Help Support The Site

Mesothelioma & Asbestos Cancer
Hazardous asbestos fibers at the WTC exposed more than 110,000 people to the dangerous material; this includes 80,000 tower workers, 30,000 area residents and nearly 4,000 first responders. Asbestos exposure is directly linked to mesothelioma cancer and other asbestos-related diseases.

Banner Exchange

Axiom 2010 The Truth Tellers Conference Salt Lake City Utah

AE911Truth.org DVD


911truth.org


visibility911.com


firefightersfor911truth.org


www.dc911truth.org
Better bad news


PatriotsQuestion911.com

Entries in this section are created by individual users who register with this site and are largely unmoderated. Content in this section should not be interpreted as being supported by 911blogger.com, or by any other members of this site, and should only be viewed as a posting of the individual who created it. Please contact a team member if you notice a post which violates our general rules.

Visibility 9-11 Welcomes 9-11 Researcher Jim Hoffman

Visibility 9-11 Welcomes Researcher Jim Hoffman

This episode of Visibility 9-11 welcomes back to the program long time 9-11 researcher Jim Hoffman. Jim is a software engineer who has specialized in developing new algorithms, applications is computational geometry, and scientific visualization. His work has been instrumental in significant new scientific discoveries and has been featured in articles in Nature, Scientific American, Science Digest and Science News.

Jim’s work on 9-11 has laid an early foundation for the 9-11 truth movement and his work is often cited by important figures in the 9-11 movement such as Dr. David Ray Griffin, Richard Gage and Dr. Steven Jones. Focusing on what happened at the World Trade Center, Jim was one of the first people to point out facts surrounding the 3 building “collapses” on 9-11 including an extensive analysis of the Twin Towers and Building 7. His excellent website, wtc7.net, was one of the first websites to seriously ask if explosives were used at the World Trade Center on 9-11. wtc7.net has proved to be a timeless and valuable resource and, to this day, is waking up visitors to the site for the first time. Jim also currently maintains and regularly updates 911review.com and 911research.com.

Jim has also co-authored a book called Waking Up from Our Nightmare: The 9/11 Crimes in New York City with fellow 9-11 truth activist Don Paul. These two gentlemen also produced a video together called 9/11 Guilt: The Proof is in Your Hands. Both of these works focus on the mountain of evidence that all three high rises on 9-11 were brought down with the aid of pre-planted explosives.

Jim’s work is ongoing and he continues to publish valuable essays on the destruction of the Twin Towers and Building 7. His latest articles include Thermitic Pyrotechnics in the WTC Made Simple: Three Points of Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe that Anyone Can Understand, and Explosives Found in World Trade Center Dust: Scientists Discover Both Residues And Un-ignited Fragments Of Nano-Engineered Thermitic Pyrotechnics In Debris From the Twin Towers.

Jim Hoffman has also had a great impact on the 9-11 truth movement as a whole with his well-reasoned and documented critiques of popularly held myths within the movement itself. Through extensive fact checking and analysis, Jim has been able to identify the weakest claims in the 9-11 truth movement and expose them as likely misinformation. Misinformation takes many forms but is generally information which has not been substantially proven and can be patently ridiculous on its surface, which is spread by well meaning people who don’t take the time to do the research. Over the years, a pattern has emerged by personalities who insist on promoting some of the worst information about 9-11 that one can find. “No Planes” were used on 9-11, beams from space brought down the World Trade Center, or holograms and/or “TV fakery” was used instead of real planes at the WTC have all in one way or another been promoted by “Big Tent” advocates like Kevin Barrett, Jim Fetzer, Morgan Reynolds and others. Interestingly enough, these weakest of links in the pool of 9-11 information have been the same “straw man” arguments that have been used time and again by the mainstream media to attack our movement and discredit us. We at Visibility 9-11 think there are valuable clues to be found in these established patterns that would indicate a possible coordinated effort between disinformation specialists and the media to discredit our legitimate arguments and evidence.

This episode begins with an audio clip from a speech by Dr. William Pepper from June 2006. At the conference in Chicago, 9-11 Revealing the Truth, Reclaiming our Future, Dr. Pepper clearly warns the 9-11 truth movement about infiltration by specialists in disinformation and even gives an example of how he was duped during his research into the assassination of MLK. I was present during this speech and Dr. Pepper’s words had a great impact on me, which inspired the production of my Visibility 9-11 COINTELPRO Special Report in early 2007, where I interviewed both Jim Hoffman and Dr. Pepper on this topic. Visibility 9-11 also produced a newsletter entirely devoted to this topic, it’s history and manifestations in October of that same year. This is must reading if you are to understand how disinformation is being used to discredit YOU.

One of the main goals we have at Visibility 9-11 is to educate our listeners and ourselves about all aspects of the September 11th tragedy. To this end, we are taking on a more active role in addressing this important issue. In fact, we believe the issue of disinformation to be the most important issue that each of us face as 9-11 activists. As blogger Arabesque has pointed out many times, the “Official Story” is itself disinformation and must be regarded as such. Ultimately, we are the ones in the street and on the blogs and forums who will have to face the ridicule if our facts are not straight and if we are to be successful, we must learn to identify the disinformation and insert caution into your activism.

As pointed out by my guest on this program, it is agreed that central to the various themes of disinformation are the “no jetliner” claims, especially the “no 757" claims for the attack on the Pentagon. In spite of substantial resources being poured into books and videos which claim that there was no airliner crash at the Pentagon on 9-11, Jim Hoffman has published extensive work which would bring these claims into question. Careful examination of Jim’s work reveals a different picture of the Pentagon attack than the “no jetliner” advocates. We at Visibility 9-11 acknowledge that there are many valid reasons for us to believe the “no jetliner” claims. However, a closer look reveals the real possibility that the event at the Pentagon has been manipulated from the start through the use of “official” and un-offical sources.

This program takes a closer look at “Citizen Investigation Team” (CIT) and it’s biggest promoter Pilots for 9-11 Truth and their latest effort to advance the “no jetliner” theory. Their new video, National Security Alert, which is being aggressively promoted on the internet and at public events, alleges that not only did the Boeing jet not strike the Pentagon, but flew over it at the last minute in an elaborate deception that not a single witness has claimed to see, and, contradicts the testimony of hundreds of eyewitnesses in the area.

Direct download this episode: visibility911_hoffman_cit.mp3

(either click link to open internet player or right click and choose “save link as”)

Extensive research has been done to expose this hoax and is highly recommended reading:

The Pentagon Strike: Mysteries Persist in Pentagon Attack by Jim Hoffman
To Con a Movement: Exposing CIT’s PentaCon ‘Magic Show’ by Victoria Ashley
Google Earth Exposes Pentagon Flyover Farce by Jim Hoffman
CIT, Craig Ranke, Aldo Marquis, and the PentaCon Flyover Theory: Origin, Debate, and the ‘Smoking-Gun’ Anti-Controversy by Arabesque
Breaking Down CIT’s Bill of Goods by Jim Hoffman
CIT Virus by John Michael Talboo and ScootleRoyale

More related reading:

Visibility 9-11 COINTELPRO Special Report
Visibility 9-11 October 2007 Newsletter
Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation by H. Michael Sweeney

“If you really care about 9-11 truth, you will do your homework and only present to the public that which is the best, most documented and scientifically validated information at your websites, conferences, public events, street actions and other related activism.” –Michael Wolsey 8/2009

Related recent posts

Related recent post:

"What Hit the Pentagon?"
by Frank Legge
http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/WhatHitPentagonDrLegge.pdf
http://www.911blogger.com/node/20771

And other related Pentagon research:

How the FBI and 9/11 Commission Suppressed Key Evidence about Hani Hanjour, alleged hijack pilot of AAL 77
By Mark H. Gaffney
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22999.htm

Why did a Civilian Air Traffic Controller do a Better Job of Defending the Skies on 9/11 than NORAD?
By Arabesque July 25, 2009
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2009/07/why-did-civilian-air-traffic-co...

The F-16s That Failed to Protect Washington on 9/11: Was the Langley Jets' Emergency Response Sabotaged?
Shoestring
http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2009/05/f-16s-that-failed-to-protect-w...

Thank you Jim

I believed the OCT until I saw the implosion of WTC 7. Not knowing what I could do, I Googled WTC 7 and found wtc7.net. All the information needed to prove the OCT is a farce is there in the text and links. To this day it is the most comprehensive site and the best place to send people who have not been exposed to the other conspiracy theory.

We need to stop being afraid of the term 'conspiracy theory' and always point out that "OBL and 19 hijackers is a conspiracy theory" when confronted with this propaganda catch phrase.

We need to stop being afraid of the term 'conspiracy theory'...

Why not use "Conspiracy Hypothesist?"

"Conspiracy analyst"

That's what Gore Vidal calls himself.

Hows about

Straterigy Conspiracist

Skeptic

Truth seeking skeptic

Great interview.

Thank you.

I'm listening to the interview now.

The audio clip begins with a lengthy section on professional disinformation. After the William Pepper clip from 2006, where he speaks of disinfo in the MLK truth movement, the audio segues to Michael Wolsey, where he espouses his own angle on disinformation and how he came to learn about it.

This seems like an obvious set up to insinuate that CIT and Pilots for Truth are a massive disinfo op. I'm not too impressed so far but I'll keep listening.

FDR Misinfo

Nice interview Michael, Jim Hoffman really nails a lot of the points about CIT and their arguments which are really an exercise in special pleading: (My evidence counts, yours doesn't).

One point that I'm glad Jim Hoffman brought up one point in the interview because it is an example of misinformation that many seem to confuse. The FDR does NOT show the plane on a "north" approach. I'll repeat myself: the FDR supports the SOUTH approach. An animation which should be a "reconstruction" of the data found in the FDR is flat out wrong. It should match the info found in the FDR and it doesn't. This animation shows the plane on the "north" path, which is contradicted by the FDR data. I've explained this in depth here:

Misinformation: Flight 77 Flight Path "Contradicts" Official Story according to "Black Box Data"
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2009/07/misinformation-flight-77-flight...

The FDR and animation are two separate things. But people are mistaken when they claim that the "FDR" supports or contradicts the alleged flight path.

Amazingly enough, CIT has gone out of their way to NOT claim that the FDR or Animation supports the flyover theory. And yet so many people still believe this and this misinformation persists. This mistaken claim was even repeated in a Journal of 9/11 studies article.
_______________
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog

Can't have it both ways

The FDR shows the south flight path but it also has the plane way too high. If you accept the FDR then the you accept a much higher flyover.

Good point Chris.

Good point Chris.

CIT has never cited the fraudulent NTSB data as proving a flyover OR as corroborating the witnesses, although the data is irreconcilable with an impact, since the altitude reported is much too high to facilitate this.

While the animation depicts a northern approach heading completely north of the Navy Annnex it does not match the witnesses (who have it crossing directly over the Navy Annex from south of Columbia Pike) OR the raw data file that shows a southern approach heading.

Both the animation and the raw data, however, show an altitude too high to hit the building and even much higher than reported by the witnesses.

It's government controlled data, and if the PTB have been fucking with it, they've been doing so in such a way that it muddies the waters on all sides, not totally supporting the official reports but also not totally supporting the alternative hypothesis.

FDR is missing data, that's why the plane is "too high"

Chris, if you read my entire article, you would see that the reason why the plane is "too high" in the FDR data is because the last seconds of data is missing from the end of the FDR. 4-6 seconds before impact the FDR data ends. It is a mistake (i.e. misinformation) to claim that this supports a "flyover" because it does not at all.

Rob Balsamo: "as im sure many of you know, one of the excuses/arguments govt loyalists try to use is that there is up to 2-6 or more seconds missing from the FDR.
http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2008/01/missing-seconds-my-last-fdr...

John Farmer: "Since investigators have assumed that the FDR data is representative until ~1 second prior to impact (stopping recording at impact) numerous false assumptions regarding the data have resulted. In fact, as discussed before, the EOF for the FDR reflects a position 4 – 6 seconds prior to impact due to the time error in the RADES data. Further investigation is warranted to determine how and why the FDR data set was altered."
http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2008/01/missing-seconds-my-last-fdr...

As John Farmer points out, if you assume that the end of the data is the "impact" then the mistake will be made that the plane is "too high". If the data is missing, then of course, the plane is going to be higher than its alleged final impact altitude. So this data does not inherently contradict the official story of the flight path at all.

The missing FDR data is a legitimate issue worthy of investigation, unlike the claims of "flyover" and "north flight path" which are supported with really weak "evidence". And Rob's statement about "gov loyalists" is actually quite funny. I guess the light pole damage, witnesses, plane parts, radar data, etc, is all manufactured by the government too. 100 witnesses telling us of a plane impact are not "gov loyalists" much as many would like to believe.

There is no explanation for the FDR missing data and it is another 9/11 unsolved mystery. I believe that an explanation should be given for this and the videos should be released, but by not providing answers, the US government is encouraging "theories" and controversy. But it should be pointed out that the data that we do have supports the alleged flight path and approximate altitude of the plane.
_______________
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog

Misinterpretation

I was not saying that the FDR supported flyover but rather the FDR has been altered/erased and is not a case for anything other than fraud.
I have been following Rob's work and I must admit that the FDR thing is over my head. [pun intended]

The light poles are obviously faked and completely unnecessary. Flyover doesn't make any sense, why bother? This is a psy-ops red herring and it is having the desired effect - distraction and division. Originally I questioned the intelligence of CIT but after getting involved in this quagmire I tend to agree with Jim that their motives are suspect. Saying that north path = flyover is Monty Python. CIT's methodology is familiar.

So I'm curious...

Chris,

If you believe the case for the north path has been established beyond a doubt, and if you seem to agree that the light poles were staged...

... why would they crash the plane into the building?

If the plane did strike the building, how would the north approach be consistent with the damage path at the pentagon beginning with the E ring and ending up with the exit hole in the C ring?

To suggest that they staged the light poles, the damage path within the Pentagon, confiscated all the security videos, etc., while also suggesting that they actually crashed the plane into the building seems to be a far reach to me.

EDIT: I always wondered why the plane didn't DIVE into the Pentagon since that would be the most obvious approach. I now realize that the low level approach makes it possible for the plane to "pick up" and fly away at the precise moment.

About half way through.

Notes on the the interview thus far:

Jim opens up by recalling some of the early websites in the first years after the attack, ones which perhaps might have been actual disinfo.

He then talks about how here in 2009, we have Pilots for Truth and CIT, which together form one massive, "state of the art" (Jim's own words) disinfo op.

If Craig and Aldo were still members of this website, Michael's very blog entry would be breaking the rules, as Hoffman is openly accusing Craig and Aldo of being disinformation artists. I guess the membership loophole allows him to go unchecked on this.

Chris Sarns made the remark earlier, critical of CIT, that it's "very bad form" to interview someone and then, after leaving the interview, suggest on record that the interviewee is an "accomplice." If this is true, then it's equally bad form for Hoffman, a well respected researcher re the collapse of the WTC, to claim dedicated 9/11 investigators like CIT are a "state of the art" disinfo op.

Moving on:

Hoffman says a few minutes later that he himself bought in to the "no impact" theory early on, until he looked more thoroughly. Sorry, I still don't buy it.

Hoffman says that CIT cherry picks by showing only their 13 north side witnesses while ignoring the huge body of evidence which corroborates the official flight path and impact. But this is not true. There are no "104 witnesses" to a south side approach. Many of these witnesses deduced, after the fact, that the plane had crashed into the building and hit the light poles.

Hoffman also says that "not one" witness exists to a flyover. He says that all of these north side approach witnesses claim to see (or believe) that the plane hit the building. However, many were not in such a position to see the building and hence the impact. Many more were not in a position to see the light poles.

However, Roosevelt Roberts did claim to see a "commercial aircraft" flying away over light poles in the south parking lot "ten seconds tops" after the explosion at the Pentagon.

Not impressed so far, and I'm sorry that Wolsey and Hoffman feel the need to resorting to labeling Craig, Aldo, and the Pilots for Truth as a "state of the art" disinfo op simply because they share differing views on what happened at the Pentagon.

Back to listening...

Disinfo label?

I can't find a single place where they call anybody disinfo agents. Can you please site where this is? (Please give minutes/seconds mark.) Thanks!

I would love dearly to give minutes and seconds

Unfortunately, the mp3 link,

http://cdn2.libsyn.com/visibility911/visibility911_hoffman_cit.mp3?nvb=2...

doesn't feature the minutes/seconds thing, so it's a stab.

Drag the play circle to about half an inch from the left end. Hoffman talks about "PentaCon" being "state of the art disinfo."

Not to mention that this entire interview, of which CIT is the focus, is prepped up and introduced with a huge dissertation on "disinformation" by Wolsey.

Give me another version with minutes and seconds and I will gladly point out exact spots.

EDIT: I downloaded the file and am playing it with Windows Media Player.

Go to 19:40. At about 19:45 you'll clearly hear Hoffman referring to "PentaCon" as "state of the art in this kind of disinformation."

Now why except for camp-based voting

would the above comment be voted down? I was merely responding to a favor asked of me by another user, and by the time I edited the post, I was able to provide the exact M/S mark.

I'll go ahead and take this opportunity to add that what's also very strange is how Hoffman accuses CIT of being deceptive during their short presentation "CIT Jettin Crosstown":

But this presentation features no narrative, no hypothesis, and no conclusions whatsoever!

It's merely them driving around showing you the various points of view around the Pentagon! It's very thorough too as they take you to all the surrounding areas. It's amazing to me that Hoffman would call this deceptive without even bothering to explain why or how.

Forget it Adam

Some people are holding a grudge and will vote you down no matter what you say. Don't get worked up about it. Just stay as civil as possible and don't worry about votes.

Look at the behavior ...

I see your point, but they are just pointing to the BEHAVIOR of CIT, which they are saying looks like disinfo. And, to me, I agree with them. This is in contrast to an AD HOMINEM attack like in the following link where Craig Ranke calls Michael Wolsey an "alledged truther":

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=662

That tells me what I need to know about Craig Ranke. And in nowhere where you site, do they call anyone an agent. This cannot ever be proven, so even though it is all very engaging to think about, it is not very helpful to discuss somebody's intentions publicly. But, I find pointing out the behavior of individuals, like what Jim Hoffman has done in this interview, and what I just did with that link, is a very helpful way of determining another person's intentions.

If it quacks like a duck, Adam, more than likely it is one.

Absolutely Wrong!

PF,

In the 19:40 mark I cited (the word is "cite" not "site" btw) he is NOT referring to behavior. He is referring to their original VIDEO, and this was preceded by JH's speaking of the CONTENT of early Pentagon theories i.e. Thierry Meyssan's "Hunt the Boeing" website. He is very specifically referring to the HYPOTHESIS they are presenting. He is ABSOLUTELY NOT talking about CIT's BEHAVIOR.

At the point I cited, Hoffman is referring to "PentaCon" (the video) as "state of the art in this kind of disinformation" after having mentioned previous "no Pentagon plane crash" theories from early in the movement, like the missile theory.

Regarding CIT as personalities: Yes, they do more than "just ask questions" and "demand" a "new investigation." They do draw conclusions, which to them, are inescapable conclusions. Yes, they get snarky and question the motives of those who don't 100% agree. I wish they didn't do that. However, being a "rank and file" 9/11 truther is hard enough, as I know. It's enough psychological strain being thought of as crazy by people I know in real life who think it's absurd to suggest anything other than the OCT being true. It must be EXTREMELY difficult to do the hard work CIT has done only to receive so much resistance from within your own movement, in addition to the expected rejection that a truther would expect to receive from a non-truther. No wonder they get rather terse sometimes.

And what do you think of Hoffman's visual I pasted below? Not saying two wrongs make a right here, but 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?

How about each side put aside past incivilities and have a real, open debate moderated by someone who is neutral/undecided on the topic.

It is very unfortunate that this issue continues to be such a lightning rod. Some people on both sides think they have a monopoly on the truth.

(insert game-show-you-are-wrong buzzer here)

Dude, wouldn't be nice if there were just two sides to this argument as you suggest. I now wonder why you want everyone to think so. There are thousands of opinions about CIT. And you, my friend, have only one of them. Me too.

I cannot get on board with your take that it is OK to be disrespectful (which reminds me, sorry my typo was so offensive to you) just because you are stressed out. If you view CIT as heroes who don't get the credit they deserve, you have the right to. I have no problem with that. But it doesn't give them the right call into question a hard-working activist's integrity.

Thanks Michael and Jim

For realizing that if we don't talk truth - there is no truth movement.

Adam- you got PENTACONNED! Let's pin 9/11 on an old cabbie, a priest, a reporter, and a funeral mourner, because they ruin a "story" of the big majic act performed at the pentagon.
How embarrassing.

>>is the "Smoking Crack"

>>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.

Another example of an ad hominem attack

would be Adam Syed calling Arabesque an "anonymous spook".

And what does Adam say in this thread? "I'm sorry that Wolsey and Hoffman feel the need to resorting to labeling Craig, Aldo, and the Pilots for Truth as a 'state of the art' disinfo op simply because they share differing views on what happened at the Pentagon."

No further comment necessary.

During my several years in

During my several years in this movement, I have indeed said some uncivil things. I have even openly suspected some people's motives of not being genuine.

About six months ago a fellow truther suspected ME of being an agent. Guess what? I didn't hold a permanent grudge. I even stayed at this person's house several months later. There is such a thing as forgive and forget.

forgive and forget ...

... can also apply to smoking crack graphics.

Good for you for admitting you were uncivil.

When, now or later? 911

When, now or later?

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

Bias much?

I'll note that Adam has called me an agent more than once on this site over the CIT issue and yet he is expressing concern about the same happening to CIT... when it never even happened as President Ford correctly points out! When stuff like this happens I'm not really concerned about convincing people that they are wrong when they show such obvious examples of bias. I'm pro free speech, but I'm going to point it out when you say absurd things.

There are CIT supporters who literally claim that the fact that a witness gave false information "only proves how certain" he was of the flight path. I couldn't convince you the sky is blue if you make arguments like this.

Ranke:

"Nobody saw a global hawk people.
Nobody saw a missile.
There were no missiles or global hawks.

The time for speculation is done.
We now have PROOF."
http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/cit-craig-ranke-aldo-marquis-an...

So Ranke can say on the one hand that there were no witnesses of a "missile" and "global hawk" proving that it didn't happen.
On the other hand he can say they have "proof" of a flyover when there are no witnesses of a flyover (sorry, U-turn witnesses describing a C-130 don't count as a "flyover")

That it is so easy to point out this bias and yet support for the work of CIT continues speaks to something about the 9/11 truth movement. There are a lot of irrational people in the 9/11 "truth" movement.
_______________
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog

when it never even happened as President Ford correctly points o

when it never even happened as President Ford correctly points out!

Wrong, sir. I've documented this amply on this thread, more recently with a post on page 3.