Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Another Truther With Delusions of Grandeur

Following in the footsteps of Kevin Barrett, who managed 2% of the vote in his run for the House, some-time philosophy professor and long-time truther Richard Curtis has announced his run for the US Senate from Washington State.

It doesn’t have to be that way. The powerful, those who want the status quo, will resist change – with their many millions of dollars in advertising money. Just as the British pulled back their empire, so can we!

This is what is so exciting about this campaign. I can actually win! Without the spoiler issue for either Republican or Democratic minded people, the voters can vote their
values.

Now admittedly Patty Murray is hardly the safest seat in the Senate, this is the woman who was voted dumbest senator for 5 straight years in a poll of staffers after all, and once praised Osama bin Laden's contributions towards day care centers in Afghanistan (not to mention being a WSU grad) but I still don't think Richard poses any threat to her.

Labels:

82 Comments:

At 23 March, 2010 19:34, Blogger ConsDemo said...

I considered Patty Murray a dim bulb when she first ran for the Senate in 1992. However, she has won easily three times. She may have a challenge this year because the environment is less friendly to Democrats, but this moron Curtis won't be the one to dethrone her. As I recall, it isn't easy to get on the ballot for third party candidates in Washington State, hopefully the voters will be spared this turkey's slander in the voters' guide in the fall.

 
At 23 March, 2010 23:58, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Just a Coincidence"
In a town in the United States, there lived a man who, while fairly successful, had his sights on ever more success. His father had been very successful, and as such had been able to open doors, so to speak, for his son. But still the man wanted more. One of the steps the man had taken on his way to “more” was to marry an extremely wealthy woman who lived in his town. The terms of their pre-nuptial agreement were such that the woman retained complete control over all the wealth. The man was given a generous monthly stipend to do with as he chose, but he was not happy with the arrangement, as he himself had publicly stated on more than one occasion. Unfortunately, the woman showed no signs whatsoever of being willing to compromise. As long as she lived, she made clear, she would control the purse strings.
One day, the man called 911 to report a murder at his house. When the police arrived, the man let them in and took them to the bedroom where the crime had occurred. There, lying on the bed, was the man's wife, apparently shot to death. On the floor, between the bedroom door and the bed, was a man, also, it seemed, shot to death. The dead man was dressed in tattered, dirty clothing. The police turned to the husband and asked what had happened.
The husband, clearly distraught, began.
“I was out all day, and just got home about 10 minutes ago. As I opened the front door, I noticed that the security system was off. I've lectured my... wife…” he sobbed, and took a moment to compose himself. “I told her again and again that she's got to remember to turn on the security system. But she would forget. So, I figured it was one of those times. I also noticed our bodyguard – we always have at least one at the house at all times – wasn't around, but I figured he was walking around the grounds.

“So I started upstairs, quietly, because she likes to take afternoon naps, and just as I got to the top of the stairs, I heard 4 gunshots, right in a row. They came from the direction of the master bedroom, our bedroom, and I ran down the hall as fast as I could. As I ran, I pulled my gun, which I always carry with me, out of my jacket. I got to the door of the bedroom, and the… the bastard who did this..!” He gritted his teeth and let out a low, guttural sound filled with frustration and rage.

“Whoa, take it easy,” said one of the officers gently. “Take your time. We need to know everything you know.”

“Okay, okay. Sorry. I got to the door, and that… thing... turned around. He looked like he could barely stand, like he was drunk or something. But he had the gun in his hand, and it was pointing at me. I didn't even think, I just shot until my gun was empty. Then I dropped my gun, and ran to my wife. But she was… she was…” but he couldn't finish.

“That's okay, that's okay, you've given us plenty to go on,” said the officer.

Needless to say, the community was shocked. Some facts that came out in the next few days were:

About the dead man:

1) He had a criminal record. He had served time for drug possession and armed robbery.

2) He was known in the seedier parts of town as a drug-addict.

3) His blood showed that he had significant amounts of illegal drugs in his system at the time of the murder

About the missing bodyguard:

1) His car had broken down on the highway.

2) He had called with his cell phone and left messages at the house indicating that he would be late.

About the victim: she had a loaded gun in her nightstand drawer, where it was found by the police, unused, after the murder.

cont..

 
At 23 March, 2010 23:59, Anonymous Anonymous said...

cont...

The case closed within days of the crime. The district attorney stated that the facts of the case lead to the obvious conclusion that the man found dead at the scene had broken into the house – no doubt looking for means by which to pay for his drug habit – quietly enough not to wake the napping wife. Surprised to find her in the house, he shot her in her sleep, probably thinking to eliminate any witnesses. He was then shot and killed by the husband, in self defense. No further investigation was warranted. Case closed.


A few citizens of the town felt this had not been handled adequately. A number of them wrote to the local paper, in an attempt to appeal to the broader public. The editor of the newspaper was reluctant to print any of the letters, but after receiving a few dozen or so, he thought it might be best to publish a few, so he could honestly say the issue had been addressed. And that would be that.

So under the heading “Conspiracy Theories Crop Up in Local Murder Case”, there appeared three of the letters the paper had received.

One proposed that the woman had been murdered because she and the murderer had been lovers, and had had a spat.

Oh, yeah, thought the editor, an upscale woman like her and a filthy little scumbag like him. Sure.

The second suggested that she wasn't really dead at all, but had simply faked her death and was now living in a tropical paradise somewhere.

And the cops played along, and the DA, and the medical examiner, and… God, people can be stupid sometimes.

And the third made the case for extraterrestrial beings having done the deed, as they had hoped she would help them infiltrate our planet, but she had refused.

They must have special staff at the loony bin so the folks in straightjackets can dictate their letters-to-the-editor.

cont..

 
At 24 March, 2010 00:00, Anonymous Anonymous said...

cont..

One of the letters that didn't get published, but was simply thrown away, had yet another take.

It started by saying that, in general, anyone with the motive, means, and opportunity to commit a crime should be considered a suspect of that crime, at least initially. Obviously, the dead drug-addict had all three. But did anyone else? Who else might have benefited from the murder?

And what about all the little things that had to happen in order for the crime to happen the way it did?

The security system was off when the perpetrator came to the home, on that day, at that time. Just a coincidence.

The bodyguard's car broke down, on that day, at that time. Just a coincidence.

The woman clearly had the means to defend herself, had she not been napping on that day, at the precise time the perpetrator broke into the house. Just a coincidence.

In fact, if any one of these coincidences had failed to occur exactly as they did, the murderer might very well have been stopped, given that he was high on God-knows-what and “looked like he could barely stand”, according to the husband.

And getting back to other suspects, well, obviously, there was at least one that the police and the media never mentioned: the husband. He had a motive: he had made statements in public that his relationship with his fabulously wealthy wife was frustrating to him, at least in terms of her fabulous wealth.

He had the means and the
opportunity: he could have hired the drug-addict himself and turned off the security system before the perpetrator arrived. Since the bodyguard wasn't there, the husband could have let the perpetrator in himself. Heck, he could have driven the murderer to the house himself.

As for the security guard, maybe he and the husband worked out a deal: “If your car just happens to 'break down' that day, you'll find yourself a lot wealthier than you'd ever be as a bodyguard”. More than just one person involved in a murder? More than one person profiting? It's been known to happen.

No aliens, no supernatural powers. Just a couple of people who had a lot to gain, knew how to put the pieces together, and lived in a town where the cops and the press didn't like controversy, especially when it came to the more well-heeled members of their local society.

But the newspaper editor knew it was crazy. He knew the husband, had played golf with him. He just wasn't that sort of person. Sure, the husband wasn't a saint, but that didn't make him a murderer.

And that was that.

A year later, the husband appeared on a national celebrity-watcher TV show, on his yacht with his pretty new wife, one of the swimsuit girls fresh from a shoot. And the bodyguard who'd been unable to make it to the house that fateful day had found the funds a few months ago to start one of the biggest security firms in the area.

Just a coincidence

 
At 24 March, 2010 05:13, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your argument, seems to be that, because we don't now know – for sure, out in the open, for all to see – that 9/11 was the result of a military industrial complex conspiracy, then it was not such a conspiracy, and will never be revealed, in the future, to be the result of such a conspiracy.

And this, in turn, is simply because no whistleblower has come forward with sufficient evidence to prove the existence said conspiracy, which in turn is because there is no conspiracy to prove.

Did I get that right?

 
At 24 March, 2010 05:15, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

So, was there, like, a point to that complete and total bandwith theft?

 
At 24 March, 2010 05:34, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lazarus Long said...
So, was there, like, a point to that complete and total bandwith theft?
so, is there, like, a point to this complete and total waste of bandwith called SLC?

 
At 24 March, 2010 05:56, Blogger Locomotive Breath said...

The police ALWAYS suspect the husband first. Kinda like you'd suspect the people who hijacked four planes first.

 
At 24 March, 2010 06:30, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Locomotive Breath said...
The police ALWAYS suspect the husband first. Kinda like you'd suspect the people who hijacked four planes first.

yea the people with the most to gain from a crime are usually never the same people who commit said crime, right?

 
At 24 March, 2010 07:04, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Anonymous said...
Lazarus Long said...
So, was there, like, a point to that complete and total bandwith theft?
so, is there, like, a point to this complete and total waste of bandwith called SLC?
"

Oh, I wouldn't call SLC a waste.

It exposes sane people to the kind of paranoid, delusional thinking, exemplified by yourself, that is the hallmark of the Twoooofer™ clique.

Oh, and BTW, dumbass, you BOLD the person you're quoting, then make you comment.

 
At 24 March, 2010 07:28, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lazarus Long said...
"Anonymous said...
Lazarus Long said...
So, was there, like, a point to that complete and total bandwith theft?
so, is there, like, a point to this complete and total waste of bandwith called SLC?"

Oh, I wouldn't call SLC a waste.

It exposes sane people to the kind of paranoid, delusional thinking, exemplified by yourself, that is the hallmark of the Twoooofer™ clique.

Oh, and BTW, dumbass, you BOLD the person you're quoting, then make you comment.

for being an instructor on e etiquette you sure are rude, anyway do i have your pov right? that, because we don't now know – for sure, out in the open, for all to see – that 9/11 was the result of a military industrial complex conspiracy, then it was not such a conspiracy, and will never be revealed, in the future, to be the result of such a conspiracy.

And this, in turn, is simply because no whistleblower has come forward with sufficient evidence to prove the existence said conspiracy, because a conspiracy this large would have to have at least one person who would be a whistle blower. which in turn is because there is no conspiracy to prove.

did you like the allegory?

 
At 24 March, 2010 07:41, Blogger James B. said...

Yet another troofer doesn't understand the concept of burden of proof. Because I don't know for certain that you do not molest little children must mean that we certainly must consider the possibility that you molest little children.

 
At 24 March, 2010 07:41, Blogger James B. said...

I am just asking questions here.

 
At 24 March, 2010 08:08, Blogger Billman said...

We need to open a new investigation into wether or not Anonymous molests children!

 
At 24 March, 2010 08:29, Anonymous Anonymous said...

James B. said...
Yet another troofer doesn't understand the concept of burden of proof. Because I don't know for certain that you do not molest little children must mean that we certainly must consider the possibility that you molest little children.

yea evidence, we had so much "evidence" that osama did 9/11 that we invaded two countries, so much evidence, the fbi doesn't 9/11 on the most wanted page of OBL

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm

you're right you don't know for certain that i don't molest children and puppies and guppies. but what we do know for certain, is that the architects of the "war on terror" all signed a document called rebuilding americas defenses.
one of my all time “favorite” quotes from “Rebuilding” (“favorite” because it's so telling, not because it's a good thing) is this:

“And advanced forms of biological warfare that can 'target' specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.” http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

I urge you to think about that statement and let it sink in. Reread it a few times. Let it bounce around in your head for a while.

first, we have the idea of biological warfare that “can 'target' specific genotypes”.
we're talking about some horrible disease that can be tweaked so that it will destroy anybody with a particular set of genes, and only those people. please correct me if i'm wrong. but that would be not just the “soldiers” or the “terrorists”. everybody. Men. Women. Children. Babies. Old folks, everybody with gene type.
that last bit is the real clincher. “A politically useful tool.” we're talking about the ability to commit genocide. And they're calling it a “ politically useful tool.” No more “terror”, no more horror. POOF, it's been magically transformed into a wonderful tool, like a screw driver, or a good set of wrenches.

do you really think people who see genocide as a tool of politics should be ignored as suspects? that certain people should be above investigation? that they should be allowed to testify without being under oath, basically testify with the right to lie? did bill clinton have to swear an oath during the monica lewinsky investigation? just a question.

 
At 24 March, 2010 08:35, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Billman said...
We need to open a new investigation into wether or not Anonymous molests children!

do you think we could testify side by side, you and me? just like president bush and vp cheney, we wouldn't even have to be sworn in. i could tell the truth about how i'm praying for you and you could make up any shit you wanted and not worry about perjury. win, win!!

 
At 24 March, 2010 09:28, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"for being an instructor on e etiquette you sure are rude,"

No, I was just pointing out a small detail, as if it were needed, what a dumb shit you are.

"anyway do i have your pov right?"

Ummmm........

No.

"that, because we don't now know – for sure, out in the open, for all to see – that 9/11 was the result of a military industrial complex conspiracy,"

Osama bin Laden is part of the "military-industrial complex"????

Who knew?

"then it was not such a conspiracy,"

No, it wasn't.

"and will never be revealed,"

Not only is it revealed, the perps go on the internet and brag about it.

A lot of them have been caught and will go on trial.

"in the future,"

No need, we know what happened.

"to be the result of such a conspiracy."

Whatevs...

"And this, in turn, is simply because no whistleblower has come forward with sufficient evidence to prove the existence said conspiracy,"

The whistleblower is Osama bin Laden.

"because a conspiracy this large would have to have at least one person who would be a whistle blower."

1.) It wasn't large.

2.) The whistle done been blowed.

"which in turn is because there is no conspiracy to prove."

It's been proven already.

Just because you're too fucking stupid to understand it doesn't mean it's not true.





did you like the allegory?

 
At 24 March, 2010 09:29, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"did you like the allegory?"

I like allegory with fava beans a nd a nice chianti.

 
At 24 March, 2010 09:49, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lazarus Long said...
"for being an instructor on e etiquette you sure are rude,"

No, I was just pointing out a small detail, as if it were needed, what a dumb shit you are.

"anyway do i have your pov right?"

Ummmm........

No.

"that, because we don't now know – for sure, out in the open, for all to see – that 9/11 was the result of a military industrial complex conspiracy,"

Osama bin Laden is part of the "military-industrial complex"????

Who knew?

"then it was not such a conspiracy,"

No, it wasn't.

"and will never be revealed,"

Not only is it revealed, the perps go on the internet and brag about it.

A lot of them have been caught and will go on trial.

"in the future,"

No need, we know what happened.

"to be the result of such a conspiracy."

Whatevs...

"And this, in turn, is simply because no whistleblower has come forward with sufficient evidence to prove the existence said conspiracy,"

The whistleblower is Osama bin Laden.

"because a conspiracy this large would have to have at least one person who would be a whistle blower."

1.) It wasn't large.

2.) The whistle done been blowed.

"which in turn is because there is no conspiracy to prove."

It's been proven already.

Just because you're too fucking stupid to understand it doesn't mean it's not true.





did you like the allegory?
sorry lazzie, that't not an allegory, it's called an ad hominem insult, but as you say whatevs. and by military industrial complex i was thinking more like bush, cheney, rumsfeld, ya know the usual suspects.
i know you guys love working your logic backwards from the idea that OBL and 19 saudis can pull off a 9/11 but military industrial contractors are too incompetent to do it.

 
At 24 March, 2010 10:07, Anonymous Anonymous said...

James B. said...
I am just asking questions here.

OMG james, hurry call your senator and congressman, they're voting to take away viagra from child molesters, this effects you, it's your viagra fight for it.

 
At 24 March, 2010 10:14, Anonymous John E. Smoke said...

I'm sure this asshole will get a statistically irrelevant share of votes, then he'll cry foul about some shadowy nonsensical conspiracy (coincidentally run by Jews) to prevent him from being elected to office for some reason, then he'll start bawwwing about aliens and non-existent explosives and steel being impervious to heat, we'll (the sane people) point and laugh, and get on with our lives, and he'll continue to waste his existence on crazy shit nobody gives a fuck about.
The only question is how statistically irrelevant a share of the vote he gets. And even then it's not worth answering, because most people have much better things to do than worry about paranoid delusions such as the ones that make up 9/11 Trutherism.

 
At 24 March, 2010 10:15, Blogger Pat said...

Using the "cui bono" principle, I have deduced that the French were responsible for Pearl Harbor. After all, they gained the most from it.

 
At 24 March, 2010 10:53, Anonymous sackcloth and ashes said...

If Oxygen theft was a crime, Anonymous would be in jail.

 
At 24 March, 2010 11:02, Blogger Billman said...

Billman said...
We need to open a new investigation into wether or not Anonymous molests children!

Anonymous said...
do you think we could testify side by side, you and me?


For what? 9/11? or you molesting children? Because I'm seriously joking when I said you molest children, (humor, even bad humor, is something you troofers never understand) because I'm trying to make a point the troof movement calls for a new investigation over every little speculative thing.

But if you want to debate me side by side about 9/11, I'm all for it.

just like president bush and vp cheney, we wouldn't even have to be sworn in.

OH no, I'll insist to be sworn in. You see... MY witnesses don't get ARRESTED for beating up girls in wheelchairs, or embezzle funds from their own charity groups, NOR do they SHOOT UP museums and train stations, or kill thier fathers because Alex Jones tells them to, NOR do the scientists that agree with ME have to PAY to get thier papers published.

And MY evidence speaks for itself, you don't have to look at it one way, then reverse it, then turn it upside down, then make up a bunch of science to fit a theory in order to have it presented.

i could tell the truth about how i'm praying for you and you could make up any shit you wanted and not worry about perjury.

Yes, but YOU will have to worry about perjury. You just recycled a debunked claim about Osama Bin Laden and how the FBI doesn't have him on their list. Do you want me to call Rex Tomb himself to testify? Because I know how to get ahold of him. I've already posted that info for troofers the last time they brought this issue up.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. You're still bringing up shit that has been proven wrong.

win, win!!

Seriously, if you want to really debate 9/11 point by point, I'd be happy to. I'll stop with the ad-hominem attacks and sarcasm, and we'll seriously present evidence.

 
At 24 March, 2010 11:07, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pat said...
Using the "cui bono" principle, I have deduced that the French were responsible for Pearl Harbor. After all, they gained the most from it.


funny you should bring up pearl harbor; as we all know, that attack happened on December 7, 1941. a lesser known fact is that on December 18, 1941, then President Franklin Roosevelt signed an executive order to, quote, 'ascertain and report the facts relating to the attack made by the japanese armed forces upon the territory of hawaii on Dec. 7, 1941'

http://select.nytimes.com/mem/archive/pdf?res=F20D10FE3C58167B93C7AB178AD85F468485F9
since you smart guys know so much, how many days was it before then president bush stopped asking members of congress to 'limit the congressional investigation into the events of September 11'

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/01/29/inv.terror.probe/index.html

and generously increased the budget to 15 million.
pat, james, cons, laz, anyone, can anyone answer two questions?
how many days after 9/11 did the 9/11 commission begin it's inquiry?
how much did the government spend on finding out about bill clintons blow jobs?
oh, one more....
i asked before but nobody answers.... did bill clinton have to swear an oath before his deposition?
anyone, bueller?... meep meep?

 
At 24 March, 2010 11:19, Blogger Billman said...

How does any of that prove Inside jobby job with magic painted on thermite and no plane at the pentagon? What's your point, anonymous?

 
At 24 March, 2010 11:30, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Billman said...
Billman said...
We need to open a new investigation into wether or not Anonymous molests children!

Anonymous said...
do you think we could testify side by side, you and me?

For what? 9/11? or you molesting children? Because I'm seriously joking when I said you molest children, (humor, even bad humor, is something you troofers never understand) because I'm trying to make a point the troof movement calls for a new investigation over every little speculative thing.

But if you want to debate me side by side about 9/11, I'm all for it.

but if we don't look at every single thing how do we know something hasn't been missed? and i was joking too billy, it was funny hee heee hee, not hahahaha, but you're forgiven


OH no, I'll insist to be sworn in. You see... MY witnesses don't get ARRESTED for beating up girls in wheelchairs, or embezzle funds from their own charity groups, NOR do they SHOOT UP museums and train stations, or kill thier fathers because Alex Jones tells them to, NOR do the scientists that agree with ME have to PAY to get thier papers published.

And MY evidence speaks for itself, you don't have to look at it one way, then reverse it, then turn it upside down, then make up a bunch of science to fit a theory in order to have it presented.

how about this you provide your evidence, and i'll provide mine with links to back it up. if you can do the same, great, if not, thats ok too. we'll let the reader decide. ok?
however, i'm not sure any of the whistle blowers i know of have done the stuff you describe, did sibel edmonds hit a girl in a wheel chair?



Yes, but YOU will have to worry about perjury. You just recycled a debunked claim about Osama Bin Laden and how the FBI doesn't have him on their list. Do you want me to call Rex Tomb himself to testify? Because I know how to get ahold of him. I've already posted that info for troofers the last time they brought this issue up.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse. You're still bringing up shit that has been proven wrong.
did you paste the address? got to the page, please show me where the fbi lists the crimes of 9/11, we ok here it is againhttp://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm
check it out, go a head, it's not there, and anyone who can paste the link into a browser will see that


Seriously, if you want to really debate 9/11 point by point, I'd be happy to. I'll stop with the ad-hominem attacks and sarcasm, and we'll seriously present evidence.


awesome!! yea!!!
but i have to be honest, my goal is not to persuade you beyond a doubt the military industrial complex / pnac orchestrated 9/11.
if you agree my goal will be to persuade you enough evidence, circumstantial and hard, exists that members of pnac should have been investigated in a more thorough manner and by failing to pursue a more thorough investigation the possibility exists that the actual perpetrators of 9/11 remain unrevealed.
is it a deal?
please say yes:)

 
At 24 March, 2010 11:33, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Billman said...
How does any of that prove Inside jobby job with magic painted on thermite and no plane at the pentagon? What's your point, anonymous?

sorry, billy, but when did i mention anything you just posted?

would it be possible to get an answer on the questions?

also, can we consider this part of the debate? good try with the strawman arguement:)

 
At 24 March, 2010 11:38, Anonymous al c. said...

Anonymous says - "how many days after 9/11 did the 9/11 commission begin it's inquiry?"

Who cares how many days it was? If your deluded New world order fantasies were true, surely they WOULDN'T wait so long, ie it's a bit obvious. Imagine the scenes at NWO hq - Damn it! Why didn't we start the enquiry sooner?

Ah no! If only we hadn't released that document about genotypes & biological warfare! We're doomed!

Here's a tip, - chicks don't go for lonely losers who make tortuous posts about the military industrial complex & genotypes, like you have any idea what you're talking about.

As for that pointless fucking parable that nobody will read, - how long did that take you? What a waste of time, not unlike yourself.

 
At 24 March, 2010 11:46, Blogger Billman said...

but if we don't look at every single thing how do we know something hasn't been missed?

Then you'll be looking forever... everytime someone says "Did we look for gorilla?" shit, back to the investigation... "Oh crap, did we check for oranges?" shit, back to the investigation... do you get what I'm saying? Maybe I'm over-exaggeration and being to literal, but that's what it seems like the troof movement really is doing.

and i was joking too billy, it was funny hee heee hee, not hahahaha, but you're forgiven

Not really going for any real laughs. Sometimes it's just trolling.

how about this you provide your evidence, and i'll provide mine with links to back it up.

That's what I implied. It would be pointless to say "So and so did or did not happen" without some kind of link to back it up, right?

if you can do the same, great, if not, thats ok too. we'll let the reader decide. ok?

The requires the reader to actually look at the link, which troofers are notorious for not doing.

however, i'm not sure any of the whistle blowers i know of have done the stuff you describe, did sibel edmonds hit a girl in a wheel chair?

Damnit, I forget who it was that did it at the moment. It's in the archive here, though.

did you paste the address? got to the page, please show me where the fbi lists the crimes of 9/11, we ok here it is againhttp://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm
check it out, go a head, it's not there, and anyone who can paste the link into a browser will see that


Rex Tomb said...

"There's no mystery here," said FBI spokesman Rex Tomb. "They could add 9/11 on there, but they have not because they don't need to at this point. . . . There is a logic to it."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/27/AR2006082700687.html

But troofers ignore that, and claim he said "there's no hard evidence" when it fact he never said that, but was reported saying that by some guy at the Muckracker report.


awesome!! yea!!!
but i have to be honest, my goal is not to persuade you beyond a doubt the military industrial complex / pnac orchestrated 9/11.
if you agree my goal will be to persuade you enough evidence, circumstantial and hard, exists that members of pnac should have been investigated in a more thorough manner and by failing to pursue a more thorough investigation the possibility exists that the actual perpetrators of 9/11 remain unrevealed.
is it a deal?
please say yes:)


But, the actual perpetrators of 9/11 ARE revealed. We KNOW who did it.

You're just choosing to believe that the government, not wanting to admit they probably should've have paid more attention to terror warnings, and also, not really holding anyone accountable for that (as far as I know), is somehow equalling "THERMITE IN TOWERS! AHH!"

 
At 24 March, 2010 12:01, Blogger Pat said...

Bush and Cheney were not sworn in so they could lie to the 9-11 Commission. Because, you know, they were willing to kill 3,000 people to start their wars of aggression, but they weren't going to lie under oath. No sir! Why, you could get a fine for lying under oath!

 
At 24 March, 2010 12:20, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"There's no mystery here," said FBI spokesman Rex Tomb. "They could add 9/11 on there, but they have not because they don't need to at this point. . . . There is a logic to it."

and what logic would that be? it's logical not list a most wanted persons biggest crimes?

But, the actual perpetrators of 9/11 ARE revealed. We KNOW who did it.

You're just choosing to believe that the government, not wanting to admit they probably should've have paid more attention to terror warnings, and also, not really holding anyone accountable for that (as far as I know), is somehow equalling "THERMITE IN TOWERS! AHH!"

whats with the strawmen attack, thanks for rex tombs link, but the it comes up error -washingtonpost.com. could you get another? i'm still hoping someone around here can answer the questions i asked earlier. go for it billy:)

how many days after 9/11 did the 9/11 commission begin it's inquiry?

how much did the government spend on finding out about bill clintons blow jobs?

did bill clinton have to swear an oath before his deposition?

i guess i'll just do it for you, it took bush more than a year to sign the 9/11 commission into being and only after a shitload of pressure, he did it on 11/27/2002 with a budget of 3 million.
by comparison on dec 18th 1941; 11 days after pearl harbor not a lot of time. Because, of course, the President would want a full accounting, and as soon as possible. not logical by rex tombs standards i guess.

the other two are quick, i'm sure you know and don't care but, yes bill clinton had to swear and oath for his deposition that lead to his impeachment, all over weird land deals and then blow jobs. all for the price of 30 million, only double the amount that would finally be spent on the 9/11 commission.
be logical, how can we spend twice as much money investigating presidential blowjobs than on the the most horrific attacks in our nations history? how can let two suspects testify side by side without requiring them to swear and oath, clinton swore one, but bush and cheney need not?

 
At 24 March, 2010 12:26, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pat said...
Bush and Cheney were not sworn in so they could lie to the 9-11 Commission. Because, you know, they were willing to kill 3,000 people to start their wars of aggression, but they weren't going to lie under oath. No sir! Why, you could get a fine for lying under oath!

pat, you're here awesome!!!
they would have lied under oath if forced to testify, probably.

but i'm sure people who see genocide as a useful political tool would have little trouble killing 3000 americans, cause if you believe what pnac believes, thats a small price to pay to make sure america remains safe and on top.

paste the address to "Rebuilding Americas Defenses" up above it's a scary read.


and thanks for admitting your errors about kurt haskell!!

 
At 24 March, 2010 12:27, Blogger Billman said...

"There's no mystery here," said FBI spokesman Rex Tomb. "They could add 9/11 on there, but they have not because they don't need to at this point. . . . There is a logic to it."

and what logic would that be? it's logical not list a most wanted persons biggest crimes?

Heh, don't ask ME. I didn't say it.

whats with the strawmen attack,

Not intentional. I don't know what your feelings on 9/11 are, so I generalized. My bad. DO you beleive the buildins were brought down in a controlled demo? If not, then scratch that... most troofers do, though, so I just assumed.

thanks for rex tombs link, but the it comes up error -washingtonpost.com. could you get another?

try this again:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/27/AR2006082700687.html

If that still doesn't work for some reason (maybe it's the NWO), just go to google and type in "rex tomb washington post" and it should be the first link.

 
At 24 March, 2010 12:28, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Idiot scribbles, "...whats with the strawmen attack, thanks for rex tombs link, but the it comes up error -washingtonpost.com"

No it doesn't. Try again.

Source: Washington Post: Bin Laden, Most Wanted For Embassy Bombings?

"...David N. Kelley, the former U.S. attorney in New York who oversaw terrorism cases when bin Laden was indicted for the embassy bombings there in 1998, said he is not at all surprised by the lack of a reference to Sept. 11 on the official wanted poster. Kelley said the issue is a matter of legal restrictions and the need to be fair to any defendant."

 
At 24 March, 2010 12:32, Blogger Billman said...

Hey Pat, this is something I've been thinking for a while, let me know if it's absurd to you..

But from some of these things the troofers dig up about qoutes Bin Landen said, and this whole FBI thing, I sometimes wonder if Bin laden was really unaware that Al Qaeda was doing this thing at the time, and then just took credit as the mastermind for it in the end.

But then again, I really don't pay attention to the Osama part of this whole thing, so I may be missing some info.

 
At 24 March, 2010 12:50, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Billman said...
"There's no mystery here," said FBI spokesman Rex Tomb. "They could add 9/11 on there, but they have not because they don't need to at this point. . . . There is a logic to it."

and what logic would that be? it's logical not list a most wanted persons biggest crimes?

Heh, don't ask ME. I didn't say it.

whats with the strawmen attack,

Not intentional. I don't know what your feelings on 9/11 are, so I generalized. My bad. DO you beleive the buildins were brought down in a controlled demo? If not, then scratch that... most troofers do, though, so I just assumed.

thanks for rex tombs link, but the it comes up error -washingtonpost.com. could you get another?

try this again:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/27/AR2006082700687.html

If that still doesn't work for some reason (maybe it's the NWO), just go to google and type in "rex tomb washington post" and it should be the first link.

still didn't work, but guitarbills did, and it begs the question, if there is all this evidence that bin laden did 9/11, where is it?

and i doubt the nwo moved the page, probable link rot.

and the thought that bin laden is just taking credit for the work of someone else sounds a bit conspiratorial, but it could explain why the charge of 9/11 isn't listed on his most wanted page and rex tomb did say “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Osama bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.” the post picked up the story a few weeks later but left that part out.

http://www.milligazette.com/dailyupdate/2006/20060612_bin_laden_911_fbi.htm

 
At 24 March, 2010 14:23, Blogger Pat said...

Bill, it is pretty well-established that Osama was not the brains behind the operation. That role belonged to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who brought the plan to Osama. Osama's role was more to provide financing for the operation, and the muscle hijackers, although he clearly knew the details prior to 9-11.

 
At 24 March, 2010 14:25, Blogger rjschwarz said...

I enjoyed Anonymous's little tale at the start of this thread. So is the point a comparison of the editor who didn't publish that letter and the media that doesn't show footage of 9/11 to avoid inflaming the population?

I suspect the more that footage is shown the less credibility the truthers would have after all.

I suspect if the Media spent some time debunking the foolishness of the truthers the less credibility they would have.

NASA faced similar nonsense and refused to really confront it and the nonsense grew and grew. Until Sept 11 when the conspiracy people flocked away from UFO's and fake moon landings over to their newest secret.

 
At 24 March, 2010 14:40, Blogger Billman said...

Bill, it is pretty well-established that Osama was not the brains behind the operation. That role belonged to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who brought the plan to Osama.

Ah well that clears up what I was thinking.

Osama's role was more to provide financing for the operation, and the muscle hijackers, although he clearly knew the details prior to 9-11.

Heh, so I was a little confused there. Makes sense now.

So then, KSM should be the one on the most wanted list for 9/11, correct? All this talk about Osama is now moot if it's really KSMs idea.

Oh wait, KSM is already in our custody... so.. now what, troofers?

 
At 24 March, 2010 16:18, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"how many days after 9/11 did the 9/11 commission begin it's inquiry?"


Nobody cares

"how much did the government spend on finding out about bill clintons blow jobs?"

Even more people don't care.

 
At 24 March, 2010 16:28, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

I just gotta say that the annoymouse troll on this thread IS THE MOST FUCKING IRRITATING MORONIC TWOOOOFER™ EVAH!

We now return to our regularly scheduled spamming.

 
At 24 March, 2010 16:53, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pat: "Using the "cui bono" principle, I have deduced that the French were responsible for Pearl Harbor. After all, they gained the most from it."

Me: How so?

Pat: "Bush and Cheney were not sworn in so they could lie to the 9-11 Commission. Because, you know, they were willing to kill 3,000 people to start their wars of aggression, but they weren't going to lie under oath. No sir! Why, you could get a fine for lying under oath!"

Me: Perhaps they took some tips from Bill Clinton. Why lie under oath when you can lie not under oath? I think that's a fairly reasonable assessment of their behavior. At the time, they were torturing people too, betraying CIA officers, shooting people in the face, etc, yet at other times, maintained the facade of being law abiding, or at least, worked within the system. I think both criminal and lawful acts can coexist just fine in the behavioral patterns of politicians... just like ordinary criminals. The difference: the money, power and influence to subvert the judicial system.

 
At 24 March, 2010 17:50, Anonymous Patrick from Cincinnati said...

Do I have to keep saying this?

The "cui bono" principle tells me that Robert Downey Jr. did 911. The media was hounding him prior to 911; there was no way he was going to get sober with all that pressure.

And look at him now.

 
At 24 March, 2010 17:58, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Patrick from Cincinnati: "Do I have to keep saying this?

The "cui bono" principle tells me that Robert Downey Jr. did 911. The media was hounding him prior to 911; there was no way he was going to get sober with all that pressure.

And look at him now."

Me: Did Robert Downey Jr. also have means and opportunity? I understand that the cui bono principle can be driven to absurdity, though. I was wondering how Pat figured that France, of all countries, benefited from PH though..I guess because it brought the United States into the war. However, again, did France have the means and the opportunity?

 
At 24 March, 2010 19:56, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

" Anonymous said...
Pat: "Using the "cui bono" principle, I have deduced that the French were responsible for Pearl Harbor. After all, they gained the most from it."

Me: How so?"

Me: you're an idiot.

 
At 24 March, 2010 20:31, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lazarus Long: "you're an idiot."

Me: Why? Because I ask for clarification? I'm sure calling people names is a preferable alternative to you, but not to me..

 
At 24 March, 2010 23:06, Blogger GuitarBill said...

LL wrote, "...I just gotta say that the annoymouse troll on this thread IS THE MOST FUCKING IRRITATING MORONIC TWOOOOFER™ EVAH!"

Nah, it's the infamous and insane conspiratard, Glenn Maxey.

 
At 25 March, 2010 02:02, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lazarus Long said...
"how many days after 9/11 did the 9/11 commission begin it's inquiry?"


Nobody cares

"how much did the government spend on finding out about bill clintons blow jobs?"

Even more people don't care.


and isn't this the real problem?

debunkers don't care about the truth, only insulting people they don't agree with.

it doesn't matter that bush stalled the investigation for more than a year, in the debunker mind thats normal; once a tragic event happens, delay any investigation as long as possible, right?

same with the funding to run the unwanted 9/11 investigation, who cares that twice as much was spent investigating bill and hillary, their sex lives are way more important than the deaths of 3000 americans, right?

it's so telling when SLC and debunkers show their true colors.

questions asked by family members of the victims of 9/11.

http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html

who cares fuck em' their stupid for not shutting up and supporting the war on terror!

why are they supporting terrorist anyway?

questioning those in authority is so unpatriotic they and their families deservered what they got, right?

 
At 25 March, 2010 06:06, Anonymous sackcloth and ashes said...

If we followed the cui bono principle, we'd dispute the fact that Austria-Hungary started WWI by declaring war on Serbia on 28th July 1914, because the Habsburg empire didn't benefit. Or that Germany invaded Poland on 1st September 1939, because WWII led to the destruction of the Third Reich.

As Matt Damon's character says in 'The Departed', 'Cui who gives a shit?' what morons like our Anonymous truther friend think?

 
At 25 March, 2010 07:38, Anonymous Anonymous said...

any thoughts on why so much more money and attention was paid to investigate to bill clintons sex life as opposed to the investigation of the deaths of 3k plus people?

anyone, bueller? meep meep?

 
At 25 March, 2010 11:11, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...any thoughts on why so much more money and attention was paid to investigate to bill clintons sex life as opposed to the investigation of the deaths of 3k plus people?"

The answer is simple: A Republican-controlled Congress.

Obviously, the Republican-controlled Congress was willing to spend 100 million to attack their enemy, Bill Clinton. The same Republican-controlled Congress looked the other way when the Bush administration ignored the threat posed by Al Qaeda.

Does this outcome surprise you?

How does any of this "lead to one inescapable conclusion: INSIDE JOBBY JOB"?

%^)

 
At 25 March, 2010 11:13, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"debunkers don't care about the truth, only insulting people they don't agree with."

Naw, we insult retarded twoooofers™ becasue they refuse to see and acknowledge the truth.

And it's fun making the monkeys dance.


"questions asked by family members of the victims of 9/11."

Nobody cares.

"why are they supporting terrorist anyway?"

So, why ARE you supporting terrorists?

 
At 25 March, 2010 12:21, Anonymous Anonymous said...

GuitarBill said...
"...any thoughts on why so much more money and attention was paid to investigate to bill clintons sex life as opposed to the investigation of the deaths of 3k plus people?"

The answer is simple: A Republican-controlled Congress.

Obviously, the Republican-controlled Congress was willing to spend 100 million to attack their enemy, Bill Clinton. The same Republican-controlled Congress looked the other way when the Bush administration ignored the threat posed by Al Qaeda.

Does this outcome surprise you?

How does any of this "lead to one inescapable conclusion: INSIDE JOBBY JOB"?

when you spend twice as much investigating blow jobs then on the biggest attack on the country, and stall any inquiry for more than year it looks a bit suspect.

how many days to start the inquiry into pearl harbor? 11.
the 9/11 attacks? more than a year.

bill clintons blow job? 30 million.

the 9/11 attacks? first a reluctant 3 million, then grudgingly 12 million more.

i bring up pearl harbor because the U.S. had multiple enemies with vast armies and resources, but FDR initiated an investigation only 11 days later.

it took bush more than a year to allow an inquiry. we were told that any investigation into 9/11 would interfere with on going intel ops and that we couldn't spare the resources because we were at war.

guess what? the ops failed we never caught bin laden. super lucky that bin laden, always a step a head and lucky lucky, lucky, allah must really like him.

the funny thing is, debunkers really do believe that the U.S. really is incapable of a serious investigation, and bombing a third world country back to the stone age at the same time, well the parts of a third world country that aren't already in the stone age.

as i told billy i'm not trying to prove "inside jobby jobby" but i do feel that there is enough evidence to warrant an investigation into members of PNAC.




Lazarus Long said...
"debunkers don't care about the truth, only insulting people they don't agree with."

Naw, we insult retarded twoooofers™ becasue they refuse to see and acknowledge the truth.

And it's fun making the monkeys dance.

oh, i get it, like watching debunks stutter and get violent when you ask them to define the word conspiracy.

"questions asked by family members of the victims of 9/11."

Nobody cares.

"why are they supporting terrorist anyway?"

So, why ARE you supporting terrorists?
the best slc can offer ad hominem attack and a lack of and decency or conscience.
you never disappoint laz,
i know you're used to communicating in retardese but please try english, you might find that people actually understand the things you say.

 
At 25 March, 2010 12:42, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"oh, i get it, like watching debunks stutter and get violent when you ask them to define the word conspiracy"

Ummmm, who can't define "conspiracy"?

That's just....stupid.

"the best slc can offer ad hominem attack and a lack of and decency or conscience."

Yet the America-hating, apoplectic, spittle covered conspiracy mongers are just fine and dandy, right asshelmet?

Isn't a lunatic conspiracy monger twoooofer accusing someone of "lack of and decency or conscience" sort of like a Nazi pleading that he was only following orders?

So why ARE you supporting terrorists?

You never answered the question.

 
At 25 March, 2010 17:19, Anonymous jw said...

anonymous says, - "when you spend twice as much investigating blow jobs then on the biggest attack on the country, and stall any inquiry for more than year it looks a bit suspect", "bill clintons blow job? 30 million."

You seem to have an idee fixe on this matter, anonymous. Interesting.

"debunkers don't care about the truth, only insulting people they don't agree with." It's pretty obvious what you care about, because you keep talking about it. Ha ha!

 
At 25 March, 2010 19:52, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lazarus Long said...
"oh, i get it, like watching debunks stutter and get violent when you ask them to define the word conspiracy"

Ummmm, who can't define "conspiracy"?



every, not just a few, but all the debunkers i've ever met in person did not know the definition of the word conspiracy.

Yet the America-hating, apoplectic, spittle covered conspiracy mongers are just fine and dandy, right asshelmet?

i love how anyone who doesn't march in lock step with fox news is an "America-hating, apoplectic, spittle covered conspiracy monger"
why do debunkers hate the victims of 9/11 and they're families? why won't you let them find closure? we're just looking for closure


http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html

Isn't a lunatic conspiracy monger twoooofer accusing someone of "lack of and decency or conscience" sort of like a Nazi pleading that he was only following orders?

no not at all, but opinions are like assholes and laz you're a huge asshole.

So why ARE you supporting terrorists?


how is seeking justice supporting terror?

how did delaying the investigation for more than a year help?



You never answered the question.

and you never any answer any questions at all so what's you're point?

 
At 25 March, 2010 20:23, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"every, not just a few, but all the debunkers i've ever met in person did not know the definition of the word conspiracy."

Riiiiggghhhhtttttt......

So, did you notice that all the debunkers you've ever met were treating you like a screaming, sandwich board carrying lunatic?

What's that?

You ARE a screaming, sandwich board carrying lunatic?

"i love how anyone who doesn't march in lock step with fox(sic) news is an "America-hating, apoplectic, spittle covered conspiracy monger""

That'd just be the screaming, sandwich board carrying lunatics.

"why do debunkers hate the victims of 9/11 and they're families?"

Hate is just SO strong a word.

"why won't you let them find closure?"

I really, really hate the term "closure". Just so you know.

"we're just looking for closure"

So now you're a "family member"?

Riiiiggghhhhtttttt......

"no not at all, but opinions are like assholes and laz you're a huge asshole."

Poor stab at an insult, asshelmet.

Go back to high school, hone your skills, then try again later.

Say in three years.

"how is seeking justice supporting terror?"

Because you're not seeking "justice", you're giving aid and comfort to America's enemies.

And yes,that is the definition of treason.


"and you never any answer any questions at all so what's you're point?"

Ees not my yob, mon.

You're the one with the insane conspiracy theories, and it's up to you to prove them.

 
At 25 March, 2010 20:26, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

Oh, and pick a username and stick with it, will you?

I don't have a program to identify the nuts.

 
At 25 March, 2010 22:36, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You wont find them in your trousers either, eunuch.

 
At 25 March, 2010 23:49, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous wrote, "...You wont find them in your trousers either, eunuch."

That true! After all, they're bouncing off your chin.

%^)

 
At 26 March, 2010 00:28, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Considering he's an eunuch, that sounds like a scene from Cannibal Holocaust.

 
At 26 March, 2010 02:00, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lazarus Long said...
"every, not just a few, but all the debunkers i've ever met in person did not know the definition of the word conspiracy."

Riiiiggghhhhtttttt......

So, did you notice that all the debunkers you've ever met were treating you like a screaming, sandwich board carrying lunatic?

What's that?

You ARE a screaming, sandwich board carrying lunatic?

"i love how anyone who doesn't march in lock step with fox(sic) news is an "America-hating, apoplectic, spittle covered conspiracy monger""

That'd just be the screaming, sandwich board carrying lunatics.

"why do debunkers hate the victims of 9/11 and they're families?"

Hate is just SO strong a word.

"why won't you let them find closure?"

I really, really hate the term "closure". Just so you know.

"we're just looking for closure"

So now you're a "family member"?

Riiiiggghhhhtttttt......

"no not at all, but opinions are like assholes and laz you're a huge asshole."

Poor stab at an insult, asshelmet.

Go back to high school, hone your skills, then try again later.

Say in three years.

"how is seeking justice supporting terror?"

Because you're not seeking "justice", you're giving aid and comfort to America's enemies.

And yes,that is the definition of treason.


"and you never any answer any questions at all so what's you're point?"

Ees not my yob, mon.

You're the one with the insane conspiracy theories, and it's up to you to prove them.

lazzie, please, english, i already told you i don't speak retardese.
as far as crazy conspiracy theories go, i spent weeks trying to get you guys to follow up on kurt haskell story.
the most i ever, oh sorry in retardese: evah, see from you is statements about how nobody cares.
only to have pat post:


Pat said...
Ix-nay on the Mar-Uay Arouk-Fay Dul-Abay Utallab-May! Eddie Haskell was right!


i think thats retardese for, we were wrong about kurt haskell and actually couldn't debunk his conspiracy theory because he told the truth.
please read it tell me what you think it means, it's not you debunked shit, evah.

 
At 26 March, 2010 02:49, Anonymous sackcloth and ashes said...

'any thoughts on why so much more money and attention was paid to investigate to bill clintons sex life as opposed to the investigation of the deaths of 3k plus people?'

Political partisanship on the part of Ken Starr. And if you check your facts you'll see that the figures you quote are for all of his work from the Whitewater investigation onwards, not just for Lewinsky.

Next question?

 
At 26 March, 2010 06:25, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"lazzie, please, english, i already told you i don't speak retardese."

Stooopid the first time, sttoooopider the second.

"as far as crazy conspiracy theories go, i spent weeks trying to get you guys to follow up on kurt haskell story."

Who the fuck is "Kurt Haskell" (the proper spelling, btw, it's a proper name) and why should anyone give a flying fuck about him?

"the most i ever, oh sorry in retardese: evah, see from you is statements about how nobody cares."

No sane person does. And I lurve lurve lurve making the monkey's dance by pointing that fact out.


"please read it tell me what you think it means, it's not you debunked shit, evah."

You just keep on telling yourself that, keep on worshipping at the insane altar of the great god "Conspiracy".

Normal people will get on with their lives, paying no attention to the short-bus riding, window licking defectives of the twoooofer™ movement.

 
At 26 March, 2010 07:29, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lazarus Long said...
"lazzie, please, english, i already told you i don't speak retardese."

Stooopid the first time, sttoooopider the second.

more of that retardese, huh, do you have trouble making your self understood, i think your communication skills could use a little work

Who the fuck is "Kurt Haskell" (the proper spelling, btw, it's a proper name) and why should anyone give a flying fuck about him?


you can read all about the "debunking" of kurt haskells account of his flight with the christmas day bomber, of course that just one more PROVEN conspiracy


http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2009/12/unusual-sources.html

No sane person does. And I lurve lurve lurve making the monkey's dance by pointing that fact out.




You just keep on telling yourself that, keep on worshipping at the insane altar of the great god "Conspiracy".

Normal people will get on with their lives, paying no attention to the short-bus riding, window licking defectives of the twoooofer™ movement.

lazzie, laz, the trouble nobody is worshipping at the alter of conspiracy.
conspiracies do happen, as much as it hurts your brain to think that all criminals get caught because run out and confess their crimes in public doesn't mean the real world is anything like the version of it in your head.
the conspiracy to assassinate abraham lincoln, there's one.
the conspiracy by wealthy bankers that smedley butler foiled is another.
the CIA conspiracy to overthrow the democratically elected government of iran for oil.
oh yea watergate, that was a conspiracy too, the list goes on and on.

laz be honest with yourself, or as least as honest as you can be, we both know you don't deal in facts it's all profanity and ad hominem insults.

 
At 27 March, 2010 09:30, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"laz be honest with yourself, or as least as honest as you can be, we both know you don't deal in facts it's all profanity and ad hominem insults."

Prove some element of the Twoooofer™ conspiratoid canon, then.

One teeeensy, tiny little thing.

Then, maybe, I'll stop laughing at you and your posse of assclowns.

C'mon.

 
At 27 March, 2010 12:46, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lazarus Long said...
"laz be honest with yourself, or as least as honest as you can be, we both know you don't deal in facts it's all profanity and ad hominem insults."

Prove some element of the Twoooofer™ conspiratoid canon, then.

One teeeensy, tiny little thing.

Then, maybe, I'll stop laughing at you and your posse of assclowns.

C'mon.

so the christmas day panty bomber doesn't count?

could you define "conspiratoid canon" i'm not sure what that is, is there a online reference?

http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html

check out that site for a list of unanswered questions related to 9/11.

i already showed billy that the fbi doesn't in fact, list 9/11 on bin ladens most wanted page due to a lack of evidence.

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm

When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on the FBI's web page, Rex Tomb of the FBI's public affairs unit is reported to have said, "The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden's Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11."

http://www.milligazette.com/dailyupdate/2006/20060612_bin_laden_911_fbi.htm

that story above was picked up by the post picked more than a month later.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/27/AR2006082700687.html

i notice that billy gave up on debate, let me know what conspiratoid canon you got in mind.

 
At 27 March, 2010 20:53, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html

check out that site for a list of unanswered questions related to 9/11."

I asked for proof, not questions, asshelmet.

"i already showed billy that the fbi doesn't in fact, list 9/11 on bin ladens most wanted page due to a lack of evidence."

BRRRRTTT!!!

Wrong.

"When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on the FBI's web page, Rex Tomb of the FBI's public affairs unit is reported to have said, "The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden's Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.""


BRRRRRRTTT!!!!

Wrong again.

Proof of ANYTHING in the twooooofer™ conspiratoid canon, asshelmet.

Let's see proof.

 
At 27 March, 2010 21:43, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lazarus Long said...
"http://www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html

check out that site for a list of unanswered questions related to 9/11."

I asked for proof, not questions, asshelmet.

"i already showed billy that the fbi doesn't in fact, list 9/11 on bin ladens most wanted page due to a lack of evidence."

BRRRRTTT!!!

Wrong.

"When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on the FBI's web page, Rex Tomb of the FBI's public affairs unit is reported to have said, "The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden's Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.""


BRRRRRRTTT!!!!

Wrong again.

Proof of ANYTHING in the twooooofer™ conspiratoid canon, asshelmet.

Let's see proof.


http://www.milligazette.com/dailyupdate/2006/20060612_bin_laden_911_fbi.htm

read the proof and weep, or touch yourself, or whatever you do.

this is the problem with debunkers, they can't handle the truth and demand "proof" but a factual news report of rex tombs statement doesn't qualify as fact in the mind of a debunker.

i'm still waiting for a definition of "conspiratoid canon"

i guess we're not counting the "debunking" of christmas day panty bomber conspiracy?

 
At 27 March, 2010 22:03, Anonymous Anonymous said...

hey look laz

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wn61PJQGCUo


how is that cognitive dissonance working out for you?

 
At 28 March, 2010 07:37, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"i'm still waiting for a definition of "conspiratoid canon""

You really don't know what the word "canon" means, do you?

Aaaannnddd....

I ask for proof, and asshelmet produces......

a fucking Youtube video.

Great job, asshelmet.

Now, are you going to provided some proof, or are you just going to continue to play "yankee-my-wankee"?

One piece of proof, that's all I ask.

 
At 28 March, 2010 10:36, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lazarus Long said...
"i'm still waiting for a definition of "conspiratoid canon""

You really don't know what the word "canon" means, do you?

Aaaannnddd....

I ask for proof, and asshelmet produces......

a fucking Youtube video.

Great job, asshelmet.

Now, are you going to provided some proof, or are you just going to continue to play "yankee-my-wankee"?

One piece of proof, that's all I ask.


http://www.milligazette.com/dailyupdate/2006/20060612_bin_laden_911_fbi.htm


read it and weep, for the third time.

are you fucking blind or did your mom drop you as a baby? repeatedly?

 
At 28 March, 2010 13:15, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

As expected, you "link" doesn't work.

Fucking retarded marmoset.

 
At 28 March, 2010 13:15, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

Now produce some proof, of shut the fuck up, moron.

 
At 28 March, 2010 13:57, Anonymous Satan said...

Your mother is here with us, Lazarus. Would you like to leave her a message? I'll see that she gets it.

 
At 28 March, 2010 17:30, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

Cleanup in aisl;e 9!

Troll droppings in aisle 9!

 
At 28 March, 2010 23:19, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lazarus Long said...
As expected, you "link" doesn't work.

Fucking retarded marmoset.


rex tombs words or the story that the post pick up on.

 
At 29 March, 2010 03:53, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

I asked for proof, not some whacked out Indian "newspaper", asshlemet.

Try again.

 
At 29 March, 2010 04:22, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lazarus Long said...
I asked for proof, not some whacked out Indian "newspaper", asshlemet.

Try again.


just cause you don't like the facts of the matter doesn't mean they're not true.

it's rex tombs words, "The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden's Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11."


i know it stings but it's for your own growth.

 
At 29 March, 2010 05:17, Anonymous Satan said...

Are you still haunted by the saccharine words of that imam, Lazarus? You were quietly infuriated. You almost yielded to blind anger right then and there. That was my doing.

How's life in Alexandria? Your dearly departed mother says hi. She told me she's proud of her grandson's rifle exam.

 
At 29 March, 2010 07:46, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"just cause you don't like the facts of the matter doesn't mean they're not true."

What "facts" where?

C'mon, fucktard, give us something, anything, that would tend to give a whiff of a hint of a scent of a glimmering of a tinge of a connotation that twoooofer™ conspiratard "theories" are true.

This is you last chance.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home