The Webfairy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2006 23:28:17 -0600
From: The Webfairy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Copyright:Gerard Holmgren. Jan 6 2006. This work may be freely distributed providing : It is not for commercial purposes: The authors name, date and the web address where you found it are cited: Any editing is clearly acknowledged as such: The copyright notice is included. Posting in breach of any of these conditions is a breach of copyright.
This article exposes a very clever web of multi-layered disinformation perpetrated by Jim Hoffman. This web is so cleverly constructed that in order to easily expose one of his lies it becomes necessary to concede several others just to get to whichever particular lie one chooses to target. On the other hand , if one picks apart the different strands, fully addressing each layer, it can become very confusing for someone not fully conversant with the underlying facts.
In this article, I have chosen the latter method of deconstruction, and therefore it is important that the reader first understand some basic facts which will help to counter the confusion which Hoffman has attempted to create.
From Nov 2001 to Jan 2002, a website called TENC published a series of groundbreaking research articles showing that the air force must have been stood down to allow the hijacked planes to successfully reach their targets on Sept 11 2001.This research was based on the underlying assumption that the hijackings and plane crashes actually took place, an assumption which was reasonable at the time. They also showed that the media was complicit in the subsequent cover up as the Govt scrambled to try to fill the gaping holes in the official story.
One of the most embarrassing holes in the original story was the revelation that after two planes had (supposedly) already hit the WTC, AA77 was (supposedly) allowed to fly off course for approximately another 40 minutes to hit the pentagon, even though Andrews air base, only 10 miles from the pentagon had at least two squadrons of fighter jets available, stationed there for the specific purpose of defending DC and the Pentagon.
At first, officials tried to explain it away by saying that they simply had no idea what was happening in time to scramble (activate for interception) fighter jets from Andrews. When this ridiculous cover story became indefensible within days, they suddenly changed the story, claiming that Andrews didn’t have any fighters available and so fighters were scrambled appropriately early from other bases but didn’t get there in time. After exposing the holes in the first story, TENC then pulled apart the new story, demonstrating it to be just as indefensible as the original cover story.
Through a combination of plagiarism and subtle misrepresentation, Hoffman has attempted to reduce the effectiveness of this research while cleverly pretending to support it.
The series of TENC articles is linked here and careful reading of these articles will help your understanding of this aspect of Sept 11 evidence, and also make it easier to understand the disinformation game being played by Hoffman.
Some of the first well written and thoroughly researched evidence to emerge in relation to Govt involvement in the events of Sept 11 was the air force stand down evidence, by Illarion Bykov and Jared Israel.
At that time, it had understandably not occurred to many people that in fact the hijackings and plane crashes never happened. They were a giant media hoax. 1 2 3 4 5
Nevertheless, the series of research articles relating to the stand down is very good work - in so far as it goes - and is still a valuable tool for demonstrating one angle of the impossibility of the mainstream story, providing that one adds the qualification that it has since emerged that there was probably no need to stand down the air force, because there weren't any hijacked planes in need of interception.>
Many disinformationists calling themselves the “9/11 truth movement” (I shall hereafter refer to such people as “truthlings” ) have partially endorsed the stand down evidence in order to give themselves the credible appearance of official story critics and then used this as a platform from which to attack other evidence of Govt and media involvement.
When truthlings endorse the stand down evidence, they seldom link or give credit to the original high quality research linked above. This is because the way in which the research is presented also provides an excellent lesson by example in critical thinking. This is disliked by truthlings, who want to herd people’s thoughts like sheep. It is also probably because truthlings would prefer people to be exposed to poorly written, poorly documented, vague imitations, unlikely to have to have much influence on people who blindly trust the Govt and media beyond the point of rationality. While there is never a guarantee of breaking through to such people, the incisive analysis and high standards of documentation provided by the original research gives a better chance of a positive result—something the truthlings don’t want. Thirdly, truthlings want the credit for 911 “truth” (the exposing of the official story or the pretence of doing so) to be given to those who are interested only in promoting alternative lies. This increases their credibility in the eyes of people newly exploring the issue, and thus makes such people more vulnerable to trusting the truthlings and falling for their various disinformation ploys.
Consequently, the stand down research linked above has fallen victim to an astonishing amount of plagiarism.
Two such truthling plagiarists are Jim Hoffman and Mark Rabinowitz who I have already exposed as liars in another article.
First let’s consider how heavily Hoffman has plagiarized from TENC.
Rabinowtiz commits his plagiarism on a more modest scale.
Having taken ownership of much of TENC’s work in the minds of many, Hoffman put himself in a position to begin subtly undermining the very same work.
First, I will briefly summarize the two points of evidence to be examined here. TENC’s research demonstrated the following..
1. No fighters were scrambled(activated for interception) until after the pentagon was hit. After initially admitting this, the Govt and media then back flipped a few days later to claim that fighters had been scrambled earlier but didn’t get there in time. TENC exposed this as a bogus claim.
2 While defending the first story, Vice President Cheney, in an interview on Sept 16 2001, deliberately attempted to confuse the issue of intercepting aircraft with that of shooting them down, and attempted to create the false impression that Presidential authority was needed to scramble fighter jets. Whether the planes should have or could have been shot down once interception was achieved is correctly identified by TENC as irrelevant to the question of why the air force didn’t do the first part of it’s job—routine interception. They exposed Cheney’s deceitful attempt to confuse the two issues.
Hoffman so much liked the demolition job that TENC did on Cheney’s spin that he plagiarized the substance of the article even to the point of only slightly rewording the title. However, as we’ll see later, once having claimed it by implication as his own work, Hoffman then set to work to subtly undermine it.
But first, I’ll examine Hoffman’s subtle twisting of the first point raised by TENC.
The magazine “Popular Mechanics” launched an attack on any idea that the Govt was involved in any way in Sept 11. In response, Hoffman wrote an article supporting most of the views peddled by Popular Mechanics, including an attack on TENC’s first point.
Hoffman’s support for most of the official story was cloaked in a clever disguise of appearing to do the opposite. There is just one issue on which Hoffman gives a good presentation of Sept 11 evidence. The demolition of WTC 1,2 and 7. Hoffman plagiarized nearly all of this work too. Having arrived to the issue belatedly, in mid 2003, after the hard work on the demolition evidence had already been done by others, and claiming it as his own, this is the platform which Hoffman has used to defend most of the official story, while appearing to be a critic of it.
Popular Mechanics attacked a wide range of the Sept 11 evidence. Hoffman took issue with them on the demolition but agreed with them on almost everything else. Hoffman cleverly disguised his extensive agreement with Popular Mechanics by presenting his endorsement of their views in a confrontational tone. His method was to agree that most of the evidence attacked by Popular Mechanics was junk and to take issue with them for falsely presenting such issues as representative of genuine Sept 11 scepticism.
Hoffman even boasted that he had debunked most of it before they did.
Let’s consider some of Hoffman’s response to Popular Mechanics.
[[More important, it misrepresents skeptics' views by implying that the skeptics' community is an undifferentiated "army" that wholly embraces the article's sixteen "poisonous claims," which it asserts are "at the root of virtually every 9/11 alternative scenario." In fact much of the 9/11 truth community has been working to expose many of these claims as disinformation…>
...Superficially, the topics appear to address the major physical evidence issues brought up by the skeptics (while ignoring the mountains of evidence of foreknowledge, motive, and unique means possessed by insiders). However, the sixteen "most prevalent claims made by conspiracy theorists" which it attacks are mostly specious claims, many of which were probably invented to discredit skepticism of the official story in the first place. The article debunks the more specious claims, and uses distortion and falsehoods to counter serious claims.
Thus the main approach of the article is to set up and attack a straw man of claims that it pretends represent the entirety of the skeptics' movement. The list includes many of the same claims that are debunked on the companion to this site, > The article gives no hint of the questions raised by the evidence in this site, nor any sense of the issues raised by the broader 9/11 truth movement. ]]
So there we have it in Hoffman’s own words. For the main part he agrees with the assessment of the evidence by Popular Mechanics and is proud to have launched similar attacks himself.
Now lets look at one of the “straw man “ claims, as identified by Hoffman, which caused him to grumble that these “specious” claims should not have been presented to [[represent the entirety of the skeptics' movement.It is one of the very same pieces of evidence which Hoffman plagiarized from TENC in order to give himself credibility as a Sept 11 sceptic.

Search the archives for political-research at

Subscribe to the RSS feed for political-research at


Reply via email to