Sorry casseia but your hostile tone is uncalled for and your accusations are flat out false.

"This particular post is fulled of unsupported assertions and it's the kind of statement that marginalizes CIT"

That's a pretty harsh claim to make without providing any legitimate examples.

Besides it is impossible for any statement we make to "marginalize" us. That has to be done by other people or entities such as the mainstream media or 911blogger who refuse to report on this information or give us a platform to discuss it. I can only conclude from your tone that you wish this site would follow suit. Correct me if I am wrong.

Even worse, your accusation that my post is "fulled" of unsupported assertions is out of line since you were unable to provide any legitimate examples. Here is all you cite:

"You don't believe the damage (to Lloyde's cab) is consistent with a gun shot."

That is not "unsupported". That is a fact that I just backed up with photographic evidence of the damage to the interior of the cab. In fact even the windshield damage is clearly not consistent with a gunshot. Are you really suggesting that damage could have been caused with a gun shot after looking at those photos? I think you are simply reacting emotionally although I can't figure out why. Perhaps you can shed some light on that for all of us. Either way a retraction for your false accusation is in order.

"You don't believe that Lloyde behaves as someone who was coerced."

Quite true. But this also is not "unsupported" as I explained my reasoning for this belief. I have firsthand experience spending several hours with the man and at no time did he exhibit fear or shame. Only pride, glee, and a complete lack of regret. Not only this but I provide video taped evidence of this demeanor showing him smiling while he talks about it being a "planned" event by the people with all the money and how he's "in it" and they "came across the highway together". The notion that my belief he is not afraid or ashamed of his involvement is certainly not "unsupported" so once again a retraction for your false accusation is in order.

And finally, Lloyde "knows full well what he did on 9/11 and is not the least bit ashamed."

Again, this is also not "unsupported" since I have firsthand experience spending several hours with the man. There isn't a reason on earth to suggest that he DOESN'T know what he did on 9/11 since he is quite lucid and is very detailed concerning what has proven to be a false account. The north side evidence proves he is lying. Suggesting he is somehow completely unaware of what he is saying or what is actions were would be "unsupported". To suggest he is aware, as any human would be, is simply common sense. So once again a retraction for your false accusation is in order because so far you have not been able to provide one single example of an unsupported claim that I have made.

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?

That's fine casseia and you can feel free to do that all you want. But if you make accusations against us and our motives you better support them with facts and evidence otherwise you will be throwing out false innuendo and baseless attacks against honest citizens who have uncovered information proving the 9/11 operation a deception. Such behavior will make you no different from the gossip clique at truthaction. Is that what you want this site to become? I sure hope not so I hope you will retract your false accusations against us and remove your hostile/defensive tone when addressing me. Thanks.

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.

Whoa.

This is WAY out of line.

Do any of those people provide evidence regarding the Pentagon attack? Has ANYBODY other than CIT gone there and interviewed witnesses and provided that information on video tape for the world? Can you cite an instance where we have attacked others in the movement unprovoked as they have us? No you can not because we do not. We don't attack anyone. Yes we respond sternly to attacks as I am to you right now but we couldn't care less about other people unless they are maligning our name and accomplishments.

We aren't asking you to believe us casseia. We are asking you to believe the witnesses. For you to put us on the same level of ANY of the disruptors who attack us online and who have NOT provided a shred of evidence exposing the Pentagon attack deception is unconscionable. A full retraction and apology is in order for this ridiculous comparison/suggestion.

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.

What?

Frankly I have no idea how you could possibly suggest that our investigation into the Pentagon attack and the massive body of independent verifiable evidence we provide exposing the deception could POSSIBLY be considered a "distraction".

You are coming from a VERY strange place with all this and I strongly suggest you let it go by retracting these ridiculous claims instead of continuing to derail this thread by dragging down the discourse with your unwarranted suspicions.

You have no business interjecting innuendo to cast doubt on us personally when you are clearly unable to address the definitive evidence we present.