More examples of Jim Hoffman's Blatant Dishonesty: "Airliner crashes typically leave no recognizable debris"
Jim Hoffman, the notorious disinformationist who seems to focuse most of his deceptive practices on the 9/11 Pentagon attack, has created a presentation on his website purporting to show that airliner crashes typically do not leave much if any recognizable debris. The purpose of his presentation is to support his argument that the lack of recognizable aircraft debris at the Pentagon on 9/11 does not damage the case for the OCT of AA77 having crahed there:
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/compare/jetcrashdebris.htm...
Jetliner Crash Debris
Examples of Jetliner Crashes Leaving Little Recognizable Debris
Some skeptics of the official account of the 9/11/01 attack maintain that the apparent paucity of aircraft debris at the crash sites -- the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and Shanksville PA -- is evidence that jetliners did not crash there [Notice how he tries to lump Pentagon Boeing crash skeptics in with WTC no planers, yet again?]. Such arguments are based on several assumptions, including that jetliner crashes always leave extensive debris with easily recognizable pieces. However, one does not have to look far to find numerous examples of crashes of jetliners and cargo jets that left almost no recognizable debris, such as those listed here.
[...]
The problem is that when one applies a little bit of critical analysis and fact checking, one quickly discovers a whole lot of deception going on, which seems to be par for the course with Hoffman. One person who decided to do the checking and discovered massive deception in Hoffman's presentation was one Bruno from WeAreChangeLA. He then provided photographic evidence, including from many of the crashes that Hoffman referred to, which actually showed large recognizable debris - indicating the Hoffman purposely chose to cherry pick photos that were not representative, or flat out lied about what was in the photos. When Bruno presented this on True Faction, he was howled down and shortly thereafter the thread was locked, with John Bursill saying "Time for this movement to close ranks once again!" Sigh...It always cracks me up when somebody over at True Faction refers to their little clique of clowns there as "the movement". LOL!
The original post can be found at http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5687&start=135
Bruno creates his own presentation in which he picks apart Hoffman's article and deconstructs Hoffman's blatant disinformation. Jim Hoffman wrote:
"Crashes of aircraft into buildings also typically leave little in the way of large debris, as the December 5, 2005 crash of a C-130 into an apartment building in Iran illustrates."
He gives an example of a plane hitting a building, then shows 4 aerial photos with the claim that no recognizable debris was seen. But look what Bruno found in a matter of seconds: numerous photos of the same crash site with large recognizable debris:
http://docs.google.com/View?id=dhnjtcf4_14dbznr3f4
Is it not fair to ask now where Jim Hoffman is receiving his pay check? If not now then when? How many blatant lies and distortions does someone like Hoffman have to be caught engaging in before he should be shamed out of the movement? What say you, truthers?
Here is Bruno's post on 911Blogger discussing Hoffman's dishonest research methods in response to John A's juvenile attacks in which JohnA once again compares Boeing crash skeptics to "Holocaust Deniers". I think Bruno sums up the situation quite well:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/21517#comment-218640
I got sucked into this Pentagon discussion because I saw real footwork getting real answers when I watched CIT's documentaries on the witnesses. Then I was informed that CIT was getting bashed and treated like disinfo. I slowly got into each consecutive discussion, and it's Hoffman's attacks that disturbed me the most, because when I looked at his Pentagon opinion page (it can't really be called anything more than his opinion) at 911Research I was shocked. How can this guy who really does not present much if any legitimate research on the Pentagon then go on the attack against somebody else who is actually going to DC and getting actual witness testimony as evidence on record? Even if someone disagrees with CIT's conclusions, the evidence stands and should not be dismissed, no matter whose feelings got hurt.
On the other hand, you can't even qualify Hoffman's presentation as research. He makes far far too many conclusions without doing any actual footwork. Legge does the same. The page that Hoffman presented as support for his opinion that large recognizable plane debris is rare at crash sites was shown to be 99% fail. For each example he gave of historical crash sites, he provided only one photograph to corroborate his claim. When I spent time researching each example, I found evidence of large plane parts at the crash sites. We are talking huge obvious parts like sometimes a wing, sometimes an engine, sometimes chunks of fuselage and usually the tail section in whole or parts. 100% of his examples where other photos or video was available, large plane debris was visible. The remaining handful of examples where only one photo is available can't be considered as evidence either way. Hoffman should correct this page in order to maintain his integrity, and not to be classified as disinfo.
One more thing John, in your sign off you say "We need to move beyond conspiracy theories and slogans..."
How can you classify this notion that the government might someday show a video of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon as anything other than "conspiracy theories and slogans"? It's only conjecture, and it's being used here on 911blogger apparently in an attempt to ward off those in the 9-11 Truth Movement from investigating the Pentagon any further than Hoffman's opinion.
With you in the struggle,
Bruno
WeAreChangeLA - http://www.wacla.org
P.S. You mentioned 'holocaust denial' once again almost like its your personal voodoo word to scare people away from asking questions.
- Keenan's blog
- Login to post comments
Time to declare intellectual independence from Jim Hoffman
Adam Syed makes a great suggestion on 911Blogger that I wholeheartedly agree with:
It's time for blogger to declare independence from truthaction.org, and time for the movement's intellectuals to declare intellectual independence from Jim Hoffman.
Didn't that already happen?
The movement's actual intellectuals declared independence from Jim Hoffman the minute he started obviously shilling -- which is to say, they take nothing he says at face value and accept the validity of only the Hoffman research and conclusions they can independently verify. The fact that one of the dinosaurs of dishonest 9/11 shillery -- Jessica A -- came out of blogger retirement to spew the silliest debunker-esque tripe in the thread about Legge's appearance on Michael Wolsey's podcast is an indication of who they have left on their side.
Did it?
I think there are still a lot of actual intellectuals in the movement, such as Richard Gage, Peter Dale Scott, Steven Jones, etc., who still hold Hoffman in high regard, or at least consider him an honest, legitimate researcher. Perhaps if they can be presented with a whole list of lies and distortions Jim Hoffman has been responsible for, as well as Hoffman's general debunker-style behavior and treatment toward other researchers, the other movement heavyweights can realize who Hoffman really is and distance themselves from him. That would be good for the movement, especially for A&E911truth in particular. I believe Richard Gage still considers Hoffman an important member of the research community and the movement.
Edit: DRG also has praised Jim Hoffman numerous times and considers him a colleague or equal.
Good point, particularly wrt to DRG
Even people like Richard Gage and DRG are susceptible to group think, and it is to their credit that for the most part they try to "stay above the fray." I think a concerted effort to debunk Hoffman in the most civil and dispassionate terms, which is then repeatedly cited, is what's in order. CIT have proven they're not up to the job in the civil department.
Edit: What got purged from the Michael Wolsey/Legge thread? Around 12 posts?
I think Stefan would be perfect for the job
being that he appears to possess patience superpowers, to write up a really great deconstruction of Jim Hoffmans disinformation.
BTW, notice on that thread where Stefen makes another really eloquent, civilized, reasonable appeal to Michael for a fair and open debate on his radio show and for Michael to do some fact checking, and Michael again acts like an arse and essentially tells Stefen to fuck off and claims to speak for the movement and to be working for the movement's best interest by not allowing any fair consideration of the evidence. What a pathetic asshole.
Oh, and btw, I (as Eleusus) was banned again from Blogger today, and several of my posts in that thread were deleted. I guess I started telling too many dangerous truths on that thread about Jim Hoffman, YT, Arabesque and True Faction. Oh well. At least most of those comments stayed up for a day or two for many people to read. I wonder how long it will take before Blogger decides to ban Stefen, Bruce, and Adam Syed?
A ha!
I noticed the post count going down... and all I could identify as missing were the posts citing Dave McGowan and calling John Judge a liar.
Ha! they just deleted the rest of my comments!
At first they just deleted a few posts, probably the ones the YT whined about. Now an hour later it looks like they went through and deleted every single one of my more than a dozen comments, so that now there are several dangling comments that seem to be responding to non-existent comments. That's pretty Orwellian if you ask me. Just delete history or opposing viewpoints, I guess. What a bunch of blatant shills and jerks.
They deleted a couple of Adam Syed's comments too...
...all the ones where he referred to True Faction... bwahahaha
And with regard to the various fake truthers
parading around 911blogger in all their (intellectual equivalents of) lime green thongs and sequined tube tops...
see more Lolcats and funny pictures
I luv tabby catz...
I luv tabby catz...
Boeing crash in Holland 1998
While reading this entry I recalled the Israeli EL-AL boeing that crashed into a highrise building in Amsterdam 3 years before 9/11. I tried google images to find pictures of the remaining debries and to be fair to Hoffmann I could not find any.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Al_Flight_1862
What was interesting though was reading again these stories about the plane carrying material enough to produce 270 kg of Sarin nerve gas:
http://www.nrc.nl/W2/Nieuws/1998/09/30/Vp/02.html
I never connected this story with 9/11 before...
If truthers accept the notion that the 9/11 planes were electronically hijacked than you almost have to assume that the pilots somehow were made unconscious or killed. The debunkers always pointed out that it is not possible to hijack the 9/11 planes because of their somewhat old-fashioned mechanical design (fly by wire I believe is the phrase). The theory that the 9/11 pilots were gassed circumvents that debunker argument. Refering to this Amsterdam desaster we truthers can make the argument that the Israelis possessed the means to carry out this scenario: mount a canister with sarin in a air duct in the plane. Wait next to the runway for the plane to take-off and when it does activate a timer mechanism using remote control. 20 minutes later or so the countdown has completed and the canister opens. Pilots and passngers are killed within a few seconds. Thats the moment to upload an alternative flight path to the Boeings. This theory is confirmed by the testimony of Colonel Donn de Grand-Pre who testified to Alex Jones that the pilot who shot down F93 ("Happy Hooligan" Lt. Col. Rick Gibney) had observed that nobody was alive aboard that plane.
http://911notes.blogspot.com/2009/05/col.html
http://www.infowars.com/print/Sept11/93_shootdown.htm
http://911notes.blogspot.com/2009/05/pilot-who-shot-down-flight-93.html
P.S. some within the truthmovement have argueed that truthers should not put the stakes too high in arguing too much about the Pentagon. The matter is simply not resolved. We should concentrate on WTC. I agree with that notion.
Very Interesting. I hadn't heard about that
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. The connections or similarities with 9/11 and the whole cover-up and scandal concerning the secret chemical warfare sarin gas precursor cargo (that subsequently has made up to 2000 people ill in Bijlmeer, Holland) for Israel's chemical weapons program is something I'm going to be writing more about.
There are some things you wrote that I would like to comment on, however:
"I tried google images to find pictures of the remaining debries and to be fair to Hoffmann I could not find any."
Actually, the fact that you couldn't find any good pictures on google that showed recognizable debris does not support Hoffman's assertions (nor does it contradict it) because the pictures available on google, according to my search, were not of good enough resolution and only showed a small portion of the potential debris area. So until better and more comprehensive photos are available, that particular crash example cannot be used to prove one way or the other about what recognizable debris were visible after the crash. Here is a photo of some of the debris after it was moved to a hanger, however:
"If truthers accept the notion that the 9/11 planes were electronically hijacked than you almost have to assume that the pilots somehow were made unconscious or killed."
Actually, I think it is just as likely that any of the real flights, if any, were swapped with drone aircraft a la Operation Northwoods. As far as AA77 and UA93 are concerned, I've seen no evidence that those flights even existed, or were flown into the locations that is claimed in the OCT.
For the 2 aircraft that were flown into the WTC, however, than I agree that it is a possibility that the planes were electronically hijacked while the passengers and crew were gassed, but it is just speculative at this point.
"Refering to this Amsterdam desaster we truthers can make the argument that the Israelis possessed the means to carry out this scenario: mount a canister with sarin in a air duct in the plane...activate a timer mechanism using remote control."
Sure, you are correct we can argue that the Israelis possessed the means to pull off this very scenario, but this would be the case even without the El Al flight 1862 scandal as evidence.
"This theory is confirmed by the testimony of Colonel Donn de Grand-Pre who testified to Alex Jones that the pilot who shot down F93 ("Happy Hooligan" Lt. Col. Rick Gibney) had observed that nobody was alive aboard that plane."
I have a hard time believing that the pilot who allegedly shot down F93 could actually see if people were alive or not aboard that plane. This seems far-fetched to me. Also, i don't consider Colonel Donn de Gran-Pre being interviews on the Alex Jones show as a very credible source. I also haven't seen any evidence that F93 was actually flown that day.
"P.S. some within the truthmovement have argueed that truthers should not put the stakes too high in arguing too much about the Pentagon. The matter is simply not resolved. We should concentrate on WTC. I agree with that notion."
I don't generally discuss the Pentagon as the first item I bring up to a newbie to 9/11 truth, but beyond that, I'm not too worried that there will be any potentially negative ramifications to the truth movement by arguing about it. The matter may not seem to be resolved in comparison to the case for controlled demolition at the WTC, but nevertheless, the Pentagon anomalies and evidence that is available pretty clearly indicate that a deception occurred there and I feel comfortable arguing that it is extremely implausible that AA77 actually crashed there as per the OCT.
for the most part, I agree with your conclusions, with one ...
... exception.
According to Standard Operating Procedure during a fighter intercept of a potentially hijacked craft, the pilot of the intercepting fighter is required to attempt at least a visual inspection of the hijacked plane.
That means that they fly up real close and look in the windows of the flight deck (cock pit) to see what is up. Those windows are not tinted, and the flight was in the morning after sunrise, so the pilot would have no trouble looking in.
As far as the passenger cabin is concerned, the pilot could also easily see in those windows as well. And one more thing: were a fighter jet to fly up wing-tip to wing-tip to a plane I was currently in at 40,000 feet of altitude, I don't know about you, but I would be looking out the little window at him. Human nature. so if there weren't a bunch of people staring at the fighter pilot through those little windows, it is very likely he would come to the conclusion that he did.
Of course, he could have made the whole thing up, or he could have been lying so as not to generate tons of lawsuits, or he may have just remembered it the way he wanted to...
but the fact is, yes, a fighter pilot can and usually does attempt to verify the assumed senario by a visual inspection of the craft prior to shooting it down. It is part of their last attempt to establish communications with the craft prior to pulling the trigger.
"The future is not inherited, it is achieved." JFK
Holland plane crash
I made a mistake in my previous post: the Amsterdam plane crash was in 1992, not in 1998.