Is There a COINTEL Smear Campaign Bent on Discrediting Jim Hoffman? 911 researcher Jim Hoffman complains that there is a COINTEL smear campaign bent on knocking him out of the game. Hoffman's site, 911Research, is here: http://911research.wtc7.net/re911/adhominem.html I have read this defense of Hoffman, and it is extremely weak. All that he has to say about Mr. Holmgren, who is described by Hoffman as a leading conspirator in the "smear" campaign, is that the latter resorts to ad hominem attacks on him, calls him an "asshole," etc., and that's about the extent of Hoffman's argument. Not a vigorous refutation, to be sure. I do not believe that Hoffman has convincingly made the case that COINTELPRO has targetted him, not by any means. And given his financial ties to the CIA, NSA and Bechtel, the charge could easily enough be turned around (see my last mailing, "Jim Hoffman"). On the other hand, Holmgren has charged Hoffman with plagiarism and other sins. Both sides are permitted to speak here: Hoffman: "... the creation of 9-11 Research has required great sacrifices. Aside from the cost in time and money, the effort has made us the target of a campaign of ugly personal attacks, aimed especially at Jim Hoffman -- the person most identified with the creation of 9-11 Research. These attacks have come, not primarily from people defending the official story -- though we have received our share of hate mail from that quarter -- but from a cluster of internet personas and individuals who present themselves as guardians of the whole truth of 9/11. ... To get a sense of the effort being put into this campaign, try the following Google Searches: "jim hoffman" spook 9/11 hoffman plagiarist holmgren "A fact that will be noticed by anyone bothering to read a sampling of the many attack pieces is that the attackers consistently promote the "no-planes" theories.... "A campaign of invective against Jim Hoffman started at about the time that 9-11 Research was launched and grew in a way that roughly parallelled the site's popularity. The campaign started out as a whispering campaign, and gradually became more public..." Now, there are any number of reputable researchers out there arguing that a missile hit the Pentagon, including David Ray Griffin. (Personally, I'm keeping my nose out of the debate.) But according to Hoffman, elements of the missile faction have gotten together to smear him. This is Hoffman's argument and he's stuck with it. In part one, I reported that Hoffman helped himself to the contents of 911Review.org, and set up a mirror, 911Review.com. This isn't the only time Hoffman's mirrored a site, then turned around and attacked the original. Holmgren: "The first issue to deal with is Hoffman's habit of plagiarizing research and then defaming the very people he's plagiarized it from." Holmgren discusses other examples: Holmgren: Hoffman the plagiarist 02.Jul.2005 13:53 Gerard Holmgren link As a supposed critic of the official story, one would think that Jim Hoffman would be pleased that Morgan Reynolds has weighed in on the 911 issue. Instead he chose to turn it into a tirade in support of the official story. Because we know that Hoffman is not a genuine critic. In this post I will present the first part of the evidence that Hoffman is a Govt agent, who's mission is one of damage control for that part of the evidence which can't be put back into the bottle. Even those who are not convinced of this will see that at the very best, Hoffman is a liar and plagiarist, running a duplicitous agenda which has nothing to do with truth, and merely seeks to cherry pick a few selected aspects of the truth about Sept 11 for some kind of personal gain, and doesn't care how much damage he does in order to achieve this goal. The first issue to deal with is Hoffman's habit of plagiarizing research and then defaming the very people he's plagiarized it from. If you go to Hoffman's site, you'll see that it's basically divided into two sections. Some of it is dedicated to pretending to expose the official story. The rest of it is dedicated to attacking most of the S11 evidence and supporting the official story to which he claims to take exception. As we'll see, the positive section has been built purely as a platform from which to piss on other research and researchers. Let's first examine his supposed credentials as an S11 researcher. Hoffman's section on the WTC demolition is actually quite good. This is the platform which he needs in order to launch his attacks. The reason that it's a good treatment of the demolition issue is because Hoffman actually made only minor contributions to it. Most of it is plagiarized from earlier researchers such as J. McMichael and Jeff King (also known as "Plaguepuppy" ) who had the WTC demolition case proven well before anybody had heard of Hoffman. Hoffman has made some useful refinements of their arguments, but it's only icing on the cake of proof which was already in the public domain before Hoffman appeared. In addition , Hoffman has the unpleasant habit of attacking as supposed Govt agents the very same people from whom he steals his work. Let me give you one stunning example of this. Hoffman has been particularly vicious in his attacks on the Webfairy http://thewebfairy.com/911 He has ridiculed her skills as a video analyst in relation to the work she's done on the no WTC planes issue. What Hoffman doesn't tell you is that at the same time as delivering this constant barrage of ridicule, and of accusing her of being a spook, he's quietly stolen some of her work on the WTC 7 demolition and passed it off as his own. WF made some close ups of demolition squibs, close ups of which Hoffman makes good use - without attribution - while at the same time, snarling to the world that WF is a spook who is laughably incompetent with video. Hoffman has also accused me of being a spook because of my work on the no planes issue. http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren~manufactured.html What Hoffman doesn't tell you is that while he makes much of the smoking gun proof that the towers fell too quickly for a pancake collapse to be possible, that he learned of this aspect of the evidence from me, and used my original attempts to quantify the problem as the basis from which to develop his own work. He's refined it somewhat, which is what I wanted someone to do with it. However it's a bit rich to them attack the originator of this work as a spook, while also writing them out of the history of the development of the evidence. For a newcomer to the evidence, a visit to Hoffman's site might give the impression that he played a major role in proving the WTC demolition. In fact he's done little more than tweak and refine the already existing work of the same people he's attacking. Because Jeff King, IMO the best demolition researcher, also supports the no planes evidence, Hoffman has written him out of the history, casting him by implication as a spook, and also incorporating King's work into his list of plagiarized achievements. Hoffman's plagiarism is not limited to the demolition evidence. In order to maintain his cover it is necessary for Hoffman to pretend to have made a contribution in other areas. Thus he supposedly exposes the Bin Laden confession video as a fake here. http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/deceptions/binladinvideo.html This is completely plagiarized without attribution from this site which published it about 2 1/2 years before Hoffman. http://www.arbeiterfotografie.com/bin-laden-vergleich.html The top half is in German, but if you scroll down, there's also an English version. Now we turn to Hoffman's plagiarism of the stand down evidence which was published by Illarion Bykov and Jared Israel on www.tenc.net In some ways this evidence is now somewhat dated, because it shows evidence for a military stand down to allow the hijacked planes to reach their targets. Since we now know that there weren't any hijacked planes, it's debatable that any such stand down would have needed. Nevertheless, at the time it was published, the Tenc research was courageous and groundbreaking work, and blew a huge hole in the official story, prompting others to dig deeper and bring the evidence to the stage its reached today. It's also worth noting that Hoffman showed up only after most of the current evidence on S11 had already been assembled, and people had been loudly distributing it for about two years. Tenc's work was published very early, before there was any "911 turth movement", when the authors had no way of knowing how the Govt would react to such publications and so could well have been risking their lives. The respect that Hoffman pays is by plagiarizing their work and then defaming them. This article from TENC http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-2.htm has been directly ripped off by Hoffman here http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/alibis/cheney.html And he's only just warming up. 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 And of course, for anyone who claims that there really were hijacked planes, then an allegation of a military stand down becomes a vital component to claiming to be a critic of the story. Thus the TENC evidence remains vital to the case as long as one believes in hijacked planes, and this is why Hoffman attempts to pass Tenc's work off as his own. Not content with Plagiarizing them, Hoffman then defames them by misrepresenting them. http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/02/1720145.php Here, Hoffman replies to a piece from Popular Mechanics which attacks S11 "conspiracy theories." If you read Hoffman's reply carefully, you'll see that he actually supports most of Popular Mechanics spin, but cleverly disguises this support as dissent. Hoffman's method is to complain that most of what PM attacks isn't really S11 evidence - that its just disinfo worthy of contemptuous dismissal, and thus he attacks them for alleging it to be serious S11 evidence. In other words, Hoffman actually spends most of the article agreeing with PM. Apart from the demolition evidence, which as we have already seen is mostly plagiarism and refinement of already existing proofs on his part, his only point of disagreement with PM is that such evidence should even be considered worthy of attack. However, in relation to the stand down evidence, Hoffman perpetrates a vicious defamation of the same the Tenc work which he plagiarizes. One of the Govt's cover stories on the stand down issue is that they did scramble fighter jets which just didn't get there in time. In a brilliant piece of research (one of those later plagiarized by Hoffman) Tenc demonstrated that this is a lie and that nothing was scrambled until after the pentagon was hit. But in his reply to PM, Hoffman attributes to Tenc the exact opposite view. He accuses PM of misrepresenting Tenc in attributing to them the research that they actually did. He attributes to Tenc support for the official story. Having set up this straw man, Hoffman then attacks PM for its attack on Tenc. In other words, Hoffman implies that the official story is correct and also falsely attributes such a view to Tenc, leaving his only complaint about PM to be that they've attacked a claim which Tenc supposedly didn't make. This is a very clever piece of lying. Hoffman has managed to support the official lies on the scramble story, while appearing to take issue with Govt supporters like PM, at the same time as defaming the people from which Hoffman plagiarized his "research". So when a newcomer to this evidence goes to the Hoffman's site to try to sort out the confusion, what they'll see is Hoffman busting open the Norad cover story, something which Tenc supposedly failed to do. Tenc never directly entered the debate about the demolition of the WTC. However they did, very early on, dig up an important story about how a demolition expert, Prof van Romero was initially reported as calling a controlled demolition and then later retracted in mysterious circumstances. http://emperors-clothes.com/news/albu.htm Hoffman plagiarized it here. http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/retractions/romero.html In following posts I will demonstrate :Hoffman's likely connections with Govt agencies, in particular the NSA. :Hoffman's fraudulent use of documentation to attribute to it the exact opposite of what it says :Hoffman's habit of using such wildly contradictory arguments that one can only conclude that he is lying. :Hoffman's tacit support for direct lies :Hoffman's fear of subjecting his disinformation to the scrutiny of direct debate.... - Ac