It just isn't worth my time to dig up eevry thread in which Arabesque was a pr*ck, nor is it really worth anyone's time to worry too much about the personalities in the "movement".   9/11 truth is about facts, not those who present them.  Of course Arabesque makes the obvious point that some of the personalities in the movement have agendas of one kind or another.  This is so obvious that it's interesting that Arabesque feels the need to expound on it.  My problem with Albanese was basically the same--people who attempt to establish a reputation as "identifier of disinfo" should be treated very skeptically, since it would be of great value to the apologists for one group of perps or another to establish credibility in this regard.  My beef with Albanese was that it was so obvious that the "video-fakery" people were deliberately buffoons that his pointing out wasn't really all that useful, except maybe, as I just outlined, so that he could later be seen as having some authority on the subject.  Indeed he did accuse me of being out to sow divisions in the movement.  this because there were certain issues that were not as straightforward as "video-fakery" or "space beams" that I took him to task on (and his friend Jon Gold) like the Pakistani angle.  When I began referring to it as Patsystan to make my point in shorthand, the sh*t started hitting the fan with the Johns (Gold and Albanese) accusing me of being divisive and downplaying what they called an "important angle".  In fact it became clear to many that there was a group of people who were trying to keep LIHOP on the table despite not being able to provide any convincing evidence for the existence or agency of any arab muslim "hijackers" except as patsies who were the objects of the official story frame-up.  These were strangely enough the same people who claimed not to find controlled demolition totally convincing, and who suggested that Larry Silverstein didn't necessarily know that his buildings were going to be demolished.  Since I was undermining the credibility of these "truthers" like Gold, who is 911blogger's first registered user (#6) who is not also an admin, I ended up being banned.  Arabesque may occasionally write something worth reading (hell even Jon Gold does) but that isn't the point.  He is apparently trying to establish credibility and apparently so as to stifle discussion of the holocaust, which much like 9/11 is a complicated issue that has been misunderstood by the public and exploited by certain interests.  To say that the holocaust issue has no bearing on 9/11 is only half-true.  One need not understand the holocaust issue to know 9/11 was a hoax, but those of us who have looked at both issues with an open mind have found many parallels that are historically quite illuminating.  Arabesque in my view has a specific agenda that lies afield of the whole truth, which is why I call him out when he tries to make himself out to be an arbiter of credibility.