portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts global

9.11 investigation

A Critical Review of Morgan Reynolds' 'Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse?'

Reynolds provides an excellent summary of evidence for the controlled demolition of the WTC skyscrapers. However, he also devotes about a third of his article to supporting the dubious idea that neither the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, nor the field in Shanksville, PA were the sites of the crashes of the jetliners commandeered on 9/11/01.
A Critical Review of Morgan Reynolds'
Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse?

by Jim Hoffman
Version 1.1, June 26, 2005

6/26/05: 911Research publishes Version 1.0 of this essay
6/27/05: 911Research publishes Version 1.1 of this essay

The article Why Did the Trade Center Skyscrapers Collapse? published on the libertarian-oriented website LewRockwell.com, has garnered considerable attention. It makes the case for the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers and Building 7 with much the same eloquence as David Ray Griffin, whom it cites. Its author, Morgan Reynolds, brings unprecedented credentials to the community of skeptics of the official story: He is professor emeritus at Texas A&M University, former director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis, and former chief economist for the US Labor Department during 2001-2002.

Reynolds provides an excellent summary of evidence for the controlled demolition of the WTC skyscrapers. However, he also devotes about a third of his article to supporting the dubious idea that neither the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, nor the field in Shanksville, PA were the sites of the crashes of the jetliners commandeered on 9/11/01. His article thus weds the thesis of controlled demolition of the skyscrapers with the denial that Flights 11, 175, 77, and 93 crashed where reported. This is unfortunate because it functions to discredit the case for demolition by associating it with ideas that lack scientific merit, are easily debunked, and are inherently offensive to the victims of the attack -- especially the survivors of the passengers and crews of the crashed flights.

The role of disinformation in undermining the exposure of the facts of the 9/11 attack -- the subject of the information warfare section of 911Review.com -- is appreciated by few in the 911 Truth Movement itself. Indeed most sincere researchers of the attack have been fooled, at least temporarily, by some of the many hoaxes that have been promoted under the guise of truth exposure. Reynolds, a relative newcomer to the skepticism of the basic tenets of the official story, is likely no exception. I can imagine several reasons he might give the no-jetliners theories so much credence.

* The no-jetliners theories have been pervasive in every forum of the 9/11 investigations since 2002, when Thierry Meyssan popularized the no-Pentagon-plane theory. These theories have persuasive advocates and noisy promoters who drown out criticism.

* Several aspects of the jetliner crashes, such as the paucity of visible aircraft debris, are apt to arouse skeptics' suspicions because they run counter to conventional intuitions about crashes. Not being a physical scientist, Reynolds may lack the informed intuition and understanding of physics required to correctly interpret the evidence in these unusual crashes.

* Given the number of outrageous lies in the official story, the recognition of some of these lies inclines many skeptics to reject all its aspects. This tendency has been amplified by officials' suppression of evidence that could quickly put to rest speculation of the no-jetliners variety.

In the remainder of this essay, I separate Reynolds' case for the controlled demolition of the WTC skyscrapers from his case for the non-involvement of jetliners in the crashes, highlighting errors in both. Whereas Reynolds accurately articulates the evidence for controlled demolition, he makes a series of flawed arguments to support the no-jetliners theories.

CONTENTS

* Reynolds' Summary of Demolition Evidence
o Defects in the Official Account
o Professional Demolition
o Floor Trusses, FEMA, and Eagar
* Reynolds' Analysis of the Plane Crashes
o North Tower Hole Column Deflection
o Pentagon Hole Size
o North Tower Hole Size
o Flight 11 Crash Debris
o Flight 175 Crash Debris
o The Evidence Vacuum
o Flight 11 Crash Debris, Again
o Flight 93 Crash Debris
o South Tower Hole Size
* Conclusion

(Continued)

homepage: homepage: http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/reynolds/index.html


Not so fast, there 24.Jul.2005 09:39

Huzzah

Good critical thinking is of course, the cornerstone of sound reasoning.
It is not becomming for us Netizens to speak without evidence, unless it
is found. On prisonplanet.com, he has a documentary "Loose Change", which
shows that one of the planes that hit the WTC did not look like a civilian
jet at all, but a military craft which fired a mission into the TWC tower
immediately before impact.

The lies of Morgan Reynolds 26.Jun.2007 16:36

Reposter

THE 9/11 LIARS CLUB Morgan Reynolds, Judy Wood and Jim Fetzer - "Lying for Truth" members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/liars.html THE 9/11 LIARS CLUB. PART 2. MORGAN REYNOLDS DIGS HIMSELF MORE HOLES WITH CLUMSY LIES. members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/liars2.html

discussion

Excellent 29.Jun.2005 06:41

majdur

An excellent article Morgan Reynolds has been refuted, the positions of proponents of the "controlled demolition" theory at the WTC 9/11 2001 have been destroyed.

What left is to tackle the "19 hijackers" vs the "20th hijacker" theory and connect the dots back to the Islamic Center of Tucson where several of the 9/11 hijackers prayed and Rashad Khalifa was stabbed 19 times in 1990. Rashad's magic number was 19. He was convinced that he could reduce the Koran through numerological analysis to the number 19. Rashad's only problem was that in order to make his system work he had to delete one ayat (or verse) of the Koran. After having done so, Muslim extremists related to the Al-'Qhida ideology sent an assassin to Tucson who stabbed him 19 times in the kitchen before Fajr (morning prayer at dawn). This lead unforntuately to a whole sting of murders (assassinations) which led investigators to an armed compound in Colorado to an armed compound in California. Mysteriously, a number of individuals were prosecuted for a range of cimes e.g. grand theft, larceny, fraud, etc. but the killer of Rashad Khalifa and the others were never found, the FBI is still investigating these murders and their connection to the 9/11.

The unfortunate thing for the "20th hijacker" theory is that all of the individuals involved were numerologists who connectd their ideology to one ayat in the Koran which says "the guarians of hell are 19". Once these facts are taken into account, we see that the search for the "20th hijacker" is in vain, since according to Bin Laden's numerology there could have only been 19.

Cf. An example of Rashad Kalifa's numerology  http://www.submission.org/miracle/number.html

Rashad Khalifa's bio:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashad_Khalifa

what a troll 29.Jun.2005 09:01

thread

these buttholes have going here. You guys are laughable. Even DAN RATHER couldn't find jet wreckage at the Pentagon. That's why Bob Scheiffer gives you the evening news these days.

Serious 29.Jun.2005 09:59

Majdur

No, I'm absolutely serious about the fact thet the WTC and Pentagon attacks were carried out by Muslim fundamentalists and that the Islamic Center of Tucson (ICT) was the epicenter of Al-Qaida in the United States and that the root of their activities begins with from trail of blood origninating with the Rashad Khalifa murder. Al-Zarwawi himself was the ring leader of the terrorist cell at the ICT, at first from afar buit later he visited the ICT in person to meet the future martyrs and put the finishing touches on the plot.

I am equally as serious that there was only 19 hijackers, because of the strong relation of the number 19 in Surah 74 of the Koran and the mystical theology of the Bin Laden cult and its numerology. I am equally as serious that a trail of bodies followed the Rashad murder that led to armed compounds in Colorado and California.

of course trolls are serious, that's their job 29.Jun.2005 11:57

me4

So Majdur, I guess you should drop your numerology and read the BBC more often, of because your precious 19, none could fly like that and a great many of them are still alive.

Explian it .... or explain it away? 29.Jun.2005 13:51

kfoi

Dr. Rashad Khalifa was an imam in Tucson, Arizona who some felt was unorthodox. He used numerology to try to prove that the Koran was written by God. The imam also let men and women pray together and wear non-traditional dress.

New York prosecutors say that in the first days of 1990, El Hage was called up by a "tall man" from New York who suddenly arrived in Arizona and said he was there to check Rashad Khalifa. El Hage entertained him at his house and drove him to the mosque, prosecutors say.

Several weeks later, Khalifa was found murdered in the kitchen of the Mosque. Several members of the radical Islamic sect, Al Fuqra, were convicted for conspiring to commit the murder, but no shooter has ever been convicted. Prosecutors have repeatedly implied El Hage knows who committed the murder and may have been involved.

El Hage's family calls the claim ridiculous, saying El Hage was out of the country at the time of the murder. Prosecutors have repeatedly said El Hage at least should have contacted the authorities with what he knew after he found out that the man was murdered.

Soon after, El Hage moved his growing family to the suburban community of Arlington, Texas.




In December 1989, according to prosecutors, El Hage met Mahmud Abouhalima at an Islamic conference in Oklahoma City. According to a confession Abouhalima later gave U.S. Attorneys, Abouhalima contacted El Hage in 1990 to purchase assault weapons to be used against radical Jewish Rabbi Meir Kahane. Kahane was murdered in November 1990 in New York City.

El Hage's family told FRONTLINE that he did buy some weapons for Abouhalima, but they were never picked up. Family members also say El Hage was told the guns were for self-defense against the Kahane group.

In early 1991, according to El Hage's grand jury testimony, he was called to New York to help direct the Alkifah Refugee Center, a Brooklyn-based group that raised money to support veterans of the Afghan war. According to documents from the World Trade Center case, Alkifah had a Tucson office and contacts with the main mosque in Arlington, Texas, and family members confirmed that El Hage had been in contact with the group.

On the same day that El Hage arrived in Brooklyn, on March 1, 1991, the leader of the Alkifah Center, Mustafa Shalabi, disappeared. A week later his mutilated body was found in the apartment he and Mahmud Abouhalima shared in Brooklyn. The murder case has never been solved, but prosecutors believe the murder was the result of a dispute over allocation of the group's resources.

The family maintains that El Hage was called in as a mediator on this and other occasions when his friends from Afghanistan developed disputes. "I know he was good friends with Shalabi," says El Hage's mother-in-law. "He [Shalabi] was running the organization to help Afghan veterans and Wadih wanted to help him. Wadih cried on the phone about Shalabi's death. Shalabi must have called him to go to New York to help when the trouble started."

Other friends of the family from Arlington, Texas, also described El Hage as a mediator and a person whose religious purity and strong faith were trusted by others "He was calm and devout, not violent or rash," said a close family member. "I would get more upset over politics than he would."

Whether El Hage was a mediator or collaborator, evidence shows he was friends with many people who were later convicted in the World Trade Center and New York City Landmark bombing cases. On March 8, 1991, El Hage signed in to visit El Sayyid Nosair at the Riker's Island. Nosair was serving a sentence for gun charges stemming from the Meir Kahane murder case. Both El Sayyid Nosair and Mahmud Abouhalima were central figures in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and both have been convicted in that crime.

There are other unusual connections between the men. In January of 1992, El Hage was arrested in Arlington, Texas, for writing several bad checks. He was riding in the car with a companion named Marwan Salama. According to phone records from the World Trade Center case, Salama had extensive phone contacts with the World Trade center bombers in the two months before the actual bombing.

 link to 66.102.7.104



There are 59 references to Arizona in the 9/11 Commission Report. But it tells only a fragment of the story when it comes to terrorists in the Grand Canyon State. A joint FBI-CIA analysis titled Arizona: Long Range Nexus for Islamic Extremists remains classified. Its existence was revealed for the first time when the 9/11 Commission released its final report this summer. But the long-standing link between Islamic terrorists and the Arizona desert has been in the public record for years-and it's centered dead on Tucson, and in particular, the Islamic Center of Tucson (ICT).

For nearly two decades, the most important nexus for international jihad outside of Pakistan and the Middle East has been Arizona. It's not clear quite how or why the state has attracted what seems to be more than its fair share of individuals linked to terrorist organizations over the years. Experts have posited that the familiar desert climate; the anonymity provided by life in cities outside New York, California, and D.C.; and the easy access to a wealth of flight-training schools all played a role. But the most ominous explanation came from FBI agent Kenneth Williams, the author of the now infamous "Phoenix Memo."

SNIP

According to state corporation records, Jelaidan was the president of ICT from 1983-1984, during which time, according to a 2002 Washington Post article, "the mosque provided money, support and, at times, fighters to the forces resisting the Soviet occupation in Afghanistan, according to longtime members." During his ICT presidency, Jelaidan also was a graduate student at U of A's School of Agriculture and president of the university's Muslim Students Association.

However, he left Tucson in 1985 and turned up the next year in Peshawar, where he joined the Afghan resistance along with bin Laden and Azzam.
 link to 66.102.7.104

"according to 29.Jun.2005 17:58

prosecutors"

is not proof of anything in a fascist 'anti-terror' police state, you troll.

Sorry, but it was a switcheroo 30.Jun.2005 14:34

George Trinkaus teslapress@yahoo.com

Disinformation?

The transport aircraft said to have crashed into the three target structures could not have been 757 or 767 transports.

Why?

Because they could not have been the hardware necessary to do the jobs.

Required wwere blast-through devices, probably missiles. Do examine the architecture in all three cases.

Also honor the report on CNN that said the WTC aircraft were not marked as transports nor had windows. Also honor the video analysis by a certain politically incorrect researcher.

Probably all four were "hijacked" robotically, three going to destinations unknown, the fourth shot down because pilots regained control.


the four planes were substituted either on the ground or on route to hits 30.Jun.2005 15:46

researcher since day zero

"Reynolds provides an excellent summary of evidence for the controlled demolition of the WTC skyscrapers. However, he also devotes about a third of his article to supporting the dubious idea that neither the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, nor the field in Shanksville, PA were the sites of the crashes of the jetliners commandeered on 9/11/01. His article thus weds the thesis of controlled demolition of the skyscrapers with the denial that Flights 11, 175, 77, and 93 crashed where reported."


Why is that "unfortunate"? There really is no solid evidence that American Airlines AA11 hit either WTC1 or United Airlines UAL175 hit WTC2, period. SOMETHING did, though it, in my studied opinion, was not the original planes that took off from Boston or anywhere else.

Anyone can follow along the evidence from the Thompson timeline, or Holmgren, etc., or many others, or even Griffin's review of the Thompson information: the point is that the governmental data itself (before it was INTENTIONALLY REVAMPED TO SCRUB SUCH PUBLIC ACCESS TO IT) shows a completely different take off wheel off times for these planes, and that AA77 (the alibi for the Pentagon hit) didn't even exist on the roster as scheduled for that day!

Other planes were substituted on the ground by the criminal military state in Boston (AA11), and the other plane from Boston UAL175 was skyjacked by NORAD "Octopus" technology, which si the same technology in all Boeing 757/767s already. All of them. NORAD has the power and authority whenever it sees fit to commander ANY COMMERCIAL 757/67 plane in the sky. The pilots of UAL175 did get out a distress call, before that was silenced as well.

There is evidence that there were two AA11s--one going north, one south( because the southern routed one from Boston) is sighted "near the UAL175". The northern route was the one of AA11 substittuion, and that hit WTC1. The other UAL175 I have no idea where it would be substituted, though gained information from the live CNN/FOX people on the ground it was not a UAL175 that hit WTC2!

Taht's two substitutions.

The third would be the AA77 (unscheduled for that day), which was then noted as "highjacked early" then "back on course for a while" then highjacked once more! During this period there was nothing to complain about the FAA presumably said, while they watch AA77 get hijacked then go 180 degrees north, then west a bit, then south 180 degrees, and get back on course like nothing happened? Without explaination? And then disappear near the border of Ohio where it was reported to be "descending" as it lost transponder.

Now, I don't know about you, thgough when a plane is going down without a transponder near Ohio, and then another plane with transponder off is put in its place and it is allowed to fly without transponder or communcation for 45 minutes or more to hit the Pentagon after it does amazing computerized acrobatics of 270 degree descending curves to make sure it hits the safer side of the whole sham at the Pentagon, leaving zero Boeing evidence, you can imagine that the governmetn fascist agents would be all over that with lies and disinformation. Well, all I hvae to say is show us the tapes you lied about "not having,' when the FBI actually conficated several--one of them, because it was planned out, mere minutes after the Pentagon-wall hit. Mere minutes. The FBI is the cover up organization. Who's there? Why Bush Elder's old hand, Mr. Meuller, put in place mere weeks before 911.

And the fourth plane, well, there's lots of interesting misnomers about it likely landing in Cleveland and being wheeled off separately to the top secret NASA building base at the airport. And Rumsfeld can't even get the fourth plane alibi story straight. He keeps saying it was shot down, when it is Rumsfeld's whole alibi that he shoots down when he says that because his official story is that it "crashed." Well, it didn't crash it exploded in midair and was hit by a government heat seeking missile, becaus one of the engines landed miles away from the rest of the plane. And paper fell from the sky settled over the area for an hour, over several miles.

Then of course you have the liar/laywer who defended the Bush/Supreme Court coup in December 2000 being pushed to national media attention when it "occurs to him" that "he should tell people about his wife's phone calls to him from the AA77 plane." Of coruse he can't even get his own alibi stories straight about these phone calls, either during the multiple interviews that were merely put up to attempt to keep AA77 alibi flying that it was a "real plane." It wasn't. Bush cronies come out of the woodwork to pretend and hold up the fake offical story from the 911 commission to the purge at Popular Mechanics where Rabbi Chertoff of the DHS (who let the "Wehawken Mossad Five" filming the WTCs explode and get hit out of the counrtry without charges!!!

In short, don't get off conducting a "review" when you don't know anything about something. THAT's either ignorance or disinformation yourself and pretending you aren't facing fascism full blown from traitors throughout the Justice, police, and military corporateions and its services is the mistake here.








And following from live CNN/FOX news stories (NEVER REPEATED, OF COURSE) WTC2 was not even hit by a commercial airliner according to witnesses.

Obviously the original so called reviewer requires more review than he/she knows.

9/11 Critical review 30.Jun.2005 22:22

Tom-Scott Gordon, Emery Roth AIA maxresolution@redlineav.com

Thanks Jim, for all of your work to date. As you know, I am a member of the "9/11 Science & Justice Alliance." We continue to support the honest efforts of each and every researcher,worldwide. I have only coddled serious arguments with a few 'fringe' players. Generally, they include ALL of those armchair pundits who suggest that an actual "767," or 'Jumbo-jet' hit the Pentagon. There is no scientific basis for an airplane to penetrate the skin of that monumental structure, much less to have left NO carcus in the front yard. I have little more to say about that event.

What I do know, is that which I have reported to others from my first-hand experience at the Trade Towers. My assignment there was in an ancillary function to the building engineer's offices. What I witnessed is monumental. These events firmly establish that the planned 'coup' against America was instigated sometime prior to May 9th, 1989, as I have loosely established from a subsequent letter to my father showing my concerns for the safety of the towers themselves. My dad, Frank, had worked in specialized applications for ALCOA, where his research team established many diverse 'facts' about these same matrials in application. Essentially, the buildings were huge static-collectors. There existed an unusual 'electrolytic' exchange between the external ALUMINUM elements and the STEEL structure underneath. Knowing this, I feared for my life each time I entered the towers. And I had ample reason to believe that our team had precluded that the towers were 'condemnable,' as of that date.

Shortly after we had received the completed documentation AND 'estimate' from "Controlled Demolitions, INC." to destroy the buildings by a "safe & legal" manner, we were shocked to discover that "the FBI," or so they claimed, had completely emptied the contents of the on-site offices, throughout the previous night. I recall that this was on a Wednesday, because we were to attend the 'Topping-off Ceremony' across the street at building #7, at 10:00am sharp the following day. "No one would be admitted if you showed-up after 10:00, and my attendance there was manditory." On that date, I also learned from the project architect of #7, that his baby was probably going to be destroyed. For his sake, as a pure 'designer,' this disturbed me greatly at that time.

I was not officially listed on the FBI's reports, so my presence at the party required that they produce an "extra waiver form," which was especially annoying to the FBI's project Chief. This enabled me to visit with the other staff over lunch and to get the final run-through about the 'takeover' situation, before I was able to sign their stupid waiver and leave on my own reconissance. I was not a New Yorker. The Chief himself, broadly pronounced to this group; that I was --"NOT given an official assignment and a healthy raise in pay, for agreeing to relocate."--

This appeared to be his way of 'reading' my story against their stated views on my credibility, given my very recent presence on their staff. My boss, Bary Roth Jr., actually operated from an office uptown, and I was completely unaware of the immense scale of the on-site 'engineering' offices, until witnessing these offices in this condition, with 20 to 30 people essentially having beeng held at gunpoint since well before my arrival, at approximately 9:45am.

Today, you will find virtually NO reference to the literally "10 thousand sets" of plans for these buildings. If anyone in NYC has a set, please post them on the internet!

You will note just how 'effective' this "waiver of silence" has been to 'gag' the other staff members, mostly conservative engineers. Despite the elaborate song & dance over the [Now heroic, David Childs] re-design, --not one single word has been recorded as coming from the architct's offices,-- other than Minouru's original, {and very genuine} tearfull on-camera moment later that same week. He is as innocent as I am, although I remain to be the only 'singing' participant. Let me say now, to those unsuspecting victims, both living and dead, that I feel no less ashamed than those who actually placed the charges which destroyed their lives.

Ten, to twelve years is a long time. Please note that I have brooded these facts for the entire duration. I have had two other FBI-agents on my trail, both of whom were coincidentally entrusted to photograph the clean-up for "FEMA." During the clean-up, "Kurt Sonnenfield's" wife ostensibly committed suicide. I knew her from the most casual of introductions at Reed photo-lab, where she took Kurt's film after they moved to Denver. As long as "my NYC-shadow" had made such an effort to learn everything about me the 'feeling' was naturally mutual! I have reason to believe that Mary Sonnenfield knew too much, and that Kurt's assignments at the towers persisted throughout part of that period.

I would be especially glad to work with you further on the mechanical aspects of the implosions, once we can obtain those absolutely critical, (original and AutoCad) WTC plans.

Tom-Scott Gordon,
WTC Photographer; Emery Roth and Associates, Architects

http://redlineav.com
Little Rock

'no planers' - often ridiculous misinterpretations of the images . . . 01.Jul.2005 00:52

repost

The WTC Impacts: 767s or "Whatzits"?
Eric Salter
 esalter1@mindspring.com
5/11/04

Since September 11th, continuous and dedicated efforts by numerous independent researchers devoted to analyzing the physical evidence of what happened that day have produced some compelling arguments which contradict the official story regarding the attack on the Pentagon and the collapse of the World Trade Center. With logic and scientific discipline, these arguments have been honed to the point that they help significantly to reveal the fraudulent, hoaxed nature of the "terrorist" attacks as a pre-planned inside job. There is, however, a particular hypothesis regarding the physical evidence that cries out for critical skepticism: the idea that no 767s hit the World Trade Center.

This argument has a singularly obvious hurdle to cross: We have many pieces of hard evidence-video recordings and photographs-that clearly show a 767 crashing into the south tower of the WTC on September 11th. We also have a video recording of the first impact on the North tower, but plane in the image is not identifiable as a 767 because of it's small size in the frame. In contrast, there is no hard evidence, such as a video, photo or small plane debris, that establishes the presence of a small plane or any other object besides a 767 hitting the WTC. The proponents of the no-767 get around this by claiming that the planes in the videos we have were superimposed in real-time by the television networks using advanced graphics technology, and they proceed to identify a number of anomalies in the videos and in the physics of the impacts which they claim indicate that the 767 was not actually there. Their case is supplemented by analysis of witness testimony and some other circumstantial evidence.

The proponents of the no-767 theory discussed here are Gerard Holmgren, well-known for his analysis of the Pentagon crash and his ongoing compilation of evidence called "The Truth of Sept 11":
 http://www.williambowles.info/911/911_comp.html
Webfairy:
 http://thewebfairy.com/911/index.htm
and Scott Loughrey:
 http://www.media-criticism.com/911_video_fakes_01_2004.html

I took an interest in this because I have been a professional video editor for 11 years. What I immediately noticed is that there are gross errors in most of the analyses of the video evidence. One of the reasons for this, in the case of the first strike, is that Holmgren and Webfairy used a poor quality mpeg movie from the internet to make their analysis. Here is that movie:

 http://www.taner.net/wtc/media/First_Plane_Crash_SLOW_.mpeg

When CNN broadcast the original footage they stretched it vertically and the impact put in slo-mo. This clip was recorded off television, which in this case has reduced image quality. To create the mpeg the resolution has been reduced from 720x486 to 320x240 and the data has been compressed. The overall effect has been not only to degrade the original image, but to add new visual data called "compression artifacts". This has led to often ridiculous misinterpretations of the images. However, some of the analytical errors don't arise from the poor image quality and can only be attributed to poor judgement.


Eric Salter is a Liar 01.Jul.2005 06:07

The Webfairy webfairy@thewebfairy.com

 http://thewebfairy.com/911/flyingpig
and
 http://thewebfairy.com/missilegate

Are both made from the Naudet 911 DVD, deinterlaced, fields separated into frames.

 http://missilegate.com/indexx.htm
is even from footage the Salters themselves provided.

It shows no evidence of any plane, but instead a very small drone or missile makes a flashframe
<img src=" link to thewebfairy.com
and then goes along pooping out gray chemical clouds for another second and a half before it gets down to the buisness of making a fireball and exploding.

Salter doesn't even have correctly the address of Holmgren's website:
 http://iinet.net.au/~holmgren/manufactured.html
or the name of the article, which is
Manufactured Terrorism, The Truth of September 11

Holmgren has written a whole series of articles, so Salter links to an outdated one on somebody elses site, tsk tsk.
 http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/S11articles.html

In particular Salter doesn't want folks to see
WHAT REALLY HIT THE WTC ?
 http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/salter.html
A plane hugger's nightmare. Two defenders of the official story get hopelessly
tangled in their own circular arguments. Debates with Eric and Brian Salter.

and
VIDEO PROOF THAT NO HIJACKED PLANE HIT THE NTH TOWER OF THE WTC
 http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/planevideos.html
in which Homgren deconstructs Salters silly arguements, which are also posted at
 http://www.911closeup.com/index.shtml?ID=67
 http://www.911closeup.com/index.shtml?ID=68
 http://www.911closeup.com/index.shtml?ID=69


Salter is liar about saying PLANES HIT THE BUILDINGS?? 01.Jul.2005 10:22

repost

Give me a break!

Anyone who is saying NO PLANES hit at the WTC or FAKE PLANES hit, and then is calling people who say that REAL COMMERCIAL JETS hit 'liars' . . . puleease!

The only 'liars' around here are the ones who were screaming about HOLOGRAMS (the Webfairy) hitting the WTC and wasting everyone else's time.

Go away.

Video proves no planes crashed 01.Jul.2005 14:39

Tim basement.dnai@rcn.com

Hi there,
Anybody who studies the news coverage as it was aired on Sept. 11, 2001 can see that no planes crashed at any of the four locations. If planes had crashed there wouldn't have been any need for fake video, fake pictures, actors claiming they saw planes, and censorship of much of the footage since that day. Much of the footage was available from my website for about six months but Ted Turner's CNN sent me a "cease and desist letter" threatening to sue me if I didn't knock it off. You can read what I wrote here:
 http://www.maebrussell.com/9-11/Dear%20World%20Watcher.html

Have a happy 4th of July!
Tim


A 'Salter' by any other name 01.Jul.2005 20:13

Max Resolution

Eric,

First you must prove that a plane can penetrate the outer skin and hide itself inside all so neatly. If this cannot be done, {and especially if it never gets a chance to be tested,} there is no more a basis for your assertions than to blame BinLaden.

Where are you going with the constant argument in favor of those particular pixels? You know as well as I, just how easy it is to make sh*t video on a Mac, bump it to Avid, render it to 'DV' and into PAL, uplink it to an affiliate with a decent PAL/NTSC ~SDI converting deck, add logo & CGI, render to MPEGII and stream it to the internet immediately, conviently serving the masses as "final analysis video."

Ooops, most important event in history and we just erased the Master...Oh, by the way, which affiliate did they say had provided the up-link?

You're so like Hopsicker & Unger;

Some angry young A-rabs got naked and ate pork in a strip-club in Florida?

{Therefore, (since they travel first-class courtesy of the CIA,) they must have been connected to the Stephens Inc owned/ Bush-Arbusto Hollywood, FL dope-drop...and, that means they must have looked really wild-eyed and 'wrecked', since they had now committed to DIE the very next day, all for a half-baked plan to destroy the global economy, which inevetably required disarming 6 entire branches of the US Government. No Problem Mate!- Moussad had provided both the plans (ours,) and all the high-tech analysis that (Saudi) money could buy, assuring that one hit would bring the weight/load factors to critical mass, while melting the steel and atomizing all the concrete. -ALL so conviently allowing Silverstein to build a fortress around lower Manhattan...

None of the physical cause-effect quotients make the least sense. Therefore, you must at least define every single contribution element which defines the 'quality' of the imagery which you uphold to represent as being factually accurate. To do that, you would need to compare each segement of video to another corresponding {ideally still} image from a secondary perspective.

Hoffman the plagiarist 02.Jul.2005 13:53

Gerard Holmgren

As a supposed critic of the official story, one would think that Jim Hoffman would be pleased that Morgan Reynolds has weighed in on the S11 issue.

Instead he chose to turn it into a tirade in support of the official story.

Because we know that Hoffman is not a genuine critic.

In this post I will present the first part of the evidence that Hoffman is a Govt agent, who's mission is one of damage control for that part of the evidence which can't be put back into the bottle.

Even those who are not convinced of this will see that at the very best, Hoffman is a liar and plagiarist, running a duplicitous agenda which has nothing to do with truth, and merely seeks to cherry pick a few selected aspects of the truth about Sept 11 for some kind of personal gain, and doesn't care how much damage he does in order to achieve this goal.

The first issue to deal with is Hoffman's habit of plagiarizing research and then defaming the very people he's plagiarized it from.

If you go to Hoffman's site, you'll see that it's basically divided into two sections.

Some of it is dedicated to pretending to expose the official story. The rest of it is dedicated to attacking most of the S11 evidence and supporting the official story to which he claims to take exception.

As we'll see, the positive section has been built purely as a platform from which to piss on other research and researchers.

Let's first examine his supposed credentials as an S11 researcher. Hoffman's section on the WTC demolition is actually quite good. This is the platform which he needs in order to launch his attacks. The reason that it's a good treatment of the demolition issue is because Hoffman actually made only minor contributions to it. Most of it is plagiarized from earlier researchers such as J. McMichael and Jeff King (also known as "Plaguepuppy" ) who had the WTC demolition case proven well before anybody had heard of Hoffman. Hoffman has made some useful refinements of their arguments, but it's only icing on the cake of proof which was already in the public domain before Hoffman appeared.

In addition , Hoffman has the unpleasant habit of attacking as supposed Govt agents the very same people from whom he steals his work. Let me give you one stunning example of this.

Hoffman has been particularly vicious in his attacks on the Webfairy  http://thewebfairy.com/911

He has ridiculed her skills as a video analyst in relation to the work she's done on the no WTC planes issue. What Hoffman doesn't tell you is that at the same time as delivering this constant barrage of ridicule, and of accusing her of being a spook, he's quietly stolen some of her work on the WTC 7 demolition and passed it off as his own.

WF made some close ups of demolition squibs, close ups of which Hoffman makes good use - without attribution - while at the same time, snarling to the world that WF is a spook who is laughably incompetent with video.

Hoffman has also accused me of being a spook because of my work on the no planes issue.

 http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren~manufactured.html

What Hoffman doesn't tell you is that while he makes much of the smoking gun proof that the towers fell too quickly for a pancake collapse to be possible, that he learned of this aspect of the evidence from me, and used my original attempts to quantify the problem as the basis from which to develop his own work. He's refined it somewhat, which is what I wanted someone to do with it. However it's a bit rich to them attack the originator of this work as a spook, while also writing them out of the history of the development of the evidence.

For a newcomer to the evidence, a visit to Hoffman's site might give the impression that he played a major role in proving the WTC demolition. In fact he's done little more than tweak and refine the already existing work of the same people he's attacking. Because Jeff King, IMO the best demolition researcher, also supports the no planes evidence, Hoffman has written him out of the history, casting him by implication as a spook, and also incorporating King's work into his list of plagiarized achievements.

Hoffman's plagiarism is not limited to the demolition evidence. In order to maintain his cover it is necessary for Hoffman to pretend to have made a contribution in other areas.

Thus he supposedly exposes the Bin Laden confession video as a fake here.

 http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/deceptions/binladinvideo.html

This is completely plagiarized without attribution from this site which published it about 2 1/2 years before Hoffman.

 http://www.arbeiterfotografie.com/bin-laden-vergleich.html

The top half is in German, but if you scroll down, there's also an English version.

Now we turn to Hoffman's plagiarism of the stand down evidence which was published by Illarion Bykov and Jared Israel on www.tenc.net

In some ways this evidence is now somewhat dated, because it shows evidence for a military stand down to allow the hijacked planes to reach their targets.

Since we now know that there weren't any hijacked planes, it's debatable that any such stand down would have needed. Nevertheless, at the time it was published, the Tenc research was courageous and groundbreaking work, and blew a huge hole in the official story, prompting others to dig deeper and bring the evidence to the stage its reached today.

It's also worth noting that Hoffman showed up only after most of the current evidence on S11 had already been assembled, and people had been loudly distributing it for about two years. Tenc's work was published very early, before there was any "911 turth movement", when the authors had no way of knowing how the Govt would react to such publications and so could well have been risking their lives.

The respect that Hoffman pays is by plagiarizing their work and then defaming them.

This article from TENC

 http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-2.htm

has been directly ripped off by Hoffman here

 http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/alibis/cheney.html

And he's only just warming up.

TENC original  http://emperor.vwh.net/indict/urgent.htm
Hoffman rip off  http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/norad/index.html

TENC original  http://www.emperors-clothes.com/indict/faq.htm

Hoffman rip off  http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/defense/index.html

TENC original  http://emperor.vwh.net/indict/urgent.htm
Hoffman rip off  http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/alibis/myers.html

And of course, for anyone who claims that there really were hijacked planes, then an allegation of a military stand down becomes a vital component to claiming to be a critic of the story. Thus the TENC evidence remains vital to the case as long as one believes in hijacked planes, and this is why Hoffman attempts to pass Tenc's work off as his own.

Not content with Plagiarizing them, Hoffman then defames them by misrepresenting them.

 http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/02/1720145.php

Here, Hoffman replies to a piece from Popular Mechanics which attacks S11 "conspiracy theories." If you read Hoffman's reply carefully, you'll see that he actually supports most of Popular Mechanics spin, but cleverly disguises this support as dissent. Hoffman's method is to complain that most of what PM attacks isn't really S11 evidence - that its just disinfo worthy of contemptuous dismissal, and thus he attacks them for alleging it to be serious S11 evidence. In other words, Hoffman actually spends most of the article agreeing with PM.

Apart from the demolition evidence, which as we have already seen is mostly plagiarism and refinement of already existing proofs on his part, his only point of disagreement with PM is that such evidence should even be considered worthy of attack.

However, in relation to the stand down evidence, Hoffman perpetrates a vicious defamation of the same the Tenc work which he plagiarizes.

One of the Govt's cover stories on the stand down issue is that they did scramble fighter jets which just didn't get there in time. In a brilliant piece of research (one of those later plagiarized by Hoffman) Tenc demonstrated that this is a lie and that nothing was scrambled until after the pentagon was hit. But in his reply to PM, Hoffman attributes to Tenc the exact opposite view. He accuses PM of misrepresenting Tenc in attributing to them the research that they actually did. He attributes to Tenc support for the official story. Having set up this straw man, Hoffman then attacks PM for its attack on Tenc. In other words, Hoffman implies that the official story is correct and also falsely attributes such a view to Tenc, leaving his only complaint about PM to be that they've attacked a claim which Tenc supposedly didn't make.

This is a very clever piece of lying. Hoffman has managed to support the official lies on the scramble story, while appearing to take issue with Govt supporters like PM, at the same time as defaming the people from which Hoffman plagiarized his "research". So when a newcomer to this evidence goes to the Hoffman's site to try to sort out the confusion, what they'll see is Hoffman busting open the Norad cover story, something which Tenc supposedly failed to do.

Tenc never directly entered the debate about the demolition of the WTC. However they did, very early on, dig up an important story about how a demolition expert, Prof van Romero was initially reported as calling a controlled demolition and then later retracted in mysterious circumstances.

 http://emperors-clothes.com/news/albu.htm

Hoffman plagiarized it here.

 http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/retractions/romero.html


In following posts I will demonstrate

:Hoffman's likely connections with Govt agencies, in particular the NSA.
:Hoffman's fraudulent use of documentation to attribute to it the exact opposite of what it says
:Hoffman's habit of using such wildly contradictory arguments that one can only conclude that he is lying.
:Hoffman's tacit support for direct lies
:Hoffman's fear of subjecting his disinformation to the scrutiny of direct debate.

Hoffman the spook 02.Jul.2005 16:03

Gerard Holmgren

When Hoffman first appeared in our research discussion groups, I was not the only one who immediately had alarm bells. His disruptive and destructive and confrontational attitude, and particularly his habit of deliberately twisting the words of other people in order to wriggle out of awkward tangles he had got himself into was a giveaway for those of us who had spent time battling the likes of Ron Harvey.

However, while instinct is sufficient to invoke a suspicion that one is dealing with a cointelpro agent, it is not sufficient for confirmation. It wasn't long before the evidence evolved beyond instinct.

Michael Elliot did some digging on Hoffman and discovered that he worked for an NGO with contracts to the NSA. He alerted the list to this. This of course is circumstantial by itself - we've all got a living to make and can't always choose our employers as carefully as we would like and can't necessarily be held responsible for some of their activities over which we might have no control. In this world it's "let he who is without sin... " in relation to employment - within reasonable limits, and reasonable benefit of the doubt.

However, it's different when someone lies about their employment. Because when Elliot dug this up, Hoffman immediately snapped back in an email "For your information, they fired me".

A little later, Elliot replied "He's lying. I just phoned his work and he's still there".

Hoffman never denied this. He snapped back at Elliot with a tirade of insults but never denied that he was still there and thus that he'd lied about being fired.

Why did he lie ? While one might be given the benefit of the doubt for having a job with an NGO which has contracts with the NSA, lying that one has been fired when one has not significantly tips the scales the other way.

This was more than a year ago. And it appears that he's still there. And the nasty connections are not limited to the NSA. Here are details of Hoffman's work as far as we've been able to ascertain.

This is extracted from an email from WF

[He is still at MSRI,
 http://www.msri.org/people/staff/jim/ an NGO with contracts with the NSA.


In 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  http://www.msri.org/people/staff/jim/index.html for a "research institute" at one of the US Government's most important laboratories:
Lawrence Berkeley Labs, and his real email is mailto:jim@ msri.org The [WWW]Mathematical Sciences Research Institute  http://www.msri.org/ has [WWW]amongst its sponsors

 http://www.msri.org/governance/sponsors/govsponsors.html :

*
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 laboratories such as Lawrence Berkeley and Livermore.

 http://911review.org/911Review.Com.shtml

These nasty connections need to be seen in the context of some who

a)never voluntarily disclosed his work place

b) lied in claiming to have been fired after he was outed.

c) Was a Jimmy-come lately on the S11 scene, and has greatly exaggerated his contribution through an aggressive progam of plagiarizing almost everything which he doesn't choose to attack or ignore.

d) devotes an extraordinary amount of his website to attacking other researchers

But the plot thickens further in relation to Hoffman's probable intelligence connections

Hoffman gained his cred as an "activist" through his "Justice for Woody" activities.

 http://www.justiceforwoody.org/

Although Hoffman is only one of the people mentioned as a friend of Woody's seeking justice , from the style of the website we can clearly see that the same person who does 911research, Hoffman's site, is responsible for the JFW site.

If you have a good look around the JFW site, you'll notice a very curious thing.

Basically it concerns the shooting murder of Hoffman's friend Woody by police who were so over the top in their actions that it sounds like they must have been cracked out of their heads.

Apparently, Woody had taken refuge in a church, with only a small knife and was threatening harm to no-one but himself, and the police came in and just blasted the hell out of him, and the murder has been protected by an official cover up and obstruction of any semblance of proper inquiry.

There are many tributes to Woody, about what a wonderful guy he was, there are descriptions of the community activities he was involved in, there is information on the efforts of friends and family to break through the official cover up. There's lots and lots of information about many different aspects of the Woody case.

But there is one glaring omission. I went all over the site, and am reasonably sure that I looked everywhere, and I could find not one word about the circumstances which led to Woody's murder.

Exactly why was Woody taking refuge in a church and threatening to harm himself ? Did he have a mental illness ? Was he on drugs ? Was he on the run from legal custody or from having allegedly committed an offence ? Had the police just randomly picked him out for harassment, because they wanted to shoot somebody ? Apparently Woody was a non violent community activist.
Well, sometimes the cops can get over the top, but they don't normally do this kind of thing even to rioting crowds bombarding them with rocks.

Clearly it was none of these things because otherwise the cops would not have been so over the top. Woody's fears were justified.
Exactly what had Woody done to piss them off so much ?

Not one word from JFW. Isn't that a bit strange? Woody's attempt to take refuge clearly indicates that he had some idea of what was intended for him. Why would the police just burst in and blast the hell out of him, obviously shooting to kill in a premeditated manner ?

As the JFW site itself says

 http://www.justiceforwoody.org/story/shooting.html

[[Minutes earlier he had been begging the incredulous congregation to grant him the protection of political asylum, explaining that he was being pursued by government authorities, who sought to kill him to silence him. Although he threatened himself in a desperate bid to persuade witnesses to stay, the 18 witnesses maintained that he never threatened anyone else. Why, then, did the police shoot him, and why has the state gone to such extraordinary lengths to obscure what happened that day?]]

Good questions indeed, but what's even more curious is that the JFW site never gives even a hint of trying to explain this itself. Do they really know absolutely nothing ? Is it a total mystery ? And if so, why does the site lack any sense of bewilderment at the events ? There is no hint of "we just have no idea what this was about. "

"Silence him. " About what ? What did Woody know ? What connections enabled Woody to be in a position to know whatever it was that was so important ?

In what is otherwise a fairly detailed treatment of Woody's life and death and the subsequent cover up, in relation to exactly what led up to this , the JFW site is neither surprised in it's tone nor informative.

I'm guessing of course, but to me, only one explanation comes to mind which fits all of these anomalies.

Woody was in some way involved with intelligence agencies or other covert operations. Perhaps he was wanting out of whatever he was involved with, which can be a dangerous thing to try. Perhaps he had stumbled across something which he wasn't meant to know, and met the fate which usually befalls operatives who have become inconvenient. But in some way he had fallen foul of something very big, and JFW (Hoffman ) doesn't want to talk about what it was.

Well, I can't prove this, but to me it is the best explanation which fits all 4 anomalies - 1)Woody's desperate sense that something bad was going to happen to him 2)The obvious determination of the police to shoot to kill without hesitation 3) Officialdom closing ranks behind the police action 4) The total silence of the JFW site (Hoffman) about even the slightest hint of what led up to the situation, coupled with the absence of any surprise or bewilderment in its tone.

If so, it can be reasonably concluded that many of Woody's friends - in particular Hoffman, who obviously maintains the site- are also in some way connected with intelligence or other covert agencies.

And so Hoffman's work connections as exposed by WF in the above quoted mail are hardly surprising.

I recently invited Hoffman to defend himself in an email list debate against these charges. He declined. Why would he not defend himself if the accusations were baseless ?

The invitation to defend himself was in stark contrast to Hoffman's continual accusations of cointelpro against all and sundry made from behind the safety of his website, and then the consistent refusal to subject his allegations to dynamic debate, a matter which I'll detail further in a separate post.

I gave Hoffman every chance to debate this in a less public setting. He refused.

Lying betrays consciousness of guilt. Why did he say he had been fired ? Fear of debate betrays consciousness of guilt. Why did he refuse to debate these observations when they were raised ?

Does he think that he can make consistent, shrill allegations of cointelpro against all and sundry, refuse to debate them in a dynamic situation, and then expect to remain free of scrutiny himself, when he has such nasty skeletons in the cupboard ?

I concede that the evidence compiled here stops short of absolute proof that Hoffman is a cointelpro agent of some kind. But in my opinion the evidence is strong enough for reasonable confidence in this conclusion, and Hoffman only makes his case weaker by refusing the invitation to defend himself in a dynamic debate forum.

Even if his motivations are in fact less sinister thahn what the evidence points to, I will continue my deconstruction of Hoffman's of Hoffman's poisonous, treacherous, and destructive effect on the S11 research community, in further posts. His latest attack on Reynolds is only the same as what he's been dishing out for a long time to all refuse to bow before him.

For all his wackiness,.. 02.Jul.2005 16:24

Jack Straw

For all his wackiness, majdur got one thing right. The net result of Hoffman's hit piece is to reinforce the official conspiracy story. Majdur does buy it all, lock stock and barrel, even the "suicide' hijackers who are still alive, even the steel weakening or even melting due to 500 deg F fires, even the steel and concrete which offer no more resistance to falling steel and concrete than does air. But at least he's consistently wacko. Hoffman on the other hand gets it re WTC, but then wants people to not look any further. I personally don't think he's an agent, merely someone whose ego and ambition have led him to a proprietory attitude about 9/11, and he wants the discussion restricted to that part which he thinks he's mastered. and not look further, even to the point of defaming other researchers for merely going where he wouldn't.

paul borneo 02.Jul.2005 19:44

note july

One of the guys who really runs Jim Hoffman is Paul Borneo from Western Massachusetts.

He's a network admin and software designer, who runs  http://www.speedbeacon.com/ and Wyola.net.

 http://www.speedbeacon.com/images/paul.jpg

He created 911review.com within weeks with an automatic template engine.
Hoffman's other spokesperson seems to be his girlfriend Victoria Ashley, most active at 9/11 Truth Alliance.

Both reacted very snippy, when some researchers found out, that his institute was sponsored by the NSA (though it appears, that the NSA is concentrating on workshops for real algebraic geometry)
 http://www.msri.org/governance/sponsors/govsponsors.html



More here:
Jim Hoffman - Booby Trap For 9/11 Truth Seekers
By Joe Quinn
 http://www.signs-of-the-times.org/signs/hoffman_rebuttal.htm

Hoffman and the Pentagon 02.Jul.2005 22:09

Jack Straw

Very interesting stuff, that last URL on Hoffman and the Pentagon. It quotes Hoffman about assisting Jeff Strahl in making a presentation on the Pentagon. Jeff, a very close friend of mine, did much of the research for the original Pentagon page at 911research. He tells me that after May '04 or so, Hoffman started changing his tune on the Pentagon, kept bringing up ridiculous angles, such as the spool in question (which Jeff pointed out was either in the way of a 757, or would have been blown around by the jet engines, as would have the other nearby spools, and extremely unlikely any would have landed on their narrow side, let alone 4 out of the 5 visible ones) was raised by either an underground cable or by people running out of the Pentagon, as part of the plan to plant disinformation. In September '04, Hoffman placed a comment at the page's beginning disavowing its conclusions.
Shortly afterwards, at a meeting where a public presentation of 9/11 evidence was being planned, Hoffman basically intimidated the majority of those present into refusing to let Jeff make the presentation he made several times before, along with Jim's WTC presentation, in favor of limiting any Pentagon evidence to a list which is amazingly like the list Mark Rabinowitz of Oil Empire insists raises the only valid points. This is also when Jim insisted upon the idea that a 757 was there, and was blown up progressively as it approached the Pentagon's wall, with all the debris landing perfectly at the bottom of the wall, and no scorching or other damage to the lawn, or the spools,...He tried to argue that a notch on a generator truck facing the wrong way was caused by the plane cutting the notch and at the *end* of the cut turning the truck 90 degrees. When others wouldn't buy it, he then said that if the evidence doesn't fit, it too was planted by the disinfo agents. Jeff dropped out of the presentation.
Soon afterwards, Jeff revisited the Pentagon page, and found comments on every single frame. He was never informed of it. He demanded his name be taken off. Hoffman defended his action by saying that this was his site, and he had copyright to everything on it., though Jeff never signed any copyright agreement. Jeff is the "anonymous author". Jeff thinks, and i agree, that Jim's entire purpose is to demote the importance of Pentagon evidence, so as to preserve the supposed primacy of the WTC, which Hoffman regards as his property.

How Hoffman distorts evidence 03.Jul.2005 02:44

Gerard Holmgren

The Hoffman story gets dirtier.

The post above from Jack Straw is timely, because I will now use Hoffman's treatment of the witness evidence in relation to the Pentagon incident to demonstrate that Hoffman is a deliberate disinformationist, consciously lying in order to give the impression that evidence says the opposite of what it really does.

For those not familiar with this issue, I suggest that you first read the article which I published in June 2002 in relation to the witness evidence.

 http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/witness.html

This article thoroughly busted the myth that there were "hundreds of witnesses to a large jet hitting the Pentagon.

Since then Hoffman has been on a mission to revive this discredited notion, and lying is fine as far as Hoffman is concerned.

To expose the fundamental dishonesty with which Hoffman approaches this issue ,let's look at this statement.

 http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/witnesses.html

[[Most no-757-crash literature ignores the body of eyewitness evidence indicating the presence of a twin-engine jetliner, and in many cases cherry-picks certain eyewitness accounts that seem to support the presence of a small plane. A common tactic is to present one part of Mike Walter's account:

I mean it was like a cruise missile with wings. It went right there and slammed right into the Pentagon.
while leaving out the earlier part of his account:
I looked out my window and I saw this plane, this jet, an American Airlines jet, coming. And I thought, 'This doesn't add up, it's really low.'
In the context of his full account, it is clear that Walter was using "cruise missile with wings" to describe the way the plane was being flown, not the kind of plane he saw. ]]

In a moment we'll see who's cherry picking ! Hoffman is actually correct in that Walter's reports have been misused by both sides of the debate, and his complaints about the emphasis on the "cruise missile" part by some 757 skeptics is valid. But this is the pot calling the kettle black. It's nothing compared to the gross distortion of the Walter reports by supporters of the official story like Hoffman. For a start, notice that Hoffman refers to "Walter's account" - singular, as if there were only one, and then refers to the " context of his full account " in presenting one of the quotes.

Hoffman is well aware that this is a lie, because he is well aware of the work that I did to track down Walter's full *accounts* - because there were several - and they were so wildly contradictory that it's impossible to make any sense out of them at all.

You can see a full deconstruction here.

 http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/witness2.html

Below is a summary of what my research on Walter found, but I recommend reading the link above to get the full picture

Hoffman says "In the context of his full account..."

And exactly *which* full account would that be, Jim ?

Perhaps the one where he told Bryant Gumbel that he saw a full on impact,

""I was on an elevated area of Highway 27 and I had a very good view. I was stuck in traffic. We weren't moving and--and I could see over in the distance the American Airlines jet as it kind of banked around, pivoted and then took a steep dive right into the Pentagon."

and then when Gumbel responded with

GUMBEL: Did you see it hit the Pentagon? Was the plane coming in horizontally or did it, in fact, go on its wing as--as it impacted the building?

To which Walter responded with

Mr. WALTER: You know, the--the--the--there were trees there that kind of obstructed it, so I kind of--I saw it go in. I'm not sure if it turned at an angle. I've heard some people say that's what it did. All I know is it--it created a huge explosion and massive fireball and--and you knew instantaneously that--that everybody on that plane was dead. It was completely eviscerated. "

So Walter's claim to have seen the plane hit the building lasted all of 5 secs before he backed off the claim.

And just to make sure, later in the interview

GUMBEL: Tell me, if you could, about the manner in which the--the plane struck the building....

Mr. WALTER: Well, as I said, you know, there were trees obstructing my view, so I saw it as it went--and then the--then the trees, and then I saw the--the fireball and the smoke. Some people have said that the plane actually sent on its side and in that way. But I can't tell you, Bryant. I just know that what I saw was this massive fireball, a huge explosion and--and a--the thick column of smoke and then an absolute bedlam on those roads as people were trying to get away."

Now you see it (hit), now you don't.

Or did Jim mean the full account he gave in another interview, only 1 hour later, where he said

"It kind of disappeared over this embankment here for a moment and then a huge explosion, flames flying into the air, and--and just chaos on the road."

So he was in an elevated area with a very good view and saw a full on impact, which he actually didn't see at all because there were trees in the way, but in spite of his elevation and very good view it "disappeared" over an embankment - which is actually what he had been saying the day before anyway, before he changed his mind the next day in the Gumbel interview,and then immediately backed off, and 1 hour later went back to his story of the previous day, where he explicitly stated that he did not see it hit the building.

So who's Cherry picking ?

The only time during Walter's muddled and contradictory statements where he actually claims to have seen a plane hit a building - a claim which was immediately retracted - he says that it took a steep dive in to the building.

In spite of this, Hoffman is untroubled by also quoting from Bart's compilation, another "witness"

"The plane approached the Pentagon about six feet off the ground, clipping a light pole, a car antenna, a construction trailer and an emergency generator before slicing into the building, said Lee Evey,"

I see, it took a steep dive from 6 ft ? No more than one of these two reports can possibly be telling the truth (even ignoring the multiple internal contradictions in the Walter report). So which one is it, Jim ?

And does the second one say what kind of plane ? Big ? Small ? Jet ? Prop?
Civillian? Military ?

It doesn't matter to Jim. They're both being truthful and accurate. It took a steep dive *and* it approached from about 6 ft off the ground. And it doesn't matter that even a hint of the type of plane is unspecified.

It also escapes Hoffman's attention that the "witness" just happens to be

" the manager of the Pentagon's ongoing billion-dollar renovation."

and is reported as making this statement on Oct 6 2001,in relation to the rebuilding program, in a context such that it appears that Levy is not claiming to have seen this first hand is and is just summing up his belief about what happened.

 http://www.detnews.com/2001/nation/0110/06/nation-312016.htm

So the "witness" isn't a witness at all, but a Pentagon spokesman spinning the official line.

This is what Hoffman calls "evidence".

And Hoffman has the never to call those who see through this charade "disinformationists".

This is why Hoffman refuses my repeated challenges to a direct debate, because he knows that his lies will be irrevocably exposed.

Gerard Holmgren - still trying to bring down the 911 movement 03.Jul.2005 10:07

reader

Gerard Holmgren has been spamming Indymedias like diarrhea with his unfounded lies and attacks on Jim Hoffman, who runs one of the best 9.11 sites on the web.

Gee, how hard is THAT to figure out!

Take a look at what happened to David Ray Griffin when he relied on the supposed 'research' of Gerard Holmgren. He got screwed! :

AMY GOODMAN: Chip Berlet, the charges that David Ray Griffin makes, the questions he says are not answered, the implications of what he is saying, for example, a missile hitting the Pentagon as opposed to the plane, and then what happened to the passengers on board that plane?

CHIP BERLET: Well, that's an example, and not to mention, there are a number of internet researchers have done internet searches and said they cannot find actually any witnesses who saw the plane hit the Pentagon, who weren't government employees. But if you go to searches on local newspapers for when people talked to their magazines, there were hundreds of witnesses who saw a jet commercial airliner hit the Pentagon. You cannot find them on the internet because they're not there. One of the people that Griffin relies on is this -- is a researcher named Holmgren, who goes into great lengths say that he can't find this witness, Dave Winslow. He went on to say that Dave Winslow probably doesn't exist and if he does, he should come forward. Dave Winslow is an A.P. Radio reporter. If you pick up the "Washingtonian magazine" for September, 2002, there's a picture of Dave Winslow and an interview of what he saw. That's the substandard research being relied on here.
 http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/26/150221

needless to say, David Ray Griffin did NOT include Holmgren in his next edition of NPH.

So which one of them is "reader"? 03.Jul.2005 14:44

Jack Straw

So which one of the disinfo hit squad is "reader"? Is he Hoffman himself? No, way more focus on oilempire than on Hoffman's site, doesn't fit the ego size. Is that Brian Salter, who just removed from his site all material posted there, stuff going back to '02, which he doesn't agree with anymore, including Max Kolskegg's excellent article 9/11 in Context (you can find it in Portland IMC, google name and title)? He's too shadowy. His brother Eric? No, he is currently "repost". Must be.....Rabinowitz himself, the man who less than 2 years ago insisted the planes cut the WTC support columns at collision times, and it simply took time for the structures to realize that and then immediately turn to dust and small pieces and come down in free-fall-through-air time? So, who? Only the shadow knows.

Jack Straw, trying to figure out who on earth would question his premise 03.Jul.2005 15:31

reader

Jack, sorry to inform you, but 'reader' probably represents the large majority of readers on Portland and every Indymedia who agree with me that planes did indeed hit the towers on 9/11 and that PERSONAL ATTACKS ON RESEARCHERS is poor form, to say the very least.

As we can see, Holmgren is 'out to get' Jim Hoffman, who has one of the best sites on the web for 9/11 information. If Holmgren's positions were actually valid - that fake planes hit - he would never need to resort to personal and ugly attacks on par with the likes of WING TV.

I don't know Holmgren and I don't care to know him, nor am I interested in turning 9/11 threads into gossip columns. My interest is in exposing work pretending to be 'research' which actually has no basis in any evidence and is insulting to the survivors.

It's not hard to get - Holmgren is attacking people personally because his theory doesn't win people over since it's faulty from the start. And sadly, that's a best-case scenario.

And as for Rabinowitz 03.Jul.2005 16:01

Gerard Holmgren

It dose seem fairly obvious that Rabinowitz is reader. And we get an idea of Rabonwitz's research ethics from a directv lie which we can find on his website.

In Nov 2003 I discovered and published official flight logs from the Bureau of transportation which say that there were no such flights as AA 11 or 77 on Sept 11.

 http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/1177.html

In rresponse Rabinowitz resorted to flat out lying with this statement on oilempire:

"An obvious rebuttal to Holmgren's assertion is that since the planes didn't complete their flights, it might not have been appropriate to include them in a database of completed flights."

 http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html

Very true - *if* the datbase in question was a dtatbase of "completed flight". But the problem for Rabinowitz is that it's not a database of "completed flights".

It's a database of *scheduled* flights. All scheduled flights must be reported whether completed or not. In fact the whole idea of the database is to keep records of which scheduled flights do not get completed. That is why one can find records of cancelled and diverted flights.

This fact is obvious both from the description in my article linked above and if one visits the database itself (linked in the article).

Rabonowitz cannot possibly have been unaware of this and is therefore caught lying in a calculated manner.

Which is a point I was going to make about Hoffman anyway. Hoffman and Rabinowitz exchange many complimentary reccomendations about each others web sites.

So recently I drew to Hoffman's attention the fact of this obvious lie, and asked him whether he would write to Rabinowitz and ask him to correct this factual innacuracy. Hoffman refused to answer.

Thuis we also have it on record that Hoffman tacitly supports any kind of lie necessary to try to mislead people towards a preset view, by reccomending in glowing terms a website which he knows is telling big fat whoppers.

In fact it's worth quoting Hoffman's response by email when I first published the BTS article. This reponse was not made to me, because he was too gutless to confront me as usual, so it got back to me from a chain of forwards.

Bear in mind that the ramble below from Spook Hoffman purports to be in response to the unveiling of documentation of official flight log documentation.

''Some people have put enormous effort into building a case that either of both of:
(1) what hit the North Tower was not a jetliner, let alone AA F11
(2) no jetliner hit the South Tower -- rather the impact was simulated using holograms or faked video and planted explosives.

I find (1) highly improbable, and (2) laughable.

The object passing over in the Naudet video -- the only known video capturing the North Tower impact, except for an even lower resolution security camera -- sounds like a turbofan: you can hear a distinct hum, not just a white noise roar that a military jet or missile would make. Furthermore, the impact hole matches the profile of a 767 down to the engine pods and wingtips.

I won't even address the evidence about the South Tower impact except to say that when I have in an e-mail list with some proponents of the no-planes theories, I've been labeled a debunker and attacked, especially by webfairy, who's conviction that the Naudet video shows that no jetliner hit the North Tower I might describe as religious. (My comments about motion and pixel-blur, sampling errors, and compression artifacts only elicited further ridicule.)

I very much doubt that webfairy or Scott Longrey (911hoax.com) are insincere, but I think the no-planes-hit-the-towers is a very destructive meme that helps to lump things like the WTC demolition in the catagory of lunatic ideas in the minds of many.
To his credit, Gerard understands this, so he doesn't focus on it despite believing, I think, both (1) and (2).

Gerard's description of (1) as "widely accepted" may reflect the people he communicates with most, and the vocal persistence of webfairy, et.al. And the idea has gained some currency, even appearing on serendipity.li in an article by Leonard Spencer.
 http://www.serendipity.li/wot/aa11.htm

I feel like I have to write an article taking this on, which will distract me from the next upgrade I need to do to my WTC demolition analysis on 911research.wtc7.net .''

How's that for relevance? Rabinowitz and Hoffman make a great team of spooks. Rabinowitz tells the direct lie, and Hoffman just rambles about something else hoping that people forget about the piece of research he was actually responding to.

This is typical of Hoffman's dishonest and evasive approach.

I produce official documentation that AA11 and 77 didn't fly and in response he wants to talk about the video of blob 11 and cartoon 175 hitting the towers. But when we actually addressed the subject of blob 11 (on the only occasion where Hoffman actually made the mistake of trying to debate me in person), he suddenly didn't want to talk about the videos any more. Now he suddenly switched to wanting to talk about witnesses to the Sth tower strike.

 http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/salter.html
(Hoffman's appearance begins on {Page 8 of the debate)

When he was unable to back up his wild claim of hundreds of witneses - with a single documented example, then he claimed that the fact that there weren't any was actually proof that hundreds of people saw it, and when I returned to the question of the North tower video, he ran away, and has cowered in his troll cave ever since, sniping from behind his NSA and naval intelligence funded shield.

Hoffman would have been very much at home as a witch-craft trial prosecutor. His claim that the fact there isn't any witness support for a large plane hitting the Sth tower actually proves that hundreds of people saw it is a spectacular pieces of circular reasoning, worthy of a withcraft trial.

Rabinowitz has been following me around the net crowing about the Winslow thing, because its the only mistake of any significance that he can find in my entire body of work.

However,what Rabinowitz doesn't tell you is that the only way Bertlett was able to make any capital out of this minor error is by lying about what my article actually says.

You can find what I really said about Winslow by reading the actual article

 http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/witness.html

And you can find a summary of the Winslow issue IMC where I was replying to another attempt by Rabiowitz to whip up this storm in a teacup.

 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/05/316966.shtml#184089

Endless baiting 04.Jul.2005 13:25

reader

>>It dose seem fairly obvious that Rabinowitz is reader.

Now Holmgren is switching away from attacking one person, and on to attacking another. What's the real goal of supposed 'researchers' who spend all their time attacking one or two people? Their own 'theories' of 'no-plane' are going nowhere so they need to poke at researcher's whose work is sincere.

What Holmgren is actually doing is trying to keep the loony 'no planes' idea alive and linked to the real stuff in order to discredit real research and well-documented positions like the demolition of the towers.

In his 'Critical Review of Morgan Reynolds,'' the original article on this page (above . . . at the top of this page now packed with Holmgren nonsense comments and personal attacks . . .) author Jim Hoffman separates the no-plane nonsense from the issue of the demolitions in an analysis of the recent Morgan Reynolds article.

So, time to attack Hoffman for exposing the disinfo of 'fake planes' or 'no planes.'

Planes? What kind of planes? 04.Jul.2005 13:59

Jack Straw

So now, the new "reader" argues that most people at Portland IMC think planes hit the WTC (he wisely skips the Pentagon, knowing that's a losing assertion there). Well, what does that mean? Most people i know argue that those planes (which is a broad term that can include all sorts of flying objects) were not *"hijacked" airliners*. Likewise regarding the Pentagon.

No Planes Hit the Towers 04.Jul.2005 16:28

Tim basement.dnai@rcn.com

They tried to make it look like a Boeing 767-400 hit the North Tower, but for some reason the explosives didn't quite do the job they were supposed to do. They did a good job for the right side of the airplane damage, but the left side was incomplete and the left wing tip is actually disconnected from the rest of the damage. CNN actually made the mistake of airing video of close-up shots of the damage. Here are some stills from my vcr tape:

 http://www.maebrussell.com/9-11/North%20Tower%20pics.html

When they realized this screw up their b-actors on the street, and even some news bunnies, began describing a "smaller plane" or "727" or "737" as hitting the North Tower. But eventually they settled for a 767-200 as the official plane. If you do the measurements and stretch the imagination a 767-200 kinda sorta fits, but really it doesn't because the actual hole is too v-shaped and the left side damage is very "topical".

As far as I know the actual video and still pictures of the close-up damage to the North Tower has been buried except for my website. All the pictures floating around are phony. Here are some:
 http://www.maebrussell.com/9-11/Fake%20North%20Tower%20pics.html

You will notice that the disconnected wing tip damage is usually missing. Also when the explosives went off they apparently caused a couple of black horizontal burn streaks across the building to the right of the damage -- this is usually also missing from the fake pics everybody loves to use as the official photos.

The Naudet video is fake. Who knows when they even made that: possibly not even that day. I think the reason why it is 100 times more phony-looking than the South Tower plane videos is because when the bombs didn't work they had to make some last minute changes to the plane. This would also explain why there is only one video shot and not many more, such as surveillance camera videos they probably had waiting to show the public.

Anybody who watches the actual coverage from that day knows that those buildings were designed to withstand a 707 crashing into them. At least 90% of the 767-400 should have been seen crumbling down the side of the South Tower, instead 0% of it does. And the explosion it made is more spectacular than anything Hollywood could have created, not boring at all. How can people fall for this?

Happy 4th,
Tim


Nutty 05.Jul.2005 15:09

don't analyze this

>>They tried to make it look like a Boeing 767-400 hit the North Tower

>>When they realized this screw up their b-actors on the street

>>As far as I know the actual video and still pictures of the close-up damage to the North Tower has been buried except for my website

>>You will notice that the disconnected wing tip damage is usually missing

>>The Naudet video is fake

>>And the explosion it made is more spectacular than anything Hollywood could have created

Yes, I think the majority of Portland readers would agree this is too far out there to spend any time on at all. Sorry.

"reader" IS Rabinowitz! 05.Jul.2005 17:30

bored

Reader IS Researcher aka Mark "mc carthy" Robinowitz, because his slang is very easy to analyse.

On May 17th 2005 he posted the same sermon as "researcher" with the same Amy Goodman quote

 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/05/317582.shtml#180710

In earlier bashing posts with same handle "researcher" (which is basically used by many different portland visitors) he usually includes his signature of  http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html, combined with the usual bashing line like this

...xxxx "is a site that is mixing together the 9/11 hoaxes with the best productions from the 9/11 truth movement..."
One of his main targets are tvnewslies.org, WING TV, reopen911.org, thewebfairy.com, 911review.org and serendipity.li. Everytime when someone mentions these websites you can be sure.

He's a saboteur of this movement to distract from valuable research, especially from the controlled demolitions, while he insists that these researchers only focussing on "pods and missiles", which is nonsense.

Nutty! Don't analyze this, please. Find something else to do. 06.Jul.2005 07:46

Tim basement.dnai@rcn.com

Nutty, don't analyze this, close your eyes, don't look, go back to sleep, I see no-thing, I hear no-thing, I know no-thing.

It only takes a few seconds to compare the actual CNN close-up shots to the many touched up photos floating around on the internet and magazines. The busted up "left wing tip" portion of the left corner of the building has been erased from the fake photos, and the two large horizontal burn streaks to the right of the damage have also been erased. There are many other things, too, such as people standing in the "hole" (can you say "Where's Waldo?"?), and beams bending inward.

As incredible as it sounds, it appears that the nazis who planted the explosives actually miscalculated one or two floors for the left side of the wing. Notice above the left "wing damage" the damage is far more serious than below it. Obviously these people have guts, but shows that they sure are dumb -- can't even count!

Tim


No Transport Aircraft Could Have Done the Job 07.Jul.2005 16:27

George Trinkaus teslapress@yahoo.com

Required at both the WTC towers and the Pentagon was a blast-through capability.

Otherwise the aircraft in both cases would never have penetrated their targets.They woud have smashed, fragmented, and fallen into the street.
This is widely appreciated in respect to the Pentagon, but do look at the WTC tower archtecture and think about this.

Why did NYC Fire Chief Albert Perry report to Pat Dawson of NBC that morning that, not only explosives were pre-installed but that explosives were "on the aircraft?" This was the damage assessment by firemen who saw the impact scene.


Holmgren, a lesson in disiformaton 10.Dec.2006 22:12

reader

Gerard Holmgren - still trying to bring down the 911 movement 03.Jul.2005 10:07
reader link

Gerard Holmgren has been spamming Indymedias like diarrhea with his unfounded lies and attacks on Jim Hoffman, who runs one of the best 9.11 sites on the web.

Gee, how hard is THAT to figure out!

Take a look at what happened to David Ray Griffin when he relied on the supposed 'research' of Gerard Holmgren. He got screwed! :

AMY GOODMAN: Chip Berlet, the charges that David Ray Griffin makes, the questions he says are not answered, the implications of what he is saying, for example, a missile hitting the Pentagon as opposed to the plane, and then what happened to the passengers on board that plane?

CHIP BERLET: Well, that's an example, and not to mention, there are a number of internet researchers have done internet searches and said they cannot find actually any witnesses who saw the plane hit the Pentagon, who weren't government employees. But if you go to searches on local newspapers for when people talked to their magazines, there were hundreds of witnesses who saw a jet commercial airliner hit the Pentagon. You cannot find them on the internet because they're not there. One of the people that Griffin relies on is this -- is a researcher named Holmgren, who goes into great lengths say that he can't find this witness, Dave Winslow. He went on to say that Dave Winslow probably doesn't exist and if he does, he should come forward. Dave Winslow is an A.P. Radio reporter. If you pick up the "Washingtonian magazine" for September, 2002, there's a picture of Dave Winslow and an interview of what he saw. That's the substandard research being relied on here.
 http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/26/150221

needless to say, David Ray Griffin did NOT include Holmgren in his next edition of NPH.

Somebody buy Mark Robinowitz a calendar 28.Dec.2006 01:42

Gerard Holmgren

In case he has't noticed - September comes *after* June.

As an example of Robinowitz's ludicrous and dishonest standards, check his quoting of Chip Berlet above. This would be hilarious if there weren't so many lies and double standards in it.

Lets consider:

1) My article on Pentagon witnesses
 http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/witness.html

was published in June 2002. Note that date.

Berlet then pulls up an article published in Sept 2002 (note that date) and calls my article "sloppy research" becauase it didn't referencce the Sept 2002 article.

Now, if anybody can explain to me how an article published in June 2002 could have referenced an article published in Sept 2002, please go ahead.

Since Robinowitz/Reader is all over the net , launching attacks on me on this ludicrous basis, it gives you an idea of how desperate he is in his futile effort to find something wrong with my article. If there really was something wrong, you'd think he could do better than that. Heh !

2. Berlet actually lies about what my article says. Notice that Robinowitz is too dishinest to actually refetrence and link my article in question. The only thing he ever links to is Berlet's attack, which

a) lies about the content of my article
b) on the basis of that lie, resorts to the ludicrous mistake described above.

3. It give you an idea of the ethical standards of plagiarist, Orwellian double thinker Griffin. Reader/Robinwotz is blaming me for Griffin making a fool of himself.

The reason that Griffin made a fool of himself is that if he had actually been aware of what my article says, Griffin could have torn Berlet apart, as explained above. But because Griffin is a cheap lazy plagiarist, he simply tried to take the credit for my work, without even knowing what was in it. Then when an alleged error is brought up, because he doesn;t even know what's being talked about, he simply cowers from the attack, he wants to wash his hands of responsibility for the work which he previously fraudulently claiming credit for.

Reader/Robinowtiz is caught in a cleft stick here. If there was a legitimate error in my work, as he erroneously claims, then what does it say about Griffin, that he uncritically referenced it without noticing the mistake ?

Or if Griffin is to be forgiven for such an alleged oversight, why not me also ? After all, I do original research, as opposed to Griffin who simply plagiarizes otherr people's research and makes money out out it, and is then incapable of defending it, against even the flimsiest of attacks, as exampled by Berlet.

Or, if Griffin is in the clear because Berelet was lying about the alleged mistake in my article, then why is Robinowtiz supporting Berelets lies ?

Bear in mind that Robinowiotz has never done a skerrick of research himself, nor distributed anybody else's. Robvinowitz's site focuses solely on supporting the official story, by attacking almost every piece of evidence against it.

Robinowitz believes that 19 crazy Arabs hijacked planes and floew them into buildings.

 http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren

Robinowitz the Jew baiter kicks the corpses of Nazi victims 28.Dec.2006 01:46

Gerard Holmgren

Personal attacks by Robinowitz sink to a new low.

If you go to Robinowitz's site, you'll see professed outrage at holocaust denial. But in fact, Robinowitz is a racist Jew Baiter who takes a grisley pleasure in sneering at the vitims of Nazi atrocities.

On what basis do I say this ?

Robinowitz takes great pleasure in labelling me as a holocaust denier - without quoting anything from me to support this smear.

The thing is that Robinowitz knows very well that I come from a half Jewish background and that my grandfather had his entire family wiped out in Polish extermination camps.

Robinowitz finds this so amusing that he likes to taunt me as being a "holocaust denier".

Presumably , the aim - apart from the perverse pleasure that he gets out of this - is to try to trigger an over emotional reaction which is unwisely worded.

Doubtless Robinowitz will continue to derive pleasure out of this low form of baiting, but I'll just keep on posting the research which Robinowitz is so desperate for you not to see.

 http://members.iinet.au/~holmgren/research.html

Here are the quotes from Robinowitz's website where he baits me about "holocaust denial". He doesn't mention me by name, because he knows that it would leave him open to defamation action - just like his false attributions of "hologram" theories.

But given my prominence in promoting the no planes evidence, it is clear by implication who he is targeting.

 http://www.oilempire.us/holocaust-denial.html

[["No Planes and No Gas Chambers" Holocaust deniers push hoaxes that sabotage 9/11 Truth Movement]]

 http://www.oilempire.us/hoaxes.html#who

[[If you look at who is peddling the "no plane" stuff the hardest, it is generally those who are also pushing the most absurd claims -- missiles hit the WTC, the Moon Landings were faked, and Holocaust denial.]]

Robinowtiz makes this accusation, directed by implication at me, not in spite of - but *because* - he knows that my grandfather's entire family was wiped out by the Nazi's.

But he'll be disappointed if he expects me to start lashing out wildly in an emotional retaliation.

I just calmly and methodically deconstruct his lies and deceptions in relation to his efforts to support the official story of Sept 11.
(Robinowitz supports the racist fairy tale that Arab fanatics hijacked planes). Thus Robinowitz not only takes pleasure out of kicking Jews and Gypsies, but also whipping up racist hatred against Arabs.

Here are two articles which deconstruct the lies and decepetion perpetrated by Robinowitz is his campaign to whip up racist and religious hatred on both sides.

How Mark Robinowitz and Jim Hoffman lied about the BTS database.
 http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/rabidbts.html

The truth about Truthlings - The 9/11 doublwethink movment.
 http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/slithering.html