After reading Jim Hoffman’s flip-flop article on whether or not a
Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon on the morning of 9-11, I realized
that this sly old prankster had pulled an elaborate reverse-psychology
practical joke on all of us. Yes, you heard me correctly. And even
though I won’t divulge his reasons for doing so until the end of this
review, I knew my hunch was correct after being struck by not only his
sudden lack of sound reasoning skills, but also his inflated concern
with the views of debunkers and the mainstream media. Hoffman even went
so far as to say that those who defend the “official version”
of 9-11 may use the no-757-crash theory to mock truth-seekers as a whole.
But aren’t such attacks expected from the disinformation crowd?
That’s what they do --- it’s their modus operandi. In fact,
I’ve always felt that when these individuals DO target a specific
“conspiracy theory,” it’s
precisely done so because the people and groups being attacked are
getting too close to the truth. Thus, to pattern our behavior in
accordance with their opinions is foolish at best; and downright absurd
would have the reader believe that disinformation operatives are fools,
and would draw attention to the vulnerabilities of the perpetrators.
A basic tenet of disinformation is the creation of distractions --
issues that will soak up the time of investigators, create conflicts,
and divert attention from the important areas.
In the simplified version of 9/11 skepticism presented by mass media
the basis for questioning the official story has been reduced
to a single issue -- the idea that no plane hit the Pentagon.
The perpetrators would not risk focusing on an issue
in which the official explanation can easily be proved false.
One aspect of Hoffman’s “false deconstruction put-on”
that drips with
irony is this: even though he now contends that a 757 actually did hit
the Pentagon, he still presents much more
evidence to the contrary that Flight 77 never did crash into this
facility. I’m not sure if including this material was an unconscious
reaction to his earlier research, but it certainly outweighed and
overshadowed his counter-arguments, thus lending credence to the fact
that he really isn’t convinced of his newfound stance.
The distortions in this paragraph include:
- Saying that I contend that a 757 hit the Pentagon, when in fact
I only attack arguments purporting to prove that one did not.
- Saying that I present much more evidence
that Flight 77 never did crash into this facility,
when in fact I debunk all the common no-757-crash arguments,
and don't address whether the crash involved Flight 77.
Here Makufka conflates the issues of whether the crash
involved Flight 77, any 757, or just any large jetliner.
Hoffman also fails to sway us when the subject of “eyewitness”
testimony is broached. Not only have Richard Stanley and Jerry Russell
“shredded every eyewitness on multiple accounts”
(“the eyewitness testimony varies from bad to provably false”),
but Professor A.K.
Dewdney stated unequivocally on WING TV (November 17, 2004) that in a
case such as this, physical scientific evidence far outweighs the
unreliability and contradictory nature of eyewitness testimony.
Makufka dismisses the overwhelming
eyewitness evidence that a jetliner crashed into the Pentagon
by citing Stanley, Russell, and Dewdney, all of whom grossly
misrepresent the eyewitness evidence.
Makufka doesn't even provide links to articles by the supposed
experts he quotes.
Another argument that Hoffman puts forth to seemingly disprove the
no-Boeing 757 theory is one which absolutely holds no water;
specifically, he dislikes two particular videos:
9/11 Pentagon Strike and 911 In Plane Site.
But to cite an article, book, or video that one deems faulty is not
reason enough to logically dismiss an entire phenomenon. Look at it
this way: suppose somebody made a documentary contending that 2+2 does
not equal 4. Then somebody else watched this video and deduced: since
this video about 2+2=4 is inaccurate, that must mean that 2+2 actually
doesn’t equal four. It’s faulty logic, and should
not have even been included in this article.
Makufka states that I use my dislike for the
9/11 Pentagon Strike and 911 In Plane Site videos,
to argue against the no-757-crash theory,
when in fact I
only use them
to show how the issue is being used
to discredit 9/11 skepticism.
He then implies that my entire argument is based on these videos --
a blatant distortion exposed by just looking at my essay's
table of contents.
Continuing his spoof, Hoffman confronts the issue of whether a Boeing 757
was capable of performing the highly complex Top Gun
maneuvers that were credited to it that fateful morning (while at the
same time failing to mention how Hani Hanjour has been 100% discredited
as the supposed pilot of this craft). Anyway, Hoffman states, “The
spiral dive attack maneuver was well within the capabilities of a
Boeing 757.” Contradicting this supposition, though, is Air Force and
commercial pilot Russ Wittenberg, who argued quite convincingly (WING
TV, September 16, 2004) that there was no possibility that this
jetliner could have descended 7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while
performing a steep 270 degree banked turn before crashing into the
Pentagon’s first floor wall without touching the lawn.
It’s impossible, and I’ll take Wittenberg’s word over
Hoffman’s, for during his career he flew
the exact same airlinersi
that were purportedly hijacked on the morning of September 11th.
If anybody would know, this man would.
Here Makufka implies that I omit mention of the dubious piloting skills
of alleged hijacker-pilot Hani Hanjour, when in fact my essay states:
The alleged pilot of Flight 77 was not competent to pilot a Cessna,
let alone pilot a 757 through a maneuver that may have exceeded
the skills of even the best test pilot.
Makufka states that pilot Russ Wittenberg contradicts my point that
a 757 was capable of the alleged spiral dive maneuver,
when Wittenberg's statement may ave been far less definitive.
Unfortunately, Makufka provides no link to a transcript or recording
of the Wittenberg interview that might allow us to verify his claim
that Wittenberg stated that the maneuver is beyond the 757's capabilities.
Other pilots, like Michael Dietrick,
have stated that the final approach maneuver,
while questionable by a plane under the control of any human pilot,
was plausible for 757 under automated flight control.
The next area of contention that shows how Hoffman is pulling our leg
is his approach to the lack of debris outside (and inside) the Pentagon
immediately following this “event”
(or was it actually a “staged magic show”).
Now Hoffman should know better because I’ve researched airliner
crashes and found numerous examples of the wreckage which results from
a downed jumbo jetliner. It’s incredibly vast and messy and obvious,
with deep skid marks in the ground; plus parts, wings, seats, wheels,
aviation equipment, luggage, bodies, and God knows what else strewn in
every direction. Where is this corresponding wreckage from an 80-100
ton aircraft at the Pentagon? It doesn’t exist, and volumes of
un-confiscated photos are in existence to prove it. For crying out
loud, Jim, look at this evidence because the pieces of the puzzle that
you’ve laid on the table don’t fit together.
The false implications of this paragraph include:
- The idea that numerous examples of the wreckage
turned up by Makufka's alleged research are at all applicable
to the Pentagon crash, when these other crashes presumably
didn't involve fortified buildings or direct, intentional collisions.
- That a 757 is a jumbo jetliner.
- That the Pentagon crash should have left
deep skid marks in the ground,
when its descending trajectory and ground-floor impact
may have avoided the lawn entirely.
- That it is definitive that there were no such skid marks, when the
available photographs don't show the areas near the facade.
- That there were no crash debris outside the building, when
some photos show debris fields.
- That there was no aircraft debris inside the building,
when no one (except, perhaps, for some government insiders)
has a basis to make such a claim.
The vast majority of a 757 would have passed through the
extensive impact punctures into the building,
and been buried by the subsequent collapse of the overhanging portion
of the building.
Crash debris was disposed of by DOD officials before
the FEMA's investigative team was allowed access to the site.
But the most absurd element of Hoffman’s thesis (even more so than his
conjecture-filled arguments concerning the large spools sitting in
front of the Pentagon) was his reference to French researcher Eric
Bart’s explanation for the lack of imprints on the Pentagon’s
façade which would be consistent with a Boeing 757. According to Bart, this
plane conveniently had bombs strapped to it which (yet again)
conveniently exploded when Flight 77 began its impact with the wall.
That’s why it was instantly transformed to confetti. Of course this
version of events contradicts the military’s first explanation, which
concluded that the plane in question was “vaporized”
into thin air (while human flesh, trees, and books in the immediate vicinity
The distortions in this paragraph include:
- Asserting that I make conjecture-filled arguments
about the cable spools,
when in fact I show the use of the spools to argue against a 757
relies on a series of conjectures.
- Misrepresenting Bart's theory as saying the plane had bombs
strapped to it.
- Implying that I state bombs turned the plane to confetti,
when I point out that the
impact alone would have done so.
- Portraying my thesis as relying on Bart's theory, when I only introduce
it to point to alternative explanations for the arguably incorrect
What most troubles me about Hoffman’s line of reasoning is that he says
most people can’t handle the no-757 argument; then he turns around and
lays-out a tale so ludicrous that it’s laughable. But hold on, folks,
for there’s more --- he concludes that, according to Eric Bart,
“the crash of a 757 was engineered to make it appear that no such plane
had crashed.” Say what? Do these men want us to believe that the
government DID crash a 757 into the Pentagon; then deliberately made it
appear as if one hadn’t crashed there
(a “complex reverse deception”
as Richard Stanley calls it)? This reasoning is akin to Alice falling down the
rabbit hole in Wonderland.
ridicules the idea that the crash could have been engineered as Bart theorizes,
while obfuscating the
the perpetrators achieve by inserting the no-757-crash disinformation meme.
The whole point of Makufka's attack is to back the truly ridiculous idea:
that the Pentagon was attacked by someting other than a jetliner,
such as a missile,
despite the fact that dozens of eyewitness reported seeing a jetliner
and not a single one reported seeing a missile or military jet.
Lastly, Hoffman proves once-and-for-all that he’s deliberately toying
with us when he brings Left Gatekeepers such as Amy Goodman and Chip
Berlet into the fray, along with a CIA agent, The Washington Post,
and the New York Times.
What does he expect these shysters to say? They’re disinformation
specialists – and that’s what they do for a living –
they debunk! But instead of trotting these bozos around the arena, why not
introduce some real meat and potatoes evidence into this case? C’mon,
Jim, you can come clean now and tell us that it’s
all been a big joke.
Here Makufka misrepresents my reasons for trotting around
Left Gatekeepers like Amy Goodman and Chip Berlet.
Makufka implies I side with them,
while concealing the reason I bring up their attacks:
to show that the no-757-impact claims are easily debunked and
successfully used to discredit the skeptics.
Makufka's assertion that I avoid
real meat and potatoes evidence
is exploded by reading
The "Physical Evidence" Case
section of the essay,
a detailed deconstruction of erroneous physical evidence claims
backed up by
a dozen pages
In the end, Hoffman almost seems to be saying: just because the
no-757-theory is a difficult pill for many people to swallow, we should
dismiss it completely lest we “damage the entire 9-11 cause.”
But in all honesty, it is reports such as this which do the most harm,
for not only are his arguments disingenuous, they’re also flimsy and
lightweight beyond words. I mean, since when should “how the issue
plays” affect our desire for the truth? It shouldn’t, and in all
honesty, when I first heard about this article, I thought, “Y’know,
I’ve always respected Jim Hoffman’s work. Maybe he’s
onto something that everyone else missed.” But upon reading his thesis
very closely, I was supremely disappointed, for there was nothing there.
Zero. A complete wash. So, my only hope at this point is that maybe Hoffman
wanted to bring more attention to the Pentagon case, so he wrote a
completely ridiculous piece that he knew everyone would trash, thus
ultimately showing how strong the no-757 case really is. Isn’t it
obvious what Hoffman’s motives are? He purposefully wrote the lamest
debunking paper possible to prove the inherent flaws and weaknesses of
the government’s “official” explanation.
It was all an exercise in reverse-psychology …
a grand charade which pretended to debunk the no-757-theory, but in reality
debunked the debunkers! Well done, Jim,
and it was all worth a good laugh – but hey, no more of these crafty
masquerades, okay ---- you had us worried there for awhile!
Makufka again grossly distorts my argument, which is:
Mafufka dishonestly states that my argument rests on people's
unwillingness to accept the no-757-crash theory,
when in fact it is based on a thorough review of the claims
advanced in favor of that theory,
and on the often ignored and maligned evidence against it.
Mafufka's failure to link back to my essay is an implicit
admission that his attack is dishonest and manipulative.
- The 'physical evidence' does not support the no-757-crash idea
claimed by error-filled analyses of Meyssan, Holmgren, and others.
- The few features of the impact site that are arguably
difficult to reconcile with the crash of a 757 are easily explained
by assuming the crash was engineered.
Such engineering would be far simpler than the engineering
required by the no-757-crash theorists to fool so many witnesses.
- Defenders of the official story
have consistently focused on the easily discredited no-757-crash idea,
and have successfully identified that idea with the broad 9/11
Truth Movement in order to obscure the compelling evidence
that the attack was an inside job.