and it's the kind of statement that marginalizes CIT. You don't believe the damage is consistent with a gun shot. You don't believe that Lloyde behaves as someone who was coerced. And finally, Lloyde "knows full well what he did on 9/11 and is not the least bit ashamed."

One thing you may discover about this site, if you stick around, is that whenever anyone is is extremely pigheaded about anything, they are subjected to a lot of "meta" scrutiny from site regulars. We ask ourselves, what would be the point of someone inserting him or herself into the 9/11 discourse with this agenda if they were operating from bad faith? From good faith?

The "bad faith" interpretation of CIT is that you guys are deliberately engineering conflict around the issue of the Pentagon. Hoffman, Victronix, and jimd98642756320 are most assuredly doing the same thing, exactly. But the enemy of our enemy is almost NEVER our friend solely on that basis. Tag-team acts are commonplace.

The point of this conflict might be simply to distract people from what should be the number one priority right now, which is to surgically separate our imaginary enemy in "AfPak" (the Taliban and/or al Qaeda and/or al Talibaqaeda) from the whole 9/11 narrative so that that narrative cannot justify killing people there.