Jim Hoffman Tells Huge Lie in Interview With Michael Wolsey
http://media.libsyn.com/media/visibility911/visibility911_hoffman_cit.mp...
At around 19:00 you'll hear Hoffman claim (bemoan the sad "fact") that the only physical evidence dealt with by Thierry Meyssan in his books was the lack of a Boeing at the Pentagon. He says this as a way of accusing Meyssan of dooming the truth movement from the outset by burdening it with this "ridiculous claim". Curious about this accusation, and owning the English version of Meyssan's first book published in 2002, L'Effroyable Imposteur (9/11 The Big Lie), I checked.
Meyssan, in fact, spends only the first chapter talking about the Pentagon. In the following chapters he talks about reports of explosions in the towers, of the complaint by Fire Engineering's Bill Manning that the investigation was being compromised by the destruction of evidence, the comment by Van Romero that it looked like explosives had to have been used, and that building 7 appears to only have been explainable as a controlled demolition.
So Hoffman's statement is patently (and one can only assume deliberately) totally incorrect. As in false. Not just that but his entire premise that people like Meyssan were guilty of dooming skepticism to fruitless avenues is belied by the fact that after discussing the Pentagon and the explosives at the WTC, Meyssan went on to cover virtually every early issue from the put options to the threat made against Air Force One to warnings from intelligence agencies abroad, the fact that AA77 was being tracked by military radar on its way into Washington, I mean the list goes on--given its date of publication it is an amazingly good start, so the fact that Hoffman feels he has to misrepresent it in such a gross manner I think says a lot about his and his supporters' motives.
What say ye, truthers?
- gretavo's blog
- Login to post comments
Did he not read the book?
Did he mean "the only physical evidence at the Pentagon"?
apparently not
nope, he said the only physical evidence challenge to the official story...
here's the Amazon description
Editorial Reviews
Review
"Challenges the entire official version of the Sept. 11 attacks."
Product Description
In "The Big Lie", Thierry Meyssan sheds new light on the 9/11 Pentagon and World Trade Center crashes. As a keen observer of international affairs, he had been intrigued by anomalies revealed in the first photographs of the attack against the Pentagon, and also by the confusion and contradictions surrounding the official reports concerning the World Trade Center and then the involvement of Afghanistan in the attack. The New York Fire Dept. has asked for an independent enquiry, owing to the fact that Tower Seven did not collapse because of the plane crashes, and that explosions were heard; in Washington, the facade of the Pentagon was damaged along 19 metres, but a Boeing's wingspan is at least 38 metres. Yet, no debris was found on the Pentagon's lawn. Thierry Meyssan's inquiry into the events of September 11th sheds new light on the overlooked evidence, the contradictory testimonies, and the Pentagon's refusal to allow an independent enquiry into the crashes. Further, the trail of disturbing evidence leads us into Afghanistan, and into the very heart of the United States' war machine, revealing perhaps one of the greatest deceptions in history. The text is based entirely on White House and Defense documents in addition to statements made to the press by top-ranking civil and military officials, thus all the evidence is open to verification by the reader.
Okay, what he says is this:
(My transcription)
"It's instructive to look at to go back to the time period of 2002, 2003, even 2001 when the very first um the very first notion that um 9/11 was an inside job or whatever was packaged as the 'no plane hit the Pentagon' in the form of the 'Hunt the Boeing,' [website and] the various books by Thierry Meyssan. Thierry Meyssan's books were translated into like 28 languages. Umm gosh what any 9/11 truth activist would give to have those kind of resources and this was being done in 2002 you know, so that was the first introduction that most people around the world had to the notion that 9/11 was something other than what the authorities told us was basically a false myth and it wasn't until much later that the public became aware that there was any other basis to challenge the official story. That entire book, the two books that Thierry Meyssan came out with, the only physical evidence challenge to the offical story was that no plane hit the Pentagon and that um I'd like to get into that with you about how that relates to what I think is kind of the 'state of the art' in this kind of disinformation what I hope we'll talk about, there's the video Pentacon, the various productions of the so-called CIT because um I think that they are largely based on that work, because they've had so much success with convincing people that there was no jetliner crash at the Pentagon, that they've been able to exploit that and get as much mileage as they have."
(...)
"It's like what you saw with Thierry Meyssan's book, as if the only challenges to the official story are this idea that no plane crashed in the Pentagon and um and as if none of this other stuff exists and um what I'd like to talk about is how ludicrous this uh most recent incarnation of the no-plane theory is that has the jetliner actually approaching the Pentagon but then flying over the top of it."
It's sounding more and more to me
like the guy has never even cracked one of those books and is relying on someone's Cliff Notes. It's so glaringly obvious that he's wrong -- he's either lying or ignorant about something he has no excuse to be ignorant about.
My guess would be
the oilempire site -- but I really don't want to go check. I had to boil my computer once today already.
whether he's lying or just sloppy...
is irrelevant, imho. his agenda is revealed very clearly.
The modus operandi of a con-man
Is to become your friend first by doing you a number of favors. What better way to gain the respect and trust of the movement by publishing some excellent articles on the WTC collapse? But the amount of omissions, distortions, cherry-picking and outright lying Hoffman engages in to protect the line that AA77 crashed into the Pentagon leads one to only conclude that JH's motives are not at all sincere.
nytimes article on Meyssan's book...
June 22, 2002
Conspiracy Theory Grips French: Sept. 11 as Right-Wing U.S. Plot
By ALAN RIDING
PARIS, June 21 ? Even before the fires were extinguished at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, conspiracy theories began flooding the Internet. A few quickly spilled out of Web sites and were widely circulated by e-mail before fading into oblivion. One, however, has taken on a life of its own in France. It was turned into a book that has become the publishing sensation of the spring.
In the book, "L'Effroyable Imposture," or "The Horrifying Fraud," Thierry Meyssan challenges the entire official version of the Sept. 11 attacks.
He claims the Pentagon was not hit by a plane, but by a guided missile fired on orders of far right-wingers inside the United States government. Further, he says, the planes that struck the World Trade Center were not flown by associates of Osama bin Laden, but were programmed by the same government people to fly into the twin towers.
What really interests him, though, is what he sees as the conspiracy behind these actions. He contends that it was organized by right-wing elements inside the government who were planning a coup unless President Bush agreed to increase military spending and go to war against Afghanistan and Iraq to promote the conspirators' oil interests.
To achieve their goals, the theory goes, they blamed Osama bin Laden for Sept. 11 and later broadened their targets to include the "axis of evil," centered on Iraq.
The 235-page book has been universally ridiculed by the French news media, while its arguments have been dismantled point by point in "L'Effroyable Mensonge," or "The Horrifying Lie," a new book by two French journalists.
A Pentagon spokesman said, "There was no official reaction because we figured it was so stupid."
Yet in the past three months, Mr. Meyssan's book has sold more than 200,000 copies in France, placing it at the top of best-seller lists for several weeks. Foreign rights have also been sold in 16 countries (a Spanish version is already on sale), and Mr. Meyssan traveled to Abu Dhabi in the United Arab Emirates in April to present his arguments at a local university.
The book's French publisher, Éditions Carnot, said it would release an English version in the United States in July.
Mr. Meyssan said in an interview that he was surprised his book had so far provoked no major debate, but he was convinced that his message was being heard.
"Two-thirds of the hits on our Web site come from the United States," he said. "I'm not saying all my readers agree with me, but they recognize that the official American version of the attacks is idiotic. If we can't believe the official version, where do we stand?"
It is nonetheless puzzling why so many of the French have been willing to pay the equivalent of $17 for "The Horrifying Fraud." Is it a symptom of latent anti-Americanism? Is it a reflection of the French public's famous distrust of its own government and mainstream newspapers? Or has the French love of logic been tickled by the apparent Cartesian neatness of a conspiracy theory?
Certainly, after Sept. 11, some leftist intellectuals suggested that the United States had invited the attacks through its support for Israel. Others recalled that Islamic militants had been financed and armed by the United States to fight the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980's. Yet, in this case, Libération and Le Monde, left-of-center newspapers with no love for the Bush administration, have led the assault on Mr. Meyssan's book.
"The pseudotheories of `The Horrifying Fraud' feed off the paranoid anti-Americanism that is one of the permanent components of the French political caldron," Gérard Dupuy wrote in an editorial in Libération. Edwy Plenel, news editor at Le Monde, wrote: "It is very grave to encourage the idea that something which is real is in fact fictional. It is the beginning of totalitarianism."
Guillaume Dasquié and Jean Guisnel, the authors of "The Horrifying Lie," favor a different explanation for the book's success. They write of France's "profound social and political sickness," which leads people to embrace the idea "that they are victims of plots, that the truth is hidden from them, that they should not believe official versions, but rather that they should demystify all expressions of power, whatever they might be."
Still, even if some French are susceptible to conspiracy theories, few had heard of the book until March 16, when Mr. Meyssan appeared on a popular Saturday evening television program on France 2, a government-owned but independently run channel. In the program, Mr. Meyssan was allowed to expound his theory without being challenged by the host. In the two weeks that followed, his book sold 100,000 copies.
Mr. Meyssan himself seems an unlikely purveyor of tall stories. A 44-year-old former theology student, he dabbled in leftist politics before forming a political research company, Réseau Voltaire, or Voltaire Network, in 1994.
The company's Web site (www .reseauvoltaire.com) adopted specific causes, like fighting homophobia and opposing Jean-Marie Le Pen's far-right National Front. Its investigative methods seemed thorough and objective.
In person too, Mr. Meyssan, a slim, wiry man with short hair and penetrating eyes, comes over as both serious and rational.
French journalists who had given some credibility to his Web site were all the more surprised, then, to find him building a vast conspiracy theory around the fact that photographs of the Sept. 11 attack showed no airplane parts in or near the smoldering gap in the Pentagon. This became the departure point for his book.
The line of reasoning that follows is a case study in how a conspiracy theory can be built around contradictions in official statements, unnamed "experts" and "professional pilots," unverified published facts, references to past United States policy in Cuba and Afghanistan, use of technical information, "revelations" about secret oil-industry maneuvers and, above all, rhetorical questions intended to sow doubts. At the end of each chapter, Mr. Meyssan presents his speculation as fact.
To gather his evidence, he worked mainly from articles, statements and speculation found on the Internet. He did not travel to the United States to interview any witnesses. Indeed, he dismisses the accounts of witnesses to the crash of the American Airlines Boeing 757 into the Pentagon.
"Far from believing their depositions, the quality of these witnesses only underlines the importance of the means deployed by the United States Army to pervert the truth," he said.
His "truth" is that no Muslims took part in the attacks "because the Koran forbids suicide." To his original claim that the Pentagon was bombed from the inside, he has now added his conviction that the building was struck by an air-to-ground missile fired by the United States Air Force. "This type of missile, seen from the side, would easily remind one of a small civilian airplane," he said.
In response, Mr. Dasquié and Mr. Guisnel said they traveled to Washington and interviewed 18 witnesses to the Pentagon crash.
They also have named experts explaining how the Boeing 757 could disappear inside the crater caused by the impact. Further, they identify several people mentioned only by their initials in Mr. Meyssan's acknowledgments, including a French Army officer currently on trial for treason and a middle-ranking intelligence officer.
The book has proved to be a windfall for Mr. Meyssan's publisher. More accustomed to publishing marginal books on subjects like the "false" American moon landing in 1969 and the latest "truth" about U.F.O.'s, Éditions Carnot can now boast of its first best seller.
Further, confident that this conspiracy theory will endure, Mr. Meyssan and Carnot have just published a 192-page annex, with new documents, photographs and theories. They call it "Le Pentagate."
and another mentioning him
July 6, 2002
An Old Amour, More Off Than On
By EMILY EAKIN
Since the beginning of the year, Edward I. Koch, former mayor of New York City, has signed off most of his weekly radio broadcasts with a declaration of war loosely inspired by Julius Caesar: ''Omni Gaul delenda est!'' (''All Gaul must be destroyed!'')
Mr. Koch says he doesn't mean the phrase literally, of course. But it's become a way for him to express his antipathy toward France. In harboring such feelings, he is apparently not alone. While formal polls routinely show widespread American indifference to France, some experts say anti-French sentiment in the news media is on the rise. A few have even begun to talk of an outbreak of francophobia, marked by the revival of age-old stereotypes about the dirty, arrogant, anti-Semitic French.
Francophobia is to America what anti-Americanism is to France, said Justin Vaisse, a professor at the Institute of Political Science in Paris who was in Manhattan last week presenting a paper on the topic to members of the French-American Foundation, a local group that promotes intellectual exchange between the countries.
Another facet of the two longtime allies' intense and somewhat inexplicable mutual fascination -- a classic case of love-hate -- is that francophobia has deep roots in American culture, Mr. Vaisse said.
He compared it to a chronic illness, prone to recur whenever there is tension between the countries.
''Francophobia is not a fair criticism of France,'' he said. ''It is a systematic bias against the country, a willingness to see everything painted in black. It is a disease in the intellectual and political debate.''
And lately, he argued, there have been signs of a flare-up. ''We're currently witnessing a wave of anti-French sentiment in the press that we haven't seen since '86 or '95,'' he said.
In 1986, France refused to let American pilots fly over its airspace on bombing missions to Libya. In 1995, it publicly accused five Americans of spying, embarrassing the United States. Both incidents triggered a bout of France-bashing editorials.
The causes of the latest outbreak are equally clear, Mr. Vaisse said: a spate of anti-Semitic incidents in France, the unexpectedly good showing of the ultra-nationalist Jean-Marie Le Pen in the first round of the French presidential elections and dissatisfaction with French foreign policy in the Middle East, deemed by some in the United States to be insufficiently pro-Israel. There was also the runaway success in France of Thierry Meyssan's book ''L'Effroyable Imposture'' (''The Horrifying Fraud'') attributing the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks to a United States government conspiracy.
These developments have coincided with a strong surge of anti-Americanism in France. After a brief honeymoon last fall -- President Jacques Chirac was the first foreign leader to visit the United States after the terrorist attacks -- relations between the two countries soured, with many French expressing vociferous opposition to the Afghan war. Tensions have increased since February, when Hubert Védrine, the French foreign minister, dismissed President Bush's ''axis of evil'' metaphor as ''simplistic,'' prompting Secretary of State Colin L. Powell to snap that his French colleague was ''getting the vapors.''
Even the boardroom politics of French corporations have become symbols of cultural mistrust. The ouster this week of Jean-Marie Messier, the hard-driving chief executive of Vivendi Universal, the French media conglomerate, took on an anti-American cast when it was reported that he had been perceived by disgruntled French stockholders as too favorably disposed to America and its business models. (He ditched Paris for Park Avenue and insisted that even the company's French managers use English on the job. Under the new leadership, Vivendi's American executives will get lessons in French history and etiquette, and will be encouraged to ''demonstrate that they like France.'')Americans have responded to these events -- particularly the outbreak of anti-Semitism -- with a mixture of anger and anxiety.
Concern over reports of fire bombings at French synagogues and of physical assaults on French and Belgian Jews prompted the Simon Wiesenthal Center to issue a travel advisory for France and Belgium this spring -- an unprecedented step. A similar fear led the Pacific-Southwest branch of the American Jewish Congress to urge a boycott of the Cannes Film Festival in April. (The congress mentioned ''L'Effroyable Imposture'' as well as anti-Semitism in its ad campaign promoting the action.) Last month, the congress decided to suspend its tours of France altogether.
Mr. Koch said he began his own boycott in December, after the French government failed to reprimand Daniel Bernard, its ambassador to Britain, who used an obscenity to refer to Israel at a dinner party. (Mr. Bernard did not deny making the remark but said his words had been greatly distorted.) .
Even the French edition of Saul Bellow's latest novel, ''Ravelstein,'' became grounds for attack when The New York Observer reported in June that the publisher, Gallimard, had selected an image for the book's cover -- a photograph of a large-nosed old man with hornlike tufts of hair -- that verged on anti-Semitic caricature. (Denying that the company had acted with anti-Semitic intent, a Gallimard employee told the Observer that the image had been chosen for its humor.)
While many French experts admit that such reactions are understandable, but some fear that genuine political disagreement and legitimate concern over anti-Semitism may also be giving way to crude caricatures of the French.
''This wave of francophobia is accompanied by classic negative stereotypes,'' Mr. Vaisse said. His examples included opinion pieces by the conservative commentators Anne Coulter and Charles Krauthammer and the iconoclastic journalist Michael Kelly , who in defending President Bush's ''axis of evil'' speech from French government criticism in The Washington Post, referred to the ''French foreign minister, whose name is Pétain or Maginot or something.''
He might also have cited ''Saturday Night Live.'' In a spoof of a French tourism commercial that was broadcast on the show in April, a series of iconic images -- the Louvre, the Eiffel Tower, a little girl toting a load of baguettes -- flashed by on the screen while a female voice recited the pitch in a dulcet murmur: ''The French: cowardly yet opinionated, arrogant yet foul-smelling. Anti-Israel, anti-American and, of course, as always, Jew-hating. With all that's going on in the world, isn't it time we got back to hating the French?''
Some French blame the American news media for making such remarks acceptable. The press, they say, has failed to distinguish between the anti-Semitic acts occurring in France today -- mostly attributed to Muslim teenagers angry about the conflict in the Middle East -- and those that occurred during World War II. They point out that thousands of French citizens have protested the anti-Semitic acts in demonstrations, and they say Mr. Le Pen's resounding defeat proves that the vast majority of French are staunchly opposed to racial and religious hatred.
In a sternly worded opinion piece published in The Washington Post last month, François Bujon de l'Estang, France's ambassador to the United States, lashed out at American commentators who have drawn analogies between the Holocaust and contemporary France. Calling the anti-Semitic incidents a ''spillover from the Israel-Palestinian conflict,'' he argued that ''they don't make France any more anti-Semitic than the persistence of the Ku Klux Klan and white supremacists makes the United States a racist country on the verge of restoring segregation or slavery.''
Many Americans -- particularly Jews -- remain unconvinced, saying the French government has shown little interest in punishing perpetrators of anti-Semitic crimes. ''The French lay this blame off through a multitude of excuses,'' said Jack Rosen, president of the American Jewish Congress. ''There is a historical context that needs to be considered.''
But French scholars insist that there is a difference between history and stereotypes. The most troubling expressions of anti-French sentiment, they say, are those like the ''Saturday Night Live'' parody, which make their appeal simply by invoking all-purpose clichés.
''It's the eternal return of the same,'' said Eric Fassin, a sociologist at the École Normale Supérieure in Paris, who studies French-American relations. ''As is the case with anti-Americanism in France, on the one hand you have immemorial rhetoric, so you feel you're always hearing the same thing. On the other hand, it's always being updated for new purposes and contexts.''
Some of the negative images date to the early days of the American republic. In his paper, Mr. Vaisse cites the XYZ affair of 1797, when President John Adams sent an envoy to Paris to improve diplomatic relations with France. The French government agreed, but set hefty financial conditions -- $250,000 up front as well as a $12 million loan -- creating a lasting impression of Gallic moral corruption.
A hundred years later, the Dreyfus Affair helped establish France's reputation as a haven for anti-Semitism, a notion reinforced by evidence of substantial French collaboration with the Nazis under the Vichy regime. Similarly, France's capitulation to the Germans in 1940 made the French into eternal cowards, just as Charles de Gaulle, a famously stubborn and uncooperative ally, secured his fellow citizens a permanent reputation in this country for untrustworthiness and arrogance.
French scholars are quick to point out that positive clichés -- about French wine, cheese, art, love and elegance -- are just as plentiful. And they are often invoked in the same breath as the negative ones. Even the ''Saturday Night Live'' parody included references to France's reputation for great art and food.
''You can't fully distinguish between the anti and the pro people,'' Mr. Fassin said. ''The same people can produce articles telling you how great it is in France and how irritating the French are.''
In the end, he speculated, the explanation for France and America's love-hate relationship lies not in how different the two countries are but in how similar. ''Arrogance?,'' he said. ''They are competing for the gold medal.'' He called France and the United States the nations of ''competing universalisms.''
''If you take imperialism,'' he said, ''you have it on both sides.''
Edward C. Knox, a professor of French at Middlebury College in Vermont, agreed. ''These are the two civilizations that think they have lessons to teach the whole world,'' he said. ''Which makes them rivals.''
Photo: Justin Vaisse, a political scientist, discussing francophobia last week in New York. It is to the U.S. what anti-Americanism is to France, he said. (Michelle V. Agins/The New York Times)(pg. B9) Drawing (Michel Granger)(pg. B7)
I say that a pattern as clear as night and day has emerged...
that there are a group of so-called "researchers" and "activists" who have infiltrated the movement whose main purpose is to keep people away from "What Happened at the Pentagon" and have consistently and un-apologetically utilized any and all manipulative means in their bag of disinformation tricks to try to keep people from examining the evidence at the Pentagon - "Nothing to see here, move along folks, DON'T YOU DARE QUESTION THE OCT OF THE PENTAGON ATTACK OR WE WILL SMEAR YOU AND USE ALL MEANS NECESSARY TO TRY TO LIBEL YOU AND MARGINALIZE YOU."
Obviously there are certain people who are DEATHLY AFRAID OF PEOPLE EXAMINING THE PENTAGON ATTACK EVIDENCE. What are they so afraid of? I'd say that is a rhetorical question for those who are capable of being reasonable and have their eyes open.
Since about fall of 2005 is when I started noticing this pattern, and that is in fact what made me look closer at the Pentagon attack. You see, when I was a newbie truther in June of 2005, I pretty quickly came upon Jim Hoffman's articles on the Pentagon, on how he was trying to "protect the movement" from disinfo and that the theory that AA77 didn't crash at the Pentagon was a "hoax". I actually believed Jim Hoffman for a minute. But, pretty quickly I had realized that I was being manipulated with dishonest and false arguments and that pissed me off. I then noticed that all sorts of web sites, like oilempire.us and others were utilizing the same false debunker-style arguments and the pattern became clear to me.
Well, when people try to manipulate me into not looking at something, I'm the type of person who will want to look closer at that thing that I'm being pressured not to look at. That's just the way I am. Since about fall of 2005, I began to use the Pentagon issue as a litmus test to weed out the fake truthers from the real ones.
The fact that the Pentagon Attack has been subject to more obfuscation, disinformation, lilly gilding stories, and obvious cover-up activity by what I can only assume are the perpetrators of 9/11, that tells me that THERE IS DEFINATELY SOMETHING TO SEE HERE AT THE PENTAGON, and that is why I will not be persuaded or guided or manipulated or pressured to NOT focus on the Pentagon. And, the more we shed light on the evidence at the Pentagon, as well as on the individuals who are trying hardest to dissuade us from looking at the Pentagon Attack, I feel like the movement is actually making more progress in figuring out what actually happened on 9/11, as well as figuring out who the genuine vs the fake researchers/activists are.
I also say that when anyone in a "truth" movement is caught blatantly lying and distorting the truth, they should be called out immediately and relentlessly and shamed. A list of lies and distortions should be documented and distributed to as many people in the movement as possible to make them aware until those individuals are shamed out of the movement.
Let me make one thing clear. Jim Hoffman, Mark Robinowitz, "Arabesque", Victoria, and all the other disinformation agents of that ilk started this attack on the truth movement several years ago and began the war to divide the us. it is the height of disingenuousness for them to then call for civility and accuse their critics of being "divisive". Fine. They want to use the Pentagon Attack as a divisive wedge against people? Well, I'm going to take that wedge and turn it into a sledge hammer back at them. They may have started this divisive war, but they may not like how it will turn out. They made their divisive dishonest bed, now they will have to lie in it, and they can expect no mercy.
let's see if he even owns up to a "mistake"
which in itself, as i mentioned above, still reflects VERY poorly on him, and his supporters. and you're right keenan, they shouldn't expect to be given a pass on stuff like this--if Nazi collaborators can be hounded into their 90's, these fake truthers should expect no less of an effort to bring them to justice. 9/11 is OUR holocaust.
A Little History about Jim Hoffman - Agent of Disinformation
Jim Hoffman suddently appeared on the scene of the 9/11 truth movement in 2003 as a full MIHOPer. He advocated CD at the WTC, no AA77 at the Pentagon, and that the hijackers were fake, and therefore the cell phone calls were fake. He gained credibility by claiming to use his scientific background to examine the evidence for CD and began writing reports and presenting evidence of CD, including discussing the surprisingly small size of particles and level of pulverization of the debris of the WTC. None of it was original research, but seemed to merely plagerize what other researchers, such as Jeff King, had already reported.
After establishing his credibility and standing in the movement with the CD research and advocacy, he then suddenly did a back flip in 2004 and became almost a LIHOPer advocate, in that he bagan to support the possibility that there really could have been muslim hijackers involved, at least in the WTC attack and UA93, if not the Pentagon attack (since it was obvious that Hani Hanjour could not have been at the controls). So, he suddenly became a supporter of the OCT of the AA77 crash at the Pentagon and shifted from a skeptic to a supporter of the OCT of at least most of the cell phone calls, except for the 2 that were the most ridiculous:
Jim Hoffman of 9/11 Research, 9/5/2003:
"Pentagon Attack
The damage to the Pentagon is inconsistent with the impact of a large jetliner.
Evidence
No public evidence shows a 757 approaching the Pentagon, nor remains of such an aircraft.
There are no photographs showing a 757 approaching the Pentagon. 5 security camera photos released in 2002 do not show anything like a 757, but do show a vapor trail like that of a missile.
Video recordings from adjacent businesses were seized by the FBI shortly after the attack and never seen since.
The lawn of the Pentagon outside the west wall was free of aircraft parts identifiable as belonging to a 757. The few small scraps photographed look like they belonged to a much smaller aircraft such as a Global Hawk."
Aircraft Remains
As the photographs immediately following the attack show, the punctures in the west wall of the Pentagon were far smaller than the profile of a Boeing 757-200, and the lawn was nearly immaculate, free of any large aircraft debris. The few scraps that appear in some photographs are far too thin and light to be part of such an aircraft. Photographs show curious activities by apparent Pentagon employees at the crash site before the arrival of rescue and recovery workers. Much of this evidence is presented and analyzed in the documentary Painful Deceptions. A video taken from a helicopter shows a row of dozens of men in white shirts and ties walking across the lawn in front of the crash site, looking at the ground as if to scour the grass for any telltale evidence. A photo shows about a dozen similarly dressed individuals carrying away a large crate covered with a tarp. Another shows a few such men carrying away small pieces of wreckage. This was all happening around the time firefighters were arriving on the scene. "
Jim Hoffman of 9/11 Research, 6/12/2007:
"But wasn't the damage to the Pentagon's facade inconsistent with the crash of a jetliner the size of a Boeing 757?
No. Contrary to misleading descriptions popularized by popular books and videos, damage to the facade included punctures extending about 100 feet in width on the first floor and about 18 feet on the second floor. Damage on either side of the impact punctures extends about as far as the profile of a 757's wings. Lacking an example of a closely comparable crash, claims that the Pentagon's crash damage is inconsistent with the impact of a 757 lack scientific merit.
But don't photographs immediately after the attack show that there was no plane wreckage?
No. First, since most pre-collapse photographs were taken from the highway -- more than 500 feet away from the crash site -- they fail to show debris fields near the building. Second, the impact punctures were large enough to allow vast majority of the plane's mass to enter the Pentagon. Third, other crash examples show that such a high-speed crash could be expected to shred the aircraft into small, mostly unrecognizable debris. "
Jim Hoffman of 9/11 Research, 9/5/2003:
"The Many Oddities of the Alleged Calls From Doomed Flights
There are a number of oddities about the alleged cell phone calls from the people on the doomed flights. Here are just a few.
The calls have a peculiar distribution with thirteen calls attributed to Flight 93 passengers, but only zero to one attributed to passengers on any of the other flights. Why would the hijackers be so permissive on that flight but only selectively permissive on others, letting Flight 11 Attendant Madeline Sweeney talk for the entire hijacked portion of its route?
Several calls have the ring of fakery. They include the following:
The call to Mark Bingham's mother, Alice, from someone claiming to be her son, was very short. After his awkward introduction, the caller failed to respond to Alice's twice-repeated question, and then the line went dead.
In one of the calls attributed to Barbara Olsen, the caller asked Ted Olsen "What should I tell the pilot?", referring to Chic Burlingame, the captain, who was then supposedly seated in the rear with Barbara. Chic was a graduate of Naval Academy and flew F-4s in Vietnam. It seems highly doubtful that he could have been persuaded to hand over the stick without a fight, and agree to sit in the back of the plane, especially when controllers had been broadcasting to pilots that Flight 11 had been hijacked.
There is no public evidence of recordings of any of the conversations, despite the extended length of some of them, except for Madeline Sweeney's alleged call.
Sweeney, who was the "anchor" for Flight 11, says: "I see, buildings, water, ... Oh my God!", immediately before the crash, as though she, a Massachusetts-based flight attendant of 12 years, had never seen the Manhattan skyline before. Supposedly she was continuously monitoring the view out a window.
A person claiming to be Todd Beamer, one of the heroes of the purported Flight 93 passenger revolt, talked to a Verizon supervisor for 13 minutes. Why would Beamer prefer to talk to a stranger than to someone in his own family?
The alleged Todd Beamer talked like a reporter, giving the blow-by-blow account of the goings-on right up to the famous "Let's roll".
Except for the Beamer call, all of the Flight 93 calls were very short, usually just a few sentences, with the caller ending the conversation by saying they had to go, only to call back later in many cases for another short call. Why did they have to go? Were the hijackers enforcing a one-minute time limit on all conversations?
Canadian scientist A.K. Dewdney concludes in the article Ghostriders in the Sky that cellphone calls could not be made reliably if at all from Flight 93.
He conducted experiments with cell phones to show that cell phones seldom work above 10,000 feet. Several of the alleged Flight 93 calls were made when the plane would still have been near its cruising altitude of 35,000 feet.
Below 10,000 feet, according to Dewdney, cell phone calls made from a jet would cause problematic "cascades" in networks of cellsites on the ground. Cascading is caused by a phone at several thousand feet of elevation being unable to distinguish which of several cellsites has the strongest signal. This causes the phone to repeatedly select a new channel and try again, possibly leading to a network-wide breakdown. No such cascades were reported on September 11th."
Jim Hoffman of 9/11 Research, 6/13/2007:
"Contrary to Dewdney's findings, we have received reports that cell phones do work from aircraft. Other evidence that cell phone calls are possible from jetliners in flight comes from a study by Carnegie Mellon researchers that monitored spectrum frequencies generated by cell phone transmissions during commercial passenger flights. They found that an average of one to four cell phone calls are made during a typical flight. 1 Furthermore, most of the calls from Flight 93 were apparently made from airphones, not cell phones, with the few cell phone calls apparently happening late in the flight when the jetliner's altitude was low.
Although arguments for the majority of calls being faked don't hold up to scrutiny, the reported content of two of the calls raises questions.
In one of two calls Ted Olsen said he received from his wife on Flight 77, she reportedly asked "What should I tell the pilot?," referring to Chic Burlingame, the captain, who was then supposedly seated in the rear with Barbara. Burlingame was a graduate of Naval Academy and flew F-4s in Vietnam. How could Burlingame have been persuaded to hand over the stick without and agree to sit in the back of the plane -- especially when controllers had been broadcasting to pilots that Flight 11 had been hijacked?
Madeline Sweeney, who called to her supervisor from Flight 11, reportedly stated: "I see, buildings, water, ... Oh my God!", immediately before the crash. Why would Sweeney -- a Massachusetts-based flight attendant of 12 years -- speak as though had never seen the Manhattan skyline before?"
Since his back flip, Hoffman has consistently utilized debunking and disinformation type arguments against his detractors, including calling theories that dispute parts of the OCT that he supports a Hoax - probably the most common smear that propagandists use against people who try to expose criminal conspiracies of the military/government. Too often Jim Hoffman utilized ad hominem and other false arguments against his opponents rather than evidence-based arguments, particularly in regard to the Pentagon Attack, and when he does address evidence, he often distorts the facts about evidence and makes unsupported claims. One of his most recent blatant smear-type hit pieces is this one:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentacon/index.html
Google Earth Exposes
Pentagon Flyover Farce
or
Critiquing PentaCon
(Smoking Crack Version) *
by Jim Hoffman
Version 1.0, July 26, 2009
"Smoking Crack Version" is a parody of CIT's "Smoking Gun Version" subtitle. I find it hard to believe that a genuine 9/11 researcher/activist would use this kind of childish over-the-top ad hominem attack against other researchers in the movement it he/she didn't have an agenda to demonize and smear their opponents rather than wanting to use scientific or respectable methods to debate and discuss the issues to search for the truth.
Hoffman's rebuttal to the Popular Mechanics hit piece against the 9/11 truth movement on the surface seemed to be helping the truth movement, but to me it appeared to be more like a trojan horse smear against almost all other legitimate questions beyond WTC CD evidence, in which Hoffman agreed with most of the attacks that Popular Mechanics made against the questions/evidence for MIHOP type conspiracy of 9/11, even beyond the obvious blatant disinfo regarding space beams, pods, no planes at the WTC, etc.
Victoria's hilarious defense of the "Smoking Crack" ad hominem
Victoria has got to be one of the most disingenuous persons I've ever come across, or is extremely in-denial and dishonest with herself - and probably both. This hilarious comment denying that Hoffman's "Smoking Crack" smear is an ad hominem attack against CIT, as pointed out by Adam Syed, is so typical of Victoria's hypocrisy and double standards...and general dishonesty:
http://911blogger.com/node/20833#comment-213589
>>is the "Smoking Crack" image not every bit as much an ad hominem as Ranke's insinuation that Wolsey might not be a sincere truther?
'Smoking Crack' can be interpreted any number of ways. There seems to be an absence of evidence for any particular interpretation. Some people love crack, as it happens. They prefer to be disconnected from reality. It's up to the individual really, how they interpret it.
Since Wolsey is known to do solid and powerful work to expose the 9/11 attacks as an inside job -- not just in his radio shows, but also in a lot of the local work he has done -- calling him 'insincere' sounds pretty ridiculous, if nothing else.
LMFAO! This comment should be added to the Top Ten List of Victoria's Most Hilarious BS Of All Time
I have to wonder if Victoria is completely oblivious to just how embarrassingly transparent she is and how consistently she discredits herself with such sloppy and pathetic BS and dishonesty.
Victoria, or Hoffmans
Victoria, or Hoffmans hacthet-woman as I call her, will no doubt find a spot with Arabesque in the 9/11 Dishonest Bullshitters Hall of Fame when its all said and done. The 2 of them are first balloters for sure, pardon the sports reference.
At least Victoria doesnt hide behind a false name(I dont think) when smearing others though, i'll at least give her(and Gold) that. Who the fuck is Reprehensor and Arabesque?
Especially Arabesque, as the self-appointed disinfo police chief of the 9/11 truth movement, its interesting how he hides behind that name and parody comic of him, Woolsey and Col. Pretentious. They all scream "false opposition" to me. Or useful idiots.
Well, far be it from us to sink to their level...
But the only one whose "real name" (since they could be fake real names) is not known from those above is Arabesque. Choosing to associate pseudonymous truthers with their real names (if they don't choose to) only seems to me to serve the purpose of intimidating those people, so I see it as something only a fake truther or a useful idiot would do. Over at truefaction, Cosmos and crew make a big stink about "bad behavior" and then proceed to engage in it themselves in force. This includes outing pseudonynmous truthers and trying to make trouble for them in their real life, including by using obviously false allegations against the individuals affected that they find online--remnants, in fact, of previous attempts to "snitch-jacket" effective activists. While I have little trouble believing certain people are bona fide paid agents, I do think that there is a practice of identifying unstable personalities and targeting them with psyops to make them paranoid and have them do the dirty work for the perps, mistakenly thinking they are being righteously furious. This is where I think the pretentious "Colonel" is coming from--by all accounts she is a troubled individual in real life, and she finds a much needed sense of community and status among the outright fakes at truefaction--a classic "useful idiot". To quote Jeebus, "by their fruits (i.e. their deeds) ye shall know them." Do the people engaged in this kind of behavior actually contribute anything constructive to the (real) truth movement? Or are they serving, deliberately or not, to impede the progress of 9/11 truth? Do the people/things they promote end up being real assets to 9/11 truth or pointless distractions (like directed energy weapons, birthers, alex "insane clown posse" jones, sibel "turkey shoot" edmonds, steve "the shill game" alten, the ISI pork chop transfer, etc.)? Do they actually engage in real outreach in real life or do they spend all their time on divisive internal movement politics? It's really not hard to step back and see who is advancing the cause and who is dead weight or worse.
the jig is up, Gretardo!
we've found incontrovertible evidence online about your REAL job, with the CIA, and don't mind telling people about it. Get a load of THIS:
We neither know nor care whether any of these allegations are true--they are online so they are fair game. We will continue to uphold the best principles we enumerate in our mission statement and regardless of what confirmed CIA COINTELPRO operatives like Gretavo say--we do NOT "snitchjacket" or engage in speculative or false accusations.
I didnt mean to suggest
I didnt mean to suggest that everyone who posts opinions about 9/11 online must give their real names, I only go by "Chris" myself(which happens to be my real name). When you have somebody like Arabesque though, who engages in constant attacks on certain segments of 9/11 activists and basically positions himself as the expert on what is and isnt disinfo in the 9/11 movement iit really makes you wonder who this person is and what their backround is.
I agree with you about the Col., but Arabesque just seems too "good" at what he does......
Does Jim Hoffman Despise the Mainstream 9/11 Truth Movement?
Jim Hoffman, in no uncertain terms, in numerous articles and public comments, has accused the Citizen's Investigation Team of being a Hoax and conducting Fraudulent research and completely dismissing the idea that they could be genuine researchers. These smears and accusations have not stopped despite the fact that most of the 9/11 Truth Heavyweights have endorsed the research of the Citizen's Investigation Team and their latest video, National Security Alert.
By implication, Jim Hoffman is accusing all these prominent researchers/activists of either intentionally pushing/supporting disinformation, or of being incapable of recognizing "obvious" disinformation:
1. Richard Gage
2. Peter Dale Scott
3. Edward Asner
4. David Ray Griffin
5. Kevin Barrett
6. Sander Hicks
7. Aidan Monaghan
8. Lt. Colonel Shelton F. Lankford
9. Sheila Casey
and others who have recently given their endorsement
Hoffman really must have contempt for the Mainstream 9/11 Truth Movement for him to alienate all these people. What does that say about Hoffman's intentions regarding whether he is trying to help or hurt the movement, and if other researchers who are supposedly collegues of his can trust him or rely on him not to stab them in the back or sabatoge their efforts?
It looks to me like Hoffman is pretty much divorcing himself from the mainstream 9/11 truth movement and/or doesn't care about how severely he is attempting to divide and alienate all these people, most of whom used to respect him.
drama queen movement
where's dylan avery?
what about his partner, Abby?
the new Loose Change promises to be more irrelevant than the last load of tripe. ...fake quotes "We don't know no stinkin' thing 'bout no Israeli's bomb squad shitzzz and shizzle, yo..."
-who cares?
covering for criminals is still criminal!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
9/110210 truth movement
On next week's episode, Abby and Dylan, reeling from the accidental burning down of the Pesach Pit, team up to produce a documentary on fire safety to raise funds for the avuncular proprietor Larry's defense fund when a rogue DA decides to accuse Larry of burning down his diner on purpose (BDHDOP). Tragedy strikes when old Larry's car is found on a bridge with a suicide note written onto the dusty hood. Suspecting foul play, Dylan investigates and discovers a Koran printed in Urdu (the national language of Pakistan) next to the vehicle. As Abby struggles over which tank top to wear to Larry's funeral, Dylan seeks out the counsel of Abe Foxman (guest starring as himself) to deal with the anti-semitic authorities trying to frame old Larry for arson now that he is no longer around to defend himself.
rolmfao
rolmfao
Jim Hoffman Tells Another Big Lie, This Time About P4T
So, Rob Balsamo had posted a comment in the Blogger thread above that linked to a P4T Forum thread which was a response and discussion regarding the misinformation and smears against P4t by Jim Hoffman and Michael Wolsey. Then, Victoria posts a response asking "Why is this link allowed on here?" and then proceeds to pull her oh-so-common stunt of quoting people out of context in order to attempt to discredit and smear. In this case, Victoria copied some quotes from the P4T forum discussion containing some criticisms and insults directed at Jim Hoffman, out of context of course, as if those were evidence enough that Rob Balsamo was violating the rules of 911Blogger etiquette and implying that P4T was beyond the pale, or something.[commence rolling eyes] Paleeze! The lady doth protest too much, again. You can dish it out but you can't take it, huh Victoria? Insults should only be allowed to originate from your camp, Victoria?
Rob Balsamo, in a response to Victoria, responds to some of Hoffman's untruths from that interview with Wolsey and adds some context to the quotes Victoria copied:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/20833#comment-213767
"Back Door" data?
Victronix,
Has Hoffman figured out that the data and animation (which he clearly hasnt reviewed, considering his stumbling comments regarding altitude), came from "official channels" and not through a "back door" as he claimed in the above interview? Has Hoffman bothered to find the NTSB Cover Letters, NTSB Contact Information and NTSB FOIA request form link posted to Pilots For 9/11 Truth site since 2006?
According to the above interview, Hoffman still doesnt even realize the data came from the NTSB through "official channels", not to mention he doesnt even know what the data contains. How could someone possibly argue the information without having at least reviewed the basic fundamentals?
And you wonder why i called him a bonehead?
Lets just put it this way. If I took the time to specifically do a radio interview criticizing the work of others, without having actually reviewed the work, or at least knowing it's source and/or how the data was obtained, I'd expect to be called a bonehead as well.
You won't see me doing any radio interviews as such, ever.
Be sure to keep an eye on our core member list, we have yet another update with even more aviation professionals who endorse and understand the work/data.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core
And as usual, we'll make a large announcement, sending the announcement to our growing list of 3000+ forum/core members via bulk mail to make sure they get it, more than 200+ media contacts, govt agencies, Airline Union Reps, Congress, and fellow 9/11 "Truth Movement" Leaders/organizations.
Regards,
Rob
http://pilotsfor911truth.org
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum
Submitted by rob balsamo on Mon, 08/10/2009 - 1:15am.
You guys should post up Hoffman's silly "Hypothetical..."
..." Blasting Scenario" paper if you REALLY want a laugh.
I wrote about it when it first came out. If there was EVER any question about Hoffman's true intent, he put it to rest when he wrote that 100s of "illegal immigrants" brought down the towers with their "1.8 million ceiling tile bombs" and kicker charges cleverly disguised as "fire extinguishers".
I wrote about it.
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2009/04/04/serious-problems-with-jim-hof...
Curiously, Steven Jones isn't in that list above of people that Hoffman has attacked and Jones reported that Hoffman's "Hypothetical" scenario was "plausible"...
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
the "undocumented workers"
Here is the interesting part of Jim's Theory:
So yes, presumably Jim Hoffman is suggesting that an army of Mexican day-laborers (don't anyone pretend that's not what you think of when you hear 'undocumented workers'!) planted whatever it was, ceiling tiles, fire extinguishers, etc. without knowing what they were doing. Stupid Mexicans!
So let's boil down his likely intent. He wants people to think of the necessary "heavy labor" or grunt work of the demolition job as having been done by innocent dupes (whether or not they were Mexican), as opposed to by people who knew exactly what they were doing and why. If they were dupes, they could have been anyone, really. If they knew what they were doing it begins to narrow things down a bit. Finding a significant number of people to commit mass murder is not easy--unless of course those people see what they're doing as a patriotic act of war. That leaves us with "terrorists" (i.e. arab or other muslim men) or a group of non-Americans acting on behalf of a country for whom 9/11 will be a strategic coup. We know from anecdotal evidence of Israeli mall kiosk workers and moving men that even after 9/11 it is easy for Israeli to come to the U.S. as tourists and stay to work illegally. We know that several of these "undocumented workers" were working for Urban Moving Systems before they became the Dancing Israelis. We know that the leaser of the WTC and primary insurance beneficiary of the insurance proceeds is a certain Zionist with a shady history and close political connections to the loony right wing of Israeli politics.
So what could Jim Hoffman be getting at with his ridiculous sounding and totally unnecessary speculative scenario? You tell me.
I think it is something like the phony Kenyan birth certificate
... get the Truth movement to latch onto something that will ultimately blow up in their faces (no pun intended). And of course, toss in some obviously "racist" overtures, like the "illegal immigrants" meme, and you have a juicy red-herring all set to be exploited by various people, or news organizations, somewhere down the line.
Frankly, it's just as ridiculous as the "no planes hit the towers" theory or the "ray beams from space" crap. Designed to do one thing and one thing only... discredit grass roots investigations by association. Of course the "no planes hit the towers" theory was custom made to be associated with the Pentagon investigations and the ongoing effort of people like Hoffman to discredit those efforts.
This is really no different. The idea that scores of "illegals" would be running around planting 1.8 million individual bombs underscores a deep lack of understanding of the demolition industry. That in itself, I think, is the main driving hypothesis that Jim Hoffman was attempting to attach to the Truth Movement; the notion that we don't have the slightest clue as to what explosive demolition is or how it's conducted.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
Jim Hoffman Tells the Truth!
Just kidding, but I thought that would get people's attention better than ANOTHER LIE from Jim Hoffman. Either this guy is straight up pathological or he is the most ill-informed "famous" truther out there!
Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 9:05 pm Post subject:
"Back Door"? Does this look like it came from a back door?
Those have been posted on our site since Oct 20, 2006.
Source
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?s=&showtopic=17787&view=findpost&p=10774882
I'm just trying to understand your position here. I have requested the data and animation personally through the FOIA from the NTSB. Does Jim feel the NTSB is not "official"?
Again, my apologies if I am misunderstanding his statements.
OT: Seen the new Kevin Ryan "The Arabs Did it" paper?
It's amazing. Ryan goes off for 20 pages on all the different agencies and companies that had access to the Twin Towers in order to flesh out the "who could have planted the nanothermite" meme (not a single mention of Controlled Demolition Inc, by the way)...
Then when he sums it all up, he AMAZINGLY tosses in this...
"All four of the primary contractors that were involved in rebuilding the security systems for the WTC had done significant business with the Saudis....Of course, fifteen of the nineteen alleged hijackers were from Saudi Arabia as well."
Right... all that, and the Muslims did it... what a f*in piece of crap Ryan is.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
well, at least he said alleged...
but that whole paper was an exercise in muddying the waters if i've ever seen one. i guess the idea was to be able to mention Silverstein but have that be drowned out by a million other "leads".
Different dressing on the 911 Commission problem...
It seems like Ryan is trying to explain just who had connections with the Saudis, and by doing so, like you say, muddy the waters.
Another aspect of this, is that now that Jones et al has come out with his "nanothermite" (or is it thermate? I get so confused...) he is trying to push the notion that the physical investigations must now come to a halt so we can look into "Who planted this nanothermite" and how did it get there?
Of course, right on cue, that is where Ryan is going. And the sheeple of the Truth movement will mostly follow right along.
Of course, you can't find anything out really about the "super secret" nano-pixie dust because it's all in the super secret military labs...
Too bad to. We could have tested for conventional explosive residues like those commonly used in controlled demolitions... but no... now we have to start trying to figure out the myriad of leads and confusing connections Ryan is dirtying our DNA pool with.
Of course Larry was involved. But there isn't more evidence to be found with Lucky Larry. He's pretty obvious. The question is, what evidence are they really suppressing? Say what you want about Lucky Larry, he didn't plant the explosives himself, nor did he design the demo.
and that is what Ryan's paper and Jones' "pixie dust" is all about..
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
Very good question
The question - Why haven't they tested for conventional explosive residues? - has been coming up in my head increasingly as the 9/11 truth movement has been led increasingly down Jone's seemingly rock solid CD science but possible garden path over the last couple of years to increasingly esoteric and specialized line of inquiry into thermite, thermate, and now nano-thermite.
What concerns me is the very real potential for some sort of mischief at some point down the road just when it appears that the truth movement is about to have a breakthrough in proving CD in a criminal investigation or other high stakes public inquiry should the movement put all its trust in a single scientist, such as Steven Jones, who does, after all, have a history of some questionable behavior around the whole DOE Sabotage Stunt against the Fleischmann-Pons paper of 1989, preventing Pons and Fleischmann from getting a patent for cold fusion.
The fact that Steven Jones has effectively partnered with Jim Hoffman (in forming the Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice organization), who I'm damn sure is up to no good, has always been a huge red flag for me. So, I really think the truth movement should proceed with increasing caution regarding Jone's potential garden path he is taking us down...
Jones, Ryan, Hoffman - the triple [fill in the blank] ?
"Why haven't they tested for conventional explosive residues?"
All I can tell you is what Jones and Gregg Roberts told me. Over a year ago I first approached Jones with this very same question. I desperately wanted him to test the samples that he had for trace residues of conventional explosives used in the demolition industry. At first Jones seemed interested, but then he put me in touch with Gregg Roberts who shot the idea down.
Roberts told me that they didn't want to test for the residual trace elements of high explosives because if they didn't find them, it would reflect badly on the credibility of the Truth movement.
He also told me that they already had ENOUGH evidence and that they were going to focus on the political/PR side of the movement. This he told me a year ago, when Roberts, Jones, and Harrit were already working on their "Active Thermetic Material" paper. So what he told me, was in effect, a lie.
In a later email exchange with Jones himself, he asking me questions about "how" to test for explosive residues, and he thought that there was no way to test for PETN without TAGGANTS... questions like that. I did a bunch of research into HOW one tests for explosive residues and sent him 3 different methods... he pretended he didn't that email ("Did you send me an email? Maybe someone is blocking them") with some lame excuse, then out of nowhere he got angry at me (for responding to his question about HOW to test for residues???) and he summarily ended the correspondence.
Then I go back and re-read his new paper and it seems pretty obvious to me that what he says he is claiming in all the interviews afterward, really isn't what is being claimed in the paper.
In fact, he has received so much criticism from the paper that he is actually running around now when someone brings up serious problems with the paper and he says that he NEVER said that the towers were brought down by his "thermetic material alone"... instead he claims this material could be a "electronic match" that served to detonate "conventional explosives"...
yet he still won't test for them.
An electric match is about the size of a real match. According to Harrit and Jones separately, they estimate the rough amount of their "thermetic material" found in the debris to be somewhere in the area of 10 tons.
10 tons of matches? 10 f*in tons? Now remember, these are "matches" that DIDN'T ignite... as opposed to all those that OBVIOUSLY did... and there are STILL 10 tons remaining?
What does that mean the initial amount of thermetic material was in the building? 100 tons? 1000?
And of course, Jones and Harrit and the rest refuse to speculate as to HOW the material COULD have been used to bring down the towers.
Yet, they suggest THIS is the "loaded gun"? and we should now just focus on WHO planted the "super secret" material in the towers?
I have written several articles about all of this. If you are interested, I can email them to you.
Jones, Roberts, Ryan, Hoffman... I don't trust a thing they say anymore. We need a revolution in the Truth Movement. We need our OWN samples of the dust from New York. Testing is NOT difficult. In fact, there are several companies that can do it. The industry exists centered around the drilling and mining industry. They OFTEN have to test ground samples for traces of explosive residues. And you can send stuff off to several places to get a purely respectable range of results.
This is the "scientific method" we have been missing since day one. take the most obvious method of demolition, test for that, and if it not there, move on to other methods. If it IS there, it will be the critical evidence that we have been missing.
*sigh* I think the best
*sigh*
I think the best evidence of CD is the free fall acceleration of collapse of WTC 7. That is simple physics captured on video for all eternity. Anyone anywhere can test for it by using their own time-distance analysis. The validity of the WTC 7 videos have never been in question.
The detection of nano-thermite in the dust requires trusting the chain of evidence and other issues which is hard to work out when you cannot trust the authorities and the courts. Who will validate compliance with evidence handling protocols - the FBI? I still think the Jones and Harrit paper are a valuable research that must be a starting point for a future investigation, but WTC 7 free fall acceleration just trumps it for being universally verifiable.
Really? So how has that "Best Evidence" worked so far?
The videos of that collapse have been out since, oh I don't know, the minute the building "fell" to the ground. And several studies and video comparisons have been done so far. Heck, even NIST admitted that the building did in fact fall at speeds approaching "free fall rate"...
and we are where with the Truth movement?
According to Federal Law, were residual trace elements of explosives to be found in the dust recovered from Ground Zero, a Federal Criminal Investigation MUST be conducted. It's the LAW.
We want a new investigation? A "criminal" investigation? Sounds to me like a good place to start.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
Really? So how has "the law" worked so far?
According to federal law, after an airliner crash an investigation must be conducted. Four planes are supposed to have crashed on 9/11. Has the investigation at the Pentagon crash site recovered any debris of the Boeing said to have crashed there for example? Or in Pennsylvania?...Oh, there hasn't be any investigation?
If Jones and others can prove that a substance used as cutting charge in the controlled demolition of steel framed sky scrappers such as termite was used at the WTC, I don't see the point in complaining that they didn't look for conventional explosives. Unless someone is deliberately trying to undermine their work, of course.
I think Jones and Harrit are
I think Jones and Harrit are among the best things that have happened in 9-11 truth, and I would hate any doubt to creep up about them. But I do share Willy's concern that testing for conventional explosives residue should have been attempted and reported.
I also understand the somewhat lame excuse given to Willy why testing was not carried out. A negative finding may undo the work of all truthers if not maturely received by the public. A negative result for conventional explosives does not negate the finding of nano-thermite which Harrit and Jones did find. I think there is also the possibility that conventional explosives could have been shunned by the perps for the express purpose of preventing a future investigation from detecting it.
I understand your feelings about Harrit and Jones...
Involvement in the Truth movement by it's nature is an extremely personal endeavor. It is not unexpected that people would take heart in the "hope" that this research has produced.
But I must address this point of yours as it is commonly used by people like Roberts and Jones to undermine the need to test for explosive residues:
"I think there is also the possibility that conventional explosives could have been shunned by the perps for the express purpose of preventing a future investigation from detecting it."
I would agree except, what we already know about the investigations does not bare that out.
1. we know that they tightly controlled the scene of the crime, and even brought in an explosive demolitions expert to "clean up" afterward.
2. We know that each and every official study done since day one has expressly stated that they did NOT test for explosive residues... including the Harrit/Jones report.
(this is a VERY telling aspect to this investigation: had they tested and FOUND residues, then a criminal investigation MUST take place. Had they tested and NOT FOUND the residues, then the Truth movement would be dealt a serious blow... so why wouldn't they test for it if they KNOW that something else was used? Why would they wait around as Jones/Harrit expose their super secret nanothermite without even attempting to utilize the PR value of going public with negative test results for explosives in the Ground Zero dust? I doesn't make sense. You know that there are many agents working within the movement... one of the or the other would get the bright idea to test for explosives and crush the momentum of the movement. So why haven't they done it? And why do they make a point to explain that they DIDN'T do it? The answer is LIABILITY. With so much dust laying around that day that could have been picked up by anyone, no organization, no matter how much they want to help the criminals get away with this (read NIST) is going to falsify test results and say they didn't find explosive residues in dust that they know damn well there are TONS of other dust that can prove them, not only wrong, but also complicit in the coverup. Not only does that put the people who falsify the tests in prison, it also sets up the corporation they work for for massive legal issues of liability. Ergo, they are stuck. They can't lie about the results because there are literally TONS of evidence out there that they don't have control over. Tons waiting to prove them complicit.)
3. each Tower was 2 times the size of the largest building demoed by explosive demolition at that point in time. Even building 7 would have set world records by itself. No explosive demolition contractor would have taken the risk to use unproven materials on such a project. None. Control is the key word in controlled demolition. And using unproven materials, explosive or not, would NEVER have been acceptable under these conditions.
So what do we KNOW has happened? The completely controlled the scene and destroyed key evidence... they completely controlled the investigations and never allowed for tests to be conducted that might reveal these trace residues, and they may have even been misdirecting the grass roots efforts to investigate (how many times did you hear the likes of Jon Gold and the Arabesques doing all they could to deter people from investigating Controlled Demolition?).
NIST even went so far in their explanation as to why they didn't test for residues to say that even IF there were positive results, it wouldn't automatically mean that explosives were used to bring the towers down; setting up a defense in the event someone eventually did test for the residues.
For all these reasons, and several others presented by better advocates than I am, I know that the evidence is right there. it HAS to be. Even the Harrit/Jones paper doesn't even claim that they know one way or the other IF the stuff they found could even have been used as a High Explosive...
That residue is there. And the law states, if we find it, there HAS to be a criminal investigation.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
Thermite can't destroy the floors, trusses, and floor pans...
... like we know happened that day. Nor can thermite burn horizontally through 5" thick steel columns that are 50" x 36"... So along came "thermate"... same gravity driven problems... so along came "thermobaric explosives" remember that? How about Hoffmans "hydrogen gas" bombs? Remember them? Then "super thermite" and now "nanothermite" is the key...
Odd don't you think? All that work to prove Jones' first thermite theory, and they NEVER once tested for the kinds of explosive commonly used in controlled demolition.
There have been investigations into the CAUSES of the crashes... they determined "terrorists"... and ergo, that is the END of the investigations. However, according to the law, any crime scene where EXPLOSIVE residues are found, requires a separate criminal investigation, ESPECIALLY if explosives aren't already included in the conclusions of the previous findings... as they at this point, are not.
And as far as "undermining their work" is concerned, I don't think you read their work very carefully... they clearly state themselves, that tests for explosive residues should be conducted as that ultimately they can't be sure if what they found wasn't simply used as an electric match.
Jones not ONLY said that in the paper itself, but ALSO has made that statement SEVERAL times on other sites, INCLUDING Blogger...
So no, I am not UNDERMINING their work... I am taking it at face value and suggesting we simply DO AS THEY SUGGEST.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
Very good points, i hope
Very good points, i hope someone out there with access to the evidence would do the tests for explosive residue. I would rather find out the results whether positive or negative, even at the risk of putting the movement back to square one or two. I think there are arguments over the methods to how the building were demolished, but i always look back to videos of wtc7 and from there know that they were demolished.
Whether it is thermite,
Whether it is thermite, thermate, super-termite or nano-thermate it is still basically the same thing. It is not surprising that Jones et al revise their conclusions as they get more facts. Enough well placed thermite can certainly cut through steel trusses and that is what happened. As we all know all beams and trusses were cut at just the right length to fit on a truck for quick disposal. Evidence of a steel-cutting substance - termite or a derivative - is clearly evidence of highly professional CD which in this case denotes a very obvious criminal intent and in itself should suffice to put a lot of people behind bars. Conventional explosives were certainly used as well as attested by the numerous reports of explosions and it certainly wouldn't be wrong to test for them as well. But compared to thermite it looks almost like a weaker piece of evidence.
Therefore, do you seriously believe that finding traces of conventional explosives would lead anymore to a criminal investigation that finding traces of thermite?
(To the mod: why cant I log in under my username, zorglub? )
oops, try again
should work now
Absolutely Zorglub...
"...do you seriously believe that finding traces of conventional explosives would lead anymore to a criminal investigation that finding traces of thermite?"
Absolutely.
First, there is the matter of the law. Thermite is NOT a high explosive. It is NOT commonly used in the demolition industry as a cutter charge. And according to the Harrit/Jones paper, they found "unexploded" thermetic material... meaning IT WASN'T USED...
Whereas if they found, say, trace elements of exploded PETN, that WOULD constitute legal grounds for a new investigation by law... because...
PETN IS a high explosive (burns MUCH hotter that RDX, HMX, TNT). It IS the MOST commonly used explosive in CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS. And if they were to find trace elements of the exploded PETN... that means it WAS USED to bring down the towers or to facilitate the process in some way.
And of course there is legal precedent to begin a new investigation. By law they have to.
"Enough well placed thermite can certainly cut through steel trusses and that is what happened."
The only problem with your conclusion there is that it isn't even supported by the Jones/Harrit paper.
In that paper they clearly state that they themselves can't be sure how the material was used and that it may have just been used as an "electronic match" used to ignite OTHER conventional demolition explosives...
All I am saying is that we can't just stop the physical investigation based on this evidence alone. It's not strong enough. We should take Jones et al at their word and test for the presence of trace residual elements of conventional HIGH EXPLOSIVES... just like they suggest in the paper.
But yes... both legally and with regard to public opinion, the discovery of traces of PETN/RDX would go a LONG way to helping our cause.
(by the way... the "trusses" weren't "cut to 30' lengths"... they were gone. Gone. In my estimation, they were the "iron rich spheres" found in the dust. (High Strength Low Alloy steel matches the "iron rich" spheres almost perfectly... you see... the TRUSSES weren't made of A-36 steel like Jones and others have suggested... they were made of HSLA steel which has elements like silicon mixed into the formula, but is still mainly "iron"... just thought I would throw that out there for you to chew on)
I don't mean to harm the Jones/Harrit findings, just light a fire under people to build on them.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
Hi Willy, A question for you
Hi Willy,
A question for you or anyone who knows.
Quote: "According to Federal Law, were residual trace elements of explosives to be found in the dust recovered from Ground Zero, a Federal Criminal Investigation MUST be conducted. It's the LAW."
Does the finding of unexploded nano-thermite not satisfy the law with regards to trace elements of explosives?
I live far away and don't have any lawyer friends familiar with US law.
Does the law state an exact test protocol that must be satisfied?
The point of finding trace elements of ...
... high explosive residue is that it was "exploded"; ie... "used". THAT is what triggers the investigation... the fact that it was USED to help cause the destruction of something (building collapse, fire, plane crash... whatever.)
That's the nuance of the Jones/Harrit paper... they say they found the UNEXPLODED material (tons of it?)... big difference.
Unexploded PETN or RDX doesn't mandate an investigation either because it has to have been exploded to have contributed to the destruction at the scene. It has to have been USED.
And that if the Harrit/Jones is still ACTIVE THERMETIC MATERIAL... the obvious point there is... it wasn't USED.
The best bet they have with the paper is the connection between the thermetic material and the "iron-rich" spheres. That could possibly show some of the material was used.
However, even according to their own paper, they are quite clear about pointing out that there are several TYPES of elements found in those spheres, and they can't be positive that they were all created by the activation of the thermetic material (they state that further testing must be done, if I am not mistaken).
Though interesting and possibly in the right direction, it hardly qualifies as scientific proof of the trace residual fingerprint of the USED thermetic material.
So no. I don't think this would qualify like finding residual trace elements of exploded PETN or RDX on the scene.
Again remember, this "thermetic material" of theirs is still the developmental stages so I doubt that there are legal presidents set at this point about testing for it's finger-prints.
As far as the exact law is concerned, I will find it and post links to it here later.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
Thanks! That clears up some
Thanks! That clears up some issues and provides impetus to pursue a test for explosive residue. If Harrit and Jones won't test for explosives on their own, perhaps someone who is willing and capable can request samples of WTC dust from them. Their study claims to have a documented chain of evidence which makes them a credible source of samples. Samples from the government might be tainted at this point.
The only misgivings I have for this test is that samples may be too limited at this point to allow detection of explosive residue. Much of the material that should have been tested has been destroyed early on by the government.
Juandelacruz:
No. Thank you. I am very glad to be able to openly discuss these issues with people that don't just attack blindly or have the moderator erase the comments (like what happened at Blather)
You know, when I first presented my ideas about the "iron rich spheres" and det cord to Jones (google "An Open Letter to Steven Jones on the Subject of Det Cord"... first published on Blogger, then on my site, American Everyman)... in an email from Jones, he seemed not only ready to support the research (even offering to help finance it) but he also offered samples of the dust...
But then he had to get Gregg Roberts involved for some reason... and the lock-down began.
Now we see a highly credible researcher in Richard Gage being followed around constantly by Roberts, and Gage helping to push the Roberts/Jones/Harrit paper at every turn (they Roberts/Gage) just presented the paper to the administrative staff of some congressman last week)
Anyway, take from that what you will... but I don't think that Roberts is interested in providing samples for this kind of testing.
But I had an idea. Perhaps I should float it here and see what comes of it.
There are simple ways to test for the residues, though I certainly don't suggest unqualified people do it.
In the mining industry, there are many companies that test soil samples all day long for explosives residues. They have to because they need to be able to evaluate ecological impact of the mining on surrounding areas.
They CAN test the samples for us in a purely scientific and LEGAL venue.
Were we able to garner enough genuine samples, we could select several of these companies, and send samples to them, thereby getting a comprehensive overview of the results.
It's perfectly legal and would stand up in ANY court of law and it is unassailable in the "debunking" community because "Truthers" aren't the ones doing the testing.
Positive results would not only be a PR bonanza for the movement lighting a new fire under our movement, but the results would be LEGAL proof that explosives were used in the demolition of the towers... thus we get our new investigation.
Once that happened, it is my guess that people would come out of the woodwork looking to cut a deal with investigators. It may actually change the nature of our press coverage to the point that a friendlier press would promote confidence in whistle blowers across the country.
Where do we get the samples?
Tons of this stuff was on the ground in New York. I KNOW people picked it up and saved it. It had to have happened.
And Jones and Roberts don't control all of it.
So here is my idea: we start a campaign focused on New York and Jersey truth activists.
We promise this:
1. send us half of your sample (they need to keep half as a control measure showing we didn't alter the sample) in as sealed container with your signature across the seal and your return address...
2. we will organize which samples are sent to which testing facilities, a cross section of legally recognized labs that test for explosive residues in ground soil and debris for the mining industry.
3. We will include two addresses for the results to be sent to (to prove that we do not alter the test results) our address and the address of the person where the sample came from.
4. We will compile the results and then present to local state, federal, and local authorities as needed.
5. we can also ask the labs for a definitive evaluation of exactly what the "iron rich spheres" are.
Were they to find that the red/grey chips are nanothermite.. then that will simply support the Jones/Roberts/Harrit conclusions. Were they to find explosive residues, then, well... you know what that will support... and if no residues are found, then we are no worse for the wear, for we still are looking for nanothermite manufacturers like Jones/Ryan suggest...
What do you guys think?
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
Nice idea! Here's another
Nice idea! Here's another variation, not sure if better.
1. Ask sample holders to communicate with us that they hold samples.
2. We locate labs willing to test dust samples for explosives residue and whatever other relevant test to identify the content of the sample (the later is to somehow find out if the sample is consistent with other samples and detect any outliers which may indicate falsified evidence).
3. Sample holders are asked to send their samples directly to the lab (we assign different sample holders to send to different labs).
4. Results are addressed back to the sample holder and to us
5. Compile results, et al
I thought of this because I want us to be less a focal point of the effort and to minimize any notion that we can tamper with the evidence at any point. There is a greater degree of trust that we will have to invest in the sample holders.
I don't see any harm in some samples coming back negative from anyone giving tampered evidence (designed to test negative), we only need good positive results from honest sample holders.
The only problem is getting some false positives from disinfo agents who would later allow themselves to be exposed as having introduced evidence that was tampered with to produce the positive result.
I wish I could do more than airing my ideas, I live in the Philippines and have very little ability to actually help out beyond punching keys on my laptop and doing research.
Not a bad idea, Juan...
It certainly would help decrease the accusations of our tampering with the evidence prior to shipping. It would also make the "grass roots" element of the investigation more of a priority.
However, there are problems with that approach.
Like you said, disinfo agents will certainly get involved... either way, really...
But with the one centralized submitting location, that offers us a certain amount of protection.
When the labs find a positive result for explosive residue, they will required by law to file on the finding, especially in building debris.
When they do this, they will HAVE to contact the person/organization that submits the sample to inquire as to location from which sample was taken, chain of custody, things like that.
My concern would not be that disinfo agents would alter the samples they sent... my concern would be that they would send them as is, then when the lab contacts them back, they would lie about where and when they got them.
Samples are going to be traceable to each other. meaning that each demo has it's own distinct signature.
If a disinfo agent is able to falsely identify a Ground Zero sample as that of another location, then all of the samples that match that falsely labeled sample are then suspect and we have to PROVE where they came from, and we are back at square one.
and if two or more disinfo agents do that, then we are left having to prove they are lying and we are not. In effect the fight comes down to proving they are disinfo agents.
Which would be very difficult and time consuming.
Another problem could be timing.
It's one thing to assign people where to send a sample, it's another to have them do it in a timely fashion. We end up emailing back and forth to get them to send them,
and then of course there is the issue of cost.
Are we to make these people who are offering their evidence in good faith, PAY for the tests themselves?
Though I see the validity of your proposal, especially in the sense that it keeps the "grass roots" element and it is much more inclusive than the "clearing house" approach I am suggesting, I think that there are too many problems inherent in it.
Mainly... reporting after the findings to the testing lab.
I think that emphasizing that the people who submit to us (or whomever) keep a portion of the original and that they prepare the packaging of the sample themselves in accordance with federal laws regulating chain of custody samples, would pretty much prove that we didn't alter the samples prior to shipping to the labs.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
Ok. Got your idea. Sample
Ok. Got your idea. Sample holders must submit signed statement of location where the sample was taken and when along with the sample. That way they cannot backtrack without exposing themselves. Sounds good to me
I just submitted a comment but I hadn't signed in...
... can someone get it and put it up in here for me please? I hate doing that. 30 minutes writing the damn thing, and it evaporates... thanks.
*edit* - that is my comment above.. thanks for posting it.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
Just wanted to toss this out there...
After reading some of the threads over here, I went to check out what you call "Truefaction" and I have to say, I was quite amazed.
http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5643
On this thread they are, again apparently, just running down other Truth activists and researchers as fast as they can. In fact, they go much further than that.
It's about 2 separate events taking place next month... the Change Forum and the Transparency Forum. They come out with horrible things to say about the people involved with the Transparency Forum, ridiculing it as much as they possibly can. But if you go look at the speaker each one of the forums has, the Transparency forum actually has a lot interesting speakers from many aspects of the movement... while the Change Forum just has some rappers, some 1st responders, and some family members (Gage is speaking at both and I think McKinney is attending the Change forum as well...).
But there really is no comparison between the quality of information from one to the other, yet the Truefaction people are not only doing their best to run-down the Transparency Forum, they are actually talking about disrupting it during the presentations.
"More effective than boycotting them might be to walk out on them, badmouthing their bullshit the whole way. Their presence could be a blessing, an opportunity to show the media what real truthers think of bullshitters."
I don't really expect anything different from the Arabesques and the Jenny sparks of the movement out there, but the Transparency Forum is an attempt to bring together the peace and accountability movements with the Truth movements. Hell, the head of World Can't wait is going to be there speaking, God Knows who else...
And the Arabesque crew just wants to undermine it as best they can?
Seems pretty obvious to me folks, just what that crew is really doing to this movement.
Anyway, just wanted to toss that out there.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
More breaking news...
The geniuses at Prison Planet are proudly celebrating the fact that the creator of the "ObamaJoker" image is NOT a raving rightwinger... in fact he is...
... a Muslim...
a Muslim American of Palestinian decent to be exact.
So now AJ's rightwing "anti-Socialism" agenda can continue along and the left can foster their hated toward... the Muslims... or Palestinians... or just "brown people" in general...
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
"Arabesque crew just wants to undermine it as best they can"
Yep. I think the only reasonable conclusion one can make after observing their behavior for very long is that they are trying to undermine the movement as best they can. They've been putting most of their energy into targeting and attacking CIT lately, especially after receiving all the endorsements by main stream 9/11 truth heavyweights, and the way they've been trying to demonize and smear them from the get go 3 years ago makes me believe that CIT must really be onto something. I started a discussion thread over their planned disrupting of the Transparency Forum:
Pentagon Attack Disinformation Op Plans to Disrupt Upcoming CIT Events http://www.wtcdemolition.com/blog/node/2351
Many of these same people in that crew have a history of disruptive behavior, going back to at least 2006.
What hit the Pentagon
I have been banging my head trying to figure out the why a plane HAS to be involved in the Pentagon attack in the OTC. Then it dawned on me. You can't sully the military. If the whole thing unravels and a new Republic was declared you would have to use the same army. Honor and tradition are what are supposed to hold those things together and that has to be protected at all cost. Hitler cowtowed to the army (even though he had two paramilitary units, SA and SS.) What is France on now; the 5th Republic? I would bet they are still on their first army. Thanks for the opportunity to post and go easy on me as I am a noob.
are you suggesting...
...that well meaning people (truthers) don't want the military to look bad, or that if the military itself realizes it was a target of the real perps then the perps would be all that more screwed? I would go with the latter myself. And welcome, whoever you are!
Who is Dwain Deets?
Maybe this is something to consider...
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2009/09/11/strange-bedfellows-ae911truth...
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
nice write up
nice write up
Thanks
"Wrath of God money" is right. and like you said, you can't sully the military. Least not the Iron Triangle.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
nice background on deets
nice background on deets
Thanks
When I saw that article written by Gregg Roberts and Deets posted all over the "acceptable" Truth sites, I started to wonder who he was. Then I found out that Gregg Roberts worked with Hoffman for a long time so I really figured I wanted to know who Deets was. And guess what? Now I know why Hoffman and the rest are so determined to steer investigations away from the possibility that something else hit the Pentagon.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
Now Hoffman's BFF Victoria Ashley smears Meyssan...
In the process, along with her comrade YT, of defending 9/11 denier Julian Assange of Wikileaks...
"Tarpley... even accused Assange of being a paid CIA agent"
Webster Tarpley has a long history of making false accusations against people, including myself and Cindy Sheehan. I don't know what's up with Julian Assange, but Tarpley clearly has no solid evidence upon which to make this accusation. It's helpful to remember that Tarpley is the guy who called Cindy Sheehan a "wretched individual". Also see: Synthetic Error: The meltdown of Webster G. Tarpley.
I'm not endorsing Assange, just pointing out the history of one of his attackers.
Submitted by YT on Sat, 08/21/2010 - 1:36pm.
-----------------------------
transparent move
Tarpley, Meyssan and Madsen . . . all focused on attacking the Left and people who are leaking government documents that make the war look bad. Fascinating.
And then make the world think that these are the "9/11 truthers" . . . not unlike making us into a "right--wing conspiracy."
Submitted by Victronix on Sat, 08/21/2010 - 2:26pm.
http://911blogger.com/news/2010-08-20/digital-journal-911-skeptics-say-j...
the blog they commented on also indicts Pakistan...
So how is it that Julian Assange has been transformed by truthers from being a victim of plots to kill him and a fellow anti-establishment seeker into a, patsy, or a CIA agent, or an enemy of 9/11 skeptics?
"Conspiracywatch says the answer is obvious. They claim that some of the documents revealed by or in the possession of Wikileaks contain embarrassing content for truthers by lifting a corner of the cover protecting Hamid Gul, the ex-Head of the Pakistani Secret Services, who the truthers have always said they value as “a source.” The documents suggest that he may have secretly supported both the Taliban and AlQaida. Gul has often accused the CIA and Mossad of being behind the 9/11 attacks.
So the dilemma for truthers, according to Conspiracy Watch, is how to reconcile the emerging evidence that Gul has always supported the Taliban and Al-Qaida in their war against the West with the dual fact that he has supported Truthers too, most of whom claim that 9/11 had nothing to do with the Taliban and Al Qaida, but everything to do with George Bush?"
"lifting a corner of the cover protecting Hamid Gul"
That's too funny.
So, "Conspiracywatch" - which is essentially a mainstream media anti-truth, anti-conspiracy site, even agrees that most 9/11 truthers take the position that the Taliban and Al Queda had nothing to do with 9/11. Victoria Ashley and the rest of that LIHOP team controlling 911Blogger and TrueFaction apparently have no problem shamelessly and consistently referencing anti-truth sites (911Myths, JREF, Conspiracywatch, etc.) for their sources, or even worse, uncritically reprinting their propaganda on the main page of 911Blogger, even when it accurately portrays the LIHOPpers as completely out of step with the 9/11 truth movement.
How much more obvious does it have to get that these LIHOP frauds are merely part of a tag team of professional disinfo agents who work in conjunction with mainstream propogandists whose main purpose is to prop up the scary Arab/Muslim islamophobia bullshit while protecting (covering up) the real truth about 9/11 and the War on Terror Fraud?
?
BFF?
best friends forever
...