Read this story in | Add a translation >>

One of the most well-known and trusted 911 researchers, Jim Hoffman, recently received an award for "Most Reliable 9/11 Researcher". But a little scrutiny calls into question the validity of that award.

Screen shot of 911review.com page that suppresses evidence
Screen shot of 911review.com page that suppresses evidence

I found a post tonight at 911blogger which cast Jim Hoffman in an unfavorable light in response to Jim's having been named to some "best truth list of 2005". Jim had always been my favorite 911 researcher so naturally I just assumed the award was legit and the poster was wrong until I spent a little time at one of the web sites mentioned in Jim's award, 911review.com, where I found examples that supported the allegations. And then some!

Check out this page where Jim "gatekeeps", as in, "Nothing to see here, Citizen. Move along!", that incredible burst of brilliant light upon impact in the Naudet video.

I've uploaded a screen shot of that page, along with an image of what Jim omitted, superimposed.

Since elsewhere on 911review.com Jim cites the work of Eric Salter, whose images contain the flash, it looks like Hoffman has intentionally withheld from us the most incredible part of that video, not unlike the government and media which have been so complicit in the crimes of 9/11.

So much for that "Most Reliable 9/11 Researcher" award. Jim may be a fun date, but his web site does not "go all the way".



Please Don't Feed the Trolls

Wikipedia defines an Internet Troll as: "either a person who sends messages on the Internet hoping to entice other users into angry or fruitless responses, or a message sent by such a person." San Diego IMC strives to provide both a grassroots media resource as well as a forum for people to contribute to a meaningful discussion about local issues. Please, when posting comments, be respectful of others and ignore those trying to interrupt or discourage meaningful discourse. Thank you.

-- San Diego Indymedia volunteers
  Download this article in pdf format >>

  Make a quick comment on this article>>


Hoffman exposed

06.01.2006 20:07


"Gatekeeper" is almost a generopus term to use for NSA spook,master plagiarist and two faced liar Jim Hoffman.

Jim Hoffman trashes the Sept 11 stand down evidence
 http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/hoffmanstanddown.html

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

The {phantom )planes meme. Adapted from 911 review.com
 http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/meme.html

Hoffman the plagiarist
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/06/320469.shtml?discuss#186867

Hoffman the spook
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/06/320469.shtml?discuss#186880

Hoffman and the pentagon
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/06/320469.shtml?discuss#186921

How Hoffman distorts evidence
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/06/320469.shtml?discuss#186929



Gerard Holmgren
e-mail:: holmgren@iinet.net.au
Homepage:: holmgren@iinet.net.au



More Holmgren attacks

15.01.2006 12:07


From Gerard Holmgren's front page on what he believes happened on 9/11:

"Sometimes people ask me "why would they use missiles or whatever and run the risk of being caught out ? If they're going to sell a story about planes, why not make it as convincing as possible and use real planes" ?

It's a silly question, because in the face of direct visual and forensic proof that they didn't use planes (mostly supported by what little witness evidence we have), speculations about their thinking and planning are meaningless.

Nevertheless, since we live in extremely silly times, I'm going to address this question on its own terms.

Put yourself in the position of the perps. You have to think through what could go wrong in each possible scenario and then decide which scenario poses the smallest risk.

You want to sell a story about hijacked planes.

At the first level of decision making, you have two choices.

1) Actually use planes.

2) Use missiles or whatever the blobs 11 thing is, and convince people that they were planes."
 http://911closeup.com/index.shtml

Holmgren believes that commercial jets were not involved in the 9/11 attacks and this is primarily why he attacks Jim Hoffman, because Hoffman believes planes hit the WTC and the Pentagon, not missiles, UFOs or 'fake planes' and he writes about it -

 http://911review.com/disinfo/index.html

repost



Thanks for linking to may article, Mark !

18.01.2006 23:43


The whining snivel in the comment above from the poster who is too gutless to use his real name is written by Mark Rabinowitz, who appears unfavourably in the article

"How Mark Rabinowitz and Jim Hoffman lied about the BTS database"

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

Rabinowtiz never uses his real name in IMC postings,but everyone knows his style of whining snivel.

The 911untruth movement has more spooks than a haunted house, and Rabinowitz runs messenger goblin for two of the worst - Jim Hoffman and Mike Ruppert.

Hoffman is not a researcher. He hasn't done any research. All he's done since he arrived on the scene belatedly in 2003 is attack other people's research,at the same time as plagiarizing whatever he needs to build the illusion of having done some research himself, as well as fabricating disinformation for his NSA masters, as in

"Jim Hoffman trashes the stand down evidence."
 http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/hoffmanstanddown.html

Rabinowtiz likewise is another serial attack dog, with zero research and lots of plagiarism. Hoffman and Rabinowitz actually started the attacks and because they are now getting the wrong end of their own stick, Rabonwitz can be seen everywhere on the net begging and whining and pleading that its unfair for them to have drink their own medicine.

What is uncharacteristic about the above post is for Rabinowtiz to actually link to one of my articles. Thanks for that, Mark !

Indeed, no planes were used in the sept 11 attacks.

See more here.

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

Normally Rabinowtiz just makes up stuff and falsely attributes it to me, without linking to my work, so this is a departure from his normal whinging. Nevertheless, the pathetic, snivelling complaint that he shouldn't have to take his own medicne, and his grovelling at the feet of Hoffman gives away his identity.

Leaving aside the unpleasant subject of these govt goblins, here are some links to more of my work which has these two planehugging truthling trolls in such a spin.

 http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/manufactured.html
 http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/truth.html
 http://members.iinet.net.ay/~holmgren/S11articles.html
 http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/disinfo.html



Gerard Holmgren
e-mail:: holmgren@iinet.net.au
Homepage:: holmgren@iinet.net.au



More no planes stupidity

09.05.2006 22:41


>>Hoffman has thus lied by omission, and destroyed his own credibility.


He's done nothing of the sort.


These are the common attacks of the 'no-planers' like Holmgren who are sure that planes never hit buildings on 9/11, but instead, missiles and drones did, or blue-screen technology was used to 'fake' the crashes.


Here's what they do to people:


 http://911research.wtc7.net/re911/adhominem.html

repost





Stories contributed to this site are licensed under the
Creative Commons Non Commercial - Share Alike - By Attribution license
unless otherwise specified by the author.