2008-06-20
{Author's post-notes are inserted in curly braces.}
{to Stg. Asshat}
Sgt. Sheepdog (aka "Sockpuppet", a name you gave yourself), you cherry-picked the wrong quotation from me and then mischaracterize it. Here are the two relevant passages and pay attention to the "FTR":
"If you [Mr. Hawley] are so concerned about aliases, why haven't you raked sockpuppet over the coals for being such a changeling? (Why don't you rake your lawyer over the coals for not stating who she is and for not being [wo]man enough to own up with her real name to what she writes like you do for anyone even millimeters to the left of you?) FTR, I'm not asking them to change or do anything different in their online alias usage. I'm saying you have a double-standard and am thusly proving you (yet again) a hypocrite, Hawley. ... Sheepdog sockpuppet doesn't like the spotlight shining on his alias-changing ways, because it just might reveal a wolf in sheepdog's clothing."
{This was not actually posted in the forum. Not wanting to cause too much of a ruckus on the forum, I posted it ["Second Stage"] directly to my website. Later, I felt inclined to post pieces of it to the forum. For the sake of completeness, I include here the rest of the message.}
Mr. Hawley,
We shouldn't be having this discussion about which of us is a liar, because if you had not ~LIED~ about turning matters over to the CSU Police, the Fort Collins Police, and/or the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for the hyped threats (that weren't), then my repeatedly proclaimed innocence would have been already proven by their government hackers. (You, on the other hand, would have been reamed a new one for your ignoring the well-intentioned internet advice and lessons repeatedly meted out.)
I call your bluff, like with your debunking of debunking 9/11 debunking that you have yet to perform. I have clean hands. Prof. Hawley, who so ludicrously tried to instruct us about the clean hands principle of law? Not so much. DHS is gonna love going through your house, your records, and your finances. Oh, the shame you'll bring upon your family, drug dealer!
Disguises (or aliases) are generally not considered lies, Mr. Hawley.
Otherwise, your issue isn't just with me but with your lawyer and sheepdog... and with all of your childhood idols that you still worship: Superman (Clark Kent), Spider-Man (Peter Parker), and Batman (Bruce Wayne) and the actors who play them.
I have given no untruthful statements about my alias usage.
Did I deny being Maxwell to Reg Indy (at a point in time when her case was still weak)? Look at it closely. I complimented her with "nice try" and presented the hypothetical statement: "Were I Maxwell, I'd certainly hold up [her] posting as a prime example [of the Seven Lessons from the Karl Rove School of Online Debate from Maxwell Bridges]." And then I did just that, proving her right. Go figure.
I have diligently given authors credit for their words, even if the authors are aliases not yet equated. You of all people should know this when your EXACT words come back to haunt you in my postings.
It is not lying for alias #2 to refer to alias #1 or quote alias #1, even if the two aliases end up being equal. It is simply not revealing all that is known. Maybe it is egoistic, as Reg Indy claims, but I prefer to mark it down to honesty and to helping you connect the dots. I left a very broad trail of breadcrumbs in my postings and even provided correlation on www.maxbridges.us. My aliases weren't used deceitfully in tandem to attack you or to jimmy numbers. I connected aliases for you and freely admitted to other alias connections when exposed.
If you hear those words of truth in my actions and admissions, why can't you also hear the words of truth in my steadfast denials, such as the aliases I was not?
The reason is that you are a proven liar and must continue to ascribe to me false aliases in order to maintain your sinking reputation.
How many different people posted thoughts on the "Taser This, F*** Bush" thread? Lots. Surely 4-6 unique individuals -- during the last weeks of the semester and finals -- could have seen fit to post on the underwear thread against you. Even with the help of your MySpace(d) out MyFriends, you couldn't get a rally other than Sgt. Sheepdog and your lawyer behind you. I didn't need to muddy the waters, and I didn't. Not there, and not here even when you and the sheepdog were mauling this lambkin. Go figure.
One of your problems, Mr. Hawley, is that you are paid-to-play on too many message boards and forget what you have written where, like on the Coloradoan before you were expelled. If your exact words about being a Vietnam Veteran don't jump out of the archives -- because postings get deleted there so easily even now --, your lies about Vietnam combat came through in exchanges with me (where you tried to twist an insult to you and make it apply to all Vietnam Veterans implying that's what you were), in exchanges with others, and in accepting the "thanks for your (Vietnam) service". You made no effort to correct them or the record. After your departure, others brought up the inconsistency in your service claims, but didn't call you on it at the time because they didn't want to get into it with you, the bully.
The short list of blatant lies I've caught you in:
The long list is every purposeful mischaracterization of someone else's opinions. Here is one of your latest gems:
"The Liberal Left has now decided it is cool to trash America and excuse all terror as misunderstood freedom fighters."
When the Maxwell alias left this forum in early May, it was because you were proven:
"An insincere whore. A deceitful government troll. A two-faced instigator. A mendacious troublemaker. A domestic enemy to our Constitution."
Your interactions with new aliases who you didn't know to be me continued to prove this. The Hawley chorus remains:
"Hype. Twist. Rewrite erroneously. Misstate & Bait. Repeat."
And thank you for providing subsequent lessons on the Karl Rove School of Online Debate to be published soon.
Feed my sheep.
"Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you."
Matt 5: 11-12
"Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
Ye are of your father the devil... He ... abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not."
John 8:43-45
{The website posting ["Second Stage"] concluded with "Part of Schopenhauer's Second Stage", which is given in the Three Stages" posting.}
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
Schopenhauer
Matt 5: 11-12
"Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you."
-------------
Sgt. Sheepdog (aka Sockpuppet in other threads)
-------------
Registered Independent
-------------
Craig Hawley, who turns 51 on June 8th, 2008
{to Sgt Asshat}
Sgt. Sockpuppet Sheepdoggie,
You wrote:
"The writer's identity should generally be unimportant on a comments thread. Argument quality and EVIDENCE are all that SHOULD matter. That is why using the name field to cite hyperlinks (to evidence or rhetorical instruments) has greater utility and credibility."
Did I say I had a problem with that?
I repeat. You cherry-picked the wrong quote and purposely mischaracterized my position.
I specifically wrote:
"FTR, I'm not asking them [Registered Independent and you, Sheepdoggie] to change or do anything different in their online alias usage."
This meant, I didn't care what name Registered Independent used or that we can't pin a name down for you other than what I call you, "Sgt. Sockpuppet Sheepdoggie". I'm not asking you to change.
If anything, we agree. Go figure.
Hawley is the one who constantly brings up a "real name" argument in weak defense of his posts, which in effect is pretty foolish and has been proven as such many times in embarrassing ways. Maybe you can talk some sense into him. He is the one who is a hypocrite for not attacking you or Registered Independent for your alias usage. I don't expect he will, but I would like him to shut up about it for anyone else opposing him. It has been proven to be not a quality argument.
Now let us expose your hypocritical ways. In one sentence you say:
"Argument quality and EVIDENCE are all that SHOULD matter."
And then in the very next paragraph, you write:
"Asshat-Max is clearly too incompetent and hamfisted to learn that basic skill set. How many hours has Max spent wearing out its opposable thumbs trying? Who can tell?"
How much of a quality argument is that? And where is your evidence?
Stick to the points, not the person.
You are eager to dismiss 9/11 conspiracy as bull crap. I can and have stepped up to the plate with evidence. As Hawley will attest, I put my money where my mouth was; with his permission, I even purchased and sent him the reference material that I would be using to destroy the US government's fairy-tale of 9/11. I asked him to debunk it, that I might see the light.
You seem a few watts brighter than Hawley. Maybe you will take on this assignment. "Help thou my unbelief."
Since Hawley doesn't appear to be using the material I sent him -- too scared to crack a book or insert a DVD --, maybe he should send them to you. Otherwise, I'll be happy to put my money where my mouth was again...
Until you've debunked the debunking 9/11 debunking, to use your words, "STFU."
Looking forward to your quality argument and evidence that everything in the US government's fairy-tale of 9/11 is indeed true as they stated it -- no hanky-panky there.
And remember, you have to prove everything wrong. To help you, I told Hawley he could limit himself to, say, just the hour-plus presentation from Physics Professor Steven Jones, or the presentation by Ryan, or a single chapter from "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" by Dr. David Ray Griffith.
If you don't prove all aspects of the US government's story true, if one element to the US Government's story is proven false, then the whole story is placed in doubt, becomes ripe for a new investigation, and just as importantly, introduces fodder for re-evaluation of all 9/11 inspired fruits, such as the holy war you're trying to incite against Iran and Islam.
Hawley,
When you try to add weasel words "Vietnam Era Veteran", it still doesn't apply to you. Such wording suggests that you were in the military at the time Vietnam was in progress and were stationed elsewhere. Vietnam was over before you even entered bootcamp. Ergo, you remain a liar.
And thanks for clearing up that you aren't paid-for-posting, although it sure seems like it. I mean, with all the "black helicopters" that you claim that I see and EVERY CONSPIRACY ever conceived by man that you claim I believe in, it seemed only fitting. What? Don't like me putting words in your mouth and twisting what you say? "Do unto others."
(Michael Moore's words apply to me:
"I don't believe in conspiracy theories. Except those that are true."
Also for the record, the official US Government's story is a conspiracy theory, one of 19 Arab hijackers conspiring together.)
Still no details from you on your speaking engagement here, like who invited you and under what official capacity, when, the venue, the topic. Maybe when you fly in from Reseda, California, Sgt. Sheepdoggie Sockpuppet will fly in from Virginia or Maryland to give you moral support. Unless the speaking engagement is another lie, too.
I must be making progress if each of you two trolls must submit two or more postings to address one of mine. If you think I'm a troll, don't feed me. Ignore me.
Sgt. Sheepdoggie Sockpuppet,
Request that Hawley send you the 9/11 materials I sent him. Or request them from me, and I'll purchase and have Amazon & www.911tv.org send them to you. [I put my money where my mouth is.] Or buy them yourself from your trolling money... I mean, Chesapeake Bay "trawling" money.
The book in question is:
"Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory" by Dr. David Ray Griffin and can be ordered for only $13.60 from Amazon.
The DVD in question is "9/11 REVISITED: SCIENTIFIC & ETHICAL QUESTIONS" with "A NEW STANDARD FOR DECEPTION" and can be ordered for about $20 from:
http://communitycurrency.org/911TV/sjkrdetails.html
--------------
Dr. Steven E. Jones, a highly respected professor of physics at BYU, thoroughly and definitively debunks the FEMA, NIST and "fattie bin Ladin" myths promoted by the U.S. government’s "official conspiracy theory." ... His analysis of the collapse of World Trade Center buildings 1, 2, and 7 leads to only one conclusion -- all three buildings were demolished with thermite and explosives. Jones considers WTC7 in detail, since over half the population of American has never even heard of it and does not know that it too collapsed -- and it wasn’t even hit by an airplane!!
Kevin Ryan, former lab manager and scientist at Underwriters Labs, the company that tested the steel used in the World Trade Center buildings, was fired by UL when he went public with information about the cover-up. He explains in detail why the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) report on the World Trade Center collapses is false.
He shows that their investigation was deceptive and unscientific at every step. Further, he points out that the reported findings, based on wildly overdriven computer simulation, were in direct contradiction to their physical testing! The UL models of the World Trade Center did not collapse under any test conditions!
--------------
Paraphrased from the video "In Plain Site".
In theory, if you purchase a raffle ticket, you could win a prize. Once you've purchased the raffle ticket, it changes from being a theory to being a probability that you could win a prize. Evidence is what turns "conspiracy theory" into the "probability of conspiracy."
With regards to 9/11, the evidence overflows like a Cinemark movie ticket-taker's box on a Friday night with the first showing of a new Star Wars movie.
(Because neither of you trolls are from Fort Collins or CSU, I hope you get the local Cinemark theatre reference.)
Meanwhile, open your eyes and think. We already know of the proven conspiracies of the Bush Administration to get us into war with Iraq, which included cover-ups and illegally outting a covert CIA agent (specialized in WMDs) just to shut down her husband and other potential government whistleblowers. Connect the dots. 9/11 conspiracies no longer seem so far fetched, particularly when it was on the PNAC roadmap before they took office.
Feed my sheep.
{to Sgt Asshat}
Sgt. Sheepdoggie Sockpuppet,
"He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust also in much." Luke 16:10
You are being unjust in the search for 9/11 truth (the "least"), as your debunked arguments and unfounded slurs prove.
As such, your efforts here (the "much") to incite a holy war against Islam and Iran are also suspect as being unjust.
"Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit." Matt 12:33
If the 9/11 tree is proven corrupt, then so are its fruits: Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, the war on Islam, to name but a few.
Or going the other way that the tree is known by his fruit...
We know that the war in Iraq was corrupt. We were lied into it. With the exception of the war profiteers and those becoming wealthy on the corruption, it was mishandled. Our veterans are screwed over. It was sold on the basis of "another 9/11".
We highly suspect that the war in Afghanistan was corrupt. In the spring and summer of 2001, we wanted a gas pipeline through their country that the Taliban didn't want; we told them to accept our carpet of gold, or we'll bury them with a carpet of bombs; when negotiations failed, we knew bombs were going to drop in Afghanistan by October. Lo and behold, the US propped up leader in Afghanistan was an executive of Unicol, the company wanting the pipeline; the US bases in Afghanistan were position along the proposed pipeline route.
Our engagement in Afghanistan and Iraq are certainly bad fruits that would probably not have happened without their nurturing 9/11 tree, more than just hinting towards its corruption at the root.
Extrapolating 9/11 to the subject at hand, what are the goals to be achieved by what you incite against Islam? (Mc)Bush foreign policy goals?
Are you trying to condition the students of CSU and OSU (to name but two of your trolling places) into hating Islam so that a corrupt war with Iran (and others in the Middle East) will be more palatable? Demonize the enemy, right?
"A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things." Matt 12:35
"Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. ... Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God." Matt 5: 6, 9
Feed my sheep.
[QUOTE id="ac38b3a0-6f4c-4936-89be-3001d722462d"]
Following are excerpts from an interview with Arab-American psychiatrist Wafa Sultan, which aired on Al-Hayat TV on May 29, 2008.
Wafa Sultan: When I examined the Koran, the hadith, and the Islamic books under a microscope, I came to the absolute conviction that it is impossible – impossible! – for any human being to read the biography of Muhammad and believe in it, and yet emerge a psychologically and mentally healthy person.
[...]
The language of Islam is a negative, dead language, replete with violence, anger, hatred, and racism.
[...]
I do not view Islam as a religion – according to my notion of religion. Islam is a political doctrine, which imposes itself by force. Any doctrine whatsoever that calls to kill those who do not believe in it is not a religion. It is a totalitarian doctrine that imposes itself by force.
[...]
The problem with the Muslims is that they do not distinguish between their prophet and their own noses. When you criticize Muhammad, his actions, and his life, it is as if you chopped off their noses.
[/QUOTE]
{to Sgt. Asshat}
You can't address the arguments, so you attack the person. "Sick, sick, sick." What was all this talk about evidence? Your attacks on the person rather than the points -- which you have yet to even look into -- demonstrate quite nicely the weakness of both your position on 9/11 as well as the hate you are inciting in this thread.
FTR, Dr. Griffin references extensively qualified people who do know about physics and science. His scholarship as a theologian and his ability to research things, interview people, and parse through the public record are well regarded.
Now, if you want to get into the backgrounds of the authors of the reports you rely on, such as the Popular Mechanics articles and even the NIST reports, I'll have a field day high-jacking this thread and ripping apart their credentials and exposing their political biases that raises serious doubts as to both their scholarship and impartiality. Deviating from the established scientific method, they start with conclusions, twist the data to match, ignore evidence that does fit their story, and don't explore all likely possibilities. Kind of like Bush wanting to invade Iraq and twisting the intelligence to match the policy.
Nobody who worked on the NIST report or who works for NIST will go into a civilized, public, televised forum and have a moderated debate with knowledgeable people from the 9/11 Truth movement about the facts, such as the speed of the collapse of three buildings in NYC. Why? They know that their position and conclusions will be ripped to shreds. They know that the NIST report was politicized like much of what the Bush Administration has done to the EPA, FEMA, etc.
Hee-Haw-ley wrote (poorly):
"STILL WAITING FOR THAT PROOF I AM A PIAD INTERNET WRITER MAX. LOL!"
You mean proof that you are a "paid-to-post" government troll, whose purpose is to step your black paratrooper jump boots onto the throats of those being patriots and speaking up about our US government's malfeasance in order to restore adherence to the Constitution, improve life at home, and repair our reputation abroad?
Yes, Hee-Haw-ley, LOL! I guess you are proving that you write so poorly, there is no way you could expect to get "PIAD" (sic) for your postings. My bad.
The only possible proof I could come to the table with is the huge time-suck involved with the volume and frequency of your postings on this message board and the 10 or so others that you say you participate in; and the fact that you toe the (Mc)Bush party line no matter how asinine on all things except (or maybe including, for all we know) smoking dope. Not the strongest arguments.
Still, I don't see your denials.
I don't know whether I'd believe them completely either, given that you've been proven a liar even recently with your repetition of the parsing of words "Vietnam Era Veteran," which doesn't apply to you.
Still waiting on the details of your speaking engagement here. Or are you simply hyping the comments of a lone individual who wouldn't mind you coming here, bringing your meds, doing a bowl, and shooting the shit with them?
BTW, I've had editorials, articles, and even books published; I just don't brag about it except on my resume. Oh yeah. I've even been invited to give presentations and speak on relevant topics, but for lack of time and desire, declined. Since you try to corner me, I'll say that in one of my first ventures, they liked what I wrote so much, they requested that I do a series of articles, and I did. And I leveraged those freebies into paid gigs that... *cough*... earned me a salary in excess of your stated California income, and that's before considering that Colorado dollars go further.
Registered Independent,
How often do the terms "asshat", "moon-bat", and "nutsy" appear in the legal briefings you prepare and in your statements before judges and juries? Are they very convincing?
Despite your alias, When you use the term "Islamofascism", you display your true colors, because it is racist, offensive, inaccurate, and totally counterproductive. Shall I dip into your playbook by saying, "great job of insulting millions of peace-loving Muslims"?
I suggest you look up this newly coined term that never had any meaning, except as a catch-all for whatever regimes and groups the word’s users wished to make targets for military action. It is a throwback to when juvenile leftists labeled everyone they disagreed with a "fascist pig."
Were we to entertain your premise that such (non-existent political creatures you call) Islamofacists "murdered 3000 American civilians ... on September 11th", what you consistently and conveniently ignore is that it did not happen "out of the blue."
Among the many problems with the official version of 9/11 is that we were well aware that US foreign policy in the Middle East was a catalyst; blow-back should have been expected. Moreover, the FBI and other government agencies were well aware of the activities of those they blamed the hijackings on. Orders came down from the great Saudi friend himself, President Bush, for the FBI to back-off its investigations into Saudi's on US soil soon after he took office. Look up the FBI whistle blower Colleen Rowley (and Sibel Edmunds). In fact, other whistle blowers in the State Department (if memory serves me) complained about certain American embassies ignoring the rules for granting visas and fast-track issuing them to those who would otherwise be unqualified, such as would have been the case for several of the hijackers. If there be any truth to the government's involvement, then having patsies was critical.
In another instance where your logic, research abilities, and science & math skills are found wanting is that if Muslims pulled off the ~PULVERIZATION~ of three buildings on 9/11 without any help as you believe, then your Christian faith is unfounded and you should convert to Islam whose Allah was mighty enough to circumvent the laws of physics. Concrete and steel buildings do not collapse at near free-fall speeds and do not turn to dust literally from the claimed instigators (jet, jet fuel, and burning office furniture) particularly when this was considered and over-designed for from the onset and more strikingly when the third building (WTC-7) wasn't even hit by a plane. (And how about the BBC announcing 20 minutes before WTC-7 fell that it had collapsed?)
Are you from Fort Collins or Northern Colorado, Registered Independent?
Then record and watch Comcast local access channel 22 on Saturday morning from 4-6 a.m.
My goodness, you're a lawyer! You ought to be able to afford the DVDs "9/11 REVISITED: SCIENTIFIC & ETHICAL QUESTIONS" with "A NEW STANDARD FOR DECEPTION" from:
http://communitycurrency.org/911TV/sjkrdetails.htmlYou ought to be able to afford the book "Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory" by Dr. David Ray Griffin
Give the evidence a fair and impartial review. Weigh all of the discovery evidence. Then if you find it unsatisfactory, you can come on here and give me chapter and verse on where I am wrong.
Until you do so, your motives become suspect on both the subject of 9/11 as well as this holy religious war against Islam that you are beating the drums for.
[QUOTE id="4de54941-2ee5-4ea0-a090-1f89d5b30004"]
Folks, it is becoming more and more apparent that asshat Maxwell doesn't merely sympathize with the Islamofacists, but he is actually a Moslem.
Thus his irrational acceptance of the Islamofacist's insane explanation for murdering 3000 American civilians out of the blue on September 11th: they didn't do it, our own government did!!! They didn't commit a heinous, unprovoked act of war, rather our own government has tricked us!
...
His promotion of the moon-bat "government conspiracy" theory, is a promotion of exactly what the Islamofacists would like Americans to believe about September 11th. They originated it.
[/QUOTE]
{to Craig Hawley}
My response to you being paid-to-post is elsewhere in this thread. Alas, you don't read, and your reading comprehension test scores have been proven in the lowest percentiles. That you keep repeating this canard just shows the level of your deceit and that you need distractions to avoid making a point. Can you sing the Hee-Haw-ley chorus?
"Hype. Twist. Rewrite erroneously. Misstate & Bait. Repeat."
Still, four Hee-Haw-ley postings to my one. If you were paid-to-post by the government, what would you charge? What do they pay?
FTR, Osama bin Laden never took credit for 9/11. The guy in the video that supposedly makes that admission doesn't even look like Osama. Were it so, maybe that would be evidence enough for the FBI to put him on their most-wanted list. Can you say "fake" or "imposter" or "fat imposter who doesn't even look like skinny Osama"? Yes, there were subsequent tapes made with Osama talking about 9/11 and how it helps their goals, but the admission of his 9/11 guilt isn't there. Otherwise, we'd certainly be hearing more about it, and the FBI would have this crime attributed to him on their list.
Who are you to be criticizing the credentials of Dr. Griffin? Your PhD is in what? No wait. Your Masters degree is in what? No wait. Your Bachelor's degree is in what? No wait. Your Associates degree is in what? No wait. For the few semesters you were even enrolled in college in the early 1980's, you studied what?
I'd be bragging about my scholastic credentials, but it boils down to simple high school math that you found yourself utterly incapable of doing, because it involves fractions and a square root to determine how long it takes an object (or a 6'3" 250 lb Hawley) to fall 1350' from the roof of one of the towers, even ignoring wind resistance and terminal velocity. (Answer: 9.2 seconds, yet the towers fell in 9.8 and 10.3 seconds with wind resistance implying that floors below the crash site offered little to no resistance to the falling mass from above. Plus, such speeds consume all energy that was ever available to the falling mass, leaving nothing to account for the massive amounts of energy required to not just break steel joints but to PULVERIZE INTO FINE POWDER the concrete.) You are in no position to question the math and physics skills of anyone else.
As a well respected scholar, Dr. Griffin provides extensive references (unlike you). He even has many sources for his manuscripts who do have PhDs in physic and engineering. You of all people should know this, because the book is in your possession compliments of me. Have you cracked it open? No. (Proving you are: "A mendacious troublemaker. A two-faced instigator.)"
Why don't you flame Dr. Jones or Mr. Ryan, whose video you also have compliments of me? Is it because Dr. Jones is a physics professor and Mr. Ryan worked at Underwriters Lab that tested the steel used in the buildings and said that by those standards, they should not have melted, weakened, or failed? Does your DVD player not work? Why not make a movie night and watch it with your step-son before he ships back to Afghanistan?
Your scholarship, or lack thereof, is most evident in the postings you provide. "Overwhelming thy opponent (with bull shit)" is one of the new lessons you practice.
... your case in support of the Bush Administration and this Islamic holy war weakens in the eyes of all who read this... except the few in your right-wing echo chamber.
You ascribe to me all sorts of conspiracy theories. The truth of the matter is, I have an open and curious mind. I don't rule things in or out just because some "authority" told me to. My triagularization on the truth in all areas of my life is based on multiple sources and ever increasing numbers of sources, which can indeed shift where I calculate the truth to be.
I welcome you to please, please, please, convince me otherwise! I very much want to be just another sheep in the flock instead of the black sheep shouting "Wolf in sheepdog's clothing!" Present your case. With dignity and respect, as I have endeavored to do (albeit with rare lapses when you have exasperated me.)
I may be outnumbered both in posters and postings like a scrawny ruddy David before Goliath's army, but I am strengthened in my resolve, because God's Truth about 9/11 appears to be on my side. The truth about 9/11 only becomes stronger with each and every revelation about the Bush Administration that documents evidence of their dishonesty and crimes. (Your postings, devoid of substance except cutesy personal attacks, do little to sway readers to your mindset unless they were already weak and fearful of your bullying anyway.)
Given the war trajectory of (Mc)Bush and other neo-con-men who target Iran and Islam, someone has to be a voice in the wilderness crying, "Woe, Nelly! Slow down! Let's think about this! Are we being misled yet again?! Is this right?!"
Open your eyes. Pay attention. Exercise some scholarship. Feed my sheep.
[QUOTE id="f531ad19-de37-45e3-b232-db9154e6a5a3"]
Ah yes Max completely ignore your lie that I get paid to write here.
You say Reg Indy insults millions of peace loving Muslims. Which peace loving Muslims would that be. Would it be the millions of Muslims that danced in the streets all over the world after 911. I guess they didn't get the letter from you Max telling them it was an inside job.
You also ignore the fact that Osama Bin Laden then and after took credit for 911.
...
[/QUOTE]
{to Registered Independent}
Yep. Six of the 9/11 "named hijackers" are still alive. Look it up.
It really isn't a big point; identity theft happens all the time. Yet the government has never corrected its story. They came up with the story so quickly, and "found" all sorts of evidence...
Like the suitcase that "didn't make the flight" that contained their final wills and testament...
Like the rental car that had Arabic flight manuals left in it...
Like the "magic passports" that survived the airplane crash and the jet fuel fireball to flutter to the ground outside the towers for an officer to find...
No Arabic names appeared on the flight manifest for any of the planes. They didn't appear on airport security video.
You tell me the last time you could take a domestic flight within the domestic US without identifying yourself, without being on the roster as a ticketed passenger, or without going through security to be caught on film. It was probably before Lockerby (sp) when the airline scrambled to figure out who was even on the flight so they could notify the next of kin.
[QUOTE]
So six of the September 11th "named hijackers" are still alive, are they Max?
Not only are you a dyed in the wool paranoid, but you are an absolutely compulsive liar and con artist, as well.
[/QUOTE]
{to Sgt. Asshat}
Sgt. Sheepdog Sockpuppet,
Three posts to my one.
The evidence presented in Dr. Griffin's "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" should be sufficient to convince any reasonable person (a) that 9/11 needs a new investigation and (b) that the Popular Mechanics article and book you so rely on [which Griffin debunks] were less than scholarly and scientific in their methods and conclusions.
Sgt. Sheepdog Sockpuppet is too cheap to purchase it. Go to the library and sign it out. Ask Hawley to send his copy to you. Or do a google and you just might find extracts of chapters online.
Sgt. Sheepdog Sockpuppet. Your repeated comment to me was:
"So, anyone should feel free to follow Penn Gillette's dictum (above hyperlinked) and throw [Maxwell] down a flight of stairs without reservation."
This is a threat of physical violence, which even Hawley and Registered Independent would attest to.
Clean up your act.
Hawley and Registered Independent, care to weigh in?
Sgt. Sheepdog Sockpuppet,
I'd tell you to clean up your language, but the more you rack your brains for creative insults about me, the less rational you sound thereby detracting from whatever point you were making. I would prefer it if you'd simply get Dr. Griffin's "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" and debunk it point-by-point, so that I might see the holy light that you are so endowed with.
The slander you speak of comes only from your mouth, as you erroneously extrapolate facts about FDR, Truman, and the atomic bombs to American soldiers and facts about the willful Bush Administration lies that got us into the Iraqi war and that even by the lowest estimates by the Iraqi health minister show 151,000 violence-related Iraqi deaths (95% uncertainty range) from 3/2003 through 6/2006 again extrapolated to American soldiers. We know that there is Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence that accounts for most of it, but the mass murders would not have occurred (a) had Bush not lied us into war or (b) had Bush better prepared and executed the war like following the advice of Generals he fired for wanting more boots on the ground and for wanting to keep the Iraqi military in tact to serve as police.
So, which pays better? Trawling for fish or trolling to squash "liberals" who might expose the fallacies in 9/11 and the Iran/Islamic holy war you are trying to incite?
{to Sgt. Asshat}
AssHat Sheepdoggie Sockpuppet,
Because you refuse to name an alias for yourself not even in the body of your posts, we're forced to come up with our own for you, like using words you like you repeat: "AssHat Sheepdoggie Sockpuppet".
I'm surprised that Hawley hasn't ripped into you for your cowardice in not even having a stationary alias that stands up for its words.
Penn Gillette may have originated the comment, but you not only linked it, you've been advocating it to all others over and over again in your words, not Gillettes.
AssHat Sheepdoggie wrote:
"I repeat: The only appropriate response to these hate-America slanders is to follow Penn Gillette's advice (above hyperlinked @ ~3:00 minute)-- 'push them down a flight of stairs.'"
AssHat Sheepdoggie wrote:
"So, anyone should feel free to follow Penn Gillette's dictum (above hyperlinked) and throw him down a flight of stairs without reservation."
Hypocrite. Can't even stand up for your own words and threats. Hawley is losing all respect for you.
In trying to nail me, you show your lack of intellectual honesty. When charges of mass murder in other countries were brought up, who stood trial and who was blamed? First and foremost, the leaders and the ones giving the orders.
So who are we talking about in WWII? Truman.
Who are we talking about in Afghanistan and Iraq? It starts at the top with George W. Bush and Richard Cheney.
How are you coming along with your Amazon book order? Is your credit card all max'ed out that you can't afford $13.60 (plus tax and shipping)? Dr. Griffin does a pretty lengthy number of the lies of Popular Mechanics, starting with the change in editorial board just prior to the article's publication and the family connections (cousins) between its main author and Chertoff now the head of DHS. He also rips into the NIST report which no longer holds to the pancake theory. The pancake theory in the original NIST report was a pillar of the Popular Mechanics piece, so it isn't standing the test of time and really shouldn't be held up to defend the official government version of 9/11 anymore.
How are your math and physics skills? Got an explanation for the near free-fall collapse of THREE buildings -- the first and only times steel buildings have every collapsed as a result of fire?
{to Craig Hawley}
Listen, Hawley. We can settle this once and for all if you'd just spend a couple of hours in front of your DVD player to watch the 9/11 movie I sent you and if you'd spend your weekend cracking the book I gave you.
Let's have a rational discussion about this. Use the reference material that I'm basing my opinion on and tear it apart. Find out everywhere in it that is wrong and let me know, so I can be a better informed person. (Just be honest about everywhere in the material where the material is right.)
FTR, I never said that Osama wasn't bad or that what he is inciting is good. However, if you are an honest student of history, you'd see that they had legitimate complaints against US foreign policy and meddling, complaints we bulldozed aside. To some extend, we egged them on or threw gas onto their more radical elements.
I don't rule out the possibility that Osama -- a former CIA asset -- may indeed have had hand in 9/11. The real issue for me (and most of the 9/11 Truth movement) is that they could not have accomplished all that they did without help. **SPECULATION** The US government got news of the attack and "enhanced it" and turned the hijackers into patsies, because 19 hijackers in planes could not have accomplished what they did by themselves. Things like circumventing SOP on the ground for flight interceptions; hitting the most heavily defended spot on the planet; getting 3 steel buildings to collapse at free-fall speed into their own footprints...
Yes. Bush lied us into war in Iraq, and Osama rallies his troops there to fight the infidel. (As an aside, when we invaded Iraq, we removed our troops from Saudi Arabia, the holy land, one of the demands of Osama who thought our military presence there desecrated the holy lands. He got what he wanted.)
But if we were to step back and recognize: OUR CAUSE IN IRAQ IS NOT JUST... We were brought into it under false pretenses. We mishandled it. We shouldn't even be there. We could apologize, make a graceful exit, and throw money at them (less than what we're paying now). Unlike the false predictions of being greeted with flowers as liberators, I predict that they'd change their tune and give us a send-off with flowers at the sight of their liberation from us (but I reserve the right to be wrong.)
Registered Independent wrote:
"Yet another bold-faced lie of his now: that there is 'no airport security video' of the hijackers."
If I am incorrect on this, I will apologize. I personally have only seen extracts from maybe one video from one airport that only showed two maybe three alleged hijackers unclearly. If you can find me the videos from the other airports and can account for all 19 of them, I will apologize. As far as I know, it is not a lie.
Registered Independent wrote:
"Max we have all seen the airport security video of the hijackers of the first plane to hit the twin towers, from Boston airport. That security video was played repeatedly, on tv news in the early days after September 11th."
If that is the case, then it ought to be a pretty easy internet search for you to find them for me. Like I said about my efforts, I have only seen extracts from one video from one airport that only showed two maybe three alleged hijackers.
And we still have the mystery about why there were no Arab names on any of the flight manifests that the airlines released.
[QUOTE id="81205731-9dc5-40dc-b831-355aac32359c"]
So six of the September 11th "named hijackers" are still alive, are they Max?
[/QUOTE]
Here's a couple of interesting links for you regarding details about the named hijackers who are still alive.
I'm not trying to be difficult here, Registered Independent, when I pull every trick out of my hat to get people to do some thinking and researching on their own about 9/11. A lawyer such as yourself is supposed to have excellent researching abilities. You know which reference material I recommend you to buy.
You mock me for having used the moniker, "Jesus H. Christ." Can you be so sure that when the letters typed themselves out into my keyboard that the resulting words -- many of them very common direct biblical quotations -- weren't the channeled thoughts of Hey-sus himself?
I've stated freely on many occasions. I'm just another Blues Brother on a mission from God. My directives concerning 9/11 truth were very clear. "Feed my sheep."
Dear Mr. LittleGreenFootballer,
I responded to some of your points above in a posting to Registered Independent. Here is a link that you may use to learn essentially what I know about six of the 19 hijackers that could be alive.
As to why they aren't televised, your guess is as good as mine. It wouldn't surprise me if they aren't at some point killed.
You should know that the media is not an innocent player in the 9/11 hoax as most of us would like to believe. One of the most glaring instances of this is the BBC reporting live that a third building (WTC-7) had collapsed 20 minutes before it actually did and in fact with the stated collapsed building visible still standing in the background of the live shot of the reporter speaking.
The corporate media certainly has not bent over backwards to be fair and balanced to the 9/11 Truth movement. Corporate media doesn't give them much air time, and when they do it is rarely without at least one derogatory or off-hand remark. The corporate right-wing radio in particular has been very effective at establishing a 9/11 brand: "kook", "nutty", and "loonie" added to "conspiracy theorist." If you repeat something often enough, people start believing it.
The following links show an even darker complicity of corporate media in the 9/11 hoax. Go to YouTube and search on "September clues."
If you happen to be Fort Collins, then set your VCR/DCR to record Comcast Cable local-access channel 22 (soon to be channel 97) Saturday (tomorrow) between 4-6 a.m. A presentation on 9/11 by Physics Professor Dr. Steven Jones is usually aired.
[QUOTE id="aeb8534d-eafa-4f05-abcb-bf9f8051104b"]
Maxwell Cretin Bridges, if six of the 19 Arabs who have been identified as the hijacking terrorists of the 9/11 sneak attack on the US are still alive,
Why aren't they on Al-Jazeera TV to prove to the World they are ALIVE?
Why doesn't The Guardian, The Independent, Pravda, have cover story interviews with them?
Why doesn't Michael Moore do a movie starring the six LIVE hijackers.
...
THEY ARE DEAD.
[/QUOTE]
Mr. Hawley,
You know what would really help your writing? Quotation marks for short passages; ----- dashed or ===== equal lines for long passages. Give more attribution to other people's words. It can be pretty difficult to figure out where your words stops and somebody else's starts, and vice versa.
I'll be honest with you. You've achieved the goal of (one of the new) Karl Rove lessons dealing with "Bury them (with Bull Shit)." I don't know if what you wrote was Bull Shit, but I do know you've buried me. I haven't read it yet. You've been repeating yourself a lot and doing a lot of duplicate copy and paste.
Be careful, because much of that starts to blur the line between your words and those of a copyrighted author's text that you have pasted in. (The author of a piece of text on the internet generally immediately has the copyright.) So, if you don't relish having lots of copyright lawyers breathing down your neck, heed my advice from the first paragraph.
And what could be even better than ----- dash or ===== equal delineators between quoted passages might be hyperlinks to the source. If need be, extract a small relevant quotation and link to the source.
If you would have used the above techniques, I just might have gone through the effort of searching for your words of wisdom. But I couldn't find them at a glance. My time is precious. My apologies for not reading it yet.
Have a good weekend finally watching the DVD I sent you and sitting by your pool with beer in hand reading the book I sent you.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=september+clues&search_type=
Mr. Hawley,
I'm sorry to have to point out to you yet again how miserable your reading comprehension is. If it isn't that, then why are you purposely skewing my words?
When I mentioned the six living named hijackers the first time (and many times like with Reg Indy), I said that it was probably a case of identity theft. Nothing new there.
The two noteworthy points (adding to lots & lots of others) about this are: (1) The US government has never corrected their story. They still list the six. (2) If the hijackers went to the trouble of stealing someone else's identity, how come that stolen identity wasn't on the airline's flight manifest? How come no Arabic names were on any of the airline's flight manifests? Therefore, under whose names did they travel and how did they get those identities? Or, how did they get on the flights? If they weren't on the manifests, were they really even on the flights? I've asked Reg Indy to find me the airport videos that shows all 19 at one point or other boarding the planes. I've never seen them all. (To be honest, I've never looked, but if they were available, they'd have been posted on one of the 9/11 sites and I would have stumble across them by now.)
I did not refuse to answer the question about "liberal news sources" not exposing the six living hijackers. In fact, I've already partially answered it with a posting to Mr. LittleGreenFootballer.
To expand on that answer that lists just a couple examples of corporate media not being innocent players in the 9/11 hoax, I point out that this same corporate media exposed their biases and influences in this past election. Three blatant cases are the exclusion of Kucinich at debates, the exclusion of Ron Paul at debates, and the quisquilian questions they posed to the two remaining Democratic candidates at their last debate. (It should be noted that Ron Paul met their requirements to be included.)
You have been absolutely correct to expose Rep. Paul's back-pedaling on 9/11 (like on Glenn Beck). He is a politician. Given the circumstances and the good company he keeps in following the actions of others, he cannot be blamed for avoiding and denouncing that 9/11 hot-potato; he has other goals. [You can stop bringing this up.]
I mentioned how the corporate right-wing radio in particular has been very effective at establishing a 9/11 brand: "kook", "nutty", and "loonie" added to "conspiracy theorist." If you repeat something often enough, people start believing it.
"Branding" is a very important concept in marketing to condition you to buy things. Every person on the planet older than 4 years old can probably identify the Coke logo. Every American over 4 can for sure identify McDonalds and a slew of other logos. Product branding starts early even in kids videos.
With 9/11, we see how branding can be done in a negative fashion. The "9/11 brand" has become a huge hot-potato! Nobody goes there: no personality in a corporate media outlet, no politician, and no "liberal" media source. They put their blinders on and look straight ahead, because if they go in that direction even a little bit, the "9/11 brand" (kook, loonie, nut) will indeed brand them with a deep burn inflicted by corporate media and the right-wing echo chambers (starting on talk radio). Careers cannot survive this today.
Of the established media outlets that might be tempted to open a fair and balanced discussion of 9/11, they would have to fact-check the hell out of such claims (which their news organizations have neither the personnel nor funding to do, thanks to media consolidation). Even then, they run the risk of the branding, so they will delay and think again and again about the decision. At some point, they start giving the excuse that 9/11 is almost seven years old and no longer current news.
Corporate media is not an innocent bystander. They do indeed work hard to change perceptions. They do that with shows, movies, and products. They've had a heavy hand in this election cycle. They are starting to admit to their fawning over the War on Terror and the Iraqi War. Ergo, claims that they aren't impartial to 9/11 due to the branding that they participate in are not so far out to be totally unbelievable.
[QUOTE id="18e7728f-1098-4822-82a6-4e4c2c03920d"]
Ah yes Max still does not want to address the fact most people believe the six living hijackers were identity theft. It easily explains why they would be alive.
...
You also refuse to answer the question as to why these living hijackers are not on every Liberal news source. You don't think your beloved Huffington Post would not have them on and interview them.
If this was true and not explained it would be a news bombshell.
So explain with all the Bush haters out there why not one is using your information.
[/QUOTE]
Mr. Hawley wrote:
"I am making a point not trying to say you really stole an identity , although one could argue the point with your talk about stealing my bank account."
Correction. One could only very weakly and feebly argue such a point about me and your bank account, but only with lots of hype, twist, and skew. A very valid point about internet exposure was being made, and that you potentially have almost too much of it in the amount of personal information you have freely disclosed in readily accessible formats.
I have "clean hands", Mr. Hawley, and if anything happens to your bank accounts, I will still have clean hands. I am the voice of reason and warning, not a criminal. I've repeatedly stated that I can be found by anyone with a badge, so why telegraph criminal intent to DHS? The problem that you may not have recognized is that your internet exposure is such that months or years from now, someone could dig through the online archives of the forums you participate in (coupled with Google and other online archives and tools) and exploit what they've learned.
It won't be me trying to illegally tap into your modest savings, because I have enough to do just making an honest income and investing it wisely.
Dear Mr. Hawley,
In honor of your birthday -- 51 years tomorrow, June 8th, 2008 --, I'm not going to respond to your posting(s) and disagree with your assessment of the "Liberal media" by pointing out the recent instances of me showing the corporate media to be otherwise. In fact, I'll let your spin and twist of my words stand so that you believe you have the victory.
Here's wishing that the weather in Reseda tomorrow is splendid and that you'll enjoy it at your backyard pool completely baked from your stash and with a refreshing cold beverage of your choosing in one hand and one of the 9/11 books I gave you in the other, like "Debunking 9/11 Debunking."
And if all goes well, possibly a subsequent gift I might bestow on you is less and less of my presense here -- for real this time. It is after all summer time, and there are certainly better things to do. I can be reached through my website.
Have a happy birthday, Craig Hawley!
P.S. "Verrater?" Du bringst mich zum Lachen! Du würdest ein Liebhaber unseres Landes und dessen Verfassung nicht erkennen, da Dein Verständnis über dieser Sachen auf militärischen Verdienst einbeschränkt ist. Sehr lüstig, dass Deine Zeit beim Bund nach dem vietnamischen Krieg und nicht während stattfand und dass Deine kurze drei Jahre dabei durch Shit-Rauchen beschmirrt wurde.
Noch einen Grund mich nicht mehr auf dieser Liste zu melden ist die Tatsache, dass Du möchtest in keiner vernüftigen Unterhaltung teilnehmen. Du möchtest nur streiten und nichts lernen. Als Beispiel dabei ist eben "Liberal Media." Egal wie oft man Dich beibringt, dass so etwas überhaupt nicht gibt und wieso und warum, und pi, pa, po, wirfst Du es aus wie Fischköder um uns anzumachen.
Ich muss immernoch die Schaffen füttern, aber verübergehend tue ich es in anderen Weiden.
» Hey-Suess Chronicles Volume 2: Registered 420 Jimmy
» Hey-Suess Chronicles Volume 3: Semaphore for Truth
» Hey-Suess Chronicles Volume 4: 9/11 Christian Science Treatment
» Hey-Suess Chronicles Volume 5: Mind Your P's & Q's
» Hey-Suess Chronicles Volume 6: Q Dots
Choice Quotations from the Hee-Haw-ley Himself showing his God-given character & charm:
* 1
* 2
* 3
* 4
* 5
* 6
* 7
* 8
* 9
* 10
* 11
* 12
* 13
* 14
* 15
* 16
* 17
* 18
* 19
* 20
* 21
* 22
* 23
* 24
* 25
* 26
* 27
* 28
* 29
* 30
* 31
* 32
* 33
* 34
* 35
* 36
* 37
* 38
* 39
* 40
* 41
* 42
* 43
* 44
* 45
* 46
* 47
* 48
* 49
* 50
* 51
* 52
* 53
* 54
* 55
* 56
* 57
* 58
* 59
* 60
* 61
* 62
* 63
* 64
* 65
* 66
* 67
* 68
* 69
* 70
* 71
* 72
* 73
* 74
* 75
* 76
* 77
* 78
* 79
* 80
* 81
* 82
* 83
* 84
* 85
* 86
* 87
* 88
* 89
* 90
* 91
* 92
* 93
* 94
* 95
* 96
* 97
* 98
* 99
* 100
* 101
* 102
* 103
* 104
* 105
* 106
* 107
* 108
* 109
* 110
* 111
* 112
* 113
* 114
* 115
* 116
* 117
* 118
* 119
* 120
* 121
* 122
* 123
* 124
* 125
* 126
* 127
* 128
* 129
* 130
* 131
* 132
* 133
* 134
* 135
* 136
* 137
* 138
* 139
* 140
* 141
* 142
* 143
* 144
* 145
* 146
* 147
* 148
* 149
* 150
* 151
* 152
* 153
* 154
* 155
* 156
* 157
* 158
* 159
* 160
* 161
* 162
* 163
* 164
* 165
* 166
* 167
* 168
* 169
* 170
* 171
* 172
* 173
* 174
* 175
* 176
* 177
* 178
* 179
* 180
* 181
* 182
* 183
* 184
* 185
* 186
* 187
* 188
* 189
* 190
* 191
* 192
* 193
* 194
* 195
* 196
* 197
* 198
Choice Quotations from Hee-Haw-ley's Echo Chamber, Registered Independent:
* 1
* 2
* 3
* 4
* 5
* 6
* 7
* 8
* 9
* 10
* 11
* 12
* 13
* 14
* 15
* 16
* 17
* 18
* 19
* 20
* 21
* 22
* 23
* 24
* 25
* 26
* 27
* 28
* 29
* 30
* 31
* 32
* 33
* 34
* 35
* 36
* 37
* 38
* 39
* 40
* 41
* 42
* 43
* 44
* 45
* 46
* 47
* 48
* 49
* 50
* 51
Choice Quotations from Hee-Haw-ley's Superior Officer, Sgt. Asshat:
* 1
* 2
* 3
* 4
* 5
* 6
* 7
* 8
* 9
* 10
* 11
* 12
* 13
Quotations from Jesus H. Christ:
* 1
* 2
* 3
* 4
* 5
* 6
* 7
* 8
* 9
* 10
* 11
* 12
* 13
* 14
* 15
* 16
* 17
* 18
* 19
* 20
* 21
* 22
* 23
* 24
Quotations from others:
* 1
* 2
* 3
* 4
* 5
* 6
* 7
* 8
* 9
* 10
* 11
* 12
* 13
* 14
* 15
* 16
* 17
* 18
* 19
* 20
* 21