Reynolds in his pretence to be a no planer.
Reynolds released an article which contained a multitude of Lies about Holmgren, and a fatally flawed crash-physics analysis that focused on the mass of the building.
In the article he claimed that he had been a no-planer, and offered reasons for why he had lied for so long.
I pointed out that his lies had allowed the circulation of all kinds of silly ideas about what had hit the towers, and created a total confusion for people who were trying to see what we had found out.

Holmgren had also earlier pointed out that Fetzer had openly challenged Newton’s 3rd law.
Holmgren asked Wood to comment on Newton’s 3rd law and so did I, explaining the value of her potential contribution on the matter.
First she refused to comment on the issue, and when she was pressed for an answer we got her lawyer telling us that she didn’t have to answer any questions and that if she did her answers would be used to drive a wedge between her and Fetzer.

Where irreconcilable differences exist, then wedges must be driven.

Political unity was more important to her than correct science.
Reynolds didn’t correct Fetzer on his challenge to Newton either, despite his new-found openness about “No-planes”.
So Fetzer’s direct challenge to Newton’s third law was never corrected by Reynolds – who - claims to speak for crash physics - or by Wood who claims to be a mechanical scientist dedicated to truth about 911.
And Fetzer has never retracted his challenge to Newton.
And remember that these are the people promoting no-planes evidence in the mainstream media (or not, in the case of Wood).

Fetzer’s program regularly features Wood and Reynolds.
Wood’s site links to Fetzer.
Therefore they endorse Fetzer as a fellow voice of truth and they refuse to correct his lie about the variability of Newton’s 3rd law on the grounds of “Not wanting to drive a wedge”.

Do we?

Fetzer continues to promote Loose Change and the diabolical 911mysteries prominently on the front page of the “scholars” website.
The fact that so much of Wood and Reynolds’ work goes through Fetzer means that they tacitly support his promotion of Loose Change and 911mysteries, his variable 3rd law and all the other crap he has spouted.

So do Reynolds and Wood support Loose Change?
What about 911mysteries?
Have they ever spoken about the problems with the above when they have appeared on Fetzer’s show?
If they link to his stuff, and promote him as a “fellow voice for truth” whilst saying nothing about the alarming issues regarding his support of disinformation then doesn’t that indicate a tacit approval of that disinformation?

I have tried to address the issue of the planes with Fetzer.
He is fully exposed for what he is.
So why is it that he appears to be immune from the responsibility of his lies, which have been exposed?
Why do Wood and Reynolds go to Fetzer when they want publicity?
Remember I pointed out that Dr Wood has a quote on the front page of her website:
“There comes a time when silence is betrayal”.
Why is she silent on the most important issues?
Why does Reynolds not point out the errors of Fetzer’s absurd variable 3rd law of motion, after all, he says he fancies himself as a champion of crash physics!
Has there been ANY POINT where either Wood or Reynolds has pulled Fetzer about any of his lies or frauds?

I would like to ask Dr Wood when is the time that silence becomes betrayal?
Maybe when you keep your mouth shut about impossible plane crashes?
Or the lies and disinformation of Loose Change?
Or the total misrepresentation of 911mysteries?

So anyway………
Webfairy cheered Reynolds’ article with it’s fatally-flawed “mass hypothesis” (Which I had pointed out straightaway).
Reynolds had asked me “What should I say to the media” and said he wanted to go on tv to promote “no-planes”.
Holmgren suggested that as he was out of practice, Reynolds should practice his no-plane debating skills first.
He said that a debate with either Wood or Fetzer would be suitable.
As Holmgren said:
“to test whether political loyalties are still more important that than truth.”

The idea seemed good to me and I showed my enthusiasm.
I could already see that some “wedges” were in order.
We might at last get to see “the scholars” “letting the chips fall where they may”.
What could possibly be wrong with a scholarly debate on this most important issue?
Well Webfairy saw a problem.
A “pitchfork parade” against Wood was what she called it.
She called it “shitty”.

Then I was a Jackboot no-planer, Napoleon, fascist etc..
Holmgren left in a rage then, furious at Webfairy’s betrayal I suppose.
And in the argument over Wood’s silence Webfairy introduced an analysis which I disagreed with strongly and then she immediately tried to attribute the sexism to me in order to smear me and therefore discredit me.
It seems that there is something about Wood, Reynolds and Fetzer that she wishes to keep hidden.

I then posted the “story so far” here so that this could take place in view of everybody.
It was too important to continue on a small list controlled by them.

Webfairy continued to hide the real content of what had happened by yelling things like:
Jackboot no-planer.
Thought police.
And etc.

Nico was quick to join her in an attempt to ruin my reputation, but unfortunately for them I was able to show that they had knowingly lied about what had taken place in an attempt to discredit me.
In spite of his proclaimed professed mistrust of Reynolds, Wood and Fetzer, Nico resorted to lying in order to smear me personally in order to prevent any discussion of what this was really all about.

Now that we’ve dealt with the “sexism” lie, we can get look at what this was really all about

Why would Haupt and Grable support and Wood with such extreme passion?
Why would they want to destroy my reputation when I was simply trying to find the truth?

The proposal to test Reynolds in a debate with Wood was labeled as “a pitchfork parade against Wood”.
Why would that be?
You must remember that it was not Dr Wood’s stance on the planes that was the issue, the issue was to test Reynolds’ debating skills.

Obviously Wood, Fetzer and Reynolds are not independent of each other, they have an alliance that is more important to them than truth or correct science.

Webfairy says that Wood is independent from Fetzer, yet when Wood was asked to make a comment that might embarrass Fetzer, and the issue was continued by suggesting that Morgan practice debating THAT issue with Wood, Webfairy labeled it as a “Pitchfork parade against Dr Wood”.

Nico made a lot of noise and trouble to create a smokescreen, and exposed himself as a saboteur.
Now that he can no longer shield Webfairy she should return to this forum and account for why she is protecting Woods, Reynolds and Fetzer.

Does that surprise anyone?
Let’s look at that again…..

She is protecting Woods, Reynolds and Fetzer.
(And she tried to destroy me in the process.
And Holmgren left.
I can’t speak for him but I blame her for it.)

This means that she is now tacitly supporting Loose Change and 911mysteries.
Not by declaration, but by protecting Wood and Reynolds, who both protect Fetzer.
So does Nico, by launching a personal smear campaign against anyone who tries to expose this treachery and look deeper into it.

When we try to make Fetzer accountable for his promotion of Loose Change and 911 mysteries, he hides behind Wood and Reynolds and his support for unconventional demolition.
They will not criticize him.
When we try to make Reynolds or Wood accountable, WF and Nico start a campaign to smear and destroy, based on lies.

What is happening?

Haupt guilty of sabotage at 911researchers

Haupt guilty of sabotage at 911researchers

Coffinman's picture
Submitted by Coffinman on Sun, 2007-07-15 23:15.

Haupt deleted my account after being proved to be a liar who was trying to discredit me whilst I was in the process of exposing treachery within our community.
Rick has undone the damage and removed his moderator status.
Haupt is trying his best to get himself banned so that he is unable to answer here for himself.
We do not want to do that!
The research and outing of traitors continues!
This is the email I sent him:


You’re scared aren’t you?

Why else would you delete my account?

And you know you got the fuck kicked out of you in the argument.

That’s why you left the bold code active in your last message to hide my highlights.

You fight your dirty fight, and I’ll fight my serious one.

We’ll see what happens.]

Nico Haupt

Nico Haupt

Coffinman's picture
Submitted by Coffinman on Sat, 2007-07-14 17:02.

“Nico has recently engaged in directing a mass of garbled vitriol at me.
His starting point was that I was SEXIST.
In fact he reckoned that this alleged sexism signified that I was a victim of some Griffin eco-feminism psy-op.
In order to establish that he attributed to me the following quote “…When a man protects a woman it just about guarantees
she will not speak out against him” describing it as a “SEXIST SLUR”.

This is how he wrote it:
[Coffin writes:
"...When a man protects a woman it just about guarantees
she will not speak out against him..."

And this is the url of the comment:

The problem is that the above quote is from WF- not from me - and I was actually disagreeing with it.
I have pointed this out until everyone is bored with hearing it, and Rick has verified it.
It was also verified by Holmgren in his last contribution.

Will Nico now retract the false attribution to me, and all of the allegations against me that were based on this false attribution?

Will he now direct his rage at the person who actually wrote the above quote, Webfairy?.

All other issues are irrelevant to this thread and would obviously be spam.

I repeat the important part of this post once more so that it will be clear to even those with the poorest reading skills:

Will Nico now retract the false attribution to me, and all of the allegations against me that were based on this false attribution?

Will he now direct his rage at the person who actually wrote the above quote, Webfairy?.
(edited to unbold only)

Now added to remain at top:

Nico the troll
Submitted by Coffinman on Sun, 2007-07-15 15:32.

Nico has shown that he will not answer the two questions posed to him.
It is now an established fact that he lied about what I had said.
He has turned this thread into a trolls fruit loop.
I will look at the reasons why he felt it necessary to lie and attempt to smear me in another post.

I have proven:

1. Webfairy made the sexist statement, which I opposed viciously.

2. Haupt knowingly attempts (still) to discredit me by falsely attributing Webfairy's outlook to me.

3. Haupt will not say he disagrees with Webfairy's sexist outlook.

I consider this matter closed now and it is time to move on.


Michael Zebuhr

[Following the murder of my student, Michael Zebuhr, a truly extraordinary human being, I received an email stating, "we've done it before and we will do it again if need be.") Therefore, expect this website to be added to and updated over the next several days. Michael told me, "Whatever happens, don't ever stop pursuing this. It's too important." Michael, this is for you.]

For Michael.


Michael would want us all to believe that he had been murdered, so then he would want us to get to the bottom of this crime if at all possible.
So we should look into the issue.
For Michael, you see.
Well he isn't in the SSDI for a start.

Miranda Priestley has done some research into the issue.

At first there was practically no information to be found about Michael, but as Miranda reported that fact things started to appear.....

Monday, 9 July 2007

The Horrible Truth About 911Truth

The Horrible Truth About 911Truth

rick's picture
Submitted by rick Siegel on Sun, 2007-07-01 01:51.

I had previously spoken out exposing the liars and frauds that abound within the 911truth movement(1) Since doing that it is not strange to find I have won no friends within. When you expose people as liars and frauds they must deny that identification or the game is up – and that will not happen until the fires are at their gate.

First I ask you to ponder the situation of any ruler or ruling class. Use your history books for examples and see if you can find any such class that allowed dissent to go without infiltration, subversion and control The very idea a leader would ignore this makes him an inept leader and even if that were true, those who control will not allow that kind of thing to happen. Lulling the subjects into submissive observance only needs a shred of authority granted from generations of oft-unquestioned loyalty, obedience and even a reverence of past subjugations and traditional caste. An actual romantic attachment if you would to acceptance of frauds. Trained to feel powerless to turn the tide or change the trend.

With that understanding you must enter the realm of governance (in its full sense) vs. conspiracy in the murders and destruction of the three towers in NYC on September 11, 2001. A full accountability of factions with an interest in these events will never be had but the amount of government, financial and royal prerogatives that are in danger of exposure would lead you to an understanding of the vast infiltration that must result. The government itself has put 100 million a year since 2001 into this effort.

A look at the leadership in any of these fractured 911 groups will find it is crowded with x-agents, conmen, religious cult leaders, and people whose lives and income are deeply entrenched in government, cult, corporate and conspiracy group aspirations. This should give you great pause before you hitch your wagon to these stars from the left, right or center.

Please read the rest of this article at my site and

Shout it out!

Digg Story!

Will the real Dr Wood please stand up?

Dr Wood you remained silent during a fight about you except for a comment after the brawl that you made about you celebrating Capurnicus' birthday each year.
In reply I put a number of serious points to you and you did not respond.
My post to you is as relevant now as it was when I made it.
I repeat it here for you now so that you can consider an answer on this public forum:

[Now doesn't that directly address the simple issue we have been trying to clear up?
An issue that was generated whilst Morgan was inferring some variability of physical laws.
Morgan has since changed his position.
I see that there was an important ideological battle within the group that was calling for your input and you stood by and watched the group split.
This comment you just made is merely humour.
After all that has gone on, I suggest that this is the conduct of a clown.
A 911 Clown.
Can you see why I see it that way?
You have done nothing to help us develop any understanding here.
But as mentioned already, your website is good.
I don't doubt your intent to prove the use of beam weapons.
I doubt your identity with the aims of our group.
I do not see you doing anything to serve the interests of this group.
And you have watched the debate descend into chaos.
That's my problem with you.
But it all presented over a tiny philosophical point of universality.
Such is life.].

I allege that your silence was necessary to protect Morgan.
Morgan re-manoevered during the scuffle to avoid the charge of claiming variable physics, he took the less-damaging "Lying for the truth" stance, but I was already cooking your goose by that time.
Holmgren has gone.
Webfairy and I have split irreconcilably.
911insidejobbers has been destroyed from what it was.
I no longer trust Nico.
And etc..
You preferred to watch this happen than to merely state what you are aware of in your capacity as a mechanical scientist.
So your silence had a MASSIVE price.
And you weren't even being asked for a personal opinion.
So what have you got by way of justification, for allowing that to happen to arguably the most important research group allegedly working for the same aims as you?
I say that you have no way of justifying your conduct.
Your conduct certainly didn't serve the interests of establishing the truth about 911 did it?
I say that you will not answer because you know that your arguments will be exposed as baseless.
The simple fact is, Dr Wood, that:

911 truth- supporting lies and disinformation

"Excellent. The best of the 9/11 movies." --David Ray Griffin, author of The New Pearl Harbor

"WOW! is my reaction to this movie. Great insight into demolitions and what really happened on 9/11/2001." --Steven E. Jones, physics professor, Brigham Young University

The above two quoted individuals are the most prominent people in the visible 911 conspiracy research field.
Both of them are subject to heavy criticism with regard to lies, false logic and wrongful critical of genuine research.
But the above quotes are all we need to look at.
The 911mysteries film is a slick psy-op that is laced with lies, distortions and disinformation.
From it's very beginning it purports that planes had actually crashed into the WTC towers.
But that has been disproven within the genuine 911 research community.
Oh yes, there is a genuine community of 911 researchers.
Individual researchers that ascribe to no leader and discuss their collective data.
It can be found here:
The so-called leaders of the "truth movement" have directed the energy of much of the search for the truth of 911 into "safe" channels that cannot be used to bring the guilty to justice.
You can find out about some of their deceit here:
But these two quotes will be enough.
Rick Siegel, who filmed the events of 911 from Hoboken pier and produced 911 eyewitness with his evidence noticed that some of his footage had been used in 911mysteries and that the soundtrack had been edited so that the film presented a false picture of what happened.
Rick documented this treachery here:
And further developments here:
911mysteries was produced with the co-operation of Jim Fetzer, who still endorses the work, and therefore it's lies and distortions.
What I had to say to Jim about the film and his stance can be read here:
What the traitors posing as research "leaders" mostly have in common is that they endorse the idea of planes hitting buildings on 911 and they ignore the evidence that fake video was presented by the media as live news.
If you need to look at the issue of the planes yourself you can start here:
Rick has written openly to Jones and Griffin detailing the lies and distortions contained in 911mysteries.
They have neither retracted their endorsements or explained them.
They are endorsing lies and deceit and they cannot say that they don't know.
So is Fetzer.
The "truth" organisations that have "great leaders" are nothing more than cults.
The people's investigation does not have a leader.
The people's investigation into 911 can be found here: