Scholars for Truth

In light of Jim Fetzer's open letter to Steven Jones and the obvious diversionary/disruptive tactics of Morgan Reynolds and Judy Woods, it seems worthwhile to recall some early criticism of Scholars for Truth

The idea of Scholars For 9/11 Truth is a very powerful one, given the respect people give to credentialed individuals. Since November of 2005, Steven Jones has made tremendous progress in getting people to seriously consider the possibility that the World Trade Center skyscrapers were destroyed by controlled demolition, largely because of his qualifications as a professor of physics. Sadly, Scholars For 9/11 Truth might not have its intended effect of building on Jones' work. Instead it is likely to have the effect of discrediting it by associating it with junk science, such as that used to promote the no-planes theories. Because of the visibility of the flawed website, this seems probable despite the good intentions and excellent credentials of many of the group's members.

I very much admire, and have very much profited from, Professor Jones’s article. Let me then make bold by taking a liberty perhaps more appropriate were it to come from his mother: Choose your 911 friends and your 911 professional affiliations carefully and wisely. The focus on molten iron and steel notwithstanding, 911 is not about forensics.

PS I still plan on writing a response to the second half of Alex Cockburn's "Why Did the WTC Collapse" essay. Probably in the next two weeks.

I totally agree with

I totally agree with Hoffman's points.

Take a look over these articles between Hoffman and Fetzer if you haven't:

Fetzer's reaction to Hoffman's well written critique spoke volumes as to Fetzer's desire (or lack there of ) for scientific credibility.

Me too

If Scholars splits, it will be a good thing in the long run. However, even if we do spend some time attacking each other, we need to remember to focus mot energy outwards.

BTS records: no 11, no 77

Is this a no plane

Is this a no plane comment?... or a not the same plane comment?


It's a maybe-Jones-would-do-well-to-get-the-basic-facts-straight comment.
Did you have a chance to look at the links?

Steve "Los Almos" Jones doesn't overlook anything...

Steve "Los Almos" Jones doesn't overlook anything... as long as it pays for a new house.

How many people do you know who say they are out of job go out and buy a new house? ...and take business trips to Los Almos?

Hoffman called it

thanks for the reminder

Hoffman is a spook, feel

Hoffman is a spook, feel free to vote this down if you're with the Spooks...

Why 9/11 Truthlings are siding with Spooks Hoffman, Jones against
November 20, 2006

(ed: Jim Hoffman has multiple links to NSA, NASA and 9/11 itself!
His former Instititute The Mathematical Sciences Research Institute has amongst its sponsors The Office of Naval Research, which also worked in the Pentagon wing, that got attacked on 9/11.
Hoffman's Uncle Jack Hoffman furthermore is married to June Armstrong, sister of ex-NASA and "moon veteran" Neil Armstrong.

Armstrong's company Veridian (*now General Dynamics) received in 1998 a pre-9/11 "Star Wars" contract by NSA and NRO under the codename "Project Trailblazer".
Once again the 9/11 connection is the Pentagon.
5 Employees of BoozAllen Hamiltion and BTG Inc., also working on Trailblazer got killed on the morning of 9/11.

This year's so called "eavesdropping" scandal of the NSA was a smokescreen to distract from Trailblazer and the Star Wars Program (this also includes Raytheon's and Ionatron's Department of Directed-Energy Weapons), which is the very same central topic of the current affair within 9/11 Scholars.

It is also not a coincidence, that once manipulated and brainwashed, 9/11 Truthlings prefer to side with Professor Jones, who had strong ties with Los Alamos, (on behalf of his own research on exotic weaponry, i.e. Sonoluminescence etc..) same to former director of, David Kubiak.

The turn against Jim Fetzer, now courageously fighting for Wood/Reynolds comes therefore as to no surprise.
The 9/11 Truth Movement is run by spooks and cultists, among them also Les Jamieson, URANTIA (, itself infiltrated by U.S. Intelligence since the 50s (Neal Waldrop, ex-NSA etc...)

The 9/11 truth spooks will continue to make sure to reject the biggest smoking guns like 9/11 TV Fakery and unconventional weaponry reg. Twin Towers.
Hoffman himself, who lacked credibility on u-turning on the Pentagon and Shanksville, desperately tried to repair his reputation here
The very same (ex-)spooks, who are linked to Star Wars, among them also 9/11 Truth party candidate Arch Bishop Bob Bowman, try now desperately to cover-up these links. At the '9/11 truthling spooks' do currently have their biggest "fans".

In England, the 9/11 Truth Movement is controlled by exMI5 David Shayler and/or Nafeez Ahmed, who is himself a supporter of the official story of 9/11)

See also Hayden and the NSA- the most ignored "9/11 connection"?

If they have mastered the

If they have mastered the use of this weapon.... were all cooked.... literally.

Nico=ForgottenScripts/SpookControl=Unemployed con man

Nico Haupt,

Nice to see you posting under two new names:


I guess now you can damage 911blogger even more, with your ridiculous claims that everyone is an agent, except for Holmgren and Webfairy, your manipulators and handlers who pull your strings.

There is a special place in hell for people like you.

I wonder how long it will be before you call Fetzer an agent. I'd give it about four months tops.

Hoffman is a spook

I have to comment here because I met Hoffman at a 9/11 forum. I personally do not feel that he is a spook. He did not convey any facial or body language to me that indicated that he was anything other than a researcher(ie: discomfort over discussing certain issues). I spoke with him at length over the Pentagon plane/no plane issue and after having gone to his site and viewed the well pieced together images of the precollapse he's convinced me that a plane probably did hit the Pentagon. Of course I can't be sure that it was 77. We also can not be sure if a missle or bomb went off prior to a plane hitting(I think that's what happened due to people smelling cordite and the Pentagon clocks all stopping 5 minutes prior to the supposed plane impact.).

He might have had relations through funding at one point or another to suspicious groups(The Office of Naval Research) but here's the rub, so has anyone who has worked in a federal lab. Additionally, many folks in acadameia have been funded through the Feds. This does not prove that they are spooks. I would be considered a spook myself if this was the case. I myself think that the CIA needs to be dismantled and rebuilt. It needs congressional oversite and none of these black ops should be occurring at all. The US public needs to have an idea of what our agency's are doing in our name abroad.

Nothing that Hoffman has done to date makes me feel that he is a spook. If you could list some of the exact issues that call into question his integrity(other than guilt by association) then I'd be more than happy to listen. It's a difficult game we're all playing. Trying to get to the bottom of 9/11 and having to vet our sources carefully to avoid being misled. And that's just the tip of the damn iceberg.


I say trust your gut- Hoffman is the real McCoy, anyone who has read his work would know as much. Don't waste time on outlandish space weapons and the like. Hoffman uses simple observation, solid research, and common sense to make his case, the main reason DRG and Jones often credit him in their lectures.

This is bullshit that relies

This is bullshit that relies on guilt by association and has no basis in anything remotely logical, reasonable, or true.

Isn't the point of all of

Isn't the point of all of this to convince people that the official version of events does not fit the facts, either on 9/11 or with what has been uncovered since, and to move the majority of Americans to push for a vigorous reinvestigation?

If Fetzer wants to keep researching his new theory privately, that's fine. But if he is unwilling to accept that ANY public mention of space beams will immediately reduce the credibility of truth activism to the likes of crop circles in the public mind, one needs to ask: if it hurts the greater goal (and it does, no question), why do you persist? Even if the theory turns out to be validated in the distant future, given that it can't be proven without major whistleblowing or as yet uncovered video evidence -- if you hurt the cause in the here-and-now, you are creating the same problems as someone bent on disinfo.

Additionally, to promote that theory means that the planning included many more people at the outset, and that makes for another public hurdle.

Please make it go away. To insist on your right to publicize this NO MATTER WHAT is dishonorable.


I think that hits at an essence of the problem.

"There are none so hoplessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free" (Goethe)..... a paraphrase from V: Cast aside the illusions. Only when you are finally hopeless can you truly be free.

Hoffmans the real damage to the movement

i recently say a thread at some group discussing the attack,
one guy went on to use a URL from to show that the buildings collapsed over 2 times the speed of free fall.

He also tries to convince people that "pull it" was not an industry term.
That statement in 1 fell swoop, takes away the Silverstien WTC7 comment.

Hoffman seems to consistently give the "Conspiracy Busters" plenty of fuel

ANyone who spends 3 times the amount of time on proving
CT'ers wrong, and hardly anytime pointing fingers at the government, is doing damage to the movement.
how do people not see this ?

Do you know how much time and money it took him to take the whole 911revieworg site, mirror it, then add his slanderous comments ?

He did this without contacting us,
this was his DEBUT in the 9/11 world.

Anyone searching for the truth would have wanted to work with us, not conspire against us.

He tells people on the site that has broken links.
He states this several times
Well, there were 2 WIKI's.
Wiki's constantly have broekn links, since pages are added regularly.

He tries to use that fact to sy that is false opposition.

Then he comes out very publically saying that a 757
DID hit the Pentagon.

think about it.
Hoffman IS the problem !


Hoffman's an agent because

Hoffman's an agent because he criticized you and your website? Sounds familiar.

Hoffman kills the WTC-7 "Pull it" statement

Below, is something from a controlled Demo expert.

"I've had enough.
The term "pull it" means pull it over. The term isn't used much today, because of the modern equipment used by demolition contractors. Fifty years ago wrecking contractors were less affluent, they depended more on ingenuity in the work place than on equipment. This was especially true when large buildings were taken down with hand labor. In those situations most interior and exterior walls had to be cabled and "pulled" in onto floors. Before you "pulled" the walls you would place old truck tires on the floor to cushion the shook and maintain the integrity of the floor your working on. In those days wrecking contractors would often attach cables to trucks or a dozer to collapse a section of a building or whole buildings. With advent of backhoes, skid loaders you don't have the need for cabling that you did in those days"

Hoffman says this...

Apparently Larry silverstein tries to explain something to us in the 2002 PBS documentary ‘America Rebuilds’:
“I remember getting a call from the, uh, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "You know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is, is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse.”

I mailed Jowenko BV and asked if 'pull' was an industry term for 'demolish'. They said it wasn't. Implosionworld said the same thing. I run into the same problem when looking into different dictionaries. There is always a distinction made between 'pull down', 'pull away' and 'pull back'. And I have not been able to find one person on the internet who uses this word as a substitute for 'demolish'. So I think it's safe to assume that Larry needs to clarify what he ment, but unfortunatly he refuses to do that.

So because LARRY doesnt feel like clarifying, and its not in the dictionary, well then,
i guess we should forget about the Pull-it term ?

Right !

Hoffman's an agent because

Hoffman's an agent because he doesn't want to focus on the weakest evidence for the CD of building 7? You sound like Fetzer now.


Send Hoffman this link:

PM "Researchers" Benjamin Chertoff & Davin Coburn can't agree on what the term "Pull it" means

Make sure you point out Danny Jowenko's statement that I included regarding Larry Silverstein's "Pull it" comment, because Jowenko agrees that "pull it" means to demolish a building. Here's the video of him saying this:

Watch it from the beginning, though. Jowenko confirms that the term "Pull it" means to demolish @ 2:05 into the interview.

If you get a response from Hoffman, please post it on this thread and/or the blog thread I posted above. Thanks.


Isn't this the tag-team sport that two of our more high profile posters here always seem to engage in?

Shill !!!

Shill !!!

Even cha;;enging people with questions can be dangerous around here.

good points

serious 9/11 researchers have known for years that Hoffman was a plant; since about the time of his PopMech "rebuttal" which spent 90% of its energy shilling for the official story and attacking other researchers.

It used to be cute when Alex Jones showed 0 discernment by having that charlatan on over and over -- it reminded us that even the great Alex is prone to error -- but it's not so cute anymore....

Hoffman's rebuttal of the

Hoffman's rebuttal of the Popular Mechanics debunking piece demonstrates how phony theories and straw men are used to discredit legitimate concerns. A good example of a phony theory, classic example, is "Fetzer's" toxic mix of explanations for the collapse in this very thread.

Serious 9/11 researchers don't tout every line of shit that comes down the pike, and smart people understand how those that do tout every manner of wild theory do a disservice to the truth simply by putting it into a context of lies.

This is obvious.

There's something about Jim Hoffman . . .

If you want my take on Jim Hoffman, I was puzzled by his early attacks on Scholars and on me personally. It took a while for me to figure out that, in every case, his attack on Scholars and on me was a DEFENSE of the official government account. I have laid out the evidence for my conclusions about him in these articles I wrote in response to his attacks. He refused to put them on his web site. I have links to his attacks but he has none to my replies, which is a form of suppression of evidence that violates some basic requirements of scientific reasoning. The first post here suggests that I am UNSCIENTIFIC! Well, that's a curious use of language when I am systematically laying out the evidence that Hoffman is working the other side of the street. I welcome any who want to dispute my conclusion. I am not infallible. But unless you look at the evidence, you leave yourself vulnerable to being played for a sucker. Try it. Confronting the truth can be an invigorating experience!

Show "Mission accomplished Fetz! I" by Anonymous (not verified)

This isn't helpful.

This isn't helpful.


That's a cool picture, but really.

Close examination of

Close examination of Hoffman's work shows that he is very reluctant to pin the blame for 9/11 on the administration. He fully accepts the official version of the four hijacked Boeings, including the Shanksville crash.
He rejects basement bombs in the WTC and seems agnostic on virtually every other theory of demolition. If it is possible to wrap up the official story in the clothes of apparent 9/11 research, he manages to do it.

Hoffman was one of the first

Hoffman was one of the first to argue for CD. I hardly think that supports the official story. And doesn't Hoffman point to the PNAC document?

Steve "Los Almos" Jones backs him all the way to the bank!

And Steve "Los Almos" Jones backs him all the way to the bank!

"close examination"..??

Erh, doesnt sound like you studied any of his work even remotely close. Or if you did, there seems to have been a pretty substantial problem understanding it.
maybe read it again#?!!
These accusations are just ridiculous.
"He doesnt support my theory hence he is supporting the gouvernment version". WTF. This is nothing but supid black+white ism.
I can totally understand how hard it must be for Hoffman to keep his head + name out of all the crappy 'reesearch' out there and that this will lead to exactly such accusations from 'truth warriors' who are oh so 100% sure their own version of the events +how to present them is just right. Makes me sick.


Instead of debating who is an agent and who is not - why don't you all stick to the researchg and facts.


If we can prove, by means of

If we can prove, by means of research, that somebody is an agent ,doesn't that become a significant fact? That would mean we exposed one of the criminals!!! 9/11 was perpetrated by agents!!


Hoffman first said that RF energy made the towers collapse, with some kind of ultra secret huge antenna and rtansmitter in the bottom of the towers.
only an idiot (or disinfo artist) WOULD SAY THAT.

think about his past.
he pretends to be very credible, then , after getting his name recognized, and after telling everyone that no plane hit the pentagon, he backtracks, and attacks the very thoery he supported. Then calling the same people who he was "peers" with, No-Planers, and discrediting them, and calling them rediculous.
Hoffman is the one who started the attacks on researchers, not the other way around.
This was evident when he created, ripping Elliot off, behind his back, then stabbing him in the back, without the coutesy of even an email.
I know, i was there.
In the begening he was in email lists with other researchers, then, he (at the time he backtracked on the pentagon) stopped talking to them, and started attacking them.
Now, he is going after some of the best evidence we have, and calling it disinfo.
Someone spent a lot of time and money on his pages, just a bit too coincidental if you ask me...

911review.Com is a rip-off of the domain name that will lead to confusion of the Internet users with our site.

The site copies the structured look-and-feel of and copies many of same page and file names of the most important pages of
It also copies the look-and-feel of the sidebar of topics set in a small font; however, unlike which uses collaborative editing software to automatically generate the sidebar based on the pages structure, the confusion site leads its readers around in circles with a list of topics that do not correspond to the site's structure.

The domain name is registered to Paul Borneo. The author of this site establishes his activist credentials by being a spokesperson for the "Justice for Woody" movement that has its roots in a bizarre story about police shooting a man in a church who was threatening to kill himself with a knife. The story is so bizarre it may be true, but it's safe as a church as an activist cause: the killing of unarmed people by police has reached epidemic proportions in the United States, so killing a man with a knife would be considered routine, even in a church.

But author of this site is not the only person to establish his activist credentials from this movement: this is a claim of the operator of another website, operated by Jim Hoffman. The author of that website is well-known to 9/11 researchers, appearing under a number of different monikers and email addresses. Jim Hoffman established his activist pedigree using the "Justice for Woody" movement, which was promoted by a long-time friend of Boreno's John Kaminski; the three of them used to live in Brattleboro VT. Hoffman joined various 9/11 mailing lists under a number of different emails and personae, claiming at various times to be an artist, a software entrepreneur, and at the the SPINE list of, which says it's credentials based, he is listed as a physician. In fact, we understand that his degree is in Fine Arts, which may explain his creative approach to the laws of chemistry and physics.

If fact, based on a careful study of our website's logs, Jim Hoffman's real job was found to be as a [WWW]computer engineer for a "research institute" at one of the US Government's most important Laboritories: Lawrence Berkeley Labs, and his real email is . The Mathematical Sciences Research Institutehas amongst its sponsors:

The National Security Agency
The Office of Naval Research, which acts as the research arm of the Office of Naval Intelligence.
The Department of Energy, manager of the US nuclear laboritories such as Lawrence Berkeley and Livermore.

Naive members of the "9/11 Truth" community had accepted Hoffman's descriptions of himself as an artist with activist credentials at face value, but when confronted with the disclosure of his real occupation and employers, he became indignant ( [WWW] rule 2), and vanished from the mailing list ( [WWW] rule 25).

Jim Hoffman's specialty on 9/11 is long involved technical papers that are too complex to for most people to follow ( [WWW] rule 2 ). For example, his Dust Clouds paper, makes no sense at all. The use of the ideal gas law for the expansion of the dust clouds is absurd: the ideal gas law is a Carnot Cycle / equilibrium thermodynamics calculation. It's an absurdity to do a calculation of the mean of the Boltzmann distribution of kinetic energy at thermodynamic equilibrium on a mixture of concrete and office workers that has been blasted out horizontally almost the width of the TwinTowers . Not only it is not equilibrium, it's not a gas - it's a mixture. There's no evidence the dust clouds were heated to hundreds of degrees centigrade, and even if you had the enthalpy to heat it, you could not thermally heat it in the time allowed because of the kinetics ([WWW] rule 13).

As might be expected, the author of 911review.Com uses Jim Hoffman's Dust Clouds paper in lieu of research: we begin see an interlock between the sites. 911review.Com is in turn cited by another website that recently sprang up,, which is a part of a concerted campaign to discredit the Wtc2PlanePod evidence. We find on its pod-exam.htm

Unfortunately, we have yet to see even one single expert provide technical analysis that proves any aspect of the pod theory. Zip, zilch, nada, nothing. Not a single self proclaimed, anonymous expert has attempted to validate the pod theory, let alone anyone with a name and a title.

which is ignorant nonsense, especially given that the site's author lists [WWW] in the sidebar, the site that first presented the pod evidence, and links to the published reports in newspapers and universities. The site's author Milkydoo1 places 911review.Com in the sidebar along with [WWW] . one of the oldest and best War On Freedom websites (and amongst our very select Mirrors), and [WWW], the reference 9/11 research site, in order to give legitimacy to the confusion site, by insinuating the 911review.Com site into a short list of the best sites on the Internet ( [WWW] rule 8).

Unfortunately the CIA/NSA/DIA and ONI probably have close to unlimited budgets these days for their War on Freedom, and the oversight of the intelligence community by American democratic institutional mechanisms was effectively terminated on November 22 1963. Fake Terror is a racket: the harder they hit, the more money they get, which makes us ask WhatsNext.

See our page:MisinfoSites.


[WWW] Wing TV - Connect the Dots by Victor Thorn - December 7, 2004

1 The real name and location of the website's registrant is not disclosed.