Visibility 9-11 Welcomes Jim Hoffman
This week Visibility 9-11 visits the topic of COINTELPRO in the 4th part of a new series on issues facing the 9-11 Truth Movement. "Left gatekeepers", dis-information specialists, agent provocateurs, and internet "trolls" all work to distract and/or discredit the fine work of literally thousands of good and caring Americans involved in 9-11 Truth. It is important to recognize the history of things our government has done which has violated every tenet of a free society.
This broadcast welcomes back to the program, Jim Hoffman. Jim has co-authored a book Waking Up From Our Nightmare; The 9/11/01 Crimes In New York City and co-produced the video 9/11 Guilt; The Proof Is In Your Hands with Don Paul, and runs the websites wtc7.net and 911research.com. Jim has written extensively on the topic of dis-information within the 9-11 truth movement. His articles include:
The Pentagon No-757-Crash Theory: Booby Trap for 9/11 Skeptics
The Pentagon Crash: What the Physical Evidence Shows
Sifting Through Loose Change
ScholarsFor911Truth: Muddling the Evidence
These essays and many more can be found at Jim's website.
Counter Intelligence Programs, or COINTELPRO, are one more example of the federal governments' raping of our rights. These abuses were going on during the 50's, 60's and 70's, and though they were prohibited by the Church Committee regulations, they have not ceased. They are alive and well within political groups which would seek to bring about truth, justice and accountability to our government. 9-11 Truth is no exception and activists need to educate themselves on the "dirty little tricks" our government uses against our rights to free speech and association. Only then, can we learn to recognize, and then address the attempts which would tear down all of our hard work.
This episode can be downloaded here.
Intermission music by Martin Noakes.
- Michael's blog
- Login to post comments
This is Rick Siegel
Rick - is it true that you share an IP address with Nico Haupt who recently disrupted a 911 Truth meeting in a church with swastikas and feces?
Nothing
we're just saying you have no integrity.
why would we feel any need to defend the integrity of Jim Hoffman (whose research speaks for itself) to YOU who supports and defends Nico Haupt?
This is like comparing apples to......shit.
And according to Hoffman's site...
"The idea that Hoffman has or had some connection with the NSA never had a shred of truth, but Michael Elliot's flimsy "research" served the pathetic campaign to defame Hoffman."
And flimsy Rick Siegel jumps on it as well.
http://911research.wtc7.net/re911/adhominem.html
"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."
Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton
if only...
Siegel used his super powers for good instead of evil.
On a different note - Jon - ever read the book Mother Night? Great book. Just finished it.
From the NY TImes:
"Campbell, a successful playwright, is recruited by a mysterious United States government operative to go under cover as a secret agent. Seduced by the romance of the idea, Campbell allows himself to be swept along by the surging tide of Nazi propaganda, and, in the guise of a pro- Hitler radio commentator, he provides encoded information to the Allies. His anti-Semitic speeches are so inflammatory, however, that everyone views Campbell as an upper-echelon Nazi. Members of the party congratulate him on his great work, and his social circle includes the likes of Goebels and Hoess. When the war ends, he faces trial -- and possibly execution -- for war crimes, because those elements of the U.S. government that recruited him refuse to acknowledge his status."
Sad story. I actually felt sorry for the guy. He ends up hanging himself in his jail cell when he comes to the full realization of the betrayal to his fellow humans he is responsible for.
No...
Never read that book. Last book I read was "Angels & Demons".
"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."
Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton
Kurt Vonnegut is absolutely
Kurt Vonnegut is absolutely one of my favorite authors and that is one of his best books.
Rick Siegel...
Is it true you would rather make money selling bullshit, and dishonoring those that perished on 9/11 than help the movement achieve its' goal of absolute truth, and absolute accountability?
"So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies."
Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton
ok
lets all pretend we don't know 'constitutionalist' is Rick Siegel.
shhhh........
Albanese & Gold
are expressing their opinions - just like everyone else here. Get off it.
My opinion . . .
is that the substance of Jim Hoffmann's views on 9/11 is a lot more interesting than his views on what is or is not disinfo, and whether he himself is disinfo.
Sorry, but a Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon
And then you see that the eyewitnesses they cite include a bunch of military folk and even some dude who works for the neocon national review online.
http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/witnesses.html
Instead of just saying they disagree with those who don't believe the official story, they go out of their way to insinuate that anyone who doesn't accept their version is probably either complicit in or being duped by some kind of COINTELPRO.
So, tell me again where the plane went?
____
♠
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
Can you explain how this
Can you explain how this theory is different from the "no planes hit the towers" theory?
1) both argue that the hole was too small, not the right shape, etc.
2) both disregard all eyewitnesses as plants
3) both disregard all plane parts and debris as planted
The pentagon ruse was based on suggestion and poor science, and was a precursor to the newer "no planes hit the towers" theory. One is simply the slippery slope that leads into the other.
You HAVE seen the landing gear photos right? You HAVE looked at the dozens of witnesses right?
I'm not saying 77 hit the pentagon, I am saying that there is plenty of evidence to counter the suggestion that it didn't, and that anyone doing new research into this issue would find it at the very least to be inconclusive.
Please answer my question about how this theory differs from the "no planes hit the towers" theory.
how is it different? easy.
There is ample video evidence from multiple angles showing the plane hitting the south tower.
There is 0 video evidence showing a boeing hitting the Pentagon.
In fact, it would seem that the "no planes hit the towers" theory, being as absurd as it is and unlikely to a) fool anyone into believeing it to be true or b) fool anyone into thinking that anyone seriously believed it is in fact being used to counter the very obvious lack of a real boeing 757 crash at the Pentagon by giving "no plane" theories a bad name.
____
♠
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
ummmm....
....all the witnesses are plants?
didn't you also claim all the victims on the planes were 'perps'?
there you go again and again and again
Where did I say that all the witnesses are plants? It's not the same as saying that the particular witnesses that Hoffman's friends select out of the many could easily all be plants. But no, of course you're the 9/11 truth guy who doesn't believe in conspiracies unless they involve swastikas and feces and interruptions of meetings run by incompetents who don't know how to kick out disruptors.
Keep on shoveling, John!
____
♠
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
More personalized attacks
that's all you know
so - i guess you are defending Nico Haupt now?
funny stuff.
interesting video clip
from tim roemer, 9/11 commission
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EA5AmFpQlJA
I see what you are saying
and hope we can agree to disagree on this. I would just say But the only videos that mean much to me are the impact/penetration 2-3 impact videos. Videos where the impact is covered by the building do not mean anything, and I think it would be quite easy to fake such videos. The fact that these were the only videos shown live is significant to me.
Tell me why there was only one angle throughout the live broadcasts. (Tell me if I'm wrong about that, too.)
I'm not using this to discredit the Pentagon argument. I'll accept that this could be the effect, perhaps, though I disagree and would like emiprical evidence of that (and not like Jim Hoffman's counting of clicks on 9/11truth.org as an indicator of whether the Pentagon Strike video was effective - the causal link must be shown.)
Each event stands on its own, but my view is that the complement each other.
Again, I am sincere and you'll just have to trust me on that.
I don't "disregard" debris as planted
I analyze why debris around the towers must be planted, as best I can. I've only done one piece so far, the wheel found 500 feet south of the North Tower.
Forensically, my method is far more sound than that of Steven Jones, who cites the debris as evidence without considering whether it could possibly be authentic.
http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/01/little-wheel-that-could.html
http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/01/little-wheel-that-could-not-par...
http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/01/my-concerns-about-professor-jon...
This is not an attack on Steven Jones - it is a reasonable critique of his methods, to which I have asked him to respond but received no response.
On the contrary
Jim Hoffman has been the subject of vicious online attacks. Hoffman has written some of the most definitive research on the controlled demolition of WTC 1, 2 and 7. In this regard you owe this man a debt of gratitude.
The attacks against Hoffman are all well documented and available for everyone to review. Webfairy. Holmgren. Nico Haupt. Rick Siegel. Killtown. All the KNOWN disinformation hologram tin-foil-hat advocates have attempted to discredit him at one time of another.
Your attempt to simplify all of these attacks as simply a disagreement over the Pentagon is disingenuous.
The fact that he does not agree with YOUR opinion on the Pentagon does not make the attacks of these individuals against him justified - as you allude to in your post.
The community is simply split on the issue of the Pentagon - but i for one find the research and writings of Jim Hoffman infinitely more credible than the research and writings of his detractors.
Just for the record RT - you have done your fair share of accusing members here of being agents. i would not go throwing stones.
Agree
Hoffman has done some valuable research. But his conclusions on the Pentagon seems weak to me. When eyewitness testimony contradicts the physical evidence. I'll go with the physical evidence everytime. Eyewitness are just easier to manipulate.
These Flame Wars are useless. Please STOP! Adults acting as children.
Gary
911truthnc.org
“it is possible to fool all the people all the time—when government and press cooperate.” George Seldes - "legendary investigative reporter"
Well said
911TruthNC, I agree we should focus on the merits, and that physical evidence is stronger. Real Truth, nicely said above and below. I don't always agree with you on the merits, but often do, and I like your method of thinking.
Jim Hoffmann should stop accusing people of disinfo,which is a classic method of disinformationalists.
"Jim Hoffmann should stop
"Jim Hoffmann should stop accusing people of disinfo,which is a classic method of disinformationalists. "
very well put. and im not just saying that because i disagree with him on the Pentagon. his words would carry much more weight without him throwing the disinfo accusation around so much.
hmmmm, i wonder which of you
hmmmm, i wonder which of you would vote down this comment? hmmmm, like i dont know......(fucking cowards know who you are)
please. I just voted down
please. I just voted down your comment because you used a bad word.
really? did it offend you?
really? did it offend you? or did you vote me down because i was speaking out against disinfo? funny that you would pop up........(and by the way, i didnt use a "bad word" in the post i was talking about. try and keep up.)
those who focus on "truth movement politics"
and I shan't name names because you know I'm talking about you John, and who consistently downplay the strongest (physical) evidence and promote obvious limited hangout theories, are the ones who should maybe stop throwing stones.
You do things like show how many google hits there are for Nico while contributing hundreds more by fixating on some theatre he put on in New York involving pictures of swastikas and feces, which you then proceed to subject everyone here to.
Let's just hammer a point home here--9/11 was first and foremost a crime of theatre. It was staged and dramatized as "real-life" fiction. While most of us truthers are trying to cut through all the drama and BS, other so called truth activists like you seem to do everything in their power to distract people's attention from exposing the actual crimes of 9/11 to arguing about who put pictures of feces where. But a crime based on theatre and fantasy and illusion has nowhere to hide except under more layers of BS. To put it simply, since 9/11 was theatre, the cover up will also be theatrical.
Generally speaking, most of the early entries into the 9/11 truth movement were by necessity plants--why would the coverup not have begun infiltrating any nascent movement right off the bat? Of course they did. Enter Nico and the rest of the shills/actors/clowns whose work you promote (not their "truth" work, but their disinfo antics which would otherwise be ignored.)
A while back you posted something to the effect that you and Nico were employed by the same company you later discovered was a CIA front. Was that some kind of slip up John, or another attempt to add to the drama of distraction that seems to be the extent of your involvement in 9/11 truth?
And again you state the obvious--that Jim Hoffman is more credible than his detractors, defined as Nico, Webfairy and company. Does anyone deny that? Of course not, but being more credible than Nico is like being smarter than Dubya--doesn't really say much does it?
I suppose if I created an army of disinfo artists who went around smearing me and who also believed in lizard people controlling the earth, I would suddenly become the most credible person in the world, right?
All you really need to do to understand the kind and extent of deception going on is look at the methods being used in the for-profit world. Buzz marketing, paid shills on message boards pushing products (in this case pushing fake versions of the truth) and other such tactics are being applied routinely, and not just by corporations.
It's not that hard to separate real productive efforts at truth seeking and the glory-hogging posturing of paid shills. It's not that hard to identify cliques that conspire to back each other up to appear popular. It's not that hard to see that building 7 was demolished and that no boeing hit the Pentagon.
None of this is very hard in real-life, but some people who sure seem to spend a lot of time on this site would like us to think that it is so complicated. It's not.
____
♠
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
More personalized attacks
Mixed with lies and distortions.
I'm not defending myself to you. My work in film, radio interview with Mike Woolsey and 911 Visibility, recent speaking engagement at Boston College, radio interview with Marie Heller, my film EGLS, etc etc all speaks for itself.
very true
all of that does speak for itself. i just think you're confused as to what most people hear it saying!
By the way, it's Meria Heller, not Marie. But I guess you knew that and were just being sly.
Anyway John, that you are into self-promotion is obvious. What is less clear is what you think you are accomplishing.
____
♠
Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero
WTCdemolition.com - Harvard Task Force
more attacks on my character
(yawn)
DIA
Hey John, what is the status of your new film, was it released?
Self-promotion is an observed behavior
not necessarily an indication of bad character.
Holmgren can be caustic
when wronged. I would not call that "vicious," because he had a basis which he explained. I think he has a lot of integrity, has done excellent work, and should be honored for that.
good research from Holmgren?
you are hysterical
when are you going to get it through your head that the no-planes disinformation meme is not going to be successfully pushed here anymore? The theory has been thoroughly debunked and rejected by the vast majority of the community - such that - the continued PUSHING of this theory is now considered intentional disinformation and disruption.
Hah
Care to respond in substance? I repeat, Holmgren is brilliant, has integrity, and should be honored for his research. You, on the other hand, are incapable of anything more than accusations and self-proclaimed representation of the "community." I'm part of this community and will say what I believe, whether you like it or not.
What's going on in the right
What's going on in the right hand side of the frame?
Looks like WTC smoke & rubble to me.
Like the pentagon picture & a picture of WTC ? superimposed.
Smoke Bomb in the garbage bin.
Very strange how long & how much that garbage bin billowed smoke. From watching the archive clips that bin amounts to half of the smoke spectators & the camera see coming from the Pentagram.
jIM ON NO PLANES
http://911review.com/errors/phantom/nt_plane.html
"And in so doing, they also show a lack of respect for their colleagues in the 9/11 Truth Movement by engaging in tenuous, risky speculation in areas where they lack the necessary expertise and discipline."
Jim, I showed respect for Eric Salter, whose research you cite in the link above, and for Steven Jones, who used Eric Salters work in his July 2006 presentation on the WTC "planes."
I showed them respect by adopting their method of comparing expert models of crash physics with the deceleration used in the videos.
It is Salter and Jones that did not show respect for science and for their colleagues in "the 9/11 Truth Movement" by acknowledging data that contradicted their results.
http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/01/does-nist-prove-no-planes-and-h...
I wrote an article complementing your critique of Manuel Garcia's "The Physics of 9/11," here:
http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/01/jim-hoffmanns-critique-of-manue...
ffs Ningen
I will now explain to you in as much detail as I can why this deceleration argument is nonsense.
An aircraft is by no means a rigid body, meaning that if at one end you applied force, it wouldn't necessarily transfer to the other end, much less instantaneously. Therefore, measurements of the velocity of the tail or any other visible parts still outside the building, on which you have to base your argument, do not allow the conclusions you are obviously drawing. Remember that SANDIA experiment with the F4 vs the concrete wall? Go ahead and measure the deceleration of the yet intact parts of the plane as it collides. They don't in any noticeable way, which is to be expected, as the airframe simply desintegrates on collision instead of retaining stability in order to transmit the encountered forces all the way through it. And of course there is a loss of kinetic energy - there is less and less of the plane in directed motion, while more and more of it turns into violently shattered aircraft, a process which consumes just that kinetic energy.
There is nothing wrong with the picture...
All that means
as discussed by the engineers, is that it is difficult to model how much kinetic energy is transferred to deformation of the fuselage and how much results in deceleration. I agree that not all of the kinetic energy would be transferred to deceleration, but a significant proportion would, and that should have been visible. NIST found no deceleration in the Scott Myers video.
So the plane disintegrates AND passes through the external columns? No way. Sandia is not comparable, nor does the video show the debris in the aftermath - not all was turned to confetti.
[Update: Sandia has new video up which shows more perspectives and lots of debris, including a large wingtip:
http://www.sandia.gov/news/resources/video-gallery/index.html#rocketsled
F-4 videostream]
Here's the engineering article I used
I promised someone to post it a while back but was busy.
http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/02/engineering-article-on-which-i-...