[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.