That is a pretty strong characterization for a claim that is firmly grounded in hard evidence. Why won't you address the data we present directly? You do realize that not a single witness in the entire investigative body of evidence directly contradicts the north side claim do you? Why do you blindly trust the mainstream media eyewitness reports without confirming them directly? How many eyewitnesses have you interviewed? We have tried contacting virtually ALL of them and canvassed the neighborhoods for new ones. Since we released this data we have 2 more witnesses that support the north side claim so that totals 6 and nobody we have spoken with has specifically placed the plane on the south side of the Citgo low and level with the ground. How can you patently reject independent corroboration as strong as this? Where is your counter testimony? (sorry but the extremely dubious accounts of Lloyd England and Frank Probst are not sufficient.)
Frankly we don't care if you reject the "flyover" theory but you can not reject the north side claim which has been scientifically proven beyond a reasonable doubt. We base all of our claims on 100% investigative research on location and 0% on "speculation". There is nothing "feeble" about the north side claim. Have you ever been to Arlington? Have you ever surveyed the topography at all? Do you understand how a 757 at over 500 mph would be required to approach with a noticeable descent angle due to the steep decline after the Navy Annex? Do understand that the FDR actually depicts this necessary descent angle which contradicts the physical damage and the security video 100%?
By ignoring the TRUE flight path of the plane you have been missing out on the evidence that proves a military deception. They wanted us to focus on a missile so we would not focus on the flight path.
There was no missile, there was no global hawk, and the passenger jet airliner that flew treetop level over the neighborhoods of Arlington did not hit the building.
If the perpetrators actually crashed a 757 into the building it would be completely contradictory to the entire purpose of the operation for them to not take full advantage of the psychological impact that video footage would give them.
The "honeypot" theory wouldn't even come close to outweighing the benefits they would get from video footage of the event during this black psychological operation of deception.
We are not disinfo and we are not pushing a "hoax". Arabasque's simplistic and naive "debunk" falls flat and doesn't begin to counter what we have presented. We will debate you any time over the phone or on a radio show but hopefully you will objectively look at the data that we present in relation to the anomalous FDR and realize that we are on to something important here.
I respectfully request that you remove us from your "hoax" page and if you refuse I formally challenge you to a public debate or even invite you to civilly discuss the evidence with me privately over the phone.
|QUOTE (madtruth @ Aug 11 2009, 09:12 AM)|
| I don't know if you saw this bs by Hoffman |
|QUOTE (Domenick DiMaggio CIT @ Aug 12 2009, 02:22 AM)|
|so he thinks the south flight path is staged and a plane didn't hit the pentagon but he doesn't believe the plane that approached flew over?|
|QUOTE (painter @ Aug 12 2009, 08:32 AM)|
|What is missing from NSA, it seems, is some further (perhaps visual) presentation of what damage might have occurred IF the plane they saw HAD impacted the building. The clear argument being that since NO such damage exists, the plane they saw could NOT have hit the building. Thus, there testimony is "proof" (or, at the very least "strong evidence") that it did not.|
|JIM HOFFMAN: ...One thing that's really interesting about Lagasse is in that in that very interview in PentaCon he's convinced that the light poles that were damaged were well to the north of the ones that were actually damaged! So that prompts the theory, well, you know, maybe he, he kind of, um, recostructed that memory to fit where he thought the light poles were! I mean it's very plausible!|
JIM HOFFMAN: ...One thing that's really interesting about Lagasse is in that in that very interview in PentaCon he's convinced that the light poles that were damaged were well to the north of the ones that were actually damaged! So that prompts the theory, well, you know, maybe he, he kind of, um, recostructed that memory to fit where he thought the light poles were! I mean it's very plausible!
|It was said that parts of the show description "may" be calling CIT disinfo agents, which of course isn't true. I was also very careful not to call anyone disinfo agents during the show.|
|[15:30] WOLSEY: If they can get you asking the wrong questions they don't have to worry about the answers.' And this is, in my opinion, one of the things that happens with the disinformation. And there are groups out there that have refrained from talking about it in the past, but today we're going to talk about it; in particular Pilots for 9/11 Truth and a group called Citizens [sic] Investigatoin Team, or CIT. And I recall a [sic] article from Reprehensor from 911Blogger.com and a paper that he wrote called "On DisInformation And Damaging Associations". And Reprehensor said basically 'If you're promoting this kind of poor information then you're no friend of mine, you're no friend of 9/11 Truth." And it's time to break the silence about this. It's time to start talking about this amongst ourselves, and to that end I'm happy to have on the line with me today Jim Hoffman, who's done some excellent work with regards to the disinformation.|
|[19:30 - 21:20] HOFFMAN: "I'd like to get into it with you about how [Thierry Meyssan's work] relates to what I think is a state of the art in this kind of disinformation... um, I, what I hope we'll talk about there's the video PentaCon, the various productions of the so-called CIT. Because, um, I think that they are, um, largely based on that work, or they, the, because they've had so much success with convincing people that there was no jetliner crash at the Pentagon that they've been able to exploit that and make, um, um, get as much mileage as they have."|
WOLSEY: Let's take that back even one step further Jim; let's go to the -- what I consider to be the parent organization of CIT -- and that's Pilots for 9/11 Truth. [...] I go to this website, and, one, a good friend, researcher of mine, he jokingly says, you know, they might as well be called No757AtThePentagon.org because that's what they basically promote. And I think you can tell just as much about a website as what they don't have as what they do. And when you look at Pilots for 9/11 Truth, all of the things that you would expect to be at a website called Pilots for 9/11 Truth -- and it's a great name by the way, and, and I just think so many people hear that name and they go put the link on their website and say "Yeah! This is a good thing!" -- but when you actually go and you look at the site, all of the things that you would expect to be there, like, uh, standard operating procedure for hijackings, uh, NORAD proceedures, uh, all of the inconsistencies in the 9/11 Commission Report between the three different stories that came... all of that stuff about NORAD and what happened to the plane... none of that's there. It's all no fif... uh... Boeing at the Pentagon.
JIM HOFFMAN: That's right.
|[13:41-14:10] MICHAEL WOLSEY: Now, misinformation and disinformation are two different things. Misinformation is false or inaccurate information that's been spread unintentionally. By well meaning people. That's misinformation. Now disinformation is distinguished from misinformation by motive. Because while people who are spreading misinformation... they don't realize they're doing it... people who are spreading disinformation do.|
|[65:29] JIM HOFFMAN: ...as long as this disinformation remains ascendant and, and unchallenged by, by some of the more influential people that are identified with the 9/11 truth movement, and things will stay where they are, or, are, and as the attack recedes we’ll, we’ll, we will never get a genuine investigation, we’ll... the public opin... the public will fail to understand what really happened. So that’s a pretty grim... I think that’s a pretty grim assessment but, um... and, and that just underscores the need to, to um, to really identify what the full scope of this psyop is. I mean if you understand that 9/11 was an inside job then it just doesn’t make any SENSE that they would, would do anything other than muck up the... the... the umm... independent investigation of it by, by, by throwing up all of this nonsense.|
WOLSEY: Yeah, I couldn’t agree more...
|[49:00-49:27] JIM HOFFMAN: I mean how could -- how could you imaging something more offensive to the victims of the attack than, than, than this, you know, “Everything was faked!”, you know, and just, just, you know, in your face! You know, it’s like, “You didn’t see... you were fooled!”, you know, “You thought you saw a plane crash but really, you know, it flew over the building”, you know. And all... think of all the people that we don’t, you know, that um, that we’ll never hear from, that were driving on I-395, probably the five hundred people who saw the explosive, and “Oh, they just... they were just too stupid to see that there was a plane that flew over the Pentagon!” Or, “they were fooled!”, or, you know. It’s just, really... um... so it’s designed... so the disinformation is designed to do multiple things. It’s designed to offend the victims of the attack. It’s designed to make... to reinforce the loony conspiracist meme; to make it, you know... ta...ta... to ridiculous, to reinfor... because that’s what... that’s the main defense against all... against considering alternatives to the official story: that these are loony conspiracy theorists that don’t have critical thinking abilities and they will believe the worst non-sense.|
|[50:48] HOFFMAN: If you look at the number of websites like... st... uh... like...that have been around the whole time, um, uhh, um that c... you know, challenging the official story, it seems like, you know, uh, more than have of them, um, have been just promoting non... you know, promoting the worst nonsense. And um, and, and think, if... if... given the resources of the people who created the attack, and given... given, you know, if you understand it as an inside job of COURSE they’re going to have the resources to put in... to putting up all this nonsense in order to discredit challenges to the official story.|
WOLSEY: Absolutely. And it’s our job, it’s everybody who’s listening’s job, to make sure that you’re vetting your information as.... eh....eh.... eh... to... only presenting to the public that which is the best. And Jim, I don’t know how people can go out there, and I mean SERIOUSLY go out and talk to people they don’t know and, uh, promote this ridiculous stuff. I mean I would be scared to death to go out there and ta... uh... talk, I mean it’s hard enough as, as, as it is, especially when you first start, to become an activist, and it’s scary because you know there is going to be a certain percentage of people that are gonna look at you like you’re crazy. But, you know, so you wanna have all your ducks in a row and you wanna be able to say, you know, “I’m gonna show this person the best information because I wanna wake him up!” But yet, can you imagine going up to somebody that you didn’t know and try to... try to uh, get them to believe this CIT bullshit!
HOFFMAN: Nooo. I, uh, It’s just... sa... it’s really sad...
|[54:44] HOFFMAN: ...I don't know if some of these people endorsing the... the um... the... north.... the... the... CIT's work have realized how, how umm... how effectively they've been conned. By.... and um, you know and that's um, you know, and that's... it's really sad but I think, um, it's, I, it... hopefully it can be instructive to some people, to those very people especially, maybe, um, you know, maybe some good can come out of this. But it's, but um, um, ehh um, maybe... maybe one way... one way to understand it is if you understand what effective salesmen these people are... this... the CIT... maybe there's less shame in having been conned if you can understand that you've been conned by professionals, you know, whose, people whose job it is to, um, you know, who are really good at creating, uhh, at, at, at restricting your attention. At getting you to look at something and not taking in the broader context of it.|
|[60:19] WOLSEY: Yeah, it’s just, it’s unbelievable. And I mean, I’m not going to sit here and defend the official story, but at the same time, we have to... we have to follow the evidence where it leads. And if it’s leading us in a particular direction then so be it. But if you have con artists, and disinformation specialists out there shoving this garbage down your throat, which is, you know, a lot of the behavior that we have observed and documented. You know, Arabesque has really done a lot on these guys. And, you know, let’s tell folks where they can go, Jim, so they can get some more information, read Victoria’s article, your article, and, uh, some of Arabesque’s work.|
|The CIT video was very good, very convincing.|
After listening to the radio show where Wolsey interviews Hoffman. I can only conclude that Hoffman acts very suspicious. He sounds almost desperate. Don't know about Wolsey, probably just very gullible and not too bright.