Wow: Gerard Holmgren Passes Away
Via Facebook, via Nico Haupt:
Very sad. His work is famous in 9/11 research, as was his combative persona. He was pretty obnoxious to me, always, but definitely he was brilliant. This piece here is one of my favorites of his.Gerard Holmgren lovely man and fabulous gutarist/teacher, sadly passed away yesterday (Sunday May 2nd 2010) at 7.30am. He was 51. Gerard only found out 2 weeks ago that he had inoperable cancer, and spent his final days in the palliative care unit of Canterbury Hospital surrounded by loving friends.
posted by spooked at 7:55 AM
18 Comments:
How and over what was he obnoxious to you?
Holmgren's early articles RE NPT are mostly excellent.
And perhaps Holmgren left the 9/11 field, before I entered it (circa 2006), but it seems to me he was another one who did "not care" to know what destroyed the WTC--nukes--and left the China Syndrome there. Correct me if I am wrong...
I note in passing the curious fact that his birth date of 26.11.1958 (from Aussie site) has its digits add up to ...
33.
Anonymous Physicist
My interactions with Holmgren were all via email, never met him.
1) I had posted one of my articles on my site, and he asked that I take it off, citing a copyright issue. Which was fine. But he threatened to sue, then said he had blocked my emails and wouldn't give me a chance to explain. This was like a year after I had posted it, and at the time there was no way for me to go back and delete in the blogger software. I could only edit recent posts. I wrote this to him, and to others to pass it on to him, but don't know if he ever got the message.
2) the other thing was some mass email debate and Holmgren said David Ray Griffin was dishonest in New Pearl Harbor. I asked him for more details and he completely slammed and berated me. When I asked for a simple explanation, he told me he was blocking my emails and wouldn't respond.
He was legendarily abrasive. On the other hand, he was very sharp, and could really tear someone apart with logic in a debate.
That 33 is wild. That's very rare to get a 33 from the birthdate digits.
Makes you wonder.
i was involved in a 9/11 forumn that included him and he was indeed a dickhead.
he was very sharp logically, as you said.
he, along with this blog was instrumental in my awareness of no-planes.
Well on the one hand, he was right about Griffin being pure intel agent/asset, and maybe felt this was obvious (which it is, as it is with numerous others I have highlighted). And thus he felt that all honest 911 truthers should also have seen Griffin's legend as obvious?
But I wasn't there, so I don't know.
And we do have to let go of someone when it is made clear they are bogus "truthers," regardless of how well they may have disguised it previously.
My points Re him--which haven't been answered--are first, what if anything he wrote about what took down the towers? Or did he ignore this aspect, or say "it doesn't matter."
And then--as I finally realized RE those who claimed to be the first proponents of the nuclear 9/11 conclusion--that the first ones involved in a sub-field are often intel assets who will later serve as gatekeepers or pushers of something else.
Or else they are "loud, crazy types" whose near-deranged legends serve to destroy the very theory they propose--even if that theory is itself perfectly logical and correct.
I trust you all see how clever the intel agencies can be with this ploy. They send in their agents to FIRST put out the truth of a matter--such as NPT or even nukes--but the first ones are either nutters in some way, or say something blatantly false that serves to discredit the whole field.
Or such individuals later denounce their own previous "work."
It is, of course, very easy for the intel agencies to send in their agents/assets to be the FIRST--because the intel agencies know what happened, as they were involved in doing it in the first place!
I never interacted with Holmgren, and do not know the answer to the above important question, but in general the loud, crazy types--including the one who was cited above with Holmgren's obit, whose own foul, sexist, scatological photos and vebiage was used to self-implode a 911truth site--by its owner when it got great publicity--do help prove the point.
But I have tried to show that we can take what is true from someone, and if need be show where there is some "monkey business."
This way we can beat the intel agencies at their own game, if we are intelligent enough.
Again, there are so many more of us, than of them...
Anonymous Physicist
I just remembered what the specific Griffin dispute was-- Holmgren said DRG committed plagiarism of Holmgren in NPH. I simply asked for details of the plagiarism and Holmgren flipped out on me, refused to answer, and blocked my email.
As far as the WTC demolition, he never said anything about what did it, though certainly he was one of the earliest to talk about demolition. I recall that Holmgren pushed the line that from a legal standpoint, we just needed to show there was a crime, i.e. demolition, to go to court. He never seemed interested in how the demolition was done. Oddly, he gave Wood a very hard time-- called her out as a fraud-- without explicitly denouncing DEW.
Thanks for expounding on that.
I think it is dubious at best to not care about how the demoliton was perpetrated, as that would be mandatory in a court case, as one example.
But I can't fault him for seeing what Wood was/is.
Is my understanding of the timeline correct? I think he stopped his 9/11 work before the nuclear and China Syndrome conclusion really came out?
A.P.
AP--
I think his active 9/11 research stopped before your major conclusions came out, and I never heard of him commenting on the nuclear demolition.
that the first ones involved in a sub-field are often intel assets
right, for instance; a certain someone who just happened to somehow figure out how to make a slide-show of the blob 11 before there was even high-speed internet connections in the US.
Holmgrem and I share the same birthday. He's much older of course.
Holmgrem and I share the same birthday.
So your numbers don't add up to the dreaded 33!
@Anon 4:16
Nope. Just the dreaded 25! lol!
i just added my numbers up and they only make it to 31 - whew! LOL!
Just a couple of days before you posted that Gerard passed, I had tried to e-mail him to tell him I had just read all of his stuff and how much I appreciated it.
He was keen on "seeing" the carefully constructed cartoon of the S11 event, the consequences of which are hard to live with on a day to day basis: that the fourth estate is completely subsumed by the fifth column, essentially becoming the enemy among us.
It seems that people that truly "see" this day to day, just do not live that long: the reality of it all is just to much to bear. (Joe Viallis(spelling?) as another example).
Saw the other day where the quisling-in-chief had over seven million in assets where he had trouble getting his visa card not to decline before his ascension. I guess it is cheaper to pile the money one key asset (shill).
He was a moron. Pure and simple. An idiotic, brain dead moron. Thinning of the herd...thank God. The fewer idiotic brain dead morons we have in this world, the better.
Pretty helpful info, much thanks for the article.
I see the comments in this article is full of 9/11 shills trying to discredit Gerard!
Is there any part of the internet you rats have not been?!
Post a Comment
<< Home