Jim Hoffman Is An Agent

[PatrickSMcNally]

One thing that is certainly irritating about Hoffman (although I don't know that this really proves him to be an agent) is the way that he shifts his positions without acknowledging such. In this old archived copy of a page from his site

http://web.archive.org/web/20031209085822/911research.wtc7.net/sept11/analysis/anomolies.html

Hoffman tells us that:

"No public evidence shows a 757 approaching the Pentagon, nor remains of such an aircraft."

Here he tells us that:

"As the photographs immediately following the attack show, the punctures in the west wall of the Pentagon were far smaller than the profile of a Boeing 757-200, and the lawn was nearly immaculate, free of any large aircraft debris. The few scraps that appear in some photographs are far too thin and light to be part of such an aircraft."

Now the current page contradicts all of that without acknowledging previous assertions:

http://911research.wtc7.net/faq/pentagon.html

There shouldn't be anything wrong with Hoffman changing his mind about a specific issue like this. But I don't care for the way that he simply censors out his previous opinion and proclaims as wackos people who hold to what he himself had previously alleged. There should be a better methodology for registering a changed opinion. It's pretty normal that in the midst of all the lies told by the Bush administration around 911 that people will entertain some suspicions which they may later discard. But Hoffman is angling for more than that. He tries to purge the record of his own previous subscribing to certain theories so that he can lambast others for them. Not very honest.

[Hugh Manatee]

The 9/11 Truth movement is almost 7 years old now.

Many of us have come a long way from initial viewpoints and I'm more concerned about those who HAVEN'T updated their views.

Example:
Many people stopped at Let It Happen On Purpose (LIHOP), the common viewpoint back in 2004. This was the idea that someone let Evil Arabs do the Dirty Deed to exploit it politically.

But in 2005 Make It Happen On Purpose (MIHOP) became the next level of research because that was the year that the 507 firemen's oral histories were finally released to the public due to a court battle.
Lo and behold, many of them described bombs and controlled demolition.

2005 was also the year that Dr. Steven Jones published his finding of thermite in the molten metal samples and WTC dust samples.

Then the basic physics of how fast the three WTC buildings came down and how was re-examined and found to confirm three controlled demolitions, a normal one at WTC7 and a special version for WTC1 and WTC2.

So too many people have stopped at 2004 LIHOP without catching up to the now proven post-2005 MIHOP.

That's why I'm glad that Jim Hoffman has updated and encouraged others to do so, too.
But it is hard to tell who is just stuck in the past and who is deliberately trying to keep us there.

[moylan]

One of the reasons for Hoffman being less than willing to admit he revised his own position is that the former point of view, that of 'no-plane-at-the-Pentagon', involves overlooking quite a bit of evidence. A researcher such as Hoffman might not be too proud to acknowledge this. I would agree with Hugh Manatee that suspicion should fall more heavily on those who fail to revise their opinions to take account of the evidence.

Myself, I'm not very interested in playing the game of who is or isn't a 'disinfo agent'. It serves as a convenient way to ignore the content of what is being said and to focus instead on personalities. Thus we have the resurgence of the 'no-plane' nonsense and the distortions of reality it requires, with the happy logical deduction that anyone who admits what their eyes tell them, i.e. planes, is also a 'disinfo agent' keen to uphold the official story and discredit the seekers of the higher truth.

[Lord Carpainter]

[moylan]

I've asked this question what seems like a dozen times already. What's your proof?

[Lord Carpainter]

Going in Search of Planes in NYC
http://www.checktheevidence.co.uk/cms/i ... &Itemid=60

The Original No Planers:
Most Witnesses at the WTC Heard And Saw No Planes
http://www.nomoregames.net/index.php?pa ... no_planers

What Witnesses?
http://www.911closeup.com/index.shtml?ID=84

“I saw it," he says, "It could have been a plane, but I think it was a bomb — uh, a missile. This could be World War III."
http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock052402.asp

"I distinctly remember somebody saying: “A missile just hit the trade center, I saw a missile hit.”"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/w ... html/1.stm

"Jim, I don't know whether we've confirmed that this was an aircraft, or to be more specific, some people said they thought they saw a missile. I don't know how people could differentiate, but we might keep open the possibility that this was a missile attack on these buildings."
Later, this missile quote was played again, but cut just before he said 'missile'!
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/966529/missiles_on_9_11/

[moylan]

Wow. I mean, I'm speechless. Cherry-picked accounts cited by - Gerhard Holmgren and Morgan Reynolds.

And someone who thought there might have been a missile.

I'm - how do you say it - I'm just overwhelmed. By the absence of a case. Of course, the question would have to be why no-missile or no-jetaircraft has ever manifested itself in the form of photo, video, wreckage, or, for that matter, rationale.

I don't know. Maybe the Painstaking Intelligence Agency were able to implement a massive operation to project airline images so effectively that everyone was fooled. Or generate them in real time in both broadcast and amateur media. And do so so effectively that not a trace of evidence of said missiles or otherplanes has ever surfaced.

But, frankly, such a scenario makes the official conspiracy theory plausible by comparison. And no, I don't believe for a second that real-time computer technology exists that would be able to pull off such a feat. Sorry, nice fantasy, but it only works in movies (kind of). Or why any plotter would risk the failure of such an illusion. It's like those JFK "conspiracy theorists" who believe that the PIA must have altered the autopsy photos because they don't corroborate their own notions.

Of course, they would gather them all and alter them, wouldn't they? But then - stoopid PIA - they go and leave evidence of the forgery within the forgeries! They can't have been paying attention at fakery school!

The point, in case you've missed it, is that you can't draw reliable conclusions from the same evidence you claim has been tampered with. Courts of law exclude that kind of evidence, and for good reason. It's useless.

So I guess that leaves you with Holmgren and Reynolds. If you want that kind of company, you're welcome to it.

[Lord Carpainter]

[stallion4]

LC how much do they pay you to spread lies to discredit 9/11 truth?

[Lord Carpainter]

[moylan]

Ok, LC, so all footage was confiscated? Do you seriously take people for idiots?

Eyewitness accounts that say they 'thought' they saw such and such aren't all that reliable. It doesn't exactly happen every day that planes are crashed into buildings. So it's entirely plausible that 'some' people 'thought' they saw or heard a missile. Unfortunately, there's no corroborating evidence of missiles. At all. Therefore, these witnesses were mistaken.

[Lord Carpainter]

[moylan]

Ok, so let's get this one right. You discredit witnesses because they got footage of the second impact. Is that right? But it's logically consistent to give credence to certain other witnesses, just because they claim that it might have been something different, or the plane might have been smaller.

The only consistent thing to do is to discount all the witnesses. What remains is the complete absence of evidence that anything other than airliners hit the towers.

The notion that intelligence agencies were running around the streets of New York and barging into people's apartments to confiscate every single camera is absurd. Again, where's the proof that one member of an intelligence agency was on foot in New York? You assume it, because you assume, also without evidence, that somehow all available evidence was faked.

Which would require that not a single photograph, not one shred of proof, of the missile (or whatever), has ever emerged. Not one person who saw the attacks has ever come out to say that the photographic and video evidence does not represent what they saw that day. Does that seem credible?

[Lord Carpainter]

[moylan]

In what way does their footage appear to be fake?

There is no case for 'TV fakery', whether or not the technology exists.

There is no motive for pretending that airlines were involved. There is, however, a motive for creating a fake debate about whether or not planes were involved. It involves weaving a giant web of conspiracy, involving thousands of agents.

That's what all these 'compromising connections' are for. They're bait for endless and unprovable speculation about something for which there is no evidence.