It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Open letter to Jim Hoffman

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 12:16 AM
Jim Hoffman has decided to include us in his page of "Hoax-Promoting Videos" that consists of this small number of high profile 9/11 truth documentaries:

* In Plane Site
* Loose Change
* 9/11 Eyewitness
* The PentaCon

This is Hoffman's first response to our extensive on site investigation that limits all conclusions to data that we have personally obtained.

Hoffman makes no effort to directly address the evidence and chooses instead to refer to Arabasque's deceptive, convoluted yet simplistic, and severely inadequate attempt to debunk what we have presented.

I have sent Jim a personal email with the heading "hoax?" addressing this information and requesting a direct debate on the information so I will now make that email public.


That is a pretty strong characterization for a claim that is firmly grounded in hard evidence. Why won't you address the data we present directly? You do realize that not a single witness in the entire investigative body of evidence directly contradicts the north side claim do you? Why do you blindly trust the mainstream media eyewitness reports without confirming them directly? How many eyewitnesses have you interviewed? We have tried contacting virtually ALL of them and canvassed the neighborhoods for new ones. Since we released this data we have 2 more witnesses that support the north side claim so that totals 6 and nobody we have spoken with has specifically placed the plane on the south side of the Citgo low and level with the ground. How can you patently reject independent corroboration as strong as this? Where is your counter testimony? (sorry but the extremely dubious accounts of Lloyd England and Frank Probst are not sufficient.)

Frankly we don't care if you reject the "flyover" theory but you can not reject the north side claim which has been scientifically proven beyond a reasonable doubt. We base all of our claims on 100% investigative research on location and 0% on "speculation". There is nothing "feeble" about the north side claim. Have you ever been to Arlington? Have you ever surveyed the topography at all? Do you understand how a 757 at over 500 mph would be required to approach with a noticeable descent angle due to the steep decline after the Navy Annex? Do understand that the FDR actually depicts this necessary descent angle which contradicts the physical damage and the security video 100%?

By ignoring the TRUE flight path of the plane you have been missing out on the evidence that proves a military deception. They wanted us to focus on a missile so we would not focus on the flight path.

There was no missile, there was no global hawk, and the passenger jet airliner that flew treetop level over the neighborhoods of Arlington did not hit the building.

If the perpetrators actually crashed a 757 into the building it would be completely contradictory to the entire purpose of the operation for them to not take full advantage of the psychological impact that video footage would give them.

The "honeypot" theory wouldn't even come close to outweighing the benefits they would get from video footage of the event during this black psychological operation of deception.

We are not disinfo and we are not pushing a "hoax". Arabasque's simplistic and naive "debunk" falls flat and doesn't begin to counter what we have presented. We will debate you any time over the phone or on a radio show but hopefully you will objectively look at the data that we present in relation to the anomalous FDR and realize that we are on to something important here.

I respectfully request that you remove us from your "hoax" page and if you refuse I formally challenge you to a public debate or even invite you to civilly discuss the evidence with me privately over the phone.


Craig Ranke

[edit on 13-9-2007 by Craig Ranke CIT]

posted on Sep, 15 2007 @ 03:15 PM
Although I do not agree with Jim Hoffman... I have gained a little respect for him by listing Pentacon with the others. It's a perfect bookmark with "In Plane Site".

posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 12:52 AM
I would like to see debates done in the 9/11 community.. everyone just throws out the same repeats day in and day out.. with the exception of the few who twist it up into something that looks new.. and sometimes it is.

Craig, I hope Jim answers you and will take into consideration your field investigative evidence to either debate on, or to discuss rather... I personally would like to see discussing instead of arguing who is right and who is wrong. Discussing will be a back and forth process, like "I see what you are saying, but this is what I see" Mix and match, and the discussion will find whats been under your noses that you have over looked.

Captain O, what do you think of the plane flying North of the Citgo Gas Station? Dont jump to the flyover theory, that can be left undiscussed, I'm not going that far. I just want to see what your thoughts are on the plane flying on the North side instead of the said South path?

posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 10:57 AM
and here again i must post and ask why if your theory is so fool proof why are you adressing him asking him to take your webseite off his list?

top topics

log in