I'm slow on the uptake here of my piled up email, but I wish to make
two observations re: Hoffman or other flip-floppers.. and WingTV......
I think we're far enough down the road to be able to tell who's with
the 911 skeptics and who is not, their camies have failed.
I do not think there is any middle ground in this deal. You're either
on the USG side or not. While Hoffman et al., occupy positions in the
9/11 movement, that means nothing. They're plants. ANYONE WHO EVEN
whispers the phrase "damage the entire 9-11 cause.", has blown their
cover. Along these same lines, I don't think that the position that
the public can't take the truth of no planes is correct.....I think
they can and will understand that there's something fishy about no
wreckage of 4 planes.....no matter how little they have been exposed
to 9/11 skeptics...
On WingTV, beyond early comments on the CD of the towers, never again
to be revisited, they have focused 100% of their efforts of the past
year or so on targeting various 9/11 personalities. Period. I think
their assignment is to keep stirring the slime pot, persuing a single
impression of 9/11 skeptics are all bad, therefore the USG must be ok.
It doesn't matter whether they are exposing a 9/11 truth or not, as
long as they take down a researcher/radio personality with them. That
is their only specialty--diminishing other 9/11ers. Whereas Hoffman
disses others' research that is dangerous to the USG's fable. So
WingTV discredits people, Hoffman confabulates threatening research.
Just because some 911ers, like AJ, Tarpley, specialize in political
or geopolitical aspects and ignore the forensics of 911, doesn't mean
they're not on our side, but attacking from the positiion they know
best. To me, it's not so much what you say, but how often you say
it, is how you penetrate their skulls. That's the way the USG
propaganda machine does it. Hufschmidt and Smith, now down, said
things people really needed to hear that everyone else avoided out of
fear of retaliation. People needed to hear that some guy with dual
citizenship (Dov Zackheim) had extraordinary power and control over
the Pent. budget that ended up short by some $trillion or so
dollars.....they needed to hear that Cheney (one of two token non-Jews
in the seats of power) is on the board of JINSA(?). I respect Eric,
unsure of Smith. But now there is no voices that address what impact
Zionism has on the US. and Am. Jewry. At any rate, to just toss them
out as being anti-semitic, I want to hear the proof of that first.
Give me the example. Israel is all over this deal. the elephant in
the living room, and is all over silencing of world media, and why
nobody gets invited to talk on TV about the lies of 9/11.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rosalee Grable" <webfairy@thewebfairy.com>
To: <911InsideJobbers@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2006 5:17 PM
Subject: [Fwd: [911InsideJobbers] [Fwd: Holmgren on the Bureau of
Transportation Safety Database]
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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