on the subject of Hoffman, and how/why we picked him out as the keeper
of officially permissible alternative 911 " "Truth" "vetted for protest
without rocking any real boats.
While Hoffman could not pass among actual researchers while imagining a
767 actually hit the pentagon, he flipflopped as soon as authentic
researchers would have nothing to do with him anyway.
Wing TV's gentle chiding on the flipflop-
http://www.wingtv.net/hoffman.html
which was answered by Hoffman
http://911review.com/wingtv/markup/hoffman.html
After which WingTV suddenly abandoned the Pentagon evidence in favor of
Hoffman approved Controlled Demolition.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [911InsideJobbers] [Fwd: Holmgren on the Bureau of
Transportation Safety Database
Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 18:46:01 -0500
From: Rosalee Grable <webfairy@thewebfairy.com>
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/06/320469d.shtml#187004
Gerard Holmgren
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
<http://members.iinet.net.au/%7Eholmgren/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
<http://members.iinet.net.au/%7Eholmgren/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
<http://members.iinet.net.au/%7Eholmgren/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
Yahoo! Groups Links
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/911InsideJobbers/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
911InsideJobbers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
No comments:
Post a Comment