Jim Hoffman and Don Paul Challenge New York Times' Writers to a Debate on 9/11
"LET'S SEE WHAT'S TRUE" - 911research.wtc7.net
DON PAUL AND JIM HOFFMAN CHALLENGE NEW YORK TIMES' WRITERS JAMES GLANZ AND ERIC LIPTON TO DEBATE ON THE CRIMES OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 IN NEW YORK CITY
Reason for the Challenge
On the occasion of the release of their new DVD, 9/11 Guilt / The Proof Is in Your Hands, Jim Hoffman and Don Paul, two of the most acclaimed writers on the subject of 2001's 'Attack on America', invite James Glantz and Eric Lipton, staff writers for The New York Times and authors of a 2003 book on the World Trade Center and its destruction to a debate on the facts and consequences of the 9/11/01 crimes in New York City.
"We chose James Glantz and Eric Lipton for our invitation because their skills and prominence nicely represent the illusion-bearers in mass-media who have steadfastly covered up the obvious demolition of World Trade Center Building 7 and the Twin Towers," said Don Paul, whose presentation in the new DVD is titled 'Indicting Financiers behind the Crimes of 9/11/01'.
"City in the Sky stands out for its use of inventive prose and silly anthropomorphisms to hide basic realties about the Twin Towers' structures and their explosive, symmetrical destruction," said Jim Hoffman, creator of the highly praised websites WTC7.net and 911Research.WTC7.net, "We hope Mr. Glantz and Mr. Lipton will join us in a discussion that could help to restore journalistic integrity in the United States."
"We need our mass-media to at last expose the 'Big Lie' of 9/11/01 before more of such lies provide the 'pretext' for a war on Iran," Paul added. "We hope for a public debate before that war starts."
Wow, now that is interesting. Be sure to follow the link above for the press release as well as the debate invitation letter which details the debate format.
- Login to post comments
Go, Jim and Don!
Go, Jim and Don!
Officials: Hastert "In the
Officials: Hastert "In the Mix" Of Congressional Bribery Investigation
http://www.yourbbsucks.com/fo
http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3921
http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3922
http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3640
Go Jim and Don! Sorry to
Go Jim and Don! Sorry to post off topic first.
Jim Hoffman is an
Jim Hoffman is an unfortunate choice for this debate since he is essentially a disinfo "Limited Hangout" operative. The 9/11 Truth Community really needs to take the threat of infiltration and sabatoge of the movement seriously and seek to neutralize these people that are attemtping to divide and harm the 9/11 truth movement.
Jim Hoffman's destructive behavior includes the following:
1) Hoffman uses deception and outright lies to uphold the official myth that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, and uses intimidating language to attack and discredit those who argue that something other than Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. He makes false claims along the lines of: "Most 9/11 researchers believe that it was Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon and consider the debate closed". NOT TRUE! Most credible 9/11 researchers reject the official myth about Flight 77. Most of the "eyewitness" accounts purporting to claim that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon have connections to the Pentagon, the Bush Administration, or the Elite Media Propogandists.
2) Hoffman offeres a limited hangout regarding Flight 93. By using evidence selectively, he attempts to claim that Flight 93 was shot down, and attacks people who discuss the fact that much of the evidence indicates that a much smaller aircraft crashed in Shanksville, PA.
3) Hoffman upholds the official story of all the absurd and impossible cell phone calls, and then attacks those who question the calls, accusing them of such things as trying to alianate the 9/11 victim's family members, etc.
Essentially, Jim Hoffman puts most of his energy towards unfarily attacking other 9/11 researches and trying to divide and confuse the movement. I condiser Jim Hoffman a threat to the cause of truth. People in the movement really need to be on gaurd about these kinds of people in the movement.
Former Pilot Says 'Jet
Former Pilot Says 'Jet Blast' Dismissal Doesn't Fly
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2006/230506doesntfly.htm
Does everybody remember
Does everybody remember September 2005's Vanity Fair article about Sibel Edmonds? In it, they alleged that Dennis Hastert, the Speaker Of The House, was taking bribes from the American Turkish Council. They said they were "giving Hastert tens of thousands of dollars in surreptitious payments in exchange for political favors and information."
Not long after that article was released, the "Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Government" filed a complaint "urging federal election officials to investigate whether House Speaker Dennis Hastert's campaign fund illegally accepted contributions from foreigners."
Amy Goodman also interviewed Sibel after the Vanity Fair article, and discussed the allegations towards Dennis Hastert.
This is BIG news. A woman
This is BIG news. A woman who was fired from her job, gagged more than anyone in American history, and has said, "once this issue [9/11] gets to be...investigated, you will be seeing certain [American] people that we know from this country standing trial; and they will be prosecuted criminally", may just have been given a HUGE dose of credibility.
I see... if she was telling
I see... if she was telling the truth about Hastert, then it lends credibility to her statements about 9/11...
Thanks for connecting the dots- I was unaware of the Vanity Fair piece
I like it!
"2) Hoffman offeres a
"2) Hoffman offeres a limited hangout regarding Flight 93. By using evidence selectively, he attempts to claim that Flight 93 was shot down, and attacks people who discuss the fact that much of the evidence indicates that a much smaller aircraft crashed in Shanksville, PA."
Well, there is enough evidence that the plane was shot down. What is wrong with pointing out this fact???? Parts of a plane cannot be found 8 miles away from just crashing, the debree had to of occured many miles up in the air to land that far away.
"3) Hoffman upholds the official story of all the absurd and impossible cell phone calls, and then attacks those who question the calls, accusing them of such things as trying to alianate the 9/11 victim's family members, etc."
It is EXTREMELY difficult if not IMPOSSIBLE to use a cell phone above 4000 ft. Even more difficult with a plane traveling at over 300MPH. The handoff from one tower to another would make the communications difficult if not impossible. Also, the plane is going to act like a large faraday screen so it is going to limit the signal that can get out of the plane. So many of his arguments about this is factual.
"I see... if she was telling
"I see... if she was telling the truth about Hastert, then it lends credibility to her statements about 9/11...
Thanks for connecting the dots- I was unaware of the Vanity Fair piece
I like it!"
;)
"We need our mass-media to
"We need our mass-media to at last expose the 'Big Lie'
i'm not holding my breath waiting for the mcmedia to incriminate itself of complicity.
In response to
In response to "RemoveBush"
"Well, there is enough evidence that the plane was shot down. What is wrong with pointing out this fact???? Parts of a plane cannot be found 8 miles away from just crashing, the debree had to of occured many miles up in the air to land that far away."
Some people who were closest to the crash reported seeing a much smaller aircraft, including the woman who was visited by the FBI after telling the media that it was a very small airplane. The FBI tried to intimide her into changing her story, but she refused.
The pieces found miles away were likely planted by the government, because no recogognizeable pieces were found at the Shanksville crash site.
"'3) Hoffman upholds the official story of all the absurd and impossible cell phone calls, and then attacks those who question the calls, accusing them of such things as trying to alianate the 9/11 victim's family members, etc.'
It is EXTREMELY difficult if not IMPOSSIBLE to use a cell phone above 4000 ft. Even more difficult with a plane traveling at over 300MPH. The handoff from one tower to another would make the communications difficult if not impossible. Also, the plane is going to act like a large faraday screen so it is going to limit the signal that can get out of the plane. So many of his arguments about this is factual."
You misunderstood my point. When I said "Hoffman upholds the official story...", that means that Hoffman claims that the calls were true. Your analysis of why the calls were impossible is right on, and that is what Hoffman is rejecting.
Keenan: "Some people who
Keenan:
"Some people who were closest to the crash reported seeing a much smaller aircraft, including the woman who was visited by the FBI after telling the media that it was a very small airplane. The FBI tried to intimide her into changing her story, but she refused."
There was a report of a small plane in the area of Flight 93, if I recall. It was ordered to land. So this is not anything that raises my interrest.
"The pieces found miles away were likely planted by the government, because no recogognizeable pieces were found at the Shanksville crash site."
I don't believe this to be the case. I believe that the plane was shot down, which would account for the debris feilds 8 miles away.
Not EVERYTHING is a government plant, so the information needs to be examined to weed out the unfactual stories. This one makes sense to me for a plane being shot down.
"You misunderstood my point. When I said "Hoffman upholds the official story...""
Yes I did..... Thanks for correcting me.
Off topic, but top post, so
Off topic, but top post, so best chance to be seen.
When is Zogby going to be putting the news of their latest 9/11 poll up on their website?
It isn't on the front page [ http://www.zogby.com/ ] and it isn't in the September 11 news item search [ http://www.zogby.com/search/SearchNews.dbm ].
I'm waiting to use it for posting and sending. I won't post or send text that someoen wrote on a message board. I want the actual Zogby site link to the news story so it is uber-official.
The fact that Zogby hasn't posted it yet, is leading me to second guess the credibility, factuality and validity of the poll results.
Do any of you have idea when Zogby is going to post it on their front page?
On an American flight last
On an American flight last week I forgot to shut off my phone and after a few drinks I built up the nerve and while hiding under the thin red blanket tried not once but seven times to make a phone call
and was unable to do so. Nothing, Notta, zip. This was at a cruising altitude of approx. 30,000 feet and a speed over 500mph. I could not make a call. I was using a 2 year old Sprint Treo model. I was nervous as hell but I had to do it. yeeeehaaawww.
My main point is that Jim
My main point is that Jim Hoffman serves as upholder of most parts of the 9/11 hoax, even when there is much credible evidence to the contrary, and then unfairly attacks those researchers who argue for alternate theories. Jim Hoffman doesn't just disagree with those other researchers, he makes outlandish accusations against them, uses evidence selectively, uses deception, and attempts to divide the movement. There is a BIG difference.
'Some people who were
'Some people who were closest to the crash reported seeing a much smaller aircraft, including the woman who was visited by the FBI after telling the media that it was a very small airplane. The FBI tried to intimide her into changing her story, but she refused.'
"There was a report of a small plane in the area of Flight 93, if I recall. It was ordered to land. So this is not anything that raises my interrest."
Why would it not be interesting to you when the person who was closest to the plane before it crahed - the plane flew right over her car as she was driving causing her to duck out of instinct because it was so low - positively identified the craft as a very, very small plane, and specifically rejected the possibility of it being a large Boing commercial jet in all her interviews. Right after it flew over her, she saw it bank to the right, fly over some trees, and then crash. She then saw another military type jet over the area.
Considering that the available evidence regarding what happened at the Pentagon was that a much smaller airplane crashed there rather than Flight 77, why is it so hard to for you to believe that a similar hoax might have transpired at Shanksville?
Additionally, local media reported that United Flight 93 landed at Cleveland Hopkins Airport. The airport was evacuated suspiciously - apparently so no one would witness what was going on with Flight 93.
'The pieces found miles away were likely planted by the government, because no recogognizeable pieces were found at the Shanksville crash site.'
"I don't believe this to be the case. I believe that the plane was shot down, which would account for the debris feilds 8 miles away."
The fact that nothing was found at the crash site in Shanksville - NOTHING - posed a problem for the government's official story. So, when parts were later found miles away, even though nobody witnessed anything crashing away from Shanksville, isn't that just a little suspicious to you?
It's a little too similar to the Pentagon. Much later after the fact, pictures mysteriously appeared by "unknown" and "unattributed" photographers which showed pieces positively identified as a Boing 757. Remember, the people who reported seeing or hearing a plane crash only were in the area of the Shanksville "crash site", and no other place. Think about it. How could there be NOTHING at Shanksville, and then mysteriously some pieces of a Boing Jet appeared a few miles away?
Since we know that the cell phone calls were fake, and the Flight 93 'hero' story is so absurd, don't you think it's possible that Flight 93 was no where near Shanksville, especially when so much evidence points to another scenario?
Oh, additionally, several months later, a United Airlines maintanance worker reported seeing that United flight with the same N number on the tail, but flying under a different flight number. And, up until a few months ago, that N number from UA flight 93 was listed in the NIST database as still valid. So, there are multiple reasons to suspect that Flight 93 was neither shot down, nor crashed at Shanksville.
Hoffman does not acknowledge any of this evidence when he offers his limited hangout story of Flight 93, but then viciously attacks people who do discuss this alternate scenario.
Keenan- Can u give an
Keenan- Can u give an example of the outlandish accusations?
Go to his websites:
Go to his websites: www.911review.com and www.911research.com and look at the sections entitled:
"The Pentagon No-757-Crash Theory: Booby Trap for 9/11 Skeptics", "Misinformation", and "Information Warfare"
Keenan, we got your point
Keenan,
we got your point dood, you don't agree with hoffman's work.
Webmasters: Please consider
Webmasters:
Please consider adding a small banner to your site with the link to the Don Paul & Jim Hoffman NYT debate challenge!
Help to expose the failing by the mass media!
A small banner is currently available at Digital Style Designs (very bottom of page)
http://digitalstyledesigns.com/pages/downloads.htm
http://www.yourbbsucks.com/fo
http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showpost.php?p=60389&postcount=2
vert good post, keenan:-)
vert good post, keenan:-)
Jim Hoffman is one of the
Jim Hoffman is one of the most credible mavens of 9/11 Truth. He follows only the scientific method, just like Professor Steven Jones does. If more people within the movement took after Hoffman and Jones, then there would already be another investigation underway. Instead, too many people are going wholly on their own speculative instincts, with nothing more substantive to back them up. Speculation on a few frames of video that a 757 did or didn't hit the Pentagon. Speculation about cell phone calls, such as, "It is EXTREMELY difficult if not IMPOSSIBLE to use a cell phone above 4000 ft." Prove it! You can't. Yet, some people, like the person who wrote this above, are absolutely convinced that the calls were faked. Convinced! And by what? Nothing but their own gut feelings and junk science. Sorry, but that ain't gonna fly with the general public. EVER.
In any case, I hope to hell that Hoffman, Jones and their like make up the majority of 9/11 Truth. I am encouraged by the recent words of Alex Jones, who has urged the movement to remain calm and logical about the so-called "new Pentagon footage". At the same time, I am most discouraged by some of the stuff I've seen posted here lately. I can't believe the kinds of vicious attacks I've seen launched against Jim Hoffman here. And based on WHAT? They're all just a bunch of groundless, vitriolic accusations. I guess if you're a scientist who is out to unveil the truth, these kinds of attacks come with the territory.
The bottom line is that everything depends on the makeup of the 9/11 Truth movement. If more people choose science and logic over gut feelings and speculation, then success and total victory is only a matter of time. But if it's the other way around- especially if these shameful personal attacks continue- then we will most surely fail. For truth's sake, I sincerely hope that it's the former. Failing that, another 9/11-like event will have to occur again in the future, so it can be proven once and for all that some people will do anything to gain power.
Again, you've all been warned.
- Ø®£Z -, Just got
- Ø®£Z -,
Just got word that the Zogby poll results will not be posted on zogby's site as 911truth could not afford the cost for them to post it on their site, so the official results posted on 911truth.org are the final results from zogby, and wont be published on their site.
takes money to do those things, and apparently the extra price for that was too exhorbatant for them to afford - sorry for the confusion.
The other results
The other results are?
http://www.zogby.com/search/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855
Sorry, but just posted the
Sorry, but just posted the preferred banner.
Thank you.
http://digitalstyledesigns.com/pages/downloads.htm
... "The bottom line is that
...
"The bottom line is that everything depends on the makeup of the 9/11 Truth movement. If more people choose science and logic over gut feelings and speculation, then success and total victory is only a matter of time. But if it's the other way around- especially if these shameful personal attacks continue- then we will most surely fail. For truth's sake, I sincerely hope that it's the former. Failing that, another 9/11-like event will have to occur again in the future, so it can be proven once and for all that some people will do anything to gain power."
Again, you've all been warned.
Baraka | Homepage | 05.24.06 - 9:10 pm | #
___________________________________--
Baraka, I agree with you. People who speculate far from science and logic may believe in what they argue... or they do it in an attempt to discredit the mouvement. You know, it happens. :)
IMHO, We must focus on the foreknowledge of the event, the inside job and the cover up. When there will be and independant investigation, the truth will come out and then, we'll see whether there was no plane, drone, missile or whatever...
Bad
Bad taste?
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/48747
Baraka and The Northern
Baraka and The Northern Frenchy,
None of the facts I wrote about above were "speculation" or "gut reaction", they are all documented 100%. If you are ignorant of some of these facts, that points to the need for you do to your homework, rather than the need you apparently feel to make baseless ad hominem attacks against me. I can provide you the sources, which are credible and scientific, if you would like.
Again, my point is that it is fine to disagree with other people's theories in the movement, but resorting to tactics which are unnecessarily divisive and making accusations which are unfounded, while playing around with the evidence to support limited hangout theories, is unacceptable.
I agree with the approach of
I agree with the approach of the scientific skeptic. Posing of questions that expose anomalies. Also it's important to realize that not everybody is going to be right about everything at the end of the day. The important thing is for people to put forth alternate narratives and see how they stand up over time. Most people have the same goal of exposing the whole truth whatever that may be.
Keenan- Why don't we do
Keenan-
Why don't we do this- if you are going to make accusations, back them up with facts, weblinks, whatever, and don't assume everyone will agree with you because you say it is so and expect people to know what you claim to know. Better to lay all the cards out on the table in my opinion.
If birdwatcher vouches for
If birdwatcher vouches for Jim Hoffman, that's good enough for me.
And for those who say,
And for those who say, "See... look at Gold, he puts his trust blindly in people, blah blah blah..."
I judge people on the work that they do, and the work they have done. Nobody is perfect. NOBODY. But if someone is making an honest effort, and doing the BEST that they can, then they will have my respect.
I would rather have people I respect in this movement, than people I didn't.
birdwatcher is someone I respect.
What would it cost to post
What would it cost to post the results, how about online donations to get them to post it??
Jim Hoffman is one of the
Jim Hoffman is one of the few who will stand up and speak out when stuff is not based in the facts and he will openly debate people on each point. He knows his stuff. That's why he is constantly attacked by people who have emotional connections to theories that don't have a scientific basis, like Gerard Holmgren, who insists that fake planes or blue screen technology or whatever, hit the WTC towers.
Holmgren also threatened Steven Jones with an 8-part attack he said he would spread all over the internet if Jones didn't remove the section from his paper where he said that he (Jones) didn't agree with theories that fake planes or no planes hit the WTC towers.
That's what the people doing real science are up against - jerks making threats to force them to do what they want.
Jones removed it from his paper because of an open threat . . . Is that what the movement is about? Why would anyone support people who do that?
But they do.
Holmgren's articles are all over the internet and hosted on all sorts of sites. Do a search. Serendipity, Webfairy, etc.
Other attacks on Hoffman are here:
http://www.911research.wtc7.net/re911/adhominem.html
Thank you, Jon. Ditto.
Thank you, Jon.
Ditto.
Eric, Ok, agreed. Other than
Eric,
Ok, agreed. Other than Hoffman's websites I already listed above where he uses some of these tactics, please list the topics or questions for which you would like me to provide additional weblinks and documentation and I will gladly provide them.
Incidently, I used to really respect Jim Hoffman when I first stumbled upon his work and looked at his websites. As for as the WTC Controlled Demolition analysis Jim has done, I consider it top notch. Since then, however, I have spent hundreds of additional hours researching various aspects of 9/11, and I have since come to the conclusion that Jim's analysis on the Pentagon attack, and his attampt to uphold the cell phone calls and a few other things are far from scientific, and essentially a sham.
Schollars for 9/11 Truth at st911.org, who are generally considered the most credible group of researchers in the 9/11 truth movement, including several PHDs and people with much more expertise and scientific background than Jim Hoffman, generally do not trust Jim Hoffman for similar reasons to mine. Nobody in the Schollars for 9/11 Truth believes that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. Nor do they believe in the cell phone calls, which they show are scientifically impossible.
Experience of Jim Hoffman on
Experience of Jim Hoffman on Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Hoffman
He has a wiki? That SOB...
He has a wiki? That SOB... I don't have a wiki. Razzam frazzam!!!
Cheney May Be Called In CIA
Cheney May Be Called In CIA Leak Case
What I mean is we are far
What I mean is we are far better asking questions about the numerous 911 anomalies then trying to give anwsers.
There is no reason to try explain some no plane theories (drone, missile, blue screen or hologramme), because if we're proven wrong, so in peoples' mind, that would mean the gvnt is right.
There is far enough anomalies concerning the foreknoledge, the Bush and the aviation stand down, the "who benefit", the media cover up, etc... to make our point for the need of a new impartial thorought investigation. And like I said before, only then we will know what really happen that day. I hope you all understand what I mean...
You are quite right about
You are quite right about the hologram/blue screen nonsense, and Gerard Holmgren is a nutcase. But it is ludicrous for Jim Hoffman to put that in the same category as the Pentagon No Flight 77 Theory, which is based on solid scientific analysis when one does an honest and thorough look at the available evidence.
One thing that I've learned from my years of conspiracy research is to never put all my faith in one single person/source. No one person has all the truth. And a person who has in the past been credible and scientific could at some point in the future be compromised.
I am all for the debate.
I am all for the debate. It's great publicity but I doubt if anything will become of it. As far as Cheney being called in the leak case, so what. Rove was indited but the inditement is sealed and will remain sealed. There is very little Fitzgerald can do about it. Actually there is nothing he can do about it. These gangsters hold all the cards. I have a feeling we will have to revolt to take back our country.
Jones removed it from his
Jones removed it from his paper because of an open threat
did jones say that he removed it for that reason? i find it unlikely that jones would be intimidated by gerard holmgren.
I certainly don't put all my
I certainly don't put all my faith in one single source. I consult a lot of web site about 911 and the debunkers' too. About the pentagon, I have a great deal of difficulty considering that it was flight 77 that hit, and certainly not piloted by the alleged highjacker. Also, the punch out hole make no sense to me having been made by a 757. But I don't think the Pentagon No Flight 77 Theory is based on solid scientific analysis compare to the work of Prof Jones about CT at WTC.
That being said, not everybody in the mouvement agree on everything, and we're better asking questions and demand responses than fighting with each other.
i just refer to it as
i just refer to it as blob77. that way i can convey both the claim that it was flight77 and the shallowness of that claim at the same time.
!! This project has been put
!! This project has been put on hold. We CANNOT continue without your support! Read our fundraiser appeal
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/fundraiser.jsp
In my opinion, the most
In my opinion, the most convincing analysis of the Pentagn attack and the plane/no plane debate is offered in the following web sites:
"Evidence That a Frozen Fish Didn't Impact the Pentagon on 9/11 and Neither Did a Boeing 757" by Joe Quinn
http://abovetopsecret.narod.ru/Above_Top_Secret_article.htm
"September 11, 2001 Revisited: Act II by Dave McGowan"
http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr68.html
Best video:
Pentagon Strike
http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm
Jim Hoffman is the go to go
Jim Hoffman is the go to go on 911research...even if he doesnt really believe flight 77 hit the pentagon, he plays it safe...why go for a 2pt conversion when you can when with a sure fire field goal?
you know that pentagon flash
you know that pentagon flash video is what first got me started in 911 truth..i thought it was interesting and i shared it with everybody i knew......and i dont think the pentagon was hit with flight 77...the way i look at it, its like the OJ case, you have your suspscions but can you really prove beyond reasonable doubt
yizzo: Everyone knows the
yizzo:
Everyone knows the LAPD killed Nicole and Ron!
Anonymous, my feeling is
Anonymous, my feeling is that Fitzgerld is a vicious Jesuit who is involved in the Hastert prosecution as well as the Plame leak on some level. It's doubtful that AG Gonzales has as much power as Fitzgereld. He operates with the highest levels of security access in DHS as evident of secret prosecution powers where he sent even the opposing defence lawyer to a long jail sentence under Patriot Act provisions along with the "terrorist" they were defending. He likely represents a powerful faction of the U.S. Justice that is bent upon sadistical vengence. This does not mean to suggest that they and Fitzgerald are "truthers".
The pentagon strike video
The pentagon strike video misrepresents many eye witness statements and ignores the large amount of eyewitnesses who said they saw a 757 or large jetliner.
Jim Hoffman takes the academic approach. He will not endorse something until it is scientifically proven. Unfotunately people like Keenan think that he should latch onto every speculation based on one eyewitness report which he cant link too...
Keenan, you incorrectly state that the no plane theroy is based on solid scientific evidence...Lack of proof for one thing does not PROVE something else scientifically. I'll agree that there are some oddities...but NO PROOF.
I know for a fact that it is not impossible for cell phone calls to be made and recieved on an airplane, I have discussed this at length with a friend who is studying aviation engineering. He also was reminded of a time when he forgot to turn his cell phone off and his mom called. Also you have to keep in mind there are other phones on airplanes.
Keenan, please dont misrepresent the SF911T... I know not all of them believe what you do, since I am a member, and you are obviously...NOT
Stop infighting, concentrate
Stop infighting, concentrate on the issues we have in common.
The Cover-Up of an Inside-Job.
Not a hundred thousands of technically details.
Even if there were limited hang outs and COINTELPRO agents in "our" movement, we'll be much stronger as we act united.
Below are some insightful
Below are some insightful links based on the scientific method and on majority eyewitness reports. As always, please do your best to steer the 9/11 arguments to WTC 7. Just a reminder, people...
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/loose_change/
[Sifting Through LOOSE CHANGE: A Viewer Guide to Loose Change, 2nd Edition]
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/video.html
[Video of the Pentagon Attack: What is the Government Hiding?]
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html
[Evidence That A Boeing 757 Really Did Impact the Pentagon on 9/11]
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagontrap.html
[The Pentagon No-757-Crash Theory:
Booby Trap for 9/11 Skeptics]
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/videoframes.html
[Released video frames show evidence of tampering]
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/
[Hundreds of witnesses- both military and civilian- saw a 757 hit the Pentagon]
I still can't get over
I still can't get over this:
http://baltimorechronicle.com/050704SibelEdmonds.shtml
Sibel Edmonds is a former FBI translator. She blew the whistle on the cover-up of intelligence that names some of the culprits who orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. These culprits are protected by the Justice Department, the State Department, the FBI, the White House and the Senate Judiciary Committee. They are foreign nationals and Americans. Ms. Edmonds is under two gag orders that forbid her to testify in court or mention the names of the people or the countries involved.
If they were to do real investigations we would see several significant high level criminal prosecutions in this country. And that is something that they are not going to let out. And, believe me; they will do everything to cover this up.
WHERE IS THE MEDIA ON THIS???
http://www.counterthink.org/0
http://www.counterthink.org/019388.html
[Pentagon hit by flying grilled cheese sandwich, video frames show]
An instant classic! This is the funniest (and probably most truthful) commentary I've ever read concerning the Pentagon. Don't even think of missing this one, folks!
i'm sorry for continuing
i'm sorry for continuing this seemingly never ending discussion about blob77, but there's always talk of and links to many eye witless statements claiming that they saw a 757 or large jetliner, but there never seems to be any mention of the fact that photos reveal that the section where blob77 hit remained standing for a good long while before kind of just slumping over into a loose heap. this would tend to reinforce the speculation that blob77 was something other than a 757 i would think.
Wilson, Most of the
Wilson,
Most of the 'eyewitnesses' who claim to have seen a 757 or large jetliner crash into the Pentagon are not credible because they are connected to the Bush Administration, the Military, or the msm. I would recommend that you scrutinize the witnesses to see what I am talking about. A very thorough analysis of the witness statements and problems with credibility is here: http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr68e.html
For example, here is a few of the politically connected 'credible' witnesses who uphold the Flt 77 story:
* Gary Bauer: Talking head and former Republican presidential candidate who has been linked to the notorious Project for a New American Century.
* Paul Begala: Democratic Party operative and nominally liberal punching bag on CNN's "Crossfire."
* Bobby Eberle: President and CEO of GOPUSA, a portal of right-wing propaganda.
* Mike Gerson: Director of George W. Bush's speech writing staff.
* Alfred Regnery: President of Regnery Publishing, another portal of right-wing propaganda -- one that has seen fit to bestow upon the world the literary stylings of Ann Coulter, the Swift Boat Veterans, and numerous other accomplished liars.
* Greta Van Susteren: Nominally liberal legal analyst for Fox News.
Another important point to make is that physical evidence trumps eyewitness testimony. Just ask any seasoned investigator/detective. They will tell you that whenever witness testimony conflicts with physical evidence, they go with the physical evidence. "Evidence does not lie" is how the saying goes.
"Unfotunately people like Keenan think that he should latch onto every speculation based on one eyewitness report which he cant link too..."
Here you are using false assumptions to attack me. I have never latched onto a speculation based on one etewitness report. In fact, I previously bought into Jim Hofman's contention that the Pentagon No 757 Theory was a red herring. But after looking into Jim's arguments more closely, I found way too many flaws in Him Hofman's analysis which contained bad logic and incorrect claims. Please read the articles I posted above regarding the Pentagon plane/no plane debate to see what I am talking about, as I don't want to fill up several pages here to explain all the points.
I never said I have PROVED it. My point is that the evidence is much more heavily waited towards rejecting the official story of Flt 77 crashing into the Pentagon. I did not start out with just latching on to a speculation about what happened at the Pentagon. I have spent hundreds of hours on this and have used logic and scientific reasoning for my conclusion.
As far as the cell phone calls, sorry, but in 2001, it was not possible to make cell phone calls at cruising altitude in a commercial airline flight. Yes, some cell phone calls work within a few thousand feet elevation, but not reliably - they get dropped all the time flying at 400 plus mph. And this has been verified by technicians in the telecommunications industry. This is also my personal experience trying to use my cell phone on airplanes in past years. Your friend must have used it at a relatively low altitude. There are also many other problems with the credibility of the aleged calls on 9/11.
I have personally communicated with Jim Fetzer regarding Jim Hoffman, and he is aware of Jim's underhanded tactics. Jim Fetzer also said that "anyone who claims that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon is lying".
So, I would appreciate it if you would do your homework and read the articles I presented rather than just assume I am just purely speculating with no valid scientific reasoning.
Again, my main point, which you are having a hard time understainding, is that I have no problem with disagreements within the 9/11 movement about the specifics of what happened. We should have open and honest debates to get to the truth about the most important thing that has happened in the country in probably 50 years and is propelling our country into fascism. I do have a problem with people like Jim Hoffman who intentially use intimidating language and false reasoning to divide and discredit other 9/11 researchers.
Oh yeah, and for the people
Oh yeah, and for the people promoting hologram planes, "cgi fakery", and other disinfo bullshit...guess you'd care to explain this:
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b332/Graphite_Blimp/wtc-fg17.jpg
I'm gonna try this again
I'm gonna try this again since its a sticking point with some of the people I talk to.
If thermite was used to bring down the WTC, there would be no Squibs.
If it was a combination of explosives and thermite it would easy to check the dust for nitrates.
Could someone help me out with this.
Truth for a Change- The
Truth for a Change-
The signs of thermite were there, but it was probably used in combination with other explosives.
For example it could have cut the steel on various floors thus softening it for an even collapse brought by other explosive devices.
So, I don't think anyone is claiming that thermite alone would have caused that reaction, though I could be wrong.
Has anyone read
Has anyone read Disinformation: 22 Media Myths that Undermine the War on Terror?
I wonder if there is any truth to what he says in that book, or its all disinformation itself?
Top Experts To Expose 9/11
Top Experts To Expose 9/11 Fraud At L.A. Conference
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2006/240506laconference.htm
"Conference attendees will also be treated to a special *star studded* appearance from a certain Hollywood personality that will be very familiar indeed to everyone in the audience!"
Drew, Then nitrates would be
Drew,
Then nitrates would be found in the dust?
Anyone know about Dov
Anyone know about Dov Zakheim, noted Neocon who is behind remote control systems that can take over passenger planes? I agree with oilempire that is not what hit the pentagon, but where it hit.
And why didnt they just say Charlie Sheen will be at the 9/11 convention? heh
I'm not sure about chemical
I'm not sure about chemical levels and such. I was just trying to clarify what I believed the theory to be.
Before I go to bed, I think
Before I go to bed, I think 911blogger should sponsor some kind of fundraising links or something to Cooperative Research.
"Speculation about cell
"Speculation about cell phone calls, such as, 'It is EXTREMELY difficult if not IMPOSSIBLE to use a cell phone above 4000 ft.' Prove it! You can't."
This year, I have personally witnessed two different mobile phones lose their usability within a few minutes of takeoff and not regaining usability until a minute or two before landing at the airports of big cities (Helsinki and Paris). Another person has reported experiencing the same. An engineer working at Nokia told me he doesn't think mobile phones could really be used during flights.
It wasnt cellphones, it was
It wasnt cellphones, it was airphones!
This "the cellphone calls were faked, the people were transported to another plane, fake planes were used" is absolutely false.
Im surprised I didnt find this page before, but this page pretty much backs up the major points of disinformation Ive found in the 9/11 truth movement:
http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html
'It wasnt cellphones, it was
'It wasnt cellphones, it was airphones!
This "the cellphone calls were faked, the people were transported to another plane, fake planes were used" is absolutely false'
not that I want to get bogged down in this - the amount of fore knowledge is evidence enough to convince me, but wasn't the claim that some of the calls were made from the toilets? Do they have airphones in toilets?
One of the most incredible
One of the most incredible radio interviews ive heard, with a former 30 year joint chiefs of staff on globalist plans, 9/11, nwo, etc:
http://www.israelnn.com/metafiles/asx/shows/IsraelNationalRadio/tamary-p...
http://www.israelnn.com/metafiles/asx/shows/IsraelNationalRadio/tamary-p...
I think all AA77
I think all AA77 PLANEHUGGERS people should be required to explain the physics of it.
I think all UA175 PLANEHUGGERS people should be required to explain where the 4 big engines and 2 small engines were found.
I wish to see the warehouse where the govt is storing the artefacts.
I don't believe ONE WORD of the official story.
Spot on Keenan !!! I have
Spot on Keenan !!!
I have concerns about Hoffman, that go beyond his headache inducing and insulting of good 9/11 truthers website syndicate...
1) What happened to "JusticeForWoody.org"..
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://justiceforwoody.org
2) His claims that he was sacked from some government funded job, when he was in fact still working there...
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/06/320469.shtml?discuss#186880
He is the other extreme to Holmgren and such... and I don't trust either...
I would much prefer if it was "Fetzer and Jones" debating the NY Times...
I'm glad that folks like Keenan have their eyes wide open ;)
Good Luck
First all of the calls were
First all of the calls were said to have been made via cellphones. Later, perhaps because skepticism increased, it started to be said that Airfones had been used.
For example, Barbara Olsen was first said to have used a cellphone. Half a year later her husband gave an interview to a European newspaper in which he said she used an Airfone to call collect his office. However, in their 2005 book "9/11 Revealed" two British journalists say that two representatives of AE confirmed to them that there had been no Airfones on Flight 77.
And if there had been Airfones on that flight, why didn't anyone else use them? And why haven't any billing records been released to back up the call claims?
This is all very interesting -- and confusing.
this interview with 9/11
this interview with 9/11 whistleblower Indira Singh is even more explosive than what Sibel Edmonds has to say:
http://www.4acloserlook.com/realaudio/102805a-singh.ram
http://www.4acloserlook.com/realaudio/102805b-singh.ram
http://www.4acloserlook.com/realaudio/102805c-singh.ram
Not only is it extremely
Not only is it extremely doubtful that any cell phone calls could be made, the conversations were highly improbable also.
Experienced stewardess Betty Ong calmly calls the airline reservations desk for the dire emergency??? (Did she want to book a flight or something?) Later, she refers to the Manhattan skyline as "I see buildings & water"??? (Never flew into NYC before nor has any idea what it looks like.) Ong's call was supposedly 23 minutes long, but only 4 minutes were recorded??? What's on the other 19 minutes, even worse baloney?
Then there's always, "Hi mom, it's Mark Bingham. You believe me, don't you mom?"???
Moreover, it is exceedingly doubtful that AA77 hit the Pentagon. So why claim it as fact.
Someone wake Hoffman up.
Perhaps they dug that hole
Perhaps they dug that hole in Shanksville so that the "investigation" would be conducted there, rather than where UA93 had been shot down & some real evidence could've been found?
Furthermore, Betty Ong
Furthermore, Betty Ong severly underplayed that the terrorists had stormed the cockpit (their obvious goal), did God-knows-what to the pilots, and were probably flying the plane! Was this not of crucial importance???
Correction^, it was another
Correction^, it was another AA11 flight attendant, Amy Sweeney, who didn't know they had flown to NYC, and saw "buildings & water."
From that oilempire site
From that oilempire site link above:
"It is unlikely that a spouse would not know they were having a phone conversation with their partner, and the extra complication to the operation makes this theory one of the least credible. There is enough provable evidence of official complicity without claiming that 9/11 family members really didn't talk with their loved ones on the phone - at least for those sincerely interested in the truth."
Did they really have long personal conversations? I thought it was mostly quick, good-bye stuff.
It's easy to fake/impersonate people w/audio equipment, especially in chaotic situations like that.
IMO, most or all of the calls were phony.
"Someone wake Hoffman
"Someone wake Hoffman up."
Quit attacking Jim Hoffman. He's a strong asset to the 9/11 Truth movement, and has a right to what he chooses to advocate and focus on. He is a very credible individual, and it is a shame to promote so much infighting.
I don't believe ONE WORD of
I don't believe ONE WORD of the official story.
How about beleiving the evidence instead?
"How about beleiving the
"How about beleiving the evidence instead?"
What evidence?
F_ck Zogby, they were
F_ck Zogby, they were probably warned not to post them. We're talking about perhaps the most serious and impacting poll Zogby has ever done and they can't cut 911truth a break? What a scam, I'm pissed!
Zogby must have read me post
Zogby must have read me post ;)
They have some of the results posted now via a front page link.
""It is EXTREMELY difficult
""It is EXTREMELY difficult if not IMPOSSIBLE to use a cell phone above 4000 ft." Prove it! You can't. Yet, some people, like the person who wrote this above, are absolutely convinced that the calls were faked. Convinced! And by what? Nothing but their own gut feelings and junk science. Sorry, but that ain't gonna fly with the general public. EVER."
OK..... Here is my proof! I held a N.A.B.E.R (National Association Of Business and Educational Radio) licence for over 8 years, plus I was in the Army for 4 years working specifically repairing aircraft radios. It is an FCC equivilent radio licence. I think that this gives me a little knowledge of what the HELL I am talking about! What experience do you have with radio transmission and broadcast????? If you have NONE, then who is spreading JUNK science?????
"Baraka | Homepage | 05.24.06 - 9:10 pm "
Common Baraka, refut my claims with proof. I can provide my old licence number if you would like.
"Someone wake Hoffman
I'm not attacking Hoffman, I'm pointing out some very dubious statements he's made. He can advocate & focus on whatever he wants, and so can you. But I'll tell you both that his belief in AA77 at the Pentagon & the phone-calls scenario is rubbish.
pockybot: Oh yeah, and for
pockybot:
Oh yeah, and for the people promoting hologram planes, "cgi fakery", and other disinfo bullshit...guess you'd care to explain this:
http://i22.photobucket.com/album...mp/wtc- fg17.jpg
that looks very much like a hole in the side of wtc1 to me.
now perhaps you would care to explain THIS:
BoeingButter
careful of whom you're accusing of disinfo pockybot.
_______________
Ha, it's called the "normal
Ha, it's called the "normal force." Objects moving 500 mph can pierce other objects "like butter" to use your expression. (e.g., soft lead bullet blows hole through steel plate.)
Pay attention, son. I've explained this b.s. here many times before. Why do you keep repeating it?
www.physics911.net about
www.physics911.net about cell phones in planes.
http://www.physics911.net/projectachilles.htm
http://www.physics911.net/cellphoneflight93.htm
anon, YOU pay attention
anon, YOU pay attention kiddo - your "soft lead bullet" analogy doesn't apply even if it were correct.
when the plane is already 1/2 way thru the side of the tower, there is still no hole in the side of the tower.
ghostplane/vanishment
eastern view
__________----
i don't promote the cgi theory, but i believe it and when it is attacked i will support it. i don't relish the thought of an endless debate about it in this comment section though so just let it go and i will as well.
__________----
BTW Ha, you needed a
BTW Ha, you needed a high-speed ballistics camera to capture a plane penetrating the WTC @ 500 mph.
No need to use blue-screen, hologram imagery machines when real planes work just fine & are far less risky than cartoons.
And Anon for now--those cell phone tests in small planes don't really demonstrate calls from airliners back on 9/11/01. Their success rate was zero, IMO.
In my opinion Hoffman has
In my opinion Hoffman has been a plant from the beginning. There was clearly no plane at the Pentagon, and the only reason to say there was is to divide truthers and would-be truthers. they will continue doing things like this because they have no other choice--the chips are stacked against them, even with the media blackout. this is basicall a HUGE conspiracy gone bad, and what we are seeing is extremely well-funded and thought out disinfo. to think we are not being targeted by psyops is a bit naive i think. They will do anything and everything they think will save them. The first step was to ignore completely. If that failed, engage, but deceptively, i.e. under false-flag. Local activist groups are regularly infiltrated that way, by people pretending to be one of us. Eventually these folks slip up and reveal their insincerity--that is why we have to have discussions about things like the Pentagon, accept the consensus view that there was no AA77 and move on. I mean, is Hoffman even calling for the release of all Pentagon videos showing the flight? If not, that would be telling. At no point will people give up on manipulating these issues. Even once we have the conspirators on trial, there will be attempts to subvert justice. this is as big as a scandal gets. the best thing we can all do is continue to spread the word that all is not right with 9-11. Once a critical mass is engaged, and the media realize they won't get away with NO coverage, they will provide BAD coverage. At that point we have to rank the media very publicly as to the job theyre doing, etc.
And Anon for now--those cell
And Anon for now--those cell phone tests in small planes don't really demonstrate calls from airliners back on 9/11/01. Their success rate was zero, IMO.
Anonymous | 05.25.06 - 1:18 pm | #
You must've misunderstood my point. Did you read those articles? I agree that the success rate would be at or near 0 for cell phone calls on 9/11 planes. That's why I posted those links. Physics911.net criticizes the story that cell phone calls were made from the hijacked airliners. We were told on and after 9/11 that cell phones were used by people on the planes. Now the story is changing to Airfones. However, I can't ever recall seeing an Airfone in the frickin' toilet!
Further questions: Did all the planes have airfones? How many calls were recorded on tape? Where are the phone records to prove these calls were made, either by airfone or cellphone? And which cell towers carried the calls that were made by cell phone?
I'm curious.
and the web fairy??
and the web fairy?? holograms? I know some people will say--hey have an open mind like we're asking people to. But sorry, we are not asking people to believe that kind of BS. Any real 911 truther has seen so many different videos of the south tower being struck that they understand they couldn't all have been faked, especially given crowd reactions. hey people! pretend you saw a plane! uh huh. The conspirators are on the run. We have significant numbers now so thyere is less danger in "dividing"the movement relative to the danger of trusting disinfo or its proponents.
a high speed ballistics
a high speed ballistics camera? you equate a plane that you say is travelling 500mph with the speed of a bullet? ha.
and: Any real 911 truther has seen so many different videos of the south tower being struck
any REAL 911 truther?
in fact there are only 4 different views of 175 STRIKING the wtc2, and they all 4 without fail show a plane slipping thru the side like a ghost.
there are a good 30 different views of a shadowy blob that we are told is 175 approaching the wtc2, all shot from a long distance. i did suggest that we let this go did i not?
ha. out.
I'm sorry--so all thirty
I'm sorry--so all thirty four of those were faked? or just the ones that show an actual plane? So the Naudet brothers were in on it, since they captured the first hit? And when they released their film, they showed very revealing damage in the lobby? Why not avoid that if they were in on it? And how did you expect the plane to go in, haltingly? Slowly? Think it would just crush itself against the rock hard side of the building? And the people who orchestrated it... they weren't worried that anyone might actually have been taping what really happened (though apparently nobody since such footage has never surfaced?) And if they were or were not fake planes, does it change the fact that explosives brought down the towers? Given that it makes the movement look bad, why not just shelve that question for the time being? I'm wondering why the "web fairy" doesn't do that. And I suspect it's because the web fairy is a vehicle for disinfo and mockery.
Gurarenteed that there are
Gurarenteed that there are many moles in this movement, but Jim Hoffman is definately not one of them.
Look at WHO continues to focus on the no plane hit the Pentagon issue. Wing TV and other suspect website personas...
James, 500 mph (or 530 or
James, 500 mph (or 530 or 580 mph) is close to bullet speed. Some .38 caliber handgun bullets leave the barrel at about only 680 mph.
Also, thousands of witnesses saw & heard the 2nd tower hit by a real plane, in addition to all the videos.
I see no evidence for
I see no evidence for holograms, blue screens, etc. Digital video isn't perfect in it's raw form, and with compression and changes of format/compression via the web, it's physically impossible to support such allegations. Furthermore, thousands upon thousands of witnesses saw the 2nd plane hit at the location, millions more on multiple news channels. There may be debate about the physical characteristics of the planes, but debating whether there were planes damages our credibility.
Stick with what can be proved, mainly WTC7. That is the achilles heel of the criminals.
In my personal experience, the hologram/blue screen/fake plane stuff comes from over-analyzing things while in a susceptible state of mind. I almost went down that path after I first learned the truth of WTC7. I saw the webfairy site and was like, hmmm. Luckily my critical brain cells had enough juice to keep me centered.
I'm just being honest here. The way I see it, just as our minds were open to the mass mind rape of 9/11 because of our shock and grief, the shock and grief of truly KNOWING 9/11 was a lie can open one's mind to equally illusory perceptions coming from among the "truth movement".
the naudet film? are you
the naudet film? are you suggesting that the blob11 that naudet's captured resembles an airliner in any way? thousands of witnesses? there were as many witnesses claiming to have seen a small plane or even no plane as there were claiming to have seen an airliner.
so all thirty four of those were faked?
marcus icke has shown us the numerous anomolies applying to many of those.
only one video was shown "live" on that day, and even it was delayed by a good 10 seconds. it was filmed by a helicopter using a military camera set-up. and it was a depiction of an airbus not a 767 and it conveniently went behind the N tower so we didn't see the strike. all the rest of the strikes that we were shown didn't show up until later in the day as replays, which we were then shown over and over and then never again. even the strike shown at the beginning of loose change when slowed down shows a plane slipping/melting thru the side like a ghost. slow it down and see. oh you can't? i can't either so i accept the webfairy and marcus icke having done so. whatever. i believe that 175 was cgi'd onto the shots of wtc2 exploding, but i don't waste my breath trying to convince 911 newcomers of such a claim. like the man states above:
Stick with what can be proved, mainly WTC7.
i did suggest that we let this argument go.
_______________----
Jim Hoffman
Jim Hoffman www.911research.wtc7.net
I found that, in every aspect I considered, this evidence comports with the crash of a Boeing 757. At the same time, the evidence does not conclusively prove that the aircraft was a 757, much less that it was Flight 77. However, that lack of conclusiveness should not be surprising given the systematic suppression of evidence by authorities.
All he is saying is dont fall for the set up
Jim Hoffman is human and
Jim Hoffman is human and might be stubborn/passionate and incorrect about some topics, but he's no shill. Given more information, not speculation his positions on matters will change as more data comes in. Just look at the mass of work he has done while most others merely blathered on parroting the words of others. He's a keystone to this movement, though not perfect. Quit the sqabbles and refine the case as Jim has been doing for years.
THIS here is the MOST
THIS here is the MOST INTERSTING discussion.
now, we all want to know WHAT REALLY happened.
To me it looks a GREAT DEAL more convoluted than we all imagine....
picture this:
in order to make 6 bio people believe the official story, the best one can do is to
- make a stage-show, a copperfield magic show in reverse.
you MAKE SEEMINGLY IMPOSSIBLE THINGS
and make seem perfectly "normal".
Inthis way it will be difficult to CATCH YOU.. and anyone knowing the real story will not be believed, he must be a nutter... just like someone who BELIEVES Copperfield can overcome physics with his mind.
So there you have the nutters all in the same basket...
the strongest argument against 911 truth is the truthers who also believe in UFOs and fake Moon landing and HAARP and CONTRAIL and weathermodification and crop circles.
HOWEVER.
Ervery operation has a few oopsidaisies. I believe 911 was a PROPER COUP d'ETAT.
And 93 and 77 we NOT PLANNED as executed.
Pavel Hlava also videoed the
Pavel Hlava also videoed the plane hitting the South Tower.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9sM7N1Hz9k
Is his video fake too?
>>1) What happened to
>>1) What happened to "JusticeForWoody.org"..
Why don't you email Hoffman and ask him, instead of posting it here as though it suggests something sinister.
Do you even know what that site is about?
Hoffman is doing good science for 9/11 and made a huge contribution with the JFW website, which documented a police murder of a guy named Woody. Going through that event was how Hoffman learned about forensics and cover-ups. He applied what he learned to 9/11.
He's a real person doing real things and those posting false accusations on here are posting only that -- accusations which have no basis in evidence or truth. Anyone who doesn't agree with the no-plane positions is automatically labelled as an 'agent.' Pretty obvious what's up with that.
"we need our mass media to
"we need our mass media to expose the lie" ???
That will be the day hell freezes over. The media isn't going to do a thing about it - they can now be prosecuted for such activity.
'we need our mass media to
'we need our mass media to expose the lie' "???
That will be the day hell freezes over. The media isn't going to do a thing about it - they can now be prosecuted for such activity."
I agree. We have to give up the idea that we have to wait for the msm to get on board. That is the main problem that has made it so difficult to break out of this Orwellian stuppor that America has been under. Only until most people realize that they will have to stop relying on the msm for the truth, that the msm is not the source of reality, can we begin to move beyond this system of mass deception.
I suggest that we forget about the mass media and utilize the growing grassroots alternative media. For example, I have burned hundreds of DVDs about 9/11 and other stuff. That has the biggest potential to educate the majority of Americans about 9/11 - distributing DVDs and internet media while the internet is still open and free (which could disappear any time) on the grass roots level is our most potent weapon.
F*ck the msm. Make them irrelevent!