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.