Open Letter to Victoria Ashley/Jim Hoffman (911research.wtc7.net)

[Woody Box]

Dear Ms. Ashley, dear Mr. Hoffman,

recently, a friend of mine told me that you've published a short review of my article "The Cleveland Airport Mystery":

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/911revealed/index.html

How excited I was when I opened the page where you mentioned the article (as part of a review of the book "9/11 revealed")! Can you imagine my disappointment when I learned that you view the article as a "hoax"?

Be assured, the facts gathered in the article are no hoax. Be assured, I don't spend hours, days, weeks in front of my computer screen, browsing the net for all possible combinations of certain keywords, only to publish a "hoax" to tease or deceive the 9/11 community.

The old, venerable BBC rule to support every claim with two independent sources was a strict guideline for me. These are the final words of the article: "Everybody who denies the occurring of two emergency landings should be able to provide us with clear answers to these five questions: When did the plane land, when was it evacuated, how many passengers dit it carry, where were they interviewed, where was the plan sitting at the airport. For every answer, he should also be able to disprove the contradicting two (or more) sources."

You obviously failed to fulfill these conditions, so I give you opportunity now to retrieve that. Your objection that the Cleveland events were nothing more than an "instance of confusion" is hardly a credible refutation, and, worse, it misses the point. Two different airplanes, both labeled as "Delta 1989", landed in Cleveland on 9/11. You certainly will agree that airplanes, unlike electrons, are no quantum objects, so Delta 1989 cannot have been at two different places at the same time. So if we assume one of the planes was indeed Delta 1989, what company and flight number was the other one?

"The Cleveland Airport Mystery" has been recommended not only by the authors of "9/11 revealed", but so different researchers like A.K. Dewdney, Nico Haupt, Mike Ruppert ("excellent research") and, just recently, Dylan Avery. My suggestion: let the readers of your review decide themselves if the article is a hoax, and install a link to the original URL:

http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=323

Sincerely,

Your Woody Box

[Kevin Fenton]

1. If anybody is interested in what they said, it's:

"The Cleveland Airport Mystery Hoax

The book devotes an entire subchapter to amplifying the alleged Cleveland airport mystery, which is nothing more than one of many instances of confusion on the day of the attack."
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/911revealed/#911truth

[spooked911]

2. how do you know it is confusion?

have you researched this yourself?

[spooked911]

3. The fact is, I don't trust Hoffman in these matters. All he is good for

is the controlled demolition aspects of 9/11-- which seems to be a new "limited hangout" for what happened on 9/11.

Curiously, Hoffman, like you, supports controlled demolition, yet, both of strongly deny that anything else weird happened on 9/11.

What is up with that?

This would seem to be a very unusual position to take.

[Kevin Fenton]

4. What I know

I do not know it is confusion, I was merely quoting the article. I have had a brief look at the CAM and my opinion is that it may well be confusion.

I really fail to see how blowing the three buildings up is limited hangout.

AFAIK Hoffman thinks it was a false flag operation, at least that's what 911reserach seems to promote. If you think differently, why? I saw something in the article saying that United 93 was shot down.

It is an unusual position, because conspiracy theories tend to get polarised between those that claim everything is wrong and those that claim nothing is wrong. However, I think that each part of the CT should be examined separately. Some of the CT's claims convince me (the WTC was blown up, there's something wrong with the air defence, the hijackers just didn't slip by the intelligence community, United 93 was shot down), some of them don't (missiles, holograms, faked phone calls, remote control). I call it as I see it based on the evidence I have viewed. What's wrong with that?

[spooked911]

5. Nothing wrong with that. Thanks for clarifying.

[Woody Box]

6. United 93 was NOT shot down

this was the biggest distraction from the beginning. So they made suspicious people believe that the cover-up at Shanksville was just to keep the "small" secret (shoot down) instead of the big one (MIHOP).

[philb]

8. What happened to UA93 if it was not shot down?

How do you explain the debris at 3 sites

the alleged crash site
a lake over 3 miles to the SE
over a mountain 8 miles to the NE

and the wind apparently blowing from the East to SW

[spooked911]

10. The crash site was faked, debris was strewn around

to plant the shoot-down psy-op, IMO.

It is not clear what happened to the real plane.

[SittingBull]

7. Nothing

if you don't defame the whole truth movement and consider that every alternative theory must be a theory and speculative, as long it is not proven.


ed on sp

[philb]

9. No one has clarified what happened with Flight 11 at Boston Logan

and whether one of the 3 Flight 11 versions documented in the official story that day had anything to do with the Cleveland Airport mystery.

http://www.flcv.com/offcom11.html see info at end

[Woody Box]

11. No answer yet...sigh...

how disappointing :(

They didn't even install a link to CAM.

[killtown]

12. don't be surprised

What up Woody b! :toast:

I'm suspicious of 9/11 skeptics who seem to spend more time trying to debunk other 9/11 skeptics instead of the official story.

My eyes roll every time I hear the "poison pill/poisoning the well" phrase.

[hack89]

13. But sooner or later ,,

the CT community must come to a mind as to what happened. What other choice is there - not every theory can be true. What is the point in debunking the official story when you can't answer the question "what really happened?". I don't understand why the CT community has yet to come together with a consensus view on what happened - everyone is absolutely certain that the evidence proves without a doubt that the official story is wrong. Why can't this same evidence prove without a doubt what really happened? Do you believe that there are two independent sets of evidence: one to disprove the official story and yet another that reveals the truth?

[killtown]

14. How many times am I going to have to tell you?

Let's put it like this, a child goes missing, is the child still there because no one knows what really happened to them? Of course not.

[hack89]

15. You accuse the neighbor of murdering the child..

is the fact that the child is missing proof of his guilt? If you unequivocally state that there is no direct evidence to accuse the Bush administration of murder than I will accept your argument. If not, then lets see your evidence - in other words tell me what happened.

[killtown]

16. I wouldn't accuse them of murder

just based on a child missing. If there was evidence the neighbor was involved with the disappearance, then I'd accuse them of abduction.

[hack89]

17. Nice evasion..

So the fact the child is missing is proof in and of itself that the neighbor kidnapped him? Or do you have direct evidence of Bush's involvement in 9/11? Or are you taking a leaf from the ID book and saying that proof that the official story is wrong is direct evidence that Bush was responsible? Or do you see this as a two phased effort - first prove the official story is wrong and then prove that Bush was responsible? Where are you heading with this?

[killtown]

18. What part of

So the fact the child is missing is proof in and of itself that the neighbor kidnapped him?

What part of "If there was evidence the neighbor was involved with the disappearance" did you not understand?

Or do you have direct evidence of Bush's involvement in 9/11?

here

[hack89]

19. Give me a break!

Your ego site is proof? Tell me with a straight face that anything you wrote would be accepted in a court of law. Or do we need to straighten out what constitutes evidence?

[Ezlivin]

22. If the child was missing and the neighbor said a UFO abducted him

You'd be right to question the neighbor at length.

If someone tells you that 19 Arabs thwarted the world's most sophisticated defense system not once, but four times, you'd have reason to doubt the story.

Perhaps you'd even like to question someone at length.

Ironic that Bush fought the 9/11 commission every step of the way, then refused to testify alone or under oath. Odd that he needed Dick Cheney there with him. Equally odd is the fact that their comments could not be released to the public.

[hack89]

23. What sophisticated defenses? nt

[stickdog]

26. If you tell your wife you are working late at the office

while she is waiting for you in your vacant office, is it really her responsibility to somehow prove exactly what you're doing instead before demanding some answers?

[philb]

20. How substantial and solid was the German magazine investigation of

the 2 flights at Boston Logan, and which one the passengers boarded on, and what time the flight left?

How could 2 passengers and 1 flight attendant call relatives to say the plane was delayed and some boardin times be after
the official take-off time; yet the 9/11 Commission and FAA report that Flight 11 left on time?

Has anyone other than Woody seen the German magazine article on Flight 11?

[Ferry Fey]

21. Presenting the versions in tree fashion?

How could 2 passengers and 1 flight attendant call relatives to say the plane was delayed and some boardin times be after the official take-off time; yet the 9/11 Commission and FAA report that Flight 11 left on time?

It would be interesting to see the information presented graphically as a tree. Think of it like a genealogy chart -- each time something occurred and multiple versions of it were offered, it would split into two branches. Each time those hit contradictions, they'd split into more branches.

Might get give the average person a better idea of the contradictions than a straight narrative would or could.

[stickdog]

24. Woody, there is definitely more to your article than they are giving

you credit for.

I'm not sure what all your research means, but AT MINIMUM it adds another boulder to the now mountainous pile of legitimate unanswered questions concerning the events of 9/11.

[Woody Box]

25. Thanks, stickdog

and a short interpretation of the CAM: there was a cover-up going on on Cleveland Airport. Delta 1989 was the cover for the other plane. This other plane and its emergency landing was Top Top Secret. It is, IMHO, a key for understanding the attacks.