Hey-Suess Chronicles Volume 3: Semaphore for Truth

Maxwell C. Bridges

2009-10-31

This body of work is mostly one side of a debate that frequently touched on 9/11. My chief opponents in the long-running debates were GuitarBill and EncinoM.

In an effort to raise the level of the discussion, I began to address GuitarBill as Mr. Bill. Unfortunately, that led immediately to catch-words from and links to the original Saturday Night Live (SNL).

Mr. Bill became the inspiration for the title, Semaphore for Truth, but not for the words that he himself writes. No. The words of Mr. Bill's opponents usually have more basis in truth. The reader just has to understand that Mr. Bill has flagged them for us.

{Author's post-notes are inserted in curly braces. }

Go To Table of Contents


Maxwell C. Bridges : On a Mission...

2009-05-22

In addition to stating the goals of invading Iraq and finding new reasons for when and how America exercises its military muscle for which a "New Pearl Harbor" would garner public support in a timely fashion, the document called "Rebuilding America's Defenses" along with others from the Project for a New American Century discussed new realms for warfare, one of them being cyberspace.

Of course, much of the cyberspace warfare discussion was about defending against computer attacks, as well as pre-emptive launching of our own attacks to get battlefield dominance. Control of the means for communication is a key military objective. To that end, though, control doesn't have to be destructive.

You can google Operation Mockingbird to learn about the CIA's secret project from the late 1940's that bought influence behind the scenes at major media outlets and recruited America news organizations and journalists to becomes spies and disseminators of propaganda. However, "The Information Operations Roadmap" is a more recent document about the Pentagon's comprehensive strategy for taking over the internet and controlling the free flow of information.

From "The Pentagon’s War on the Internet"

"The War Dept. is planning to insert itself into every area of the internet from blogs to chat rooms, from leftist web sites to editorial commentary. The objective is to challenge any tidbit of information that appears on the web that may counter the official narrative; the fairytale of benign American intervention to promote democracy and human rights across the planet."

Which brings us to 9/11 and some of the comments posted here.

If this forum were infiltrated by the government, what form would that meddling take?

I'll leave Joshua Holland out of the consideration, because he accomplished his journalistic goals of getting eyeballs to his article and the associated ads. Aside from being on the left, he isn't quite in the same league with other entertainers of the right like Rush, Hannity, and Savage, who probably don't believe half of what they spew but who are successful in drumming up controversy, which means more listeners to the ads.

No, a small handful of posters to this forum exemplify much better the spirit of being government trolls. The frequency and ferver of their postings is an initial clue, in that the writing effort was a huge time-suck and major distraction for anyone having a real job, unless their paid-to-post participation here was their real job.

Evidently Internet PYS OPS Panzer Division IV sends their recruits to the Karl Rove School of Online Debate, because their postings reflect so much of its training:

Lesson #1: The first part of any response should be to personally attack the opponent.

Lesson #2: Put incorrect words into your opponent's mouth.

Lesson #3: Misconstrue your opponent's message purposely so as to build a straw man argument that is easier to knock down than your opponent's real argument.

Lesson #4: Take all of the weaknesses in your own position and project them onto your opponent, whether or not true. Later when the opponent picks up how the weakness is really yours, you can point to their unoriginality in throwing it back at you.

{Inspiration and creation came later in this volume.}

Lesson #4b: Take all of the strengths in your opponent's position and project them onto your position, whether or not true. Later when the opponent picks up how the strength is really theirs, you can point to their unoriginality in bringing it up.

Lesson #5: Rather than addressing your opponent's points head-on, insult their intelligence instead and extrapolate your claim of their lack of intelligence as being the reason why their points fail.

Lesson #6: Purposely mislabel your points as "fact", so that it is harder for your opponent to question it.

Lesson #7: Repeat your lie over and over until it sinks in as a possible truth.

I've seen these lessons played out in other forums as the HATER acronym for "Hype - Associate - Twist - Egg - Repeat", whereby a false association is twisted, repeated, and hyped, mostly just to egg other on. Makes sense to employ such tactics if the motivation of 9/11 falsers and coincidence theorists is pay-for-postings and ending discussions.

A key difference between 9/11 falsers and 9/11 truthers is that those seeking 9/11 truth have a much wider difference of opinion about the events of the day stemming from the extent of their research and knowledge of current affairs. The 9/11 falsers toe the same party line where ever one of their government trolls drew it, while the 9/11 truthers tow many lines to drag the public's conscience into the same realization that 9/11 was an inside con job.

Case in point are the planes. Until half a year ago, I believed commercial aircraft hit the twin towers, but not the Pentagon or Shanksville. Today, I'm a no-planer. I believe that no commercial jets hit the twin towers or the Pentagon. Google "September Clues" and view the analysis of what the media presented to us on 9/11 and shortly thereafter. Learn how Hollywood wizardry inserted tricks and planted story-lines into our collective conscience.

But be that as it may, I can set aside my no-plane beliefs and reach common ground with other 9/11 truthers in saying that the structural integrity of the (three) towers even if hit by real planes should not have failed so completely or so quickly in a physics defying manner.

If the government's official conspiracy theory about 9/11 is true, then we should all become Muslims, because those 19 Islamic hijackers proved in those great and mystical and unprecedented events of 9/11 that their Allah is more powerful than our God in circumventing standard operating procedures on the ground as well as the laws of physics in the destruction observed.

Hermann Goering, the Nazi Reichsmarshall, said:

"It is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."

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


GuitarBill: Here, let me put it in terms you can understand.

2009-06-30

Posted by: GuitarBill on Jun 30, 2009 3:24 PM

Place a 500 gram weight on top of a glass.

Notice the glass does not break.

Now, lift the 500 gram weight from the glass and hold it a few inches above the glass.

Now, drop the 500 gram weight.

What happens?

Answer: The 500 gram weight will smash the glass.

Like I said, ever heard of momentum?


Maxwell C. Bridges : RE: Here, let me put it in terms you can understand.

2009-06-30

Smash the glass, it might.

BUT, in converting the 500 gram object's kinetic energy into the force required to break the glass, the object's acceleration to the ground will be slowed.

I've heard of momentum and conservation of momentum, which means that the 500 gram object can't both break the glass and continue to fall at a free-fall speed.

That is the issue with all three of the building failures on 9/11.

In earlier posts, you and your companion coincidence theorists poo-pooed AE911truth. I suggest you go have another look, like the video WTC7 in Freefall--No Longer Controversial by David Chandler, who I understand is a high school physics teacher. It is less than 10 minutes long.

We've heard reports that President Bush wasn't the best student, and certainly not one drawn to math and science. So it is rather ironic that high school physics helps unravel the con job perpetrated on us.

One of your coincidence theorists lamented how a 9/11 truth thread got interjected into this discussion. Here are a couple of choice quotes from the original article:

The control of the airwaves and domination through corporate advertising of most publications restricted news to reporting facts, to "objectivity and balance," while the real power to persuade and dominate a public remained under corporate and governmental control. ... The public is bombarded with carefully crafted images meant to confuse propaganda with ideology and knowledge with how we feel.

9/11 was a PYSOPS.


Maxwell C. Bridges : Logistics schmogistics

2009-06-30

EncinoM wrote:

"The problem with demolition charges is logistics."

You're just kicking up sand into the eyes of those seeking greater understanding.

Logistics isn't a reason to discount controlled demolition.

Who among the few working graveyard shift and weekends for companies in the WTC is really going to notice sham janitors and maintenance crews? [Actually, some did, yet you and the 9/11 Commission seem to discount their testimony.]

How less-suspecting do the sham crews become when, as the logistics of the job dictates, they happen to be there every day for an extended period of time doing a job, just like everybody else is doing theirs. They become part of the scenery and the routine.

We do not know the extent of the duration of their access to the buildings and over what period the preparatory work was carried out. Maybe they completed the lion's share of their work before June of 2001 when President Bush's little brother got off of the board of directors of the company handling security in the WTC complex.

Maybe it is unfair to drag the Bush brother into this; maybe there is no connection. We'll never know, because this is one line of investigation and questioning among so, so many that the 9/11 Commission refused to go down.

If 9/11 was really so cut-and-dried as given in the government's version, why were there so many cover-ups and manipulations of reports and investigations to purposely gloss over (or outright ignore) important issues?


Maxwell C. Bridges : The truth of 9/11-Achilles heel of corporate deception (revisited) (1)

2009-07-02

[Tweaked from the original for emphasis...]

The real power to persuade and dominate a public remains with corporations and the government through control of the airwaves and domination of most publications by corporate advertisings, while news is restricted to reporting facts, to "objectivity and balance." The public is bombarded with carefully crafted images meant to confuse propaganda with ideology and knowledge with how we feel.

This indeed has been an issue with 9/11.

Every time a government spokesman or agency wanted to speak to 9/11, they could pretty much present their full argument in the corporate media with nary a dissenting or questioning commentator to offer a comprehensive opposing point of view. On the rare occasions when someone from 9/11 Truth was given air time, observe how they were treated:

Treatment of the 9/11 Truth Movement in the printed media may have been worst of all. Has Time Magazine, the Wall Street Journal, or the New York Times ever devoted a special issue to this topic from the 9/11 Truth Movement's point-of-view? Have they even ever published an in-depth article (or series of articles) presenting faithfully the 9/11 Truth Movement's case without undermining it in the very same article, not to mention accompanying ones?

Whereas hometown newspapers retained their names, consolidation turned them into mini-McGannetts always drawing on the same pool of articles. The first hurdle is whether local editors would even run the story. The second hurdle is how much hacking they'd do prior to publication. The third hurdle is where they'd run it (e.g., bury it) and split it to make it more difficult for a reader to find and follow.

The public is bombarded with carefully crafted images meant to confuse propaganda with ideology and knowledge with how we feel.

Government spokespeople (and its agencies) wanted the public to "charge forward" into Afghanistan and Iraq [and into neo-con policies provided by PNAC] on the basis of how the United States was attacked 9/11. You were un-patriotic, un-American, and even treasonous if you didn't want pre-emptive war to protect the homeland... and if you didn't want fewer taxes on the wealthy, privatized social security, bail-outs...

Yet whenever someone said, "Okay, let's look at 9/11 in detail" so that we can be sure we're hunting the right witches, those same government spokespeople and agencies said, "Move along, sheople. Nothing to see here."

Whenever 9/11 is discussed in this forum, the unofficial (?) government spokespeople [like GuitarBill, EncinoM, SquareHead] are talented at kicking sand into our eyes with pseudo-science, quasi-definitive official reports, rehashed debunked claims, straw man discussions, and outright lies, and at distracting us into flame wars with their insults.

We have many examples of cover-ups in how government commissions and (scientific) agencies were manipulated to limit the scope and conclusions of their investigations. Adequate and overwhelming evidence has been provided to caste doubt on the government's 9/11 version, such as these three, which are solidly based on the laws of physics:

* WTC7 in Freefall--No Longer Controversial

* Downward Acceleration of the North Tower

* WTC7: Nist Finally Admits Freefall (Part III)

The above should really shut-up all defenders and trolls of the governments 9/11 version and turn them into true believers of 9/11 Truth. But it won't. Why?

Fear.

They are afraid of what it will mean to our republic. They're afraid that it will mean massive civil unrest, total chaos, and the attempt at destructive overthrow of all institutions of power. Because those in power will use all in their power to remain in power, they fear the loss of power and stature, if not the oppressive response of government on its people.

I believe that this argument is just more fear-mongering and Kool-Aid for the weak-minded to manipulate patriots and Christians.

The real unspoken fear is the massive reduction in power of the federal government transferred, if not to the states, than to the regional countries that banded together to succeed from the old union in the hopes of forming a more perfect (smaller) union.

States Rights and gaining some autonomy from the (proven misguided) Federal Government and corrupt corporate influence can't be achieved today. So we are left with flag-waving in support of illegal wars, failed drug wars, and other draconically federal policies.

Just like mammoth corporations often require divisions to be spun off into their own businesses, lest the aims of the corporation and of the division become at odds with one another, the United States of America as we know it is also in need of having various regions (one or more neighboring states) with shared cultural values spun off into their own nations.

Thomas "Tip" O'Neill once declared, "All Politics is local." Politics needs to be brought more local. Although such spin-off regional nations sound radical, it would really be pretty much business as usual for you and I and for the governments of our community, town, county, and state.


Maxwell C. Bridges : Amazingly they haven't and you lie again

2009-07-02

EncinoM wrote:

University professors, with Ph.D's in civil engineering, may not be High School Physics teachers, but they have, amazingly debunked the free fall speed theory.

Prove it. Provide the links.

Saying it does not make it so.

University physics is in principle no different than high school physics (except that they're probably derive their equations using calculus.)

* WTC7 in Freefall--No Longer Controversial

* Downward Acceleration of the North Tower

* WTC7: Nist Finally Admits Freefall (Part III)

When it comes to University Professors, it does well to consider who has spoken up for 9/11 Truth and what has subsequently happened to them: marginalization and even loss of employment.

Moreover, it is well to remember where most University Professors receive the bulk of their funding: the federal government.

"A coward is a hero with a wife, kids, and a mortgage."
~ Marvin Kitman (b. 1929), author and media critic


Maxwell C. Bridges : TNRAT, pronouced "tin-rat"

2009-07-02

{Response to GuitarBill}

First impression: TNRAT, pronounced "tin-rat" and means "They'll Never Read All That". But I did anyway.

Like the African American Senator from the TV series "The Wire", I say: "Sheeeeee-it!"

Why don't you step out of the past and get yourself up to date.

To explain the collapse, it was proposed (on September 13, 2001; Ba?zant 2001; Ba?zant and Zhou 2002)...

If you're going to bring up NIST reports, do us all a favor and look at whether or not they've been debunked before you post something. Address the debunking.

FACT: The initial NIST report about the building failures on 9/11 did not even address WTC-7.

FACT: The NIST reports unnecessarily limited the scope of their analysis to the initiation of the collapse and conveniently ignored all of the observable events happening during the collapse. Even within that narrow scope of collapse initiation, they failed to consider all possible instigators beyond planes and gravity; they unscientifically rules out controlled demolition.

FACT: When NIST finally did get around to discussing WTC-7 in a later report, they purposely made very sloppy scientific assumptions and conclusions (like "constant speed").

* WTC7: Nist Finally Admits Freefall (Part III)

FACT: NIST has not released the model and its assumptions used in predicting the collapse, so it can't be independently verified.

FACT: NIST's computer model predicted a 5.4 second collapse time of WTC-7 with resistance, yet the only way their modeling can match recorded reality is for them to include time in the video before collapse initiation.

FACT: Video evidence proves 2.5 seconds of the collapse were in a manner within the margin of error to be indistinguishable from FREE-FALL, which is impossible without other forces acting on the building to destroy structural supports/resistance.


Maxwell C. Bridges : RE: The truth of 9/11-Achilles heel of corporate deception (revisited) (2)

2009-07-02

Maybe I shouldn't have thrown that comments about States Rights out there. My Bad.

I was trying to think of why the official 9/11 story would have so many vocal supporters on this forum even in the face on undeniable -- even Divine -- evidence in the form of adherence to the laws of physics. The government's coincidence theory does not, at least, not without cheating and artificially limiting the scope of their investigation and analysis.

The initial answer I came up with -- complete, bare-ass speculation -- was fear and that the 9/11 coincidence theorists (of which I believe you count yourself) might be afraid that our republic will sink into turmoil and chaos, were we as a nation to open our eyes to what we were duped into. We might then give some serious consideration and fresh walk-the-talk to the words of one of our founding documents {emphasis added}:

Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends [life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness] it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government...
~ Thomas Jefferson (The Declaration of Independence)

A little rebellion now and then...is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.
~ Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 1826), Letter to James Madison, 1787

I mean, if the government's 9/11 version can't be defended on its merits, can't be defended by the laws of physics, and can't be defended with evidence (much of which they purposely destroyed), then can it really be defended? Should it be defended?

And by extension, should we be defending the resulting policies and what they duped us into turning into: war profiteers, war criminals, torturers?

So why are people defending 9/11 (and its ugly spawns)?

Why are you defending it?

And what do you think would happen if we as a nation can acknowledge the whole truth about what our government (and their corporate enablers) foisted upon us and the world?

At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, `Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?' `A republic, if you can keep it,' responded Franklin.

P.S. I apologize for lumping you with EncinoM and GuitarBill and the listed offenses they perpetrate in this forum, mostly to derail rational 9/11 discussion.

So, SquareHead, you encouraged me to "PLEASE read the stuff", and on States Rights, I admit to need to reading more. On 9/11, though, it is you who must follow your own advice. Watch the videos I linked. Then we can talk about how far down the 9/11 rabbit hole goes.


Maxwell C. Bridges : RE: The truth of 9/11-Achilles heel of corporate deception (revisited) (3)

2009-07-06

Squarehead wrote:

I think Encino & Bill may include invective in their repertoire, but their points are logical, and well made.

There is no doubt about what they include in their repertoire. And there is a whole bunch of doubt about their points being logical and well-made, even igoring their invectives that detract from all of their postings. I've found them too fixated on certain particular (old & debunked) elements of the 9/11 story, which when confronted tends to discredit the entirety of their reasoning.

If they were debating as rational citizens without any axes to grind (for the government), they could afford to be wrong and could admit they were wrong on certain 9/11 anamolies that the government has unsatisfactorily explained. Alas, they chime in and fight on all 9/11 fronts for reasons that are orthogonal from discovering truth (like maybe just to poke people in the ribs and get a laugh at the response.)

Regrettably for the 9/11 coincidence theorist, the fight isn't fair. They have to defend against any and all holes in all aspects of the official 9/11 story (including PNAC, the Bush Administration's actions in the lead-up to 9/11, the events and incredible physics of the day, the cover-up in the ground-zero escavation, the cover-up by the commissions and agencies, the inaccuracies and inadequacies in their official reports, and the redirection of public outrage into support for their draconian domestic and global policies.)

The 9/11 Truthers, on the other hand, don't mind you punching (valid) holes in some of our theories, because we're not making a deductive argument; we're making a cummulative argument. The conclusion (of 9/11 being an inside job) doesn't require all of the theories to be valid; it just takes one that is valid. Like a balloon, it only takes one prick to burst the whole 9/11 bubble (and not just some insignificant portion of it.)

Proof of what I'm saying is that I'm a 9/11 no-planer, which is a theory that both the 9/11 coincidence theorists and many of the 9/11 Truthers in this forum have both stepped forward to say (but not prove convincingly to me) is debunked. It is a side-issue that can be taken off-line, and I'm willing to let myself be convinced it is false (just like a year ago the evidence convinced me it was true.)

You see, it doesn't matter that I might be wrong about no commerical airplanes, because the high school physics applied to the collapses of the three buildings and the high velocity of the steel and concrete ejections during the collapses kind of unites rational thinkers (not just 9/11 Truthers) behind Sir Isaac Newton and the unbalanced energy equations that only additional energy sources planted throughout the structures can "Occam Razam" explain (easiest, simplist).

Squarehead wrote:

You are not addressing the core issues, which, if we are discussing 9/11/2001, are about the physics, the physical possibilities of what happened then.

Nice twisting of meaning and words, but I think you're finally getting it.

You see, the charge for the scientists at the government agency NIST should have been to discuss all of the physics and all of physical possibilities of what happened. Instead, their scope was artifically limited to the planted public assumptions of jet impacts, jet fuel & office furniture fires, and gravity being sufficiently plausible to initiate the collapses; they avoided discussing the physics of what happened after the collapse initiation had started and what was observed in the downfall of these buildings. They avoided even considering other sources of energy (demolition charges, exotic weapons), because they as scientists talking about science thereby seem to know definitively about (military and demolition) logistics and the planting of bombs being supposedly improbable.

Do you see no manipulation in the fact that logistics, being outside of their scope and expertise, was brought into their scope solely for the purposes of precluding (in-scope) analysis associated with additional sources of energy to alternatively (and adequately ala Occam's Razor) explain the observable added energy?

Or how about the nifty trick of avoiding discussing the collapse of WTC-7 for several years and then producing a final report on the subject that gets slammed for shoddy work.

Squarehead wrote:

The politics are a quite separate matter, to be discussed immediately after.

Yes, the politics are a separate matter, but a related matter.

Once we get enough people asking the "how" questions about how the WTC buildings were brought down, then we can entertain "who" questions, like who artifically limited the scope of NIST's reports? Who benefitted. The "why" questions to clarify motives come after that.

Squarehead wrote:

Your 'libertarian' (my parentheses) comment on armed resistance (implied) to the US government is unrealistic. Completely.

You owe me an apology.

You read a little bit too much into the words I quoted from our founding fathers as it relates to today. Armed resistance?!! Read them again.

Observe the bolded verbs in the passage:

"Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends [life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness] it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government..."
~ Thomas Jefferson

The verbs do not talk about armed resistence.

"A republic, if you can keep it"
~ Benjamin Franklin

Isn't about armed resistance. It might be more about a weak stomached Congress being bullied into voting favorably on knee-jerk legislation and bad public policy (to benefit corporations), or about citizens remaining (willfully) ignorant to government corruption and lacking the motivation to (turn off the TV and to) do something about it.

"A little rebelion now and then..."

Doesn't have to be about armed resistance.


Maxwell C. Bridges : Why 9/11 discussion is valid

2009-07-23

Why does 9/11 keep coming back as a topic in all sorts of discussion threads on all sorts of forums, despite the efforts of others to derail and bury it by any means possible?

Legions of individual 9/11 conspiracy theories can be thrown out without disproving the validity of the case that 9/11 was an inside job. All it takes is one. Evidence is what turns theory into probability.

The laws of mathematics are divine truths that impartially reveal God. Examples from Architects & Engineers for 9//11 Truth, using simple high school physics, are particularly enlightening. The mathematics and Newtonian physics of the collapses of the ~THREE~ buildings on 9/11 are the smoking gun, the DNA, the eternal Truth, the still small voice. Listen.

NIST officially reports -- begrudgingly and half-buried -- that WTC-7 had a significant period of time in its collapse that was freefall, which is what the 9/11 Truth Movement has been saying all along. Therefore, we don't need to argue about this truth or its mathematical calculation.

+++ IMPORTANT +++

What are the ramifications of building freefall both in the observed event and the larger political context?

"Belief produces the results of belief, and the penalties it affixes last so long as the belief and are inseparable from it. The remedy consists in probing the trouble to the bottom."
~ Mary Baker Eddy (discoverer and founder of Christian Science)

This is the reason the 9/11 topic keeps coming back. The (erroneous) belief that 9/11 was perpetrated soley by 19 hijackers has affixed us with penalties: wars, war profiteering, war crimes, deaths, maimings, injuries, Constitution shredding, rendition, torture, ... 9/11 was even participant in the looting of global wealth with stock bubbles, housing bubbles, banking bailouts, etc.

As long as we believe the lie of 9/11, we can be sucked into continual war and bad public policy. Probing the trouble to the bottom requires seeing the 9/11 dot in the clear pattern of lies, disception, and crimes foisted on us by the US Government and the Bush Administration in particular.

To ignore 9/11 truth is to shred everything we individually and collectively stand for as Americans, as patriots, and adherents of some religious faith (like Christianity, Islam).

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
~ Edmund Burke

"It is the greatest of all mistakes to do nothing because you can only do a little."
~ Sydney Smith

"The greatest obstacle to seeing the truth - that 9/11 was an inside job - is not the lack of evidence but what can be called "nationalist faith" - the belief that America is the "exceptional nation," whose leaders never deliberately do anything truly evil, at least to their own citizens."
~ David Ray Griffin

There is only one force in the nation that can be depended upon to keep the government pure and the governors honest, and that is the people themselves. They alone, if well informed, are capable of preventing the corruption of power, and of restoring the nation to its rightful course if it should go astray."
~ Thomas Jefferson

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


Maxwell C. Bridges : GuitarBill's red herrings in Controlled Demolitions and his beliefs

2009-07-24

GuitarBill has stated in the discussions that delved into 9/11 from various articles:

Based on the posting, GuitarBill claims he changed his 9/11 beliefs (1) from the government's version, (2) to 9/11 was an inside job, and finally (3) back to believing the government's version.

It is ironic and inconsistent that the basis for his flip-flopping:

(a) Seems to be unsavory connections between some fringe elements of the 9/11 Truth Movement and other extremists groups... justification that can be categorized with the legions of individual 9/11 conspiracy theories, supposition, and speculation that can probably be thrown out (whether or not true).

(b) Seemes to ~NOT~ be based on math and physics.

High school physics -- the first half of a semester of GuitarBill's six semesters of college physics -- clearly demonstrates the lie of 9/11 and isn't disproved by the Christopher Bollyn and Chertoff red herrings.

NIST officially reports (begrudgingly and half buried) that WTC-7 had a significant period of time in its collapse that was freefall.

What are the ramifications of building freefall both in the observed event and the larger political context?

GuitarBill's first straw man argument limits the definition of "controlled demolition" such that it can only be executed in one manner and can only have certain tell-tale signs.

No. "Controlled demolition" only means destruction of a structure in a synchronized manner to achieve pre-defined goals.

When his videos of controlled demolitions all start looking the same (but different from WTC-1/2), it is because (a) few companies actually do demolitions, (b) experience has taught them the most efficient ways to achieve this, (c) they only have access to and experience with traditional explosives, and (d) the goals usually include minimize collateral damage and facilitate clean-up by limiting the pile size and having debris cut in chunks that can be easily hauled away.

GuitarBill's second straw man argument implies that all controlled demolitions have the same goals.

First, as if the 19 hijackers cared about: (a) minimizing collateral damage and (b) breaking steel and debris into chunks that are easy to haul away. So why was WTC-7 this way?

Second, if we allow for assistance from insiders to plant explosives, their goals [on WTC-1/2] would have included (a) top-down destruction to perpetrate the illusion that airplane impacts initiated it and (b) a wide-spreading destruction canopy to hide the synchronized and uniform waves of destruction underneath.

Third, means are not an issue for those insiders with motive and opportunity and do not have to be limited to conventional demolition explosives and to conventional techniques. Wireless technology eliminates tell-tale wires to newly developed nano-thermite explosives.

So, GuitarBill, I suggest you review your first semester college physics and reconsider the math/physics-based arguments of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.


GuitarBill : Oh really, @$$hole?

2009-07-24

Let's consult Brent Blanchard, Demolition Expert
Posted by: GuitarBill on Jul 24, 2009 4:27 PM

"...Our team, working at ground zero, including myself, never saw indication of explosive use that would have been evident after the event. You just can't clean up all that det cord, shock tube, blasting cap remnants, copper backing from explosive charges, burn marks along clean-cut edges of columns, etc., nor is there any evidence in the thousands of photos taken by the press and dozens of agencies over the following days." -- Brent Blanchard, Demolition Expert; International Society of Explosives Engineers.

Oh, and you obviously don't understand the concept of a straw man.

Try an elementary course in logic, conspiranoid.

Oh really, @$$hole? Let's see your pseudo-"physics". I'll rip you apart in less than 10 minutes.
Posted by: GuitarBill on Jul 24, 2009 10:16 PM

Bring it on, genius.

I don't fear you.

Bring it on.

%^)


Maxwell C. Bridges : What are the ramifications of building freefall?

2009-07-25

Dear Mr. Physics aka GuitarBill,

Obviously, your 7/24 4:27 PM response wasn't well thought out. Although Brent Blanchard, the Demolition Expert, gives credible testimony, just because he didn't see evidence that is common when using conventional demolition techniques, it doesn't rule out unconventional techniques (e.g., wireless technology).

If anything, the destruction on 9/11 shows massive overkill in the amount of explosives used. The building and its contents were pulverized into fine particles. Not only did he not see any indication of "det cord, shock tube, blasting cap remnants, copper backing from explosive charges,...", they didn't see any evidence of office furniture, computers, LAN cables, etc. One worker on the pile lamented that the biggest piece of anything recognizable that he found was a portion of a telephone keypad.

I guess you didn't realize until 7/24 10:16 PM about how you had been raked over the coals, which is why you felt the need to respond again with the flame:

Bring it on, genius.

I don't fear you.

Bring it on.

You don't need to fear me, man. After all, I'm just another Blues Brother on a mission from God. My directives concerning 9/11 were very clear. Feed my sheep.

The truth, man, is what you need to fear.

... and maybe Sir Isaac Newton, because if he were alive today, he'd give you an "F" in your mid-term of Physics 101 (the first of your six semesters). If you want to pass and to convince us readers of Alternet that you really did study (and remember accurately) three years of college physics, please answer the question:

What are the ramifications of building freefall?

Then expand upon this by answering:

What are the ramifications of building freefall on the three WTC buildings and on the larger political context including the Bush Administration policies?

Reconsider the math/physics-based arguments of Architects & Engineers for 9//11 Truth before opening your big fat mouth.


Maxwell C. Bridges : History matters. So does 9/11 and high school physics

2009-07-27

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

Hear, hear!

We've already got the Bush apologists working double-time in this forum telling us how Bush kept us safe during his administration. True, if you ignore (a) 9/11, (b) anthrax, (c) the death and casualty toll both to US citizens and foreigners in Afghanistan and Iraq, and (d) the bursting bubbles, bank failures, and collapsing economy.

Several people in this thread have already mentioned words to the effect: "9/11 is a root element [of what Tom Engelhardt laments in his article]; 9/11 needs to be re-investigated."

Of course, they've already been met with GuitarBill and his several postings of 9/11 smear videos. (Not his best arguments.)

GuitarBill, being endowed with six semesters of college physics and an advanced math degree, taunted the 9/11 Truth Movement in the discussion to another article with:

"Let's see your pseudo-"physics". I'll rip you apart in less than 10 minutes. Bring it on, genius."

In NIST's final report on WTC-7, it half-buries that WTC-7 had a significant period of time in its collapse that was freefall. Therefore coming from NIST and being more or less in agreement with what the 9/11 Truth Movement has been saying all along, we don't need to argue about this truth or its mathematical calculation.

Here are two questions that the likes of GuitarBill should answer.

(1) What are the ramifications of building freefall?

(2) What are the ramifications of building freefall both in the observed event of 9/11 and the larger political context?

In preparation:

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

"Whatever the Obama administration may want to do, or think should be done, if we don't face the record we created, if we only look forward, if we only round up the usual suspects, if we try to turn that page in history and put a paperweight atop it, we will be haunted by the Bush years until hell freezes over."
~ Tom Engelhardt


Maxwell C. Bridges : High school physics and what GuitarBill doesn't know

2009-07-27

GuitarBill asks:

"So where's your "physics"? I don't see any "physics". Why? Because you know nothing about physics."

He then goes on to add insults, non-answers, and provide links to 9/11 spoof videos.

The physics you seek is buried in the NIST Final Report on WTC-7. The salient point is explained here. Namely, WTC-7 had a significant period of time in its collapse that was freefall

I know you want to derail the discussion by impugning my knowledge of physics, because when you can't discredit the message, then discredit the character of the messenger. I won't bore you with my college transcripts except to say that I know that the first half of Physics 101 (your first semester of supposedly six) offers sufficient proof for rational, thinking individual to doubt the official 9/11 story.

Relying on your vast three years of college physics, GuitarBill, you have yet to answer the questions:

(1) What are the ramifications of building freefall?

(2) What are the ramifications of building freefall both in the observed event of 9/11 and the larger political context?


Maxwell C. Bridges : Stage 2: descended at gravitational acceleration aka freefall

2009-07-27

Yes, GuitarBill knows how to cut-and-paste, but his six semesters of college physics (... was it six times through the same course and you still didn't pass? ...) doesn't give him enough smarts to understand what it is saying.

NIST says with emphasis added:

"[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."

I've asked you three times already to answer two questions:

(1) What are the ramifications of building freefall?

Seeing how you haven't, allow me to ask it in NIST terms:

(1a) What are the ramifications of a building descending 32.0 meters at gravitational acceleration?

(1b) Explain the difference between "gravitational acceleration" and "freefall"? [Hint: There isn't.]

(1c) What are the ramification of 8 stories of "negligible support"? How did it get that way so quickly, so uniformly?

(1d) How did 8 stories get their columns to buckle so uniformly so that the building (not just the North face) falls 32.0 meters at "gravitational acceleration"?

By extention, here is a re-worded second question which ties in with the very subject of this article "Bush Era Horrors Will Haunt Us Until We Truly Face Them":

(2) What are the ramifications of a building descending at gravitational acceleration both in the observed event of 9/11 and the larger political context?

"Though error [wars in Afghanistan, Iraq; torture; almost all Bush Administration policies] hides behind a lie [9/11] and excuses guilt [can you say "Medal of Freedom"?], error [Bush Era Horrors] cannot forever be concealed. Truth [that 9/11 was an inside job], through her eternal laws [demonstrated by high school physics], unveils error. Truth causes sin to betray itself [like NIST's report and its description of stage 2], ... Even the disposition to excuse guilt or to conceal it is punished [so be careful what you say, GuitarBill]. The avoidance of justice and the denial of truth tend to perpetuate sin, invoke crime, jeopardize self-control, and mock divine mercy."
~ Mary Baker Eddy (ca. 1865)


Maxwell C. Bridges : Nice try at bait and switch

2009-07-27

GuitarBill,

The discussion was about WTC-7, not WTC-1 or WTC-2. So, your point doesn't really apply.

You seem to be getting your running 9/11-feuds in multiple forums confused.

Moreover, the numbers you give for the North and South tower collapsing do not match what was given in the 9/11 Commission Report, which were indeed much closer to your calculated freefall time.

"Truth, through her eternal laws, unveils error. Truth causes sin to betray itself."
~ Mary Baker Eddy (ca. 1865)

If you insist on getting into a discussion of WTC-1/2 -- where for the sake of discussion I will allow your stated collapse times --, I'll just point readers to Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and to David Chandler, a high school physics teacher.

The first versions of the WTC tower collapses talked about pancakes. Unfortunately for your favorite throne-room reading material "Popular Mechanics", this theory was debunked and thrown out. They didn't get that memo, neither did the government trolls who still throw this up occasionally to debunk 9/11 truth.

Then the theory was that the upper stories acted like a pile driver. Alas, the very videos you mention show those upper stories:

(a) collapsing into powder first [very questionable, indeed! Where did that energy come from? What would cause the upper floors to collapse first before their mass even falls to the level of where the planes hit?]

(b) ejecting material off to the sides [at speeds of 70-100 mph -- where did that energy come from?]

(c) thereby reducing the mass of the supposed pile driver

(d) and making the failure of the lower stories even less believable.

I, and others, can go into more details to prove our case. You've repeatedly proven that your illogical arguments are based on partisan beliefs and that when you can't win, you start throwing a tantrum and calling people names.

For this playing so well your God-given role of 9/11 government troll, I thank you, because with every posting, you open the door for I and others to debunk 9/11 official fairy tales.

To have half a chance of winning, you're going to have to follow Jesus' advice ["to turn the other cheek"] or the Internet's advice ["to not feed the trolls"] or advice of participants ["STFU"], because otherwise you offer opening after opening for the truth of 9/11 to be revealed.

Of course, if you really wanted to win instead of having just half a chance, you could flip-flop yet again over to the 9/11 Truth side, where you said you were before. Only this time, your belief would be well-founded on eternal truths, namely mathematics upon which physics is based and in which you have an advanced degree (supposedly). Go figure.


Maxwell C. Bridges : ramifications of a building descending at gravitational acceleration

2009-07-27

GuitarBill,

To quote President Reagan, "there you go again" putting words in my mouth, evading the questions, and posing illogical arguments that the evidence clearly contradicts.

Forget Stage 1. Forget Stage 3. While true in their description of what happened, the proof of the 19 hijackers' Allah being powerful enough to break his very own laws of physics is in Stage 2.

The first question(s) expanded relating to Stage 2 were: What are the ramifications of building freefall? What are the ramifications of a building descending 32.0 meters at gravitational acceleration? What are the ramification of 8 stories of "negligible support"? How did 8 stories get their columns to buckle so uniformly so that the building (not just the North face) falls 32.0 meters at "gravitational acceleration"?

You wrote:

"The columns did not buckle uniformly..."

True enough. I'll buy that. The columns did not buckle uniformly. The columns were blown away entirely so that the columns provided [according to NIST] "negligible support" and the roof-line of the building could be observed in all videos uniformly falling 32.0 meters at gravitational acceleration (which we now agree is freefall).

You mention a red herring with:

"30% of the structures perimeter columns were severed... The redistributed load of the upper floors was too much for the remaining columns to bear."

Again just for the sake of argument, let's run with that 30% number and that they were on the side of WTC-7 closest to the collapsed WTC-1/2, (otherwise it opens another can of worms that you can't explain.) So if the damage was all on one side and the load on the remaining columns was too much for them to bear, how come WTC-7 didn't topple over (as Physics 101 would suggest)?

Nope. No explanation is given for how a diesel fire could get so intense to weaken steel columns and trusses to get them to lose 65% of their original strength and fail uniformly [visible in all videos] and collapse the building in Stage 2 32.0 meters at gravitational acceleration.

You wish that question 2 were irrelevant, which was:

(2) What are the ramifications of a building descending at gravitational acceleration both in the observed event of 9/11 and the larger political context?

Partial answer to part (a). If Stage 2 of WTC-7 clearly demonstrates a building descending at gravitational acceleration, that means that all potential energy of the mass during that stage was converted into kinetic energy. No additional energy was available to destroy columns (and building content) and remove them from the path of the falling mass. Notice how I didn't say "weaken columns"? Even weakened columns and those (supposedly) having lost 65% their original strength offer resistance (namely 35%). Yet, the NIST reports in Stage 2 (alone) that 32 meters or 8 stories offered ZERO resistance: not full resistance, not weakened resistance, not 35% resistance, but ZERO resistance as if they were not there.

So, how did 8 stories of columns (even if 30% of them were gone and the remainder were at 35% strength) get removed so that the building in Stage 2 could fall at gravitational acceleration?

Therefore, Allah either broke his own laws of physics, or somehow an additional energy source was coincidentally available in WTC-7 and coincidentally timed to remove 8 stories of columns to produce the observed and admitted freefall.

Partial answer to part (b). The larger political context is everything already discussed in the article, and much, much, more. It nullifies a lot of what the US public used to believe about its government, and if exposed, could offer up a ground-swell if not outright revolution.


Maxwell C. Bridges : Ramifications of gravitational acceleration

2009-07-27

{Response to GuitarBill}

No need to discuss Stage 1 and Stage 3 from NIST's report. Let's just say that they are true in their description of what happened.

Stage 2 is where "Truth, through her eternal laws, unveils error."

Stage 2 is where the Allah of the 19 hijackers proves his/her power in breaking his/her very own laws of physics.

Questions relating to Stage 2 were:

What are the ramifications of a building descending at gravitational acceleration both in the observed event of 9/11 and the larger political context?

If Stage 2 of WTC-7 clearly demonstrates a building descending at gravitational acceleration, that means that all potential energy of the mass during that Stage 2 was converted into kinetic energy. No additional energy was available to destroy columns (and building content) and remove them from the path of the falling mass.

Notice how I didn't say "weaken columns"? Even weakened columns and those (supposedly) having lost 65% their original strength from sporatic diesel fires offer resistance (namely 35%). Whether or not we consider that 30% of the perimeter columns were severed doesn't matter. Why? Because if true, Physics 101 suggests the WTC-7 should have toppled. And regardless of toppling or straight-down, the point of the matter is that the remaining columns offered some resistance.

Yet, the NIST reports in Stage 2 (alone) that 32 meters or 8 stories offered ZERO resistance: not full resistance, not weakened resistance, not 35% resistance, but ZERO resistance as if 8 stories of support columns (perimeter and interior) were not there!

So, how did 8 stories of columns (even if 30% of its perimeter columns were gone and the remainder were at 35% strength) get removed so that the building in Stage 2 could fall at gravitational acceleration?

RAMIFICATION

Therefore, either Allah broke his own laws of physics, or somehow an additional energy source was coincidentally available in WTC-7 and coincidentally timed to remove 8 stories of perimeter and interior columns to produce the observed and admitted freefall.

The larger political context is everything already discussed in the article, and much, much, more. It nullifies a lot of what the US public used to believe about its government, and if exposed, could offer up a ground-swell if not outright revolution.


Maxwell C. Bridges : Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist

2009-07-27

Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist by H. Michael Sweeney

{Edited for relevance}

1) Avoidance.

2) Selectivity.

3) Coincidental.

4) Teamwork.

5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for 'conspiracy theorists' and, usually, for those who in any way believe [them]. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a single topic discussed in a [Forum thread] focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain. Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.

6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. ... With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.

7) Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat 'freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep within.

I have noted that often, they will simply cite contradictory information which neutralizes itself and the author.

8) BONUS TRAIT: Time Constant. Any [forum] posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A [FORUM] ONLY WORKS IF THE READER SEES IT - FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth.


Maxwell C. Bridges : Busted again...

2009-07-27

{Response to GuitarBill}

Dude,

You're the one quote-mining the NIST reports. I'm just quoting you back and assuming you quoted them accurately in the first place.

You're also the one who fails to grasp their meaning, despite you having repeated Physics 101 six times in your three years of physics leading to an advanced degree in math.

In case you missed it in my other postings, I'm not disputing anything you've quoted from the NIST report about Stage 1, Stage 2, or Stage 3. For the sake of discussion, I'm willing to concede everything you quoted from NIST as VALID.

The issue remains, the longest stage (Stage 2) dropped 32 meters at gravitational acceleration, which you have already conceded means "freefall".

Gravitational acceleration means that none of the usual (or even weakened) columns, supports, and (EIGHT!!!) floors were in the path of descent to offer resistance and slow the descent. The potential energy of the mass was totally consumed in the conversion to kinetic energy.

In Stage 2, how were all of the in tact or weakened columns and floors removed from the path of descent or otherwise nullified to provide "negligible support"? Where did they go? Why was nothing there to slow the gravitational acceleration?

That's the mystery.

There's your Physics 101, the smoking gun, the DNA, the evidence of a crime that you continually try to cover-up.

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


Maxwell C. Bridges : Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist (revisited)

2009-07-27

My apologies to the readers of this thread. Looks like I obtained too much "fair-use" quotation of H. Michael Sweeney, resulting in my posting getting purged.

The article in question, Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist, exists several places on the internet. I googled it and just happened to find one that GuitarBill has issues with. The link here is to another one. It might be better, because it also includes "Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation".

Gotta admit, that standout traits exhibited here in this 9/11 thread are "The Time Constant", "Inconsistency", and "Teamwork". Congrats GuitarBill and EncinoM for showing us thy way!


Maxwell C. Bridges : Denial of truth tends to ... invoke crime

2009-07-28

"[I]t should be remembered that, in response to the attacks of 9/11, we, as a nation, were the ones who declared "war," made it a near eternal struggle (the Global War on Terror), and did so much to turn parts of the world into our own private hell. Geopolitics, energy politics, vanity, greed, fear, a misreading of the nature of power in the world, delusions of military and technological omnipotence and omniscience, and so much more drove us along the way."
~ Tom Engelhardt

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

"The avoidance of justice and the denial of truth tend to perpetuate sin, invoke crime, jeopardize self-control, and mock divine mercy."
~ Mary Baker Eddy (ca. 1865)

The ramifications of gravitational acceleration (freefall) in any of the WTC buildings (and admitted in NIST's final report on WTC-7) suggests that the circle of 9/11 conspirators was much larger and included insiders who provided an additional energy source (e.g., explosives) "to make it [the complete and utter destruction of the building(s)] happen."

Those same insiders slowed and distracted our response to known threats, delayed our investigation, compromised the investigation, feverishly worked to covered it up, and, based on GuitarBill's participation in this thread, continue to distract, disinform, and cover it up.

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

GuitarBill chides others not so nicely for "quote-mining" by -- ironically -- copying-and-pasting a section from NIST's final report on WTC-7 that discusses the three stages of that building's collapse. (He posts this three times in one discussion thread.)

Of course, GuitarBill's three years of college physics seems to have left him unprepared to recognize that this very passage, in particular the description of Stage 2, is an admission of "gravitational acceleration" (freefall) in WTC-7, which is 100% in agreement with the 9/11 Truth Movement. NIST lists it as an undisputed fact, but fails to explain how it could be that 8 stories of columns, supports, and materials could suddenly offer "negligible support" (as in, zero resistance) so as to allow freefall over 32 meters.

Caught off-guard, GuitarBill posts in response (three times) "WTC 7 explained". Of course, GuitarBill's advanced degree in mathematics blinds him from recognizing that this copy-and-paste job does not refute NIST's three stages of collapse; it supports it and even quotes from Shyam Sunder, lead investigator for NIST. GuitarBill's "WTC 7 explained" puts things in layman's terms with a personalized time-line, but the gory technical details remain in the NIST Final Report. GuitarBill's copy-and-paste job concludes with a link to Dr Keith Seffen's Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Centre: a Simple Analysis, which ironically doesn't even relate to WTC-7.

How does the quote go: "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, overwhelm them with bullshit."

Inconsistency is a trait of a Disinformationalist.


Maxwell C. Bridges : Suppression that is not

2009-07-28

Thank you for your kind words, and to those others who have piped into the discussion thread to knock out various dubious 9/11 coincidence theory arguments.

I wouldn't make too much of my two postings (right below my first "History..." posting but very late in the thread) about the article, Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist.

In the first instance, maybe even my edited version obtained too much "fair-use" quotations from the original of H. Michael Sweeney. And maybe they were justified in saying it wasn't related to Tom's article, because I didn't provide enough tie-in.

In the second instance, it was more GuitarBill (or his co-worker) recognizing themselves in the Disinformationalist description and needing to lay-down a very quick smoke screen and false associations (to Neo-Nazi's and skin-heads.)

Of course, in doing so, they demonstrate both "The Time Constant" and "Teamwork".

"Truth causes sin to betray itself, and sets upon error the mark of the beast."
~ Mary Baker Eddy (ca. 1865)

And with regards to Alternet suppressing the truth (about 9/11), maybe you should take a step back from that stance, too. Why?

Because the discussion even with ample distraction from government trolls does eventually reveal what readers need to know. They can certainly judge the underhanded and despicable flames against the 9/11 Truth Movement, which serves to undermine what other points the troll might be trying to make. Of course, the trolls' inconsistency, if not utter cluelessness, in their argumentation doesn't help, either, like a math major with three years of physics not understanding NIST's stage 2 freefall.

Even then, corporate media has so marginalized "outrageous conspiracy theories" with their demeaning adjectives, those publishing and broadcasting the truth are easy to smear, and through guilt by association, all of the other good work of that brave outfit gets sprayed with the same mud.

Publishing articles that offer "hooks" for 9/11 Truth in the discussion gives them plausible-deniability and preserves their reputation. And on the occasions where their articles seem to be more in line with government positions than enlightened left-leaning thought, that, too, could be a ploy to poke the 9/11 Truth Movement in the ribs to address and correct the error in thought and action.

We can thank them for helping us.

Should their editorial board ever want to go out on a limb and publish a true article in support of 9/11 Truth, well, I hope that my prose on this website in the discussion to various articles demonstrates that I might be up to the challenge.

It fits with my mission.

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


Maxwell C. Bridges : The Dynamic Duo of Disinformation

2009-07-29

"If evil is uncondemned, it is undenied and nurtured. ... When needed tell the truth concerning the lie. Evasion of Truth cripples integrity."
~ Mary Baker Eddy (ca. 1865)

As part of the dynamic duo of Disinformation, EncinoM wrote:

"In the eight years since 9/11, the truthiness movement has not produced one piece of evidence of any of their cliams."

Jesus said:

"Agree with thine adversary quickly.
~ Matt 5:25

I fully agree: The 9/11 Truth Movement has not created or produced a single piece of evidence, because that would be making things up.

Their most convincing evidence has been in the public domain (like videos, interview, reports, the laws of physics), or it has been brought forth initially by government investigative bodies.

The 9/11 Truth Movement grows each year and in discussion forums because of evidence, much of it purposely ignored by the 9/11 Commission and the NIST investigations, because it didn't fit the pre-conclusions.

Two quick examples are the scope limitation of NIST's investigation into the WTC towers to explain just the initiation of the collapse and the unscientific manner in which the possibility of explosives was dismissed.

EncinoM wrote:

"[The truthiness movement] do not offer proof, they present non-expert opinions and quotes taken out of context and innuendo."

Non-experts? You mean like the engineers at NIST, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Pilots and Aviation Professionals, and Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials.

Quotes taken out of context? You mean like the extracts that GuitarBill pulled from NIST's final report on WTC-7, the very extracts that he himself with his three years of physics didn't understand.

"This is the nature of error. The mark of ignorance is on its forehead, for it neither understands nor can be understood."
~ Mary Baker Eddy (ca. 1865)

It wouldn't matter whether NIST documented three stages in the collapse of WTC-7 or 50 stages; short of the building toppling over, none of the stages that had the building fall through its path of greatest resistance should suddenly meet with "negligible support" (zero resistance, freefall)... unless energy was added to "negate that support."

EncinoM wrote:

"[The truthiness movement] present fantastic stories without a sherd of evidence of their truth."

You mean like 19 devote Islamic hijackers coincidentally planning their attack for the same date & time that several military war games were being played that coincidentally practiced equivalent scenerios; coincidentally confounding standard operating procedures on the ground; coincidentally breaking Allah's own physical laws of the universe...

EncinoM wrote:

"In the eight years since 9/11 [the truthiness movement] have acted like leeches actaching themselves to issues and groups, no matter how unrelated to 9/11 the issues are."

You haven't been paying attention. Read the article to which this discussion forum relates.

Even without 9/11, the Bush Administration has had a pattern of lies, secrecy, un-Constitutional behavior, and domestic & international law breaking. A year before their second term was over, they had some 53 major scandals that individually could have brought down any other (Democrat) presidential administration.

Were you to draw a line to connect these dots and then add the massive dot represented by 9/11, you'd see that it fits the established deceitful pattern.


Maxwell C. Bridges : Valid links to the PDF... REQUIRED READING

2009-07-30

My work blocks the www.scribd.com site. Googling E.P. Heidner gave me more links. Here are two with PDF's...

Collateral_Damage_911.pdf

Collateral Damage Part 2 (PDF)

I'm not even 1/4 way through the first one (60 pages), but it is very enlightening.

We always knew the Bush I as Reagan's VP was doing strange things, which then carried over into his Administration. These documents shed a lot of light.

The problem with the NIST admission of freefall in WTC-7, which indicates the use of explosives, becomes answering the question who. Who were the insiders? Mostly, we say the "US Government," which is far from accurate.

Then we have to answer why. With the light that these documents shed, they make the speculation of the 9/11 Truth Movement seem weak by comparison. Iraqi oil? Afghanistan pipeline? Drugs? Yeah, it may have been an agenda item that 9/11 opened the door on them achieving faster, but these weren't pressing things and they certainly could have been obtained through other means.

Thank you for posting this.


Maxwell C. Bridges : History matters. So does 9/11 and high school physics

2009-08-03

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

- Collateral Damage of 9/11 (PDF)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Maxwell C. Bridges : Not understanding the NIST Report again?

2009-08-03

GuitarBill asks:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Maxwell C. Bridges : Motives, motives, motives

2009-08-03

{Response to GuitarBill}

At least take the time to write something new and relevant.

- Your Dr. Seffen document isn't relevant to WTC-7.

- The YouTube link isn't worth the photons it takes to display.

How many times have you posted that exact same lame passage? Or the quote-mining one from the NIST report?

The effectiveness of your arguments weakens with each re-posting of irrelevant trash.

Moreover, because you just cut-and-paste from the same tired old drivel, you validate more and more claims relating to your true motivation. It isn't to enlighten. It isn't to spread the truth.

It is to put your black jump-boots onto the throats of those speaking up about the lies of 9/11.

And what have you gleemed from these reports?

- Collateral Damage of 9/11 (PDF)

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

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

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

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


Maxwell C. Bridges : first-year philosophy versus high school physics

2009-08-03

As part of a new dynamic duo of Disinformation, Lemuel G. wrote:

"Bollocks, that is not proof af anything - first-year philosophy tells me that. Just 'cause a small part of a builing free-falls for a limited distance does not mean explosives were used."

You may have had first-year philosophy, but you obviously didn't have high school physics.

The limited distance that you try to demean is not insignificant. It is 8 stories (105 feet) of building structure that offered no resistance to the falling mass. It is the longest stage of all three.

You seem more intent on distracting the conversation with rhetorical nonsense than in offering up an explanation (even from NIST) as to why such a massive steel building would or could transition suddenly and uniformly from resistive stage 1 into zero resistance stage 2 over 8 stories.

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


Maxwell C. Bridges : Advanced Math Degree? You can't even substract...

2009-08-03

{Response to GuitarBill}

You have an advanced math degree? Yeah, right, just like your three years of college physics were six semesters of repeating Physics 101.

If a column lost 65% of its strength, then how strong is that column compared to its normal strength? Answer: 35% of its normal strength.

You're just blowing smoke out your ass and refuse to see that free-fall over 8 *&^%ing stories is significant.

You don't understand that free-fall means that the columns that previously were at 35% of their normal strength went suddenly to 0% its normal strength.


Maxwell C. Bridges : Cracker Jack Mathematician doesn't know averages

2009-08-03

GuitarBill does the nasty by quote-mining from NIST with:

"the collapse time was approximately 40 percent longer than that of free fall for the first 18 stories of descent."

GuitarBill, the guy with an "advanced math" degree... from what? A Cracker Jack Box?

Here's the misdirection in that statement and the stupidity of you basing your argument on it:

The 18 stories included Stage 1 (about 1 story), Stage 2 (8 stories totally at free fall), plus 9 stories from Stage 3 when the collapse met again with resistance.

Yes, average something fast with something slow, and you'll get something in between (in this case, 40% of Stage 2 alone) that doesn't mean jack except to dupe such Cracker Jack mathematicians as yourself.

As for the famous single point of failure in some mysterious column 79A? What caused it to fail? I'll wager the same added energy that caused 8 f**king stories of floors, columns, and materials to gracefully step out of the way in the nick of time so that the falling mass would move at gravitational acceleration, thereby gaining kinetic energy that would then later be used in Stage 3 to help destroy the rest of the building.


Maxwell C. Bridges : Judging books by their covers...

2009-08-03

{Response to GuitarBill}

It is clear to all that the author could be Jesus H. Christ himself with God as his ghost writer, and you'd still do your darnedest to smear it without reading it.

The first one is 59 pages, but only the first 41 or so are text; the rest are extensive footnotes worth reading in and of themselves.

Go ahead. Debunk it. Before you get too far along, go to that 41 page mark and you'll see the author's comment to the effect that "individual points may be disputed or even dis-proven, but that doesn't change the overall arc of the story."


Maxwell C. Bridges : Cracker Jack Math of GuitarBill

2009-08-03

Hey, Mr. Advanced Math Degree,

Unlike your quote-mining, I at least understand what is being said.

What does t=1.75 and t=4.0 refer to in the description of Stage 2? Hint: The units are seconds.

What was the duration in seconds of Stage 2?

Extra credit if you can calculate the duration of Stage 1 by itself.

It'll probably be too hard for you to figure out the duration of Stage 3, so I'll just up and tell you: 1.4 seconds.

Hint: Stage 1 was longer in duration than than stage 3, although Stage 1 descended only 2.2 meters while Stage 3 a whopping 39.6 meters.

The fact that you haven't (or can't) calculate such things, don't understand percent loss versus percent strength, don't understand what averaging does, don't understand the completely incredible phenomenon of 8 stories of freefall, and constantly misrepresent the findings of NIST's report...

You throw out the word "liar" too easily, maybe because you speak of yourself.

In any event, you should ask your Cracker Jack University for a refund on your Advanced Math Degree and three years of physics. You learned nothing.


Maxwell C. Bridges : History Major who can't read, research, or do math...

2009-08-04

Lemuel G. wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Maxwell C. Bridges : Distractions and insults: GuitarBill's MO

2009-08-04

The force of disinformation and distraction runs strong with you, GuitarBill. Darth Cheney is happy with your progress. I'm curious as to what you purchase with your government paychecks for your participation here.

"Fire caused the column to fail. Recall that the column was only rated for 2 HOURS of fire; yet, the column was subjected to 8 HOURS of fire. 125,000 ASCE (American Society of Civil Engineers) structural engineers agree with that conclusion."

Dude, it isn't hard to get even me to agree. But the salient point again and again is that failure should not have been exhibited as eight f**king stories suddenly with negligible support and gravitational acceleration!!!

Fires? Fire ratings? Smoke and mirrors, and just distracting, insignificant, and inconsequential arguments.

First time in history that fire alone ever brought down steel buildings. And as coincidence would have it, not 1 but 3 steel buildings came down supposedly because of fires on that day...

What fuel besides office furniture (and diesel) could possibly have been inside of WTC-7 to create such raging infernals that photographic evidence only shows as pockets of fires.

And wonders of all Allah wonders, the fires had such supposed incredible blast-furnace intensity that they could weaken steel down to 35% of its normal strength uniformly across not just the floors where the fires were (horizontal) but eight stories (vertical) and then to reduce even that 35% down to zero! Yes, uniformly and across eight stories, because that is clearly documented in all videos of WTC-7 falling down.

"As for your idiotic comments about averages, you have no idea how the NIST arrived at their conclusion because the methods used to arrive at that conclusion are not given."

Correctly stated, GuitarBill has no idea how NIST arrived at their conclusions, because he doesn't understand their report, although he does have a point about NIST not giving their methods (like the programs and parameters used in their modeling of WTC-7.)

NIST explicitly states:

"the collapse time was approximately 40 percent longer than that of free fall for the first 18 stories of descent."

So how hard is it to take look at the videos of WTC-7 collapsing, scale the image horizontally and vertically to the building, mark a starting time, mark an ending time after 18 floors have disappeared, run a straight line through these two points, compute its slope, and then say "for this mixing of resistive stages and resistance-free stages, the slope represents something that is 40% longer than free-fall?

Evidently, too hard for an advanced math degree holder with six semesters of physics.

But not too hard for a high school physics teacher, who did exactly this in the videos that GuitarBill refuses to watch, because it might taint his ability foster disinformation with a clear conscious.

The videos are available at: Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth or YouTubed Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

Were it not for the fact that your God-given role of ardent 9/11 coincidence theorist gives the 9/11 truth movement opening after opening to hammer home its simple & logical case, I'd tell you to STFU, because you do the government's case no favors with your poor grasp of science, math, reading comprehension, history, and reasoning.


Maxwell C. Bridges : Take up the missing floors with NIST

2009-08-04

GuitarBill wrote most ironically:

"You've ONLY accounted for 240' of the building; but the building was 741' (226m). So what happened to the rest of the building, genius?"

You fail your reading comprehension test again. This time, it is the NIST report you failed to read and quote-mine properly.

Yet the numbers, heights, distances, times, and stages came from the NIST Final Report.

Ironic for your sake.

Insignificant for the sake of my point. I'll spell it out for you.

Most videos of the collapsing WTC-7 were incomplete, in the sense that neighboring buildings blocked from view the entirety of the collapse. One can only observe so many floors of destruction before the rest is hidden from the lens of the camera.

NIST ran into the same problem as the 9/11 Truth Movement when analyzing WTC-7.

So they analyzed what they could. Three stages until the building disappears from view. Smoking gun in stage 2 that they try to gloss over. There were probably more detectable stages in the collapse that were unobservable.

Ever wonder why they said:

"the collapse time was approximately 40 percent longer than that of free fall for the first 18 stories of descent."

Why did they stop at 18 floors? Why not 47 floors? Because the video evidence wasn't there. So they munged the numbers as best they could combining 8 floors of free-fall with 10 floors of falling with resistance so they could get some number that was longer than free-fall.

The only real revelation that your question exposes is your ignorance, lack of understanding, and misconceptions about the very reports you base your 9/11 world view on.

Keep at it, Sherlock. You only do yourself harm.

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


Maxwell C. Bridges : Munged GuitarBill

2009-08-05

True to his form as a disinformation warrior, GuitarBill wrote:

"You can't prove that [NIST] "munged the numbers", because you don't have access to the methods they used to come to their conclusions."

Sorry, GuitarBill, but your statements reflect the poor quality, if not of your advanced math degree with three years of physics, then certainly of your retention of said information.

I don't have to have access to the methods NIST used, because everything I need is in your quote-mining from their report or from Sir Isaac Newton. If you truly had the education you claim or if you weren't playing the role of a disinformation warrior, you would know this.

Recall:

- Stage 1 fell 2.2 meters ~1 story in 1.74 seconds.

- Stage 2 fell 32 meters ~8 stories in 2.25 seconds. The issue for (the patron of) NIST is that this represents a gravitational acceleration (freefall).

- Stage 3 fell 39.6 meters ~9 stories in 1.4 seconds.

Each stage is unique in its acceleration. The only correlation between stages is at the transition point from one stage to the next. So how does NIST munge the numbers? They munge together all three stages (18 stories) as one.

- That's 73.8 meters or just over 18 stories in 5.4 seconds.

- Had the 18 stories been in freefall, it would have taken only 3.88 seconds. [Comes from Sir Isaac Newton: Distance = (1/2) a * t^2, where a is gravitational acceleration of 9.8 m/s^2.]

Hence the NIST quote:

"[T]he collapse time was approximately 40 percent longer than that of free fall for the first 18 stories of descent."

A totally true but purposely misleading statement with two purposes.

(1) A collapse time of 5.4 seconds was the best they could achieve by overdriving the parameters of their computer simulations, so now they have a number to match. The computer simulation is a separate topic. It is the area where NIST hasn't released the details on the parameters they used. What is known is that they had to input worst-case conditions -- which clearly were not present -- in order to simulate the destruction observed. Unrealistic parameter overdriving in the simulation is another example of number munging.

(2) The above quote is useful for disinformation warrior like GuitarBill to attempt to debunk those in the 9/11 truth movement who point out the freefall in WTC-7. Hey, we see it all the time.

What I find best about all of this is how GuitarBill repeatedly exposes his own lies, as is evident by him not understanding the significance of the reports he quotes or the math/physics involved, which supposedly his higher education prepared him for. As such, that degree is called into question, making GuitarBill damn close to being a liar.

Of course, readers of AlterNet already knew that.

Thanks for providing me yet another opening to discuss 9/11 Truth, GuitarBill!

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


Maxwell C. Bridges : GuitarBill is disinformation and wrong (again)

2009-08-05

In responding to my posting "Your Anonymous sources argument is worthless", GuitarBill wrote:

"Try to take an anonymous source into a court of law, jack@$$. The judge will laugh you out of the court."

GuitarBill, you make no mention of having read the document Collateral Damage of 9/11 (PDF), let alone understood its history.

True to form, you don't address specifics in the 59 page document that includes over 400 endnotes covering its last 18 pages, so you lamely attack the author(s) with unfounded innuendo and lies, hoping that this will discredit the history and words that have many sources.

A judge laughing it out of court? Quite the contrary.

If it gets to court, who's to say that E. P. Haidner won't step up like John Doe #1 and John Doe #2 whereby they remain anonymous from our perspective.

From the article Explosive Allegations: Blackwater Founder Implicated in Murder:

A former employee (John Doe #2) and an ex-U.S. Marine (John Doe #1) who has worked as a security operative for [Blackwater] have made a series of explosive allegations. ... John Doe #2’s identity is concealed in the sworn declaration because he "fear[s] violence against me in retaliation for submitting this Declaration." ... In a separate sworn statement, the former U.S. marine [Identified as "John Doe #1"] who … alleges that he has "learned from my Blackwater colleagues and former colleagues that one or more persons who have provided information, or who were planning to provide information about Erik Prince and Blackwater have been killed in suspicious circumstances."


Maxwell C. Bridges : Disinformation warrior wants busy work he'll then ignore

2009-08-05

In responding to my posting "Distractions and insults: GuitarBill's MO", GuitarBill wrote:

"There you go again. Giving us your opinion and ABSOLUTELY NO MATH. Where's your math?"

In responding to my posting "History Major who can't read, research, or do math...", GuitarBill wrote:

"You haven't done any physics. All you've done is give us your opinion."

For an honest forum participant, I would be happy to provide you with the requisite math analysis and equations for physics.

However, you and I have covered this ground before. How quickly you forget, or how telling that you never read or understood it in the first place.

You claim to have had three years of physics classes on your way to obtaining an advanced degree in mathematics.

For someone truly with such an education: Everything I have written pertaining to math and physics in our past exchanges would have been readily clear or could have been derived by you without me spelling it out.

For someone truly with such an education: You would have spotted the same red flags in all of the reports from NIST, particularly the one pertaining to stage 2 of the WTC-7 collapse.

For someone truly with such an education: You would have studied the videos from Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth that give you exactly what you desire in a more polished and detailed form that I could provide here.

For someone truly with such an education: You would most likely be in agreement with the analysis from Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. For the cases when you weren't, you'd be able to debunk it on your own and more importantly take up your disagreements with the creators of such work.

For someone truly with such an education: Your requests to have me scurry off and put together simple math analysis and equations for high school physics (already done numerous times) becomes unmasked as busy work distractions to wear me down.

You have no intention of studying or learning anything from the information presented (again). As you've already demonstrated, you'll ignore the weighty significant matter and pick some unrelated tangent to attack in your lame efforts to discredit.

As a crafty disinformation warrior, your goals aren't enlightenment for yourself or others, but to have the final condescending words in various threads to shut them down or derail them.

Your knee-jerk response to this is going to be:

"&%$#@, you didn't answer the question..."

The answer in advance is for you to (1) select Expand All in the View pull-down, (2) re-read all of my postings, (3) follow all links provided and read their content, and (4) study Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

And in your actions, heed these words:

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


Maxwell C. Bridges : I stand corrected

2009-08-07

Dear Mr. Heidner,

I stand corrected and hope that my unfounded speculation regarding your personal composition did not offend. I commend you on your work. Well done!

As an aside, I know how annoyed I can get at myself when I spend the time to refine my words before I post, only to discover afterwards that I overlooked something and the typo gets permanently published to the world in the databases of some forum like this. Your manuscripts are different and can still be refined. You might want to address a few minor typos in your Part I in any subsequent revision or in an expanded version that you alluded to. The typos that I remember because they tripped me up were instances when you used the word "on" and instead of "one", a mistake that no spell-checker will flag.

Three quick questions.

1) Could you please post the documentation links that you deem official for your works? When someone somewhere first pointed out your work, I googled and found it on some sort of a "document viewing site" that sort of kept my browser there and made me view it through its application window. However, a downloadable PDF was much friendlier and more convenient for me, because it wasn't dependent on continual web connectivity between my browser and a website application. So I located another website whose owner created or obtained the PDF.

2) Where might I obtain the expanded version of your work?

3) If you are associated with http://epheidner.blogspot.com, could you also maybe post there extracts from and links to the official Collateral Damage documents?

May you stay safe and well, and keep up the good work.


Maxwell C. Bridges : Inconvenient 911truth goes back to GHWBush

2009-08-10

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

- Collateral Damage of 9/11 (PDF)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Maxwell C. Bridges : GuitarBill & EncinoM, Disinformation Warriors

2009-08-10

Disinformation Warrior, GuitarBill wrote:

"I've debunked everything from "free-fall speeds" to "molten pools of steel" and all I've ever heard from the 911 denier crowd is deafening silence, accompanied by ad hominem attacks and character assassination."

The inconsistency in GuitarBill's position can be seen with the wonderful juxtaposition of deafening silence with ad hominem attacks and character assassination. Amazing how the 9/11 Truth Movement can shut its mouth and still attack with words!

In truth, the ad hominem attacks and character assassination that GuitarBill heard would be the words that came out of his mouth and into his ears as he fat-fingered typed them into the Your Comments text box as his version of "debunking."

"Debunk" is not the word I would use to describe anything GuitarBill has written about 9/11, like on this thread.

Seeing how his next post will quote-mine from the NIST final report on WTC-7, the phrase-that-pays is not "free-fall speeds", something the GuitarBill throws out as a strawman. (Not "speed", dude. "Acceleration." There is a difference that your 3 years of physics hasn't helped you learn.)

The important phrase is "gravitational acceleration", which he also doesn't understand and occurs in NIST's description of Stage 2 of WTC-7's collapse.

Essentially, 1.75 seconds into the building failure starts, the building dropped 32 meters or 8 stories in 2.25 seconds with an acceleration that NIST and Sir Isaac Newton and the 9/11 Truth Movement says was free fall.

EIGHT STORIES of free-fall in WTC-7's collapse is significant.

GuitarBill doesn't understand that these EIGHT STORIES were in the way of the collapse.

How could eight stories from North to South, East to West suddenly have all of its structure, support, and material across the board go uniformly from some resistance suddenly to zero resistance? And we'll even give GuitarBill and the agency reports that he relies on the benefit of the doubt that the some resistance might be less than 90%-100% due to fires supposedly weakening the steel to 35% their normal strength and 30% of the perimeter columns being severed.

GuitarBill doesn't have an explanation for this.

He doesn't understand it.

He doesn't want to understand it.

That's not the task for a Disinformation Warrior.

He's charged with stomping his black paratrooper jump boots onto the throats of anyone voicing the truth of the lies of 9/11 and connecting the dots into the crimes of today.


Maxwell C. Bridges : Disinformation Spewing again, GB?

2009-08-10

When the Disinformation Warrior GuitarBill tried to character assassinate E. P. Heider in another discussion much like above, I wrote:

Which is worth less? Anonymous sources or dead sources.

Your premise about anonymous sources, just like your premise in nearly all of the arguments you make, is faulty.

Gee whiz, Lord knows that we have plenty of non-anonymous sources who have spouted outright, balderdash lies, further bursting your worthless bubble.

E. P. Heidner doesn't have to step forth with his true identity for his words to be validated. Do some f**king research and either validate it or debunk it. Attacking the person is just you exposing your treachery and true motives.

And then, E. P. Heider responded himself by saying:

Couldn't have said it better myself. I cite all my public sources of information, so my conclusions - while not conventional -are not dis-information, unless you say that the hundreds of references I note are also disinformation. If you read my works closely, you see that I put it forth as hypothesis, which I hope others will either prove or disprove. Generally, I believe the evidence I have collected is reliable, and I have made logically consistent a wide array of reports and allegations that as standalone reports, did not seem to make sense. Whether or not the hypotheses stand will be determined by the facts, not by my credentials.

As for my anonymity, if GuitarBill read my revised September 11 Report, I'd ask him to explain why he would want me to commit suicide by publishing my credentials and making myself transparent(but I think I know what he would say). The facts as documented and footnoted speak for themselves, and I add my interpretation as my rights allow. I do not represent a group, and my methodology is in the public record. I do all my own research and work with no others. Take it or leave it on the basis of the documentation. GuitarBill....have a nice day!


epheidner : RE: I stand corrected

2009-08-11

Thanks for the feedback. Fortunately, it is time for me to update Parts 1 & 2, as I have collected more information.I will address the typos. The expanded version of my work is entitled 'September 11 Commission Report Revised December 2008' at http://www.scribd.com/people/documents/2169400-ep-heidner. You can download any of my pdf files at that site. I had to shorten the larger work into Part 1 because in my view, not too many people have the time to read 300+ pages anymore, and I wanted the message distributed before any misfortune occurred, as oft happens to those who research these subjects. The blog is also mine, and I created it for shorter observations. Good luck sir, on your journey.


Maxwell C. Bridges : Anonymous Dynamic Duo of Disinformation

2009-08-11

Hey "GuitarBill" and "EncinoM",

Don't those two handles that you two disinformation warriors use in this forum provide you some form of anonymity?

- "Anonymous sources are not admissible in a court of law--you lying scumbag."

- "No expert is allowed to testify in a court of law without first providing his CV."

Therefore, by your very words, everything you write here is not admissible either.

What hoe!!! Hold your horses! Woa, Nellie!

"This forum is ~not~ a court of law!" you say, "That is just a strawman argument, fool! So what I write can be the God's honest truth or the lies of a lying scumbag. Suck on it!"

Right you are, Mayder.

And as such, Mr. Haider is afforded the same right to write what he wants under a pseudonym.

It is noteworthy to mention that neither of you have addressed any of the details in E. P. Heidner's document. Instead, you go to great lengths to try to discredit the anonymous author.

Do some FUCKING RESEARCH and either validate or debunk Heidner's hypothesis on its own merits.

And who are you two anonymous sources of disinformation to say that when the time comes and the case does go into a court of law, the real Mr. Heidner won't step out of the shadows as "John Doe" [as we've already seen happen with the accusations against Erik Prince and Blackwater/Xe.]


Maxwell C. Bridges : 9/11 Disinformation Duo working overtime

2009-08-11

Buried in this thread above, I wrote:

"The ramifications of freefall in any stage of collapse in any of the WTC buildings is that additional energy sources (like explosives) had to be planted and therefore the circle of 9/11 conspirators was much larger than 19 hijackers and included insiders."

Of course, one half of the dynamic duo of disinformation starts flailing away with one irrelevant post after another to squash that idea.

GuitarBill said that I wrote "buildings" (plural), therefore he threw out equations to supposedly prove that WTC-1 and WTC-2 did not have freefall. A nice bit of distraction, considering the topic was WTC-7. BUSTED!

[Actually, WTC-1 and WTC-2 did have freefall particularly in the upper stories above the crash site. But GuitarBill's mathematical distractions try to gloss over that by calculating over the entirety of the collapse rather than isolated collapse stages as was done with WTC-7. BUSTED!]

GuitarBill takes offense at other people supposedly quote-mining, and to underscore his point, what does he do (repeatedly)? The very same quote-mining offense by extracting an even larger portion of the very same report. BUSTED!

Why did GuitarBill choose a larger passage? It is a disinformation ploy to overwhelm readers with details in the hopes that they will gloss over the single point that shoots a huge hole into the government's version of 9/11. BUSTED!

GuitarBill asks irrelevant questions in further efforts to lead us astray, like "what about stage 1 and stage 3?" You see, stage 2 of the collapse of WTC-7 is where freefall occurs by NIST's own analysis: 8 stories in 2.25 seconds: the smoking gun. BUSTED!

The 9/11 Truth Movement is prepared to validate the entirety of NIST's Final Report on 9/11, and subsequently the entirety of the passage that dishonest GuitarBill quote-mines (over and over) and seems to use to support his contention 9/11 was a big fucking coincidence.

Yet when it comes down to it... when it comes down to stage 2 of WTC-7's collapse that happened at gravitational acceleration, GuitarBill is:

(a) Too stupid to recognize from his 3 years of college physics leading to an advanced degree in mathematics that "gravitational acceleration" is "freefall" and that NIST point blank states that 8 stories of WTC-7 fell in this manner.

(b) A dishonest government troll, because he knows stage 2 is the smoking gun, therefore he has to dig deep again and again into his disinformation bag of tricks (bury them in details, distractions, strawman arguments, name calling)

(c) Both (a) and (b).

BUSTED!

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


Maxwell C. Bridges : Punishment to the third and fourth generation

2009-08-11

{Response to GuitarBill}

Disinformation Troll wrote the following nonsense:

[1] Why do you ignore stages 1 and 3, "Max"? Because they contradict your 911 denier propaganda, that's why.

[2] Where's your evidence for quote mining on my part, lying, bloody MaxiPad?

[3] Finally, show me, using my own words, where I ever claimed that gravitational acceleration is anything other than free-fall.

Answer to [1]: I do not ignore stages 1 and 3. I accept their validity. They contradict nothing; they just are.

Why do you ignore stage 2? Because Stage 2 exposes the 9/11 myth about everything being a big fucking coincidence.

Even when we allow you claims regarding extensive damage to WTC-7, IT STILL DOESN'T EXPLAIN why the building would fall through 8 stories of its (weakened) structure at gravitational acceleration! In fact, gravitational acceleration suggests that stage 2 was not 8 stories of (weakened) structure; it was 8 stories of no structure, no nothing. In order for the collapse to happen as observed, the laws of physics suggests that another energy source would have to be present to get those 8 stories of material out of the way. Controlled demolition.

Answer to [2]: Quote-mining on your part? What you call quote-mining is actually a well-respected and time-honored practice of researchers, scholars, and discussion participants. Want an example of it? Refer to your NIST posting (that you've repeated at least twice in this discussion thread already, and many more times elsewhere.)

Quote-mining is a non-argument that you keep trying to set up as a strawman for you to knock down, except you're too stupid to see when your negative sounding label applies to you. Idiot.

Answer to [3]: Another nice attempt to frame the debate in a manner that would appear that you know the equality between gravitational acceleration and free-fall.

The true framing of this debate is that you dishonestly ignore, downplay, and sidestep the significant of freefall when it suddenly happens through a span of 8 stories, as documented in the very passages that you quote-mine from NIST about WTC-7.

Instead of focusing on the improbability of freefall happening on its own, your disinformation training has you distracting us with Stage 1 and Stage 3, with WTC-1 and WTC-2, with quote-mining stupidity, with anonymous sources, with vulgar insults, and lately with vulgar graphics.

If you're going to quote from NIST about the three stages, then own up to all three stages. Own up to freefall in stage 2. And own up to the fucking fact that this (unbelievably) breaks the laws of physics if left without explanation, and that any (logical, rational) explanation suggests explosives, insiders, and traitors disguised as patriots willing to sacrifice their own.

You are guilty of actively trying to conceal all this with your disinformation campaign. As the quote says, you'll be punished. ... And expect that to be to the third and fourth generation, such will be your embarrassment when your descendants discover your willful participation in the cover-up.

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


GuitarBill : You're not even a good liar, "Left"Rodent. %^)

2009-08-11

You're not even a good liar, "Left"Rodent. %^)
Posted by: GuitarBill on Aug 11, 2009 1:09 PM

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

More proof that WTC 7 didn't fall at "free-fall rates". The East Penthouse.
Posted by: GuitarBill on Aug 11, 2009 1:31 PM

Video Source: 9/11 WTC7 NEW FOOTAGE.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMr3ZSL6l-4&NR=1

Video Source: WTC 7 NIST COLLAPSE VIDEO. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rawrAdoccDk&feature=channel_page

Notice that the WTC 7 building's East Penthouse collapsed a full 8 SECONDS BEFORE THE REMAINDER OF THE TOWER FELL.

You call that "free-fall", "Left"Rodent?

You're a joke.

And you're not very observant, either.

Come back when you get a clue, dude.

"...I don't care what kind of f****** experience he has, man." -- Dylan Avery.

"...We don't need to ask permission from the owner, no. When we're in charge of the building, we're in charge, and that decision would be the Fire Chief's and his alone. That's why I would know that there is no conspiracy, because for me to be a part of that would be obscene. And it disgusts me even to think of it." -- Dan Nigro, Chief of Department FDNY (retired)

"...Conspiracies can always be more exciting than the real thing, because you can always add to them. It makes for great fiction, and I enjoy great fiction myself, but when it comes to real life, I think we have to know one side of the page is real life, and one side of the page is fiction, and draw the line between them and live in the real World, and enjoy our fiction as fiction." -- Dan Nigro, Chief of Department FDNY (retired)

Is the photographer Steve Spak lying? Did he fake the videos which clearly show the fire raging in building 7?

"...There's so much fire in this building. No one's going to put this out." -- Lieutenant Frank Papalia.

"...I never heard any charges. I never heard any sequence of timed explosions. And I never heard anyone talk about that until a long time later." -- Lieutenant Frank Papalia.

Is Lieutenant Frank Papalia lying?

If this was a "controlled demolition", as you claim, where are the 150 decibel explosions, which would have been heard for at least a half a mile from the origin of collapse?

Face it, you're full-of-PFGetty.


Maxwell C. Bridges : Muddled facts and insults

2009-08-11

{Response to GuitarBill}

Your name-calling undermines everything you write. Shows that you aren't mature enough to think rationally and coolly to make an adult argument. Keep it up.

Associating me with other people who have locked horns with you in the past illustrates more of your illogical ways. "LeftRight" is not me. He's a planer and has even taken me to task for being a no-planer (but waffling.) Funny you don't remember that but do remember me posting the link Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth explaining the physics and significance of NIST's admission of freefall in Stage 2.

You wrote correctly:

"[GuitarBill] didn't bring up stage 2."

That's right. You pull every distraction you can muster out of your magic disinformation hat to avoid talking about its meaning and ramifications.

You prop up a lot of straw about me quoting the entire two sentences relating to stage 2. Do I really need to quote any more (and burn up precious characters out of my posting's allowable 4000) when you post again and again the four paragraphs (10 sentences) relating to all three stages along with links to the official NIST documents? [Thank you for helping me make my case.]

I've stated several times that I have no issues with those 10 sentences and accept them as valid.

But do you?

Your problem is that within the context of the ten sentences are the two that destroy your 9/11 foundation, because they say that WTC-7 experienced gravitational acceleration over the span of 8 stories.

Just as you fling "what about stage 1 and 3" into our eyes like sand at the beach, your strawman argumentation demands that I provide a link where you supposedly claimed that gravitational acceleration is anything other than free-fall.

Were I bother to look, such a link won't be found.

Instead what will emerge is the glaring inconsistency in your online persona's 3 years of physics and advanced math degree that would have you use repeatedly those 10 sentences from NIST in lame attempts to debunk arguments about freefall in the WTC-7.

You clearly did not understand the two sentences right in the middle of your oft quoted NIST passage until it was explained, because had you understood it, your supervisors would have had you avoid it like the plague.

Now that you do understand free-fall and gravitational acceleration, kindly answer my question that you've been avoiding:

What are the ramifications of building freefall (over 8 stories) both in the observed event of 9/11 and the larger political context?

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

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


Maxwell C. Bridges : ramifications of building freefall

2009-08-11

{Response to GuitarBill}

The Penthouse falling first is actually more evidence of a controlled demolition. It was the early phases that took out the interior.

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth explaining the physics and significance of NIST's admission of freefall in Stage 2.

Your videos and quotes are interesting, but not decisive.

What are the ramifications of building freefall (over 8 stories) both in the observed event of 9/11 and the larger political context?

You admit there was freefall, right, because you post over and over the 10 sentences from NIST that has 2 sentences that talks about freefall over 8 stories of the collapse? So, answer the question.


Maxwell C. Bridges : Observe how beyond the pale stupid GB is

2009-08-11

{Response to GuitarBill}

You say 8 stories of freefall does not equal controlled demolition?! Too bad that this is a common technique: remove several floors of support to get the building accelerating downward and then re-use the kinetic energy of the falling mass to help destroy the rest. Less explosives are required.

If it wasn't controlled demolition, Mr. Physics, how did 8 stories go from some structural support suddenly to zero?

As for your question about the other 39 stories, another strawman and a choice exhibit of what a fool you are. If you could do math or comprehend the report that you parrot, you'd know that stage 3 is only 10 stories. In fact, stage 1, 2, and 3 combined only represent 18 stories, which is 29 short of the 47.

Your beloved NIST report doesn't cover those missing final 29 stories, because it is clear that the accelerating mass even after meeting with resistance throughout stage 3 gained sufficient mass and maintained enough energy (along with other residual charges) to destroy the rest. (They would have analyzed the destruction of the final 29 stories, except that other buildings blocked the view of the cameras.)

BTW, just because your parade uniformed witnesses (with motivation to go with the official story) who don't recall hearing explosions in WTC-7, doesn't mean there weren't. And from the thermite demonstrations I've seen, it seems to me that they wouldn't be that noisy compared to conventional explosives.

As for the East Penthouse falling a full 8 seconds before the remainder of the building collapse... HELLO-OOOOO! Anybody home? Ever seen a controlled demolition before? The Penthouse falling early is an indication that pre-collapse explosives had been activated. For what purpose? Duh! I don't know. Maybe, taking out 8 stories of support to get the freefall going?

Adding those 8 seconds to the total collapse time in an unscientific and misguided effort to get an even longer collapse time that isn't so close to freefall is just so beyond the pale stupid! At least when NIST combined stages 1 through 3 to say that the collapse time for the first 18 stories was 40% longer than freefall, they weren't telling any outright lies. They were just trying to distract from the "gravitational acceleration" (freefall) that their data clearly showed in stage 2. That can't be said about you, GuitarBill, you bold-faced liar.

In other stellar examples of your misrepresentation of information, your statement concerning 125,000 structural engineers from the American Society of Civil Engineers being "on your side", no. Liar. Go look it up what they were really agreeing with.

If I had my doubts about your honesty, intellect, and education before, I don't anymore.

Debunked.


Maxwell C. Bridges : You failed your reading comprehension test

2009-08-11

{Response to GuitarBill}

Now you're going around in full circles. It would help matters significantly if you would read and understand your own damn quote-mining from the NIST report.

Yeah, so what that starting in stage 3 the building met resistance?

How come it passed through 8 stories of no resistance just prior to that in stage 2? No resistance when there should have been resistance.

Talk about a bold-faced lies! How can you say "the building didn't fall at freefall speed" when your beloved NIST report says that it did just that very thing in stage 2!

You're not just being obtuse, you're being deliberately misleading and dishonest.

Adding those 8 seconds from the East Penthouse collapse to the entire collapse time is unscientific, misguided, and beyond the pale stupid. At least when NIST combined stages 1 through 3 to say that the collapse time for the first 18 stories was 40% longer than freefall, they weren't telling any outright lies. They were just trying to distract from the "gravitational acceleration" (freefall) that data clearly showed in stage 2.

That can't be said about you, GuitarBill, you bold-faced liar.

If I had my doubts about your honesty, intellect, and education before, I don't anymore.

How does it feel to be a traitor to your country?

How does it feel to be an accessory to mass murder: 3000 US civilians on 9/11, 4000+ US soldiers in Afghanistan/Iraq, hundreds of thousands of Afghani/Iraqi, plus the scores of maimed individuals physically and mentally on both sides?

Your efforts to continue with the cover-up expose you. What do you get out of it? A colorful ribbon with a little tiny medal?

You swore an allegiance to the Constitution, to defend it against its enemies both foreign and domestic. Your broke that oath, and swore your soul to those in office.

You failed to see the domestic enemies then, and you fail to see them now.

America can survive the truth about 9/11 and the requisite house cleaning. It can't survive the dishonesty and immorality that has you serving as part of the cover-up.


Maxwell C. Bridges : Behold the 9/11 disinformation man

2009-08-14

dannrusso asked:

"if the crazy zany left and the crazy zany right both think the gvt had something to do with the occurrences of 9/11/01 don't you think someone should ACTUALLY look into it?"

EncinoM answered:

"No, because it is just teh crazy fringe that continues the truthiness myths."

Yes indeed. Glad that you are finally admitting what you are (crazy fringe) and what you're doing (continuing the truthiness of the government myths about 9/11 that "[you] claim to know without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts.")

Your truthy response propagates the myth that 9/11 doesn't need to be re-investigated. "Nothing to see here, folks. Move along now."

Why 9/11 Discussion is Valid

History matters. So does 9/11 and high school physics

History matters. So does 9/11 and high school physics (revisited)

There is a difference between Truth and Truthy. Unfortunately for the crazies like you, the laws of physics aren't truthy, they're divine truths.


Maxwell C. Bridges : "Crap on GB's Shoes" by Hu Flung Pooh

2009-08-15

Such teamwork. Such frequency. So promptly. So viciously. Repeatedly. The dynamic duo of disinformation.

I'm not paid to monitor discussion forums to squash discussions about 9/11.

I posted at lunch time on a Friday. And had my first response within 20 minutes. Followed by a teammate switch in 31 minutes and two more baited postings before 6 p.m. I've got a life.

Your physics assumes too much, starting with freefall in a vacuum. The environment was previously established to be a roof top, where wind resistance on a pooh could be a factor. The initial velocity was given as zero. The presence of certain people, like yourself, down below might inspire launching the pooh with an initial velocity.

Mathematically it is safe to say that the flung crap would hit you in a time less than your freefall in a vacuum time of 1.3 seconds.

You said to show your work, but you'd be given a poor grade on yours, because you failed to define what your labels meant (distance, velocity, time, units) and your assumptions. Plus your calculations had errors with regards to a stray ^ and a unit s suddenly going missing on a term that should have been canceled.

Your habit of making faulty assumptions also applies to "Left"Rodent label. In another "show your work" exercise, kindly explain those labels? What do they have to do with me?


Maxwell C. Bridges : Speak about your own (lack of) qualifications and identities

2009-08-16

{Response to GuitarBill}

Still making assumptions. Like who I am. What I studied.

Whereas your initial problem statement did say that pooh would be dropped, it failed to state whether or not it would be in a vacuum, because wind resistance could be a factor on; it failed to state whether or not you'd be close by, not just for the off-chance that you'd become a target worthy of a hefty initial velocity, but because the hot air you blow would affect the turd's tradjectory.

More funny than anything in your attempt to lamely prove that GuitarBill "does indeed have three years of physics as part of an advanced math degree," is the fact that when the failings of your work were pointed out, you still neglected to correct all of the issues: like where did the missing s (seconds) go in your second equation? What do v, i, and d stand for in your equations? (For your information, you did define a.) You try to explain it away as if it were common knowledge for anyone who knew anything about physics, which you expose yourself as not having any except the ability to copy and paste what you had googled from elsewhere.

Qualifications to make a determination?

Dude, we've already established that all it takes is high school physics, for that is where your equation comes from. True college physics tends to derive its equations using calculus.

I can honestly say that I have had neither high school physics nor three years of college physics, yet for some reason my pedigree seems sufficient to take you to task for the misunderstandings, if not purposeful misdirections, in the crunching of the numbers that you present.

Before I discovered Eight Traits of Disinformationalist, I had penned lessons from the Karl Rove School of Online Debate to explain the disinformation tactics that I observed.

Lesson #1: The first part of any response should be to personally attack the opponent.

Lesson #2: Put incorrect words into your opponent's mouth.

Lesson #3: Misconstrue your opponent's message purposely so as to build a straw man argument that is easier to knock down than your opponent's real argument.

Lesson #4: Take all of the weaknesses in your own position and project them onto your opponent, whether or not true. Later when the opponent picks up how the weakness is really yours, you can point to their unoriginality in throwing it back at you.

{Inspiration and creation came later in this volume.}

Lesson #4b: Take all of the strengths in your opponent's position and project them onto your position, whether or not true. Later when the opponent picks up how the strength is really theirs, you can point to their unoriginality in bringing it up.

Lesson #5: Rather than addressing your opponent's points head-on, insult their intelligence instead and extrapolate your claim of their lack of intelligence as being the reason why their points fail.

Lesson #6: Purposely mislabel your points as "fact", so that it is harder for your opponent to question it.

Lesson #7: Repeat your lie over and over until it sinks in as a possible truth.

Amazing how you track well with both the lessons and the traits.


Maxwell C. Bridges : Where, oh, where did my [9/11 Truth Movement] go?

2009-08-18

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

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

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

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

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

They'd be wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Maxwell C. Bridges : Emotional spin divergent from both compassion and reason

2009-08-19

Your posting has some subtle errors.

One is the narrowly defined persona who got whacked with this economy. Sure, I'll give you that such wanna-have-McMansions existed and got burned. But I think their numbers are small by comparison.

The persona more likely to be caught up in the financial meat-grinder is the average Joe who had a family member encounter some medical condition that necessitated taking out equity loans and going into financial ruin.

Another more likely persona is the average Joe who lost his job due to slow economic conditions making him unable to make payments on their property.

A second subtle error is that we have to assume all debt and pay for them (or by extension, bail out the banks.)

The money used to "purchase" the house was created out of thin air by the banks, whereby the real value was your promise of indebtedness and willingness to pay them interest for this fake money made real.

If we didn't bail out the banks for the "bad debt", if we let the home owners stay in their property, and if we let courts have the power to restructure mortgage loans for those in financial strife, banks would see the wisdom in accepting this. Under a restructured loan affordable to the individual and in line with economic conditions would return some (but not all) value to the banks in the form of renewed indebtedness.

Given their ability to create money from nothing, bailing out banks seems a waste. From my meager understanding, I think the banking bailouts is really a pay-off and a shifting of the wealth to those who already controlled most of it anyway.

If we bail out anyone, bailing out individuals (maybe to the tune of one year's mortgage depending on circumstances) will stretch the money further by eventually returning the distressed individual to solvency and value to the individual's promise-to-pay, which in turn pays the bank interest.


Maxwell C. Bridges : Tying up all the strings including the eleventh of September

2009-08-19

channing and CynicI talk about this economic downturn and the banking crisis as being pre-ordained and pre-planned from as early as Bush II entering office.

I know, I know. This response may only be opening the door for GuitarBill and EncinoM to pull on their black stormtrooper boots and step all over me with their ugly postings, but 9/11 does relate to this financial discussion.

I've put them in reverse order to highlight the relevance.

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

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

- Collateral Damage of 9/11 (PDF)

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

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

DISCLAIMER: E. P. Heidner provides a hypothesis that he wants others to either validate or disprove. I'm not saying that I have completely validated his hypothesis. I post it as food for thought that will for sure be bitter in the belly.

Although it neither disproves or validates Heidner, it should be noted that the (main and only) responses to previous postings of these links came from GuitarBill and EncinoM, whereby they avoided any of the details and attempted right from the onset character assassination and other lame "discredit the messenger" tactics against the author. So, maybe it does hit a nerve.

Here's hoping that GuitarBill and EncinoM don't see this and/or ignore it, so that the discussion, if any, doesn't detour and degrade.


Maxwell C. Bridges : Bait-and-Switch Presidency

2009-08-19

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

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

Example of invalid criticism: Birthers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Maxwell C. Bridges : Balderdash from a disinformation warrior

2009-08-19

*Yawn*

GuitarBill. You exhibit many traits of a Disinformation Warrior.

The two that stand out in your last copy-&-paste posting are:

1. An inability to learn that causes discussions to circle around to cover the same subject over and over.

2. Balderdash lies. Nearly the entirety of your last posting is a lie.

- You lied and said repeatedly that I am the discussion participant with the alias "LeftRight" or "LeftRodent", as you so maliciously tag him. How about admitting that you are wrong and coughing up an apology for making the erroneous connection between him and me?

- You lied and said E. P. Heidner won't tell us who he is? Actually, E. P. Heider did right here in AlterNet.

- You lied and said an anonymous source is inadmissible in a court of law. First, you assume that by the time it gets to court, the source remains anonymous. Second, I proved you wrong with the AlterNet Article about Blackwater Allegations, where not one but two anonymous sources came forward.

So as we close this circle, tell me. Have you read the document? Yes or No?

A No answer will highlight your ignorance on multiple levels in being too closed-minded to read that which you are unfamiliar. Maybe you are under orders not to read it and to smear the author with innuendo whenever given the opportunity.

A Yes answer means that of all the details screaming for you to debunk and discredit, the best you could come up with is a lame and irrelevant lie about the anonymity of the author.


GuitarBill : "Left"Rodent flogging his 911 conspiranoid theories

2009-08-19

Here we go again. "Left"Rodent flogging his 911 conspiranoid theories in public.
Posted by: GuitarBill on Aug 19, 2009 10:17 AM

Yo "Left"Rodent! Didn't your mother teach you that it's rude to flog your idiotic conspiranoid theories in public?

After all, you could go blind or grow hair on your palms.

And judging from the condition of your palm's, it looks like we're too late.

THE ACE BAKER SUICIDE-UNCUT, staring Uncle Fetzer and Ace Baker.

THE RISE AND FALL OF THE 9/11 DENIERS.


Maxwell C. Bridges : Is an apology within your abilities?

2009-08-20

GuitarBill,

To your three points.

[1] The first time I denied being "LeftRight" (or "LeftWright") should have been sufficient to end that topic.

That you continue promoting it in the face of repeated denials demonstrates your dishonesty, made more plain by your failure to apologize.

Why is it so important for you to equate one alias with another in these forums? Seems like every third article in which you're active, eventually you'll take a detour and accuse someone of being "LeftRight", "Prophit(0)", or "PFGetty". Are these the aliases assigned to you from your superior disinformation officer in PSYOPS Strategic Communication Panzer Division IV?

If you were being viciously tag-teamed in the same thread by two or more aliases with near identical fingerprints, your underdog position might merit airing your suspicions.

But I know that wasn't the case with me and the alias you attribute to me. Whenever your subject boldly smears another with belittling insults and someone else's alias, such a revelation was irrelevant to the discussion. It addressed no words, no points, and no ideas being brought forth in the thread.

Even giving you huge leeway in assuming it might be true (like with their silence), it has limited power as a convincing argument to your point of view.

Readers say: "So what? The old alias may have became a troll magnet. It seems okay to make a reasonable posting under a new alias on a new subject without old baggage dragging it down."

[2] Yes, "anyone can log in as "E. P. Heidner", even YOU", GuitarBill. Or E. P. Heidner himself, a truth you can't see.

PUT UP OR APOLOGIZE!

Where are the links to postings from MaxBridges and Haidner (or LeftRight) that demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are one and the same? Let's see your detailed analysis like: "both (mis)use the same phrase ABC, both misspell D, both make the same punctuation mistakes, both promote the exact same talking points, ..."

More convincing than that, produce the AlterNet server logs that show an overlapping IP address was employed in any of our postings.

Let me save you some time: APOLOGIZE NOW!

[3] Just like contrition (above) may not be in your vocabulary, admitting you're wrong probably isn't either.

As far as you and I (and most of the world) are concerned, John Doe#1 and John Doe#2 are anonymous and remain so. Case closed.

If we relate this to Haidner's essay, we see that you are all about distraction and detours, not substance.

(a) Neither Haidner nor his essay would be instrumental in any court case against the Bush Administration for 9/11. As Haidner points out, all his information can and should be independently verified.

(b) Were Haidner prove to be instrumental in such a trial, you wrongly assume that Haidner won't reveal himself, if not the world, then to those in the court with the need to know.

Thus, bringing up anonymity and the courts is just your way of blowing smoke out your @$$ to eleviate you from having to read his essays and consider his points. It is a dishonest tactic wielded by a proven dishonest person.


Maxwell C. Bridges : Is an apology within your abilities?

2009-08-20

{Response to GuitarBill}

GuitarBill,

The first time I denied being "LeftRight" (or "LeftWright") should have been sufficient to end that topic. Why can't you take someone's word at face value when they talk knowingly about themselves (just like we've accepted your three years of physics as part of an advanced degree in mathematics)?

That you continue promoting the association between me and any other alias in this forum in the face of my repeated denials demonstrates your dishonesty, made more plain by your failure to apologize.

Why is it so important for you to equate one alias with another in these forums? Seems like every third article in which you're active, eventually you'll take a detour and accuse someone of being "LeftRight", "Prophit(0)", or "PFGetty". Are these the aliases assigned to you from your superior disinformation officer in PSYOPS Strategic Communication Panzer Division IV?

If you were being viciously tag-teamed in the same thread by two or more aliases with near identical fingerprints, your underdog position might merit airing your suspicions.

But I know that wasn't the case with me and the alias(es) you attribute to me. Whenever your subject boldly smears another with belittling insults and someone elses alias, such a revelation has been irrelevant to the discussion. It addressed no words, no points, and no ideas being brought forth in the thread.

PUT UP OR APOLOGIZE!

Where are the links to postings from MaxBridges and any one else that demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that we are one and the same? Let's see your detailed analysis like: "both (mis)use the same phrase ABC, both misspell D, both make the same punctuation mistakes, both promote the exact same talking points, ..."

More convincing than that, produce the AlterNet server logs that show an overlapping IP address was employed in any of our postings.

Let me save you some time: APOLOGIZE NOW!

P.S. My 9/11 comment was indeed a minor reference. Would have been better for you and your disinformation cause to STFU.


Maxwell C. Bridges : Your supposistion would be wrong

2009-08-20

Unlike Disinformation Warriors like GuitarBill who appears to be paid to troll forums like AlterNet and trigger off of 9/11 references, I am not.

I have a job and a personal life that have me doing something else most of my time other than monitoring responses to my postings.

To your posting, I agree that we can't let Obama off the hook.

On the other hand, I can't help but notice double-standards.

- When Republicans are in power, blame everything on the Democrats of the previous administration. - When Democrats are in power, forget the misdeeds of the previous Republican administration and continue to blame the Democrats.

It's a pattern that goes back to at least Carter.


Maxwell C. Bridges : GuitarBill: unapologetic 9/11 disinformation warrior

2009-08-21

{Response to GuitarBill}

Why is it so important for you to equate one alias with another in these forums? Seems like every third article in which you're active, eventually you'll take a detour and accuse someone of being "LeftRight", "Prophit(0)", or "PFGetty". Are these the aliases assigned to you from your superior disinformation officer in PSYOPS Strategic Communication Panzer Division IV?

The first time a participant denies being someone else should be sufficient to end that topic. Why can't you take someone's word at face value when they talk knowingly about themselves?

Whenever your subject boldly smears another with belittling insults and someone elses alias, such a revelation has been irrelevant to the discussion. It addressed no words, no points, and no ideas being brought forth in the thread.

Even giving you huge leeway in assuming it might be true (like with subsequent postings that ignore the accusation entirely), it has limited power as a convincing argument to your point of view.

Readers say: "So what? The old alias may have became a troll magnet. It seems okay to make a reasonable posting under a new alias on a new subject without old baggage dragging it down."

Yep, if Prophit(0) or LeftRight were dinging you in this forum, I'm sure that they'd do some equating of their own with regards to the magnetism of their handles and what gets attracted:

GuitarBill = GuitarShill; troll; 9/11 government troll; disinformation warrior.

That you continue promoting false equalities in the face of repeated denials demonstrates your dishonesty, made more plain by your failure to apologize.


Maxwell C. Bridges : By GuitarBill's typically faulty logic, I am CynicI and prophit(0)

2009-08-21

Here is a quote from Hitler:

"...Never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it."

As such by GuitarBill's logic, I am now also "CynicI" and "prophit(0)".

To quote GuitarBill:

"Now, what are the odds of that happening?"

Ooooh NOoooo! I quoted GuitarBill!

That means the GuitarBill = "CynicI" = "prophit(0)" = MaxBridges


Maxwell C. Bridges : Proof that GuitarBill is CynicI, prophit(0), and me

2009-08-21

Here is a quote from Hitler:

"...Never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it."

As such by GuitarBill's typically faulty logic, because CynicI and prophit(0) have also used that quotation, that makes me them as well.

To quote GuitarBill:

"Now, what are the odds of that happening?"

Ooooh NOoooo! I just quoted GuitarBill, which therefore makes me the same as him!

That means the GuitarBill = "CynicI" = "prophit(0)" = MaxBridges


Maxwell C. Bridges : to our beloved unapologetic 9/11 disinformation warrior

2009-08-21

HeLLO-oooo GuitarBull,

What you call "quote-mining", educated people call references, annotations, footnotes, or endnotes.

Of course, your so-called quote-mining proof:

(a) Has nothing to do with the discussion.
(b) Was performed by LeftWright.
(c) Was not me.
(d) Does not equate me with LeftWright.
(e) Makes you look like a 9/11 government troll.

I've course, I have quote-mined you both directly and what you were quote-mining from others.

By your logic, I'm me, I'm you, I'm them, I'm everybody and therefore I must be God.

Therefore as God, I command thee to STFU!


Maxwell C. Bridges : Guilty of the sins GuitarBill attributes to others!

2009-08-21

Behold the quotation out of context from Wikipedia that GuitarBill quote-mines to provide us with the definition of quote-mining to prove that he does what he lambasts others for doing and doesn't even know it!

Instead of the handle "GuitarBill", maybe we should be calling you "GuiltyBill" or "HypocriteBill".

"Do as I say, not as I do."

Circles, GuiltyBill. Circles. You're repeating yourself. You're covering the same ground over and over. Someone get him off of this merry-go-round before he gets sick and vomits again!


Maxwell C. Bridges : Finding the trigger and GuitarBill's opposite day

2009-08-21

CynicI,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Maxwell C. Bridges : Behold some classical disinformation techniques

2009-08-26

If anyone was ever the least bit curious what disinformation looks like in a forum such as Alternet, look no further than these tag-team echo-chamber postings by EncinoM and GuitarBill, with the unique feature being the role reversal with regards to who takes the "yes-man" backseat.

Bravo, gents! Bravo!


Maxwell C. Bridges : Good post, EncinoM...

2009-09-04

Overlooking the typos, your posting is well thought-out. Good job. Who would have thought that we have common ground?

The one splitting-hairs squabble that I have with your message is that Alex Jones isn't in the same league as Beck, Hannity, and Rush in terms of audience, corporate media support, and mainstream acceptance. His material has to be sought after and gets cross posted in only a few other places (like www.rense.com); his program doesn't air in my state at all (as far as I know), but there is the internet if I were so inclined.

Don't Beck and Hannity supplement their "popular" daily 2-3 hour radio programs with television programs on major corporate networks? (Or vice versa.) It is an outreach that shouldn't be underestimated.

It is good to see the rising stars of Rachael Maddow and Ed Schultz on the left to join with Olbermann, but their passion and position, unlike those you've listed for the right, do not seem to be based on deeply partisan talking points that are scared of sunlight, scrutiny, or opposition, and that suck up and repeat lies unchallenged.

Whereas Alex Jones does come off unhinged at time, his belief in the material he presents appears to be more genuine and passionate than Hannity, Beck, or Rush. Additionally, I don't see his material getting discredited. Sure, some do immediately label him a nut, a kook, or a loon, but that attacks the messenger and not the message. Most corporate media shills would not touch Jones' material with a ten-foot pole even in an effort to debunk it point-by-point, because to do so lends legitimacy to it, all the more so when the debunking fails, which it is bound to do if Jones' material really is (close to) the truth.

One other hair-split is your phrase "respected experts" and them not being on Jones' program. That is a phrase similar to "conventional wisdom" that is not what it seems and easy to bend (or buy out.) The run-up to Iraq saw too many "respected experts" who were corporate shills to the military industrial complex.


Maxwell C. Bridges [1] [2] : Proof of the disinformation warrior's performance objectives...

2009-09-04

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

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

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

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

I rest my case.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Collateral Damage of 9/11 (PDF)

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


Maxwell C. Bridges : Spinning, twisting, and Lying again, GuitarBill

2009-09-04

Nowhere in my posting do I shy away from a stance about 9/11 that I have repeated stated: I am a no-planer (but waffling.) Therefore, the only one lying is you and your posting that tries to twist my words into saying something I didn't.

Are you man enough to apologize? BTW, you still owe me an apology for calling me LeftWright.

FTR, you are the one who brought up Dr. Judy Woods and try to associate her suppositions with me. Other that my response, no where on this site have I been promoting them. The NIST report is what I harp on. Therefore, you owe me yet another apology.


Maxwell C. Bridges : RE: You watched over two hours of video in 10 minutes?

2009-09-08

GuitarBill boasts:

"I can debunk EVERY 911 denier myth in seconds."

Is that because, as a Government Troll, you are fed electronic talking points that you store away to copy-and-paste puke them back out without much thought?

At this point as you do oh so frequently, I want you to quote-mine the relevant passage from NIST's Final Report on WTC-7 that talks about stage 2 (8 stories, 100+ feet) falling at gravitational acceleration.

Then I want you to explain the ramifications of gravitational acceleration both within the confines of that lone building on 9/11 [stage 2] and within the bigger political sphere.

Because you repeat yourself, let's not have any of your meaningless distractions into Stage 1 or Stage 3. (So what that they met with structural resistance? Eight stories of suddenly ZERO structural resistance in stage 2 is significant and unexplainable... without lies or fanatical religious thinking that all powerful Allah broke his own laws of physics several times that day to help the 19 devote Muslim patsies.)

By the way, you owe me several apologies, like for calling me someone I'm not. You've berated others for personal responsibility. How about you exercising some of the same and coughing up something sincere like "I'm sorry"?


Maxwell C. Bridges : The WTC 7 did too fall at free fall rates.

2009-09-08

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

==========

Officer: Do you know how fast you were going?

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

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

GB: This receipt proves it.

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

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

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

GB: I didn't speed through those zones.

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

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

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

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

And why didn't you answer the questions?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Maxwell C. Bridges : WARNING: GuitarBill has no knowledge of engineering and physics

2009-09-08

Those so called Chandler Debunking videos just take the cake of lame disinformation. You'd think they come up with something more profession, like from NIST itself.

Save your self the trouble and view the original.

http://www.ae911truth.org/ http://www.youtube.com/ae911truth

Oh, no! Mr. Bill!!!

If the instructions on the side of an instant cake box said to "bake for 30 minutes at temperature X", Mr. Bill would be lying to your face saying it takes at least a couple of hours.

"'Cause on the front end, I got to locate my mixing bowl, cake pan, and favorite spoon. Who knows how long that'll take. And I've got to add water and an egg and mix it all up, and that takes time, I tell ya. And hell, on the back end, I can't eat the damn thing till it cools off. SHEEEE-it, we're looking at a good couple of three hours to bake a cake, not no 30 minutes."

Oh, no! Mr. Bill!!!

Hope you like your collection of speeding tickets that you can eat with your burnt cake.


Maxwell C. Bridges : 90 minutes or 3 weeks, GuitarBill still gets it wrong

2009-09-09

Disinformation Warrior GuitarBill,

Your pay is going to be docked this next go around, because you're slipping from the standard of 1/2 hour in posting a flaming, irrelevant, and meaningless response to one of your target participants (like me) or target subjects (like 9/11). Behold:

MaxBridges on Sep 8, 2009 4:53 PM
GuitarBill on Sep 8, 2009 5:39 PM
GuitarBill on Sep 8, 2009 7:12 PM

Your first response came in at about 46 minutes, or 16 minutes overdue. For shame.

That was bad, but what makes it worse is that both of your postings were copy-and-paste lame-o jobs that has you running your disinformation campaign in full circles. My lack of a response in 90 minutes is due to the fact that I have a real life and, unlike you, am not paid to monitor these forums and sow seeds of disinformation.

Worst of all, you're being marked down in your performance evaluation due to the fact that your repeat postings copy-and-pasted the same errors that I flagged you for when you tried to peddle it the first time. You fixed one typo yet another glaring one remains ["a unit s suddenly going missing on a term that should have been canceled"], not to mention your faulty and unspecified assumptions.

**YAWN**

So that everybody sees GuitarBill's circular logic and to make my response much easier, behold from "Right-Wing Militias haven't always been Racist -- but they are now":

++++

So, what was that about "high school physics", "Left"Rodent?
Posted by: GuitarBill on Aug 14, 2009 6:05 PM ++++

"Crap on GB's Shoes" by Hu Flung Pooh
MaxBridges on Aug 15, 2009 10:29 PM

Your physics assumes too much, starting with freefall in a vacuum. The environment was previously established to be a roof top, where wind resistance on a pooh could be a factor. The initial velocity was given as zero. The presence of certain people, like yourself, down below might inspire launching the pooh with an initial velocity.

Mathematically it is safe to say that the flung crap would hit you in a time less than your freefall in a vacuum time of 1.3 seconds.

++++

Face it, "Left"Rodent, you're a liar and a charlatan, who can't do math or physics.
Posted by: GuitarBill on Aug 16, 2009 8:59 AM
++++

Speak about your own (lack of) qualifications and identities
Posted by: MaxBridges on Aug 16, 2009 7:33 PM
++++

And to wrap up this discussion for your reading pleasure from "Inside Story on Town Hall Riots":

Observe how beyond the pale stupid GB is
Posted by: MaxBridges on Aug 11, 2009 9:03 PM
++++

You failed your reading comprehension test
Posted by: MaxBridges on Aug 11, 2009 9:32 PM


Maxwell C. Bridges : Repeating bad arguments doesn't make them good

2009-09-09

{Response to GuitarBill}

18 seconds for the total collapse time of the WTC-7 is like saying it took an hour to drive 60 miles. So?

The only purpose of the latter (one hour) is for a 16 year-old freshly licensed GuiltyBilly to have some weasel-worded wiggle room in saying with a straight-face to his Dad that his average speed was only 60 miles an hour. Such misdirection and mischaracterization say nothing of the wild, pedal-to-the-medal, reckless stretches between bottlenecks, where GuiltyBilly drove well above the speed limit. The fuel consumption at the pump an observant Dad would notice is incongruent with GuiltyBilly's story of his meek driving habits.

The only purpose of the former (18 seconds) is for GuiltyBilly to be able to say with a mathematically correct straight-face that the overall collapse time of WTC-7 wasn't at gravitational acceleration. Such misdirection with WTC-7 says nothing to the stages already well-documented by NIST, where stage 2 by itself represents 8 stories of free-fall. Period.

That lonely little stage 2 is enough for an observant citizen to deduce that the world was told a pack of lies about 9/11. GuiltyBilly's comments today are like the gas pump bearing late witness to reckless efforts to continue the 9/11 cover-up for vested interests that pay him to monitor these forums and spew Disinformation.

And to wrap up this discussion to show GuiltyBilly's penchant for arguing in circles, from "Inside Story on Town Hall Riots":

Observe how beyond the pale stupid GB is
Posted by: MaxBridges on Aug 11, 2009 9:03 PM
++++

You failed your reading comprehension test
Posted by: MaxBridges on Aug 11, 2009 9:32 PM


Maxwell C. Bridges : GuitarBill has be de-masked as "CynicI" and "prophit(0)" [and me]

2009-09-09

Notice that "CynicI" and "prophit(0)" both use the same Hitler quote, which I've included below:

"...Never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it."

Hey. I just used the quote from Hitler.

Your a fool... Ooops. I just mis-used "your" instead of "you're".

Therefore, I must be "CynicI" and "prophit(0)"!!!

Wait. Wait for it. It gets even more mysterious than that.

GuitarBill used the same quote from Hitler as well.

Therefore, GuitarBill must by "CynicI" and "prophit(0)"!!!

"What are the odds of that happening?"

Oh the f**k no! Oh no, Mr. Bill! I just quoted Mr. Bill, which makes me GuitarBill, too. Oh no! Mr. Bill!


Maxwell C. Bridges [1] [2] : Panic about PNAC and your inefficient quote-mining and poor reading comprehension

2009-09-09

GuitarBill laments in his quote-mining:

Source: PNAC: Rebuilding America's Defenses.

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

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

Wrong, GuiltyBilly. Your quote-mining didn't snag enough content. Because we're limited to 4000 characters, expect more detailed quotes in the continuation posting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Continued...]


Maxwell C. Bridges : Supporting quote-mining quotations with source

2009-09-09

[... Continuation]

{Response to GuitarBill}

So that GuiltyBilly doesn't accuse me of quote-mining, here is his link again plus expanded sections from the document.

From PNAC: Rebuilding America's Defenses.

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

...

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

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

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

* Global missile defenses. ...

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

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


Maxwell C. Bridges : I've proven your reading comprehension sucks

2009-09-09

{Response to GuitarBill}

Panic about PNAC and your inefficient quote-mining and poor reading comprehension
Posted by: MaxBridges on Sep 9, 2009 11:51 AM

Supporting quote-mining quotations with source
Posted by: MaxBridges on Sep 9, 2009 11:54 AM

You haven't proven anything.
Posted by: GuitarBill on Sep 9, 2009 12:09 PM

Ooooh wheeeee!!! GuitarBill is back in disinformation form with a blazingly fast and zero-thought-out response in 15 minutes.

Your comments about regime change or a false flag attack are red-herrings. As if PNAC is going to write about them and give away their whole game plan in a document publicly available.

PNAC had a shopping list with items like a substantial American force presence in the Gulf, which they clearly stated transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein. But they also talk about unresolved conflict with Iraq, about manning no-fly zones, about the dangers of Iraq acquiring ballastic missiles.

Clearly, among the options for obtaining their shopping list, tweaking the regime of Saddam Hussein could (and did) seemingly solve other issues and threats among the "known knowns."

As for your "false flag attack" comment, for those in the know, Pearl Harbor was pretty damn close to being one. [The U.S. government was purposely egging on the Japanese prior to Pearl Harbor and was itching for an excuse to get us more directly into WWII that the public would buy.]

Therefore, when PNAC talks about some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor, false flag is certainly an undercurrent particularly when combined with comments from the same section just a few bullets away like:

Pursuing a two-stage strategy for of transforming conventional forces. In exploiting the “revolution in military affairs,” the Pentagon must be driven by the enduring missions for U.S. forces. This process will have two stages: transition, featuring a mix of current and new systems; and true transformation, featuring new systems, organizations and operational concepts. This process must take a competitive approach, with services and joint-service operations competing for new roles and missions. Any successful process of transformation must be linked to the services, which are the institutions within the Defense Department with the ability and the responsibility for linking budgets and resources to specific missions.

Can you say "joint-service operations competing for new roles and missions"? Can you say "joint-service"? "New missions"? "Contractors"? "Mercenaries"? "Outsourcing"? These are all just a hop-skip-and-a-jump away from "False Flag".


Maxwell C. Bridges : You aren't and you haven't

2009-09-09

{Never posted to the forum. Response to GuitarBill}

Disinformation Troll GuitarBill thrashes in vain for any shred of wording that he can re-frame and skew to make him the "winner."

PNAC wrote letters to President Clinton asking him to increase his Iraqi efforts (then limited to the no-fly-zone) to the point of regime change. The PNAC document in question did not have to state "regime change in Iraq." That wasn't its purpose. Its purpose was to draft the laundry list of things they wanted and to provide initial justification for it. Transform the military, permanent military presence in the Gulf, ...

So, you're just whining and splitting hairs so that you can feel superior and as if you won.

Well, Mr. Bill, you aren't and you haven't. You're on the wrong side of history here. Were this 1776, you'd be called a loyalist. Nobody sings the praises of the loyalists anymore. You can't be a patriot and ignore the 9/11 evidence or re-frame it out of sight.

Your disgrace is going to visit the third and fourth generations, such well be their embarrassment at their discovery of your participation in the ongoing 9/11 cover-up.


Maxwell C. Bridges : Oh No! Where'd our GuitarBill Troll go!

2009-09-10

OOoooh NOoooo! Mr. Bill!!!

Did GuitarBill post his last insult on AlterNet on Sep 10, 2009 8:06 AM? Did he get bounced like Foreverhope?

It sure seemed like he had on his afterburners these last few days leading up to 9/11 (tomorrow) from the ramp up of flames so that he could go out in a blaze of glory.

I mean, one of his known favorite trolling targets posted today Sep 10, 2009 at:

10:56 AM
11:08 AM
11:10 AM
11:17 AM
11:22 AM
11:30 AM

In other words, prime GuitarBill trolling times!

Where's GuitarBill?

MaxPayne suggested that:

"GuitarBill = Beck = Quannah"

I can't vouch for the Beck leg of that triangle, and I only had suspicions about Quannah.

Of course, it isn't strange that GuitarBill (late last night) never denied the connection. He'd never do that, just like his persona never apologizes or admits faults.

Yet, isn't it strange that this morning from about 9:35 AM to 10:20 AM, Quannah suddenly appeared and denied the association in several postings, but where was GuitarBill? Was it too difficult to be logged in as two different people? Or did GB get banned, so his alter-ego had to step in?

Or did his 63 flaming postings out of 207 (so far) on the thread above finally burn him out?

Or did his superior officers in the disinformation campaign take him aside and tell him to STFU until the 9/11 anniversary tomorrow passes?

Only time will tell.

But if he isn't already banned, he should be. Search for him on this site and behold what a litany of insults and flames he leaves in the AlterNet database.


Maxwell C. Bridges : EncinoM = GuitarBill? Who's gonna deny it first, if at all?

2009-09-10

Is this the proof that one of GuitarBill's alter-ego is EncinoM?

EncinoM on Sep 10, 2009 1:19 PM

A$$hole.

I promise extra scorn on the Truthiness retards tomorrow, as they attempt to disgrace the dead with their lies.

GuitarBill on Sep 10, 2009 1:47 PM

I'll be back tomorrow to kick your sorry @$$ all over this forum.

If you think I will allow your paranoia, insanity, anti-American propaganda, and disgusting terrorist apology to go unchecked while you disgrace the memory of the innocent victims of Islamic terrorism, you have another thing coming, mister.

Who's going to deny GuitarBill=EncinoM first, if at all?

I've noticed an aweful lot of self-congratulatory backslapping, agreement, and defending of each other in the rare cases when EncinoM makes an appearance in a thread that GuitarBill has previously deficated in. I've seen EncinoM do a lot of defending of the indefensible with GuitarBill. And GuitarBill does a lot of "me-too", "yes-sir", and tag-teaming to the rare EncinoM postings

And what you both have in common, aside from similar orders from your disinformation superiors to attack me, is an irrational adversion to evidence unless it has first been jimmied and twisted to match the government's version first.

EncinoM,

Seeing how GuitarBill won't do it, how about you step out of your little itty-bitty box, swallow the pill to keep you EncinoM (because you use less foul language), and answer the following question... as a hypothetical if you have to?

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

FYI, GuitarBill has posted the evidence from NIST *many* *many* times that proves the hypothetical to be actual: WTC-7 stage 2 fell 108 feet, 8 floors, in 2.5 seconds, which is gravitational acceleration (freefall), meaning that there was **suddenly** nothing, nix, nada, nichts, zippo, zilch, zero in the form of structural resistance in those 8 floors to slow the collapse of the building.

Murder does have any statute of limitations. It is no disgrace to those who died on 9/11 and the resulting wars to keep bringing this up to find the real culprits and TO STOP the bad policies that keep the killings going.

And GuitarBill, as the gravitational acceleration in WTC-7 suggests, more proof exists that 9/11 was ~not~ "Islamic terrorism" than you have for it being such.

I despise both ya'all's overly patriotic language and conflating emotions about the deaths of innocent victims with the harsh reality of what our government did (illegal wars, torture, breaking of laws) using the agenda that it came into office with after a stolen election, more evidence that you can't seem to get yourself to consider.


Maxwell C. Bridges : Do unto others, Quannah, and grow up as well

2009-09-10

Quannah wrote:

"I have the right to post on any article I want. Your conspiranoid theories are insane, as are you for even thinking of it."

Hey, those are the very words that GuitarBill uses!

As GuitarBill often says in lamely defending his accusations that so-and-so is what's-is-name:

"What are the odds of that happening? I'm just sayin'..."

----- End of Joke -----

Well, it seems that our little therapy session has made lots of progress today. What have we learned?

- Nobody likes being called something they're not. Although we've been talking aliases and handles, it also includes insults.

- The only time alias-hopping really matters is when they are used actively in the same thread to garner fake support for a concept or to tag-team attack an opponent.

- The responsibility to confront the accusers of alias-hopping does not just rest on those accused. GuitarBill has diverted too many threads with his accusations, which have no significance in context of the discussion.

Quannah,

You have been accused by others of being GuitarBill, which you deny. Not just in the above joke have I seen similarities in you two that raised my suspicions. But I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Alas, because the number one alias-hopping accuser (GuitarBill) is also an alias you are accused of being, if you want your association to his alias stopped, it means you'll have to confront GuitarBill when he's smears others with this stupid tactic (even if you more or less are in lock-step agreement on his other points.)

Otherwise, Quannah=GuitarBill could linger.


Maxwell C. Bridges : Caleb's Christians and the planes they fly

2009-09-11

Caleb Darkstar wrote:

"I just can't quite remember the last time Christians flew planes full of people into buildings full of people."

Here, let Google help you with your memory. Try "Predator Pakistan".

Our Christian warriors are more advanced. They sit State-side and play very realistic video games that are actually real-life death where their companion Predator drones are flown. Moreover, our Christian warriors may not fly planes full of people into buildings, but they did shoot bombs into numerous weddings.

Our Christian warrior leaders are so advanced, they tricked you into thinking Muslims committed all of 9/11 and the whole house of cards stemming from it domestically and in the wars of Afghanistan and Iraq.

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

- Collateral Damage of 9/11 (PDF)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Maxwell C. Bridges : What do EncinoM and GuitarBill have in common?

2009-09-11

[*] Let's give them credit for being somewhat intelligent. GuitarBill even has a Master's Degree in Mathematics and three years of physics. EncinoM writes better than GuitarBill but types worse.

[*] Both are very patriotic particularly when it comes to the Bush Administration, although in a contradictory manner they occasionally throw out a hint of being progressive or 3rd party.

[*] When the accusation is made that EncinoM = GuitarBill, neither denies it; neither addresses it. All it would take is a simple: "I am not the other." Their word would be enough for me. Although we could suppose (erroneously) their collective non-answer is an affirmative to the equality, their silence is really based on avoiding the do-unto-others rule. You see, were they to speak up and denounce the alias-mating with the implied expectation that we take them at their word, they could then no longer use this lame alias-mating libel against their foes and further would be compelled to speak against the other for employing this technique instead of "me-too'ing" and "yes, uh-uh'ing" the entirety of the other's post.

[*] Both these disinformation teammates attempt to debunk the 9/11 claims of free-fall in the collapse of WTC-7 with a true but dubiously misleading distraction into overall collapse times extended by an early East Penthouse collapse. This avoids the video evidence and NIST reporting of multiple stages, stage 2 of which was 8 stories of free-fall.

Posted by: EncinoM on Sep 10, 2009 3:51 PM

"The collapse did not occur at free fall speed. It took 16 seconds, with the east mechanical penthouse beginning to collapse 8.2 seconds before any more obvious signs of total collapse."

Posted by: GuitarBill on Sep 10, 2009 4:22 PM

"The WTC 7 didn't fall at free-fall rates--idiot. The building fell in 18 seconds after the collapse of the east penthouse ensued 8.2 seconds before the North wall came down."

An analogy illustrates why this is true but dubiously misleading: A car clock and odometer can verify that in one hour you drove 60 miles validating the true statement that your average (or overall) speed was 60 m.p.h. But did you strictly drive that fast, or did you drive sometimes very s-l-o-w-l-y and sometimes recklessly fast over the same distance to achieve the same average speed?

So they sound like teenagers saying "but Officer, my average speed was only 60 m.p.h." (the overall collapse time was 16/18 seconds), while the officer responds "true, but on this particular stretch you were clocked at 90 m.p.h." (stage 2, 8 floors, 100+ feet: free-fall).

[*] Neither has the ability (or permission from disinformation superior officers) to think outside the box and even venture into, what to them is, a hypothetical (but not to NIST). Neither answered the two part question:

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

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

[*] Both EncinoM and GuitarBill use similar disinformation techniques, if not nearly identical truthiness arguments to mislead and distract.


Maxwell C. Bridges : I've answered your hypothetical, now you answer mine.

2009-09-11

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

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

Here's how I'll answer EncinoM:

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

Think outside the box.

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

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

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

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

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


Maxwell C. Bridges : Repeating bad arguments doesn't make them good

2009-09-11

{Response to EncinoM.}

First, here and here shows instances where you (and/or your disinformation teammates) previously brought up this same lame and debunked argument that attacks messenger instead of message. Pen names or aliases aren't important; the research is.

Debunk it or validate it.

Second, Heidner offers extensive references in his Collateral Damage of 9/11 (PDF), references that are independent of whatever background he has.

Debunk THEM or validate them.

Third, debate with Heidner is not impossible. He's posted under epheidner (see 2nd link above). Whereas he probably doesn't monitor this website, I suspect he does Google himself every now and then and sees where he is being mentioned.

Fourth, your belittling of high school physics is unfounded, given that it is merely a subset (without the calculus) of college physics. If the events of 9/11 break the laws of high school physics, that would apply to college physics.

Fifth, your argument about MIT and other university professors debunking Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth is unfounded, if not another example of truth but dubiously misleading. By that I mean that certain engineering reports have been generated by various academic institutions to explore hypothetical statements such as if it were possible for jet and office furniture fueled fires to weaken steel. With such limited scope and certain ideal conditions, they came up with a peer-reviewed paper that verifies this hypothesis (that a certain engineering society agrees with and where your statement is coming from), but that doesn't mean that those ideal situations existed on 9/11 or were the case. [Limiting the scope of research is par for the course for both NIST and the 9/11 Commission to steer results to pre-ordained conclusions.]

It is well to look at former BYU Professor Jones as an example of why more university engineering professors and other professionals have not spoken up more forcefully about the lies of 9/11. Emphasis is on "former" for a reason; he lost his job because his department and the university could not handle / did not want the outside pressure.

A point of fact is that the lion's share of university research funding comes from the U.S. Government, and the Department of Defense in particular. If you are a university professor, speak up about 9/11, and take it to its natural conclusion (U.S. Government insiders were involved with 9/11), you could lose your very bread-and-butter research projects. The Bush Administration proved repeatedly in many areas that they were not above tit-for-tat retaliation for whistle-blowers with employment being an early casualty.

Sixth, free-fall is not a theory; it is a fact. Have GuitarBill post the NIST Final Report on WTC-7 and observe stage 2.

Seventh, "very loud, very audible string of explosions" were not absent on 9/11. You're lying. Tapes do exist with this. However, in cases, other factors in the destruction may have masked this, and unconventional demolition techniques (like nano-thermite) does not have to have the same auditory signature as conventional demolition videos.


Maxwell C. Bridges : Caleb's a third-string disinformation warrior

2009-09-11

Caleb wrote:

"I could direct you to about 1000 sourced that would debunk every myth you truthers insist on believing."

Walk the talk! Do it.

What good would it do?

You might learn something in the process, like how I'm sure *many* of those debunking sources are themselves debunked, or don't fully address the so-called myth, or skew the information. [Look no further than EncinoM and GuitarBill who offer true but dubiously misleading distractions like using overall collapse times extended by an early East Penthouse collapse in a lame attempt to debunk NIST's documentation (of several videos) that shows stage 2 of the collapse (8 stories, 100+ feet) happening at gravitational acceleration.

Your non-answer and mischaracterization speaks volumes about you. I don't loathe Christians; I just want them to live up to their faith and not be hypocrites.

Caleb wrote:

"You believe in something that you cannot prove, you close your eyes and ears and nya nya nya when fact are presented. and you WANT to believe this so strongly that there is no reasoning with you."

Caleb, Caleb, Caleb. The first advice given to would-be authors is to write about something they know. You obviously know yourself very well, because you give a very good description of yourself above.

Today is a special day, as is evidence by the number of disinformation warriors assigned to 9/11 discussion threads to distract and squash search for 9/11 truth. I'm sure that EncinoM and GuitarBill are happy for the re-enforcements.


Maxwell C. Bridges : EncinoM: member of the true truthiness movement

2009-09-11

If a high school history teacher says "2+2=4", are you going to believe him, after all math isn't his field of expertise and he's only a high school teacher? That's what you sound like.

A more open-minded and progressive person would say, "it doesn't matter to me what he teaches or where, let me look for some evidence to validate or debunk the assertion."

Clearly, EncinoM, your repeated attacks on Heidner are close-minded and agenda-driven. If you'd bother to read his document, you'd know that your task is to validate or debunk his "math" (that is, his view on history, his references, his conclusions). Your task is not to belittle his "high school" of employment or field of expertise.

I am not holding out Heidner as an expert. I'm referencing his document for consideration.

It is not impossible to debate Heidner. You just haven't tried. (Of course, not trying also applies to reading his work.)

Who are you to say such-and-such reports are not reliable references? Crunch the numbers and then say that (but only if it applies). You haven't. Nor do you supply the reliable reports that undergird your position. In the rare instances where you have, their unreliability has been blatantly proven [not just from conflicts of interests in the agencies beholden to the Administration but also] in the numbers that do not add up...

Like your trollish argument about the overall collapse time of WTC-7 being 16/18 seconds (meaning, not at free-fall) due to the inclusion of the penthouse collapse and lumping all stages together.

An analogy illustrates why this is true but dubiously misleading: A car clock and odometer can verify that in one hour you drove 60 miles validating the statement that your average (or overall) speed was 60 m.p.h. But did you strictly drive that fast, or did you drive sometimes very s-l-o-w-l-y and sometimes recklessly fast over the same distance to achieve the same average speed?

So you (EncinoM and GuitarBill) sound like guilty teenagers saying "but Officer, my average speed was only 60 m.p.h." (the overall collapse time was 16/18 seconds), while the Truth Officer responds "true, but on this particular stretch you were clocked at 90 m.p.h." (stage 2, 8 floors, 100+ feet: free-fall).

Loud explosions are a red-herring. I say from videos I've seen and eyewitness testimony I've read that loud explosions happened. You say they didn't. Maybe there is middle ground in saying that the audible explosions didn't happen in the manner typically heard at conventional controlled demolitions (1 point for you) but that they did happen in a manner consistent with unconventional controlled demolitions (1 point for me).

And FTR, you are belittling high school physics. Anybody including high school students can observe the videos, scale them appropriately, and time them with a stop watch and CLEARLY SEE in the data FREE-FALL, which is independent of the 9/11 Truth Movement, of teachers, of professors, of agencies, and of any political agenda.

You want to talk "truthiness movement", that's what you head up, as is evidence by the nature and number of your 22 postings (out of so far 103). Only your little disinformation teammate Caleb seems to be able to keep up. GuitarBill is falling behind today. Did he get demoted?


Maxwell C. Bridges : Bold requests for busy-work you'll never review

2009-09-11

EncinoM wrote:

"Prove to me 9/11 was an inside job, provide me with evidence that would stand up in a court of law... Lay your cards out, show me the evidence. ",

Bold statements, but with your track-record, you're just sending people out on to do busy-work that you'll never review, never consider, and never let it convince you.

Or maybe it might or has, personally when not on the clock, but EncinoM is a persona that isn't paid to be convinced, isn't paid to be open-minded, and is paid to keep kicking up sand.

"9/11 was just one big rinky-dink coincidence", eh EncinoM?

How do I know? Been there, done that. Saw your same trollish responses ignoring it, twisting it, forgetting it, and misrepresenting it with numerous attacks on character. Your last posting is not different.

Review Richard Gage's presentation again. Aside from dropping boxes (which is effective for physics challenged people like you), he proves even in the 10 minute version that the hypothesis that WTC-7 came down with controlled demolition matches the data more closely than all of the skewing and spinning of the 9/11 coincidence theory crowd (such as yourself).

More to watch...


GuitarBill : Ever heard of the Scientific Method, Mr. "Scientist"?

2009-09-12

Posted by: GuitarBill on Sep 12, 2009 9:30 AM


EncinoM : RE: As soon as your insults start, you loose the argument

2009-09-12

Posted by: EncinoM on Sep 12, 2009 9:16 PM


Maxwell C. Bridges : Their insults started; they lost the argument (long time ago)

2009-09-12

The starting comment:

As soon as your insults start, you loose the argument
Posted by: SurfingScientist on Sep 12, 2009 3:52 AM

Allow me to point out to all of AlterNet's present and future readers what a fine example of disinformation teamwork came to the posting:

Ever heard of the Scientific Method, Mr. "Scientist"?
Posted by: GuitarBill on Sep 12, 2009 9:30 AM

RE: As soon as your insults start, you loose the argument
Posted by: EncinoM on Sep 12, 2009 9:16 PM

In a previous posting in response to GuitarBill, I mentioned lessons from the Karl Rove School of Online Debate.

Lesson #4: Take all of the weaknesses in your own position and project them onto your opponent, whether or not true. Later when the opponent picks up how the weakness is really yours, you can point to their unoriginality in throwing it back at you.

A rule or adaption I missed is but is now GuitarBill and EncinoM inspired:

Lesson #4b: Take all of the strengths in your opponent's position and project them onto your position, whether or not true. Later when the opponent picks up how the strength is really theirs, you can point to their unoriginality in bringing it up.

Keep this in mind when re-considering their postings.

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


Maxwell C. Bridges : Coincidence Theorists versus the 9/11 Truth Movement: What's the score?

2009-09-12

How do the stats look?

The disinformation teammates by far have the most quantity (but certainly not quality) in their postings that cheer the many and mighty coincidences of 9/11 including the deviation from historical norms of steel building fires and the breaking the laws of physics!!!

[*] GuitarBill is the MVP for the coincidence theorists! Starting with the first posting of his teammates on Sep 11, 2009 12:46 AM right on through his last one (so far on Sep 12, 2009 3:26 PM), he amassed 49 of 296 postings (16%). On top of that, GuitarBill threw more off-topic insults to help secure his MVP disinformation title!

[*] EncinoM comes in second at 41 postings (14%).

[*] Caleb, the third-string little buddy, burned out at 20.

[*] McGovern72 had 14.

[*] Progressive-life had 8.

These five players from the disinformation teammates alone account for for 132 of 296, a whopping 45%!!!

As for the 9/11 Truth Movement, well, ... our stand-out posters pale in comparison to the paid antics of the disinformation trolls.

[*] Prinzowhales had 14
[*] KellyGarden had 10
[*] camusrebel had 10
[*] dov23 had 8
[*] Age of Reason had 8
[*] antonius116 had 7
[*] PakiBoy had 5
[*] willymack had 5
[*] MaxBridges (me) had 5 (including this posting)
[*] weathered had 3
[*] fsuthai had 3

The above 11 posters accounted for only 78 postings, a very pathetic 26%.

There were lots of singles and doubles on both sides.

However, I noticed the trend that for nearly every posting in favor of 9/11 Truth, the paid disinformation trolls for 9/11 coincidence theories felt compelled to respond to defend the government's big rinky-dink coincidence theory.

Yet if the top-11 for 9/11 Truth were out-posted by the top-5 coincidence theorists by 19%, why?

Here is a fact that will be hard for GuitarBill with his Masters Degree in Math and 3 years of physics to comprehend. Not only is 11 greater than 5, but to the 11 must be accounted many singles and doubles that required the trolls to post 19% more disinformation in response.

So, it is a good thing that the disinformation manager called in re-enforcements, because clearly the 9/11 Truth Movement has grown and has the coincidence theorists outgunned.


Maxwell C. Bridges : You lost, and SurfingScientist's subject explains why.

2009-09-12

GuitarBill,

I suppose you and I have synergy going, because your posting seems to have been inspired by The Karl Rove School of Online Debate, while your posting inspires the development of a lesson adaptation:

Lesson #4b: Take all of the strengths in your opponent's position and project them onto your position, whether or not true. Later when the opponent picks up how the strength is really theirs, you can point to their unoriginality in bringing it up.

[*] Your first sentence does double-duty in proving both the subject of SurfingScientist's posting [As soon as your insults start, you loose the argument] and that you follow Lesson 1.

Lesson #1: The first part of any response should be to personally attack the opponent.

[*] The inspiration for Lesson #4b is what you wrote:

"In fact, the 911 deniers arrive at a predetermined conclusion and work backward, cherry-picking the evidence in support of their predetermined conclusion--and that is the antithesis of the Scientific method."

You have more in common with the 9/11 Truth Movement than you think, because if you change in your sentence "911 deniers" into "The 9/11 Commission and NIST", you'd have exactly what we've been saying and why a new independent investigation into 9/11 is required.

[*] Jones is allowed to change his story if done for the right reasons, like new convincing evidence. Due to the 9/11 cover-up (that you still don't acknowledge), evidence from the crime scene is very hard to come by.

The real question you need to ask yourself is why aren't you willing to consider new evidence as it becomes available and explore different hypothesis as a result of it?

[*] Who's case were you trying to make? You wrote:

"So tell me, what makes a conspiranoid any different than say, the Bushit administration? After all, the Bush administration cherry picked evidence, and ignored all evidence that disproved their theory, and used disinformation to convince Americans that Saddam Hussein was a reincarnation of Adolf Hitler."

You appear to be admitting that the Bush Administration demonstrated a pattern of dishonesty in the run up to Iraq, a very serious and treasonous breach in our Nation's trust. Yet, key members of the Bush Administration who are involved with this are also involved with 9/11. So why is so difficult for you to believe that the pattern of dishonesty was consistent throughout every aspect of Bush's tenure, including 9/11 and the 2000 election.

[*] FTR, a whole host of cockamamie 9/11 theories can be debunked, and upon seeing the convincing evidence, I would be the first to say "good riddance." But hey, cough up the evidence! The government is sitting on videos that would definitively prove (or disprove) the Pentagon plane. The government has samples from the crime scene that they haven't turned over. NIST has the parameters that it used in making its computer simulations... The list is long of where the government has withheld evidence, destroyed evidence, and skewed evidence.

The playing field is not level; the game is rigged; the government has cheated; they are guilty if of nothing else, the cover-up. From Nixon's demise, they said "It wasn't the Crime; it was the cover-up" that did him in.

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


Maxwell C. Bridges : You have more in common with the 9/11 Truth Movement than you think

2009-09-12

EncinoM,

I suppose you and I have synergy going, because your posting seems to have been inspired by The Karl Rove School of Online Debate, while your posting inspires the development of a lesson adaptation:

Lesson #4b: Take all of the strengths in your opponent's position and project them onto your position, whether or not true. Later when the opponent picks up how the strength is really theirs, you can point to their unoriginality in bringing it up.

If you want to get all huffy about chain of custody and availability of evidence, how come you aren't making a big case about what happened on 9/11 by the government in terms of shoddy science, shoddy crime scene preservation, and shoddy analysis.

If you want to completely discount Prof. JOnes' findings, kindly show the government's 9/11 analysis the same respect and skepticism. All of the above pre-dates Prof. Jones. In fact, if the government had done what it should have, there would have been no need for Prof. Jones to become so famous and inspire your ire.

You have more in common with the 9/11 Truth Movement than you think.

FTR, a whole host of cockamamie 9/11 theories can be debunked, and upon seeing the convincing evidence, I would be the first to say "good riddance." But hey, cough up the evidence! The government is sitting on videos that would definitively prove (or disprove) the Pentagon plane. The government has samples from the crime scene that they haven't turned over. NIST has the parameters that it used in making its computer simulations... The list is long of where the government has withheld evidence, destroyed evidence, and skewed evidence.

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


Maxwell C. Bridges : Behold what PNAC wanted for cyberspace control and achieved

2009-09-13

EncinoM wrote:

"Awww did a handful of defenders of the truth, upset the truthiness movement."

[*] Nope. Actually, quite the contrary. You helped the 9/11 Truth Movement. Your postings are worthy of study for their disinformation techniques. You know, the PNAC wrote about how it wanted to control cyberspace in the very same document that talked about needing a New Pearl Harbor. Therefore, if the government were to infultrate this discussion, your postings most closely match what it would look like.

And the shear foolery and foolishness of your co-worker, GuitarBill, really seals that deal.

Defenders of truth? Ha. More like "defenders of the 9/11 cover-up"?

EncinoM wrote:

As you continue to spew the lies of the truthiness movement, I will be there. On eof the reason, other don;t join, is that the truhtiness movement is known to hound and badger those that expose their lies.

[*] You will be there, because you appear to be getting something out of spreading disinformation: pay, promotion, and/or sick jollies.

[*] As for the hounding and badgering, please kindly don't project the strengths of the true truthiness movement (namely you 9/11 coincidence theorists who support, cover up, and cover for the governent) onto the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Take a look at the stats and you'll see who has been hounding and badgering whom. You are already at 40+ postings, and GuitarBill is at 50+ in the postings to this article alone.

Take a look at just these subjects from your disinformation teammate, GuitarBill:

- Speaking of @$$holes, it's ..., AlterNet's number 1 bung hole. 
- Apparently you are that stupid. 
- So, tell us, conspiranoid genius, ...
- I can't count, @$$hole?
- You're an idiot. %^) 
- What part of this statement don't you undeerstand, Mr. Contextotomy? 
- ... you, in my opinion, are an anti-Semite
- I don't believe are your bogus interpretations 
- Typical conspiranoid
- So liar, where's your proof ...
- More BS, your alleged "scientist"? 
- Lying again, conspiranoid? When do your lies end, fool? 
- ... would lie to his mother. 
- NO! you misrepresent the facts, jerk. 
- Since when is 800 > 125,000, @$$. You're a "scientist"? BS!
- He's AlterNet's local version of National Socialist lite. 
- Another Gen-Y moron who can't think. They're still alive? You're a nut. 
- You have it backward, PrinceOfLies
- But you are a wing-nut, pal. And your idiotic pseudo-science is pure cr*p 
- That right, conspiranoid
- ... He's not a suspect, idiot.

These personal attacks in the discussion to this article by themselves are grounds for being banned, and certainly AlterNet's database full of GuitarBill's trolling.

As for you, EncinoM, your postings are just a few shades cleaner, calmer, and more rational, I must admit. But if they have anything in common with GuitarBill's outside of the teamwork, it is that you both TRY TOO HARD!

If indeed all of the opponents to your 9/11 coincidence theories were 9/11 trolls, you could simply not feed them. They'd post once or twice and then go away. Instead, you not only respond, you provide mis-information, re-framed discussions, and diversions into messenger debunking rather than message debunking, if not postings designed to detour into nasty-ville.


Maxwell C. Bridges : Pot calling the kettle black

2009-09-13

{Response to GuitarBill}

Take a look at the stats and you'll see who has been hounding and badgering whom. EncinoM is already at 40+ postings, and GuitarBill is at 50+ in the postings to this article alone.

GuitarBill is hands-down the most prolific poster in the discussion to this article. The question all readers -- present and future -- must ask themselves is:

How well did the 9/11 coincidence theorist (e.g., support of the government's version of 9/11) make his case?

When forumlating an answer to this, you should take into consideration that GuitarBill has been arguing for 9/11 coincidence theories in this forum for a long time. From those early battle scars, he has amassed certain canned responses and links that he can copy-and-paste at his leisure... except that even this ammunition can fail him when several opponents in different threads or different articles spread him too thin.

Still, he has had ample opportunity to refine even those canned passages and hone his point. Did he? Did he really improve his game and come out with swinging with knock out punches? Take a look at his 54 postings (so far), which represents 17.6% of the total (306).

Here's how GuitarBill has shot holes into his case:

The last point is really a key. If indeed all of the opponents to his 9/11 coincidence theories were 9/11 trolls, he could simply not feed them. They'd post once or twice and then go away. Instead, he not only responds, but in a way to guarantee a diversion into nasty-ville.

I am all for speaking truth to misinformation (and lies), but believe it can be done in a way that attacks the message and not the messenger. GuitarBill has never learned that.

The archives bears this out. But you don't have to go to the archives to see this. Take a look at JUST some of the subjects GuitarBill has written (in clear violation of AlterNet posting policies).

Edited sampling of GuitarBill's subjects from this article alone:

These personal attacks in the discussion to this article by themselves are grounds for being banned, and certainly AlterNet's database full of GuitarBill's trolling.


Maxwell C. Bridges : Moral bubbles that need to be burst

2009-09-13

Caleb emotionally wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Continued ...]


Maxwell C. Bridges : [Continued] Moral bubbles that need to be burst

2009-09-13

[... Continuation]

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

Caleb wrote:

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

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

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

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

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


Maxwell C. Bridges : What's the score now? Did I accidentally hit a disinformation nerve?

2009-09-13

{Response to GuitarBill}

Oh, geez! I'm sorry. Did I accidentally hit a disinformation nerve? What could have inspired such adoring attention?

Max, you can't do high school-level math or physics. Who are you to lecture anyone?
Posted by: GuitarBill on Sep 13, 2009 8:15 AM

The "laws of physics" weren't broken, Max. Besides all that, what do you know about physics?
Posted by: GuitarBill on Sep 13, 2009 8:46 AM

Angry, aren't you, Max? Too bad I BUSTED you posting Nazi propaganda from http://whale.to.
Posted by: GuitarBill on Sep 13, 2009 9:24 AM

Yo Max! Isn't posting Nazi propaganda grounds to have you BANNED?
Posted by: GuitarBill on Sep 13, 2009 9:30 AM

Max the compulsive lair, BUSTED telling half-truths again.
Posted by: GuitarBill on Sep 13, 2009 10:25 AM

If there was any doubt in our dear reader's minds about GuitarBill's agenda and smear campaign, the postings above remove them.

Strategically speaking, GuitarBill, you and the 9/11 arguments that you present were slightly better positioned before the postings above. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot because you tried too hard! The Fifth Amendment is there to protect you; you should exercise your right to be silent every now and then. Use that time to get a life.

I think the 67 postings you have made so far (out of 338), or 19.8% of the total, certainly has the MVP Award being pinned to your chest in the 9/11 disinformation campaign to plug 9/11 as just some big rinky-dink coincidence.

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


Maxwell C. Bridges : [Revisit] Coincidence Theorists versus the 9/11 Truth Movement: What's the score?

2009-09-14

{Response to GuitarBill}

Update to the game stats:

GuitarBill posted 87/382 or 22.8%.
EncinoM posted 47/382 or 12.3%.
Caleb posted 30/382 or 7.8%
McGovern72! posted 14/382.
Progessive-live posted 8/382.

All together, these top-5 9/11 Coincidence Theorists account for 48.7% (186/382) of the total, which is an increase over their 45% (132/296) ranking from earlier.

By comparison for the 9/11 Truth Movement:

MaxBridges is at 15/382.
LeftWright is at 15/382.
PointMan is at 21/382.

I could be wrong, but the tallies for the following remain more or less the same as they were at 296:

[*] Prinzowhales had 14
[*] KellyGarden had 10
[*] camusrebel had 10
[*] dov23 had 8
[*] Age of Reason had 8
[*] antonius116 had 7
[*] PakiBoy had 5
[*] willymack had 5
[*] weathered had 4
[*] fsuthai had 3

The top-13 posters requesting a new 9/11 investigation represented only 32.7% (125/382) of the total.

GuitarBill has distinguished himself by earning several colorful ribbons for his MVP performance in this forum, whose significance go above and beyond the frequency of his posts (where he is hands-down the winner at 22.8%!!!) He:

An extra special blue ribbon goes to GuitarBill for handling the accusation that he posts in clear violation of AlterNet posting policies. The evidence of personal attacks on readers was an incomplete list of 21 of just his subject lines to this article's discussion alone. And how did GuitarBill play these shitty cards?

He ignores all but one of the 21 reader-attacking subject lines, focuses on the worst ("Speaking of @$$holes, it's ..., AlterNet's number 1 bung hole"), and with all the self-righteousness of a 5 year-old says that the reader he was attacking called him a nasty name first ("incredible asshole" within the body of a posting.)

In making the consideration for the extra special blue ribbon, insults on the subject line carry more weight than insults within the body of a posting, making his "bung hole" subject an excessive response. He blurs the line between subject and body by calling the list a "half-truth", because the taunting for that one subject came in the body of a posting. Of course, this is accomplished by elevating to the subject line a compulsive liar smear for pointing out the subject line posting violations.

A yellow ribbon is being awarded: for his efforts to make us believe that minor taunting within the body of one posting reflects the circumstances of the 20 some other subject lines containing insults; and for pumping up a factual listing of his subject lines as the product of a compulsive liar despite what a search within this article on "Posted by: GuitarBill" would reveal.

A red ribbon is being awarded for the several cases where he posted two or more uninterrupted responses in a row to a reader's individual posting and for copy-&-paste repeating 3 times a compulsive liar smear.

Congratulations on your new collection of colorful ribbons now pinned to your chest.


Maxwell C. Bridges : True but purposely misleading as his disinformation agenda dictates

2009-09-14

* Y-A-W-N *

EncinoM is a member of the true "truthiness" movement, as is evident when he writes (again):

"Nor did WTC 7 fall at free fall speeds, the collapse took between 16-18 seconds."

If you have an issue with free-fall speeds, you'll need to take that up with NIST who documents it quite clearly in its final report on WTC-7. Stage 2 represented 8 stories, 100+ feet that collapsed in 2.5 seconds, which NIST clearly states was at gravitational acceleration.

You'll also have to take it up with lots of video evidence and any high school student with a stop-watch who can measure and determine from the data distinct stages of gravitational acceleration. It was done for you at www.ae911truth.org.

Tell me, oh truthy one, what is the difference between gravitational acceleration and free-fall?

As for the second part of your statement about 16-18 seconds for the collapse, true. But how did you get 16-18 seconds for the collapse? You included the early penthouse and lumped together all stages defined by NIST (and then some).

An analogy illustrates why this is true but dubiously misleading: A clock and an odometer can verify that in one hour you drove 60 miles validating the statement that your average (or overall) speed was 60 m.p.h. But did you strictly drive that fast, or did you drive sometimes very s-l-o-w-l-y and sometimes recklessly fast over the same distance to achieve the same average speed?

So you sound like guilty teenagers saying "but Officer, my average speed was only 60 m.p.h." (the overall collapse time was 16/18 seconds), while the Truth Officer responds "true, but on this particular stretch you were clocked at 90 m.p.h." (stage 2, 8 floors, 100+ feet: free-fall).

Repeating bad arguments doesn't make them good

The only purpose for bringing up an elongated collapse time of 16/18 seconds is for EncinoM to be able to say with a mathematically correct straight-face that the overall collapse time of WTC-7 wasn't at gravitational acceleration. Such misdirection with WTC-7 says nothing to the stages already well-documented by NIST, where stage 2 by itself represents 8 stories of free-fall. Period.

That lonely little stage 2 is enough for an observant citizen to deduce that the world was told a pack of lies about 9/11. EncinoM's comments today continue the 9/11 cover-up for vested interests that pay him to monitor these forums and spew Disinformation.


Maxwell C. Bridges : Give us the Stats! And stop pointing out your ongoing struggles with honesty

2009-09-14

{Response to GuitarBill}

In the game of poker, a tell is some quirk in behavior that gives away another player's true intentions, particularly when bluffing.

GuitarBill's tells are the very language he projects onto his opponents. It is one thing to call someone else a liar, but another to repeat it in about every other sentence and to post it multiple times. The effect of this overplayed bluff is for the words "lie" and "liar" to stick like fly-paper to the one projecting it, not the one it is aimed at. Yep, GuitarBill tries too hard.

What is funny is that he is trying to discredit a posting that had simple statistics in it, like how many times GuitarBill had posted and his percentage of the overall postings, which in this discussion is greater than 22%. And then he tries to weasel out of facing up to his own trollish behavior and insults flung as evident in a small collection of 21 of his subject lines that anybody can readily see even in the "collapse all" view.

GuitarBill, seeing how I've already taken some time to document the inefficiency of your attacks and why I've been ignoring them: they make you look like a raving lunatic that needs no help from me.

You think you have me cornered with the Bush Era Horrors Will Haunt Us Until We Truly Face Them? Not really. Anybody searching for me in that discussion will eventually find the truth with my link. Tsk, tsk. You managed to have two (nearly identical) postings of mine removed because they referenced H. Michael Sweeney's Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist, evidently because they hit too close to home with what you were doing. You missed this third one or couldn't get AlterNet to act on your request.

All your smears about a Nazi website? To be honest, I don't even know if that was true with the first link to a "whale.to" website that you complain about and keep bringing. But because it was the article that was important -- an article that expressly permits re-publishing --, I was thus able to find another link.

With regards to your statement:

"You still haven't accounted for the entire sample."

You're the one with the f**king Master's Degree in Mathematics. You account for the entire sample.

My work was done just pointing out the disproportionate postings of the top-5 trolls (48% of the total) versus the top-13 from the Truth Movement (only 32% of the total).

The other 20% of the total? We can probably safely deduce that about 16% of the total are stray singles or doubles from someone not in the top-13 of the Truth Movement who posted something that the top-5 trolls needed to respond to.

But I'll leave it to your stellar mathematical analysis and breakdown by poster both to verify (or disprove) that deduction and to account for the full 100%.


Maxwell C. Bridges : Flaming out in a blaze of glory, eh, GuitarBill?

2009-09-15

GuitarBill. Tsk, tsk tsk.

Three times you've posted the exact same copy-and-paste "proof" to defend your insulting trollish ways, yet still have proved little.

Seeing how you persist in defaming me to get the onous off of you, let's remember that it wasn't a single instance (with rafaeltoral) as you would like to re-frame it.

NO. It was 21 (now 35) questionable, unwarranted escalations of your insults to the subject lines against numerous participants.

Forty percent (40%) of your more than 87 postings had subject lines that could be construed as offensive, if not individually, then certainly collectively. [Offensive body text is a separate but related topic worthy of your ban.]

Let GuitarBill's subjects speak for him in ramping up his flames for a departure in a blaze of glory.

» Mr Shalev is an expert flight instructor, and you, in my opinion, are an anti-Semite.
» Another Gen-Y moron who can't think. They're still alive? You're a nut.
» Wrong again, PrinceOfLies.
» No, it ought to be obvious to you, but you're a conspiranoid so the obvious is never obvious.
» Typical conspiranoid. When confronted with real evidence, ignore it. %^)
» What's the matter, Max? Are you angry because I BUSTED you posting Nazi lies from http://whale.to?
» How about Jimmy Walter, "Left"Rodent? He's filthy rich. %^)
» Apparently you are that stupid.
» Why would you put the building's SE under oath? He's not a suspect, idiot.
» Lying again, conspiranoid? When do your lies end, fool?
» Look Mister_Cyclops learned a new word: NEOCON
» So liar, where's your proof that a significant number of ASCE engineers agree with 911 "TOOTH"?
» I can't count, @$$hole? Since when is 800 greater than 125,000?
» NO! you misrepresent the facts, jerk. Since when is 800 > 125,000?  
» More BS, your alleged "scientist"?  
» Since when is 800 > 125,000, @$$. You're a "scientist"? BS!  
» You have it backward, PrinceOfLies.
» All you have, PrinceOfLies is video fakery--and here's the proof.
» Speaking of @$$holes, it's rafaeltoral, AlterNet's number 1 bung hole.
» But you are a wing-nut, pal. And your idiotic pseudo-science is pure cr*p
» So, tell us, conspiranoid genius, what was the "context" of Silverstein's statement?  
» What part of this statement don't you undeerstand, Mr. Contextotomy?  
» "...I - They - Who Cares?"??? You're an idiot. %^)  
» D. Shenary would lie to his mother.  
» Never mind dithered. He's AlterNet's local version of National Socialist lite.  
» BUSTED lying again, Max!
» Angry, aren't you, Max? Too bad I BUSTED you posting Nazi propaganda from http://whale.to.  
» Yo Max! Isn't posting Nazi propaganda grounds to have you BANNED? 
» Max the compulsive lair, BUSTED telling half-truths again. 
» Caught you lying and misleading us again, Max the compulsive liar.  
» One more time, liar. And this time answer my questions, scumbag.
» Never mind dithered. He's AlterNet's local version of National Socialist lite.  
» Are you trying to peddle David Ray Grifter's nonsense again, "Left"Rodent?  
» Tell us about it, Mister_Cyclops. Is that why you posted neo-nazi propaganda written by Jim Tucker?  
» You're a liar, and here's the PROOF, conspiranoid. %^)  

What's the story with these? Were 100% of them in response to being insulted yourself? Or were most of them just you egging someone on?

You can try your disinformation tactics of calling me "a compulsive liar" for pointing out your trollish ways, but your stats vindicate me and condemn you.


Maxwell C. Bridges : Do you know the difference between fact and "friction"?

2009-09-15

{Response to GuitarBill}

The portion of Crazy H's posting that you took issue with appears to be fact as if it were reported in the news papers. Did you Google it to see if it did or didn't happen in real-life? No.

Nothing about it is "speculation".

It is well that you can link to "straw man" in Wiki, but maybe you should go there, study it, and try to understand what it really means. Despite your Master's Degree in Mathematics, you regularly demonstrate such poor reading comprehension, one has to question the credentials of the university you attended.

"Straw man", too, does not apply to the portion of Crazy H's posting that you took issue with.

Here's the irony. Your inaccurate labeling of his posting as both "straw man" and "speculation" is itself... AN EXAMPLE OF A STRAW MAN ARGUMENT! roflol!

Moreover, providing links to the Zacarias trial is... IRRELEVANT!

So, whereas Crazy H appeared to be posting facts, you appear to be posting "FRICTION."

You write:

"... don't waste my time with irrelevant and inane commentary."

It was you who wasted your time posting your misguided and irrelevant friction.


Maxwell C. Bridges : Pre-emptive Libel? Knock off the libel. Period.

2009-09-15

GuitarBill's postings and logic have been so shredded in the past, that he has to stoop to pre-emptive libel.

Rather than addressing the message, he has to discredit the messenger early and often.

Here are two gems from GuitarBill that defy logic:

- "That's your opinion, Max the compulsive liar. "

- "And who cares about your worthless opinion? After all, you're a liar."

In quick answer to his question, GuitarBill obviously cares about my opinion, otherwise he wouldn't have responded in 20 minutes.

Be that as it may, he's trying to say that I lie about my opinions. Here's an example of how void of reasoning those statements are.

"Yummy. My opinion is that Pepsi is my favorite soda. Oh, wait. According to GuitarBill, I'm a compulsive liar. Therefore, my opinion is wrong, and Sprite is my favorite soda. ... No wait. It's ice water. No, milk. No, beer. ..."

GuitarBill doesn't realize that opinions can't be proven wrong in a court of law. The facts that support a given opinion can be proven wrong. But in such an event, the opinion holder is free to change it.

To lie about a personal opinion is really only something that GuitarBill would consider... for pay, which he seems to demonstrate frequently.


Maxwell C. Bridges : RE: Then maybe you can tell me why Marie-Paule Pileni called Jones' paper "rubbish"?

2009-09-16

{Response to GuitarBill}

Duh? Maybe she was trying to kiss ass to get her job back, or any job, for that matter.

The vindictiveness of going after whistle-blowers is well documented, with the first casualty usually being employment. Granted, she wasn't a whistle-blower in the usual sense. In fact, she was a (political) gate-keeper and didn't know it. Her "ignorance of politics" didn't spare her superiors from the heat & intense political pressure that the publication of the report inspired or from them rolling the shit downhill to her.


Maxwell C. Bridges : [CompulsiveLiar] Sticks to you

2009-09-16

{Response to GuitarBill}

Ooooh Noooo! Mr. Bill!

You really take the cake.

You're just a very sore *l-o-s-e-r*, because you've been having your ass kicked on your 9/11 disinformation postings, which not only were excessive in the article How 9/11 Should Be Remembered..." but were also noteworthy for having 35 of your 85 submissions with ad hominem attacks right from the subject line.

You didn't like having your anti-social behavior tallied and blatantly exposed, so you gear up your "compulsive liar" smear campaign against me. Your one weak hope is that repeating it on the subject line will get the charge to stick, because your proof -- in this matter and with regards to the 9/11 coincidence theory -- does not withstand close inspection and has been discredited.

I proved the assertion that you have poor reading comprehension and as such my pointing it out wasn't ad hominem. Alas, in proving it, your disenguous tactics and dishonesty got further exposure.

Your smear job resembles you trying to throw sticky fly-paper at others, only to observe that it never leaves your finger tips and that you remain stuck with the labels you have applied to others.

Keep it up, fly-paper boy.


Maxwell C. Bridges : [CompulsiveLiar] The Lie is that I am Lying.

2009-09-16

{Response to GuitarBill}

I have to admit that I was somewhat annoyed to find myself so viciously libeled, on the subject line no less. But as I meditated on this, the message came to embrace it.

Yes, whether or not true, willingly donning the libelous label of CompulsiveLiar actually becomes very liberating. Fact-checking is ultimately what I want others to do with my 9/11 arguments anyway.

The who-wrote-what gets a bit confusing here. GuitarBill wrote:

Max the compulsive liar scribbled, "...Despite your Master's Degree in Mathematics, you regularly demonstrate such poor reading comprehension, one has to question the credentials of the university you attended."

Now, what do you call that, [expletive deleted]? That's an ad hominem attack.

First, if I have mistated Mr. Bill's degree in any way, I apologize. The error comes from his words this summer. If the lie persists, it is because he hasn't corrected the record.

Second, the slur is against his university, not him.

Third, that he regularly demonstrate poor reading comprehension isn't a lie if it is the truth. This will be proven below.

Mr. Bill provides three links to supposedly prove I lie. BACKFIRE! His disengenuous references were to instances of copied attacks that I did not respond to. My debunking responses appear under other instances of the copied attacks.

How ironically unfortunate for Mr. Bill that he read the responses and responded to them. Therefore, repeating attacks (even in link form) that have been discredited demonstrates his poor reading comprehension.

Thus, MaxBridges didn't lie. Mr. Bill did. OOoooh NOooo! Mr. Bill!.

+++ BORING DETAILS proving Mr. Bill's reading comprehension issues +++

[1] "Telling only half the truth, Maxi?"

Max the compulsive lair, BUSTED telling half-truths again.
GuitarBill Sep 13, 2009 10:25 AM

Flaming out in a blaze of glory, eh, GuitarBill?
MaxBridges Sep 15, 2009 9:15 AM

[2] "Lies, damned lies and statistics"

Caught you lying and misleading us again, Max the compulsive liar.
GuitarBill Sep 14, 2009 12:08 AM

[Revisit] Coincidence Theorists versus the 9/11 Truth Movement: What's the score?
MaxBridges Sep 14, 2009 10:01 AM

[3] "And here I expose your predilection for Nazi propaganda"

What was that, Max?
GuitarBill Sep 13, 2009 9:51 AM

An oft repeated yet unfounded slur. Plus it is a red herring, a strawman, and another example of Mr. Bill's poor reading comprehension.

Addressed a long time ago. Clearly Mr. Bill did not comprehend my words, because he keeps digging up the erroneous charge and breathing new life into it.

Give us the Stats! And stop pointing out your ongoing struggles with honesty
MaxBridges Sep 14, 2009 11:50 PM


Maxwell C. Bridges : Other then Spamming for 9/11 Coincidence Theories

2009-09-17

{Response to EncinoM.}

Do you have actual proof to debunk all of the points brought up by Charlie Sheen in his letter and video to the President? Nah.

If Charlie Sheen, Alex Jones, or Dr. Griffin were to say "2+2=4", it appears you would question whether or not that were a "fact" and would launch into a distraction about Sheen being an actor in "Hot Shots", Jones being a fringe radio jock, and Griffin being a theology professor: none of them math professors.

Attack the messenger instead of the message.

EncinoM writes:

[SIC] "Whty do you bother to call for a new investigation, you seem to "know" all the facts already. Of course everyone of the "facts" has been proven false, but never let the truth get in the way of the truth movement."

Why are you ~not~ calling for a new investigation into 9/11?

I mean, REALLY!

If the 9/11 Truth Movement has managed to inspire only a teeny bit of skepticism in the nation about the validity of all of the 9/11 coincidences that the government wants us to believe (and that you actively support and promote), that should be enough for you to change your tune if only to get all of us [*deleted*] 9/11 truthers to STFU. I mean r-e-a-l-l-y, wouldn't that lofty goal be worth it to you?

As for your comment about every one of the facts being proven false, at first I thought you were really talking about the 9/11 coincidence theories that you propagandize, because simple seekers for truth have been poking holes left and right in those facts.

Upon close inspection, we see that "every" is an over-generalization that proves your statement wrong from the onset. How could you be so careless in your wording? Surely "one fact" can be found that hasn't been proven false. To be sure, it can. [Stages of free-fall in the collapses of the buildings, anyone?]

Which is why you didn't write more correctly "many facts have been proven false," because that leaves one, a couple, a few, several, or "many still" that remain true for an independent investigation to find and validate for justice then to be served.


Maxwell C. Bridges : You sure of the validity of OBL video and audio tapes?

2009-09-17

{Response to EncinoM.}

Unlike many promoters of the 9/11 coincidence theories, my opinions on various aspects of 9/11 can be altered with supporting evidence.

I could go either way on the health of Osama bin Laden.

EncinoM writes:

"You mention obits yet fail to provide them."

Would you be able to read them if they were provided? I'd be willing to bet that the Dr. Griffin book (that neither of us have read yet) provides them.

But something tells me that as soon as this thought of Osama bin Laden being dead since late 2001 starts taking hold, we're going to start hearing from the likes of you that "the obits were fakes and were planted by sympathic Pakistani OBL supporters to get the hunt for OBL called off."

EncinoM writes:

"The one thing that the claims have in common is that they have been debunked by Bin Laden's release of video or audio tapes."

No. Sorry.

Let's ignore that neither you nor I understand the language spoken in the videos or on tape, so must rely on (mostly) government translation of the content and for their validity. This alone (along with garbled audio) throws up all sorts of doubt with regards to the message we're told OBL delivered as opposed to what he may have actually said.

Turns out, one video with an OBL supposedly admitting to planning and carrying out 9/11 uses a fat OBL that is clearly not OBL. It has been debunked. ~A FAKE~!!!

Another more recent video shows an OBL with *LESS* gray in his beard than previous pictures and videos. Did his vanity cause him to dye his beard? Unlikely. If we can agree on OBL's devoteness to the Muslim faith, then dying of the beard is a no-no and the video is something taken prior to 9/11 that has been re-mixed, re-messaged, and sent out for public consumption.

It then becomes a fake with regards to being a recent and relevant message from OBL, as the government would have us believe.

Audio tapes? With voice morphing software that does exist, we have to be very wary about giving them more validity than they merit.

Nope.

You overstep your evidence in saying that Bin Laden's release of video or audio tapes debunks his being dead.

Short of Bin Laden being captured (or his body laid out) and the media circus that drives, a video of Bin Laden with appropriate gray hairs holding up a recent newspaper, maybe watching a recent news show, and talking about recent events (even President Obama) is requisite to shut up the growing validity to the supposition that OBL has been dead for quite some time.

And as the validity to the death of OBL grows, ponder for a moment its ramifications with regards to the singular event that was 9/11 and to the geo-political consequences that 9/11 patriotism drove us to do.

Or is that going to be too hard to consider just like the glaring 2.5 seconds of NIST-documented free-fall over 8 stories (100+ feet) in the collapse of WTC-7 and what its ramifications were with regards to the singular event that was 9/11 and to the geo-political consequences that 9/11 patriotism drove us to do?


Maxwell C. Bridges : Pots and kettles

2009-09-17

OOooo Nooooo! Mr. Bill!

You wrote:

"it's you who follows me around from thread-to-thread spewing ad hominems"

Prove it.

By all means, use this article and this recent one and others from the archives.

Document your assertion.

When tallying your statics for both of us, note:

[A1] Who posted first on the multiple threads for an article.
[A2] Who responded.
[A3] How many times did A2 respond to a single A1.

[B] Who posted last on a given thread.

[C1] All ad hominems posted by one to the other on the subject line.
[C2] All ad hominems posted by one to the other in the body text.
[C3] The relative negativity weighting of each ad hominem. Create your own scale.

Certainly with regards to [A2], you're going to find numerous instances where indeed I seemed to have followed you to a thread and posted a response, because I freely admit that your postings often contain both blatant and subtle lies that I felt had to be addressed.

However, your analysis may surprise you. Without the benefit of stats in front of me, I'd be willing to bet:

[A2] You far more frequently rise up in response.

[A3] You more often post two or more posts to a single one of mine. Here's a good example:

» Pot calling the kettle black Posted by: MaxBridges
» Max, you can't do high school-level math or physics. Who are you to lecture anyone? Posted by: GuitarBill
» Angry, aren't you, Max? Too bad I BUSTED you posting Nazi propaganda from http://whale.to. Posted by: GuitarBill
» Yo Max! Isn't posting Nazi propaganda grounds to have you BANNED? Posted by: GuitarBill
» Max the compulsive lair, BUSTED telling half-truths again. Posted by: GuitarBill

[B] Your postings closed out more of our discussion threads than mine. [See above.] Final word in a thread is a significant indication of intent and who follows whom around. It means that the last commentator was actively monitoring the thread seeking out new opportunities to cap the thread and secure the final spin.

[C] Your postings have more personal attacks [C1 & C2] against me than vice versa. Your ad hominems [C3] are also more offensive, so will have a higher negativity rating. If Goodwin's law is any part of that measure, your Nazi references [see above] are low blows, particularly when it was discredited yet you repeated it. How do you plan on weighing your postings that I managed to get AlterNet to remove, like the one with the creative text-based middle finger?

You wrote:

"And lying like a [expletive deleted] rug isn't antisocial?"

Your link on the word "lying" is both dubious and false.

- Dubious, because you point to one (of many) duplicate postings that I did not respond to and you didn't point to the one that did have my response that proves your assertion wrong.

- False, because the topic was your personal attacks on others that the sample list of your subject lines proved.

- Dubious again, because you attempt to re-frame your poor behavior as being in response to being attacked yourself and give one example of that. However, the true framing are all the subjects given in the list most of which did not conform to your re-frame.

Who's the compulsive liar? You. Q.E.D.


Maxwell C. Bridges : Are you going to answer the 9/11 hypotheticals?

2009-09-17

{Response to EncinoM.}

I apologize if you gave more significance and weight than I had intended to the passage about our relative ignorance of the source language and reliance on government translation. I prefaced that whole paragraph with "let's ignore."

The real issue is the known faking of OBL videos.

And how about stepping outside your mental box and considering the hypothetical questions?

If OBL was dead by late 2001 and our leaders knew it, a whole host of uncomfortable questions have to be asked. The revelation that the propaganda to prop up the dead-OBL as boogey-man was used against our citizens does not bode well. Neither does having our patriotism used against us to get us involved with wars.

Paraphrased, but I recall President Bush saying to be honest, I don't give that much thought to Osama bin Laden when asked about the dead-or-alive campaign to get him. Paraphrased, he also said when I saw the first plane hit on television, I thought, being a pilot myself, "man, what a terrible pilot".

Those don't have to be the words of a confused man but maybe unguarded honesty. Of course he wouldn't think much about OBL if he knew he was dead. Of course he may have seen the first plane on television before he went into the classroom (when no one else in the nation did until the next day) and then was allowed by the secret service to remain in the classroom (and then at the school) if it was a planned operation that the government was in on.

EncinoM wrote:

"And still harping on the 16-18 seconds that it took for WTC 7 to fall. Mind you large sections of the south side were also missing."

Isn't it sort of Zen thing to say instead of a glass being half full or half empty, "the glass is already broken" as sort of a reminder to appreciate things to their fullest while they are there and that ultimately the glass will one day be no more? With this thinking, we could be saying that the WTC-7 collapse wasn't 16-18 seconds, but a long process spanning decades that began the very day the first steel beam was set up on top of another in its construction and continued until the final dust particle fell out of the atmosphere.

Dude, I have absolutely no issues with starting the stop-watch of the WTC-7 collapse really early with the visible tremors in the penthouse and its demise and running the clock until the last particle of the dust plume finally settled on NYC. You can say that overall collapse time was whatever you want it to be, like 16-18 seconds.

My issues are with your using this purposefully elongated collapse time to refute free-fall in the collapse and with your distracting readers deceitfully from the truth of free-fall in significant stages (8 stories, 100+ feet) of the collapse.

Despite large sections being missing and despite unchecked fires in the structure, the collapse of WTC-7 -- if it was to collapse at all -- should not have been so utterly complete as we observed with obvious stages of sudden free-fall through the path of highest resistance.

After office, Bill Clinton advised the nation not to be concerned with individual events but with trend lines.

The trend lines of 9/11 fitting in with the dishonesty to get us into illegal and immoral wars are clear, as are your personal trend lines in consistently siding with whatever stilted interpretation of the data can be deceitfully hyped to give the proven Bush Administration criminals the benefit of the (undeserved) doubt about their non-involvement with 9/11.


Maxwell C. Bridges : Think outside the box and explore the 9/11 hypotheticals

2009-09-17

{Response to EncinoM.}

Dude, for all your intelligence, you still haven't learned how to answer hypothetical questions.

You answer a hypothetical question by stating up front that you are assuming the premise as valid, you might list other assumptions that helps you believe in the premise, and you give weasel-words "for the sake of discussion" or "as the devil's advocate."

With this preparation in place, you then brainstorm, you think outside the box, you deviate from the talking points, and you come to possibly different conclusions.

In all of our discussions, you have never been able to do that.

Instead, you attack the assumptions and stop there. Certainly in your response, there is room for you to take on those assumptions, but generally that shouldn't happen until after you have "for the sake of discussion" accepted the assumptions of the hypothetical in order to answer it.

So try again, please.

Although not hypotheticals for me, they are for you:

What are the ramifications both on the singular event of 9/11 and on the geo-political aftermath of 9/11 to:

(1) OBL's death before the end of 2001? (2) free-fall in any significant stage of collapse of any of the WTC buildings?

Hypotheticals (from which a scientific hypothesis often originates) is a very important technique if only to jar our brains and emotions to get over obstacles that prevent us from seeing truth.

A hypothetical may help you see that there is more than one plausible path from A to B. Although the alternative path might be frought with unproven assumptions, if you can get yourself to admit that it could get you to point B, then you can return to those assumptions one-by-one for validation. (Not knowing something definitively as true or false does not make it false automatically nor does it invalidate the alternative path.) Plus, assumptions here or there can be invalidated, but it doesn't have to invalidate the alternative path, because validated assumptions can help drive the overall correctness of the alternative even if a detour has to be found and validated around something.

Why Propaganda Trumps Truth by Paul Craig Roberts is a very interesting read.


Maxwell C. Bridges : Honesty about Fact-Checking

2009-09-17

EncinoM wrote:

"If the truth movement was honest about their fact checking."

How about putting the onous where it really belongs?

The 9/11 Truth Movement does all within its power to fact check and regularly invalidates assumptions and strikes down new paths.

If the US government were honest about accepting and considering facts and evidence, there would have been no need for:

A-l-l __ a-l-o-n-g __ the __ w-a-y, questions were brought up but never answered by those responsible. Holes were found in what answers were received. No blame was assigned, because it was all a cover-up.

A cover-up that you participate in today, like with the sand you throw into our eyes regularly about "the 16-18 seconds it took for WTC-7 to collapse disproves free-fall" despite that being the overall collapse time and having nothing to do with individual stages that clear show free-fall.

Your inability to approach hypotheticals honestly is yet more cover-up. When you explore the hypotheticals, you'd conclude that the direction of the nation and its government has to be changed, which only gets stronger with the validations of more assumptions: free-fall happened and was caused by something pre-planted in the building which is evidence of insider involvement which proves OBL didn't do it which means we shouldn't be in Afghanistan (although the lies have been explosed for a while and we've known all along we shouldn't be in Iraq)...

Your just scared of what the revelation of our leaders' criminal behavior will mean to our society. Explore the hypothetical. It might be bad, but not doomsday for America.

Not doing anything, not exploring 9/11, continuing to cover it up, that is what dooms America.


Maxwell C. Bridges : RE: Think outside the box and explore the 9/11 hypotheticals

2009-09-17

{Response to EncinoM.}

Free-fall happened (in all of the WTC building but most especially) in WTC-7.

NIST documents it. Have GuitarBill copy-and-paste his excerpt yet again.

It can be proven from the videos. It is not psuedo science. ... just because a high school physics teacher brings it up (and doesn't have to worry about committing academic suicide.)

You're grasping at straws and displaying your cover-up agenda.

OBL is relevant, because he was foisted on us as the boogey-man before the dust of the towers had even settled on 9/11.

NIST ignores the start of the collapse, too. Their final report on WTC-7 with its 3 stages only covers the first 18 stories. So what? 8 of those stories are at free-fall. That is unexplained sufficiently by them.

But we all know that the laws of physics aren't changed willy-nilly. Therefore... do the exercise, dude. What are the ramifications? Answer the question with some dignity.


Maxwell C. Bridges : GuitarBill =/= SteveA: where GuitarBill's alias-equating ends

2009-09-18

Sure, GuitarBill. We'll be happy to take you at your word that you are not SteveA. Once is enough. If I ever see a posting where the false alias-equality is promoted and if you need assistance in debunking it, I promise to step in and help keep the record straight.

[See how that works, GuitarBill? Don't you just feel the strength and the improved self-worth that another individual is willing to trust you and take you at your word?]

Make a note of this with respect to your own alias-equating behavior and what should happen when a denial from either party is entered into the database as a posting.


Maxwell C. Bridges : [CompulsiveLiar] The Lie is who is changing the subject.

2009-09-21

OOoooh NOooo! Mr. Bill!!!

So, Mr. Bill, I'm sure you'll get brownie points from your disinformation supervisors for responding to me in 5 minutes, well ahead of the 30 minute target window.

I have to admit that after far too many postings with scant little evidence of the evil spawn of Prophit(0) being CynicI, your cyber-stalking finally paid off with the TalkingPointMemo link.

I'd be inclined to agree with the executive summary that Prophit(0) may be CynicI [which explains why she had never denied it].

But, that revelation, however true:

While we're on the subject of alias-equating, though, I found it completely and entirely dispicable what you did yesterday when "GuitarBill on" flattered you with his imitation.

Too bad you couldn't embrace it and then ignore it.

You fell right into his frame by responding and responding and responding with less than worthy blather, thereby spamming the entire Paranoia article (a real irony to boot) with your replies that could have been attached to just one instance.

Another irony was that as soon as it started happening, you immediately blamed CynicI, just like the Bush Administration immediately started blaming Osama bin Laden for 9/11 before the tower's dust had even settled over NYC.

It is as if you had an agenda. You knew your time was short, so you were going to take someone with you if you got banned. And you smeared the lies on thick.

Due to your scant evidence, your actions were wrong and immoral.

Grow up.

OOoooh NOooo! Mr. Bill!!!


Maxwell C. Bridges : [CompulsiveLiar] Have a point... Please...

2009-09-21

OOoooh NOooo! Mr. Bill!!!

Don't go making me quote and format Hitler citations to prove how lame your arguments are! You know, I'll do it.

Here's a hypothetical. For the sake of discussion, let's assume that prophit(0) = CynicI. I haven't seen a prophit(0) posting in quite some time.

So what's your f**king point? Why do you keep bringing it up? How is any of that relevant? ... Oh, in one of your *yawn* copy-and-paste missives it gets revealed that prophit0 got your goose and insulted you a few times back in the day. So is that the justification for inflicting us with your alias-busting rants? To get even with her for busting your chops by perpetrating your cyber-stalking now?

Keeping with your assumption for the sake of discussion (see how this works?), I suspect -- and you should, too -- that such inappropriate name-calling by prophit(0) got the alias banned. Wouldn't surprise me in the least if you rode her ass with a bunch of "Report this comment" intrigue to assure that the alias got banned.

So the banishment of prophit(0) became a time of reflection, a soul-searching, and an improvement of game.

So she learns to curb her baser instincts to reem you a new one with her sharp tongue and

... She returns.

So what?

Give it a rest, man.

Because you clearly belong to the "repeat the lie enough times it takes on the aura of truth" school, here's one you should try. Say to yourself over and over:

Got it? Now that the positive affirmation is firmly implanted in your mind, kindly go outside and, don't go jumping to conclusions but still...

TAKE A FLYING LEAP!!!

You go right ahead and do it. I'll wait right here...

Back already? Your results?

OOoooh NOooo! Mr. Bill!!!

I'm so sorry you didn't achieve wingless flight with your flying leap and the strength of your uttered wit!

If you want to try again from your building's roof, I'm sure many in this forum will be more than happy to cheer you on with their inspiring chants:

Maybe there is a lesson in this. Repeating crap over and over doesn't make it any less than crap.

Just walk away.

Give it a rest, man. Put her on "Ingore this poster".

OOoooh NOooo! Mr. Bill!!!


Maxwell C. Bridges : Alias-equating again, Mr. Bill?

2009-09-18

OOoooh NOooo! Mr. Bill!

Didn't you know that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery? There's several lessons in this for you if you were open-minded enough to be taught, which in my experience with you has never been true.

Be that as it may, all of this "CynicI = Prophit[#]" alias-equating has got to stop!

Not that you haven't been found guilty of stepping into the discussion with weak arguments, but this has got to be one of the weakest!

I've never seen CynicI tag-team you with a prophit[#] alias or otherwise juke the numbers. As such, who f**king gives a crap if CynicI was ever anybody else in the forum (who you probably actively sought to get banned)? It don't matter!

Short of having access to the AlterNet's server logs to verify IP addresses at the time of posting, you can't prove any of your accusations any way. Give it up.

FTR, "GuitarBilll" had a distinctly British accent to his postings, because he called you a wanker [which women don't often do, because it is primarily a man-to-man insult.] If CynicI is a woman as you claim (and I could believe), both the language and gender are off.

CynicI has been very prolific and articulate on discussions where you haven't been. She has an agenda that is loftier than wallowing in the mud with you or to risking having her IP address banned from posting regardless of her handle. It is highly doubtful that CynicI is this new (and improved) "GuitarBill on".

Given the technique, though, you might have merit in equating "GuitarBill on" with "GuitarBilll". But with CynicI? Nah.

A lesson you should take to heart is that you've pissed off so many participants on AlterNet with your ad hominem attacks, offensive demeanor, repetition, etc., that the list of potential suspects is long and even includes me. [But I, too, have loftier motives that has me take extra efforts to write nicely, so I'm not going to risk my posting rights to spam you.]

The real suspects you should be looking at should probably be a small time poster or newbie who you insulted from one of the 9/11 articles. Because they were so many, good luck!

Of course, Mr. Bill, you also need to consider that you make so many strawman arguments, "GuitarBill on" could indeed be "GuitarBill" (you) and like so many things you are hyping it and milking it to achieve your ends, like to get your bigger nemesises out of the way.

OOoooh NOooo! Mr. Bill!


Alex Hidell : Gary Webb and Oliver Stoner were right

2009-09-18

Gary Webb and Oliver Stoner were right
Posted by: Alex Hidell on Sep 18, 2009 11:39 AM

Gary Webb's investigation of the CIA drug running to LA was vindicated by the CIA's own Inspector General; Oliver Stone's retelling of Jim Garrison's investigation of JFK's murder was vindicated recently by Joan Mullen's research into the CIA's George Joannides, and the 'debunkers' are tripping over themselves calling for further information from the CIA.

The CIA's blowback from drugs, to assassinations, to now torture, are resulting in Spain now launching a torture probe since the US justice system cannot be relied upon, due to CIA claims of "national security".

The chickens are coming home to roost. Also, when I see what happened to Gary Webb, being hounded out of work by the likes of Walter Pincus (and other Operation Mockingbird tweeters) I shudder for what passes as "journalism" in the United States today.

Which makes me ask why the author of this article didn't mention these pertinent facts and instead insinuates that the Dark Alliance articles and JFK assassination truth-seekers are conspiracy buffs.


LeftWright : "The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media."

2009-09-21

Posted by: LeftWright on Sep 21, 2009 6:41 AM

"The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media."
--William Colby, former CIA Director, quoted by Dave Mcgowan, Derailing Democracy

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.
--William Casey, CIA Director 1981.""

"You could get a journalist cheaper than a good call girl, for a couple hundred dollars a month."
--CIA operative, discussing the availability and prices of journalists willing to peddle CIA propaganda and cover stories. Katherine the Great, by Deborah Davis

"There is quite an incredible spread of relationships. You don’t need to manipulate Time magazine, for example, because there are [Central Intelligence] Agency people at the management level."
--William B. Bader, former CIA intelligence officer, briefing members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, The CIA and the Media, by Carl Bernstein

"The Agency's relationship with [The New York] Times was by far its most valuable among newspapers, according to CIA officials. [It was] general Times policy ... to provide assistance to the CIA whenever possible."
--The CIA and the Media, by Carl Bernstein

What was that you were saying, SteveA?

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.


LeftWright : To anyone truly interested in learning about the events of 9/11/01, here are some places to start:

2009-09-19

Web sites:

http://patriotsquestion911.com/

This site has statements from over one thousand very credible people who all question the government's conspiracy theory and support a new investigation into the events of 9/11/01.

http://www.historycommons.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

This site compiles mainstream news media information regarding the events of 9/11/01.

http://911research.wtc7.net/

This is one of the first sites to critically examine the events of 9/11/01. It remains one of the best, especially in regard to the destruction of the Twin Towers and WTC 7.

http://www.ae911truth.org/

This site takes a close look at the destruction of the Twin Towers and WTC 7 and is supported by over 870 licensed architects and certified engineers.

http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/

This site closely examines what took place with the planes on 9/11/01 and is supported by a growing list of pilots, most of whom have extensive experience flying large commercial aircraft, as well as military aircraft.

http://firefightersfor911truth.org/

This site is run by firefighters who ask why there was no credible fire investigation into the destruction of the Twin Towers and WTC 7 and who support a new investigation into the events of 9/11/01.

http://stj911.org/

This site takes an academic approach to investigating the events of 9/11/01 and presents numerous peer-reviewed papers on various topics related to that tragic day. Everything from the physical and chemical evidence of controlled demolition at the World Trade Center to the psychological aspects related to the events is presented by credentialed scholars with years of experience in their respective fields.

Films:

9/11:Press For Truth

9/11: The Myth and the Reality

ZERO: An Investigation into 9/11

9/11: Blueprint for Truth The Architecture of Destruction

Books:

Towers of Deception by Barrie Zwicker

The New Pearl Harbor by David Ray Griffin

9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press by David Ray Griffin

Osama Bin Laden: Dead or Alive? by David Ray Griffin

The Terror Timeline edited by Paul Thompson

The War On Truth by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed

America's “War On Terrorism” by Michel Chossudovsky

Feel free to ask me about these or any other resources regarding the events of 9/11/01.

Physics, facts and logic prove that the government's conspiracy theory of 9/11 cannot be true.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.


LeftWright : You can find most of this information at 911blogger.com (and a whole lot more)

2009-09-19

You can find most of this information at 911blogger.com (and a whole lot more)
Posted by: LeftWright on Sep 19, 2009 10:26 AM

I highly recommend the site. Feel free to contact me at marin911truth (at) yahoo (dot) com, as I have done years of research into the events of 9/11/01 and the long history illegal black ops that began with Iran Contra. I'm still catching up with everything that came for the early 80's.

I hope that you and yours are well.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.


Maxwell C. Bridges : [CompulsiveLiar] The Lie is who is lying.

2009-09-21

OOoooh NOooo! Mr. Bill!!!

Will it hurt your game if I tell LStinson1988 a secret? When Mr. Bills calls you a liar, embrace it!

So it was actually a God-send to me when Mr. Bill started libeling me much like he does you but with CompulsiveLiar (my spelling).

It is like a yoke being lifted, eh Mr. Bill, when you are no longer expected to tell the truth, and the Big Lies are so juicy?!

I know that LStinson1988 will find it a bit counter-intuitive, but those who pedal in truth are not afraid of having their statements validated and fact-checked.

Those who pedal in falsehoods, though, are afraid. They become like adolescent chess players in their overuse of single pieces in their offensive play. "Check", "Check", "Check" as they keep attacking your King, unmindful of the fact that each of your defensive moves to block the "check" destroys his other pieces and weakens his strategy from being taken seriously.

The only pitiful aspect of this is when Mr. Bill's deceitful hyping of your supposed lying reveals to the fact-checkers what you (and I) have known all along: "The Lie is that I am Lying."

OOoooh NOooo! Mr. Bill!!!


Maxwell C. Bridges : acceptably sounding, but only science-based in the blinding sort of way

2009-09-22

Dear Mr. Squarehead,

I apologize for my tardiness in replying. Your post came well after most of the traffic on this died.

Sure, I'll be happy to bracket you in with EncinoM and GuitarBill.

You wrote:

"They both give acceptably sound, science-based, analysis of the events in New York on 11 September 2001."

At first glance, but not when you scratch the surface.

NIST was charged with discovering why the three towers fell on 9/11. Their 1st report didn't even cover WTC-7 except that they had no idea why it fell. That 1st report -- contrary to science-based methodology -- artificially limited the analysis to just a plausible hypothesis for the initiation of the twin towers collapse and did not look into anything after the collapse had started: like squibs, rolling collapse waves, explosive ejection of material horizontally, molten steel in the debris, pulverization, etc.

The only plausible hypothesis they considered was the pre-ordained conclusion for the initiation of collapse: plane impacts and fires from jet fuel and office furniture weakened steel.

Contrary to science-based methodology, they ruled out considering an alternative hypothesis of pre-planted explosives for logistic reasons even though it could more readily explain many more elements of the observed destruction.

Literally, years later in the Fall of 2008 (I believe), NIST came out with their reports on WTC-7. Their analysis was limited to making the hypothesis of the pre-ordained conclusions (damage from the falling towers and fires) believable; they did not consider explosives. They don't provide to the public the parameters and whatnot used in their computer simulations, which could only get a simulated collapse time of 5.4 seconds for the first 18 stories (to match observed reality) by over-driving parameters to worst-case conditions (not the case on 9/11).

The WTC-7 Final Report from NIST divides the collapse of those 18 stories into 3 stages, of which the 2nd stage (8 stories, 100+ feet) is clearly at gravitational acceleration: their words.

They do not have an explanation for this without it being based on computer modeling taking things to extremes. Yet were (conventional or exotic) explosives ever considered despite it more easily explaining it? No.

Why was evidence destroyed? Why wasn't it treated like a crime scene with preservation of evidence, etc.? Why were investigation scopes limited from the onset? Why were lies uttered about the safety of the air?

When you couple in the 9/11 Commission, who also had their scope hobbled "into looking to the future to avoid the same mistakes and not into the past for blame", who had their Executive Director styme many investigation leads, from whom the CIA withhold information, who did not answer most of the questions raised, and who afterwards complained about the lack of cooperation from the administration, then conspiratorial criminal cover-up should not be so far fetched.

You wrote:

"Check out the property of materials described as 'comminution' and the general property called 'gravity', and the nature of acceleration due to gravity"

"you might think over the kinetic energy involved in 40 floors of concrete, steel, glass acting under the force of gravity."

WTC-7 may have been damaged and (for the sake of discussion) may have had raging infernos. Still, it held up the structure. Were there to have been any failure, it would not have been a sudden onset of near symmetric free-fall into the path of highest resistance. Toppling toward the damaged side, unsymmetrical, halting collapse? Sure. As we observed it with 8 stories of free-fall? Not without explosives to remove the materials to get that free-fall going.


Maxwell C. Bridges : [CompulsiveLiar] Your pocket-rocket (pocket-pool) science?

2009-09-22

OOoooh NOooo! Mr. Bill!

In answering the question of "what's [my] f**king point?" in being a troll and cyber-stalking CynicI, Mr. Bill wrote:

"She holds multiple AlterNet accounts"

The accusations exist that you have multiple AlterNet accounts and even EncinoM = GuitarBill? Who's gonna deny it first, if at all? Haven't seen any denials.

Unless you can provide examples of where Prophit(0) and CynicI worked in tandem like you and EncinoM in the same thread to advance an agenda, this argument does not convince anyone of wrong-doing. It is just you hyping it.

Mr. Bill wrote:

"[she] sypathizes with the right-wing teabaggers"

Prophit(0) or CynicI? Be specific.

I've never seen CynicI post such support, but I could have missed it. From what I've read, though, I wouldn't consider her right-wing. Still, you don't have to be of someone's political persuassion to be sympathetic to some of their causes.

And hey, from what I know about teabagging, women who are into it have their own special place in my heart.

Mr. Bill wrote:

"[she] spews anti-Semitism"

This, I know for a fact, is wrong, and for you to keep repeating it proves your dishonesty.

You obviously do not even know what it means or where the lines are drawn between Israel, the Jewish faith, Zionists, etc.

The Israeli state and its government are fair targets for criticism, and to misconstrue such criticism as anti-semitic (particularly in the face of many corrections) is dishonest.

Mr. Bill wrote:

"[she] falsely accuses me of working for [1] The Heritage Foundation; [2] NSA; [3] "the neocons"; [4] Q Group; [5] The Ford Foundation; [6] CIA; [7] FBI; [8] Mossad; [9] "...the Israeli internet task force"; [10] "...the Israeli IDF"; [11] JREF; and last, but not least [12] AlterNet"

SHEEeeeeeee-it! I do that, too! You left out one.

[13] Pys Ops Panzer Division IV Disinformation Platoon Company A

I think we can agree you're paid (money, ribbons, promotion) by some organization to spread your disinformation. Your postings represent a significant time-suck, not so much in their composition (because you rely on repetitious copy-and-paste) but in monitoring the forums of AlterNet for trigger words (9/11, Israel) and targeted posters and in responding within a half hour while during your shift.

IMPORTANT -- Mr. Bill wrote:

"why is it acceptable for "prophit(0)" to slander me on hundreds of occasions..."

The key word there is "prophit(0)". prophit(0) hasn't been posting. You've been attacking CynicI. Duh!

I don't doubt that prophit(0) slandered you or that you deserved it. prophit(0) probably got banned for it: justice served. Having mended her slandering ways (assuming the alias-equating true), CynicI deserves a RESET and the same respect you should show all new participants.

Mr. Bill wrote:

"while it's a crime against humanity for me to expose her right-wing extremism, anti-Semitism, teabagger propaganda and multiple AlterNet accounts"

If it is promoted knowing that it is wrong or misleading, then it is a crime against God himself: thou shalt not bear false witnesses.

P.S. whale.to? Bearing false witnesses and attacking the messenger. The message was the article [about disinformation tactics like what you use] that grants explicit rights to be re-posted and as a result is all over the Internet.

OOoooh NOooo! Mr. Bill!


Maxwell C. Bridges : [CompulsiveLiar] Lying about your ordering links! DNFTT.

2009-09-23

{Response to GuitarBill.}

I respectfully would like to order both the T-Shirt "911 Was An Inside Job!" and the really cool tin-foil hat that GuitarBill models so well.

Oh wait!

OOoooh NOooo! Mr. Bill!

You didn't provide any working links to any website that would enable me to order such articles.

Therefore, your posting is both off-topic and irrelevant spam.

And you are a 9/11 Govt Coincidence Theory Troll who should be ignored.

DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS. DNFTT.

OOoooh NOooo! Mr. Bill!


GuitarBill : You ruin every thread you touch, "prophit(0)".

2009-09-23

You ruin every thread you touch, "prophit(0)".
Posted by: GuitarBill on Sep 23, 2009 10:18 AM

After all, you're a liar, propagandist, anti-Semite and a toothless inbred who misrepresents "her" sources.

{...}

Now, have a look at the "prophit(0)"'s teabagging sympathies:

Source: AlterNet: Lying and spreading RenseMonkey propaganda again, "prophit(0)"?.

Another multiple AlterNet account holding, extremist right-wing troll exposed to the light of day. All in a good days work for GuitarBill [rides off into the sunset].

%^)

Have a nice day, "prophit(0)".


Maxwell C. Bridges : [CompulsiveLiar] Troll Effectiveness you can count...

2009-09-23

OOooh NOooo!!! Mr. Bill!!!

When you get two or more troll (copy-and-paste) postings -- from the same troll, no less -- for every one of your own and when character count wasn't the issue, you know that you've hit a nerve.

Or maybe it was prophit and prophit0 who hit nerves, and Mr. Bill just couldn't get over it.

Despite whatever spiritual transformation may have occured between "prophit" and "CynicI" [which for all we know could be a complete transposition between individuals], Mr. Bill is intent on conflating new CynicI actions with old Prophit flame wars.

Mr. Bill, you're condemning St. Paul for being a Roman tax collector in his younger days as Saul. You're condemning Dr. Jekyll for the actions of a youthful Mr. Hyde.

[BTW, how do we know that you didn't create the Prophit(0) Talking Point Memo blog? Blogs are easy to create. In another life and discussion forum, I once saw an opponent of so-and-so create a blog "so-and-so sucks" or words to that effect.]

You're completely and entirely irrelevant in this cyber-stalking, and these actions need to be condemned ["Report GuitarBill's Comment 1" and "Report GuitarBill's Comment 2"].

Extra credit if you understand and know where the following tag-line came from:

OOooh NOooo!!! Mr. Bill!!!


Maxwell C. Bridges : [CompulsiveLiar] Troll Effectiveness you can still count...

2009-09-23

OOooh NOooo!!! Mr. Bill!!!

Mr. Bill attacks 911FalseFlag with whimsical tin-foil hat and t-shirt distractions to get his ideas associated with nut and looney.

Mr. Bill attacks CynicI with 3-to-1 cyber-stalking cut-and-paste jobs, -- the first one just 4 minutes after CynicI's -- and libels her:

Mr. Bill attacks me with a 1-to-1 and a 3-to-1 -- 2 of which were well within 30 minutes of my postings -- with:

To justify his attacks on me at least, Mr. Bill claims that I threw ad hominems at him, such nasty things as:

Maybe it is just me, but I'll be damned if there isn't an inequality here both in regards to quantity of (response) postings and (negative) quality of the ad hominems.

OOooh NOooo!!! Mr. Bill!!!

You win! The stats prove it!

Your prize ought to be lots of people reporting your comment to CynicI from "You ruin every thread you touch, "prophit(0)".

BTW, there is no need to discuss prophit even if you're correct in your alias-mating accusations. Why? Prophit isn't posting here; CynicI is. Plus:

OOooh NOooo!!! Mr. Bill!!!


Maxwell C. Bridges : [CompulsiveLiar] Troll Effectiveness you can keep counting...

2009-09-23

OOooh NOooo!!! Mr. Bill!!!

Showing his devotion and admiration to me with his many responses to my postings. In one of the many he writes:

"So why NO answer, Max the compulsive lair? I'll tell you why? Because that post exposes your treachery and hypocrisy. Have a nice day, Max the compulsive liar."

All I can say, Psychic Bill, is that when you hang your shingle out for reading minds, don't give up your day job.

"So why NO answer, Max the compulsive lair?"

Could it be... I have a life and am not paid to monitor these forums?

Could it also be... that you do an excellent job of proving that the labels you apply to others apply to you. Follow any of your proof-of-sum-thin' links and scroll up and down to get context, what will readers find? That the suspicion of who is really lying shifts in your direction like blowback from a fart. He who smelt it, dealt it.

I realize that you don't have a life outside of posting to AlterNet, but while living within that limited realm, please don't limit yourself further with this childish smearing of CynicI. (And me.)

Whether or not CynicI is Prophit, Prophit has left the building. The name is CynicI, so please address her as such and stop confusing the forum with your gotta-be-right-'bout-sum-thin' copy-and-paste rants on prophit. If for no other reason, Mr. Bill, it is repetitious and boring.

P.S. Because I have a life, don't expect another posting from me until tomorrow. Have fun with your multiple copy-and-paste postings in response. I enjoy seeing 2 or 3 or more postings of yours to one of mine.

OOooh NOooo!!! Mr. Bill!!!


Maxwell C. Bridges : [CompulsiveLiar] Effective Trolling you can count on

2009-09-24

{Male Falsetto} OOoooh NOooo!!! Mr. Bill!

Mr. Bill writes:

"Show me where I've ever hijacked a thread."

The thread starts here.

The players and their stats:

1 Posted by: 911FalseFlag
2 Posted by: CynicI
4 Posted by: MaxBridges
19 Posted by: GuitarBill

Executive summary: Mr. Bill first hijacking was to belittle a commentator about "Obama being a Pawn of the FED". When his less than friendly tactics were pointed out by CynicI and myself, Mr. Bill goes on a jihad bender against CynicI with all of his alias-ASS-ociating.

You know you're someone special when a single postings from you inspires 3 or even 7 responses from Mr. Bill, despite the fact that these very antics were being noted in such memorably subjects as:

Boring details of an unhinged Mr. Bill

» Obama is Pawn of FED Posted by: 911FalseFlag
» Go to [blah] for many articles and videos--and don't forget to buy our tin-foil hat, just $12.99 Posted by: GuitarBill
» [CompulsiveLiar] Lying about your ordering links! DNFTT. Posted by: MaxBridges
» Not to worry, Max the compulsive liar, there's medication for those periodic psychotic episodes. Posted by: GuitarBill
» Agreed, they ruined an excellent thread the other day so not responding is the only option. Posted by: CynicI
» You ruin every thread you touch, "prophit(0)". Posted by: GuitarBill
» Hypocrite. Posted by: GuitarBill
» That's right, "prophit(0)", when your back's against the wall, STONEWALL. Posted by: GuitarBill
» [CompulsiveLiar] Troll Effectiveness you can count... Posted by: MaxBridges
» At least you're kind enough to tag your post with [CompulsiveLiar], Max. %^) Posted by: GuitarBill
» Let's destroy Max's lie, shall we? Posted by: GuitarBill
» What's next, Max the compulsive liar? Will you assert that I have a time machine? Posted by: GuitarBill
» [CompulsiveLiar] Troll Effectiveness you can still count... Posted by: MaxBridges
» That's right Max, when I prove that you're lying again, STONEWALL and CHANGE THE SUBJECT. Posted by: GuitarBill
» And why do you avoid this post, Max? Posted by: GuitarBill
» And how about the AlterNet contributors who agree with me, Max the compulsive liar? Posted by: GuitarBill
» Hahahahahaaaa..... aaaahaaaaa.... I am still laughing... Posted by: CynicI
» Still STONEWALLING, "prophit(0)" the lying right-wing nutjob? Posted by: GuitarBill
» Would you like another example of just how crazy you are, "prophit(0)"? Posted by: GuitarBill
» Would you like more proof that you've been smacked upside the head by one too many paintballs, twit? Posted by: GuitarBill
» Would you like another example of your anti-Semitism and lunacy, "prophit(0)"? Posted by: GuitarBill
» Would you like more proof that you're several cookies short of a full jar, "prophit"? Posted by: GuitarBill
» Would you like more examples of "prophit(0)"'s stealth anti-Semitism? Posted by: GuitarBill
» Well "prophit(0)", now that your "credibility" can be measured in negative engineering units Posted by: GuitarBill
» [CompulsiveLiar] Troll Effectiveness you can keep counting... Posted by: MaxBridges
» That's right, Max, when proven a liar, STONEWALL and change the subject. Posted by: GuitarBill

BTW, Mr. Bill. Have you figured out where the following comes from?

{Male Falsetto} OOoooh NOooo!!! Mr. Bill!


Maxwell C. Bridges : [CompulsiveLiar] Effective Trolling to be counted

2009-09-24

{Male Falsetto} OOoooh NOooo!!! Mr. Bill!

I knew I could count on you and that you wouldn't disappoint me with your ad hominem posting a scant 10 minutes after mine.

Mr. Bill writes in his subject:

"Lying again, Max the compulsive liar?"

Show me the money, Mr. Bill! Where, oh where, are the lies in my posting?

Methinks thou ought to reclaim thy too-easily-and-too-oft bestowed title of compulsive liar for thyself!

You dared someone to find one instance where you hijacked a thread, and your very short memory conveniently forgets YESTER-F**KING-DAY.

Mr. Bill writes in his lame defense:

"I have every right to challenge 911 "truthers" and to rebut their lies."

Except, Mr. Bill, the archives bear witness that your challenge to a 9/11 Truth Sayer was an ad hominem attack and your rebuttal was little more than a belittling association of the poster's rational and eliquent words with nutty, looney, crazy tin-foil hats and t-shirts.

And as my experience with you has proven, you don't rebut their lies; instead, you rebut with lies and purposely misleading distractions.

{Male Falsetto} OOoooh NOooo!!! Mr. Bill!


Maxwell C. Bridges : [CompulsiveLiar] GuitarBill admits his regular, willful violation of AlterNet

2009-09-24

{Male Falsetto} OOoooh NOooo!!! Mr. Bill!

Coincidence?

GuitarBill responded to my second to last posting in about 11 minutes, which is relatively fast considering he typed a portion of it as opposed to copy-and-paste.

GuitarBill on posted his first parody of GuitarBill about 6 minutes after my last posting and continued for about 15 minutes or 10 postings.

Given GuitarBill's quickness in general to responding to postings in under 30 minutes:

1) Where was GuitarBill's response to me? It was almost an hour.
2) Where was GuitarBill's response to GuitarBill on?

It is difficult to be logged in as two people at once. Look at the time stamps.

The hypothesis I have is that GuitarBill is GuitarBill on, which would then be another example of GuitarBill hijacking a thread.

Oh, I don't know what a conspiranoid is, although you must be pretty annoyed for throwing it out there all the time.

Now if you're really referring to "conspiracy theories", by definition, that would include the government's version of 9/11 that you spout, protect, and defend as if it were your little baby. First point of your admitted violations of AlterNet posting rules.

Mr. Bill writes:

"Thus, every time that a 911 "truther" attempts to hijack an AlterNet thread, he or she can expect a visit from me."

Thereby admitting and proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that GuitarBill is not only a troll, but a troll with a mandate that would have him knowlingly violate the rules of AlterNet in continuing to go way off-topic. Second point of his admitted violations of AlterNet posting rules.

The third point are his personal attacks to achieve his violations... err, troll mandate.

The fourth point is his alter-ego GuitarBill on.

{Male Falsetto} OOoooh NOooo!!! Mr. Bill!


Maxwell C. Bridges : [CompulsiveLiar] GuitarBill is proven...

2009-09-24

{Male Falsetto} OOoooh NOooo!!! Mr. Bill!

Mr. Bill wrote:

But you're a proven anti-Semite, "reverend". How many times have you accused Israel and Mossad of complicity in the 911 attacks--sans evidence, of course? I rest my case.

You just rested and lost your case.

You obviously do not know what the definition of anti-Semite is.

Being critical of Israel or Mossad is not anti-Semite even if we freely admit that Jews make up a significant percentage of them.

Mr. Bill. You need to reclaim the title that you erroneously place on my head, that of Compulsive Liar, because unlike me, you have earned it!

How come GuitarBill was not posting during the time that GuitarBill on? Coincidence? Just like 9/11 was a big rinky-dink coincidence?

{Male Falsetto} OOoooh NOooo!!! Mr. Bill!


Maxwell C. Bridges : [CompulsiveLiar] GuitarBill on GuitarBill

2009-09-24

{Male Falsetto} OOoooh NOooo!!! Mr. Bill!

Coincidence?

During the 15 minutes or 10 postings from GuitarBill on, GuitarBill was uncharacteristically silent, given that I am one of his targets and that I had posted something not 6 minutes prior to GuitarBill on's first posting and that GuitarBill responded prior to that in 11 minutes.

It is difficult to be logged in as two people at once. Look at the time stamps.

The hypothesis I have is that GuitarBill is GuitarBill on, which would then be another example of GuitarBill hijacking a thread.

{Male Falsetto} OOoooh NOooo!!! Mr. Bill!


Quannah : GB... you hijack threads ALL THE TIME...

2009-09-24

GB... you hijack threads ALL THE TIME...
Posted by: Quannah on Sep 24, 2009 4:02 PM

which is why I've had you on "Ignore" for months, and why you're going back on "Ignore."

Nobody wants to wade through your childish personal attacks -- especially your flame wars with the "Truthers" -- as we read the comments!

It's past the point of being ridiculous. It's too bad, too, because you can actually make valid points on some topics once in a while.

But waiting for a sensible, sane post from you is too much.

Go ahead and call me names...

Bye, bye!


Maxwell C. Bridges : [Compulsive Liar] Proof that GuitarBill is lying

2009-09-26

{Male Falsetto} OOoooh NOooo!!! Mr. Bill!

GuitarBill wrote:

"St. Elizabeth's Hospital inmate number 482980 scribbles, "...SO that tells you how damn serious this issue is to these people."

Proof that you are lying, Mr. Bill, is that the St. Elizabeth's Hospital inmate number 482980 belongs to **ME**, mo fo!

Methinks thou ought to reclaim thy too-easily-and-too-oft bestowed title of compulsive liar for thyself!

{Male Falsetto} OOoooh NOooo!!! Mr. Bill!


Maxwell C. Bridges [1] [2] [3] [4] : [AlterNet Advisory] How to read this discussion

2009-10-03

Before we provide the advisory to AlterNet readers, let us first take a moment to thank Mr. Bill for being such a great semaphor for truth seekers, not for his words but their words in the postings that he responds to. Thank you, Mr. Bill!!!

This advisory to AlterNet readers is merely a suggestion on how to read this discussion by using this great semaphor, Mr. Bill.

1) Find the View pull-down menu on this page and select "Collapse All".

2) In your browser, press Ctrl+F and enter "Posted by: GuitarBill" into the search field.

3) When you click on Mr. Bill's posting, it will also open the more important and truthful posting that he is responding to.

4) Read the posting of whomever Mr. Bill is attacking.

5) [Optional but not recommended] Read Mr. Bill's copy-and-paste ad hominem smear job.

NOTE: The importance of the other poster's words of truth in step #4 is inversely proportional to the level of ad hominem attacks, the verbosity of his copy-and-paste, or the number of responses to the other poster.

6) Repeat from step #2 for all occurences of Mr. Bill postings within this article's discussion.

Once you have completed this exercise, maybe you'll see trendlines. Whether or not you agree with the message being attacked, you'll recognize the attack and the disinformation tactics of not just Mr. Bill. Take note of the topics these semaphore flags.

Of course, do not take my word for this. After all, Mr. Bill libels me a CompulsiveLiar.

7) Go to AlterNet Search and enter "GuitarBill". For each article listed in the search results, repeat from step #1.

An irony about Mr. Bill's semaphoric antics is that it powers the transformation of a CynicI into a prophet. Or is that prophit(0)?

OOoooh NOooo! Mr. Bill!!!


Maxwell C. Bridges : [CompulsiveLiar Skinhead Nazi] Mr. Bill Reading Advisory

2009-10-04

Behold! Mr. Bill did not disappoint us!

On a Saturday night close to midnight, Mr. Bill was found refreshing... refreshing... refreshing... his browser session on this article, to no avail. Then at last, at 11:44 PM a posting from a target awoke him into action.

*clickety* *clackity* *click*
*clackety* *clickity* *clack*
*Ctrl+C* *Ctrl+V* *Post*

"Stop the clock!"

ELEVEN FIFTY FOUR PEE EM! Just 10 minutes.

And the wonder! Oh the wonder of his inspiring words delivered in not one, but two postings to my one!

- neo-Nazi, MaxBridges
- Max the compulsive liar scribbles...
- Really, Max the compulsive liar?
...
- Max the neo-Nazi
- Nazi boy
- Coward.
- What's the matter Max the compulsive liar?
- you posted Nazi propaganda
- [you posted] readily debunked lies.
- Skinhead.
- Idiot.
- Wussy.

Was this directly from the disinformation version of "How to Win Friends and Influence People"?

Here's another AlterNet reading advisory. For every AlterNet link given by Mr. Bill:

1) Right-tab click and open in a new tab of your browser. Repeat the following for every article.

2) Go to the View pull-down menu and select "Expand All".

3) In your browser, press Ctrl+F and enter into the search field "Posted by: GuitarBill".

4) To get all instances of Mr. Bill's postings within the article:

a) Click "Search".
b) Scroll up to find context.
c) Who was Mr. Bill's trigger?
d) Who was battling Mr. Bill?
e) Was Mr. Bill's posting repetitious?
f) Was Mr. Bill's posting relevant?
g) Repeat from (a).

Once you have completed this exercise, maybe you'll see trend-lines. Whether or not you agree with the message being attacked, you'll recognize the attack and the disinformation tactics of not just Mr. Bill.

Take note of the topics that Mr. Bill's semaphore flags.

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

OOoooh NOooo! Mr. Bill!!!


Maxwell C. Bridges : 9/11 Memorial

2009-10-06

Sister Lauren asked us to do a little thought experiment about what a 9/11 memorial designed by me would look like.

The perimeter of mine would have five sided, each lined on the inside with multiple flat-screen televisions and big screens that would play (with subtitles) over and over excerpts from the media. (Special headphones would allow you to tune in the spoken words.) No two adjacent screens and no two adjacent walls would play the same feed at once, although the "program" would repeat. Parts of the program are well known documentaries:

Themes of the multimedia program include:

1) The 2000/2004 circuses known as the stolen election. Butterfly ballots, faux protesters stopping the re-count, the Supreme Court, protest marches on Washington, the voter roll purges in Florida, Ohio voting issues, ...

2) The event known as 9/11: all of the footage of planes and building collapses, the aftermath, the commission hearings, the protesters demanding their questions be answered, the lies, the smearing of "outrageous conspiracy theories", CIA asset OBL, ...

3) War: PNAC's goals, the run-up to Afghanistan, the run-up to Iraq, the media lies to get us in, the execution, war profiteers, mercenaries, ... reminders of false-flag and LIHOP operations from the past.

4) Civil liberties, FISA court, justice department politization, rendition, torture, Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, tanking economy, transfer of wealth, religous hypocracy, American theoracry ...

5) Suffering: lives lost on 9/11, U.S. lives lost in the wars, foreign lives lost in the wars, the maimed and injured, the homeless, the civilizations bombed back to the stone-ages, destruction, bombs, ...

In the middle of this pentagon would be scale models of all of the buildings in the world trade center complex (WTC 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) upon whose surfaces would be etched all of the names of victims including on the day of 9/11, the rescue workers, the military personnel, ~AND~ the foreign victims killed in the wars.

The outside walls and roof of this pentagon would have solar panels and wind-turbines to power the inside. To be determined are whether or not these could be arrange in creative ways, like to depict Bush/Cheney behind bars or hanging from the gallows for their treason.

Vendors, of course, would be selling DVD's and books that tell the true story.

Overriding theme: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, ..."


Maxwell C. Bridges : [AlterNet Advisory] How to read this discussion

2009-10-06

Before we provide the advisory to AlterNet readers, let us first take a moment to thank Mr. Bill for being such a great semaphore for truth seekers, not for his words but their words in the postings that he responds to. Thank you, Mr. Bill!!!

This advisory to AlterNet readers is merely a suggestion on how to read this discussion by using this great semaphore, Mr. Bill.

1) Find the View pull-down menu on this page and select "Collapse All".

2) In your browser, press Ctrl+F and enter "Posted by: GuitarBill" into the search field.

3) When you click on Mr. Bill's posting, it will also open the more important and truthful posting that he is responding to.

4) Read the posting of whomever Mr. Bill is attacking.

5) [Optional but not recommended] Read Mr. Bill's copy-and-paste ad hominem smear job.

NOTE: The importance of the other poster's words of truth in step #4 is inversely proportional to the level of ad hominem attacks, the verbosity of his copy-and-paste, or the number of responses to the other poster.

6) Repeat from step #2 for all occurences of Mr. Bill postings within this article's discussion.

Once you have completed this exercise, maybe you'll see trendlines. Whether or not you agree with the message being attacked, you'll recognize the attack and the disinformation tactics of not just Mr. Bill. Take note of the topics these semaphores flag.

Of course, do not take my word for this. After all, Mr. Bill libels me a CompulsiveLiar.

7) Go to AlterNet Search and enter "GuitarBill". For each article listed in the search results, repeat from step #1.

An irony about Mr. Bill's semaphoric antics is that it powers the transformation of a CynicI into a prophet. Or is that prophit(0)?

Speaking of alias ASS-ociating,

8) Go to AlterNet Search and enter "Shey". For each article listed in the search results, repeat from step #1.

Shey's postings are noteworthy not just because they usually happen on weekends, not just because they parallel Mr. Bill, but because they also often happen a week or more after the heat of the original discussion when the original participants have moved on and are no longer actively monitoring the thread.

OOoooh NOooo! Mr. Bill!!!


Maxwell C. Bridges : [AlterNet Advisory] How to read this discussion

2009-10-06

Dear Mr. Shey,

Not as easy as it looks to juggle multiple personas in a discussion forum like this, is it?

Clearly the GuitarBill login has almost run its course. Mr. Bill seems to be going to extra obnoxious efforts with his cut-and-paste trolling and alias-ASS-ociating accusations to assure his banishment.

The disinformation spirit of Mr. Bill, if not his exact words, will live on with Mr. Shey's participation here.

We thanked Mr. Bill and now thank you, Mr. Shey, for being such a great semaphore for truth seekers, not for your words but their words in the postings that you respond to.

This advisory to AlterNet readers is merely a suggestion on how to read this discussion by using these great semaphores.

1) Find the View pull-down menu on this page and select "Collapse All".

2) In your browser, press Ctrl+F and enter "Posted by: Shey" into the search field.

3) Click on Mr. Shey's posting. It will also open the more important and truthful posting that he is responding to.

4) Read the posting of whomever Mr. Shey is attacking.

5) [Optional but not recommended] Read Mr. Shey's copy-and-paste ad hominem smear job.

NOTE: The importance of the other poster's words of truth in step #4 is inversely proportional to the level of ad hominem attacks, the verbosity of his copy-and-paste, or the number of responses to the other poster.

6) Repeat from step #2 for all occurences of Mr. Shey postings within this article's discussion.

Once you have completed this exercise, maybe you'll see trendlines. Whether or not you agree with the message being attacked, you'll recognize the attack and the disinformation tactics of not just Mr. Shey. Take note of the topics these semaphores flag.

Of course, do not take my word for this. After all, Mr. Bill libels me a CompulsiveLiar.

7) Go to AlterNet Search and enter "Shey". For each article listed in the search results, repeat from step #1.

An irony about Mr. Shey's semaphoric antics is that it powers the transformation of a CynicI into a prophet. Or is that prophit(0)?

OOoooh NOooo! Mr. Bill!!!


Maxwell C. Bridges : Coincidence?

2009-10-06

{Response to Mr. Shey.}

In a manner almost identical to Mr. Bill (GuitarBill), Mr. Shey wrote:

"I call out the closet racists like CynicI/Prophit, the blatant Anti-Semite..."

Not as easy as it looks to juggle multiple personas in a discussion forum like this, is it?

Then coincidentally Mr. Shey continues on with:

"And I know nothing about GuitarBill, except that he does a good job of debunking the 9/11 conspiracy theorists."

Was that a Freudian slip of the keys that you typed theorists rather than theories? Because certainly Mr. Bill's personal attacks on those even remotely sympathic to mentioning the anomalies of 9/11 is very indicative of the disinformation tactic to attack the messenger and not the message, a tactic that you employ as well. ... Coincidence? [Just like 9/11 was a big rinky-dink coincidence theory as well?!!! ;) ]

Now had you typed 9/11 conspiracy theories instead of 9/11 conspiracy theorists, I'm afraid that your assessment of a good debunking job would have left much to be desired. Mr. Bill can't even think outside the box of his talking points to answer the question:

What are the ramifications of free-fall in any stage of the collapse of any of the buildings on 9/11 and in the larger geo-political context?

Can you answer that, Mr. Shey?

Ask Mr. Bill to post his quote-mining from the NIST Final Report on WTC-7 where their data proves and they freely admit gravitational acceleration over 8 stories (100+ feet), because we don't want you weaseling out of it by saying "I don't answer hypothetical questions." It's not hypothetical.

Not that I don't want to take your word at face-value that seems to imply Mr. Shey is not Mr. Bill, your ability to stretch your imagination by composing a well-thought answer to the question might be proof in my book. (You see, Mr. Bill has been beaten up so much about WTC-7 stage 2 free-fall, his supervisors won't let him go there even as a hypothetical.)

Moreover, your record on AlterNet seems to be founded on alias-ASS-ociating: CynicI/Prophit. In case nobody pointed it out to you, that is completely irrelevant to this discussion; Prophit has not postings in this thread and has left the building a long time ago.

On the other hand, Mr. Shey, it appears that you and Mr. Bill are both active and posting in this very discussion and coincidentially post each others words, attack the same opponents, and propagate the same alias-ASS-ociating. Coincidence? [Just like 9/11 was a big rinky-dink coincidence as well?!!! ;) ]

OOoooh NOooo! Mr. Bill!!!


weathered : 9/11 will Not just go away, Never!

2009-10-06

Posted by: weathered on Oct 6, 2009 4:37 AM

Forgive me for co-mingling 'war memorials' w/9/11 as I very sincerely respect their intent, but w/out this defining act of self-inflicted murder, called 9/11, this 'war on terrorism' and the template of crimes it seemingly justified, WE all might find ourselves in a far different place then the hell we're in now.

How do you live a Lie, you don't, you merely exist w/a unproductive distrust, suspicion, resentment, anger and ultimately divisive hate.

Confront 9/11 or we'll remain as sick as our secrets.


GuitarBill : 9/11 "truth" will not just go away--ever.

2009-10-06

Posted by: GuitarBill on Oct 6, 2009 10:53 AM

Mark Bingham was a passenger on UA Flight 93. By all credible accounts Mr. Bingham was a hero, who stood up against armed hijackers on an aircraft aimed at Washington, DC.

Alice Hoglin, Mark Bingham's mother, has the following to say about her son: "...I knew that Mark was a hero before this went on. But I'm glad that he was able to do something that would save many hundreds, maybe thousands of lives. It makes me very proud. It helps me--it helps me deal with the grief that we're feeling."

dithered scribbles, "...Confront 9/11 or we'll remain as sick as our secrets."

On the contrary, why don't you confront your sick need to disparage the innocent victims of 911 and their loved ones?

After all, who is hurt when 911 deniers recount wild-eyed conspiracy theories?

Why don't you start with Mark Bingham's mother, Alice Hoglin, who said, "...But I'm glad that he was able to do something that would save many hundreds, maybe thousands of lives. It makes me very proud. It helps me--it helps me deal with the grief that we're feeling."

Read the last two sentences over-and-over again, dithered, until you get it through your head.

The fact-free yammering, idiotic questions and insane speculation promoted by the 911 deniers amounts to nothing more than an apology for the 19 Islamic extremists who murdered Mark Bingham and snuffed out 2975 additional innocent lives on that fateful day?

Have you no respect for the victims and their relatives?

The 911 "truth" movement--because if we don't disparage the victims of 911, who will?


Maxwell C. Bridges : Poke those emotions

2009-10-06

Very smooth, Mr. Bill!!! Change the subject to something emotional, like the heroism of Mark Bingham and quotations from his dear old mum. [Isn't changing the subject a nasty AlterNet crime you accuse others of?]

As for the heroism that you credit him with and all of the eye-witnesses to his supposed deeds... Well, it seems to run coincidentally parallal to the initial stories of heroism that circulated around Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman. Heroes for sure, and we want deepest in our hearts to believe the stories of their exploits, but that doesn't make the emotional stories true.

The tears were just rolling from my eyes by the time I got to:

"... the 19 Islamic extremists who murdered Mark Bingham and snuffed out 2975 additional innocent lives on that fateful day."

And to crown your disinformation distraction, you employ a strawman attack:

"Have you no respect for the victims and their relatives? The 911 "truth" movement--because if we don't disparage the victims of 911, who will?"

Alas, Mr. Bill, we know based on eye-witness accounts and surveillance from our own agencies that the 19 patsies were not "Islamic extremists," because if they were, it seems to me they wouldn't have been so fond of alcohol, cocaine, and strippers. Care to revise your emotion laden statement?

Gotta love the realism of:

"Bingham's call was to his mother was strangely formal: 'This is Mark Bingham,' her son said. Then only: 'I love you,' and he hung up."

I do not dispute that telephone calls took place. Based on the Flight 93 crash site that wasn't; based on a plane turning off its transponder and disappearing from radar for portions of its flight; based on the limitations of cellphones traveling at high rates of speed (and high altitudes): reasonable doubt exists about the telephone calls taking place in flight, which makes Mr. Bingham all the more the hero for his purposely stilted message.

Let's let this slide, though.

The version being promoted to touch our emotions has the heroes rushing the cockpit, and the villians crashing the plane. Unfortunately, no bodies, no luggage, no seats, no wings, no airplane: not a crash site.

Another version more fitting with the lack of crash site evidence is a bomb really was on board. Alas, when we start asking questions about how the bomb got on board, the consiracy circle gets uncomfortably bigger.

Of course, a third version also more fitting with the dirth of crash site evidence is that our military shot it down. However, this doesn't run congruent with the exceptional nation belief that "our American leaders would never intentionally harm its citizens," a belief by the way that precludes people like Mr. Bill from considering pre-planted explosives in the WTC complex.

Speaking of which, Mr. Bill, think outside the box of your talking points to answer:

What are the ramifications of free-fall in any stage of the collapse of any of the buildings on 9/11 and in the larger geo-political context?

For our new reading audience, quote-mine from the NIST Final Report on WTC-7 where their data proves and they freely admit gravitational acceleration over 8 stories (100+ feet), because we don't want you weaseling out of it by saying "I don't answer hypothetical questions."

How quickly can Mr. Bill respond given that 9/11 is one his assigned topics and I'm one of his assigned targets. The clock starts... N-O-W!!!

OOoooh NOooo! Mr. Bill!!!


Maxwell C. Bridges : [CompulsiveLiar] Mr. Bill may already be a winner!!!

2009-10-07

Ka-ching! Ding-a-ling! Whoop... whoop! JACKPOT!!!

7:33 PM No, DEBUNK your lies and distortions.
7:48 PM One lie at a time, Max the compulsive liar.
8:42 PM One lie at a time, Max the compulsive liar (II).
8:58 PM One lie at a time, Max the compulsive liar (III).
1:08 AM Max claims Mark Bingham's mother is not telling the truth, but are the first responders lying too?

Mr. Bill did not post his disinformation to a 9/11 post within 30 mintues, but deserves extra credit nonetheless.

The persona of Mr. Bill appears to be under orders never to issue any statement resembling "my bad", "my mistake", "sorry". [Have I gotten an apology for his alias-ASS-ociating me with LeftWright? Nope.] So I don't expect an apology for his balderdash lie on the subject line:

"Max claims Mark Bingham's mother is not telling the truth."

He ironically exposes this lie by quoting me in an earlier post:

"I do not dispute that telephone calls took place."

Do any of his postings try to answer my question? Nope.

What are the ramifications of free-fall in any stage of the collapse of any of the buildings on 9/11 and in the larger geo-political context?

As expected, he weasels out of it by writing:

"Max, there are no "implications" because the building did not fall at "free fall speed", it fell in 18 seconds."

OOoooh NOooo! Mr. Bill!!! Too bad he doesn't understood the quotes that he uses.

Richard Gage references NIST's acknowledgement of 2.25 seconds of absolute free-fall (stage 2, 8 stories, 100+ feet.) Whichever overall collapse time you use -- 18 seconds or decades using the Zen standard that the building began its collapse as soon as one beam was placed on top of another -- the fact remains that free-fall happened within that time.

Shyam Sunder misdirects with the sound levels of explosive charges. This refers to conventional explosives and a conventional demolition, which nano-thermite is not?

When comparing UA93 to the ValueJet crash, Mr. Bill's quote on the latter talks about "a scorched area in the Everglades and scattered debris" and later "The wreckage looked like if you take your garbage and throw it on the ground." Too bad that we have video evidence on UA93 that this wasn't the case.

Another can't-get-his-story-straight quote:

"Passengers on the flight, in cell phone calls made before the crash, said one of their captors had what appeared to be a bomb strapped to him."

How did the hijacker with a strap-on bomb make it through security? I may be wrong, but I seem to recall that all of the hijackers having to go through additional security screening... although coincidentally they have not released airport security videos to account for all 19 hijackers.

Plus Mr. Bill's earlier Bingham article talks about the plane flying at 30,000 ft (where cellphones don't work) yet a cellphone call talks about bombs?!

Mr. Bill's 5 postings have more crafty disinformation within that I leave for the reader to research and validate/debunk. I have raised sufficient doubt in the validity of what Mr. Bill vigorously promotes and in his honesty.

Time for Mr. Bill to reclaim the title of "CompulsiveLiar", because he has earned it.

OOoooh NOooo! Mr. Bill!!!


GuitarBill : MaxBridges' Crackpot Field Guide.

2009-10-07

Posted by: GuitarBill on Oct 7, 2009 10:13 PM

Chapter Eight: The Subtle Art of Not Responding to Refutation of Your Argument.

[1] If someone points out that "you have no solid proof", feel free to either [1] restate your position in a slightly different way, [2] call your accuser a "shill" or "paid government agent", [3] insinuate that he or she is part of a "government conspiracy" to silence dissent, or [4] claim that your accuser is persecuting you, and compare yourself to Galileo.

[2] If a hapless opponent points out that "because of reason A, B and C, your theory is false--you toothless, inbred moron", immediately respond "Ad hominem attack!" and subsequently declare yourself the "winner", claim that your accuser is persecuting you and, above all, compare yourself to Galileo.

[3] If some brainwashed sheep has the temerity to suggest that "no credible scientist or structural engineer supports your cockamamie conspiracy theory", the only appropriate response is "That's because they're all part of a conspiracy to conceal the truth of A, B and C." Assert that the motives for the conspiracy are greed, control, power, and sex, etc. And above all, don't forget to claim that your accuser is persecuting you and--you guessed it--compare yourself to Galileo.

Max the compulsive liar's motto: Try My New Fact-Free Conspiranoid Theories. All the Flavor of Conspiranoid Theories You're Used to--and None of the Harmful Facts.


GuitarBill : Dr. Foo's Guide To 911 Deniers. Sub-species: Absurdus Profundis Borderlinus Insanius Nineelevenus.

2009-10-07

Posted by: GuitarBill on Oct 7, 2009 10:17 PM

The vast majority of 911 conspiranoids belong to one of three distinct categories. For example, infamous and much maligned 911 deniers Steven E. Jones, Kevin Ryan, Richard Gage, David Ray Grifter, Christopher Bollyn, Webster Tarpley, "Left"Wrong, PFGetty and DShenary, etc., belong to the most common category, Ignoramus Profundis Borderlinius Insanius Nineelevenus.

The majority of conspiranoids of this type would likely be judged sane by mental health professionals. However, Ignoramus Profundis Borderlinius Insanius Nineelevenus have a distinct tendency to abandon all reason and to ignore all evidence regarding issues related to the events of 11 September 2001. They are profoundly distrustful of professionals and, above all, the Scientific Method.

Moreover, Ignoramus Profundis Borderlinius Insanius Nineelevenus rely heavily on visual information and data; nevertheless, they rank among the World's worst audio-visual analysts. They are steadfastly convinced that "the government" either orchestrated the terror attacks on 911 (MIHOP), or knowingly allowed them to happen (LIHOP).

Their mantra's include, but are not limited to, "911 Was An Inside Job", "molten pools of steel", "kerosene doesn't melt steel", "NORAD stood down", "no 757 there", "the confessions were faked", "free-fall speed", "WTC7 had small fires", "the hijackers are still alive", "flight 93 was shot down" and, last but not least, "I'll be right up, Mom".

Specimens of Ignoramus Profundis Borderlinus Insanius Nineelevenus include Dylan Avery, Niels Harrit and Corey Rowe.


GuitarBill : Dr. Foo's Guide To 911 Deniers. Sub-species: Ignoramus Horribilis Borderlinus Insanius Nineelevenus.

2009-10-07

Posted by: GuitarBill on Oct 7, 2009 10:19 PM

The second type of 911 conspiranoid is Ignoramus Horribilis Borderlinus Insanius Nineelevenus. This is a small but significant subset whose members combine the ignorance of Ignoramus Profundis Borderlinius Insanius Nineelevenus with a lot of over-the-top nastiness, insanity, and in many cases, anti-Semitism. Its members include certifiably insane 911 denier, Tom Foti. At Ground Zero on the 5th anniversary of 911, after the memorial service, Mr. Foti insisted on viewing gruesome photos of human remains "as support for the official version of 911."

Examples of Ignoramus Horribilis Borderlinus Insanius Nineelevenus include internet conspiranoid, "KillTown", who howls "no plane" lunacy from several websites scattered across the internet. Additionally, he finds harassing a 911 witness to be a rewarding hobby. Scholar for 911 "truth", Uncle (James) Fetzer, thinks that "high energy beams" may have destroyed the World Trade Center Towers. Who does Uncle Fetzer think "deserves a special place in Hell"? All structural engineers who don't agree with his cockamamie conspiranoid theories.

Another particularly loathsome example of Ignoramus Horribilis Borderlinus Insanius Nineelevenus is Kevin Barrett, who accuses Larry Silverstein--again, without a shred of evidence--of being a mass murderer, traitor and an insurance fraud artist. Barrett blatantly misquotes Silverstein's "pull it" statement without a hint of embarrassment. Kevin Barrett also claims that the producers of the movie "United 93" are "Nazi propagandists", who should be put on trial for inciting war crimes. Kevin Barrett has replied to his critics--on numerous occasions--that they will be executed alongside Larry Silverstein, and that he saves their e-mails to be used as "evidence" at their trial. Did I mention that Kevin Barrett is a "devout Muslim"?

Kevin Barrett said this about the NIST Report: "I haven't read the whole thing. I doubt if anyone has or will."

How do Kevin Barrett's fellow 911 deniers treat a lunatic who wishes violent death on his imagined enemies? Ignore him? Of course not! After all we're talking about 911 deniers, pal. No, in fact, they invite him to be on the Board of Directors of "Scholars for 911 Truth". Go figure.


GuitarBill : Dr. Foo's Guide To 911 Deniers. Sub-species: Moonbatia Insanius Non-Linearus Nineelevenus.

2009-10-07

Posted by: GuitarBill on Oct 7, 2009 10:22 PM

Thus far, we've seen examples of Ignoramus Profundis Borderlinus Insanius Nineelevenus and Ignoramus Horribilis Borderlinus Insanius Nineelevenus; however, there's is a third species of 911 denier exemplified by Jason Bermas, Dr. Judy Wood, Ph.D., Nico Haupt, Eric Hufschmid, Jimmy Walter, "prophit(0)", MaxBridges, Sister_Lauren and Mister_Cyclops, the infamous, venomous and widely-ridiculed Moonbatia Insanius Non-Linearus Nineelevenus.

Less common than Ignoramus Profundis Borderlinius Insanius Nineelevenus and more common than Ignoramus Horribilis Borderlinus Insanius Nineelevenus and possessing characteristics of both sub-species, how then do we go about identifying this anomaly, you ask? Answer: Read their literature and blog commentary. Moonbatia Insanius Non-Linearus Nineelevenus always has literature and copious volumes of blog commentary, usually of their own authorship (apparently, on occasion, they "channel" their commentary). If the literature contains any correct claims, you're not dealing with Moonbatia Insanius Non-Linearus Nineelevenus.

On the other hand, if the author makes claims to superior intelligence, and cites "expert engineers in the fields of construction and demolition" Steven Jones, Jeff King, David Ray Grifter and Alex Jones, then you have definitely stumbled upon Moonbatia Insanius Non-Linearus Nineelevenus. Expect to encounter difficulty with scientific principles and expect gross misunderstanding of basic economic principles, statistics and mathematics. In the unlikely event that calculations are present, they will be wrong--by orders of magnitude.

An often cited, textbook example of Moonbatia Insanius Non-Linearus Nineelevenus is The King of the Conspiranoids, professional paranoiac and Rush Limbaugh impersonator, Alex Jones. A long time employee of Genesis Communications Network, Alex Jones is another vicious Moonbatia Insanius Non-Linearus Nineelevenus who makes fact-free accusations with ZERO evidence. For example, Jones accused Larry Silverstein and the FDNY of conspiring to destroy Silverstein's WTC 7.

Moonbatia Insanius Non-Linearus Nineelevenus are commonly obsessed with extremist right-wing Federal Reserve conspiranoid theories. Rest assured that little understanding of the Federal Reserve System will ever be demonstrated in your lifetime, or anyone else's for that matter. That said, don't be surprised to see descriptions of legends and popular figures from the 19th century--notably Andrew Jackson--dealing with the Federal Reserve Bank although the bank didn't exist until 1915.

Moonbatia Insanius Non-Linearus Nineelevenus rarely agree with one another about how many and which US Presidents were criminally involved in the JFK assassination. George H. W. Bush and Richard Nixon are always subjects of contention whenever the JFK assassination is mentioned. Moonbatia Insanius Non-Linearus Nineelevenus also believe that "the government" has the ability to control its citizens' minds. Frequent accounts of attempts on the life of Moonbatia Insanius Non-Linearus Nineelevenus are common, with accounts ranging from "ritual torture killings" to "Dianne Feinstein's Black Helicopters" to persecution by "Mossad agents" to asphyxiation by bong.

"...Unfortunately, in this country if there's another major terrorist event, and if it is incrementalized [SIC] and larger than the last one, they could declare martial law at any moment and have forced inoculations. And who's to say what they put in your body?" -- Jason Bermas, giving us an excellent example of Moonbatia Insanius Non-Linearus Nineelevenus at its "finest".


Maxwell C. Bridges : [CompulsiveLiar] Mr. Bill's winning avalanche of legerdemain

2009-10-08

Very interesting postings, Mr. Bill, but not for the reasons you'd have the readers believe.

"Avalanche" and "snowjob" are appropriate descriptions for your efforts to bury "the road." Ultimately like in the real world, what you've piled on will be pushed to the side.

In this thread alone (starting with your emotional piece on the hero Mark Bingham), any objective reader would notice the imbalance of your ten postings to my three. They'll notice what I poke you with:

And objective readers will notice what you damn me with:

The rules of this game (and civil discussion) are clear about ad hominem attacks. When you attempt to make your case with "because of reason A, B and C, your theory is false--you toothless, inbred moron", your deliberate insensitive and rule-defying actions cause you to lose just as quickly as if sinking the 8-ball on a break in pool.

You've proven that you have content available that you can highlight with the mouse, copy, and then paste into the web-based form for posts.

You would use your proven mouse skills to highlight offensive text like "the silly, inbred conspiranoid theorist" or "Max the compulsive liar" and to delete before posting in order to avoid losing on a technicality and potentially being ejected from future games.

"Paid government agents" aren't afraid of such penalties for many reasons. Through their hacking skills or their employer's connections, they'll be back in the game (or a game) soon enough. They'll do whatever it takes to meet their objectives, even if it means breaking the rules of civil discourse, overwhelming a forum with distractions and misdirection, and cyber-stalking and hacking an opponent off-forum.

[FTR, the latter happened to me on 9/22 shortly after some OOoooh NOooo! Mr. Bill!!!'s really got your goat. Coincidence, Mr. Computer Professional?]

The question that you over-and-over do not answer remains:

What are the ramifications of free-fall in any stage of the collapse of any of the buildings on 9/11 and in the larger geo-political context?

Your weaseling out of it with distractions into overall collapse times and your ignoring NIST's acknowledgement of 2.25 seconds of free-fall over 8 stories (100+ feet) is telling: the road your avalanche of legerdemain wants to bury.


GuitarBill : Max the compulsive liar's Field Guide to Crack Pottery. No messy kiln required.

2009-10-08

Posted by: GuitarBill on Oct 8, 2009 10:45 PM

Chapter Nine: The Subtle Art of Persecution.

Make no mistake, World-class Crack Pottery requires a full-blown persecution complex. Some suggestions for exploiting your persecution complex include, but are not limited to, the following: [1] If some pathetic government agent calls you a moron, toothless inbred, idiot, pseudo-scientist or flake, claim persecution; [2] If people fail to immediately accept your conspiracy theory, claim persecution; [3] If you work in the private sector, tell everyone about your theories. If this results in your dismissal for promoting your Crack Pottery on the job, claim persecution; [4] If no one listens to your insanity, claim persecution; and [5] If no one persecutes you, claim persecution.

Now, wasn't that easy? All you must do is adhere to the following guidelines: [1] ignore anything that contradicts your theories; [2] pick gnat-sh*t out of pepper and demean others' arguments; [3] force your opponent's to explain themselves; [4] accuse the hapless "government agent" of lying; [5] accuse the "Heritage Foundation employee" of conspiring with the government to stifle dissent; [6] repeat yourself; and, last but certainly not least, [7] compare yourself to Galileo

You see? Crack Pottery is easy and fun. Just follow the Max the compulsive liar's easy to understand guidelines and rest assured that you're never wrong--EVER.


Maxwell C. Bridges : [CompulsiveLiar] Mr. Bill, the two-timing bastard! *wipe tears*

2009-10-09

Mr. Bill,

Kudos to the technical writer who composed your posting for you. Very well done!

I was beginning to feel very special that you had taken about eleven hours to compose it after seeing my posting hit the boards. You had even personalized it for me:

"Just follow the Max the compulsive liar's easy to understand guidelines and rest assured that you're never wrong--EVER."

You can't imagine my shock and disappointment of later finding this posting to Sister Lauren at 8:40 AM only 38 minutes after her posting that said:

"Just follow the "reverend"'s easy to understand guidelines and rest assured that you're never wrong--EVER."

Your posting to her was three hours ~BEFORE~ my lonely posting as much as hit the boards! I thought I was your only one, you two-timing bastard! And worse, Mr. Bill, is that in personalizing it for me, you had to cheapen it with your 8-ball-sinking-on-a-break ad hominems.

*sniff* *rub eyes*

OOoooh NOooo! Mr. Bill!!!

On the bright side, if you're going to copy-and-paste recycled content, the writing on these chapters sans the custom job is at least entertaining to read. Looking forward to reading the other chapters when they become available. Where can I get the whole thing as a PDF or website?

Too bad that in this particular context, your paste-job changes the topic, thereby violating an AlterNet convention that you have swung at other posters.

The topic was the question that you over-and-over do not answer:

What are the ramifications of free-fall in any stage of the collapse of any of the buildings on 9/11 and in the larger geo-political context?

Do a little thought experiment outside the box.

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


GuitarBill : All Moonbats are alike, so the post applies to you as well as the "reverend".

2009-10-09

Posted by: GuitarBill on Oct 9, 2009 12:09 PM

Fuck you, Max.


Maxwell C. Bridges : [CompulsiveLiar] Mr. Bill, the two-timing bastard! *wipe tears*

2009-10-12

Mr. Bill,

Kudos to the technical writer who composed your posting for you. Very well done!

... But that is but poor compensation for having Mr. Bill cheat on me, the two-timing bastard!!!

I mean, *sniff*, I thought I was special when Mr. Bill wrote me this missive. He spent eleven hours doing it.

But then, I was shocked and disappointed to discover this posting to Sister Lauren that was composed three hours ~BEFORE~ my lonely posting was created.

But of insults on top of insults, two-timing bastard Mr. Bill goes and re-posts his special piece here, but doesn't even bother to edit out Sister Lauren's name!

*rub tears from eyes*

I'm hurt, I tell you.

OOoooh NOooo! Mr. Bill!!!

On the bright side, if you're going to copy-and-paste recycled content, the writing on these chapters sans the custom job is at least entertaining to read. Looking forward to reading the other chapters when they become available. Where can I get the whole thing as a PDF or website?

Too bad that in this particular context, your paste-job changes the topic, thereby violating an AlterNet convention that Mr. Bill has swung at other posters.

OOoooh NOooo! Mr. Bill!!!


Maxwell C. Bridges : [SPAM WARNING] GuitarBill cyberstalks and spams us with copy-and-paste irrelevant

2009-10-12

Mr. Bill, you have sinned against AlterNet, because that posting of yours was a complete change of topic, which you yourself have deemed is a high-crime!!!

How many times have you copied-and-pasted the same irrelevant nonsense?

WTF! Talking about f**king spam! That'd be you, Mr. Bill, and what you post most of the time.

You may not appreciate what Prophit0 or CynicI writes, but at least what they post is (a) relevant, (b) on topic, and (c) unique, meaning they thought about it, wrote it fresh, and posted something new.

Not so for you.

Yes, how about you ride not just off into the sunset but over the edge of the flat earth that constitutes your world view. Puh-leeeeez!

Get over her, Mr. Bill. She's never going to go out on a date with you no matter how much unwanted attention you give her. Puh-leeeeez put her on ignore. Put me on ignore, too. Put this whole message board on ignore. Just go away.


Maxwell C. Bridges : Mr. Bill's legerdemain at it again

2009-10-12

Nice bullying and diversionary tactics of your own, Mr. Bill.

I like the reframing into:

"Now, how can you, or anyone else, tell me the NIST Report is a lie, when you've never read it?"

Can you say TNRAT, pronouced "tin-rat"? It means "They'll Never Read All That".

I bet you, Mr. Bill, didn't read it all either.

Wasn't it like 10,000 pages?

I'd go into more details, but I already did that on the above link on June 30.

Regrettably, dear AlterNet readers, that is evidence beyond all evidence of Mr. Bill's creeping dementia that he can't even remember the heated discussions from just a few months ago and must re-live and re-hash them here.

1) Go to this article.

2) Expand All.

3) In your browser, search for "Posted by: GuitarBill".

4) Scroll up to the posting before Mr. Bill's and read that for truth and relevancy.

5) [Optional and not recommended] Read Mr. Bill's rants, ad hominems, and legerdemain.

6) Repeat from #3.

OOoooh NOooo! Mr. Bill!!!


Maxwell C. Bridges : [CompulsiveLiar] Mr. Bill's legerdemain at it again

2009-10-12

On the surface, it looks like Mr. Bill has me cornered. Looks like I may be guilty of such dastardly deeds. Until you scratch the surface...

  1. Right-click on each of Mr. Bill's links and open them in New Tabs.
  2. For a given article in a new browser tab, use the "Expand All" option from the View pull-down menu.
  3. In your browser, search (Ctrl+F) for "Posted by: GuitarBill".
  4. Scroll up to the posting before Mr. Bill's and read that for truth and relevancy.
  5. [Optional and not recommended] Read Mr. Bill's rants, ad hominems, and legerdemain.
  6. Score who might be lying.
  7. Repeat from #3 for the next occurence of "Posted by: GuitarBill" within the article.
  8. Repeat from #2 for the next article.
  9. Conclude from the score who might be lying. Odds are in favor of Mr. Bill.

OOoooh NOooo! Mr. Bill!!!

And Mr. Bill's dementia is getting worse and worse, because we've discussed this whole thing before. Again and again and again.

Mr. Bill writes now:

"Tell me, Max the compulsive liar, why is it a crime against humanity for me to expose "prophit(0)"'s multiple AlterNet accounts, but you conveniently turn a blind eye to others, like "Quannah", who expose her too?

The accusations exist that Mr. Bill has multiple AlterNet accounts and even EncinoM = GuitarBill? Who's gonna deny it first, if at all? Haven't seen any denials from either. Haven't seen Mr. Bill deny being "GuitarBill on", "Photon's Feather", or others for that matter. Doesn't mean I believe the alias-ASS-ociating; I'm just sayin' like Mr. Bill is always just sayin'...

Unless Mr. Bill can provide examples of where Prophit(0) and CynicI worked in tandem like Mr. Bill and EncinoM in the same thread to advance an agenda, this argument does not convince anyone of wrong-doing. It is just Mr. Bill hyping it.

More importantly, if the alias-ASS-ociating is promoted knowing that it is wrong or misleading or distracting (from more important matters), then it is a crime against God himself: thou shalt not bear false witnesses.

whale.to? Bearing false witnesses, fer sure, man.

No postings exist from me on AlterNet that employ any links to any website with whale.to in its URL. Although Mr. Bill keeps promoting it as truth, SHOW ME THE MONEY! Produce a posting from me with that link! They don't exist, fool.

What does exist is the message, which was the article [about disinformation tactics like what Mr. Bill uses]. It is an article that grants explicit rights to be re-posted and as a result is all over the Internet, including whale.to. Doh!

Puh-leeeees, puh-leeeees, puh-leeeees, Mr. Bill, take back the "Compulsive Liar" title that you have erroneously bestowed on me, because between the two of us, you have truly, honest-to-God earned it! I bow to your kingness of dishonesty! Take it back, take it back, take it back. Wear it with honor and distinction.

OOoooh NOooo! Mr. Bill!!!


Maxwell C. Bridges : [CompulsiveLiar] GuitarBill, an untouchable government semaphore for Truth

2009-10-13

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OOoooh NOooo! Mr. Bill!!!


Maxwell C. Bridges : [CompulsiveLiar] GuitarBill is the semaphore for 9/11 Truth

2009-10-14

Mr. Bill,

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

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

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

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

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

OOoooh NOooo! Mr. Bill!!!


Maxwell C. Bridges : [CompulsiveLiar] GuitarBill has his transponder off

2009-10-14

Mr. Bill writes:

"Do you think the fact that the hijackers turned the transponders off made NORAD's mission to find the hijacked aircraft somewhat more difficult?"

As Curly would say: "Soint-an-ly! Nyuk-nyuk-nyuk!"

Of course, even turning off the transponders did ~not~ make the planes invisible from radar. It just meant the flight number, altitude, speed, and heading weren't displayed. So this feature of 9/11 shouldn't have made NORAD's task that difficult.

What made it difficult for NORAD was that part of the four coincidental military exercises of the day under Cheney's command had them insert fake blips into the radar systems. Talk about confusion!

Worse, some of the planes disappeared from radar for awhile and then re-appeared. Disappearing from radar usually means that the planes flew below the elevation where the radars were aimed.

... Hey! Wait a minute, Mayder!

Couldn't some of those planes have flown not just below radar but landed? Couldn't "alternate" planes have then taken off in their place?

Wouldn't this switcheroo explain:

OOoooh NOooo! Mr. Bill!!!


Maxwell C. Bridges : [CompulsiveLiar] GuitarBill off-topic and off-road lies

2009-10-14

Mr. Bill writes:

911 "truth" is BY DEFINITION, off-topic.

By definition? Nope. I've never seen any definition whatsoever that said "truth" -- 9/11 or otherwise -- was off-topic. Ain't in the posting rules.

And just because Joshua Holland wrote an article against Conspiracy Theories, that doesn't mean 9/11 truth is against posting policies. In fact, the responses that AlterNet themselves have allowed on that article and many others proves that assertion wrong. Or a lie, if you will.

FTR, whole2th was on-topic and relative to the artive. You've just failed your reading comprehension test (purposely) again. And are lying.

At any rate, the 9/11 tie-in to the article is there.

Therefore, like always your lies are exposed.

P.S. I defy you to find one post from me on this website where I ever link to whale.to or any other neo-Nazi website. In fact, the only one who ever mentions it is YOU, Mr. Bill. You're the one who promotes it and, evidently, regularly visits it and is an expert on its content, like "The Holocaust (The Auschwitz Hoax)". Now isn't that a fine kettle of fish you find yourself in. Yet another lie.

OOoooh NOooo! Mr. Bill!!!


Maxwell C. Bridges : [Preparation H for A$$holes][CompulsiveLiar] GuitarBill's hemorrhoidal head swelling

2009-10-14

Dear Mr. Crazy H.,

When Mr. Bill first started calling me a "compulsive liar," I have to admit that it did almost feel like getting punched in the gut and having the wind knocked out of me. Upon more reflective meditation, the divine message came to me to embrace it.

... And boy, oh boy! Just like Mr. Bill has always felt free of the shackles and limitations of the God's honest truth, embracing his label (libel) for me was also a God send. After all, real truth sayers have no problems with others validating their statement.

And gee whiz, talk about divine wisdom in embracing it, when I start flagging my own comments with [CompulsiveLiar] (my spelling) as per Mr. Bill's less-than-nice insistance, it adds an enlightening twist to my subject lines particularly when I respond to him.

I bring this up because Mr. Bill likes to turn your alias "Crazy H" into "Preparation H" when addressing you. You embraced it once before, but maybe you need to embrace it more actively. Maybe the subject of your last posting could have been:

[Preparation H for A$$holes] GuitarBill and his al Qaeda Committee Meeting

OOoooh NOooo! Mr. Bill!!!


Maxwell C. Bridges : [CompulsiveLiar] GuitarBill hijacked this thread

2009-10-14

Mr. Bill wrote:

why do 911 deniers feel that they have every right to hijack AlterNet's comment section with off-topic conspiranoia?

I hate to burst your bubble, Mr. Bill, but whole2th has only posted once on this article. And it was on-topic. It was relevant.

Now if you want to talk hijacking, you've posted SIX (6) times (so far) somewhere under whole2th's original single, solitary posting. On the surface, that looks like hijacking a comment section.

And "soint-an-ly, nyuk, nyuk, nyuk" when any casual reader explores the content that you post with any objectivity, they'd see your off-topic, off-thread, off-road attacks on others (whole2th, Crazy H, and me).

Mr. Bill!

Puh-leeeeez! Puh-leeeeez, puh-leeeeez, puh-leeeeez!

Take back the "Compulsive Liar" title that you have erronenously bestowed on me, because you regularly prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you have earned it! Your posting about AlterNet hijacking, although framed as an attack on others, is really such a shining example of what you do. Bravo!

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

OOoooh NOooo! Mr. Bill!!!


Maxwell C. Bridges : [CompulsiveLiar] GuitarBill is an x-timing bastard! *tears in eyes*

2009-10-14

Mr. Bill,

Unbeknownst to me, first it was with Sister Lauren. Then I was flattered to see it being done to me. But then you did it again and now in this very article.

*wipe tears*

You sleazy x-timing whore!

*sniff*

Have your postings (whose words are given to you by a disinformation technical writer on your staff) no santity, such that you copy-and-paste them everywhere?!!

*blink tears from eyes*

You posted in this thread 13 times (and counting). This is your 3rd direct response to whole2th's original, single, solitary posting that you first read and responded to at 6:22 AM. And you finally (at 9:39 AM) pick up on the fact that whole2th mentions you by name?

Hate to be in your shoes to have your superior disinformation officer constantly looking over your shoulders saying:

I'm surprised your superior disinformation officer doesn't have you send all drafts of your postings through him, so that you can avoid such glaring (and ironic) statements, like:

"Hijacking--you lying jack@4$$--involves off-topic commentary."

Q.E.D.

Would there be a Gitmo without 9/11? Thus, whenever we talk about Gitmo or Gitmo's torture, anything on 9/11 is relevant. You l-o-s-e that point, too.

Q.E.D.

OOoooh NOooo! Mr. Bill!!!


Maxwell C. Bridges [1] [2] : [CompulsiveLiar] GuitarBill is free of ... honesty

2009-10-14

[Posted at least twice because Mr. Bill repeats his damning lies about death threats at least twice. Kindly pick only one of mine to continue... if you dare.]

whole2th wrote:

"free of the deceptions of such ilk as GuitarBill, Encino and others"

Obviously you are l-o-s-i-n-g big time for you to purposely manhandle that one -- "free of deceptions" -- into being a death threat.

In fact, your misdirection in re-interpretting that phrase is ironically an example of the deceptions that whole2th was alluding to.

I doubt that any participant in this forum can have an honest discussion with you.

Mr. Bill wrote:

[whole2th] "had NO BUSINESS mentioning me or EncinoM, as we have nothing to do with any of this--you lying son-of-a-[expletive deleted]."

Any regular reader of AlterNet knows that if they post anything with 9/11, Nine-Eleven, or other 9-1-1 variants, the first black paratrooper jump boots to stomp down upon their throats will be worn by you or EncinoM. whole2th's posting was no exception.

And hell, you had responded to whole2th twice already and were probably seven or more postings into this very thread before your weak reading comprehension skills noticed that whole2th mentions you by name.

I supposed yesterday that you were a government troll.

This disinformation tactic of labeling (repeatedly) someone else's posting a death threat (or Nazi propaganda or lies etc.) without basis is exactly what one would expect from a win-by-any-means government agent in order to side-line (and banish) an opponent who voices truths that are uncomfortable for the powers that be.

To get us back on topic -- which was how Gitmo torture is related to 9/11 as supposed by whole2th and supported by me --, the following are items still unaddressed by Mr. Bill (under orders from his superiors.)

** the Core of Corruption videos,

** corporate media willingly spinning the fable even as the events of 9/11 were unfolding, or

** the Israeli connection to 9/11

OOoooh NOooo! Mr. Bill!!!


Maxwell C. Bridges : [CompulsiveLiar] GuitarBill needs to smoke some reefer, man!

2009-10-14

Mr. Bill wrote:

"It's not my responsibility to validate questions, Max, nor is it my responsibility to confirm or deny speculation."

Thou Hypocrite! Isn't confirming speculation exactly what you do as ardent supporter of the official 9/11 conspiracy theory that speculates how 19 cave-dwelling, alcohol-chugging, lap-dance-loving, Islamic extremists precipitated the entirety of the destruction we observed on 9/11?

Had you ever bothered to study 9/11 objectively without orders to discredit-at-all-costs, you'd have long ago found the substantiation you seek. Ergo, your putting any burden of proof back on my shoulders is a cute little ploy to have me do busy work that you will just ignore much like:

** Core of Corruption

** corporate media on 9/11 spinning the fable

** Israeli connection to 9/11

whole2th had written:

"restoring the founding principles of our nation .... free of the deceptions of such ilk as GuitarBill"

Mr. Bill purposely distorts the phrase "free of deceptions" into being a death threat. When this duplicity is pointed out, Mr. Bill asks:

"How else can the 911 "truth" movement be "free" of me, Max?"

Easy, Mr. Computer Professional.

Mr. Bill wrote:

I CHALLENGE YOU OR ANYONE ELSE TO SHOW ME ONE WORD CONTAINED IN THIS ARTICLE THAT RELATES TO 911 "truth".

Strawman, man!

Here's something for your advanced degree in mathematics. That is a bit like saying: I challenge you to find the details of fundamental algebraic principles expressly stated in this calculus proof. The latter is built on the former without expressly stating it.

Why was Al Rabiah a detainee? He was alleged to be part of the Taliban or al-Qaida.

Why did this nation care about the Taliban or al-Qaida? Because they were scapegoated as culprits for 9/11 (in order for the US to forcefully gain control of energy conduits and reserves.)

Why is 9/11 truth important? Because if the truth is that 9/11 and everything about it wasn't a big rinky-dink coincidence but was instead an insider government conspiracy, it calls into question our nation's conduct and can invalidate reasons for holding the detainees at all.

Ergo, whole2th and 9/11 were on-topic. All of your tangents and your avoidance of the ** points above has been off-topic.

Mr. Bill wrote:

The fact is that I HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO SPEAK OUT AGAIN 911 "truth".

True, true, true, particularly if you speak TRUTH. But you do not have every right to slander, libel, bear false witness, perjure, lie, and otherwise spread disinformation knowingly.

As an aside, Mr. Bill you call me:

a lying neo-fascist piece-of-[expletive deleted]

Prove it. I don't want links to your own lying postings that make up such smears. I want links to and quote-mined text from ~my~ postings that prove your premise.

When you come up short, you will kindly STFU.

OOoooh NOooo! Mr. Bill!!!


Maxwell C. Bridges : Semaphores for Truth: GuitarBill & EncinoM

2009-10-20

With much gratitude this 9/11 truth seeker expresses his sincere appreciation for GuitarBill & EncinoM, for without them playing their god-given roles as government trolls, why my Hey-Suess Chronicles Volume 3 would be a very thin work.

Their caustic postings not only inspired my responses, but also the realization as to their true nature as semaphores for truth (the subtitle of Volume 3).

They are memorable ~not~ for the words that they write (or have written for them), but for the truth in the words of their opponents whose postings these semaphores flag.

Thank you, thank you, thank you!

The comments to this very article exhibit this on a micro level. Try this experiment.

1) At the top of the comments section, select from the "View" pull-down menu the option "Collapse All".

2) From this high-level, study the subjects of the postings.

Here is an edited sampling with the heirarchy gone:

» Jones is a patriot Posted by: weathered
» Alex Jones is an anti-American, terrorist apolgizing piece of offal. Posted by: GuitarBill
» More 100% fact-free 911 "truth", I see. Posted by: GuitarBill
» RE: People can go to infowars.com and make up their own minds... Posted by: EncinoM
» Still telling the same lie about Benjamin Chertoff, PrinceOfAnti-Semites? Posted by: GuitarBill
» Lying and stonewalling again, PrinceOfAnti-Semitism? Posted by: GuitarBill
» The 911 "truth" Movement, aka., Fair Play For al Qaeda Committee (Meets Here 1-4 PM). Posted by: GuitarBill
» Give it up, "CynicI/propht(0)", or whatever. Walter Scott Hudson is a right-wing nut. Posted by: GuitarBill
» Alex Jones is a conman Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: Jones is a patriot Posted by: EncinoM
» "prophit(0)" stop stonewalling and respond to my accusations. Posted by: GuitarBill

Our two stalwart disinformation warriors have honed their skills well in attacking their opponent's credibility... right from the subject line. The phrases "Lying and stonewalling" and "anti-American, terrorist apolgizing piece of offal" appear frequently in Mr. Bill's postings.

Which brings my participation here full-circle to On a Mission..., where I mentioned a document to Google called "The Information Operations Roadmap", which says:

"The War Dept. is planning to insert itself into every area of the internet from blogs to chat rooms, from leftist web sites to editorial commentary. The objective is to challenge any tidbit of information that appears on the web that may counter the official narrative; the fairytale of benign American intervention to promote democracy and human rights across the planet."

If this forum were infiltrated by the government, what form would that meddling take?


Maxwell C. Bridges : Nope: militia movement was not responsible for Oklahoma City

2009-10-20

Our disinformation warriors EncinoM wrote in this posting:

"What kind of cover, [Alex Jones] provides excuses for the militia movement, he makes them look warm and fuzzy. He diverts attention from the truth, that the militia movement is a bunch of violent red necks that love their guns more then they love the country. That the militia movement is responsible for Oklahoma City."

Because EncinoM's legerdemain is most crafty, it would serve the true American patriots in this forum to research his words (*cough* lies) more carefully.

The biggie is the humdinger conspiracy theory that the militia movement was responsible for Oklahoma City.

The parallels between Oklahoma City (OKC) and 9/11 are pretty stark, including pre-planted explosives, designated patsies, the cover-up about the larger conspiracy, what agency offices were distroyed, what were those agencies working on, the shock-and-awe of such an attack on civilians in our homeland, shame trials, and the knee-jerk domestic measures taken.

Other parallels worthy of follow-up are to look into the authors who wrote the explanation (*cough* cover-up) for OKC for the investigative committee. They were called into play again for 9/11. Coincidence?

OKC was the proof-of-concept for 9/11. Among the lessons learned were:

When true American patriots see the anomalies of either the OKC or 9/11 event for what it was -- a larger conspiracy of treasonous insiders that the government worked to cover-up --, this realization makes the case for the probability of the other event being also a self-inflicted wound to ratchet up fear in America.

Don't take my word for it. Research it.

And let the semaphores for truth [GuitarBill and EncinoM] be your guide to greater understanding. Because whatever they attack, take issue with, distract you from, and try to lead you down murky alley ways, let that be your warning flag to go the other way. Research that which they try to hide.


Maxwell C. Bridges : Who provided aide and comfort to homeland enemies? Homeland agencies. [Part 1] [Part 2]

2009-10-20

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.

[Continued...]

[... Continuation] Aide and comfort to Homeland enemies provided by Homeland agencies.

[... Continuation]

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.


Maxwell C. Bridges : Are you trying to earn the [CompulsiveLiar] title away from GuitarBill? [Part 1] [Part 2]

2009-10-20

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.

[Continued...]

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

[... Continuation]

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?


Maxwell C. Bridges : EncinoM sets the [CompulsiveLiar] crown upon his head

2009-10-20

{I apologize for my language. It was late when I wrote this and the blatant misrepresentation of my words angered me.}

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.


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

2009-10-21

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.


Maxwell C. Bridges : Cover-up gyrations and the overplaying of disinformation cards

2009-10-22

Dear Mr. EncinoM,

Thank you for the interesting links which show footage of the East penthouse collapse that I hadn't seen before including higher definition evidence of the internal progressive structural collapse and how it advances to the East penthouse and then ripples across the mechanical penthouse to then send that outer structure into a symmetric failure.

Debunk Chandler, though, it does not, because the measurable free-fall of at least the outer structure is still valid. The "alienentity" videos mostly complicate, pile-on, and distract.

[Why wasn't this higher definition footage available to the public years sooner? How is it that someone had the foresight to focus and zoom a camera on this building? Did they do the same camera work for other buildings, like the Hilton and the Deutsche Bank, both heavily damaged, only to be disappointed when they didn't collapse?]

The progressive structural collapse raises more questions than it answers, doesn't take away from controlled demolition (CD), and in fact shows the crafty ways in which CD was employed by those with means, motive, and opportunity.

What I see with NIST (and with you disinformation agents) is lots of gyrations to have everyone believe that beneign causes (after the malignant commercial jet impacts, of course) explain logically all of the destruction. Yep, it is certainly plausible. However, it is not conclusive. Why?

For all of the spinning to make believable (a) natural progressive structural collapses, (b) collapse symmetry and material pulverization on 3 over-designed structures, (c) 19 hijackers' evasion of standard operating procedures, (d) the boogey-man perpetrator OBL, etc., circles are made around simpler -- albeit profoundly more uncomfortable -- explanations that were dismissed out-of-hand without much analysis by those overtly charged with considering all possibilities thereby hinting that their covert charge was cover-up.

CD is that simpler explanation for the progressive structural collapse of all of the buildings. American leadership is that simpler explanation for who contracted 9/11, how 9/11 was possible, and why 9/11 was desired. One doesn't have to look much further than the American leaders' foreign and domestic goals & accomplishments.

As you so deftly prove, plausible explanations for any singularity can eventually be found by those paid to look for and promote them if given enough time to gyrate and one swallows lots of assumptions.

But it is the entirety of the 9/11 coincidences and not one feature that screams "9/11 was an inside job".

With your swipes at "Griffin, Jones & Co.", you overplay your disinformation hand, expose your bluff, and act as semaphore for what truth seekers should investigate on their own.

Dr. Griffin utilizes his proven research skills to good effect in consolidating the list of coincidences and inadequately explained anomalies. Dr. Jones and Mr. Gates utilize their skills to highlight science & engineering anomalies that would otherwise have been buried in unscientific hand-waving (and flag-waving) meant to distract, overwhelm, and placate the science-ignorant public. They further demonstrate how unexplored alternatives more easily explain (Occam's Razor) the destruction, its physics, and its energy requirements, were it not for the uncomfortable political ramifications that necessitates continued message control (here).

Your stated goal for participation was:

"[To] make sure that the memories of those who died [in OKC and] on 9/11 are not tarnished by the snake oil salesmen and the mindless sheep that follow them."

Mine, too!

The difference is, I don't work work for the snake oil salesmen in promoting his self-serving message and in covering his a$$.

{I suppose another difference is who we think the snake oil salesmen are.}

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


Maxwell C. Bridges : [CompulsiveLiar] GuitarBill's reading worthiness

2009-10-23

EncinoM and I weren't in a flame war with postings every half-hour or hour. It was more like a posting or two a day. When it came time for links, he provided only two relevant links that were easy to take the time to explore. Although he has more typo's, he writes better than you. He doesn't rely on insults to make his case.

GuitarBill wrote:

"I gave you links to both of those videos A MONTH AGO. Moreover, I gave you links to those videos on MULTIPLE OCCASIONS."

My apologies if I missed them, Mr. Bill. (See how an apology works?)

Sure, if you want to email me the relevant links you want me to see, try the Maxwell(dot)Bridges(at)MaxBridges(dot)us email address.

GuitarBill wrote:

"Do you read my posts, Max the compulsive liar?"

Have your postings been worth reading?

From my perspective on multiple occassions you have copied and pasted a whole litany of links. You FLOODED ME with links as a variation of TNRAT, TNWAT (pronouced "tin-what", for "they'll never watch all that"). The links were used as more of a distraction than one that would ground your arguments in solid material.

If going through the link list I see that they haven't been prioritized by value with respect to the content, a spoofing and mocking videos can cause the rest of the list to be ignored. I, quite frankly, do not have the (internet or mental) bandwidth to deal with such nonsense.

But because you were often using that posting to cover a variety of goals with the chief one being to libel and smear me in any way possible often right from the subject line, the value of such postings dimished rapidly in my estimations. It reduced the perceived worthiness of following any links provided therein.

In fact, when your unleashed anger towards me is clearly on display with your insults, the likelihood of me clicking on a link goes down significantly. How do I know that your link isn't to some nefarious website to infect my computer and really get back at me? (A valid concern if indeed I truly believe that you are a government disinformation agent who is also a "Computer Professional".)

See how that works? When you cheapen your own postings by not taking the time to edit them, to make them important, and to make *me* (your first audience) important -- name calling certainly does ~not~ do that --, you reap what you sow, Dude. You devalued the worth of your own words and links. Your fault, not mine.

Quite frankly, I eagerly anticipate all of your postings. But as soon as an insult pokes me in the eye, my reading shifts from reading-for-meaning-and-savoring to more-or-less scanning. As soon as I run across passages that are clearly repeated copy-and-paste jobs, I shift the scanning into a high gear.

++++++

BTW, I hope you enjoy Hey-Suess Chronicles Volume 3: Semaphore for Truth for which you are the inspiration. Scroll down to the very bottom to find the index reference links to "Choice Quotations from GuitarBill".

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


Maxwell C. Bridges : [ParanoidLunatic] GuitarBill appears in "Hey-Suess Chronicles Volume 3: Semaphore for Truth"

2009-10-25

"Hey-Suess Chronicles Volume 3: Semaphore for Truth"

GuitarBill likes to go in circles. To spare everyone my re-posting the circus into this discussion -- GuitarBill's intent --, I'll just take you back around to the beginning.

Be sure to scroll to the very bottom to see the hyperlinked index into "Choice Quotations from GuitarBill." Other hints:

I can't address GuitarBill's claims that I'm a paranoid lunatic. But as I learned from his CompulsiveLiar compaign against me, the divine message "embrace it" might still apply.

With regards to me not believing planes hit the WTC and Pentagon, not completely true. (Therefore, is it a lie, Mr. Bill?)

I'm what I call a "waffling no planer". I take some credance to information provided in "September Clues" that anyone can Google or search in YouTube. But I reserve the right to be wrong about some or all of it.

Planes or no planes, 9/11 was an inside job that WTC-7 proves.

My beliefs stated specifically are that I don't believe that commercial aircraft hit the twin towers or the Pentagon.

Beyond that, if the Pentagon was hit by an aircraft, it wasn't a commercial aircraft. The Pennsylvania plane was also not a commercial aircraft. Earlier 9/11 theories about any or all of the real commercial aircraft being swapped for other aircraft haven't been completely debunked, and moreover would Occam Razam more easily explain the cellphone calls, improbable from flight, but probable if the plane was already on the ground.

But hey, we don't have to debate it here. We've already gone through it before somewhere in "Hey-Suess Chronicles Volume 3: Semaphore for Truth".


Maxwell C. Bridges : [9/11 Advice] To the brave truth-sayers and honest seekers for truth

2009-10-25

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.

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


Maxwell C. Bridges : [mealy mouthed CompulsiveLiar] GuitarBill remains the Semaphore for 9/11 Truth

2009-10-25

Mr. Bill,

The difference between 9/11 coincidence theorists such as yourself and 9/11 truth seekers is that the latter has a much broader spectrum of opinions and we can change our opinions.

You 9/11 coincidence theorists have to toe the "party line" on all points, have to copy-and-paste the (supposedly) definitive answers which will coincidentally coincide with beneign government interpretations of said events, and can never admit your were wrong, much less change your mind.

As mentioned before, I lose interest in studying your words when you poke my eyes with things like:

But you remain deserving of the Semaphore for 9/11 Truth title, not for your words, but for the words of those you attack and flag.

Readers wanting the truth can start with your references and a pinch of salt, and then can research "September Clues" and other things I hinted at in my posting.

I am allowed to be a "waffling no-planer", because I'm human. And if you don't like my position, you don't have to go into this topic with me. In fact, I don't want to. Give me a vacation. I'll rest my case with the physics from 9/11.

Someone else from another 9/11 posting might find sport in taking you on. In fact, I'm surprised you missed it. For shame, for shame. That'll mean a demerit for you and EncinoM for sure.

Go get it on with some of the fresh blood there and help them write their own "Hey-Suess volume" like my recent "Hey-Suess Chronicles Volume 3: Semaphore for Truth", which you inspired directly.


Maxwell C. Bridges : [mealy mouthed CompulsiveLiar] GuitarBill remains the Semaphore for 9/11 Truth (2)

2009-10-26

{My mistake that the first part of this posting did not make it to the forum due to a copy-and-paste error.}

Mr. Bill wrote:

"you can't [offer one word in support of your "no planes" argument], because you have NOTHING--not one fact, NOTHING."

There you go again, trying to egg me into a flame war.

Dude, there is a reason I'm a "waffling no-planer." It is because I'm open-minded enough to see both the validity and invalidity of "September Clues" (that people should google and review on their own.) The validity of 9/11 being an inside job does not live or die with any aspect of the "no [commercial] planes" argument holding true.

However, if any aspect of "September Clues" holds up to intense scrutiny, it is that the corporate media remarkably fast put people on the air whose supposition about the events of the day regarding cause-and-effect and perpetrators was astoundingly well fleshed out for being on 9/11 and coincidentially agreed with the official story that the government has been promoting ever since. Can you say plant? Can you say Pys Ops? Can you say cover-up?

"September Clues" is far from being debunked. Just smeared.

Mr. Bill wrote (relating to "no-planes"):

"Put up, or shut up, Max."

Fair enough. I'll shut up. You do the same.

{Below is the portion of the posting that made it to the discussion forum.}

Mr. Bill wrote:

"I've debunked EVERY LIE YOU'VE TOLD."

Guess what, Mr. Bill? On a technicality, I am forced to agree with you. You have indeed debunked every lie I've told.

However, this feat is nothing to write home to Mom about. I mean, if to the best of my knowledge I've told zero (0) lies, then debunking all of them could be accomplished with you sitting on your thumbs and doing nothing. Congratulations on nothing, literally!

The far more telling numbers are your attempts to debunk every truth I've told. For shame, for shame.

Also far more telling are the frequent and repetitive lies you've told. I can't say that I have or ever will debunk them all.

Mr. Bill wrote (with my corrections):

"Why should I (feel) compelled (to) admit that I'm wrong?"

Honesty. Truth.

Should be reason enough.

Gives us a baseline to continue honest and rational discussion, particularly if we both want to claim we're true American patriots (and [name your religion here, like] Christians.)

Admission of failings is a sign of your humanity and an indication of intelligence that you can learn from your mistakes and take corrective action.

You were wrong about me being LeftWright. That you no longer apply such alias-ASS-ociating against me is an admission from you of this fact. But with the alias-ASS-ociating came lots of vindictive hate and ad hominem attacks directed at me and based on this false premise. Have you ever apologized for it? No.

You were wrong about free-fall being exhibited in any of the WTC collapses, regardless of when you start and stop the clock in the measurement of the overall collapse time. In fact, the very NIST reports that you rely on to make your coincidence theory case documents the fact of free-fall (in a stage), but my, how it makes you spin and gyrate to weasel out of acknowledging free-fall.

Mr. Bill, you have so tarnished your reputation in my view with your obtuse positions [that can only be rationalized under the aspices of being a paid contractor to defend them], there isn't much you could write that wouldn't necessitate fact-checking. And certainly, it inspires me to "shut up" rather than "put up" on the no commercial plane topic, lest I be forced to also "put up" with more of your dubious crap.

For readers of this forum who have read this far, here are two well-balance articles on 9/11 for consideration.

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


Maxwell C. Bridges : [CompulsiveLiar] GuitarBill should whip it out

2009-10-27

Mr. Bill,

Your comments about Jews are off-topic and a straw man. Whole2th did not mention Jews (nor are the Bush clan Jews), so you're obviously putting words into his mouth.

You seem intent on starting a flame war. Just let it go.

If you feel compelled to respond, why are you avoiding commenting on Core of Corruption? Whole2th brought it up before, and you attacked him then rather than his message. Avoiding something, Mr. Bill?

FTR, Whole2th was on topic, because clearly an "American Empire" has an economy associated with it. And unless you're in the top 1%, you've probably been experiencing one or more facits of the CONTROLLED DEMOLITION of the very same economy of the American Empire.

Is your house worth the same or more than it was, say, before 9/11? Does your answer remain the same when you account for inflation?

What direction has your salary gone (for your paid-to-post entries here) with respect to its buying power?

How has your 401(k) faired?

Are you happy or sad that President Bush's plan to privatize social security failed, which was one of the regrets he had in leaving office?

And if you want us to "bite" you, whip it out. Hopefully it is distinguishable from the three curly hairs that frame it.

P.S. Thanks again, Mr. Bill, for being the (tin-)foil and inspiration for Hey-Suess Chronicles Volume 3: Semaphore for Truth.


Maxwell C. Bridges : Only one alias for me even when tagged as [CompulsiveLiar] for GuitarBill

2009-10-27

Dear Mr. Longdream,

Just to bring you up to speed, GuitarBill has a lengthy history of ad hominem attacks and straw man argumentations. Although Whole2th did not mention Jews, GuitarBill did. If his history with regular participants is any indication, he was just a few keystrokes away from calling Whole2th an "anti-Semite" as he has done many times before.

Also for the record, the [CompulsiveLiar] tag is a GuitarBill remnant as well. Without basis he regularly calls me that (on the subject line, no less). Others can vouch for that claim, but you can also do a Search in AlterNet to verify.

Because GuitarBill calls me a compulsive liar, I figured a while back that I should embrace it particularly in responses to GuitarBill by using it as a [CompulsiveLiar] subject tag on my postings. I don't mind my words being fact checked.

You can follow the "Hey-Suess" link in my previous posting to see all at once what I've been writing here to see where it truly falls on the lie/truth spectrum. Let the "Hey-Suess" link also put to rest the undercurrent of your subject line "RE: How many false id's can dance on the edge of a razor blade?" with the implication being I am Whole2th, right? No. I take responsibility for my words and aliases. Were I Whole2th, I'd admit it and publish it on my website accordingly (so I can get the credit).

To the substance of your posting and mine, whereas the privatization of social security didn't happen, it wasn't without President Bush trying real real real hard. I recall the economy tanking big-time even as he gave out tax refunds early in his administration; I recall my 401(k) nose-diving, which private social security would have mirrored. Yet there he was, saying how good private social security would be. Had it passed, it would have been even more wealth transfer to the too rich.

Along these same lines, most patriotic Americans really didn't even want the multiple tax refunds that Bush put through. Certainly by the second one, we were in at least one foreign war for which no taxes were raised and we wanted to support our troops. It was as if Bush was buying our allegiance and support with the tax refund, despite it going against sound fiscal policy for our nation. As far as I was concerned, the money was already paid, wasn't missed, and could have helped the situation our nation was in. Giving it back to us and to see us sock it into savings or pay down debt defeated its overt purpose.

The tax refund did not defeat its covert purpose of helping sink our economy further into the red, which is sort of the gist of the original comment about a controlled demolition of our economy.


Maxwell C. Bridges : [CompulsiveLiar] GuitarBill owns the [tag] title while I own the DVD

2009-10-27

Mr. Bill,

Not only have I watched "Core of Corruption", but I also own it.

Your movie review leaves a lot to be desired.

It exposes more who your pay-masters are in your paid-postings than a valid critique of details brought out in the film. Yep, 9/11 and Israel being your triggers, it figures you'd write what you do and flame people with jew-hating and anti-Semite slurs to distract from serious evaluation.

Mr. Bill writes:

"Parenthetically, Max the compulsive liar, why don't you address the following issues of your alleged "honesty" and "anti-Zionism"?"

Yeppers, Mr. Bill. Your copy-and-paste (for the n-th time, *y-a-w-n*) smear job has been addressed and debunked (*s-n-o-r-e*). But that never stopped a good liar such as yourself from repeating it for the (n+1) time.

Good thing I've been saving my work, so I can just point you to [CompulsiveLiar] Mr. Bill's legerdemain at it again and be done with it.

Just to hammer home a point, though, I wrote:

"No postings exist from me on AlterNet that employ any links to any website with whale.to in its URL. Although Mr. Bill keeps promoting it as truth, SHOW ME THE MONEY! Produce a posting from me with that link!"<

He can't.

Mr. Bill. I suggest you update your "MaxBridges_Smear_Source.doc" file that you like to append to posting to me. Else it is you who most deservedly earns the [CompulsiveLiar] title.

OOoooh NOooo! Mr. Bill!!!


Maxwell C. Bridges : [CompulsiveLiar] GuitarBill twangs on and on in his cover-up tom-foolery

2009-10-27

Mr. Bill writes:

"I can go one and on, Max."

That you can. *Y-a-w-n*.

Among the misdirection and lies that he repeats is this gem:

"free-fall speed" is another straw man argument used by the 911 deniers to attack the NIST Report. Once again, the 911 deniers fail to mention that the NIST Report doesn't mention "free fall speeds".

Nothing like having GuitarBill debunk GuitarBill.

  1. Go to History matters. So does 9/11 and high school physics, which is my posting that quotes from NIST.
  2. You may have to expand all on the View comments.
  3. Observe Mr. Bill's response to my posting: "Quote mining the NIST Report again?" Here he provides a larger extract from the NIST report but with significant overlap in the "money passage".
  4. [Optional] Read how that thread degenerates to the point where Advanced Math Degree holder Mr. Bill proves his inability to subtract. (But I digress.)

The point is: Mr. Bill's earlier (and repeated over time) extracts from the NIST report mention specifically gravitational acceleration and free-fall. Mr. Bill knows this. Despite having his nose rubbed into this factoid repeatedly (refer to GuitarBill & EncinoM, Disinformation Warriors and other missives from me), Mr. Bill continues to strive for some holy grail of disinformation by repeating it again now.

Mr. Bill has exposed his own negative degree of honesty, so it might serve a reader well to look at his preceding paragraph, where he writes:

"pools of molten steel" ... is used by the 911 deniers to attack the NIST Report. However, the 911 deniers fail to tell us that the NIST Report doesn't mention "pools of molten steel" ...

Let's assume that Mr. Bill is correct in his assertion about what the NIST Report doesn't mention. Why doesn't it mention it? Why did the NIST Reports on the collapse of the towers limit itself to the initiation of the collapse and not cover any of the anomalies of the collapse wave(s), like the horizontal ejection of heavy materials at high velocities?

Part of NIST's overt charge was to explain fully how the destruction happened and to analyze all of the evidence, including these little factoids that Mr. Bill now tries to bury with inuendo. So if they are not mentioned in NIST's reports as Mr. Bill claims, then the covert charge of those reports exposes itself: cover-up.

Mr. Bill, the 9/11 Truth Movement truly thanks you for being such an excellent Semaphore for Truth, not for your words but for flagging where truth seekers need to search. Bravo!

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


Maxwell C. Bridges : [CompulsiveLiar] GuitarBill twangs on and on

2009-10-27

Nice attempt to reframe the discussion.

I asked you to prove where I have ever posted a URL with whale.to. You have not. Pointing to deleted postings doesn't do it.

You wrote:

"Moreover, on three occasions in that same thread, AlterNet's moderator REMOVED your anti-Semitic propaganda."

Proving that your Advance Math Degree is B.S., only two comments -- not three -- in that discussion were removed. What's the matter, can't you count?

If I were to cough up that both of those removed postings were from me, a third one still exists and sheds a lot of light on your lies: Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist (revisited).

First of all it proves that Mr. Bill manufactures, hypes, and repeats falsehoods about neo-Nazi websites. It's not there in the third posting, nor in any subsequent posting that references the disinformation article.

Second, why were the postings removed at most likely GuitarBill's insistance? Was it because the truth of those postings -- the article I was trying to link -- hit too close to home for what GuitarBill was doing in that very discussion, and for that matter in all discussions?

Yes, maybe readers should review my posting on "[CompulsiveLiar] GuitarBill, an untouchable government semaphore for Truth". You can get to the source article by clicking on the poster's name {changed to subject} in my website.


Maxwell C. Bridges : Please enlighten as to GuitarBill's motivation

2009-10-27

Mr Longdream wrote:

"I've been here a while, and I have a pretty good sense of what Guitar Bill is saying, and even maybe why he says it."

Please enlighten the forum on why he is saying it.

Mr Longdream wrote:

"the day I'll click on a link out of here has not yet dawned."

I can certainly understand your hesitation. But if you've been here awhile, you've certainly seen my postings. Notice any similarities between my MaxBridges login name and the www.MaxBridges.us URLs that I provided on the "Hey-Suess" link, were you to do a mouse-over?


Maxwell C. Bridges : [CompulsiveLiar] GuitarBill continues his own debunking

2009-10-27

Mr. Bill debunks himself (again) and his earlier claim/lie about free-fall not being in the NIST Report with this:

"NIST didn't mention gravitational velocity (free fall) until they released (in January 2009) their long-awaited report on WTC 7."

Raises the question, why did it take so long for NIST to acknowledge free-fall when the 9/11 Truth Movement has been talking about it for over 7 years and it is obvious & measureable?

Mr. Bill's proof of the WTC-7 falling in 18 seconds (or longer) isn't disputed. So what?

His repeated (*y-a-w-n*) copy-and-paste legerdemain that hypes the significance of an 18 second (overall) collapse time to supposedly debunk "free-fall speed" is childish, particularly coming from someone supposedly holding an advanced degree in mathematics with three years of college physics.

Been there. Done that. Follow the links with [1] to the AlterNet discussion or [2] to the same thing on my website.

Because his effort is a copy-and-paste repeat, the above links also shed light on the 120 to 130 decibel misdirection.

In fact, because such a significant percentage of GuitarBill's recent postings (including attacks on me & Prophit) have been b-o-r-i-n-g repeats with scant little editorial modifications or additions, it really kind of exposes him as being a paid-to-post troll with a series of talking-point files that he is expected to copy-and-paste with little variation.

Moreover, what does it mean when Mr. Bill says "not X" and his very own repeated postings from not that many months ago clearly show him quoting sources that say "X"? Is Mr. Bill suffering from dimentia? Is Mr. Bill an idiot who doesn't under the "X" that he posts? Or is it a case of the left-hand not knowing what the right-hand is doing with regards to the various personnel employed to sockpuppet the "GuitarBill" online persona?

Somewhere in the postings above is the two-part question he has yet to answer, maybe because he's never been granted permission to:

Seeing how the opening quotation from Mr. Bill finally has him acknowledge the fact of free-fall in a stage of a WTC collapse ... (*Whew*! What a long strange trip that has been!) ... How about Mr. Bill finally answering it?


Maxwell C. Bridges [1] [2] : [CompulsiveLiar] GuitarBill crowns himself with the [tag] title

2009-10-27

We can nail the [CompulsiveLiar] crown to Mr. Bill's head while putting this Nazi website thingy to rest at one time, using Mr. Bill's quotations from me.

"The article in question, Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist, exists several places on the internet. I googled it and just happened to find one that GuitarBill has issues with [a bald faced lie -- ed]."

Try this experiment:

  1. Go to www.google.com in your browser.
  2. Including the leading and trailing double quotation marks, type into the search field:
  3. "Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist"

    Or simply Click on this Google link.

  4. Make a note of the list of links that appear and their order.

When I do this today I get very similar results as I did in July. The first two Google search results in order were and are:

Could I have been telling the truth back in July (and now) in so far as my goal was to get people to the article Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist that I knew existed somewhere on the Internet and I simply Googled it and hyperlinked what appeared first? Doesn't the Google result prove my point that the article exists on many places on the internet (with expressed permission for re-posting)?

Note that the second link is the one that graces far, far too many of my responses to Mr. Bill in pointing out his actions.

Is that 2nd link to a Nazi/Holocaust-denying website? No. But if it is, I can Google and find another one that isn't. It is the message of the article that is important, not the website that hosts it. And the article is certainly not anti-Semitic propaganda, as you regularly claim.

So, Mr. Bill. Clearly, you have spent months making a mountain of Nazi/Holocaust-denying smear out of a molehill of Google. Gee. And that is exactly what the article suggest a disinformation troll should do.

It says a lot about your motives and about the article hitting a nerve that you would so actively complain via your admitted "Report this Comment" instances to get the postings with links to the disinformation article removed. Further, that you would continue to label the article and its hosting website Nazi/Holocaust-denying, when a simple mouse-over would prove you wrong.

[continued...]

[... continuation]

Although my narrative from July with today's Google validation doesn't appear to be a bold-faced lie, elements of the following from you do:

"Moreover, when AlterNet's moderator deleted your offensive post, you turned around... and proceeded to post your lies again, which resulted in your post being deleted for the second time. As a result, you ... made another attempt to post the previously deleted anti-Semitic propaganda [lie]. By that time I was fed up with playing whack-a-mole with you ... and went to bed for the evening [lie]. And that's the only reason your last post to that particular thread remains there today [lie]. That said, I'm convinced that the moderator would have removed your last post too, had I taken the time to report it [lie]."

Why did I flag [lie] instances above?

  1. [lie] is that the linked article is not anti-Semitic propaganda, which any reader can verify for themselves.
  2. [lie] is either that you went to bed for the evening or that you live in California as you would have us believe, such as a discussion with Tony from England.
  3. The time stamps of your two responses to the first comment you had AlterNet remove were Jul 27, 2009 2:19 PM and Jul 27, 2009 2:37 PM

    The time stamps of your response to the second comment you had AlterNet remove was Jul 27, 2009 3:25 PM

    The third comment and your response:

  4. [lie] is that your going to bed instead of reporting my comment is the only reason my last post survives. Your response to the third posting proves you didn't go to bed and had the opportunity at the time to continue with your whack-a-mole reporting of the comment.
  5. No. It survives because the article does not meet the criteria of being either anti-Semitic propaganda or hosted on a Nazi/Holocaust-denying website. In fact, the second posting shouldn't have been removed, but you managed to sneak it by the moderator in the heat of the moment.

  6. [lie] is that the moderator would have removed my last post, had you taken the time to report it. I suspect you did. In fact, I suspect you've been reporting a slew of my postings that link to this disinformation article, judging from the (erroneous and smearing) nature of your published responses then and in many subsequent discussions where I re-posted the link. But owing to the reasons given above, the moderator had no just cause for its removal.

Maxwell C. Bridges : [CompulsiveLiar] GuitarBill stimulates... I mean simulates...

2009-10-28

Your simulation proves nothing except that they can tweak programs.

Have they released the software & parameters they used in the simulation? No.

Can it be reproduced by others? No.

Were parameters over-driven beyond what was clearly present on 9/11 in WTC-7? Yes.

Should this information be made available? Yes. They are after all a government agency funded by our tax dollars. The secrecy doesn't behoove them.

Lots of smoke and mirrors.

Guess you had lots of time to communicate with your disinformation colleagues in other departments to come up with the above cut-and-paste posting.

Yep, it took them a long time to get the simulation tweaked just right ... err... to get it to agree with the conclusions that they wanted to present.

If you look at the destruction of the other buildings far more heavily damaged by falling debris and that they didn't collapse...

Face it. A new investigation is needed, and you're just stonewalling for the government.

In fact, why is it that you always... ALWAYS... seem to have an answer to something about 9/11 anomalies and that that answer ALWAYS agrees with the government's more benign version? And why is it that you never connect the dots? Why aren't you for a new investigation?


GuitarBill : Who is "Maxwell C. Bridges"?

2009-10-28

Who is "Maxwell C. Bridges"? Or was that Craig?
Posted by: GuitarBill on Oct 28, 2009 2:14 PM   

[Report this comment]

What's this "Max"?

{... Followed by links that represent a minimal degree of cyberstalking to reveal information about me, albeit public ...}

See where I'm going, "Max"?

And there's much, much more where that came from, "Max".

You want more, Max? This is just a friendly "advisory". But let me assure you, "Max", that if you post one more reply to my commentary...

[think hard about it, "Max"]

Have a nice day, "Max".

%^)


GuitarBill : Too bad you can't prove anything you've written, "Max" the compulsive liar.

2009-10-28

Too bad you can't prove anything you've written, "Max" the compulsive liar.
Posted by: GuitarBill on Oct 28, 2009 11:48 PM

Craig [last name withheld for now] prevaricates, "...[lie #2] is either that you went to bed for the evening or that you live in California as you would have us believe, such as a discussion with Tony from England."

Since you endeavor to read all my post's, why did you conveniently fail to mention that I work in IT, and thus, work off-hours? That said, my wife does not work, so she tries to follow my time schedule. In fact, it's not uncommon for us to go to bed between 12:00 noon to 4:00PM (on certain days), because most of the work I do cannot be performed during normal working hours. And since my client's are based in disparate locations throughout the World, it should be obvious why I sleep at non-standard hours. But you know that don't you, "Max"?

By the way, "Max", why do you run a PHP module on your web hosted Apache server? After all, you apparently don't make use of PHP's built-in database access modules, advanced text processing facilities, XML parsing engine, complex variables, etc., to enhance your pathetic vanity website. Moreover, PHP has more security holes than Swiss Cheese. Perhaps you should address your PHP security issues, provided you have the skills to do so...well, [cough] before they become an issue.

%^)

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Any more distortions and lies for us, Craig the compulsive liar?


Maxwell C. Bridges : A Cowardly Excuse from God to Close Volume 3

2009-10-29

{Agreeable to the "friendly advisory", this website entry was not posted to AlterNet.}

God works in mysterious ways. I've been looking for a ways to cap this volume, reduce my time at AlterNet, and focus on other creative & professional endeavors.

As had happened in the past when a "Compulsive Liar" label punched me in the guts to knock out my wind and knock me down a peg or two, another posting came [1] [2] with these wishes:

What's this "Max"?

{Followed by links that represent a minimal degree of cyberstalking to reveal information about me, albeit public.}

See where I'm going, "Max"?

And there's much, much more where that came from, "Max".

You want more, Max? This is just a friendly "advisory". But let me assure you, "Max", that if you post one more reply to my commentary...

[think hard about it, "Max"]

Have a nice day, "Max".

Thankfully, when it comes to my website, I write, edit, re-format, save, and transfer to get entries up, as opposed to AlterNet, where I have to post to get comments ups. According to GuitarBill's "friendly advisory", it is therefore okay for me to reply to GuitarBill's commentary and publish it here (which hardly anyone reads), just as long as I don't post it there (AlterNet). Moreover, he's not forbidding me from continuing to post on AlterNet, as long as I'm not replying to GuitarBill's commentary.

Hence, in discussing the nature of GuitarBill's message here in Hey-Suess Chronicles Vol 3, I'm not crossing any lines where his implied threats of increased exposure of my personage would have to be carried out.

A long, strange trip has been this third volume of the Hey-Suess Chronicles. Embrace it was the message received by this Blues Brother. Embrace it was first implemented as the [CompulsiveLiar] tag placed at the beginning of my AlterNet posting subjects, because I didn't mind my words being fact-checked. The tag, meant to belittle the value of my posting, became an accidental but handy adjective to whatever followed it on the subject line.

Embrace it also comes in response to the "friendly advisory." I was needing a crowbar to pry me from the time-suck that posting was becoming on AlterNet in response to GuitarBill's and EncinoM's disinformation tom-foolery.

When I think about the Hey-Suess Chronicles, I hope that they do justice to the quotations:

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
~ Edmund Burke

"It is the greatest of all mistakes to do nothing because you can only do a little."
~ Sydney Smith, writer and clergyman (1771-1845)

I didn't do nothing. I did a little something in this Semaphore for Truth volume. As I "[think hard about it]" as per the threat, nobody would begudge this hero turning coward.

"A coward is a hero with a wife, kids, and a mortgage."
~ Marvin Kitman (b. 1929), author and media critic

Having experienced a hacking of my corporate login which resulted in deletion of files from a business content management system in the middle of the night around the period of a 9/11 skirmish [1][2] with a computer professional, it behooves me to embrace his ironic and menacing words.

Ironic?

"It is only in folk tales, children's stories, and the journals of intellectual opinion that power is used wisely and well to destroy evil. The real world teaches very different lessons, and it takes willful and dedicated ignorance to fail to perceive them."
~ Noam Chomsky

"The greatest obstacle to seeing the truth - that 9/11 was an inside job - is not the lack of evidence but what can be called "nationalist faith" - the belief that America is the "exceptional nation," whose leaders never deliberately do anything truly evil, at least to their own citizens."
~ David Ray Griffin

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

"Millions of unprejudiced minds--simple seekers for Truth, weary wanderers, athirst in the desert--are waiting and watching for rest and drink. Give them a cup of cold water in Christ's name, and never fear the consequences."
~ Mary Baker Eddy

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


Go to Top of File

Hey-Suess Chronicles Volume 3: Semaphore for Truth

Table of Contents

    » Hey-Suess Chronicles Volume 1: The Hee-Haw-ley Index

    » Hey-Suess Chronicles Volume 2: Registered 420 Jimmy

    » Hey-Suess Chronicles Volume 3: Semaphore for Truth

  1. On a Mission...
  2. Here, let me put it in terms you can understand.
  3. RE: Here, let me put it in terms you can understand.
  4. Logistics schmogistics
  5. The truth of 9/11-Achilles heel of corporate deception (revisited) (1)
  6. Amazingly they haven't and you lie again
  7. TNRAT, pronouced "tin-rat"
  8. RE: The truth of 9/11-Achilles heel of corporate deception (revisited) (2)
  9. RE: The truth of 9/11-Achilles heel of corporate deception (revisited) (3)
  10. Why 9/11 discussion is valid
  11. GuitarBill's red herrings in Controlled Demolitions and his beliefs
  12. Oh really, @$$hole?
  13. What are the ramifications of building freefall?
  14. History matters. So does 9/11 and high school physics
  15. High school physics and what GuitarBill doesn't know
  16. Stage 2: descended at gravitational acceleration aka freefall
  17. Nice try at bait and switch
  18. ramifications of a building descending at gravitational acceleration
  19. Ramifications of gravitational acceleration
  20. Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist
  21. Busted again...
  22. Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist (revisited)
  23. Denial of truth tends to ... invoke crime
  24. Suppression that is not
  25. The Dynamic Duo of Disinformation
  26. Valid links to the PDF... REQUIRED READING
  27. History matters. So does 9/11 and high school physics +
  28. Not understanding the NIST Report again?
  29. Motives, motives, motives
  30. first-year philosophy versus high school physics
  31. Advanced Math Degree? You can't even substract...
  32. Cracker Jack Mathematician doesn't know averages
  33. Judging books by their covers...
  34. Cracker Jack Math of GuitarBill
  35. History Major who can't read, research, or do math...
  36. Distractions and insults: GuitarBill's MO
  37. Take up the missing floors with NIST
  38. Munged GuitarBill
  39. GuitarBill is disinformation and wrong (again)
  40. Disinformation warrior wants busy work he'll then ignore
  41. I stand corrected
  42. Inconvenient 911truth goes back to GHWBush
  43. GuitarBill & EncinoM, Disinformation Warriors
  44. Disinformation Spewing again, GB?
  45. RE: I stand corrected
  46. Anonymous Dynamic Duo of Disinformation
  47. 9/11 Disinformation Duo working overtime
  48. Punishment to the third and fourth generation
  49. You're not even a good liar, "Left"Rodent. %^)
  50. Muddled facts and insults
  51. ramifications of building freefall
  52. Observe how beyond the pale stupid GB is
  53. You failed your reading comprehension test
  54. Behold the 9/11 disinformation man
  55. "Crap on GB's Shoes" by Hu Flung Pooh
  56. Speak about your own (lack of) qualifications and identities
  57. Where, oh, where did my [9/11 Truth Movement] go?
  58. Emotional spin divergent from both compassion and reason
  59. Tying up all the strings including the eleventh of September
  60. Bait-and-Switch Presidency
  61. Balderdash from a disinformation warrior
  62. "Left"Rodent flogging his 911 conspiranoid theories
  63. Is an apology within your abilities?
  64. Is an apology within your abilities? +
  65. Your supposistion would be wrong
  66. GuitarBill: unapologetic 9/11 disinformation warrior
  67. By GuitarBill's typically faulty logic, I am CynicI and prophit(0)
  68. Proof that GuitarBill is CynicI, prophit(0), and me
  69. to our beloved unapologetic 9/11 disinformation warrior
  70. Guilty of the sins GuitarBill attributes to others!
  71. Finding the trigger and GuitarBill's opposite day
  72. Behold some classical disinformation techniques
  73. Good post, EncinoM...
  74. Proof of the disinformation warrior's performance objectives...
  75. Spinning, twisting, and Lying again, GuitarBill
  76. RE: You watched over two hours of video in 10 minutes?
  77. The WTC 7 did too fall at free fall rates.
  78. WARNING: GuitarBill has no knowledge of engineering and physics
  79. 90 minutes or 3 weeks, GuitarBill still gets it wrong
  80. Repeating bad arguments doesn't make them good
  81. GuitarBill has be de-masked as "CynicI" and "prophit(0)" [and me]
  82. Panic about PNAC and your inefficient quote-mining and poor reading comprehension
  83. Supporting quote-mining quotations with source
  84. I've proven your reading comprehension sucks
  85. You aren't and you haven't
  86. Oh No! Where'd our GuitarBill Troll go!
  87. EncinoM = GuitarBill? Who's gonna deny it first, if at all?
  88. Do unto others, Quannah, and grow up as well
  89. Caleb's Christians and the planes they fly
  90. What do EncinoM and GuitarBill have in common?
  91. I've answered your hypothetical, now you answer mine.
  92. Repeating bad arguments doesn't make them good +
  93. Caleb's a third-string disinformation warrior
  94. EncinoM: member of the true truthiness movement
  95. Bold requests for busy-work you'll never review
  96. Ever heard of the Scientific Method, Mr. "Scientist"?
  97. RE: As soon as your insults start, you loose the argument
  98. Their insults started; they lost the argument (long time ago)
  99. Coincidence Theorists versus the 9/11 Truth Movement: What's the score?
  100. You lost, and SurfingScientist's subject explains why.
  101. You have more in common with the 9/11 Truth Movement than you think
  102. Behold what PNAC wanted for cyberspace control and achieved
  103. Pot calling the kettle black
  104. Moral bubbles that need to be burst
  105. [Continued] Moral bubbles that need to be burst
  106. What's the score now? Did I accidentally hit a disinformation nerve?
  107. [Revisit] Coincidence Theorists versus the 9/11 Truth Movement: What's the score?
  108. True but purposely misleading as his disinformation agenda dictates
  109. Give us the Stats! And stop pointing out your ongoing struggles with honesty
  110. Flaming out in a blaze of glory, eh, GuitarBill?
  111. Do you know the difference between fact and "friction"?
  112. Pre-emptive Libel? Knock off the libel. Period.
  113. RE: Then maybe you can tell me why Marie-Paule Pileni called Jones' paper "rubbish"?
  114. [CompulsiveLiar] Sticks to you
  115. [CompulsiveLiar] The Lie is that I am Lying.
  116. Other then Spamming for 9/11 Coincidence Theories
  117. You sure of the validity of OBL video and audio tapes?
  118. Pots and kettles
  119. Are you going to answer the 9/11 hypotheticals?
  120. Think outside the box and explore the 9/11 hypotheticals
  121. Honesty about Fact-Checking
  122. RE: Think outside the box and explore the 9/11 hypotheticals
  123. GuitarBill =/= SteveA: where GuitarBill's alias-equating ends
  124. [CompulsiveLiar] The Lie is who is changing the subject.
  125. [CompulsiveLiar] Have a point... Please...
  126. Alias-equating again, Mr. Bill?
  127. Gary Webb and Oliver Stoner were right
  128. The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media.
  129. To anyone truly interested in learning about the events of 9/11/01, here are some places to start:
  130. You can find most of this information at 911blogger.com (and a whole lot more)
  131. [CompulsiveLiar] The Lie is who is lying. +
  132. acceptably sounding, but only science-based in the blinding sort of way
  133. [CompulsiveLiar] Your pocket-rocket (pocket-pool) science?
  134. [CompulsiveLiar] Lying about your ordering links! DNFTT.
  135. You ruin every thread you touch, "prophit(0)".
  136. [CompulsiveLiar] Troll Effectiveness you can count...
  137. [CompulsiveLiar] Troll Effectiveness you can still count...
  138. [CompulsiveLiar] Troll Effectiveness you can keep counting...
  139. [CompulsiveLiar] Effective Trolling you can count on
  140. [CompulsiveLiar] Effective Trolling to be counted
  141. [CompulsiveLiar] GuitarBill admits his regular, willful violation of AlterNet
  142. [CompulsiveLiar] GuitarBill is proven...
  143. [CompulsiveLiar] GuitarBill on GuitarBill
  144. GB... you hijack threads ALL THE TIME...
  145. [Compulsive Liar] Proof that GuitarBill is lying
  146. [AlterNet Advisory] How to read this discussion
  147. [CompulsiveLiar Skinhead Nazi] Mr. Bill Reading Advisory
  148. 9/11 Memorial
  149. [AlterNet Advisory] How to read this discussion +
  150. [AlterNet Advisory] How to read this discussion ++
  151. Coincidence?
  152. 9/11 will Not just go away, Never!
  153. 9/11 "truth" will not just go away--ever.
  154. Poke those emotions
  155. [CompulsiveLiar] Mr. Bill may already be a winner!!!
  156. MaxBridges' Crackpot Field Guide.
  157. Dr. Foo's Guide To 911 Deniers. Sub-species: Absurdus Profundis Borderlinus Insanius Nineelevenus.
  158. Dr. Foo's Guide To 911 Deniers. Sub-species: Ignoramus Horribilis Borderlinus Insanius Nineelevenus.
  159. Dr. Foo's Guide To 911 Deniers. Sub-species: Moonbatia Insanius Non-Linearus Nineelevenus.
  160. [CompulsiveLiar] Mr. Bill's winning avalanche of legerdemain
  161. Max the compulsive liar's Field Guide to Crack Pottery. No messy kiln required.
  162. [CompulsiveLiar] Mr. Bill, the two-timing bastard! *wipe tears*
  163. All Moonbats are alike, so the post applies to you as well as the "reverend".
  164. [CompulsiveLiar] Mr. Bill, the two-timing bastard! *wipe tears* +
  165. [SPAM WARNING] GuitarBill cyberstalks and spams us with copy-and-paste irrelevant
  166. Mr. Bill's legerdemain at it again
  167. [CompulsiveLiar] Mr. Bill's legerdemain at it again
  168. [CompulsiveLiar] GuitarBill, an untouchable government semaphore for Truth
  169. [CompulsiveLiar] GuitarBill is the semaphore for 9/11 Truth
  170. [CompulsiveLiar] GuitarBill has his transponder off
  171. [CompulsiveLiar] GuitarBill off-topic and off-road lies
  172. [Preparation H for A$$holes][CompulsiveLiar] GuitarBill's hemorrhoidal head swelling
  173. [CompulsiveLiar] GuitarBill hijacked this thread
  174. [CompulsiveLiar] GuitarBill is an x-timing bastard! *tears in eyes*
  175. [CompulsiveLiar] GuitarBill is free of ... honesty
  176. [CompulsiveLiar] GuitarBill needs to smoke some reefer, man!
  177. Semaphores for Truth: GuitarBill & EncinoM
  178. Nope: militia movement was not responsible for Oklahoma City
  179. Who provided aide and comfort to homeland enemies? Homeland agencies.
  180. Are you trying to earn the [CompulsiveLiar] title away from GuitarBill?
  181. EncinoM sets the [CompulsiveLiar] crown upon his head
  182. Ironic: 9/11 Disinfo EncinoM gets debunked by GuitarBill and NIST about free-fall
  183. Cover-up gyrations and the overplaying of disinformation cards
  184. [CompulsiveLiar] GuitarBill's reading worthiness
  185. [ParanoidLunatic] GuitarBill appears in "Hey-Suess Chronicles Volume 3: Semaphore for Truth"
  186. [9/11 Advice] To the brave truth-sayers and honest seekers for truth
  187. [mealy mouthed CompulsiveLiar] GuitarBill remains the Semaphore for 9/11 Truth
  188. [mealy mouthed CompulsiveLiar] GuitarBill remains the Semaphore for 9/11 Truth (2)
  189. [CompulsiveLiar] GuitarBill should whip it out
  190. Only one alias for me even when tagged as [CompulsiveLiar] for GuitarBill
  191. [CompulsiveLiar] GuitarBill owns the [tag] title while I own the DVD
  192. [CompulsiveLiar] GuitarBill twangs on and on in his cover-up tom-foolery
  193. [CompulsiveLiar] GuitarBill twangs on and on
  194. Please enlighten as to GuitarBill's motivation
  195. [CompulsiveLiar] GuitarBill continues his own debunking
  196. [CompulsiveLiar] GuitarBill crowns himself with the [tag] title
  197. [CompulsiveLiar] GuitarBill stimulates... I mean simulates...
  198. Who is "Maxwell C. Bridges"?
  199. Too bad you can't prove anything you've written, "Max" the compulsive liar.
  200. A Cowardly Excuse from God to Close Volume 3
  201. » 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

    » Hey-Suess Chronicles Volume 7: Nine-One-One

    » Hey-Suess Chronicles Volume 8: Q-BoughtBot

Go to Top of TOC

Go to Top of File


Choice Quotations from GuitarBill:
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546474849505152535455565758596061626364656667686970717273747576777879808182838485868788899091929394959697

Choice Quotations from EncinoM:
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536