[Nader Republican] You can call me "Max"

Remain calm. Don't let them draw you in using their frames, their insults, their dirty tricks.

Did you happen to notice the arrival of re-enforcements assigned to AlterNet from NSA's "no-proof-of-existence" Q-Group? As the team assembles, they pat themselves on the back and tip their hats to squad leader, GuitarBill, by encouraging him to ~not~ be a man of his word and to ~not~ leave AlterNet as he had declared in his tearful "Goodbye" posting. (How Easy it Is to Reinforce People's Conspiracy Paranoia.)

After all, GB's Oracle rational database of postings, references, one-liners, and insults -- all of them re-usable again and again and again by qualified CISSP experts -- makes him an impressive role model for the disinformation warriors.

I find it ironic that GB has been going to great lengths in other discussions to alias-ASS-ociate various participants -- many long-standing like you -- by calling them "Max" (meaning you). So the subject above isn't merely pre-empting him from such deployment of insipid tricks against me. No, my subject line takes it a step further by embracing the charge that GB will undoubtedly projectile vomit at me! He can call me "Max!" And for once, he'll be right! Hahaha!

Such fond images that GB's labeling of others as "Max" brings. Makes me wish that I was the "Max" referenced in his half-wit excuse of a curse. Alas, I was relegated into being called "LeftWright" (and other GB's childish variants) for a long period of time. No GB apologies for having gotten it wrong, either.

You know, in my skirmishes with GB, "embrace it" has often been the guidance provided to me from above, even when it meant tagging my own subjects with [CompulsiveLiar] just because GB lied and said I was. (It doesn't bother me to have my words [e.g., on 9/11] fact-checked.)

"Nader Republican"? Isn't that supposed to be the latest and greatest slur being caste upon those who make GB's list?

You know? That has a nice ring to it. Nader is all about government oversight; he's against corporate welfare. Republicans used to be fiscally conservative.

So not only can GB call me "Max", he can label me a "Nader Republican". After all, I voted for Nader at least twice (but not in 2004 or 2008); I was a fan of Reagan's in the 1980 election. If the shoe fits...

And Mr. Payne, do you know why the Q Groupie disinformationalists are after you? I think it has to do with your reasoned and rationale support of third parties, which you and I agree in sufficient numbers could act in a king-making role in Congress to help root out the rot in the Republicans and Democrats.

The Semaphores for Truth are most active, as they switch support from the neo-cons ("don't say the Bushies, neo-cons, or the government had anything to do with 9/11, or I'll put a boot up your backside") to Obama Democrats ("don't say anything bad about Obama Democrats, or I'll put a boot up your backside.") Of note are the postings from opponents that these Semaphores flag, and not their own fagging... I mean, "flagging"... postings themselves. Yep, the message must have undoubtedly filtered down from on high to the agency to the Q Group to the AlterNet team regarding how the propaganda should read. They have stepped up their game. And as GB has proven through his AlterNet alias's immortality, they reap no consequences for their lack of morals or ethics, for they are charged to win at any cost when they lace up their backside smelling boots.

Third parties got to start somewhere, and why.

In answer to the repeated question about how the Green Party -- or any third party -- could improve the situation, it comes down to coalitions like what is sometimes seen in Europe and other places. We see some of it now with the Blue Dog Democrats, the Rinos, and the Dinos, but those seem more whimsical and political opportunist than anything.

The benefit of 3rd parties is to allow our elected officials to be more independent, flexible, human, and not as ridgedly controlled by two extreme party lines, particularly when 3rd party lines get gerrymandered into coalitions in order to accomplish things.

Imagine it coming into being what one or both of you have foreshadowed by saying that maybe those who voted Democrat this last year (and/or Republican during the 8 years before that) get sick and tired of the betrayal, so they vote 3rd party in 2010/12. Just for the sake of discussion and to make the numbers round, let's say that Greens get voted in to the tune of 20%, while the Dems and Repubs each get 35%-to-39% with other independents and 3rd parties rounding it out.

In this situation, no single party would have enough votes to ram-rod legislation through, whether by simple majority or filibuster-proof super-majority. Yes, the party with the token majority over the others might have an upper hand with Committee Chairmanship, etc. ~initially~.

However at this point, the Green Party at 20% (in this example) becomes something of a king-maker. They could regularly throw their weight around in coalitions to give Dems or Repubs temporarily the majority they need to install chairs, to get legislation out of committee, and to vote new policies in place.

There'll be a lot more political horse-trading going on, which on the surface might seem like a bad thing. But could be just the ticket to get things that were off the table back on. Not that it would completely muscle out the corporate financial influence on politics, it would certainly be a start if the king-making 3rd party weren't cut from that clothe.

Not that this is an example I'm proud of pointing out, but back in 1999/2000 before the Nazi-emulator Bush stole an election in the US, someone with true Nazi leanings [Jorg Haider] managed to have his party become top-dog in the Austrian three-dog political show, not through an overwhelming majority, but through a respectable showing and coalition king-making skills. Although head of his party and desirous of being head of state, Haider was forced to hand those honors over to another in his party, such was the distaste for Haider by the others and the coalition horse-trading to cobble together a government that could govern.

Before someone flames me for my Nazi references and tries to put words in my mouth condoning such (for the USA), *beeb* *beeb* NOPE! Ain't true. The point was about how a 3rd party could throw its weight around and thereby maybe, in the case of the USA, affect some real positive change for the under-represented, like namely us living-and-breathing human individuals, as opposed to corporations.

If a 3rd party could get a respectable foothold *at the expense* of the other parties' numbers, then we might be on the cusp of true change, like maybe instant-run-off elections allowing people to vote both their hearts and their "most electable safe-bets". (Although I hope for the utopia Star Trek version, targeted shock-and-awe fear has already proven that it might drag us -- like Austria was through the mud of Haider -- through teabagger protectionist, separatist, xenophobic, Nazi-leaning eras first.)

What? Don't you stand by your words?

With regards to GuitarBill's order:

"Now, how about YOU do the honorable thing and remove my commentary--EVERY ASCII character--from your vanity website?

And that includes ALL references to "GuitarBill"."

As an act of good faith, there are now NO references to GuitarBill on my "vanity website" as far as I know. Correct me if I'm wrong. As such, eventually anyone googling "GuitarBill" in a search for you will probably only get hits on AlterNet. Your goal in making the request, right?

{Note: At the time, "GuitarBill" was replaced with "GeeBill". Since then, it was replaced back. Why? GuitarBill's words are public on AlterNet, which has much larger numbers of readers. Fair-use allows me to quote him on this website. In the cases where this website publishes GuitarBill's postings that he managed to get removed from AlterNet, we must first remember that they were initially public and we must secondly be amazed at the speed and efficiency of their removal from AlterNet's database.}

As for removing EVERY ASCII character of your commentary, are you saying that you do not stand by your words?

You'll have to enlighten me, but I fail to see what the issue is, why your request for removal, and what you hope to gain. If it really is just a "vanity website", what's the problem? I don't even track how many hits I get, but it is pathetic by any measure conceivable compared to AlterNet.

Moreover, you had no issues with me responding to your postings on AlterNet with the very same fair-use quotations from you. Hey-Suess Chronicles Volume 3: Semaphore for Truth is essentially identical information as what is already published on AlterNet, except that its format is different, it consolidates all of my postings, and it fixes minor errors here and there that I didn't see before posting on AlterNet.

There was nothing unethic or questionable about my fair-use quotations from you. I attribute your words to you fairly and link to the AlterNet source. The dual purpose of accurate fair-use quotations was (a) to prove that I was not putting words into anyone's mouth and (b) to inform the reader (or you) what point I was responding to from a previous posting.

Owing to (a) and (b) above, your request to remove all instances of legitimate fair-use quotations from you on my website cripples the readability and comprehension of my words. It would be like asking a preacher to re-publish all of his old Bible sermons but without any quotations from the Bible. It is obviously not something I will undertake lightly.

If there are specific entries in Volume 3 where you feel I have used too much fair-use quotation from you, point them out and I will see if I should make alterations.

As was already alluded to, 99.5% of Volume 3 was posted to AlterNet. Were I to deliberately cripple the readability and comprehension of Volume 3 on my website, because you didn't like your pseudonym's words appearing there, so what? You would still have the problem of my website legitimately linking to my valid postings on AlterNet where the full context of my words (my quotations from you, and your original postings) comes out.

The only way you could fix this problem would be to remove most of my entries from the AlterNet databases. Is that your plan? If it is, it just behooves me all the more to continue to preserve all of my words myself as I do now rather than trusting someone else's database to do it for me.

Netiquette violator

Mr. Bill writes:

"And why don't you tell us about "MaxBridges" and his vanity website where he quote mines my comment's--taken out of context, of course--and argues against my comment's before his imaginary audience?"

Mr. Bill, lots of faulty charges for such a short passage. Not only do I attribute the quotes to you properly, but I also provide links ({formerly} on the author's name {and now on the subject}) back to the source AlterNet discussion. You didn't seem to have any problem with the exact same postings with quotations from you on AlterNet.

Mr. Bill writes:

"And why am I not allowed to rebut his lies?"

First, labeling something a lie doesn't make it so.

Second, let's have everyone dwell on what an idiot your are, because you had ample opportunity for your rebuttals on AlterNet that you took advantage of and that regularly had the form of an ad hominem attack.

Third, links {formerly} on the author's name {and now on the subject} in Hey-Suess Chronicles Volume 3: Semaphore for Truth take you to context and reveal your responses.

Fourth, the purpose of my website it to preserve my words, not yours. {As we can see on AlterNet, postings can be removed.}

Fifth, beyond quotations that I fair-use attribute to you, not much of your writings is worthy of me re-publishing in its entirety were I even to have the copyright or your expressed permission to do so, which I don't.

Did you out your employer by repeatedly mentioning that you're a Certified Information Systems Security Professional (CISSP), something that is formally approved by the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) and has been adopted as a baseline for the U.S. National Security Agency's ISSEP program?

Tell us, Mr. Bill, in obtaining such CISSP, did they teach you about netiquette, ethics, and morals?

Simple things like:

Rule 9: Don't abuse your power

Knowing more than others, or having more power than they do, does not give you the right to take advantage of them. You should never use your power to violate others privacy.

Violating the Privacy of Others is Improper Netiquette

Avoid sharing personal information about other people without their permission and knowledge. This includes sharing personal details, full names, addresses, phone numbers, and images. No one wants to find out that their privacy has been violated.

Respect the privacy of other users on the Internet, just as you expect your privacy to be respected.

It is interesting in a strange way the seemingly random postings from you that were removed versus the postings that should have been removed. I mean, why was your (paraphrased) I'm not half as nasty posting from Nov 5, 2009 (>2:11 PM) removed, which I responded to at 4:15 PM with You are double so nasty?

Did you ask for it to be removed?

If so, why don't you do the moral, ethical, and Christian thing by requesting that your unethical outing postings be removed? Contact me off-list if you need the list.

How do ethics and morals related to technical CISSP skills, Joshua?

Joshua,

Certified Information Systems Security Professional (CISSP) is formally approved by the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) and has been adopted as a baseline for the U.S. National Security Agency's ISSEP program.

Unfortunately, such training as embodied by GuitarBill is devoid of basic netiquette, ethics, and morals.

Simple things like:

Rule 8: Respect other people's privacy

It is always a common courtesy to respect other's privacy, including personal information shared via blogs, webpages, messages, etc.

Rule 9: Don't abuse your power

Knowing more than others, or having more power than they do, does not give you the right to take advantage of them. You should never use your power to violate others privacy.

Violating the Privacy of Others is Improper Netiquette

Avoid sharing personal information about other people without their permission and knowledge. This includes sharing personal details, full names, addresses, phone numbers, and images. No one wants to find out that their privacy has been violated.

• Respect the privacy of other users on the Internet, just as you expect your privacy to be respected.
• Respect and protect the privacy of others. Do not distribute private information about others.

Are my charges of GuitarBill's lack of ethics and morals without merit? Go to the following and "Expand All" to get context.

The Measure of a Man (and GuitarBill not measuring up). Observe GuitarBill's three responses, at least two of which I have been unsuccessful at getting AlterNet to remove, despite being flagrant examples of highly personal attacks and violations of AlterNet policy. How about you doing some follow-up to that, Joshua?

Who is "Maxwell C. Bridges"? Or was that Craig? There were three comments in a row from GuitarBill, but who knows why one was removed and not the other two.

Who is "Maxwell C. Bridges"? More of the same.

Who is "Maxwell C. Bridges"? Although this is another copy & paste job from Mr. Bill, what should be noted is that I wasn't even participating in the discussion to this article!

Joshua, now that it has been brought to your attention, how about you exhibiting some netiquette and morals as well, by helping me get those postings removed?

Outing is a dispicable and underhanded HIGHLY PERSONAL ATTACK
Posted by: MaxBridges on Nov 5, 2009 11:19 AM

You are double so nasty

Don't kid yourself, fuckhead. You are indeed as nasty (or nastier) as I say. Explain to your wife what you've done and see what she thinks.

If you were really trying to protect me or my family:

• You would not have provided the instructions for the not-so-IT-savvy of the world to research me. You have no fucking clue of the damage you've done, asswipe!
• You would not have exposed my last name or my email address. A first name would have sufficed, dickweed.
• You could have contacted me off-list to get my goat.

In order for me to support ae911Truth with verified credentials as one who studied engineering (which is why I so easily exposed your fucking lies from your "advanced math degree and 3 years of college physics"), I had to register as me, not a pen-name.

Your exposure of that profile and associating it with my pen-name is deplorable! Absolutely no cause, no justification, no moral grounds!

Talk about real fucking damage, when was the last time you had to look for a job? Ever had an employer google you?

It is within my rights as an American to speak out about the 9/11 lies, but as has been proven by many professionals (e.g., Jones, Ryan, Edmonds, etc.), it can cost you your job... or a future job.

So how are you going to sleep at night knowing that you've fucked over my children at some future date because your antics at outing me makes it more difficult for their dad to get a job?

You've repeatedly demonstrated an inability to apologize, so I highly doubt that you will ever find it in your heart to do the right thing by humbly appealing to the database admins at AlterNet to have *ALL* of your postings that out me removed in the hopes that Google's memory of them will have faded by the time I need a new job.

But that would be the responsible and moral thing to do, shithead.

Why is Craig's picture on my blog and facebook page, you ask?

Craig was and is fully aware of the pictures. He was making fun of the picture I did have there, so I figured I would post one that he couldn't object to.

Consider it a token honor for my favorite fan at the time. If I had your picture, I'd be happy to put in there in place of his, so that you would have something that you considered pretty to look at when you regularly checked up on me.

---

Proof of GuitarBill's immorality and dishonesty

Mr. Bill,

Yes, in the aftermath of The Measure of a Man that continues today, your metal was tested and you failed.

Aside from other things that your multiple unwarranted postings painfully bring to light, you prove that you are immoral, dishonest, dispicable, underhanded, without conscience, cowardly, uncharitable, un-Christian, un-American...

"Writing under a pseudonym or pen name on political topics has a long and distinguished history going back to the Federalist Papers."
~ alaskanlibrarian

"People who blog anonymously have a moral responsibility not to abuse their privilege by making nasty personal attacks against others from behind the mask of anonymity."
~ Rod Dreber

You could have made your point off-list to the email address I published. Did you, as I requested? No.

What were you afraid of? That your true name would be exposed or that the domain for your email address contains alternet.org, .gov, or .mil?

You insist on remaining anonymous and taking damaging public pot-shots against a real person without regards to decency or any sense of fair play.

Ironic that in this other 9/11 discussion, you railed against anonymity that you hide behind today.

FTR, I stand behind my pen name: Maxwell C. Bridges. I knew from my website's creation that it wasn't hidden from those with IT skills (or anyone with a badge and warrant). But those people adhere to internet etiquette about user privacy (despite having the means to circumvent this.) Pray that a correlation of your identity and online actions doesn't shoot your IT career in the foot.

I stand behind my words posted here to the point that I publish them on my website so they are available all at once (and might survive removal from AlterNet).

Where is your website or blog? Where do you prove that you stand behind both your GuitarBill alias and your words? Are your words worthy of being consolidated and read as a book?

Another FTR is that I did not accuse you of being all of those aliases on AlterNet. The list is just a list, except that many of the aliases have had tells in their postings that overlap with you, even if humorously (like "GuitarBilll" and "GuitarBill on"). Your quote-mining of me forgot to include the smiling emoticon.

As is your nature, if you want to twist that list into being an accusation, Mr. Bill, what is noteworthy in your much delayed weasel-worded response is that you have consistently still offered no denials.

Just like you offer no apologies (nor requests for removal of your outing postings), other than a big FUCK YOU.

Yes, Mr. Bill. There are indeed distinct differences between you and me.

I'm a real person.

You're a persona with zero regard for any consequences of your actions except that your pre-defined 9/11 coincidence agenda be carried out and that it win by any means.

Your one redeeming quality, albeit entirely by accident, is that you serve as a reliable Semaphore for 9/11 Truth, not for the words you write, but for the words in the postings you respond to. It might be time for honest seekers of truth to revisit Dr. Judy Wood just because you've marginalized her in the past.

Outing is a dispicable and underhanded HIGHLY PERSONAL ATTACK

GuitarBill, have you no decency, sir!

To post personal information with no apparant justification except to have fodder for a dispicable and underhanded HIGHLY PERSONAL ATTACK goes beyond the pale of uncivilized behavior!!!

Have you given no thought about the consequences of your (repeated) actions, not just to me, but to you, fuckhead? You undermine everything you have posted. Everything.

Do the honorable thing and request to have your posting(s) that out me removed? Are you man enough? Are you Christian enough?

Pseudonyms and Anonymous Sourcing

Writing under a pseudonym or pen name on political topics has a long and distinguished history going back to the Federalist Papers when Founders Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison wrote under the pen name of Publius in the late 1700s.

I believe that from a speech standpoint a pseudonym provides accountability. A person writes under her pen name and if called on misuse of facts or making stuff up can’t hide behind the “I didn’t say that” that anonymous blog commenters can.

So I don’t think using a pen name is itself bad for public discourse. ... Outing people is a form of Ad hominem attack to me. You don’t care about their facts or sources, you are arguing the writing shouldn’t be trusted because of the person hiding behind the pseudonyms.

In a few specialized cases, this could be legitimate. For example, it would be worthwhile to know that a blog purporting to be from an American Jihadi was in fact written by Dick Cheney to try and scare us. Or if a blog purporting to be that of a homeless man trying to get by on the streets of New York was actually being written by George Soros. But unless the outing is to show the writer isn’t in a position to know what he’s writing about, it’s not useful or conducive to public debate.
~ alaskanlibrarian

Against Outing (Most) Anonymous Bloggers

It is rash, uncharitable actions like the outing of Publius by Ed Whalen that prevents us all from enjoying the thoughts of countless folks who don’t blog because anonymity is prone to leak. This isn’t to say that anonymous blogging hasn’t any downsides, or that outing is wrong in all circumstances. In this case, however, the cost Mr. Whalen imposed on us all seems to come without any benefit to anyone save himself. I hope that the next time anyone decides to out an anonymous blogger, they’ve met a far higher threshold than is the case in this instance.
~ Conor Friedersdorf

On outing anonymous bloggers

People who blog anonymously have a moral responsibility not to abuse their privilege by making nasty personal attacks against others from behind the mask of anonymity. If you do abuse that, I don't feel sorry for you if you're outed. On the other hand, I think bloggers who out pseudonymous bloggers are, as a general matter, doing us all a grave disservice, by making it harder for people who have interesting things to say but who cannot say them under their own name (for professional or personal reasons) to get their ideas into public conversation. Bottom line: if you are going to out an anonymous blogger, you'd better have a very, very good reason for doing so, because the damage you can do to that person's career, and to the online public square, can be real and irreversible.
~ Rod Dreber

[9/11 Advice] To the brave truth-sayers and honest seekers for truth

Eventually your under-the-radar 9/11 truth postings will come to the attention of the Disinformationalist Warriors who are assigned to monitor this liberal and alternative discussion forum.

Learn from my experiences creating "Hey-Suess Chronicles Volume 3: Semaphore for Truth", which documents my side of similar battles in this forum probably against the very same opponents you will face.

• Write for posterity... d-r-o-p __ b-y __ d-r-o-p.
• Write well so that it is a worthy record for future database archeologists to discover and to cherish that our age had true patriots and [name your religion here, like] Christians.
• Write first off-line and save the drops yourself, because why leave your precious words to the whims of someone else's database?
• Don't be afraid to save the file as revision A so that you have it, but in revision B based on A, you edit out the detours into ad hominem and the like.
• When you are attacked with libel, slander, and smear, your best course of action is always to ignore it. Failing that, take the highroad.
• When it persists, an alternative is to embrace it, like this example of being called a "compulsive liar." Gave me the freedom to put the [CompulsiveLiar] tag in my subject lines: [CompulsiveLiar] The Lie is that I am Lying.. After all, those who speak truth are not afraid to have their words verified.
• Thank your attackers for being Semaphores for Truth, not for their words, but those of the postings they attack and flag.

I'm just another Blues Brother on a mission from God. My directives concerning 9/11 Truth were clear. "Feed my sheep."

Ironic: 9/11 Disinfo EncinoM gets debunked by GuitarBill and NIST about free-fall

EncinoM's typo-infested first paragraph said (sic):

"Still defendign the debunked free fall myth, I know its the only myth he you last to prove that you are not crazy and the Griffin & Co. were not leading you by the nose, while ripping you off."

The myth of 9/11 free-fall, eh?

Nothing like the sweet irony of having your fellow 9/11 coincidence theorist and disinformation warrior debunk you.

Quote mining the NIST Report again?
Posted by: GuitarBill on Aug 3, 2009 2:21 PM

You can read the money-quote directly from the NIST report:

"[2] In stage 2, the North face descended at gravitational acceleration as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the North face. The free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 meters (105 feet), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 and t= 4.0 seconds."

EncinoM, if you have an issue with free-fall during the collapse of WTC-7, then your issue is with NIST. Take it up with them.

And take it up with a significant amount of video evidence that any high school physics student can calibrate and calculate into revealing free-fall. Refer to Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

Now as for your misdirecting comment:

"First, you do not see the entire collapse in any of the videos, you do not see the damage on the opposite side and more importantly you do not hear an explosion. Every other controlled demolition has a very loud, very audible explosion, guess what is missing."

[1] You don't have to see the entire collapse to observe free-fall for a portion of it. That is the smoking gun. Deal with it.

[2] Yes, few people saw the damage on the opposite side, and fewer still made photographs. I didn't see any such photos until very recently.

Let's assume that those photos of damage weren't photoshopped and that the extensive damage was as NIST reported it, to the tune of 30% of the perimeter columns being severed, a huge portion of the side scooped out, and raging fires (?) weakening steel down to 35% its normal strength.

The damage and fires were asymmetric. Neither the fires nor the damage went 100% East-to-West North-to-South on a given floor, much less spanning across 8 floors.

Physics would suggest that if WTC-7 were to collapse, it would lean or topple in an asymmetric fashion into the path of least resistance, either the scooped out area or where the structural steel was weakened the most.

Stage 2 was a SUDDEN transition into negligible support (meaning zero resistance to gravity) across 8 floors resulting in observable, measurable, symmetric free-fall.

[3] Your statements about "every other controlled demolition [having] a very loud audible explosion" is a strawman and true only for "every conventional controlled demolition," This does not have to be true for "non-conventional controlled demolitions" like one using nano-thermite.

Once you entertain the hypothetical of a larger conspiracy, those suspected had the deep pockets and access to technology to practically put those buildings into orbit, which they almost did by pulverizing them into fine powder that drifted up into the atmosphere.

Once you enlarge the circle of conspirators, evidence like the BBC newscast talking about WTC-7's collapse 20 minutes early make more sense.

EncinoM sets the [CompulsiveLiar] crown upon his head

EncinoM, you are a fucking liar. A charlatan. A dirty trickster. EncinoM wrote:

"WTC 7 took 16-18 seconds to come down. You hold on to the 6 second myth, because after everything else has been debunked, all the truth movement has is building 7 and free fall. You discount the begining of the collapse, the NIST report regarding the large areas of damage and gashes in the lower floors and repeat your mantra of free fall."

You lie that I hold to a 6 second myth. The length of time in the overall collapse was never the issue. Use your fucking 16-18 seconds padded with 8.2 seconds of penthouse collapse, or use DECADES as per the Zen standard; I'll fucking support either one.

The fact remains that during whatever time span you use to measure its collapse came the fateful short time period that NIST has documented as Stage 2: 105 feet of gravitational acceleration. The mass of the building fell through 8 stories of its path of greatest resistance with NO FUCKING RESISTANCE (the very definition of free-fall.)

This missive to GuitarBill applies to you now.

A further lie is that I discount both the beginning of the collapse and the large areas of damage and gashes in the lower floors. I don't.

I'm just smart enough to know that in over-designed structures like these steel skyscrapers, such damage (if true) respresented a weakened structure, but NOT ZERO STRUCTURE over the entirety of 8 floors.

EncinoM wrote:

"I sleep soundly, I don;t write to defend lies, but to make sure that the memories of those who died in both OKC and on 9/11 are not tarnished by the snake oil salesmen and the mindless sheep that follow them."

Oh, how touching and patriotic of you. Too bad it is bullshit.

First of all, you do write to defend lies. Doesn't matter what 9/11 issue that concerned citizens have, you always happen to defend the government's more benign version even when it is a proven wrong.

Secondly, the cluster-fuck that is the US invasion of Iraq was sold to us by snake oil salesmen on the very memories of those who died on 9/11. They fucking lied us into it from WMD's to 9/11=Saddam=9/11. And when you scratch the surface of 9/11 before, during, and after, Afghanistan proves to be more snake oil sales from the sames salesmen.

Although things like the the USA PATRIOT Act appear to be knee-jerk reactions, this document was written up and ready for the 9/11 hammer to fall. Bush was violating FISA and spying on us ~before~ 9/11. Bush backed out of the International War Crimes Court from day 1, because they knew that their planned torture of detainees (to get false confessions about 9/11) would put them in violation.

In any event, if you truly believe those words about not letting snake oil salesmen tarnish the memories of those who died in OKC and on 9/11, you better open your fucking eyes and see who the salemen were.

More to the point, you better re-evaluate your performance in the role of a mindless sheep in following and defending such snake oil salesmen.

Are you trying to earn the [CompulsiveLiar] title away from GuitarBill?

I wrote:

"Because as you and GuitarBill prove, attacks on (planted) crack pot theories is a distraction to discredit the whole Truth Movement and the more reasonable and provable theories (like controlled demolition causing WTC-7 stage 2 gravitational acceleration)."

EncinoM responded:

"Bending the truth to fit your talking points."

No bending of truth, just you doing some revisionist history. In order to distract from WTC-7 8 stories (100+ feet) of NIST-documented free-fall, you have repeatedly brought up the overall collapse time of 16/18 seconds (which itself was obtained by the slight-of-hand of including 8.2 seconds of the East Penthouse collapse) just so that you could weasel your way into saying "the collapse did not occur at free fall speed."

EncinoM wrote:

"I am usually go after Griffin and S. Jones and their theories. Are these the crack pots of the truthiness movement that you are talking about? What about Gage, AE Truth and Gage's card board boxes or Loose Change? These are all highly cited to as "evidence"."

First of all, you shouldn't be "going after" anyone. Stick to the theories, thank you very much.

Secondly, it is very telling that your debunking of Gage's 2 hour presentation boils down to a 30-second demonstration (for the physics-challenged) that employs card-board boxes and isn't as far-fetched as you make it seem. Your focus on this makes me doubt that you have even viewed his entire presentation and -- like your parroting of GuitarBill about WTC-7 16/18 seconds of (overall) collapse times -- strikes me as you simply adhering to your government issued talking points.

You go on to erroneously claim:

"No evidence has come forth that supports any of the various MIHOP theories."

Contrary to your delusions, 105 feet of observable free-fall in the collapse of a 47-story building that fell essentially into its own footprint is evidence enough that the government's story is a lie and a new investigation is required.

Until you can acknowledge the fact that free-fall could only have happened with additional (pre-planted) energy sources and therefore insider conspirators with foreknowledge, well... you're obviously in no frame of mind to consider the legion of other anomalies that the government's commissions and agencies have unsatisfactorily answered or outright ignored.

Of course another discussion that could have provided evidence into motive saw you tag-teaming into the realm of discrediting the messenger [anomymous sources not admissable in a court of law] and not the message. I'm still waiting for your analysis.

It isn't that no evidence has come forth. It is that you doggedly refuse to consider it. Coincidence or by employer directive?

EncinoM wrote:

"Your two post were long on words with little substance."

Translation:

I couldn't be bothered to read and understand the whole thing, even though the discussion on this article a day later has dwindled to you and I, and I had more than 33 minutes to ponder a response.

EncinoM wrote:

"[I]t still stands that an individual disgruntled with the government, feed a cancerous philososphy by the militia movement, attacked the federal building in Oklahoma."

Six words expose your subtle lies: an individual... attacked the federal building. And if it wasn't a lie, then it is surely proof that you know next to nothing about OKC (not even what Wiki says) and should probably investigate it more thoroughly with an open-mind, being ready of course to see parallels and connections with 9/11.

Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were the two who were scapegoated. Were you to investigate this, you'd learn that the manure-fed bomb in their U-haul truck was too far away from the federal building and not potent enough to cause the entirety of the observed destruction. Other (unexploded) explosives were found in the building, thereby enlarging the circle of conspirators.

I don't doubt that McVeigh was fed "a cancerous philososphy by the militia movement," but the additional factors you neglect to point out was that the militia movement itself was probably most definitely infiltrated by various government agencies and the feeding may have come from those instigators, who, if recent history is any indication, may have been responsible for supplying the knowledge and means.

EncinoM wrote:

"No matter how much you or Alex Jones wish to put the blame on the US government, the truth still stands."

Indeed. The truth still stands. The US government is not as benign to its citizens in these events as you are directed to defend it.

A personal question for you, EncinoM. I've read that the Predator fighter-jocks working state-side but commanding hell-fire onto Afghani and Iraqi targets suffer worse PTSD than those actually in combat, due to the major transition from stressful hours of real life-and-death (for the opponent) fighting to peaceful home life with wife and kids.

My question for you is how you balance in your mind and beliefs the disinformation that you craftily promote here versus the 9/11 truth that others expose and that your rational & logical self recognizes begrudgingly as true? Surely your belief system must be in internal conflict that you must write and defend lies?

Who provided aide and comfort to homeland enemies? Homeland agencies.

EncinoM wrote:

"LEts be honest the militia movement is not out to protect anyones liberties, but to enforce their desire to see a Christian Nation. They have a perverted view of liberty and the constitution."

You almost had me in 100% agreement with that entire paragraph. What sticks in my craw is the phrase "[they're] not out to protect anyone's liberties." I disagree, because at the very least, they are protecting their own liberties, and in doing so, are protecting mine.

But hey, in being honest about the militia movement, I'm admitting to their (radical fundamental) Christianization and perversion of liberty, which has always given me pause for concern. Moreover, they seem to exhibit xenophobia and racism in the name of Jeebus, and hypocritically support torture and illegal wars in misguided efforts to protect the homeland and its Constitution.

EncinoM wrote:

"They and their philosophy are what cause the carnage in Oklahoma and no amount of revisionist history can change that."

Let's you be honest as well, dear Mr. EncinoM, and admit that you have not truly researched OKC and all of the lingering questions and anomalies, much like 9/11. And for what research into either that you can claim, a pattern not just of accepting the government's version but also of actively defending it point-by-point comes out.

So in this honesty session, I can concur that the militia movement may have had a role in OKC (just like Saudi "Islamic terrorists" may have had a role in 9/11). But to attribute to them (and their philosophy) as causing the entirety of OKC is to give short-shrift to too many red-flags of that day. A role? Yes. The entire cause? No.

The militia movement was used. Osama bin Laden's people were used. Neither had the ability by themselves to carry out completely what was observed without help, help which coincidentally points back to the same factions (and philosophies) within the U.S. government. The FBI and other agencies have a long history not just of infiltration into "radical" groups but also of instigation within those groups, moving them beyond aspirational to operational. Case in point is nearly every case of terrorists activities being thwarted today, whereby the government agent (whatever disguise employed) egged the "aspirant" into action with promises of assisting with the means: the very explosives and technology to do the dirty deed.

You throw out the claims of "revisionist history," but that is what you are doing in trying to keep the message tightly coupled to the original story-lines provided by the government even in the face of newly revealed evidence, parallels to other events, trend-lines, and blatant dots needing to be connected.

EncinoM wrote:

"Alex Jones, yourself and others need to creat the conspiracy theories to hide your own fault in feeding and hiding this cancer, allowing it to spread and attack. The militia movement has reappeared in the townhall meetings, they are now tea-bagging and bring guns to political debates."

Hmmm. Very crafty nonsense. Your cause-and-effect supposition is wrong.

If you want to call "[the militia movement] and their philosophy" a "cancer" based on their reappearance, their tea-bagging Republican talking points, and their gun-toting to town hall meetings, I'm probably in agreement.

But to say that 9/11 (and OKC and ...) conspiracy theories were created (out of thin air) in order to feed, hide, and spread this cancer? No. This is wrong for at least two reasons.

(1) Seven years under Bush of 9/11 conspiracy theories stoked by Alex Jones among others, yet no gun-toting tea-baggers were ever present in a Bush "Free-Speech Zone", much less one of his vetted-Republican-only town hall meetings. At best, they appeared on our border with Mexico in a misguided effort to stop immigration reform.

(2) The conspiracy probabilities stand on their own without the embrace of the militia movement. Sound scientific basis attracts even Christian Science pacifists. Their purpose in being discussed again and again by the likes of me is that God's Truth (on the order of 2+2=4 and planetary gravity keeps the Earth in orbit around the sun) is more important for our spiritual well-being in this life and the afterlife to be proclaimed from the mountain tops than erroneously believing and promoting any lie no matter how subtle (like 2+3=4.99, the Earth is flat, 9/11 was completely caused by foreign terrorists, and OKC was completely caused by the militia movement). Holding to the lie might momentarily profit us (with access to energy reserves) and might avoid the discomfort of (national) self-evaluation and painful correction to the tune of ousting all presently in government leadership (e.g., Congress), agency purges/reform, election reform, and maybe even State succession from the Republic.

When you lend your voice to discredit 9/11 messenger & message, the cancer that I think you feed and hide is avoidance of this national self-evaluation and correction.

EncinoM wrote:

"You and the truthers have been the ones to muddy the waters with crack pot theories. There is one onspiracy I do believe in, that the truth movement was created by Rove to distract the left and provide a fringe group to tar feather the anti-war prosters with."

Absolutely brilliant disinformation or sarcastic commentary!

Unfortunately, "Rove" was in the wrong sentence of that paragraph. Were he involved with the Truth Movement at all, it would have been like the influence of FBI infiltrators "to muddy the waters with crack pot theories."

Because as you and GuitarBill prove, attacks on (planted) crack pot theories is a distraction to discredit the whole Truth Movement and the more reasonable and provable theories (like controlled demolition causing WTC-7 stage 2 gravitational acceleration).

And certainly, because one of the rotten fruits of 9/11 that the Truth Movement exposes is the U.S. engagement in two foreign wars. If the Truth Movement can be seeded with crack pot theories, it can do double-duty in tarring and feathering the anti-war protesters.

Likewise, if you can put into one basket everyone from the truth movement, from Alex Jones' constituency, from the tea-bagging militia movement... why then you can further delay our much need national self-evaluation and correction.

[CompulsiveLiar] GuitarBill is the semaphore for 9/11 Truth

Mr. Bill,

Your posting is guilty of that dastardly AlterNet crime of changing the subject, something so offensive according to you that you have hung it around many an opponent's neck like a burning tire whether it was warranted or not to distract from your own misdeeds and belittle your opponents' salient points.

Have you watched the Core of Corruption videos for validity? I didn't think so. We'll be waiting with baited breath for your insightful review and skewing.

And what do you have to say about whole2th's tie-in of corporate media williningly spinning the fabel even as the events of 9/11 were unfolding? Kindly explain to us how the BBC knew 20 minutes ahead of time that the WTC-7 would fail entirely and collapse. [And yes, its overall collapse time would be either 16-18 seconds or decades, the latter being the Zen standard that WTC-7 began its collapse as soon as one beam was placed on top of another during its construction. Of course, whichever standard for the overall collapse time you use, that pesky stage 2 (8 stories, 100+) of gravitational acceleration combines with lots of foreknowledge by various groups to blow up the size of the conspiracy well beyond the 19 dead patsy hijackers.]

What are you distracting us from? Could it be the Israeli connection to 9/11?

We in the 9/11 Truth Movement wish to express our gratitude that you play your role of 9/11 government troll so well! You are a most reliable semaphore for 9/11 Truth, not however for any of the words that you write (or have written for you to copy-and-paste) but in their words of the postings you flag for attack. Thank you!

OOoooh NOooo! Mr. Bill!!!

[CompulsiveLiar] GuitarBill, an untouchable government semaphore for Truth

Yes, if Mr. Bill worked for AlterNet, then I suppose his goal would be to gore participants into discussion. The more discussion, even if a flame war, the larger the numbers that AlterNet can boast to its advertisers. Of course, Mr. Bill could prompt people into discussion in less offensive ways. If he were an AlterNet employee, I can't see why they would put up with it and all of the associated "Report this comment" messages.

Me? I could be wrong (and unlike Mr. Bill, I'll admit when I'm wrong and apologize), but a part of me still believes he's a government troll. Through his employer's hacking skills or connections/pressure on AlterNet, AlterNet can't get rid of him. A version of him will always come back. Better the devil you know than the one you don't. AlterNet puts up with his meddling, because he does inspire controversy with his flame wars that brings traffic to the site.

Mr. Bill's persistent existence on this site in the face of many of his opponents (PFGetty and CynicI) getting banned is for me a clue as to his (nearly) untouchable status. They posted information and links "uncomfortable" to those in power. When he got wound up, Mr. Bill would post the most unflattering, below-the-belt, ad hominem attacks, often right from the subject line to smear and discredit in the eyes of anyone as much as skimming the forum.

The topics that trigger Mr. Bill are another aspect to my suspicious: 9/11, Israel, and vaccinations come to mind.

Mr. Bill is intractable and never wrong. He can never be convinced of any questionable anomaly (of 9/11). He attacks each and every one that is brought up as if he has the definitive answer (to copy-and-paste), and lo and behold, it always agrees with the government's more benign version. There is nothing that can put a foot in the door of his closed-mind to let in a ray of sunshine that would be his "9/11 ah-ha moment."

Mr. Bill's supporting material have three problems. (1) Some are themselves dubious and more ad hominem mocking of 9/11 truth than factual. (2) Mr. Bill refuses to acknowledge the glaring holes in the reports of the agencies and commissions. (3) He knowingly chooses dubious aspects to purposely muddy the waters and kick sand in our eyes: disinformation.

Case in point of #3: Mr. Bill is always saying "WTC-7 did not happen at free-fall speeds; it happened in 16-18 seconds," which represents the overall collapse time of WTC-7. Yet the very NIST reports that he has quoted over a dozen times talks specifically of stage 2 of WTC-7's collapse -- 8 stories, 100+ feet -- that happened at free-fall. His supervisors won't let him think outside the box to answer the question regarding the ramifications of free-fall in any stage of any collapse of any WTC building on 9/11 or what those ramifications are in a larger geo-political context.

A real person can say they were wrong and "sorry." A real person can say "that point got me to thinking differently." A real person with a real job probably can't dedicate the time-suck that his postings here represent. The consequences to posting privileges and the inflicted emotional pain would temper a real person from posting (over and over):

"you anti-American, terrorist apologizing, conspiracy spewing, lying, degenerate piece of offal."

A real person has little to gain with alias-ASS-ociating jihads Prophit0=CynicI.

But don't take my word for it. Mr. Bill calls me a "Compulsive Liar" from the subject line to steer readers away from me. It makes Mr. Bill a semaphore for Truth, not for his words but their words in the postings he attacks.

OOoooh NOooo! Mr. Bill!!!

Motives and Means

In answer to Russell, the Office of Naval Intelligence was the only occupant of the re-furbished Pentagon Wing. See link below.

Here's the most comprehensive report I've seen yet to justify 9/11 as an inside job, and thankfully ties in the criminality of former CIA Director G. H. W. Bush as both Vice President (to clueless Reagan) and President.

http://www.israelshamir.net/Contributors/Collateral_Damage_911.pdf

"[N]ot only were the buildings targets, but ... specific offices within each building were the designated targets. ... [T]he attacks of September 11th were intended to cover-up the clearing of $240 billion dollars in securities covertly created in September 1991 to fund a covert economic war against the Soviet Union, during which 'unknown' western investors bought up much of the Soviet industry, with a focus on oil and gas. The attacks of September 11th also served to derail multiple Federal investigations away from crimes associated with the 1991 covert operation.
~ E. P. Heidner

The above explains motives. Below, we have evidence of the perpetrator's means.

NIST's Final Report on WTC-7 divides the first 18 stories of collapse into 3 stages. Stage 2 fell 8 stories or 100+ feet at "gravitational acceleration."

The ramifications of free-fall in any stage of collapse in any of the WTC buildings is additional energy sources (like explosives) had to be planted. Therefore the circle of 9/11 conspirators was much larger than 19 hijackers sitting in airplanes and included insiders.

The lack of an explanation for the breaking the laws of physics is admittedly but one piece of evidence of a crime, but it is a glaring one and one that can't be easily covered up by political appointees and discussion thread instigators.

This single free-fall feature brings awareness to the lies, cracks open the door in our nation's collective disbelief, and shuts down the coincidence theorists, who with the eagerness of those cashing government paychecks all too vocally & viciously lump everything about 9/11 -- including the advertising, the lead-up, the execution, the cover-up, and the distasteful follow-up -- as just "unfortunate coincidences."

For further information into this high school physics, http://www.youtube.com/ae911truth

"Perhaps the greatest fantasy of the present moment is that there is a choice here. We can look forward or backward, turn the page on history or not. Don't believe it. History matters."
~ Tom Engelhardt

"Truth, through her eternal laws, unveils error. Truth causes sin to betray itself... Even the disposition to excuse guilt or to conceal it is punished. The avoidance of justice and the denial of truth tend to perpetuate sin, invoke crime, jeopardize self-control, and mock divine mercy."
~ Mary Baker Eddy (ca. 1865)

Moral bubbles that need to be burst

Caleb emotionally wrote:

If in deed the Govt. were to be responsible for 911, then at some point there had to be a conversation between the president, and others that included what planes where to be used to crash into the towers.

One pary, "whoever", would suggest that the oh say fedex cargo planes be used to crash into the buildings and create the coverup. They would be easier to hijack, contain more fuel and serve the purpose. There would even be less chance of identification from a private airport.

Another person would have had to have said, No, I want to see planes filled with innocent men, women, and children crashed into the towers.

You see, I can't, and will never believe that conversation existed, It would be such a change in what would ultimately become a minor detail of 911 that the only reason for it would be a muderous lust for human blood. There could be no other excuse to use planes full of people.

What part of the conversation can't you believe? Before I poke a hole in the moral bubble you seem to have placed around the Bush Administration, allow me to take a detour into Iraq.

If we take the Bush Administration's statements and arguments at face value regarding the justification for invasion of Iraq, they would have us believe that Saddam not only had chemical and other weapons of mass destruction, but was prepared to use them on us. Therefore, in pre-emptive retaliation, the Bush Administration was prepared to march tens of thousands of U.S. service personnel directly into the resulting deadly chemical cloud, whose casualties could be calculated in numbers easily far greater than the civilian loss on 9/11.

Worse, the PNAC members who in great numbers later wielded influential positions in the Bush Administration had been lobbying (Clinton) for a long time for the U.S. to invade Iraq and listed in their "Rebuilding America's Defenses" document Iraq's dangers, a desire for a permanent military presence in the Middle East, and the value of a New Pearl Harbor to usher in speedily the military changes they desired.

The point is, this very group had already thought about sending great numbers of U.S. personnel into the chemical jaws of harm's way before they stole an election. So clearly, what are a few more civilian casualties to tie a national emotional bow around their endeavors? This is prick one into their fabled moral bubble.

Prick two is that there is little moral difference between flying a Fed Ex plane into a building and flying a civilian plane, because the attacks were planned for a time of day with the buildings were occupied. Civilians on the ground were going to be sacrificed anyway. What's a few more sitting in passenger seats?

Prick three is for you to Google "Operation Norwood" that was a (rejected) proposal during the JFK administration, but proof that such conversations you fear do regularly take place and were happening prior to 9/11.

Prick four is that there were at least four military exercises taking place on 9/11 (under the command of Vice-President Cheney) that most coincidentally were practicing the very types of hijacking scenarios that the true events of 9/11 turned out to be. Because they were practicing it, you can't very well say that they never thought about, never discussed it, and never acted on it [which the leader of the opposing forces in the military game did.]

I will spare you the Alice-in-Wonderland rabbit hole about no-planes (Google "September Clues") due to my own waffling on the matter. But if your argument about morals in the Bush Administration were valid and how commercial passenger planes could not be used due to its distasteful "murderous lust for human blood," it would be another straw for co-opting corporate media and faking the airplane crashes.

Caleb wrote:

There is a line drawn in the sand at some point where we recoil and say that a thing is so beyond comprehension that it could not have ever happened. And at some point we also recoil from persons who can believe these things. Persons who have a thought pattern so alien from our own that we simply can not listen to them.

Exactly. But some of the dots you are personally not connecting include the line that the very same 9/11 suspects re-drew in our moral sands regarding torture, detention without trials, and remotely flown Predator drones raining down hell-fire on Afghani, Iraqi, and Pakistani civilians.

Whereas you may have morals, don't project your same values on those particular leaders, because they regularly proved their ability to give lip-service to such standards, but their true actions contradicted that.

A final prick to your moral bubble is to assume that only those who swallow the government's coincidence theories on 9/11 and acted in bloody vengence on at least two innocent countries as a result are honoring the 3000 people who died that morning. Were their spirits talking to us through this forum, I'm sure they'd be applauding the 9/11 Truth Movement and cheering both its patriotism and [name your religion here, like] Christianity in speaking Truth to lies.

"Though error hides behind a lie and excuses guilt, error cannot forever be concealed. Truth, through her eternal laws, unveils error. Truth causes sin to betray itself, and sets upon error the mark of the beast. Even the disposition to excuse guilt or to conceal it is punished. The avoidance of justice and the denial of truth tend to perpetuate sin, invoke crime, jeopardize self-control, and mock divine mercy."
~ Mary Baker Eddy (ca. 1865)

I've answered your hypothetical, now you answer mine.

Here is how you answer a hypothetical. You state up front "for the sake of discussion" and "assuming this, that, and the other thing", and then you proceed to think outside your normal narrow-minded box, put yourself into an unfamiliar point-of-view, and simply answer the question to the best of your ability.

As part of his own non-answer to my question (which to him would have been a hypothetical), EncinoM throws out his own hypothetical regarding the difficulty of wiring buildings for demolition.

Here's how I'll answer EncinoM:

In going into the details of building occupancy, security, challenges of rigging the building for demolition, etc., your hypothetical seems to make many assumptions regarding the perpetrators and the demolition methods available. Everything you mentioned would indeed be a near insurmountable challenge for an outsider, not to mention a foreigner (from Afghani caves who then died in a jet crash).

Think outside the box.

• IF the true perpetrators weren't outsiders but were insiders,
• IF they were building tenants (like the CIA, not a hypothetical),
• IF they had influential ties on the board of directors of the companies running security details,
• IF they had been planning and working on this a long time,
• IF they had deep pockets with respect paying for (outsourced) experts and non-conventional demolition methods,

THEN everything you bring up in your hypothetical is a, *ho-hum*, minor inconvenience: something to think about, plan for, and implement on the graveyard shift under the guise of housecleaning or maintenance when few would notice or care. Nothing more.

Case in point, nano-thermite explosives, as is being suggested now, was not something necessarily that bomb sniffing dogs would catch. Wireless technology may be more expensive, but solves a good portion not only of the rigging issue, but also of tell-tale wiring remnants in the debris pile. Some believe that certain floors were targeted, therefore rigging withstanding jet impacts did not have to be an issue.

Tons of explosive material? True with conventional demolition methods, but easily solved with extended preparation time or large crew sizes, or both. Is it true with non-conventional demolition methods? Doesn't matter except that if false, then prep times or crew sizes can be reduced.

There, I've addressed your hypothetical question. Now you answer my (not so hypothetical) question:

"What are the ramifications of free-fall in any stage of collapse in any of the buildings destroyed on 9/11 both in the context local to the event and in the greater context of geo-political concerns?"

Panic about PNAC and your inefficient quote-mining and poor reading comprehension

GuitarBill laments in his quote-mining:

Source: PNAC: Rebuilding America's Defenses.

So, the report states that integrating information technologies into the military will take a long period of time, unless an unexpected attack reveals our technological inferiority, in the same way Pearl Harbor led to the huge expansion of our Navy.

Not one word of the report urges regime change in Iraq, or anywhere else, for that matter.

Wrong, GuiltyBilly. Your quote-mining didn't snag enough content.

* PNAC saw Iraq (South Korea, and Iran) as a threat for acquiring ballistic missiles.

* PNAC wanted to project American force into the Gulf region with permanent military bases regardless of Saddam Hussein's regime, but that the unresolved Iraqi conflict provided immediate justification.

* PNAC wanted to transform the military with respect to global missile defenses, control of space and cyberspace, and conventional forces (like using contractors and mercenaries). However, such change to the military would not happen quickly without a catalyst and needed to occur within the larger framework of U.S. national security strategies.

Connect the freakin' dots. With 9/11 as the catalyst, PNAC (who by then had become influential members of the Bush Administration) could and did achieve its shopping list.

Ooops, GuitarBill. Looks like your disinformation campaign took another downward turn, because how the military exhibited its control of cyberspace as part of the wishlist is something for us all on AlterNet to consider... and certainly for us to connect the dots with you.

If outer space represents an emerging medium of warfare, then “cyberspace,” and in particular the Internet hold similar promise and threat. And as with space, access to and use of cyberspace and the Internet are emerging elements in global commerce, politics and power. Any nation wishing to assert itself globally must take account of this other new “global commons.”

The Internet is also playing an increasingly important role in warfare and human political conflict. From the early use of the Internet by Zapatista insurgents in Mexico to the war in Kosovo, communication by computer has added a new dimension to warfare.

Here is his link again plus expanded sections from the document.

From PNAC: Rebuilding America's Defenses.

Section III REPOSITIONING TODAY'S FORCE states (emphasis added):

The current American peace will be short-lived if the United States becomes vulnerable to rogue powers with small, inexpensive arsenals of ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads or other weapons of mass destruction. We cannot allow North Korea, Iran, Iraq or similar states to undermine American leadership, intimidate American allies or threaten the American homeland itself.

...

The presence of American forces in critical regions around the world is the visible expression of the extent of America's status as a superpower and as the guarantor of liberty, peace and stability. Our role in shaping the peacetime security environment is an essential one, not to be renounced without great cost: it will be difficult, if not impossible, to sustain the role of global guarantor without a substantial overseas presence. ... Whether established in permanent bases or on rotational deployments, the operations of U.S. and allied forces abroad provide the first line of defense of what may be described as the "American security perimeter."

Since the collapse of the Soviet empire, this perimeter has expanded slowly but inexorably. ... In the Persian Gulf region, the presence of American forces, along with British and French units, has become a semipermanent fact of life. Though the immediate mission of those forces is to enforce the no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq, they represent the long-term commitment of the United States and its major allies to a region of vital importance. Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.

And Section V CREATING TOMORROW'S DOMINANT FORCE states (emphasis added):

To preserve American military preeminence in the coming decades, the Department of Defense must move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts, and seek to exploit the emerging revolution in military affairs. Information technologies, in particular, are becoming more prevalent and significant components of modern military systems. These information technologies are having the same kind of transforming effects on military affairs as they are having in the larger world. The effects of this military transformation will have profound implications for how wars are fought, what kinds of weapons will dominate the battlefield and, inevitably, which nations enjoy military preeminence.

...

Any serious effort at transformation must occur within the larger framework of U.S. national security strategy, military missions and defense budgets. ... A transformation strategy that solely pursued capabilities for projecting force from the United States, for example, and sacrificed forward basing and presence, would be at odds with larger American policy goals and would trouble American allies.

Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions.

In general, to maintain American military preeminence that is consistent with the requirements of a strategy of American global leadership, tomorrow's U.S. armed forces must meet three new missions:

* Global missile defenses. ...

* Control of space and cyberspace. Much as control of the high seas - and the protection of international commerce - defined global powers in the past, so will control of the new "international commons" be a key to world power in the future. An America incapable of protecting its interests or that of its allies in space or the "infosphere" will find it difficult to exert global political leadership.

* Pursuing a two-stage strategy for of transforming conventional forces. ... This process must take a competitive approach, with services and joint-service operations competing for new roles and missions.

The WTC 7 did too fall at free fall rates.

Here's GuitarBill trying to get out of a speeding ticket.

==========

Officer: Do you know how fast you were going?

GB: Look, Officer. I have right here a receipt from McDonalds in town X with a time stamp of exactly 1 hour ago. Town X is 60 miles from here on this interstate highway. Therefore, I was only going 60 miles an hour.

Officer: Is that your final answer, because I was on your bumper going 90 for at least a quarter mile before you noticed me?

GB: This receipt proves it.

Officer: Okay, I'll be happy to take that receipt as evidence.

GB: Hey, how come you're still writing me up a ticket?

Officer: Several actually. Between here and town X are four construction zones each about 5 miles long and each with reduced speed limits of 30 mph. So, driving 60 miles an hour as you claim, then you've got four tickets with fines doubled for speeding through those four construction zones...

GB: I didn't speed through those zones.

Officer: In which case to make up the time to travel this distance in an hour, you'd have to travel 120 mph in the five non-construction zone areas. Should have shut up when you had the chance of a single 90 mph speeding ticket. What do you know? With this handy receipt, I can work the numbers that has you speeding both in construction and non-construction zones. Let's run the numbers on the speeds to maximize my police department's revenue.

++++++++++++

So here we have the evidence, not just of 9/11 being an inside job, but of you, dear Mr. Bill -- Oh, No! Mr. Bill!!! -- being a liar and 9/11 government troll paid to spread disinformation.

Why didn't you copy-and-paste the quote I asked you to? You did it all the time before. Was it because that's the smoking gun that your disinformation handlers no longer allow you to bring up because you've screwed the pooch on it?

And why didn't you answer the questions?

Why couldn't you step out of your little iddy-biddy box to consider the questions about the ramifications of free-fall in WTC-7 and in the overall political context of 9/11 even as a hypothetical? How many times have I asked you?

Just like apologies aren't in your vocabulary, neither are deviations from the NWO talking points.

Why didn't NIST label the collapse of the east penthouse Stage 0A and Stage 0B? [Stage 0A was penthouse (1 story) that fell at gravitational acceleration and was followed by a long Stage 0B where nothing was observed falling on the external structure.] Or if they were so important and would have given such a really long collapse time, why weren't all stages re-indexed with the east penthouse becoming Stage 1?

Because NIST didn't want to point out that the very first stage high up in the building far from any fires fell for no reason and in free-fall. They didn't want to highlight the penthouse at all, because in any other recorded controlled demolition, collapsing penthouses in the earliest of stages followed by a lull (Stage 0B) is an indication of explosives taking out underlying infrastructure.

Geez, NIST had it bad enough that the three stages they did identify had stage 2 glaring at them with 8 stories of free-fall. Why couldn't you stick with their weasel-words that said the first 18 stories of collapse (not including the penthouse) happened at 40% greater than gravitational acceleration?

So, Mr. Bill, you're wandering off script and into stupid waters with the east penthouse.

I'll concede that your math might be correct, but your conclusions and analysis are purposely misleading, false, and meaningless. You prove yourself the liar.

Proof of the disinformation warrior's performance objectives...

I made the following comment in a posting on Sep 3, 2009 12:36 PM.

"From what anyone can easily observe in the time stamps of the postings, the government disinformation trolls must have a line item in their performance evaluations to "respond to targeted themes or posters within a 1/2 hour if possible." You can tell when GuitarBill starts getting overwhelmed, because his content gets reduced to an insulting subject line and a body with repeated copy-and-paste info (e.g., talking points) and lame links aimed at debunking 9/11 truth."

And what do we observe not even 10 minutes later, Posted by GuitarBill on Sep 3, 2009 12:46 PM:

"Well, if it isn't Max, the "no planer" nut. So how's insanity treating you, Max? Still working with your lunatic buddy, Dr. Judy Wood, on that star wars conspiranoid theory? Really Max, how's insanity treating you? Nutter."

I rest my case.

Notice how GuitarBill wastes no time in libeling me right from the subject. Notice how he attempts to associate me with fringe elements of the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Let the record show that GuitarBill went into 9/11 first even before his lame signature links.

Stage 2 documented in NIST's Final Report on WTC-7 is sufficient to convince anyone on the planet who had high school physics (or more) that 9/11 was an inside job. NIST admits that 8 stories (>100 feet) of WTC-7 fell in 2.5 seconds at gravitational acceleration. How the building's infrastructure suddenly transition from support (even if weakened) to nothing over those 8 floors is the glaring hole in the official 9/11 fairy-tale that the likes of GuitarBill defends, because short of Allah circumventing his own laws of the universe, it means that another energy source (ala explosives) was present to remove the material over 8 stories to affect that observable and recorded freefall.

We don't need to go any further down this rabbit hole, but as long as you bring up no planes (ala Google "September Clues") and Dr. Judy Wood, there is something to be said about their analysis, which does not take away from NIST's admission of WTC-7 freefall, and which has merit to those earnest and honest seekers of truth.

GuitarBill, if you've truly had three years of college physics, then surely your review of Dr. Wood's evidence would show where her conclusions have merit. I have seen the pictures of very suspicious burned out cars in the vicinity of the towers that were not hit by burning falling debris. [This would have been covered in the electromagnetic fields and waves portion of your education.]

I don't rule out nano-thermite, cruise missiles, unconventional (nuclear) weapons, or the psychological operation of fake airplanes foisted on us by corporate media. They do not have to be mutually exclusive. From what well research supposition I have read into the motives of insiders for 9/11, the perpetrators had very deep pockets and were hell-bent on making it happen to the point of:

- stealing an election to get into power. - contracting with Mossad to garner plausible deniability. - staging multiple confusing wargames. - implementing overkill in the destruction (can you say, pulverization? freefall? Coincidences?) - covering-up for their misdeeds (like letting captured Israeli's and bin Laden family members to leave after 9/11) - distracting from their misdeeds with patriotic military actions.

Collateral Damage of 9/11 (PDF)

"[T]he attacks of September 11th were intended to cover-up the clearing of $240 billion dollars in securities [and] also served to derail multiple Federal investigations away from crimes.
~ E. P. Heidner

Finding the trigger and GuitarBill's opposite day

CynicI,

You wanted a trigger to what set off disinformation warrior, GuitarBill?

I think it is anything that could send Cheney or any significant members of the Bush Administration to the execution chamber.

The disinformation link is worth reading when you get a chance.

Here are some keys to the motivation behind GuitarBill's postings and smears:

- Note the time stamps! For him to collect the most on his per-posting paycheck once a trigger has fired, he must respond within 30 minutes.

- Note the subject! GuitarBill must discredit his opponents as quickly as possible. If a reader is reading in threaded mode, the label or insult must appear in the subject. All the more so when multiple people are posting (across articles), which then causes the body of his posting to be neglected into a cut-and-paste re-hash or more juvenile insults.

- Note the subject again! When he starts calling you a liar, it really means "GuitarBill's opposite day"! You're telling the truth, and GuitarBill is lying. GuitarBill is skilled at taking his weaknesses and applying them to others; when they recognize the failings as his own and point that out, they'll then get flamed for the unoriginality in trying to re-purpose the weakness back to GuitarBill.

- I'm all for providing quotations, references, and links. GuitarBill calls that quote-mining, which he himself is guilty of. However, when GuitarBill calls out for "evidence to support such accusations," keep in mind that he's really just creating busy work for you that he won't read or consider and breathing room for himself as he awaits your response.

- Many of his "prove it" taunts are also framed uniquely, to say the least. That can be a clue to his dishonest intentions.

P.S. GuitarBill and EncinoM have tag-teamed me in the past on the subject of 9/11.

Bait-and-Switch Presidency

Yes, regrettably the evidence is becoming clear that Obama, like Dubya before him, is a bait-and-switch president. Certainly circumstances are much different as are the roles (and their eloquence in playing them). Dubya purposely drove our economy down and got us into military entanglements. Now that the economy is down, Obama presides over the foreclosure auction where true wealth changes hands and Obama's $$$ backers are paid off.

Although I don't like to hear criticism of Obama, I will listen to and seriously consider valid criticism.

Example of invalid criticism: Birthers.

Examples of valid criticism: Obama taking single-payer and the public option off the table. Obama's superb rhetoric on closing Guantanamo isn't matched by action in resolving the sticky details of military tribunals and all of the other foreign and/or black sites. The same Sec. of Defense as Bush? The Sec. of the Treasury coming from the same financial entities that helped drive our economic collapse?

I will stand with a pitchfork on the barricades against Obama, providing that those leading the attacks recognize that the crimes of the Bush Administration have to be exposed and tried first, else no Obama Administration could ever be held accountable for their (perpetuation of the) crimes.

To that end, the patriotic American flag wrapped around 9/11 should no longer serve as part of its cover-up and needs to be seen for what it really is: among the colors of the insiders who perpetrated it.

If we really wanted a choice and an alternative in the elections, we need (at least) three reforms in the election process.

(1) Open-source public-verifiable election software/hardware (2) Instant Run-Off elections (3) Publicly funded elections

Regarding 1. As Stalin used to say (paraphrased): "It doesn't matter how you voted but who counts the votes."

With the change in party governance in 2006 and 2008 elections, the government wants us to believe the myth that all is well in electronic election land, and their counting on our short attention span in this area. You don't have to electronically tweak election results if both candidates on the ballot are in your pocket.

Still, that malicious power to tweak elections electronically exists, and might be a factor in public initiatives much closer to home, like medical Mary Jane, gay rights, or any of the three voting reforms given above.

Regarding 2. Instant Run-Off elections remove the argument that third-parties don't have a chance and that voting third-party is throwing your vote away. Individuals can vote their heart and conscience as first choice with the assurance that if their favored candidate as first choice is at the bottom, their second choice on the same ballot could be "more reasonably be for a candidate with a better chance of winning" (although I think this will prove to be unfounded wishful "conventional" thinking propagated by those in power to stay in power.)

A spin-off of instant run-off elections is that even if third-parties lose the election, they will receive a higher percentage of the votes that then raise the stature in subsequent elections in being taken seriously, getting on ballots, receiving matching government funding, participating in debates, etc.

Regarding 3. Public-financed elections should be a no-brainer. Money shouldn't be coming from the deep-pockets of special interests to make the representatives beholden to them rather than their constituency. If serious candidates from all serious parties [as determined by election results] all had comparable public funding, an additional benefit is that we could probably enact laws to reel in the election campaign cycle to, like, the six months prior to the vote.

Where, oh, where did my [9/11 Truth Movement] go?

Bureaucracy has a massive strength that individuals do not: time. They can wait longer than any living individual by design so that the individual will give up or die.

Today, almost 8 years after 9/11/2001, the government with the help of corporate media has nearly run out the clock in the public's short attention span of the event. For what attention the public could muster, what lingers is the labeling of outside inquiries and analysis of 9/11 as "kooky," "looney," and "crazy." Your label 9/11 Truthiness says much about your position and motives.

If you haven't been paying attention, serious news has been in a death spiral for a very long time (predating the world wide web.) Corporate media consolidations and "cost cutting efforts" depleted the staff in the area of investigation and analysis, which further helps the agendas of both government and corporate media. But then along came the web, where to remain competitive and relevant meant bleeding themselves by giving away for free the content that previously had to be paid-for.

Serious, weighty news is always in competition with the frivolous. Much of the frivolous is enhanced and manufactured, partly because corporate media knows that it is human nature to rubber-neck gawk at accidents & starlets (and other odd things) which brings eyes to their advertisers, so they milk the public's attention while they can. And partly because corporate media is not in a vacuum with respect to government, meaning that both need to curry favors from the other. Combine the two, and you'll observe the "tragedy" of some public persona get overhyped and overplayed particularly if a government scandal has been exposed at about the same time.

Unless they are banging the drums of war or wanting more investment into national security, both the government and corporate media want us to believe that 9/11/2001 discussion has exceeded its "sell-by" date and is no longer relevant to the public's short attention span.

They'd be wrong.

War crimes and murder don't have any time limitations on filing charges.

Much to the chagrin of corporate media, their vast line-up of specialty cable channels and programming demonstrates that there is an attentive audience for anything (channels for old television programs, for kids, for history, for cartoons, for cooking, for music, for news... and even for the proceedings in the Senate and House of Representatives, that are surprisingly well received.)

The Nixon Watergate show, Iran-Contra show, the Clinton-Lewinsky show, etc. proves that televised government scandals can be ratings makers.

Government doesn't want to hear that, which is why it would appear that they get people like you to plant the seeds that 9/11 is a dead issue that no one cares about anymore, a "strategic deception operation" in and of itself, no? "Where are the 9/11 protests?"

9/11 TruthSayers are tired. They are tired of being stomped on, of being marginalized, of ignored, of being attacked with disinformation.

However, 9/11 lies won't go away. They will be exposed. Truth, being a divine attribute, has even more patience than the massive amounts of time that bureaucracies enjoy.

It might take our grandchildren plowing through the newly unsealed archives of the Bush I & II Administrations. And when that day comes, will our contributions to the contemporary database archives of sites like this bring them pride or shame?

History Major who can't read, research, or do math...

Lemuel G. wrote:

"Max... the 'physics' are irrelevant here, and your demands for explanation non-sensical.

9/11 Physics is only irrelevant to the ignorant and those with pre-defined closed-minded agendas.

The lack of an explanation for the breaking the laws of physics is admittedly but one piece of evidence of a crime, but it is a glaring one and one that can't be easily covered up by political appointees and discussion thread instigators.

Firstly, you can rabbit-on all day long about this or that characteristic of a falling building... but ... this does not go any way at all toward proving a crime occurred, and if so, who perpetrated it.

As much as I'd like say, "I can see your point" and "taken in isolation you might be right," I can't. You're just wrong and are simply parading how little research into 9/11 that you, as a history major, have performed.

Taken in isolation, the characteristics of the falling WTC-7 building are incredible: not to be believed based on the shifting stories provided by the government.

The purpose of "rabbiting" about this single feature is to bring awareness to the lies, to crack open the door in our nation's collective disbelief, and to shut down the coincidence theorists, who with the eagerness of those cashing government paychecks all too vocally & viciously lump everything about 9/11 -- including the advertising, the lead-up, the execution, the cover-up, and the distasteful follow-up as given in the article above -- as just "unfortunate coincidences."

To your point, NIST's admission of freefall in Stage 2 does not name a perpetrator, except to imply that hijackers in airplanes could not have achieved it by themselves and needed insiders, and that collateral damage (and fires) inflicted by the collapses of the neighboring towers cannot account for an over-designed modern skyscraper freefalling through eight stories.

WTC-7 has many, many issues that even rudimentary research on your part would bring to light. (For example, there are reports that explosions and fires happened in WTC-7 before either of the neighboring towers came down.)

Secondly, you are the one who is making extraordinary claims, therefore the burden of proof is upon you.

A history major who cannot read. The links were provided.

- Collateral Damage of 9/11 (PDF)
- Collateral Damage of 9/11 Part II(PDF)

The building got fucked-up, and then it fell over. (hey, I've got a degree in history, not structural engineering)

I agree with the statement: "The building got fucked-up." The issues are when did the building get fucked and how.

As for "it falling over", wrong, wrong, wrong. That's the issue. Had it fallen over, that would have been believable. No. Despite having 30% of its perimeter columns severed and a large portion of one side "scooped out" (supposedly), the building did not fall over. It fell straight through the path of most resistance... And worse still, the longest duration stage 2 shows that "most resistance" was not even 35% resistance (ala fire weakened steel) but was 0% resistance!!!

You don't have to be a structural engineer. High school physics suffices.

Even if we were to agree (and I don't) that the buildings were intentionally demolished, how can you prove it was the Bushies?

Means, motive, and opportunity. The history revealed by E. P. Heidner in the links are compelling.

Next time, before posting your knee-jerk responses, do some reading and research like in the links provided.

Not understanding the NIST Report again?

GuitarBill asks:

"So why did you leave out stages 1 and 3? I'll tell you why. Because the specifics of stages 1 and 3 don't support your "free-fall" lies."

That is a very stupid and lame argument. We ought to be able to agree to the validity of NIST's description of all three stages.

Stages 1 and 3 don't have to show evidence of free-fall and don't need to be discussed, because if any single stage has evidence of free-fall, then the government's lie about 9/11 is exposed.

Stage 2 happens to be time-wise the longest stage and represents 105 feet (8 stories) of the collapse distance. In past postings, you've tried to convey how damaged WTC-7 was. As I recall, 30% of its perimeter columns were supposedly severed; the remaining steel was weakened to 35% of its normal strength due to extreme fires.

Although there remains questions about how and when such damaged occurred, hey, just as I agreed to NIST's description of the three collapse stages, I'll agree to this theory of the extent of the damage.

The question that remains is: how did (weakened) columns, floors, and materials over 8 stories suddenly transition from 35% strength into negligible support, which is just a fancy way of saying nothing was there to offer any resistance to the falling mass?"

Your focusing on stages 1 and 3 and ignoring the significance of stage 2 proves your dishonesty, which regrettably was already demonstrated by the repetition and vindictiveness in your postings.

I suggest you break our your first semester physics book and review what free-fall means.

For further information into this high school physics, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

"Truth, through her eternal laws, unveils error. Truth causes sin to betray itself... Even the disposition to excuse guilt or to conceal it is punished. The avoidance of justice and the denial of truth tend to perpetuate sin, invoke crime, jeopardize self-control, and mock divine mercy."
~ Mary Baker Eddy (ca. 1865)