Michael Woolsey Interviews Jim Hoffman

Visibility 9-11 interview with Jim Hoffman - visibility911.libsyn.com

This broadcast features an interview with author and researcher Jim Hoffman. Jim is the producer of the websites wtc7.net and 911research.com and co-author of the book "Waking Up From Our Nightmare" and co-producer of the video "9/11 Guilt: The Proof Is In Your Hands". Jim has researched and written extensively into the collapse of the WTC twin towers and WTC 7.

Thanks Jon for the heads up!

This is really good for

This is really good for anyone who's interested.

i still gotta get his DVD,

i still gotta get his DVD, any reviews?

If you read his little book

If you read his little book "Wakig From Our Nigtmare", you aren't missing anything.

Considering that Michael

Considering that Michael Wolsey has long been "pulling a Hoffman" ( http://911u.org/CoDR/graphics/HoffmanOmittedFlashFrame+.gif ) here in Colorado, it's fitting (and handy, and convenient, too) that one gatekeeper (Hoffman has also long kept from entering people's minds the full meaning behind what the Pentagon video evidence reveals) should interview another.

It's amazing that so many of the supposed leaders and "respected researchers" of the 9/11 truth movement have, for so long already, and so many times, gotten away with dismissing/disparaging/suppressing -- and, worse, getting other 911 truthers to disregard -- so much of the same 9/11 evidence that was omitted from the 9-11 Commission Report... It's not hard to recognize a pattern this repetitive unless one refuses to see it; they've ignored and gotten others to ignore: the brief bright burst of light upon WTC1 impact, the Pentagon video evidence, Bush's incriminating statements... http://911blimp.net/$500reward.shtml http://911blimp.net/sounds/BarrieZwickerMisdescribesIncriminatingBushTVs...

Alas, "fake opposition" fools most of the people most of the time... http://911u.org/CoDR/graphics/2heads,sameMonster.gif

Chris, Don't bother. I


Don't bother. I bought Jim Hoffman's DVD and I was thoroughly disappointed. Of all my 9/11 DVDs, this is the absolute worst. It is just a boring, low quality video recording of Jim's lecture in Los Angeles. Don Paul's lecture about the financial elite was slightly more interesting, but he kept rocking back and forth so insesently nonstop to the point that it made me dizzy and exasperated. There's at least 20 other 9/11 DVD's that would be a better investment than Hoffman's.

I consider Jim Hoffman a disinfo agent, anyway, because of his efforts to divide and harm the 9/11 truth movement by unfairly attacking other researchers in the movement. Particularly regarding the Pentagon attack, Jim disparages the efforts of, and questions the motives of, those researchers who refuse to ignore the fact that the available evidence is entirely inconsistent with the crash of a jetliner at the Pentagon. There is a large consensus in the 9/11 truth movement that flight 77 did not crash into the Pentagon. Only a small handful of disinfo agents, including Jim Hoffman, are still attempting to uphold the official myth of flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon. He also ludicrously claims that those researchers who dispute the validity of the cell phone calls are just trying to alienate the family members, despite the well known scientific fact that cell phones can't be used above 4000 feet and on planes traveling faster than 400mph.

Because of these and other examples of Jim Hoffman's destructive tactics causing great harm to the truth movement, I don't believe anything Jim Hoffman says anymore and I consider him PSYOPS or COINTELPRO.

thanks for the heads up. the

thanks for the heads up. the funding aspect of it looked interesting, but i'll take your advice.

Jim Hoffman may not have the

Jim Hoffman may not have the best design aesthetically but his research...and maybe his reseach alone...is probably the best on WTC demolition and the collapse of WTC7...no one, and I mean no one, has more than Jim in those catergories

Keenan, your always

Keenan, your always slandering Hoffman as an agent...

I disagree with your statement

"There is a large consensus in the 9/11 truth movement that flight 77 did not crash into the Pentagon."

you cant explain all the witnesses except by saying that their all in on it too, right?

also with the cell phones...it is NOT impossible to make/recieve cell phone calls from a plane. Also there is something called an AIRPHONE, you have flown in a plane before right?

many of the witnesses had

many of the witnesses had connections to the military(naturally based on its location) and some witnesses said they saw a plane that was well smaller than a jumbo jet. and then there is the problem of the 84 friggin videos that have been confiscated and never seen by the public.........

Hoffman has a 'thing' about

Hoffman has a 'thing' about the Pentagon, but his demolition stuff is impressive.

It is strange how some folk state categorically that flight 77 hit the Pentagon yet are much less
evangelical about demolition, declaring it to be 'unproven theory' or 'best left to the experts'.

Try telling that to David Ray Griffin, who is not a scientist has written some of the most respected texts on demolition.

By the way, why is it that 911truth.org contains no articles by Griffin but several instead that support the official theory?

And why is 911Eyewitness never mentioned on this blogger? Did anyone see it at Chicago?

Chris, I understand your

Chris, I understand your points but only a very small percentage of witnesses said they saw something other than flight 77...I read all the witness statments that are available and there are quite a few that are not military but just people who happened to be in the area. Also I wouldnt dicount someone just because their in the military...do you expect everyone to be in on it? even if you did, how could you explain the non-military witnesses saying they saw the same thing?

they sure did confiscate those videos...but if they really wanted everyone to forget the no plane theory wouldnt they just make a fake video showing the plane? you know... instead of one that pushes that theory into the spotlight again?