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)

Justification of 9/11 as an Inside Job

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.

- Collateral Damage of 9/11 (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

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

"The U.S. Subprime and global financial crises of 2008 was the direct result of a covert monetary policy implemented by the U.S. financial institutional caretakers of the World War II Black Eagle Gold Fund."
~ E. P. Heidner

The above provides motive for the insiders. Below is proof of insider involvement as documented by the NIST Final Report on WTC-7. NIST writes with emphasis added:

"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."

Gravitational acceleration means freefall; the entirety of stage 2's potential energy was converted into kinetic energy (accelerating downward motion); and no energy was available to destroy columns, floors, or building content. (Even if we accept the theory of how heavily damaged WTC-7 was without exploring how it got so damaged and when) how could 8 stories of columns (whether or not weakened), floors, and material suddenly transition into negligible support?

The ramifications of freefall in any stage of collapse in any of the WTC buildings is additional energy sources (like explosives) has to be planted and therefore the circle of 9/11 conspirators was much larger and included insiders.

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

"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)