Loose Nuke,

You said:

I've warned a number of other people to not to call CIT liars, and
put at least one person on moderation. Though I've critiqued CIT's
claims and criticized their behavior, I've never called them liars or
disinfo, and I've specifically pointed out that they may actually
believe what they're saying, while acknowledging that I don't know if
they do or not. They have insinuated and directly said I am a liar and
disinfo.

In late December 2009 you promoted the following essay by Adam Larson
(I realize you're a different person and of no relation, but you were
clearly promoting A. Larson's piece):

http://911blogger.com/node/22239

This essay calls the National Security Alert video a
"mockumentary" even though it is nothing of the sort:

I believe they’re claiming 13 such witnesses at the moment, as
featured in their latest full-length mockumentary, and sure to grow
judging to their rhetoric.

This is the same type of tactic used by the right wingers who hated
Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11. Any time I see someone kick off
a critique by calling the work it's critiquing a "mockumentary" I see a
red flag as far as objectivity. And in the comment section of that
discussion, Sarns is allowed to get away with calling
CIT liars and jimd3100 is allowed to get away with accusing CIT of conning
the movement. These people were certainly not publicly warned to
refrain from calling the CIT boys liars.

And in another
blog entry, this one actually composed by yourself, you used the
following tags:

9-11, 9/11 truth, 9/11 Truth Movement, aldo marquis, Citizen
Investigation Team, craig ranke, Disinformation, Ed Paik, Edward
Paik, misinformation, national security alert, North Side Flyover,
PentaCon, Pentagon Flyover, Shinki Paik, what hit the pentagon

While "misinformation" implies that the person spreading incorrect
info is doing so with well meaning intentions, "disinformation" implies
nefarious purposes. By having that tag on the blog entry you are indeed
accusing CIT of being intentional disinformation.

You may never have said the exact words "the CIT guys are liars" in
direct succession, but you clearly were very literally attempting to
"label" them disinformation by using that "tag".

AND in another piece you wrote, Peter
Dale Scott Does Not Endorse the Flyover Theory (and Neither Do I),
your very first tag at the top is "9/11 disinformation." You posted that
same article - and the Shinki Paik article - on your own little
wordpress blog with the same tag ("911 disinformation")

So I think it's actually very safe to say that you have indeed
'tagged' the 'label' of disinfo onto them on more than one occasion.
Will you now honestly acknowledge this?