Given the success of 9-11 Research in reaching a large audience with carefully-researched and compelling information exposing the falsity of the official narrative of the 9/11/01 attack, It's not surprising that the website has its share of detractors who spread false information about its authors. In contrast to ad hominem attacks, these false claims have an appearance of objectivity.
In the following statement, Jim Hoffman repudiates some of the false and misleading statements that have been publicized about him and 9-11 Research.
FACT: I do not think that it is even remotely plausible that directed energy weapons were used to destroy the Twin Towers or Building 7.
In an interview I gave in January of 2004 I entertained a hypothesis that interferometry of coaxial electromagnetic beams generated by powerful masers in the Twin Towers' basements might have been used to produce the descending wave of destruction that consumed the Towers. After reviewing the hypothesis, I rejected it and posted a note on the Edited Transcript of the interview to explain my reasons for rejecting it, summarized on the EM Weapons page.
My long-disavowed hypothesis has been used to attack both myself and Steven E. Jones. In a debate with Steven Jones at a conference in Chandler Arizona ( captured in this Google Video ) James Fetzer's concluding remarks include the following:
Steve Jones ignores the fact that other serious students of 9/11 have taken the directed energy hypothesis seriously. This includes Jim Hoffman and also Webster Tarpley. I invite all of you to review Synthetic Terror because Webster has a section talking about the conclusion that it appears as though a directed energy weapon had to be used here. Steve also suppresses lots of information we have here. For example Judy has observed that as early as 1990 a low-intensity laser was deflected off of a mirror in space and came down to earth within a couple of feet of its intended target.
Fetzer's remarks are misleading in several respects, primarily by way of omission:
There is also an element of hypocrisy in Fetzer's referring to me as a serious student, when in his rambling ad-hominem attack articles such as "What's the matter with Jim Hoffman? Abusing logic and language to attack S9/11T" [ http://www.911scholars.org/ArticleFetzer_14Jun2006.html ] Fetzer calls me a "pseudo-authority" with a "pretense of a commitment to scientific inquiry", among other insults.
Eric Hufschmid has used my 2004 interview for a series of attacks in the racist website IAmTheWitness.com, in which he he suggests that I am a "Crypto Jew" because I "[come] up with idiotic theories to make the 9/11 investigators look like idiots." The irony and hypocrisy of these attacks is that Hufschmid was perhaps the single most effective promoter of the idea that has done the most damage to the credibility of the 9/11 truth movment: the Pentagon no-Boeing theory. Unlike myself and 9-11 Research, Hufschmid has apparently made no effort to correct or even acknowledge his errors.
FACT: I do not accept the label of "conspiracy theorist", and consider it an inaccurate and derisive description of myself.
Wikipedia editors that patrol my biography page on Wikipedia.org have repeatedly tagged me with the label of "conspiracy theorist", most recently with the inclusion of a "9/11 conspiracy theories" template. My request that the template be removed because it falsely implies that I endorse such productions as 9/11: In Plane Site and 9/11: The Big Lie was met with silence.
Wikipedia editors have used the following passage from an article in Salon.com to justify their labeling me a "conspiracy theorist". (See the discussion behind my biography page.)
Hoffman has disputed the no-crash theory concerning The Pentagon and in an interview for Salon, alleged ad hominen attacks on conspiracy theorists, stating, "This is just the sort of wackiness defenders of the Official Story harp on to show how gullible and incompetent we conspiracy theorists are supposed to be."
The quote may be literally accurate. However, it does not convey my tone of voice, which clearly indicated that I was using "we conspiracy theorists" facetiously.
Quite apart from twisted interpreations of words attributed to me, it is clear from a survey of my work that the application of the "conspiracy theorist" label to me has no factual basis. The vast majority of the material I have written for the websites WTC7.net, 911Research.wtc7.net, and 911Review.com, reports on well-documented facts of the attack and aftermath and critiques both official and alternative conspiracy theories of the attack.
- Jim Hoffman, March 1, 2007