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.

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

Nico Haupt,

Nice to see you posting under two new names:

ForgottenScripts
SpookControl

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.

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 on guilt by association and has no basis in anything remotely logical, reasonable, or true.

I must refute the accusation that David Shayler is still working for M15. He recently visited our local truth group in Norwich and gave a devastating talk about the corruption, the lies, the pysops and the
double-dealing that has gone on in MI5 in the last 20 years. Some of what he said is extremely sensitive and frankly unprintable. He is in my view a very brave guy who left M15 because he was appalled that they were sponsoring acts of terrorism and funding terrorist goups.

I too am putting my security on the line by writing this. He said that there are files on thousands of known 'activists', including most of the British Cabinet, who were left-wing 'troublemakers ' when they were younger. There is probably by now a file bearing my name - maybe I flatter myself.

He is also devastating on the evidence for government involvement in the London bombings of 7/7/05. Would M15 want to do that?

His call for action was the most inspirational I have heard. I can still hear his words ring in my ears. ""Do we want to be the generation that gave away Democracy?''

If David is an agent, could we lots more like him, please.

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

http://911review.org/WTC/WTC7_pullit_Industry-term.html

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"

BUT,
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 !

http://911review.org/

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
http://www.911blogger.com/node/4524

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:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sep-HDZoEBM

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.

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.