Jim Hoffman (CIT Research Forum)

Title: Jim Hoffman
Description: debate call

Craig Ranke CIT - December 1, 2007 06:16 AM (GMT)

Jim Hoffman includes us in his page of "Hoax-Promoting Videos" that consists of this small number of high profile 9/11 truth documentaries:

* In Plane Site
* Loose Change
* 9/11 Eyewitness
* The PentaCon

http://www.911review.com/disinfo/videos.html

This is Hoffman's first response to our extensive on site investigation that limits all conclusions to data that we have personally obtained.

Hoffman makes no effort to directly address the evidence and chooses instead to refer to Arabasque's deceptive, convoluted yet simplistic, and severely inadequate attempt to debunk what we have presented.

I have sent Jim a personal email with the heading "hoax?" addressing this information and requesting a direct debate on the information.

Here it is:

QUOTE

Jim,

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%?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=37...142560520&hl=en

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.

Sincerely,

Craig Ranke
CIT

Craig Ranke CIT - August 8, 2009 04:21 AM (GMT)

Bump as a reminder that we'll debate Hoffman any time any where.

The fact that he has come out of the shadows to do an entire radio interview with Wolsey blatantly attacking us with straight up accusations of disinfo, fallacious arguments mostly limited to incredulity, and a whole lot of of "umms" while he continuously stutters and struggles to coherently express his point exposes his desperation to cast doubt.

The pathetic interview can be downloaded here:
Edit by Ligon: Mp3 link in post here by "painter": http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....post&p=10774866. Thread also contains a number of transcribed sections of interview and responses from myself, Rob Balsamo, and others.

Who does entire interviews attacking other people's research?

Stop your cowardly attacks and debate me Hoffman.

madtruth - August 11, 2009 09:12 AM (GMT)

I don't know if you saw this bs by Hoffman

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentacon/index.html

Craig Ranke CIT - August 11, 2009 02:22 PM (GMT)

QUOTE (madtruth @ Aug 11 2009, 09:12 AM)

I don't know if you saw this bs by Hoffman

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentacon/index.html

Of course.

Looks like it was written by a 5 year old to a 3 year old.

Of course it does not address the evidence or provide any evidence to the contrary.

Love how he spells Lagasse's name wrong.

Unless they can provide 4 or more witnesses who were on the gas station's property and emphatically support a south side approach as much as Turcios, Brooks, and Lagasse they have no choice to admit they can not refute the evidence.

RLW - August 11, 2009 07:20 PM (GMT)

I haven't studied in detail the JH article but a few points came to mind on my first reading.

1. I would think that the explosion was timed to occur just after the aircraft tail cleared the outer wall. Since the explosion was one the 1st floor the building would shield the aircraft from the blast. Even if this caused a (say) 1 second delay (from the nose "hitting" the outer edge of the building till the exploision) that is still a very short time for any observer to clearly see what happened..epsecially if they weren't looking for an overfly but where expecting a repeat of what happened at the WTC. In fact I would think it may well appear that the aircraft was swallowed up as some seem to report.

2. The arguments for swirling air flow that he cited may not apply so much here given the aircraft was flying slower than the example he showed and at very low altitude. I would think that the ground effect would interfere with any swirling air flows.

3. Also, the initialy explosion would be a high velocity gas (if indeed it where from a bomb) and hence any air disturbance would have little effect on it. Even if there was some brief persistant swirling movements the ground effect would damp them quickly and the smoke from any follow on fire would be unaffected by them. And given 1. the aircraft DID hit the pentagon and 2. it would cause swirls..where are these swirls in the Pentagon 5 frame video from all that burning JP4?

4. Human perception is the key factor here. So if one wants to be "scientific" one would need to inlcude the effects on human perception. And I image one could run experiments that would simulate something similar to this and one could gather some experimental data. But it would be easy to rig the experiments to get whatever answer one wanted (as is so often the case with these type of experiments) so getting a set of impartial and relevant experiments may be a tall order.

5. If CIT is cherry picking their witnesses..then how come the other side isn't going out and finding their own witnesses..or getting retractions from the ones CIT have found.

A.Marquis - August 12, 2009 01:09 AM (GMT)

Jim Hoffman, the request for debate is still on the table.

madtruth - August 12, 2009 06:47 AM (GMT)

If Hoffman and other detractors have a problem with the flyover part, it shouldn't take away from the on location eye witneses accounts. To compare these accounts to those accounts of UFO witnesses is an embarrassing comparison they made that only makes themselves look like shills of the highest order. Because shills are the only ones who use rhetoric of that kind.
Craig and Aldo, you guys go out of your way more than anyone to not suggest theories or make accusations that may seem unwarranted.
I do know someone on facebook named Chris who commented to my posting NATIONAL SECURITY ALERT (actually my brother posted it), saying he attended your conference in Va. and he liked it except he has a problem with the flyover part.
He suggested that your findings would be flawless if the flyover part was kept out of it, because so many witnesses did not see a flyover. And proving the official south side path approach as being completely false is so tremendous, no other further explanation in any other area is needed, unless it is as flawless.I got into a debate with him and my comments were simple.I told him I totally support your findings, but the flyover part for him (Chris)and despite enjoying your conference overall, seemed to be totally turned off over the one part - the flyover. I expressed my dissatisfaction that he would throw away all support for CIT over one issue. Since he did post Hoffman's links, it seems he is a long time Hoffman fan or something.Just wanted to share that with you guys.
Keep up the great work and don't let anyone get you down!

Domenick DiMaggio CIT - August 12, 2009 10:22 AM (GMT)

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?

painter - August 12, 2009 04:32 PM (GMT)

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?

What I'm finding is, as madtruth describes, some people are having a very difficult time accepting that the NOC witnesses "prove" the fly over hypothesis.

I'm trying to understand the psychological "disconnect" here. NSA spends a lot of time demonstrating how all the physical damage within and outside the Pentagon clearly delineates a very precise SOC flight path. The multiple eye witnesses recorded present a convincing argument that the plane they saw was NOT on that flight path.

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.

From this point the fly over is a an immanently reasonable conclusion. How else does one account for the witnessed plane? If it didn't impact the building, then what happened to it? Are we to assume it simply "vanished" into thin air? It would certainly be reasonable to assume it impacted the building IF THERE WERE ANY PHYSICAL EVIDENCE THAT IT DID but the point that there is no such evidence apparently needs to be bolded, italicized, underscored, and repeated in order for some people to grasp this simple fact.

MEANWHILE detractors are STILL repeating the false claim that there are over a hundred eye-witnesses to the impact. This claim has been thoroughly debunked. STILL maintaining that the fly over was not observed and not reported and therefore could not have occurred. Never mind that this proposition is based on a host of assumptions that do not answer the fundamental question posed by the NOC witnesses: IF THE PLANE THEY SAW DID NOT IMPACT THE PENTAGON, WHAT HAPPENED TO IT? They don't address this question for the simple reason that they have no answer. Instead they grasp at straws and put forward bogus claims and unverified assumptions to justify their now utterly unsupportable position.

Ligon - August 12, 2009 05:48 PM (GMT)

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.

The case is made more clearly and in much more detail here on the CIT site:

Frequently Asked Questions >> Why does it matter which side of the gas station the plane flew on? Couldn’t the plane have flown on the north side of the gas station and still hit the light poles and building?

I didn't create those new images until after NSA unfortunately. There may have to be an NSA v1.1 eventually which will incorporate them to show more clearly why given the damage to the building the plane absolutely could not have hit the building being on the north side.

Either way, most detractors actually already accept this obvious fact and simply try to disingenuously cast doubt on the north side witnesses and argue that the plane actually flew on the south side.

For example (from the interview with Wolsey starting around 36:45)

QUOTE

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!

madtruth - August 15, 2009 07:36 AM (GMT)

QUOTE

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!

Hoffman is grasping for straws here.He's making himself look ridiculous.

gh15 - August 15, 2009 12:35 PM (GMT)

agreed.

A.Marquis - August 16, 2009 10:58 PM (GMT)

Sill waiting, Hoffman.

Ligon - September 2, 2009 05:59 PM (GMT)

For those who don't know, Hoffman did an interview a few weeks back with Michael Wolsey.

Mp3 here.
http://media.libsyn.com/media/visibility91...hoffman_cit.mp3

On the truth action forum Wolsey writes:

QUOTE

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.

Here are a few quotes from the show (bold and underlines added)

QUOTE

[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.

Here is another segment of interest:
'

QUOTE

[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.

Early in the show Wolsey defined the difference between disinformation and misinformation.

QUOTE

[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.

Now look at some of the other things they say...

QUOTE

[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...

It seems clear that "they" in that context means the perpetrators of 9/11. Hoffman clarifies this elsewhere (see below).

QUOTE

[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.

"DESIGNED" to offend the victims. "DESIGNED" to "reinforce the loony conspiracist meme". He is calling this a deliberate, calculated disinformation operation.

QUOTE

[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...

QUOTE

[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.

QUOTE

[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.

It seems clear that he is trying to imply that CIT and possibly P4T are professional "disinformation specialists" (as Wolsey put it earlier) who are somehow funded, created, and/or promoted by "the people who created the attack" as part of the psyop.

(FYI, I originally transcribed these sections of the interview for this thread on the P4T forum: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....howtopic=17787 . You can read more quotes and comments from Rob Balsamo and others there.)

A.Marquis - September 11, 2009 08:15 AM (GMT)

QUOTE

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.

--Nagelfar

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...post&p=10776091

Veritas - February 24, 2010 05:13 PM (GMT)

Hi All,
Firstly as a new member I would like to congratulate the CIT tram on the great work that you are doing exposing the 9/11 coverup. I think that you have definitively proved the North side approach of flight 77 and in conjunction with Pilots for Truth have shown that a flyover of the Pentagon did occur. I therefore find it find it surprising that Jim Hoffman will not even admit that this is possible especially in view of the fact that Hoffman formerly believed that flight 77 did hit the Pentagon. To call your evidence and on site research a hoax is extremely disingenious of him to say the least since he is supposed to be a truth seeker.
He has to my mind done some valuable work on the WTC attacks so his failure to acknowledge CIt's valuable Pentagon research is puzzling.
How he can accept the staged downing of the street lamps and and the impossibility of one of them entering the windshield of Lloyd England's Taxi cab and leaving it virtually unscathed is certainly at variance with his claimed rigorous approach to 9/11 research. Keep up the excellent work.
Yours in 9/11 truth seeking.
Veritas

A. Marquis - February 24, 2010 05:41 PM (GMT)

Thank you so much Veritas, I appreciate your heartfelt gratitude.

Jim Hoffman is simply one of those people who simply can't admit they were wrong this whole time. I am sure you know the type. It is also a matter of ego, as in he, like many others, do not want to the conclusive nature of the evidence we have uncovered to eclipse the investigation into the WTC demos, namely his and his cohorts.

He will fall by the wayside as many of our detractors have.

Thanks again.

View Full Version: Jim Hoffman