More examples of Jim Hoffman's Blatant Dishonesty: "Airliner crashes typically leave no recognizable debris"

Keenan's picture

Jim Hoffman, the notorious disinformationist who seems to focuse most of his deceptive practices on the 9/11 Pentagon attack, has created a presentation on his website purporting to show that airliner crashes typically do not leave much if any recognizable debris. The purpose of his presentation is to support his argument that the lack of recognizable aircraft debris at the Pentagon on 9/11 does not damage the case for the OCT of AA77 having crahed there:

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/compare/jetcrashdebris.htm...

Jetliner Crash Debris

Examples of Jetliner Crashes Leaving Little Recognizable Debris

Some skeptics of the official account of the 9/11/01 attack maintain that the apparent paucity of aircraft debris at the crash sites -- the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and Shanksville PA -- is evidence that jetliners did not crash there [Notice how he tries to lump Pentagon Boeing crash skeptics in with WTC no planers, yet again?]. Such arguments are based on several assumptions, including that jetliner crashes always leave extensive debris with easily recognizable pieces. However, one does not have to look far to find numerous examples of crashes of jetliners and cargo jets that left almost no recognizable debris, such as those listed here.
[...]

The problem is that when one applies a little bit of critical analysis and fact checking, one quickly discovers a whole lot of deception going on, which seems to be par for the course with Hoffman. One person who decided to do the checking and discovered massive deception in Hoffman's presentation was one Bruno from WeAreChangeLA. He then provided photographic evidence, including from many of the crashes that Hoffman referred to, which actually showed large recognizable debris - indicating the Hoffman purposely chose to cherry pick photos that were not representative, or flat out lied about what was in the photos. When Bruno presented this on True Faction, he was howled down and shortly thereafter the thread was locked, with John Bursill saying "Time for this movement to close ranks once again!" Sigh...It always cracks me up when somebody over at True Faction refers to their little clique of clowns there as "the movement". LOL!

The original post can be found at http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5687&start=135

Bruno creates his own presentation in which he picks apart Hoffman's article and deconstructs Hoffman's blatant disinformation. Jim Hoffman wrote:
"Crashes of aircraft into buildings also typically leave little in the way of large debris, as the December 5, 2005 crash of a C-130 into an apartment building in Iran illustrates."

He gives an example of a plane hitting a building, then shows 4 aerial photos with the claim that no recognizable debris was seen. But look what Bruno found in a matter of seconds: numerous photos of the same crash site with large recognizable debris:

http://docs.google.com/View?id=dhnjtcf4_14dbznr3f4

Is it not fair to ask now where Jim Hoffman is receiving his pay check? If not now then when? How many blatant lies and distortions does someone like Hoffman have to be caught engaging in before he should be shamed out of the movement? What say you, truthers?

Here is Bruno's post on 911Blogger discussing Hoffman's dishonest research methods in response to John A's juvenile attacks in which JohnA once again compares Boeing crash skeptics to "Holocaust Deniers". I think Bruno sums up the situation quite well:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/21517#comment-218640

I got sucked into this Pentagon discussion because I saw real footwork getting real answers when I watched CIT's documentaries on the witnesses. Then I was informed that CIT was getting bashed and treated like disinfo. I slowly got into each consecutive discussion, and it's Hoffman's attacks that disturbed me the most, because when I looked at his Pentagon opinion page (it can't really be called anything more than his opinion) at 911Research I was shocked. How can this guy who really does not present much if any legitimate research on the Pentagon then go on the attack against somebody else who is actually going to DC and getting actual witness testimony as evidence on record? Even if someone disagrees with CIT's conclusions, the evidence stands and should not be dismissed, no matter whose feelings got hurt.

On the other hand, you can't even qualify Hoffman's presentation as research. He makes far far too many conclusions without doing any actual footwork. Legge does the same. The page that Hoffman presented as support for his opinion that large recognizable plane debris is rare at crash sites was shown to be 99% fail. For each example he gave of historical crash sites, he provided only one photograph to corroborate his claim. When I spent time researching each example, I found evidence of large plane parts at the crash sites. We are talking huge obvious parts like sometimes a wing, sometimes an engine, sometimes chunks of fuselage and usually the tail section in whole or parts. 100% of his examples where other photos or video was available, large plane debris was visible. The remaining handful of examples where only one photo is available can't be considered as evidence either way. Hoffman should correct this page in order to maintain his integrity, and not to be classified as disinfo.

One more thing John, in your sign off you say "We need to move beyond conspiracy theories and slogans..."

How can you classify this notion that the government might someday show a video of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon as anything other than "conspiracy theories and slogans"? It's only conjecture, and it's being used here on 911blogger apparently in an attempt to ward off those in the 9-11 Truth Movement from investigating the Pentagon any further than Hoffman's opinion.

With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org

P.S. You mentioned 'holocaust denial' once again almost like its your personal voodoo word to scare people away from asking questions.