JIM HOFFMAN TRASHES THE SEPT 11 STAND DOWN EVIDENCE
Copyright:Gerard Holmgren. Jan 6 2006. This work may be freely distributed providing : It is not for commercial purposes: The authors name, date and the web address where you found it are cited: Any editing is clearly acknowledged as such: The copyright notice is included. Posting in breach of any of these conditions is a breach of copyright.
INTRODUCTION—BACKGROUND INFORMATION
This article exposes a very clever web of multi-layered disinformation perpetrated by Jim Hoffman. This web is so cleverly constructed that in order to easily expose one of his lies it becomes necessary to concede several others just to get to whichever particular lie one chooses to target. On the other hand , if one picks apart the different strands, fully addressing each layer, it can become very confusing for someone not fully conversant with the underlying facts.
In this article, I have chosen the latter method of deconstruction, and therefore it is important that the reader first understand some basic facts which will help to counter the confusion which Hoffman has attempted to create.
From Nov 2001 to Jan 2002, a website called TENC published a series of groundbreaking research articles showing that the air force must have been stood down to allow the hijacked planes to successfully reach their targets on Sept 11 2001.This research was based on the underlying assumption that the hijackings and plane crashes actually took place, an assumption which was reasonable at the time. They also showed that the media was complicit in the subsequent cover up as the Govt scrambled to try to fill the gaping holes in the official story.
One of the most embarrassing holes in the original story was the revelation that after two planes had (supposedly) already hit the WTC, AA77 was (supposedly) allowed to fly off course for approximately another 40 minutes to hit the pentagon, even though Andrews air base, only 10 miles from the pentagon had at least two squadrons of fighter jets available, stationed there for the specific purpose of defending DC and the Pentagon.
At first, officials tried to explain it away by saying that they simply had no idea what was happening in time to scramble (activate for interception) fighter jets from Andrews. When this ridiculous cover story became indefensible within days, they suddenly changed the story, claiming that Andrews didn’t have any fighters available and so fighters were scrambled appropriately early from other bases but didn’t get there in time. After exposing the holes in the first story, TENC then pulled apart the new story, demonstrating it to be just as indefensible as the original cover story.
Through a combination of plagiarism and subtle misrepresentation, Hoffman has attempted to reduce the effectiveness of this research while cleverly pretending to support it.
The series of TENC articles is linked here and careful reading of these articles will help your understanding of this aspect of Sept 11 evidence, and also make it easier to understand the disinformation game being played by Hoffman.
PLAGIARISM AS A DISINFORMATION WEAPON
Some of the first well written and thoroughly researched evidence to emerge in relation to Govt involvement in the events of Sept 11 was the air force stand down evidence , by Illarion Bykov and Jared Israel.
At that time, it had understandably not occurred to many people that in fact the hijackings and plane crashes never happened. They were a giant media hoax. 1 2 3 4 5
Nevertheless, the series of research articles relating to the stand down is very good work - in so far as it goes - and is still a valuable tool for demonstrating one angle of the impossibility of the mainstream story, providing that one adds the qualification that it has since emerged that there was probably no need to stand down the air force, because there weren't any hijacked planes in need of interception.
Many disinformationists calling themselves the “9/11 truth movement” (I shall hereafter refer to such people as “truthlings” ) have partially endorsed the stand down evidence in order to give themselves the credible appearance of official story critics and then used this as a platform from which to attack other evidence of Govt and media involvement.
When truthlings endorse the stand down evidence, they seldom link or give credit to the original high quality research linked above. This is because the way in which the research is presented also provides an excellent lesson by example in critical thinking. This is disliked by truthlings, who want to herd people’s thoughts like sheep. It is also probably because truthlings would prefer people to be exposed to poorly written, poorly documented, vague imitations, unlikely to have to have much influence on people who blindly trust the Govt and media beyond the point of rationality. While there is never a guarantee of breaking through to such people, the incisive analysis and high standards of documentation provided by the original research gives a better chance of a positive result—something the truthlings don’t want. Thirdly, truthlings want the credit for 911 “truth” (the exposing of the official story or the pretence of doing so) to be given to those who are interested only in promoting alternative lies. This increases their credibility in the eyes of people newly exploring the issue, and thus makes such people more vulnerable to trusting the truthlings and falling for their various disinformation ploys.
Consequently, the stand down research linked above has fallen victim to an astonishing amount of plagiarism.
Two such truthling plagiarists are Jim Hoffman and Mark Rabinowitz who I have already exposed as liars in another article.
First let’s consider how heavily Hoffman has plagiarized from TENC.
TENC original http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-2.htm
Hoffman rip off http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/alibis/cheney.html
TENC original http://emperor.vwh.net/indict/urgent.htm
Hoffman rip off http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/norad/index.html
TENC original http://www.emperors-clothes.com/indict/faq.htm
Hoffman rip off http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/defense/index.html
TENC original http://emperor.vwh.net/indict/urgent.htm
Hoffman rip off http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/alibis/myers.html
TENC original http://emperors-clothes.com/news/albu.htm
Hoffman rip off http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/retractions/romero.html
Rabinowtiz commits his plagiarism on a more modest scale.
Having taken ownership of much of TENC’s work in the minds of many, Hoffman put himself in a position to begin subtly undermining the very same work.
First, I will briefly summarize the two points of evidence to be examined here. TENC’s research demonstrated the following..
1. No fighters were scrambled (activated for interception) until after the pentagon was hit. After initially admitting this, the Govt and media then back flipped a few days later to claim that fighters had been scrambled earlier but didn’t get there in time. TENC exposed this as a bogus claim.
2 While defending the first story, Vice President Cheney, in an interview on Sept 16 2001, deliberately attempted to confuse the issue of intercepting aircraft with that of shooting them down, and attempted to create the false impression that Presidential authority was needed to scramble fighter jets. Whether the planes should have or could have been shot down once interception was achieved is correctly identified by TENC as irrelevant to the question of why the air force didn’t do the first part of it’s job—routine interception. They exposed Cheney’s deceitful attempt to confuse the two issues.
Hoffman so much liked the demolition job that TENC did on Cheney’s spin that he plagiarized the substance of the article even to the point of only slightly rewording the title. However, as we’ll see later, once having claimed it by implication as his own work, Hoffman then set to work to subtly undermine it.
But first, I’ll examine Hoffman’s subtle twisting of the first point raised by TENC.
The magazine “Popular Mechanics” launched an attack on any idea that the Govt was involved in any way in Sept 11. In response, Hoffman wrote an article supporting most of the views peddled by Popular Mechanics, including an attack on TENC’s first point.
Hoffman’s support for most of the official story was cloaked in a clever disguise of appearing to do the opposite. There is just one issue on which Hoffman gives a good presentation of Sept 11 evidence. The demolition of WTC 1,2 and 7. Hoffman plagiarized nearly all of this work too. Having arrived to the issue belatedly, in mid 2003, after the hard work on the demolition evidence had already been done by others, and claiming it as his own, this is the platform which Hoffman has used to defend most of the official story, while appearing to be a critic of it.
Popular Mechanics attacked a wide range of the Sept 11 evidence. Hoffman took issue with them on the demolition but agreed with them on almost everything else. Hoffman cleverly disguised his extensive agreement with Popular Mechanics by presenting his endorsement of their views in a confrontational tone. His method was to agree that most of the evidence attacked by Popular Mechanics was junk and to take issue with them for falsely presenting such issues as representative of genuine Sept 11 scepticism.
Hoffman even boasted that he had debunked most of it before they did.
Let’s consider some of Hoffman’s response to Popular Mechanics.
[[More important, it misrepresents skeptics' views by implying that the skeptics' community is an undifferentiated "army" that wholly embraces the article's sixteen "poisonous claims," which it asserts are "at the root of virtually every 9/11 alternative scenario." In fact much of the 9/11 truth community has been working to expose many of these claims as disinformation…
...Superficially, the topics appear to address the major physical evidence issues brought up by the skeptics (while ignoring the mountains of evidence of foreknowledge, motive, and unique means possessed by insiders). However, the sixteen "most prevalent claims made by conspiracy theorists" which it attacks are mostly specious claims, many of which were probably invented to discredit skepticism of the official story in the first place. The article debunks the more specious claims, and uses distortion and falsehoods to counter serious claims.
Thus the main approach of the article is to set up and attack a straw man of claims that it pretends represent the entirety of the skeptics' movement. The list includes many of the same claims that are debunked on the companion to this site, 911review.com. The article gives no hint of the questions raised by the evidence in this site, nor any sense of the issues raised by the broader 9/11 truth movement. ]]
So there we have it in Hoffman’s own words. For the main part he agrees with the assessment of the evidence by Popular Mechanics and is proud to have launched similar attacks himself.
Now lets look at one of the “straw man “ claims, as identified by Hoffman, which caused him to grumble that these “specious” claims should not have been presented to [[represent the entirety of the skeptics' movement.]] It is one of the very same pieces of evidence which Hoffman plagiarized from TENC in order to give himself credibility as a Sept 11 sceptic.
Hoffman writes
[[2. No Stand-Down Order
Here, the article falsely implies that emperors-clothes.comand StandDown.netboth claim that no jets were scrambled to pursue any of the four commandeered jets. It then attacks this straw man…]]
(“emperor’s clothes” is an alternative name for TENC)
Here, Hoffman is supporting the official story that fighters were scrambled
before the pentagon was hit and didn’t get there in time. One of very same myths which TENC worked so hard to expose as bogus. According to Hoffman, the claim that no fighters were scrambled is a “straw man” . That’s curious, because it’s the exact opposite of what Hoffman writes on another part of his site plagiarizing TENC’s much more thorough deconstruction of the issue..
[[The Changing StoryFor the first few days after the attack, the official story was that no interceptors were scrambled until after the Pentagon strike. On September 16th Vice President Cheney told Meet the Press that George Bush personally made the decision to scramble interceptors, and suggested that he did so only after the Pentagon was hit. 1 General Myers, during his confirmation hearing on September 13th, said that no military aircraft were scrambled until after the Pentagon was hit. 2 There was also no mention in the major media of scramblings of jets prior to the Pentagon hit, until September 14th, when Dan Rather announced on the CBS Evening News that F-15s were scrambled from Otis at 8:44 and F-16s were scrambled from Langley at 9:30. 3 Officials such as Cheney apparently were not kept apprised of these new "facts," since his Meet the Press interview was two days later. Four days after the CBS disclosure, the new story was incorporated into NORAD's official timeline. ]]
So, where it’s convenient to him, Hoffman uses (without accreditation) TENC’s research showing that the claim of scrambles prior to the pentagon strike was a retrospective back flip by officialdom to try to cover up what they’d earlier admitted—that nothing was scrambled until after the pentagon was hit. But when writing his cleverly disguised agreement with Popular Mechanics, he put on his other face and supported the official story. His only issue with Popular Mechanics was a complaint that the claim that such scrambles didn’t take place was a “straw man” and didn’t represent genuine Sept 11 scepticism.
Furthermore, he falsely attributed to TENC agreement with the official story of the scrambles. Misrepresenting the same people from whom one plagiarizes one’s research is about as low as one can go. Superficially, Hoffman appears to have at least linked to TENC, so that what they wrote can be easily checked. But this is also a deception. He has linked not to the specific articlenor even the relevant sectionof their site, but simply to their home page. Since the site deals with a wide range of issues, someone not familiar with the site and the issue would have little chance of quickly finding what TENC actually wrote in relation to this question.
Hoffman used some cleverly deceptive language, probably in preparation for the very type of criticism which I am now presenting.
[[the article falsely implies that emperors-clothes.com and StandDown.netboth claim that no jets were scrambled ]]
If we read that carefully and literally, it leaves open the possibility that *one* of the sites does present such a claim. However, there is no doubt that the way it is written is intended to mislead readers into thinking that *neither* site made such a claim.
If Hoffman were to object that his writing was not intended to give this misleading impression, and that it’s not his problem if people misinterpret technically correct language , this only digs him into an even more serious hole. Implicit in such a defence is a claim that TENC got it wrong—so wrong that their work can be described as a “straw man”, and that StandDown.net (which supports the official story of the early scrambles) got it right. Even though Hoffman found it convenient to mimic TENC’s “straw man” on another part of his site.
Which means that he’s calling the same TENC work that he copied and posted in order to raise his own profile, a “straw man”.
An examination of StandDown.net, shows that it’s another site which plagiarizes TENC’s original research and then subtly distorts it.
In order to understand this, we need to divide point 1 of TENC’s case into two sections.
A) As already explained, early statements from officials all admitted that nothing was scrambled until after the pentagon was hit, and the stories about the scrambles which allegedly took place earlier were only introduced retrospectively to try to cover the holes in the first story. One should read the TENC articleto get a full grasp on the evidence for this, although Hoffman’s summary of it quoted earlier gives a basic idea.
B) TENC showed in a different article written later, that had such earlier scrambles taken place, then the fighters involved would have to been flying at such ridiculously low speeds (less than 260 mph, as compared to top speeds of around 1500 mph), that this further supports their earlier published evidence that the alleged scrambles were a retrospective concoction.
Most of the truthling sites which plagiarize TENC’s work have twisted this evidence. They mostly omit part A of the analysis, and present it as fact that the earlier scrambles took place. Having done this, they present their scepticism in the form of asking why the scrambled fighters flew so slowly, rather than admit the obvious deduction that no such scrambles took place and that the ridiculously slow flying speeds were the result of trying to fit something which didn’t happen into the established timeline—a deduction supported by the evidence in part A, which the truthlings usually leave out. StandDown.net is a case in point.
Most sites which plagiarize TENC’s work imply it to be their own work rather than directly claim it. Hoffman and Rabinowitz for example, simply imply a claim of originality by failing to acknowledge where they pinched it from.
StandDown.netuses far more aggressive and malicious plagiarism. Ignoring part A of the above analysis, it describes part B and directly attributes the original research to a person named Scott Shugar , who isn’t available to tell his side of the story because he reportedly died in 2002, not long after writing it. The author of the site, Mark Elsis also takes partial credit, even boasting that no-one but he and Shugar had the courage to write about the issue.
[[Stand Down is dedicated to Scott Shuger. Scott was known as the first Internet reporter. He was also the only mainstream or alternative media writer, besides myself, who had the courage to write about the elementary mathematical facts (that the two United States Air Force (USAF) F-15 fighters ordered to intercept United Airlines Flight 175 and the two or three USAF F-16 fighters ordered to intercept American Airlines Flight 77 were flying at only 25.8% and 27.4% of their top speed) of the NORAD Press Release of September 18, 2001. Scott's article is called IGNORAD The Military Screw-up Nobody Talks About. Scott Shuger died in a scuba diving accident June 15, 2002.
IGNORAD
The Military Screw-up Nobody Talks About
by Scott Shugar
http://AttackOnAmerica.net/IGNORAD.htm]]
Following this link we find an article pushing part B of the above analysis and claiming it to be original work. It’s dated Jan 16 2002 and in its basic substance, is a copy of the TENC article published a week earlier. It also plagiarizes other aspects of the TENC research which were published even earlier than that, but carefully avoids the other evidence that the alleged scrambles prior to the Pentagon strike were retrospective concoctions, as shown by TENCand repeated by Hoffman
In summary, this is what Hoffman has done. First, in the main part of his site, he has attempted to write TENC out of the history of their own research, claiming it by implication as his own. Having achieved some success with this, he then subtly confuses and undermines the findings of the research by, in his response to Popular Mechanics, retiring the evidence that the alleged scrambles were fictitious—to the point of describing it as “straw man “ evidence , while opportunistically playing the other side in another part of his site. This is coupled with attempting to misrepresent TENC and shift credit for their original work to StandDown.net which also misrepresents the early scrambles issue.
HOFFMAN AND CHENEY SPIN TOGETHER
Hoffman uses the same tactic against TENC’s second point. That being the way in which Cheney attempted to confuse the issue of interception with the issue of shooting down, and create the impression that executive authorization was required to scramble fighter jets.
The TENC analysis begins thus
[[Lie # 2: Presidential Authorization Was Needed To Scramble Jets To Intercept Flight 77
On Sunday, September 16th, Vice-President Richard Cheney was interviewed on NBC TV's 'Meet the Press'. During that interview he created the impression that the military would have needed presidential authorization to scramble fighter jets to intercept American Airlines Flight 77 before it hit the Pentagon.]]
Hoffman’s plagiarismdescribes it this way.
[[Cheney, in an interview with Tim Russert on NBC, indicated that the President made the decision that day to scramble fighter jets. This is very unusual, as it is contrary to standard operating procedures ]]
And in another part of his site
[[It is standard operating procedure (SOP) to scramble jet fighters whenever a jetliner goes off course or radio contact with it is lost. 1Between September 2000 and June 2001, interceptors were scrambled 67 times.2 In the year 2000 jets were scrambled 129 times.]]
Now we’ll see how later, through different channels, Hoffman played the other side, going to elaborate lengths to revive Cheney’s spin disguised as a new development.
Here is an article called “Found: The 9/11 strand down order ? “dated March 31 2004.
It is written by Jerry Russell, but he is obviously acting as a mouthpiece for Hoffman.
Some extracts.
[[Jim Hoffman has discovered a document which I believe may be very important to the 911 skeptic movement. This document superseded earlier DOD procedures for dealing with hijacked aircraft, and it requires that Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld is personally responsible for issuing intercept orders. Commanders in the field are stripped of all authority to act. This amazing order came from S.A. Fry (Vice Admiral, US Navy and Director, Joint Staff) so it appears to me that responsibility for the US armed forces "Failure to Respond" rests directly with Fry for issuing this instruction, as well as with Donald Rumsfeld for failing to execute his responsibility to issue orders in a timely fashion…
...this discovery could somewhat diffuse the power of our movement's message about the "Stand Down", since it is now clear that it was implemented through a routine administrative memo...The relevant documents are on the Web at:
http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/norad/docs/intercept_proc.pdf
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/d302515_021897/d302515p.pdf]] (Note that the first link is Hoffman’s site)
If you actually read the documents in question, you’ll see that they are nothing to do with routine interception procedures. The changes represent merely a regulation adding UAV’s to the definition of “derelict objects” in the section relating to “destruction of derelict airborne objects” and some minor shuffling of definitions and references.
Many people wouldn’t bother to read the fine print and if they did, many wouldn't have the confidence to be sure that they had understood it properly, when Russell is confidently telling them that it amounts to Rumsfeld taking executive control of interception procedures.
In the following deconstruction, we’ll see that the particular section of the document quoted by Russell actually means the exact opposite of what he attributes to it.
Hoffman’s version of this sneaky disinformation is here. These kinds of regulations are not easy for most people to read, which is presumably why Hoffman chose this as the platform to launch his re-invention of Cheney’s spin. But the following explanation may make it easier for you to read the documents yourself and work out what they mean and how Hoffman and Russell have twisted this.
Note this from Russell’s article
[[This CJCSI states that "In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be
notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate responses as authorized by reference d, forward
requests for DOD assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval."]]
Russell’s claim that this means that personal approval from Rumsfeld is required to intercept a plane simply isn’t true. Somehow he forgot about this bit.
[[with the exception of immediate responses as authorized by reference d]]
“Immediate responses” obviously includes routine intercept procedures. They are defined here by “reference d”.
And what’s reference d ? If we scroll towards the bottom of the document we find it.
[[DOD 3025.15, 18 February 1997 “Military assistance to civil authorities”.]]
So things which qualify for exemption on the basis of “immediate responses” are still defined by the 1997 regulation, which Russell agrees did not give the Defense Secretary executive control over interceptions. This is contrary to the claim by Russell that the June 2001 changes mean that since that date [[Commanders in the field are stripped of all authority to act ]]
While its understandable that some readers might be confused or intimidated into accepting Russel’s interpretation, through finding it difficult to directly understand the regulations, it’s difficult to see how anyone could have thought up Russell’s interpretation to begin with, in the absence of a conscious desire to spin in this direction.
Hoffman makes the same claim as Russell, but takes more care to spin against the deconstruction I have just offered. Presumably anticipating that some people might notice what I just described, Hoffman wrote
[[CJCSI 3610.01A, dated June 1, 2001, required that all requests for asistance in hijackings be approved by the Secretary of Defense. It had an exception for emergencies that would seem to give commanders in the field autonomy in ordering intercepts. However, that exception did not cover requests for "potentially lethal assistance", the kind required to respond to the attack.]]
Hoffman provides no evidence for the assertion in the last sentence of this quote. And the assertion is clearly false. Exceptions are authorized by reference d. Reference d is the 1997 regulation. Therefore, the exceptions haven't been changed since 1997. This can be also be confirmed by scrolling to section 7 of the document headed “summary of changes”, which don’t include anything claimed by Russell and Hoffman.
[[ 7. Summary of changes.
A. Unmanned vehicles (UAV,ROV) added to description of possible derelict airborne objects.
B. Statutory authority for Responding to aircraft Piracy enclosure removed and added to reference list.
C. In various places throughout the document, “USELEMNORAD” was replaced with “NORAD”
D. FAA order 76104J 3 November 1988. *Special military operations* was added as a reference. ]]
The attempt to portray this as a regulation making interception dependent upon executive authority is disinformation.
Now lets see how truly crummy this disinformation attempt is.
Note this from Russell’s article dated March 31 2004.
[[Jim Hoffman has discovered a document…]]
And from Hoffman’s own article in relation to it.
[[The June 1st order apparently gave Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld the legal authority (if not the de facto authority) to prevent intercepts of Flights 11, 175, and 77 by just doing nothing.]]
The two quotes collectively create the impression that Hoffman has discovered a June 1 2001 change which was previously unnoticed, handing authorization to scramble fighter jets to Rumsfeld personally from that date on. Let’s remind ourselves again of the exact wording of this “discovered document” as quoted by Russell’s article , which is recommended as source material by Hoffman.
[[This CJCSI states that "In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be
notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate responses as authorized by reference d, forward
requests for DOD assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval."]]
Now lets look at an extract from the TENC article exposing Cheney’s spin, remembering that it is dated Nov 20, 2001 and that Hoffman liked it so much that he plagiarized much of the substance of it.
[[A Defense Department manual makes the same point:
"In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate responses,...forward requests for DOD [Department of Defense] assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval."
--CJCSI 3610.01A, 1 June 2001 ]]
So much for “discovering a new document “. 2 1/2 years before Hoffman and Russell, TENC quoted this exact same document to demonstrate the routine nature of interception procedures, and how they do not require executive authority - as clearly stated in the regulation.
And let’s remember what Hoffman himself wrote, when playing the other side in plagiarising that research.
[[Cheney, in an interview with Tim Russert on NBC, indicated that the President made the decision that day to scramble fighter jets. This is very unusual, as it is contrary to standard operating procedures ]]
Having established what the document actually says, and also the fact that it’s exposure to researchers was old news, let’s consider this claim from Russell.
[[it requires that Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld is personally responsible for issuing intercept orders. Commanders in the field are stripped of all authority to act. ]]
For anyone who somehow managed to initially get that impression from the document, common sense should have warned them to consider the question more carefully.
Interception is such a routine procedure that it is inconceivable that the Secretary of Defense would have his permission sought every time a plane needed to be intercepted. It’s equivalent to suggesting that the police commissioner would be personally contacted for approval every time a police officer wanted to question a suspect. Hoffman knows enough to be aware of this, as shown here from one of his articles playing the other side.
[[It is standard operating procedure (SOP) to scramble jet fighters whenever a jetliner goes off course or radio contact with it is lost. 1 Between September 2000 and June 2001, interceptors were scrambled 67 times.2 In the year 2000 jets were scrambled 129 times.]]
And Rumsfeld has nothing better to do with his time than make himself constantly available to handle this volume of requests, which could occur at any time, most of which are in relation to trivial incidents ? Since when does the highest official in any bureaucracy be put in the position of having to personally approve every application of something which is “standard operating procedure”?
Remember that the regulatory change falsely claimed by Russell and Hoffman to make interception dependent on personal approval from Rumsfeld is still in place. This means that for the last 4 1/2 years Rumsfeld would have been flooded with these time wasting, trivial requests, turning himself into a pointless rubber stamping clerk for his field commanders.
To further emphasise that point, let’s examine some extracts from the documentation linked by Hoffman in his above quote. From the link numbered 1
[[At a NORAD operations center in Cheyenne Mountain in Colorado Springs, Colo., a noncommissioned officer listens to conversations on the FAA network from all over the United States, said Maj. Douglas Martin, NORAD spokesman.
"If he hears anything that indicates difficulty in the skies, we begin the staff work to scramble," Martin said.]]
He doesn't say anything about needing to contact Rumsfeld.
[[From Sept. 11 to June, NORAD scrambled jets or diverted combat air patrols 462 times, almost seven times as often as the 67 scrambles from September 2000 to June 2001, Martin said…]]
And Rumsfeld had to make a personal decision on every one of them ? 46 times a month ?
[[...No one has been shot out of the sky since Sept. 11, he said; for that, an order must come from President Bush or Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. ]]
This is the only part of the article which mentions executive authority. Note the clear distinction, as stated by Martin, between what has to be done to initiate a scramble, and what has to be done to initiate a shoot down. “Staff” initiate scrambles (46 times a month on average.) Rumsfeld or Bush can authorize a shoot down. Exactly the distinction which Cheney attempted to confuse in Sept 2001 and which TENC sorted out in Nov 2001 , and which Hoffman plagiarized years later.
In summary:
· A correct reading of the CJCSI document reveals it to mean the opposite of what Hoffman and Russell attribute to it.
· The quoted regulation - claimed as a Hoffman discovery—had already been quoted for its correct purpose by TENC 2 1/2 years earlier as part of an article, the substance of which was plagiarized by Hoffman for use on a different part of his site.
· Hoffman and Russell’s interpretation of the CJCSI document contradicts common sense.
· Documentation about the process of aviation security since Sept 11 -used by Hoffman himself in a different part of his site - contradicts their interpretation of the CJCSI document.
Again, we see that Hoffman plays both sides. In one part of his site he plagiarizes TENC’s work to raise his profile as a Sept 11 “researcher”. But through the back door, putting on his other face, Hoffman attempts a cleverly disguised revival of the Cheney spin that executive authorization is required to scramble fighter jets.
We could describe Hoffman by quoting exactly what TENC says about Cheney.
[[he created the impression that the military would have needed executive authorization to scramble fighter jets to intercept American Airlines Flight 77 before it hit the Pentagon.]] (TENC’s word “presidential” changed to “executive”. )
In this article we’ve seen Hoffman exposed as waging a subtle disinformation campaign against the stand down evidence on two fronts. First, he attempted to support the official story that jets were scrambled and didn’t get there in time. Second, he supported Cheney’s deceit that executive authority is needed to scramble fighter jets.
If this claim from Hoffman were true
[[The June 1st order apparently gave Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld the legal authority (if not the de facto authority) to prevent intercepts of Flights 11, 175, and 77 by just doing nothing.]]
then the mythical scrambles which Hoffman (sometimes) believes in, had to be authorized by Rumsfeld. If so, how could the scrambles have happened if Rumsfeld’s Sept 11 action can be accurately described as [[just doing nothing ]] ?
Not only are both prongs of Hoffman’s disinformation demonstrably false, they also contradict each other.
In conclusion, lets look at another extract from Russell’s article. What is the basic message of this disinformation ?
[[this discovery could somewhat diffuse the power of our movement's message about the "Stand Down", since it is now clear that it was implemented through a routine administrative memo.]]
“Forget about the stand down” is the basic message.
Lets put this message in perspective. I don’t believe that any stand down order was issued on Sept 11, because I don’t believe that there were any hijacked planes in need of interception. I am therefore confident that the “stand down order” will never be found because it doesn't exist, and that the issue is therefore a red herring in terms of material which could constitute proof in a legal sense.
So if anyone were to suggest that we forget about the stand down, you would expect it to be me.
Nevertheless, I still believe that the original stand down work - as done by TENC—not the proliferation of second rate plagiarism like Hoffman’s - is still a valuable tool in the total picture of public education, and so I still promote it - subject to the qualification above. This can be seen in my summary article and in my direct linking to the TENC articles from my site.
By contrast, Hoffman is adamant in defending the official story of what hit the towers and the Pentagon. Such a position mandates that one then treat the stand down issue as one of critical importance. And yet Hoffman, while pretending to support it, is pushing disinformation which prompts people to give up on it, and to be confused about it. For someone who actually believes that four planes were hijacked that morning and crashed where we were told - as Hoffman claims to believe - then the stand down should be considered a prime piece of evidence, to be analysed respectfully and promoted properly.
And yet we see Hoffman trashing it through a campaign of plagiarism as the platform from which to issue subtle disinformation to misrepresent ,confuse and undermine the issue.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
SCHOLARS FOR 9/11 PLAGIARISM AND DISINFORMATION
SCHOLARS FOR 9/11 PLAGIARISM AND DISINFORMATION
Copyright. Gerard Holmgren Feb 6 2006. This material may be freely circulated on the following conditions. It is not for commercial use. The Authors name, date of publication and the web address where you found it are cited. Any editing is acknowledged as such. The copyright notice is included. Distribution without meeting these conditions is an infringement of copyright.
Recently, a group calling itself “Scholars for 9/11 truth” was formed around the publicity generated by newcomer to the Sept 11 skepticism scene, Professor Steven Jones.
This article exposes how truth is the last thing on the mind of Jones and his group.
On the surface, Jones appears to making a positive contribution, endorsing some of the Sept 11 evidence, in particular the demolition of the WTC, and getting some publicity in the mainstream media-something which has generally been elusive for Sept 11 skeptics.
If something appears too good to be true, then it often is.
The following article shows that Jones and his group are simply repackaging the disinformation and plagiarism campaign originated by the discredited Jim Hoffman. Hoffman’s reputation is now in tatters, so the same spin is simply having a fresh face and new names put to it.
An understanding of Hoffman’s record is important to the understanding the methods and motivation of the Scholars group.
The article about Hoffman linked below
Jim Hoffman Trashes the Sept 11 stand down evidence should be read first, because it just as effectively describes what the Scholars are up to in the article linked below.
The following excerpts and analysis will not make sense unless you have read the article about Hoffman.
Let us consider some claims from 9/11: Have we been lied to ? by the scholars. (Scroll to point 3 in the article).
[[We find that the procedure for scrambling military jets was significantly changed due to a military order issued June 1, 2001 – just three months and ten days before the hijackings on September 11, 2001. The order stated:
c. Military Escort Aircraft
(1) When notified that military escort aircraft are needed in
conjunction with an aircraft piracy (hijacking) emergency, the DDO,
NMCC, will notify the appropriate unified command or USELEMNORAD to
determine if suitable aircraft are available and forward the request to the
Secretary of Defense for approval in accordance with DODD 3025.15]]
Does this sound familiar ? If not then you haven’t read the article about Hoffman, linked above.. The scholars group repeats the same lie in a press statement.
[[The group's charges include:...The procedure for issuing orders for scrambling was changed in June 2001, requiring that approval could only come from the Secretary of Defense, but Donald Rumsfeld was not alerted soon enough on 9/11, according to Scholars group.]]
Just like Hoffman, the scholars group supports the official story of which planes crashed where, but at the same time, trashes the stand down evidence. The scholars also don’t mind resorting to disinformation in order to support the official story of the plane crashes. Consider this press statement. "Questions Remain from 9/11 Report, Professor says"
[[He [Jones] ...asked why the government had not acknowledged finding three of four black boxes from the hijacked airplanes.]]
The reason that Jones provides no documentation for this claim is because there isn’t any—unless internet rumour counts as documentation.
Returning to the issue of plagiarism. In my deconstruction of Hoffman’s campaign of disinformation against the stand down evidence which he pretended to support, we saw that wresting popularly perceived “ownership” of the research from the original authors was an indispensable precursor to the disinformation campaign. By comparing extracts from the Scholars article 9/11: Have we been lied to ? with excerpts from the original TENC article, we’ll see that the scholars have plagiarized even more aggressively than Hoffman.
Here is an extract of what TENC published on Nov 14 2001.
Guilty for 9/11. Bush, Rumseld, Myers Pt 1 by Illarion Bykov and Jared Israel
[[On one day it [USA today] published two contradictory stories to explain the failure to scramble jets from Andrews prior to the Pentagon crash:
FIRST 'USA TODAY' STORY:
"Andrews Air Force Base, home to Air Force One, is only 15 miles [sic!] away from the Pentagon, but it had no fighters assigned to it. Defense officials won't say whether that has changed."
--'USA TODAY,' 17 September 2001 (4)
SECOND 'USA TODAY' STORY:
"The District of Columbia National Guard maintained fighter planes at Andrews Air Force Base, only about 15 miles [sic!] from the Pentagon, but those planes were not on alert and not deployed."
--'USA TODAY' September 17, 2001 (5)
Both stories are false.
Only one newspaper told the truth. That was the 'San Diego Union-Tribune':
"Air defense around Washington is provided mainly by fighter planes from Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland near the District of Columbia border. The D.C. Air National Guard is also based there and equipped with F-16 fighter planes, a National Guard spokesman said.
"But the fighters took to the skies over Washington only after the devastating attack on the Pentagon..."
--'San Diego Union-Tribune' 12 September 2001. (6)…
..."It was after the attack on the Pentagon that the Air Force then decided to scramble F-16s out of the DC National Guard Andrews Air Force Base to fly cover, a--a protective cover over Washington, DC."
--NBC Nightly News, (6:30 PM ET) 11 September 11 2001 (10)
The media should have demanded to know the truth about why fighter jets assigned to protect Washington didn't scramble an hour BEFORE the Pentagon was hit. ]]
More than 4 years later, belatedly lamenting the lack of response from the air force ,the Scholars for 9/11 plagiarism wrote in Jan 2006
[[News reports dutifully described what did NOT happen:
The District of Columbia National Guard maintained fighter planes at Andrews Air Force Base, only about 15 miles from the Pentagon, but those planes were not on alert and not deployed.
-- 'USA TODAY,' September 17, 2001 Monday, FINAL EDITION, Pg. 5A, "Shoot-down order issued on morning of chaos," by Jonathan Weisman, Washington
How could a hijacked airliner fly through Washington airspace and crash into the Pentagon, the five-sided symbol of American military might? …
Air defense around Washington is provided mainly by fighter planes from Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland near the District of Columbia border. The D.C. Air National Guard is also based there and equipped with F-16 fighter planes, a National Guard spokesman said.But the fighters took to the skies over Washington only after the devastating attack on the Pentagon...
-- SECURITY CRACKS EXPOSED,” The San Diego Union - Tribune; San Diego, Calif.; Sep 12, 2001; Steve Goldstein ]
It was after the attack on the Pentagon that the Air Force then decided to scramble F-16s out of the DC National Guard Andrews Air Force Base to fly cover, a protective cover over Washington, DC.
--NBC Nightly News, (6:30 PM ET) 11 September 11 2001, Jim Miklaszewski reporting.]]
The scholars make their presence in the media felt not through original research (they haven't done any), nor through quality of presentation (they make frequent factual errors—if indeed they are “errors”). They make their presence felt purely by swagger in parading that Jones and number of his associates are professors. Qualifications of this sort are supposed to indicate an exceptional ability for research and documentation. Jones and his group seem to be under the impression that the title actually confers an exemption from any acceptable standards of research or academic behaviour. “Scholars” they call themselves. Scholars are supposed to know what plagiarism is and to avoid it.
Not only do the scholars plagiarize their “research” articles, but their press statements are calculated to reinforce the false notion that their work is original, that the revelations are new, and also to play the hero card by claiming personal risk in unveiling these shocking new revelations.
Consider this press statement from another founding member, Professor Jim Fetzer. from "BYU professor accuses U.S. officials of lying about 9/11"
[[In his original message to potential members last month, Fetzer warned that joining the group might make them the subject of government surveillance and might get them on various lists of "potential terrorists."
The group's charges include:
• Members of the Bush administration knew in advance that the 9/11 attacks would happen but did nothing to stop them.]]
And "Questions remain from 9/11 report, professor says"
[[After a standing ovation, Jones took questions from the audience. Jerry Owens of Midway, who heads a group called 9/11 Truth Seekers, called Jones a true American hero.
"He's putting his life on the line," Owens said. "It's time for all of us to be patriots. We have to put our lives on the line, and now is the time." ]]
Direct cut and paste without attribution from the research of others who actually did put their lives on the line more than four years ago, but as it turns out, are still alive, is not the stuff of which heroes are made. The hero pose of the scholars depends entirely upon pretending that their work is original and new. Hero worship, even when deserved, is a dangerous distraction from focusing on facts , documentation and good analysis.
Nevertheless, if we are to enthuse over people putting their lives on their line, let’s look at some extracts of what TENC published just four days after the Sept 11 attacks, when dissenters had no way of knowing how the govt might react to anybody suggesting govt complicity.
Criminal negligence or Treason ? by Jared Israel Sept 15 2001.
Having already found at this early stage, a considerable amount of mainstream media documentation indicating huge holes in the official story, Israel commented.
[[We cannot say with certainty what happened September 11 - that is, what really happened, behind the scenes...we were puzzled by the official response to the so-called third plane. That is the one that left Dulles Airport, flew to Ohio, near the West Virginia and Kentucky borders, turned around, flew back to Washington and struck the Pentagon.
Concerning this plane, we asked: how could it stay in the air, hijacked, for almost an hour after two other hijacked planes had struck the WTC Towers, and not be seen by U.S. air defense forces? How could it fly to the Midwest, turn around and fly back to Washington and hit the Pentagon without being spotted and therefore intercepted?...
...And why, if they really were confused about what to do, why, after the Commander in Chief was informed about what was happening, didn't he immediately convene an emergency meeting to discuss the issue? Why did he keep reading to children and listening to stories about goats while the 3rd plane flew towards Washington?...
...What we have here is either criminal negligence beyond belief, and that includes the Commander in Chief, who hearing that planes are destroying the country focuses on goats, or b) the 'N.Y. Times' piece is repeating a cover story whose purpose is to explain away the obvious flaw in the original story: namely, that a plan could be hijacked in Ohio, and fly all the way back to Washington without being spotted.
And if the 'N.Y. Times' story is a lie, then those who fed the 'Times' this lie are guilty of conspiracy. They are people in high places and they are directly involved in the murder of God knows how many people in N.Y. as well as the 800 casualties the media speaks of in Washington either because they planned these attacks, perhaps working through Islamist groups secretly controlled by the CIA or they knew the attacks were going to happen and wanted to let them happen. The obvious motive: to create a seeming justification for extreme military action. And that is why they did not allow the Air Force to stop possibly the second and certainly the third planes.
So there you have it - either criminal negligence, including Mr. Bush who reads about goats while his countrymen are slaughtered, or treason.
Given these amazing facts, available in the mainstream media, why is there no call for an investigation?
Mr. Bush has called for bringing those responsible to justice. Let us begin at home. ]]
Having waited more than four years to make sure that no one got locked up or killed for this kind of research, Jones finally decides that it’s safe to rip off the original research and declare himself a hero for it.
Gaining mainstream publicity for such evidence is commendable - providing that one does not actively try to wash away the fact that all of this has already been in the public domain for more than four years and that the *entire* political system, the scientific community, and the *entire* mainstream media has serious questions to answer about why they’ve been covering it up.
In attempting to create the impression that these revelations are new, the scholars are creating an escape tunnel for nearly everyone involved in the planning and subsequent cover up. A few of the more visible and now expendable perpetrators could be hung out in a show trial, but it wouldn’t change anything if the vast bulk of the criminal apparatus which has covered this up for the last four years is allowed to claim that they never knew about it until now.
The lock step complicity of the media, the scientific community and the so called political opposition for the last four years is now as significant an issue as the attacks themselves. By attempting to create the false impression that nobody knew the real facts until recently, the scholars are protecting most of the guilty.
TENC is not the only target of the scholars plagiarism and false revisionism of the research timeline.
Returning to their article 9/11: Have we been lied to ? Scroll down to the analysis of the fake Bin laden confession tape. You’ll find it easily by the photos.
It bears a remarkable similarity to this research, published on Dec 13 2001.
The top half is in German, but if you scroll down , there’s an English section.
And once again we see the scholars go out of their way to convey the impression in the media that this is new and original research on their part.
[[The Scholars for 9/11 Truth compared the video with a photo of the "real" bin Laden and argue that there are discrepancies in the ratio of nose-length to nose-width, as well as distance from tip-of-nose to ear lobe.]]
Here they also directly mimic Hoffman who plagiarized the Dec 2001 research here.
It’s becoming difficult for Hoffman to continue rewriting the research timeline in his name, because of the belting he’s been receiving over his plagiarism. Search “Hoffman the plagiarist” and you’ll see what I mean. Hoffman even whines about being caught out, in an article called Personal attacks on Jim Hoffman. So we now see Hoffman’s plagiarism campaign being transferred to fresh faces who are not yet covered in mud.
Also taking after Hoffman, Jones tries to present the impression that he has conducted significant original research into the demolition of WTC 1, 2 and 7. Like Hoffman, Jones has done nothing but belatedly regurgitate research done years before by others and then try to pass it off as his own.
The scholars are unequivocal about their claim to originality on this evidence.
[[Their own physics research has established that only controlled demolitions are consistent with the near-gravity speed of fall and virtually symmetrical collapse of all three of the WTC buildings. While turning concrete into very fine dust, they fell straight-down into their own footprints. ]]
Using research documented as having been in the public domain for years before anyone had heard of the professors, I will show this claim of “their own physics research” to be a lie.
Lets look at how the Jones presents a bullet point of “their own physics research” to the media.
[[ • Molten metal was found in the subbasements of WTC sites weeks after 9/11; the melting point of structural steel is 2,750 degrees Fahrenheit and the temperature of jet fuel does not exceed 1,800 degrees. Molten metal was also found in the building known as WTC7, although no plane had struck it. Jones's paper also includes a photo of a slag of the metal being extracted from ground zero. The slag, Jones argues, could not be aluminum from the planes because in photographs the metal was salmon-to-yellow-hot temperature (approximately 1,550 to 1,900 degrees F) "well above the melting temperatures of lead and aluminum," which would be a liquid at that temperature.
• Building WTC7 collapsed in 6.6 seconds, which means, Jones says, that the steel and concrete support had to be simply knocked out of the way. "Explosive demolitions are like that," he said. "It doesn't fit the model of the fire-induced pancake collapse."
• No steel-frame, high-rise buildings have ever before or since been brought down due to fires. Temperatures due to fire don't get hot enough for buildings to collapse, he says.]]
It’s remarkable enough in itself that it should take a physics professor four years to work these things out. It’s even more remarkable, considering that other people had already worked them out and blasted them all over the web four years ago.
The first point was originally published in eloquent fashion by J. McMichael in Oct 2001 in a article called Muslims suspend laws of physics.
An extract.
[[Using jet fuel to melt steel is an amazing discovery, really. It is also amazing that until now, no one had been able to get it to work, and that proves the terrorists were not stupid people. Ironworkers fool with acetylene torches, bottled oxygen, electric arcs from generators, electric furnaces, and other elaborate tricks, but what did these brilliant terrorists use? Jet fuel, costing maybe 80 cents a gallon on the open market.]]
This was further expanded by a person writing under the name of “Mad Max” in July 2003. The Jet fuel. How hot did it heat the World the trade Center ? The original publication may have been earlier than this.
Jones second point about the speed of the collapse of WTC 7, indicating a free fall meeting no resistance.:
Even after all this time, Jones still hasn’t figured out that this also applies to WTC 1 and 2. This awareness has been all over the net since 2002. The reason I know this, is that I was the person who started it. I didn’t write an article on it, but I have email documentation to prove that by early March 2002, I had already done extensive calculations on this aspect of the evidence and was already promoting it around the web, seeking feedback and refinement of the methodology. As far as I know I was the first to explore this aspect.
Because it’s a fairly obvious observation, it’s entirely possible that other people of whom I am not aware, also thought of it independently about the same time or even earlier, and were independently promoting it, and that the general awareness of the free fall issue did not start from my efforts alone. But the main point is that If you search with keywords such as “free fall” or “time of collapse”, you’ll see that this has been all over the web for years before anyone had heard of Jones.
Again, the similarities to Hoffman are remarkable. Hoffman also tries to take the credit for the time of collapse issue. Not only did Hoffman not even appear on the scene until 2003, when all of this was well established, I have email correspondence to prove that Hoffman , suggested that I might have been the first to think of it, and admits to not thinking of it until early 2003—by which time it was already well established in Sept 11 research circles.
To Jones’ next point. That no steel framed skyscraper has ever collapsed from fire. I don’t know who was the first to point this out, but it also became common knowledge very quickly. I certainly wasn’t the first to make this point, but just as an example of how long its been around, here is how I used it in an Indymedia debate on Aug 1 2003 and a follow up post the same day.
The fact that no steel framed skyscraper had ever collapsed from fire was already old news by the time of that debate, which was more than 2 years before anyone had heard of Jones.
Returning to the first media summary of “their own physics research”.
[[While turning concrete into very fine dust, they fell straight-down into their own footprints. ]]
The dust issue was dealt with in detail by Jeff King in 2002. You’ll also find a reference to the free fall issue in this article.
In his paper, Jones regurgitates these points of evidence which have been well established in the public domain for years, without crediting any of the original researchers, or where no particular original researcher is apparent—such as the observation that no steel skyscraper had ever collapsed from fire—acknowledging that he is merely belatedly publicizing and commenting on what has already been well known in research and activism circles for years, material which any interested person could find just by surfing the web.
The only “researcher” he credits is Hoffman—who didn’t do any of it.
To point out the difference between legitimate promotion of pre-existing research and plagiarism of it, go to my evidence kit compilation , where I simply collate and link , with brief introductory comments, vast amounts of original high quality research. I began circulating early versions of this compilation in early 2002.
The hand of Hoffman behind the scholars is also evident in Jones’ enthusiasm to attack certain aspects of Sept 11 evidence which they find inconvenient for whatever game they are playing.
Hoffman’s main mission appears to be to attack the no plane evidence both for the WTC and the pentagon. 1 2 3 4 5 If one ignores the plagiarism, Hoffman’s presentation of demolition evidence is quite good, and this is the cover he uses from which to launch his incessant attacks. 1 2 3 4 5 6
It therefore comes as little surprise that Jones has attempted the very same tactic. His very first “contribution” to “911truth” was a paper plagiarizing demolition research, which although far too cautious, was quite a good description of the issue, in so far as it went. On to the end of this, he tacked a dishonest and factually incorrect attack on the no WTC plane evidence, accusing its proponents of distracting from and discrediting his research. Considering that a number of the people who were by implication, the targets of this attack, were also the same people from whom Jones had plagiarized his demolition “research”, this is scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of academic ethics. Not surprisingly, its exactly the same as what Hoffman has done.
Jones ill fated attack on the no plane evidence was so poorly researched, written and reasoned that he was severely embarrassed by the hammering I gave it in response., to the point where he finally agreed to remove his attack from later versions of his paper.
Having been somewhat neutralized by the self inflicted egg on his face from his first attack, Jones is now taking a more subtle approach, building the plagiarism and hero worship platform more carefully and patiently, and indirectly attacking the no plane evidence with the unsubstantiated claim that 3 of the 4 black boxes from the mythical WTC planes have been found.
If Jones had done useful original research, and was not on a disgraceful plagiarism rampage, I would be more tolerant of his plane hugging. But this kind of behaviour isn’t acceptable from a Johnny-come-lately plagiarist/attack dog.
Doubtless his plan is to resume a full attack once he’s finished licking his self inflicted wounds from his first Keystone Cops effort.
The official story of Sept 11 contains so many different lies, that it creates endless potential for unscrupulous disinformationists like Jones and Hoffman to make up new lies which are sold with the attractive veneer of admitting carefully selected parts of the truth. The original story as told by the Bush regime and the media was never going to stand up for very long. It has too many holes. But it doesn't need to. As the original story crumbles, it is creating intense competition amongst the different varieties of spin off lies for the title of “truth”. One which is gaining increasing popularity amongst the “truthlings” - the self styled “truth movement” - is to admit the demolition of WTC 1,2 and 7 while keeping most of the rest of the story intact.
The most crucial elements of the rest of the story are that
· Four commercial flights were supposedly hijacked.
· Three planes hit buildings and one crashed in PA.
Both claims are false. Within these false claims, we have every conceivable possible spin off being put forward.
· Hijackings by Arab terrorists as claimed by the Bush regime or electronic hijacking by the regime itself.
· The actual flights claimed by the Bush regime hitting the various targets or substitute planes of some kind.
Any of these lies can be successfully worked into a limited hangout which still protects most of the main architects of the original event and cover up.
What all of these scenarios avoid is the full involvement of the media in showing a cartoon of a fake plane hitting the WTC and passing it off as a real event. Because this cannot be incorporated into any replacement lie which protects the essential infrastructure of the criminal elite which planned and carried out and covered up the attacks, then it is the main target for attack by those are attempting to use partial Sept 11 truth as the platform from which to spin new lies. Limited hangouts are analogous to cheering a revolution because a new bloodthirsty dictator has overthrown the old one.
Any new lie which maintains that the plane we saw on TV was real will be cheered because the exposing of such a monstrous crime as the demolition and deliberately allowing the attacks to happen, or even facilitating them with substitute flights and remote control technology, will understandably seem to many like a breath of fresh air after years of stupid stories about mythical Arab hijackers and intelligence “failures”.
But the apparent breath of fresh air is an illusion. Maintain the central illusion—that a real plane flew into the Sth tower and we know it’s a real plane because we saw it on TV - and nothing really changes. The same media which showed us the cartoon plane to begin with, and then lied and covered up for the original official story for years will then suddenly assume an heroic role of exposing the “truth” of Sept 11, joining forces with scientists who looked the other way for years—like Jones— who will suddenly emerge as fearless heroes to give us a new set of lies to cheer. These lies will be disguised as truth because they will bust carefully selected aspects of the old lie. Politicians who looked the other way for years will suddenly make heroes of themselves, thundering imperiously about impeachment and “investigations” to find out the “truth”.
Expose that it was a “war of the worlds” con job—a movie, passed off as news, - and people will never again believe anything on their TV sets. Thus you destroy not only the lie, but the main infrastructure for selling whatever replacement lie becomes convenient in the wake of the limited hangout. Expose how long this information has been available in the public domain, and the would-be new dictators will have no tools with which to spin their new lies and nowhere to hide from their involvement in the original lie.
The truthlings want to keep the infrastructure of the lie machine intact. They want to remove the more obvious perpetrators of the original lie, such as Bush, who have now outlived their usefulness. The “truth movement” is analogous to the revolution which seeks not to end the injustices of the old regime but merely take possession of the power and its benefits and give them a different appearance.
If this is not what the scholars are up to, then why are they on such an aggressive campaign of plagiarism, disinformation and hero cult construction ?
Why not just promote the original research as it was published back in 2001/2? Or if they want to build on it in some way with genuinely new insights, acknowledge what they are building from ?
Copyright. Gerard Holmgren Feb 6 2006. This material may be freely circulated on the following conditions. It is not for commercial use. The Authors name, date of publication and the web address where you found it are cited. Any editing is acknowledged as such. The copyright notice is included. Distribution without meeting these conditions is an infringement of copyright.
Recently, a group calling itself “Scholars for 9/11 truth” was formed around the publicity generated by newcomer to the Sept 11 skepticism scene, Professor Steven Jones.
This article exposes how truth is the last thing on the mind of Jones and his group.
On the surface, Jones appears to making a positive contribution, endorsing some of the Sept 11 evidence, in particular the demolition of the WTC, and getting some publicity in the mainstream media-something which has generally been elusive for Sept 11 skeptics.
If something appears too good to be true, then it often is.
The following article shows that Jones and his group are simply repackaging the disinformation and plagiarism campaign originated by the discredited Jim Hoffman. Hoffman’s reputation is now in tatters, so the same spin is simply having a fresh face and new names put to it.
An understanding of Hoffman’s record is important to the understanding the methods and motivation of the Scholars group.
The article about Hoffman linked below
Jim Hoffman Trashes the Sept 11 stand down evidence should be read first, because it just as effectively describes what the Scholars are up to in the article linked below.
The following excerpts and analysis will not make sense unless you have read the article about Hoffman.
Let us consider some claims from 9/11: Have we been lied to ? by the scholars. (Scroll to point 3 in the article).
[[We find that the procedure for scrambling military jets was significantly changed due to a military order issued June 1, 2001 – just three months and ten days before the hijackings on September 11, 2001. The order stated:
c. Military Escort Aircraft
(1) When notified that military escort aircraft are needed in
conjunction with an aircraft piracy (hijacking) emergency, the DDO,
NMCC, will notify the appropriate unified command or USELEMNORAD to
determine if suitable aircraft are available and forward the request to the
Secretary of Defense for approval in accordance with DODD 3025.15]]
Does this sound familiar ? If not then you haven’t read the article about Hoffman, linked above.. The scholars group repeats the same lie in a press statement.
[[The group's charges include:...The procedure for issuing orders for scrambling was changed in June 2001, requiring that approval could only come from the Secretary of Defense, but Donald Rumsfeld was not alerted soon enough on 9/11, according to Scholars group.]]
Just like Hoffman, the scholars group supports the official story of which planes crashed where, but at the same time, trashes the stand down evidence. The scholars also don’t mind resorting to disinformation in order to support the official story of the plane crashes. Consider this press statement. "Questions Remain from 9/11 Report, Professor says"
[[He [Jones] ...asked why the government had not acknowledged finding three of four black boxes from the hijacked airplanes.]]
The reason that Jones provides no documentation for this claim is because there isn’t any—unless internet rumour counts as documentation.
Returning to the issue of plagiarism. In my deconstruction of Hoffman’s campaign of disinformation against the stand down evidence which he pretended to support, we saw that wresting popularly perceived “ownership” of the research from the original authors was an indispensable precursor to the disinformation campaign. By comparing extracts from the Scholars article 9/11: Have we been lied to ? with excerpts from the original TENC article, we’ll see that the scholars have plagiarized even more aggressively than Hoffman.
Here is an extract of what TENC published on Nov 14 2001.
Guilty for 9/11. Bush, Rumseld, Myers Pt 1 by Illarion Bykov and Jared Israel
[[On one day it [USA today] published two contradictory stories to explain the failure to scramble jets from Andrews prior to the Pentagon crash:
FIRST 'USA TODAY' STORY:
"Andrews Air Force Base, home to Air Force One, is only 15 miles [sic!] away from the Pentagon, but it had no fighters assigned to it. Defense officials won't say whether that has changed."
--'USA TODAY,' 17 September 2001 (4)
SECOND 'USA TODAY' STORY:
"The District of Columbia National Guard maintained fighter planes at Andrews Air Force Base, only about 15 miles [sic!] from the Pentagon, but those planes were not on alert and not deployed."
--'USA TODAY' September 17, 2001 (5)
Both stories are false.
Only one newspaper told the truth. That was the 'San Diego Union-Tribune':
"Air defense around Washington is provided mainly by fighter planes from Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland near the District of Columbia border. The D.C. Air National Guard is also based there and equipped with F-16 fighter planes, a National Guard spokesman said.
"But the fighters took to the skies over Washington only after the devastating attack on the Pentagon..."
--'San Diego Union-Tribune' 12 September 2001. (6)…
..."It was after the attack on the Pentagon that the Air Force then decided to scramble F-16s out of the DC National Guard Andrews Air Force Base to fly cover, a--a protective cover over Washington, DC."
--NBC Nightly News, (6:30 PM ET) 11 September 11 2001 (10)
The media should have demanded to know the truth about why fighter jets assigned to protect Washington didn't scramble an hour BEFORE the Pentagon was hit. ]]
More than 4 years later, belatedly lamenting the lack of response from the air force ,the Scholars for 9/11 plagiarism wrote in Jan 2006
[[News reports dutifully described what did NOT happen:
The District of Columbia National Guard maintained fighter planes at Andrews Air Force Base, only about 15 miles from the Pentagon, but those planes were not on alert and not deployed.
-- 'USA TODAY,' September 17, 2001 Monday, FINAL EDITION, Pg. 5A, "Shoot-down order issued on morning of chaos," by Jonathan Weisman, Washington
How could a hijacked airliner fly through Washington airspace and crash into the Pentagon, the five-sided symbol of American military might? …
Air defense around Washington is provided mainly by fighter planes from Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland near the District of Columbia border. The D.C. Air National Guard is also based there and equipped with F-16 fighter planes, a National Guard spokesman said.But the fighters took to the skies over Washington only after the devastating attack on the Pentagon...
-- SECURITY CRACKS EXPOSED,” The San Diego Union - Tribune; San Diego, Calif.; Sep 12, 2001; Steve Goldstein ]
It was after the attack on the Pentagon that the Air Force then decided to scramble F-16s out of the DC National Guard Andrews Air Force Base to fly cover, a protective cover over Washington, DC.
--NBC Nightly News, (6:30 PM ET) 11 September 11 2001, Jim Miklaszewski reporting.]]
The scholars make their presence in the media felt not through original research (they haven't done any), nor through quality of presentation (they make frequent factual errors—if indeed they are “errors”). They make their presence felt purely by swagger in parading that Jones and number of his associates are professors. Qualifications of this sort are supposed to indicate an exceptional ability for research and documentation. Jones and his group seem to be under the impression that the title actually confers an exemption from any acceptable standards of research or academic behaviour. “Scholars” they call themselves. Scholars are supposed to know what plagiarism is and to avoid it.
Not only do the scholars plagiarize their “research” articles, but their press statements are calculated to reinforce the false notion that their work is original, that the revelations are new, and also to play the hero card by claiming personal risk in unveiling these shocking new revelations.
Consider this press statement from another founding member, Professor Jim Fetzer. from "BYU professor accuses U.S. officials of lying about 9/11"
[[In his original message to potential members last month, Fetzer warned that joining the group might make them the subject of government surveillance and might get them on various lists of "potential terrorists."
The group's charges include:
• Members of the Bush administration knew in advance that the 9/11 attacks would happen but did nothing to stop them.]]
And "Questions remain from 9/11 report, professor says"
[[After a standing ovation, Jones took questions from the audience. Jerry Owens of Midway, who heads a group called 9/11 Truth Seekers, called Jones a true American hero.
"He's putting his life on the line," Owens said. "It's time for all of us to be patriots. We have to put our lives on the line, and now is the time." ]]
Direct cut and paste without attribution from the research of others who actually did put their lives on the line more than four years ago, but as it turns out, are still alive, is not the stuff of which heroes are made. The hero pose of the scholars depends entirely upon pretending that their work is original and new. Hero worship, even when deserved, is a dangerous distraction from focusing on facts , documentation and good analysis.
Nevertheless, if we are to enthuse over people putting their lives on their line, let’s look at some extracts of what TENC published just four days after the Sept 11 attacks, when dissenters had no way of knowing how the govt might react to anybody suggesting govt complicity.
Criminal negligence or Treason ? by Jared Israel Sept 15 2001.
Having already found at this early stage, a considerable amount of mainstream media documentation indicating huge holes in the official story, Israel commented.
[[We cannot say with certainty what happened September 11 - that is, what really happened, behind the scenes...we were puzzled by the official response to the so-called third plane. That is the one that left Dulles Airport, flew to Ohio, near the West Virginia and Kentucky borders, turned around, flew back to Washington and struck the Pentagon.
Concerning this plane, we asked: how could it stay in the air, hijacked, for almost an hour after two other hijacked planes had struck the WTC Towers, and not be seen by U.S. air defense forces? How could it fly to the Midwest, turn around and fly back to Washington and hit the Pentagon without being spotted and therefore intercepted?...
...And why, if they really were confused about what to do, why, after the Commander in Chief was informed about what was happening, didn't he immediately convene an emergency meeting to discuss the issue? Why did he keep reading to children and listening to stories about goats while the 3rd plane flew towards Washington?...
...What we have here is either criminal negligence beyond belief, and that includes the Commander in Chief, who hearing that planes are destroying the country focuses on goats, or b) the 'N.Y. Times' piece is repeating a cover story whose purpose is to explain away the obvious flaw in the original story: namely, that a plan could be hijacked in Ohio, and fly all the way back to Washington without being spotted.
And if the 'N.Y. Times' story is a lie, then those who fed the 'Times' this lie are guilty of conspiracy. They are people in high places and they are directly involved in the murder of God knows how many people in N.Y. as well as the 800 casualties the media speaks of in Washington either because they planned these attacks, perhaps working through Islamist groups secretly controlled by the CIA or they knew the attacks were going to happen and wanted to let them happen. The obvious motive: to create a seeming justification for extreme military action. And that is why they did not allow the Air Force to stop possibly the second and certainly the third planes.
So there you have it - either criminal negligence, including Mr. Bush who reads about goats while his countrymen are slaughtered, or treason.
Given these amazing facts, available in the mainstream media, why is there no call for an investigation?
Mr. Bush has called for bringing those responsible to justice. Let us begin at home. ]]
Having waited more than four years to make sure that no one got locked up or killed for this kind of research, Jones finally decides that it’s safe to rip off the original research and declare himself a hero for it.
Gaining mainstream publicity for such evidence is commendable - providing that one does not actively try to wash away the fact that all of this has already been in the public domain for more than four years and that the *entire* political system, the scientific community, and the *entire* mainstream media has serious questions to answer about why they’ve been covering it up.
In attempting to create the impression that these revelations are new, the scholars are creating an escape tunnel for nearly everyone involved in the planning and subsequent cover up. A few of the more visible and now expendable perpetrators could be hung out in a show trial, but it wouldn’t change anything if the vast bulk of the criminal apparatus which has covered this up for the last four years is allowed to claim that they never knew about it until now.
The lock step complicity of the media, the scientific community and the so called political opposition for the last four years is now as significant an issue as the attacks themselves. By attempting to create the false impression that nobody knew the real facts until recently, the scholars are protecting most of the guilty.
TENC is not the only target of the scholars plagiarism and false revisionism of the research timeline.
Returning to their article 9/11: Have we been lied to ? Scroll down to the analysis of the fake Bin laden confession tape. You’ll find it easily by the photos.
It bears a remarkable similarity to this research, published on Dec 13 2001.
The top half is in German, but if you scroll down , there’s an English section.
And once again we see the scholars go out of their way to convey the impression in the media that this is new and original research on their part.
[[The Scholars for 9/11 Truth compared the video with a photo of the "real" bin Laden and argue that there are discrepancies in the ratio of nose-length to nose-width, as well as distance from tip-of-nose to ear lobe.]]
Here they also directly mimic Hoffman who plagiarized the Dec 2001 research here.
It’s becoming difficult for Hoffman to continue rewriting the research timeline in his name, because of the belting he’s been receiving over his plagiarism. Search “Hoffman the plagiarist” and you’ll see what I mean. Hoffman even whines about being caught out, in an article called Personal attacks on Jim Hoffman. So we now see Hoffman’s plagiarism campaign being transferred to fresh faces who are not yet covered in mud.
Also taking after Hoffman, Jones tries to present the impression that he has conducted significant original research into the demolition of WTC 1, 2 and 7. Like Hoffman, Jones has done nothing but belatedly regurgitate research done years before by others and then try to pass it off as his own.
The scholars are unequivocal about their claim to originality on this evidence.
[[Their own physics research has established that only controlled demolitions are consistent with the near-gravity speed of fall and virtually symmetrical collapse of all three of the WTC buildings. While turning concrete into very fine dust, they fell straight-down into their own footprints. ]]
Using research documented as having been in the public domain for years before anyone had heard of the professors, I will show this claim of “their own physics research” to be a lie.
Lets look at how the Jones presents a bullet point of “their own physics research” to the media.
[[ • Molten metal was found in the subbasements of WTC sites weeks after 9/11; the melting point of structural steel is 2,750 degrees Fahrenheit and the temperature of jet fuel does not exceed 1,800 degrees. Molten metal was also found in the building known as WTC7, although no plane had struck it. Jones's paper also includes a photo of a slag of the metal being extracted from ground zero. The slag, Jones argues, could not be aluminum from the planes because in photographs the metal was salmon-to-yellow-hot temperature (approximately 1,550 to 1,900 degrees F) "well above the melting temperatures of lead and aluminum," which would be a liquid at that temperature.
• Building WTC7 collapsed in 6.6 seconds, which means, Jones says, that the steel and concrete support had to be simply knocked out of the way. "Explosive demolitions are like that," he said. "It doesn't fit the model of the fire-induced pancake collapse."
• No steel-frame, high-rise buildings have ever before or since been brought down due to fires. Temperatures due to fire don't get hot enough for buildings to collapse, he says.]]
It’s remarkable enough in itself that it should take a physics professor four years to work these things out. It’s even more remarkable, considering that other people had already worked them out and blasted them all over the web four years ago.
The first point was originally published in eloquent fashion by J. McMichael in Oct 2001 in a article called Muslims suspend laws of physics.
An extract.
[[Using jet fuel to melt steel is an amazing discovery, really. It is also amazing that until now, no one had been able to get it to work, and that proves the terrorists were not stupid people. Ironworkers fool with acetylene torches, bottled oxygen, electric arcs from generators, electric furnaces, and other elaborate tricks, but what did these brilliant terrorists use? Jet fuel, costing maybe 80 cents a gallon on the open market.]]
This was further expanded by a person writing under the name of “Mad Max” in July 2003. The Jet fuel. How hot did it heat the World the trade Center ? The original publication may have been earlier than this.
Jones second point about the speed of the collapse of WTC 7, indicating a free fall meeting no resistance.:
Even after all this time, Jones still hasn’t figured out that this also applies to WTC 1 and 2. This awareness has been all over the net since 2002. The reason I know this, is that I was the person who started it. I didn’t write an article on it, but I have email documentation to prove that by early March 2002, I had already done extensive calculations on this aspect of the evidence and was already promoting it around the web, seeking feedback and refinement of the methodology. As far as I know I was the first to explore this aspect.
Because it’s a fairly obvious observation, it’s entirely possible that other people of whom I am not aware, also thought of it independently about the same time or even earlier, and were independently promoting it, and that the general awareness of the free fall issue did not start from my efforts alone. But the main point is that If you search with keywords such as “free fall” or “time of collapse”, you’ll see that this has been all over the web for years before anyone had heard of Jones.
Again, the similarities to Hoffman are remarkable. Hoffman also tries to take the credit for the time of collapse issue. Not only did Hoffman not even appear on the scene until 2003, when all of this was well established, I have email correspondence to prove that Hoffman , suggested that I might have been the first to think of it, and admits to not thinking of it until early 2003—by which time it was already well established in Sept 11 research circles.
To Jones’ next point. That no steel framed skyscraper has ever collapsed from fire. I don’t know who was the first to point this out, but it also became common knowledge very quickly. I certainly wasn’t the first to make this point, but just as an example of how long its been around, here is how I used it in an Indymedia debate on Aug 1 2003 and a follow up post the same day.
The fact that no steel framed skyscraper had ever collapsed from fire was already old news by the time of that debate, which was more than 2 years before anyone had heard of Jones.
Returning to the first media summary of “their own physics research”.
[[While turning concrete into very fine dust, they fell straight-down into their own footprints. ]]
The dust issue was dealt with in detail by Jeff King in 2002. You’ll also find a reference to the free fall issue in this article.
In his paper, Jones regurgitates these points of evidence which have been well established in the public domain for years, without crediting any of the original researchers, or where no particular original researcher is apparent—such as the observation that no steel skyscraper had ever collapsed from fire—acknowledging that he is merely belatedly publicizing and commenting on what has already been well known in research and activism circles for years, material which any interested person could find just by surfing the web.
The only “researcher” he credits is Hoffman—who didn’t do any of it.
To point out the difference between legitimate promotion of pre-existing research and plagiarism of it, go to my evidence kit compilation , where I simply collate and link , with brief introductory comments, vast amounts of original high quality research. I began circulating early versions of this compilation in early 2002.
The hand of Hoffman behind the scholars is also evident in Jones’ enthusiasm to attack certain aspects of Sept 11 evidence which they find inconvenient for whatever game they are playing.
Hoffman’s main mission appears to be to attack the no plane evidence both for the WTC and the pentagon. 1 2 3 4 5 If one ignores the plagiarism, Hoffman’s presentation of demolition evidence is quite good, and this is the cover he uses from which to launch his incessant attacks. 1 2 3 4 5 6
It therefore comes as little surprise that Jones has attempted the very same tactic. His very first “contribution” to “911truth” was a paper plagiarizing demolition research, which although far too cautious, was quite a good description of the issue, in so far as it went. On to the end of this, he tacked a dishonest and factually incorrect attack on the no WTC plane evidence, accusing its proponents of distracting from and discrediting his research. Considering that a number of the people who were by implication, the targets of this attack, were also the same people from whom Jones had plagiarized his demolition “research”, this is scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of academic ethics. Not surprisingly, its exactly the same as what Hoffman has done.
Jones ill fated attack on the no plane evidence was so poorly researched, written and reasoned that he was severely embarrassed by the hammering I gave it in response., to the point where he finally agreed to remove his attack from later versions of his paper.
Having been somewhat neutralized by the self inflicted egg on his face from his first attack, Jones is now taking a more subtle approach, building the plagiarism and hero worship platform more carefully and patiently, and indirectly attacking the no plane evidence with the unsubstantiated claim that 3 of the 4 black boxes from the mythical WTC planes have been found.
If Jones had done useful original research, and was not on a disgraceful plagiarism rampage, I would be more tolerant of his plane hugging. But this kind of behaviour isn’t acceptable from a Johnny-come-lately plagiarist/attack dog.
Doubtless his plan is to resume a full attack once he’s finished licking his self inflicted wounds from his first Keystone Cops effort.
The official story of Sept 11 contains so many different lies, that it creates endless potential for unscrupulous disinformationists like Jones and Hoffman to make up new lies which are sold with the attractive veneer of admitting carefully selected parts of the truth. The original story as told by the Bush regime and the media was never going to stand up for very long. It has too many holes. But it doesn't need to. As the original story crumbles, it is creating intense competition amongst the different varieties of spin off lies for the title of “truth”. One which is gaining increasing popularity amongst the “truthlings” - the self styled “truth movement” - is to admit the demolition of WTC 1,2 and 7 while keeping most of the rest of the story intact.
The most crucial elements of the rest of the story are that
· Four commercial flights were supposedly hijacked.
· Three planes hit buildings and one crashed in PA.
Both claims are false. Within these false claims, we have every conceivable possible spin off being put forward.
· Hijackings by Arab terrorists as claimed by the Bush regime or electronic hijacking by the regime itself.
· The actual flights claimed by the Bush regime hitting the various targets or substitute planes of some kind.
Any of these lies can be successfully worked into a limited hangout which still protects most of the main architects of the original event and cover up.
What all of these scenarios avoid is the full involvement of the media in showing a cartoon of a fake plane hitting the WTC and passing it off as a real event. Because this cannot be incorporated into any replacement lie which protects the essential infrastructure of the criminal elite which planned and carried out and covered up the attacks, then it is the main target for attack by those are attempting to use partial Sept 11 truth as the platform from which to spin new lies. Limited hangouts are analogous to cheering a revolution because a new bloodthirsty dictator has overthrown the old one.
Any new lie which maintains that the plane we saw on TV was real will be cheered because the exposing of such a monstrous crime as the demolition and deliberately allowing the attacks to happen, or even facilitating them with substitute flights and remote control technology, will understandably seem to many like a breath of fresh air after years of stupid stories about mythical Arab hijackers and intelligence “failures”.
But the apparent breath of fresh air is an illusion. Maintain the central illusion—that a real plane flew into the Sth tower and we know it’s a real plane because we saw it on TV - and nothing really changes. The same media which showed us the cartoon plane to begin with, and then lied and covered up for the original official story for years will then suddenly assume an heroic role of exposing the “truth” of Sept 11, joining forces with scientists who looked the other way for years—like Jones— who will suddenly emerge as fearless heroes to give us a new set of lies to cheer. These lies will be disguised as truth because they will bust carefully selected aspects of the old lie. Politicians who looked the other way for years will suddenly make heroes of themselves, thundering imperiously about impeachment and “investigations” to find out the “truth”.
Expose that it was a “war of the worlds” con job—a movie, passed off as news, - and people will never again believe anything on their TV sets. Thus you destroy not only the lie, but the main infrastructure for selling whatever replacement lie becomes convenient in the wake of the limited hangout. Expose how long this information has been available in the public domain, and the would-be new dictators will have no tools with which to spin their new lies and nowhere to hide from their involvement in the original lie.
The truthlings want to keep the infrastructure of the lie machine intact. They want to remove the more obvious perpetrators of the original lie, such as Bush, who have now outlived their usefulness. The “truth movement” is analogous to the revolution which seeks not to end the injustices of the old regime but merely take possession of the power and its benefits and give them a different appearance.
If this is not what the scholars are up to, then why are they on such an aggressive campaign of plagiarism, disinformation and hero cult construction ?
Why not just promote the original research as it was published back in 2001/2? Or if they want to build on it in some way with genuinely new insights, acknowledge what they are building from ?
Monday, May 23, 2011
Why They Didn't Use Planes
by Gerard Holmgren (26/11/1958 - 2/5/2010)
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.
Lets first look at the second scenario. You have the media on your side to tell the story. What could go wrong?
1) Witnesses might see that they were not planes and report it.
Well this has actually happened, but it seems that nobody takes any notice. The myth of "thousands of witnesses" to a big plane strike keeps getting trotted out on the basis of a circular assumption. "Because big jets were there, then people must have seen them - because people saw them, that proves they were there."
Clearly the perps thought about how to minimize the problem of contrary witness reports, and came up with a simple but effective plan.
This problem is easy to minimize. The first strike happens, and because the object is small and fast and unexpected, no-one is too sure what it is, or whether they saw it correctly. A few witness reports go to air reporting missiles or small planes or no craft at all, but there is only an 18 minute window for this to occur before the whole world sees a big jet live on TV - using commercially available real time animation technology. This distracts the media from interviewing many witnesses to the second strike, because everyone is fixated on the video replay. Those few witnesses who might get a moment with the media, then lack confidence in what they saw, because once again, the object was small, fast and unexpected. Seeing the TV replay - which was instantly available - would make most people think that they just didn't see it properly. The few who remain unshakable in their belief that it was not a large plane are easily shouted down and drowned out by the endless replays. In addition the airlines release a statement saying that they've lost two big jets and any witness dissent is *instantly* - the moment the second strike happens - marginalized almost to the point of oblivion.
This is not speculation. Read through the transcripts of broadcasts as they unfolded between about 8.47 and 9.30 and you will see that this is *exactly* what happened. From the moment the second strike occurred, anyone who tried to say that it was not a large jet immediately had a TV replay shoved in their face.
What little witness evidence was gathered in the brief time available between the two strikes was not enough to do any real damage, and everything after that was corrupted by everybody having TV replays of the second jet shoved in their face as soon as they opened their mouths.
In that brief period between the two strikes, there was only one witness who said a large jet - and that just happened to be the vice prez of CNN, which of course is a major player in the scam - just as pivotal as the govt.
So we can see that the problem of contrary witnesses, while a minor inconvenience is easily overcome with some good planning.
Again, this is not speculation. The successful execution of this plan has been tested ion the real world - and it works. The scenario I have outlined exactly fits with the documented record of the events.
Once the sheeple factor sets in, everyone is chanting "what about the people who saw it ? " without ever bothering to check what those people actually did report. And if they do check, the numbers of reports are not high enough to inflict major damage on the official story. What little there is overwhelmingly supports something other than a big jet, but there wasn't enough time to gather enough numbers for this to be a significant evidence factor. And as for the ordinary person on the street - most of them would be easily convinced that they just didn't see it properly. Some might have lingering doubts or suspicions, but would be quickly silenced by ridicule and denial from the overwhelming pressure of the TV footage, and the whole world trying to convince them that they just didn't see it properly. Most would eventually come to believe that themselves.
So - that problem is easily dealt with. No cover story solves everything, and doubtless there are still some mutterings of doubt and suspicion amongst some people who were there, but it isn't enough to cause a serious problem.
Now to the other problem.
Someone might look at the videos and see what's really there. Which is exactly what Rosalee has done. And people just go into mind controlled denial. The alternative media is flooded with endless debunkers. The perps knew our collective psychology well. They certainly wouldn't be happy with the groundswell of awareness which Rosalee has kick-started, but it looks very manageable compared to the problems I'm about to outline with the strategy of using real jets.
Again, this is not speculation. The way that both of these problems have been handled has been tested in the real world, fits exactly with the documented record, and the fact that I am even needing to write this, 3 years after Rosalee first busted the video evidence, is testimony to how wisely the perps judged the choice of strategy.
Now lets look at the other choice - using real jets.
This immediately splits into two sub-choices 1) Pilot them with suicide pilots 2) Remote control them.
The problem with the first choice is obvious and I think most people on this list have already accepted the absurdity and the monstrous difficulties of such a scenario, so I won't go into them here.
Remote control.
Before addressing the problems with that, the scenario splits into more -sub-choices.
1) Hijack a real flight with real passengers aboard. 2) Launch a plane from somewhere else and pass it off as a real flight.
Basically, the choices here split into the option of crashing a plane with passengers aboard or with no passengers aboard. Both possibilities create potentially insurmountable problems in the cover up - and a reduced likelihood of the crash being successfully targeted to begin with.
Let's look at the latter problem. While it's certainly feasible to remote control a large jet into the towers, it's a high precision targeting job for an aircraft with very limited maneuverability. There's a significant risk that the plane won't hit its target properly. That it will hit some other building, just clip its wing on the tower and crash into the streets or cause a cascade of damage on other non targeted buildings, miss altogether and finish up in the Hudson, still reasonably intact - all kinds of risks.
Whatever the calculated likelyhood of a successfully targeted crash, it would have to be significantly lower than that of a missile or blobs- thing, which is specifically engineered for such precision strikes.
Even the smallest increase in risk of the target not being hit properly would be completely unacceptable, given the easily manageable nature of any problems associated with the alternative scenario.
And missing the target is only the beginning of the problem. What about the aftermath ? Once it misses the target, there's a significant risk that the aircraft may crash in such a manner that it's reasonably intact. Rescue workers and emergency services who are completely innocent of the scam, and ordinary people wanting to help out are going to reach the wreckage before any perpsters, given that where it crashed couldn't be foreseen.
And what are they going to find ? Two choices. A plane with no -one in it. How are the perps going to explain that, huh ? Or a plane with passengers. This raises even more problems. Using a plane with passengers creates two more sub-choices.
1) Hope that all the passengers get killed in the crash, so there's no survivors to talk or hope that the perps can get to them first and knock them off before they do talk.
2) Kill them before the crash with a timed release of gas into the aircon system. Which of course leaves more forensic evidence to cover up, when the bodies are examined. Imagine the massive operation needed to get enough perps swarming over the wreckage quickly enough to control what the media,innocent rescue workers or survivors would start blabbing before the spin sets in. Far worse than anything a few witnesses could say in the 18 minutes between the two tower strikes.
These problems are not limited to the scenario of the aircraft not crashing as they were meant to. If the planes were successfully crashed into the towers, its still possible - although not very likely - that there could be survivors. Nevertheless, even assuming that everyone was killed, real crashes with real people leave real bodies, they don't just vapourize like in the S11 cartoon. So you have hundreds of retrievable bodies to worry about. If they were killed with gas prior to the crash, then you have the same forensic cover up nightmare as in the scenario where the plane misses its target.
And if you avoid this problem by hoping that everyone is killed in the crash, you face the horrible risk that there will be dozens of survivors to try to shut up - unlikely if the plane hits the target properly - but you don't know that for sure.
In addition, real planes leave real wreckage - unlike the S11 cartoon - which means real flight recorder boxes to be found and more stuff to hush up, involving more innocent officials to pressure. Of course, enormous pressure can be brought to bear, but the problem is how much would spill out before the spin gets into action. All of this is far worse than what a few witnesses could say in the 18 minutes between the strikes, and what a marginalized researcher can post on her website, hoping that people take notice.
As you can see, the scenario of using real planes creates a logistical nightmare compared to the piddling problem of a few witnesses to the craft, and easily marginalized conspiracy nuts analyzing video - easily suppressed by a compliant media.
In committing a crime, the idea is to leave as little mess as possible, because every bit of mess is a potential clue. Even in the event of a successfully targeted crash, real aircraft, scattering wreckage and bodies everywhere creates an enormous amount of mess to cover up compared to the relatively neat problem of a few witnesses and a few conspiracy nuts trying to tell people what the video shows.
The problems of the real plane scenario are enormously compounded by the possibility of a botched crash, which itself is a significantly increased risk when using big lumbering jets not specifically designed for that task as opposed to precision weaponry which is far more reliable. In the unlikely event of a missile going off course, there would be far less mess to leave clues, and an easier co-opting into a plan B story - like terrorists stealing missiles and firing them at NY.
This explanation should hopefully put an end once and for all to the plane hugging fantasy - but then, these are very silly times in which we live.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the articles posted on this website are distributed for their included information without profit for research and/or educational purposes only. This website has no affiliation whatsoever with the original sources of the articles nor are we sponsored or endorsed by any of the original sources.
Monday, May 16, 2011
THE TRUTH ABOUT TRUTHLINGS
© Gerard Holmgren:Nov 7 2006.
This article or any part of it may not be reproduced without express permission from the author in writing. This prohibition excludes quotation for reasonable reference purposes, providing that the article is linked to.
What is a "truthling" ?
A truthling is a person who subscribes to a strange religious cult calling itself the "911 truth movement".
Superficially, there may appear to be nothing strange about the idea of a truthmovement in relation to the events of Sept 11.
So it is to be expected that despite some disagreement about the details of exactly what happened, many people would find broad agreement in the idea that the truth of the event should be sought out by researchers to the best of their ability and then that research promoted to the wider community by activists with an interest in the truth. One would expect some healthy debate and diversity in relation to some specific points of research.
The reality of the situation is somewhat different. If you search around the web for "911 truth movement" you'll find a lot of talk about "truth" and a lot about the "movement", but most of this talk has little to with either researching the subject or promoting, or critically analyzing the research which has been done. If the "9/11 truth movement " isn't about this, then exactly what is it about ?
That question is the subject of this article.
OBSTRUCTING THE TRUTH
A lot of good research has been done, but hardly any of the authors of this research want to be associated with any such movement, because it's primary motive appears to be to obstruct any real understanding of what happened that day and at a deeper level, to abolish the fundamental concept of truth.
Let's begin with the first objective identified above. Obstructing the truth about Sept 11.
To analogize: Who is it who talks most about "peace, freedom and democracy"? The very people who are in reality the most obvious enemies of such practices. People like Condoleezza Rice, George W. Bush and Tony Blair.
When a person's primary occupation is committing terrorism and mass murder, starting wars, and dismantling civil liberties, then of course they are going to package it with the labels of "peace, freedom and democracy". You don't expect them to openly proclaim themselves as warmongers, terrorists, murderers and practitioners of totalitarianism. The fact that they are guilty of such crimes means that they need to shout the rhetoric of "peace" etc louder than anyone else.
Of course, some people buy their propaganda and some do not, although this question is better visualized as a graduated range of responses rather than a simple yes or no. Naturally, those who - in broad terms -do not buy the cover rhetoric, have reactions which - quite justifiably- range from unease to outrage.
And of course, the outrage levels are highest amongst those who believe or at least suspect that the Govt was at least complicit or involved in some way in the events of Sept 11.
The nausea invoked by the actions of these criminals and the lies of the media which support them can easily blind one into thinking that anyone who spouts rhetoric purporting to expose these lies must be genuinely involved in the pursuit and promotion of "truth".
Unfortunately it isn't that simple. In general, those who trumpet the term "truth" most often and most enthusiastically are actually the worst liars , just as Bush, Blair, Rice et al find it necessary to spout rhetoric about "peace, freedom and democracy" as a cover for the fact that they are some of the worst enemies of such pursuits.
This is what the "9/11 truth movement" is all about. Telling whoppers, packaging them with the label of "9/11 truth", and selling the package by exploiting the understandable knee jerk reaction of many people that anyone who is calling the official Sept 11 story a lie must be working for the truth.
Of course, there is a an element of truth in such rhetoric. The official story of Sept 11 is a lie. That much we can agree on. But that doesn't mean that any alternative story which might be floated in opposition to it is necessarily "truth".
Let's take an example of one specific lie within the bigger lie. It's quite obvious that American Airlines flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon on Sept 11.
From there, many in the "truth movement" invoke the classic logical fallacy.
"AA77 hitting the Pentagon is a lie. Truth is the opposite of lies. Therefore *any* alternative story about what hit the Pentagon is "truth".
This logical fallacy creates fertile ground for anyone who is prepared to label themselves with the term "9/11 truth" to just make up anything they like as an alternative story, and present it as "truth" even if it's just as ridiculous and unfounded as the mainstream lie.
For example, a fellow named Karl Schwarz started spreading the story that what really hit the Pentagon was a medium sized military plane - an A3 SkyWarrior. Schwarz never provided a shred of evidence for this assertion, but it didn't stop this piece of fantasy from being widely promoted as "research" with the label of "9/11 truth". Basically, Schwarz told us that "his team" had identified an engine part allegedly found at the scene as coming from an A3 SkyWarrior and we were supposed to believe it because Schwarz said so.
It's worth considering the following facts as a brief example of how critical thinking amongst the truth cult in relation to Bushco's story turns into braindead mush in relation to Schwarz's story.
The hole in the Pentagon wall after the initial impact was about 16 ft wide. A Boeing 757 (the kind of plane claimed by the official story) has a wingspan of about 125 ft. Obviously a 125 ft wingspan can't fit through a 16 ft hole. And there is no sign of any wing debris outside the building. Since the wings are neither inside the building nor outside the building then they are not there. Which means that they were never there unless you believe that wings can vaporize on impact - without doing any significant damage to the building and without doing any apparent damage to the lawn which was only a few feet below them.Which means that a craft with a 125 ft wingspan can not have been responsible for the impact. Many truthlings accept this obvious conclusion, although there are also many who go along with the official fantasy that the wingssomehow vaporized on impact or folded up into the fuselage and got carried into the building and then vaporized once they were inside, or even "flowed through the building a liquid state " according to group of physicists hired to push the official line.
There were even two truthlings who claimed that a plane is made of a semi-soft material like butter and that if a material of this type hits a hard object, it will punch a small hole and squeeze itself through like toothpaste from a tube, thus explaining the small hole and the lack of wreckage. These two physics whizzes are Leland Lehrman, an enthusiastic promoter of the A3 SkyWarrior spin, as linked above, and Phil Jayhan - inventor of the extremely silly "pod theory". These claims came via email and I will write them up as time permits.
But let's leave the extremes of truthling lunacy and return to the realm of regulation stupidity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)