please see bottom of page for Jan 2007 update to Hoffmans allegations.
Is There a COINTEL Smear Campaign Bent on Discrediting Jim Hoffman?
911review.Com is a rip-off of the 911review.org domain name that will lead to confusion of the Internet users with our site.
The site copies the structured look-and-feel of http://911review.org/and copies many of same page and file names of the most important pages of 911review.org./ It also copies the look-and-feel of the sidebar of topics set in a small font; however, unlike 911review.org which uses collaborative editing software to automatically generate the sidebar based on the pages structure, the confusion site leads its readers around in circles with a list of topics that do not correspond to the site's structure.
The domain name is registered to Paul Borneo. The author of this site establishes his activist credentials by being a spokesperson for the "Justice for Woody"movement that has its roots in a bizarre story about police shooting a man in a church who was threatening to kill himself with a knife. The story is so bizarre it may be true, but it's safe as a church as an activist cause: the killing of unarmed people by police has reached epidemic proportions in the United States, so killing a man with a knife would be considered routine, even in a church.
But author of this site is not the only person to establish his activist credentials from this movement: this is a claim of the operator of another website wtc7.net, operated by Jim Hoffman. The author of that website is well-known to 9/11 researchers, appearing under a number of different monikers and email addresses. Jim Hoffman established his activist pedigree using the "Justice for Woody" movement, which was promoted by a long-time friend of Boreno's John Kaminski; the three of them used to live in Brattleboro VT. Hoffman joined various 9/11 mailing lists under a number of different emails and personae, claiming at various times to be an artist, a software entrepreneur, and at the the SPINE list of physics911.org, which says it's credentials based, he is listed as a physician. In fact, we understand that his degree is in Fine Arts, which may explain his creative approach to the laws of chemistry and physics.
If fact, based on a careful study of our website's logs, Jim Hoffman's real job was found to be as a computer engineer for a "research institute" at one of the US Government's most important Laboritories: Lawrence Berkeley Labs, and his real email is mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org . The Mathematical Sciences Research Institutehas amongst its sponsors:
Naive members of the "9/11 Truth" community had accepted Hoffman's descriptions of himself as an artist with activist credentials at face value, but when confronted with the disclosure of his real occupation and employers, he became indignant ( rule 2), and vanished from the mailing list ( rule 25).
Jim Hoffman's specialty on 9/11 is long involved technical papers that are too complex to for most people to follow ( rule 2 ). For example, his Dust Clouds paper, makes no sense at all. The use of the ideal gas law for the expansion of the dust clouds is absurd: the ideal gas law is a Carnot Cycle / equilibrium thermodynamics calculation. It's an absurdity to do a calculation of the mean of the Boltzmann distribution of kinetic energy at thermodynamic equilibrium on a mixture of concrete and office workers that has been blasted out horizontally almost the width of the TwinTowers . Not only it is not equilibrium, it's not a gas - it's a mixture. There's no evidence the dust clouds were heated to hundreds of degrees centigrade, and even if you had the enthalpy to heat it, you could not thermally heat it in the time allowed because of the kinetics ( rule 13).
As might be expected, the author of 911review.Com uses Jim Hoffman's Dust Clouds paper in lieu of research: we begin see an interlock between the sites. 911review.Com is in turn cited by another website that recently sprang up, 911wideopen.com, which is a part of a concerted campaign to discredit the Wtc2PlanePod evidence. We find on its pod-exam.htm
Unfortunately, we have yet to see even one single expert provide technical analysis that proves any aspect of the pod theory. Zip, zilch, nada, nothing. Not a single self proclaimed, anonymous expert has attempted to validate the pod theory, let alone anyone with a name and a title.
which is ignorant nonsense, especially given that the site's author lists serendipity.li in the sidebar, the site that first presented the pod evidence, and links to the published reports in newspapers and universities. The site's author Milkydoo1 places 911review.Com in the sidebar along with serendipity.li . one of the oldest and best War On Freedom websites (and amongst our very select Mirrors), and 911review.org, the reference 9/11 research site, in order to give legitimacy to the confusion site, by insinuating the 911review.Com site into a short list of the best sites on the Internet ( rule 8).
Unfortunately the CIA/NSA/DIA and ONI probably have close to unlimited budgets these days for their War on Freedom, and the oversight of the intelligence community by American democratic institutional mechanisms was effectively terminated on November 22 1963. Fake Terror is a racket: the harder they hit, the more money they get, which makes us ask WhatsNext.
See our page:MisinfoSites.Update Jan 2007:
a very well
known and respected
researcher, who, incidentally,
was doing research well before 911 on government corruption
has this to say about 911review.com....
Is There a COINTEL Smear Campaign Bent on Discrediting Jim Hoffman?
I have read this defense of Hoffman, and it isHoffman consistently Plagiarizes and misrepresents articles.
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
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").
If you click here:
you will find yourself facing a page of material ostensibly
critical of the accepted
2001 anthrax story.
(I went to this page as a step in an appraisal of 911Review.COM's validity after finding the site engaged in a war of accusations against 911Review.ORG. The latter was the original 911Review site, founded in September 2003; 911Review.Com was established by Paul Borneo four months later, in February 2004, and appears to be a parallel operation intended to disrupt the efforts of 911Review.Org.)
Each site accuses the other of COINTEL devices, so it is left to the reader to settle the question. It doesn't take long if you have followed 911 research at all closely.
The anthrax page alone tells
me that 911Review.Com is either incompetent or
at least on this score, and may well be a disinformational site.
The giveaway is a highly manipulative list of articles at the bottom of the page intended, supposedly, to identify the true culprit behind the 2001 season of high anthrax anxiety. This story is signally false: "While Media Spotlights One Anthrax Suspect, Another is Too Hot to Touch," by Delinda Curtiss Hanley in the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.
there is an internal dispute among the 911scholars, 911review.org has stayed clear
911review.COM it seems wants to destroy ANY credible researchers, wanting you to think
that THEY are the only resource that can be trusted.
911review.org has NEVER supported claims of holograms, though Hoffman may want you to think it has.
1 The real name and location of the website's registrant is not disclosed.