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.

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

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/

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.

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 911review.com, 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...

http://911review.org/Wiki/911Review.com.shtml

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

The site copies the structured look-and-feel of http://911review.org and copies many of same page and file names of the most important pages of 911review.org
It also copies the look-and-feel of the sidebar of topics set in a small font; however, unlike 911review.org 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 wtc7.net, 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 physics911.org, 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 mailto:jim@msri.org . 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, 911wideopen.com, 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] serendipity.li 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] serendipity.li . one of the oldest and best War On Freedom websites (and amongst our very select Mirrors), and [WWW] 911review.org, 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.

Links:

*
http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2003/12/91767_comment.php#102164
*
[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.