Monday, May 24, 2010

So Close....

And yet so far. I love this comment over at Truth Action:

Reportedly Dr. Griffin said quite emphatically at the Santa Cruz "Deep Politics" conference that Larry Silverstein had confessed to controlled demolition of Building 7. Such crap I expect from the likes of Barrett, but I don't understand how a rational and responsible person can make such a claim.


And:

What the hell has gone wrong with Griffin that he says such crap? Have his hero-worshippers given him such a swell (sic) head that he just says everything that pops into his mind?


Good gosh, have we finally found a sane Troofer?

Um, no:

My own suspicion is that Larry Silverstein deliberately made an ambiguous remark so that anti-semites would trip all over themselves construing it as an admission of controlled demolition, and thus they would discredit the controlled demolition hypothesis and associate 9/11 truth with antisemitism right from the start. It dismays me to see Griffin step in these traps.

188 Comments:

At 24 May, 2010 16:36, Blogger Triterope said...

My own suspicion is that Larry Silverstein deliberately made an ambiguous remark so that anti-semites would trip all over themselves construing it as an admission

They just can't leave it alone, can they? "Pull it" just has to mean something.

 
At 24 May, 2010 18:07, Anonymous paul w said...

"...they would discredit the controlled demolition hypothesis and associate 9/11 truth with antisemitism right from the start..."

As if it needed any help...

 
At 24 May, 2010 18:45, Blogger b. j. edwards said...

I see Jenny Sparks still can't get anything to "pull."

 
At 24 May, 2010 20:06, Anonymous Patrick from Cincinnati said...

Damn those pesky conniving dirty Jews for manipulating the anti-Semites of the truth movement!

 
At 24 May, 2010 20:11, Anonymous Anonymous said...

SLC: where good little reactionary statist errand boys learn how to stop thinking for themselves and love Big Brother

 
At 24 May, 2010 21:13, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Please enjoy these words from the world's most intelligent looking 9/11 Truther.

 
At 24 May, 2010 22:03, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"My conspiracy theory runs deeper and darker than your conspiracy theory. Therefore I'm smarter. So there."

 
At 25 May, 2010 03:45, Anonymous stilicho said...

What are they warbling on about over there. "[Griffin is] still in the game."

What game?

Aren't they supposed to be busting the 911 inside job wide open? All their 'perpetrators' are going to be dead of old age before they get their revolution even half-started.

Are any of them making any more films we can mock lately?

 
At 25 May, 2010 03:49, Anonymous stilicho said...

Anonymous said...
Please enjoy these words from the world's most intelligent looking 9/11 Truther.

24 May, 2010 21:13

---------

Someone should tell that guy the Bible told him he's nuts. And that Jesus hates him.

Think he'd start crying?

 
At 25 May, 2010 03:51, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Big Brother"

News flash: President Bush is out of office.

You elbow licking retard.

 
At 25 May, 2010 04:10, Blogger Triterope said...

Please enjoy these words from the world's most intelligent looking 9/11 Truther.

V for Vendetta? Check. Sheeple? Check. Orwell? Check. Anti-corporatism? Check. Inability to understand a simple internet concept? Check.

 
At 25 May, 2010 06:36, Anonymous Anonymous said...

SLC: where good little reactionary statist errand boys learn how to stop thinking for themselves and love Big Brother

SLC: Where people with half a functioning neuron left in thier brain that can still distinuish bullshit from reality come to laugh at the self-righteous 20 somethings living thier parent's basements and getting all paranoid and riled up about "big brother" and "NWO!!1!!1eleventy!"

Obama's in the white house now, by the way. Is he the same "big brother" you guys were bitching about when Bush was in office?

 
At 25 May, 2010 06:41, Blogger Billman said...

V for Vendetta? Check. Sheeple? Check. Orwell? Check. Anti-corporatism? Check. Inability to understand a simple internet concept? Check.

They forgot thier usual any sort of overly used cliched reference to the Matrix, i.e. ("down the rabbit hole", or "took the red/blue pill")

Because a Hollywood blockbuster movie is always a perfect example to troofers, and they NEVER see why that makes them so retarded.

 
At 25 May, 2010 07:54, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Would Dick Cheney murder 3000 people?

 
At 25 May, 2010 08:41, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

"Would Dick Cheney murder 3000 people?"

No, Even if he were that evil he is smart enough to know he could not get away with it.

You see my poor retarded friend, this is the real world and not some movie that simpletons like you think are reality. The super villain is rare in the real world and those that their are do it and don't care who knows, like OBL. The boogie man is the hot goblin of the childish mind, ergo why truthers buy the scam.

 
At 25 May, 2010 08:46, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

"Please enjoy these words from the world's most intelligent looking 9/11 Truther."

"About Me
I have been studying the Bible for more than 30 years, I believe that there are profound spiritual implications to what is going on in the world today. We are seeing prophecy being fulfilled before our eyes. You will see two blogs listed , "NC911Truth" will deal with exposing the truth about 911 and current events, "Questions & Thoughts" is a look at Bible teaching and prophecy in the light of this day. Your comments are welcome. To view all the past topics please click on "Search Blog" at the top of this page."

Wow! 30 years of bible study would make anyone prone to believing in fairy tales. Another DRG?

 
At 25 May, 2010 08:50, Anonymous Anonymous said...

But Dick Cheney is that evil. He has proven so time and time again. As for getting away with it... we never had a real investigation, so he may have gotten away with it.

 
At 25 May, 2010 10:13, Blogger avicenne said...

That bible bashing baboon lists one of his interests as "waking up the sleeping masses". Typical patronising bullshit from a man who claims to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ yet on one of his ridiculous blogs he "highly reccomends(sic)" that exercise in obscenity of a video that begins with "Meet Edna Cintron".

As for Grifter," What the hell has gone wrong with Griffin that he says such crap?" That's a question more than a few of us have pondered.

 
At 25 May, 2010 10:19, Anonymous Anonymous said...

SLC: Where people with half a functioning neuron left in thier [sic] brain that [sic] can still distinuish [sic] bullshit from reality come to laugh at the self-righteous 20 somethings living [in] thier [sic] parent's [sic] basements and getting [sic] all paranoid and riled up about "big brother" and "NWO!!1!!1eleventy!"

Did you know that the only person here who actually lived in his mom's basement is Troy Sexton, this blog's mascot?

Funny thing that.

 
At 25 May, 2010 13:06, Anonymous Pat Jokes About Gays said...

"Fuck America"
-Troy Sexton

"Troy is my buddy from West Virginia"
-Pat Curley

 
At 25 May, 2010 13:33, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Today's Washington Post
Jeff Stein's SPY TALK
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/spy-talk/2010/05/cia_group_had_wacky_ideas_to_d.html

CIA unit's wacky idea: Depict Saddam as gay

It goes on to say:

During planning for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the CIA's Iraq Operations Group kicked around a number of ideas for discrediting Saddam Hussein in the eyes of his people.

One was to create a video purporting to show the Iraqi dictator having sex with a teenage boy, according to two former CIA officials familiar with the project.

“It would look like it was taken by a hidden camera,” said one of the former officials. “Very grainy, like it was a secret videotaping of a sex session.”

The idea was to then “flood Iraq with the videos,” the former official said

Hmmmmmmmm...“look like it was taken by a hidden camera...Very grainy, like it was a secret videotaping" ....kind of like OBL with the fat nose and the gold ring.

If they would do this what makes you think that they wouldn't do that?

 
At 25 May, 2010 14:06, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Today's Washington Post
Jeff Stein's SPY TALK
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/spy-talk/2010/05/cia_group_had_wacky_ideas_to_d.html

CIA unit's wacky idea: Depict Saddam as gay

I missed this part...it further goes onto say:

The agency actually did make a video purporting to show Osama bin Laden and his cronies sitting around a campfire swigging bottles of liquor and savoring their conquests with boys, one of the former CIA officers recalled, chuckling at the memory. The actors were drawn from “some of us darker-skinned employees,” he said.

Then it says:

The reality, the former officials said, was that the agency really didn’t have enough money and expertise to carry out the projects.
“The military took them over,” said one. “They had assets in psy-war down at Ft. Bragg,” at the army’s special warfare center.


So...actors with darker skin playing OBL, hummm....“The military took them over...psy-war down at Ft. Bragg”

Checkmate

 
At 25 May, 2010 14:45, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why only one video of building 7 falling when everyone knew it was coming down hours before hand?

 
At 25 May, 2010 14:55, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Anonymous said...
But Dick Cheney is that evil."

No, no he's not. He's a patriotic American who devoted a lifetime of service to his country. Which is more than you'll ever be able to say. Either the patriotism part or the service part.

"He has proven so time and time again."

Like what? Where?

Prove it, moron.

"As for getting away with it..."

He didn't do anything to "get away with", retard.

"we never had a real investigation,"

Yes we have, idiot.

"so he may have gotten away with it."

What's "it", you retarded marmoset?

 
At 25 May, 2010 15:42, Blogger Billman said...

The only thin Dick Cheney ever really tried to "get away with" was accidentally shooting his buddy in the face, and even then its how you look at it.

His office didn't report it... RIGHT AWAY.. and the media, who had a tremendous grudge against the Bush administration at the time (for things like, always sending reporters known to ask difficult questions to the back of the room), found out this incident had taken place a few days prior to when the Cheney office reported it, did the troofer thing and blew it way out of porportion to what actually happened, and started screaming "cover up! cover up!" Which was retarded, especially considering the guy who was shot himself was wondering what the big deal was.

But somewhere in the troofer paranoid "I'm so smarterest than everybody else so I can see these things" part of the brain, troofers honestly think that Dick Cheney's friend was going to come forward about the 9/11 inside jobby job, and talked to Cheney about it during their buddy time hunting trip, and Cheney had to remind him of whose side he was on by shooting him in the face. Am I right, troofers?

 
At 25 May, 2010 16:39, Anonymous Anonymous said...

No, no he's not. He's a patriotic American who devoted a lifetime of service to his country.

"I had other priorities in the '60s than military service."
--- Dick Cheney, 1989

“Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.”
--- Dick Cheney August 26, 2002

What I saw was a cabal between the vice president of the United States, Richard Cheney, and the secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, on critical issues that made decisions that the bureaucracy did not know were being made.
---Larry Wilkerson, Former secretary of state Colin Powell's ex-chief of staff

“Oil companies are expected to keep developing enough oil to offset oil depletion and also to meet new demand...So where is this oil going to come from? Governments and national oil companies are obviously in control of 90 percent of the assets... The Middle East with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost is still where the prize ultimately lies.”
--- Halliburton Chairman Dick Cheney speech to the London Institute of Petroleum Autumn Lunch, November 1999

“I cannot think of a time when we have had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian. But the oil and gas there is worthless until it is moved. The only route which makes both political and economic sense is through Afghanistan.”
--- Dick Cheney, Chief Executive of Halliburton (1998)

“To be truthful about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened on September 11.”
--- Tony Blair comments to the Commons liaison committee, (London) Times, July 17, 2002

 
At 25 May, 2010 16:51, Anonymous Anonymous said...

“[W]e oftentimes find ourselves operating in some very difficult places. The good Lord didn't see fit to put oil and gas only where there are democratically elected regimes friendly to the United States. Occasionally we have to operate in places where, all things considered, one would not normally choose to go. But, we go where the business is.”
---Richard B. Cheney, CEO Halliburton, Defending Liberty in a Global Economy, speech delivered at the Collateral Damage Conference, Cato Institute , June 23, 1998

 
At 25 May, 2010 16:55, Anonymous Gost said...

Even if Cheney is the Lex Luthor you think he is, there are still multitudes of others that would have to agree to Cheney's murderous plot or help cover it up. Such a massive conspiracy of Americans mass-murdering their own co-citizens is believable only in the paranoid, twisted mind of a truther.

 
At 25 May, 2010 17:00, Blogger Billman said...

Triterope:
No, no he's not. He's a patriotic American who devoted a lifetime of service to his country.

Anonymous:
"I had other priorities in the '60s than military service."
--- Dick Cheney, 1989


What are you implying, Anonymous? That being in politics is not patriotic in anyway? But serving in the military is... yet, aren't you the same Anonymous who is consistantly condemning anyone who has served in the Iraq, Aghanistan wars as being a mass murderer? This kind of flip-flopping to suit your current argument is nothing if short of confusing.

“Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.”
--- Dick Cheney August 26, 2002


And this implies Cheney is evil... how? Our intelligence was wrong, but everyone believed it at the time. That makes someone evil?

What I saw was a cabal between the vice president of the United States, Richard Cheney, and the secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, on critical issues that made decisions that the bureaucracy did not know were being made.
---Larry Wilkerson, Former secretary of state Colin Powell's ex-chief of staff


Well, that could work, I guess. I can give you this one. But depends on what the decisions were.

“Oil companies are expected to keep developing enough oil to offset oil depletion and also to meet new demand...So where is this oil going to come from? Governments and national oil companies are obviously in control of 90 percent of the assets... The Middle East with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost is still where the prize ultimately lies.”
--- Halliburton Chairman Dick Cheney speech to the London Institute of Petroleum Autumn Lunch, November 1999


Ah. Well, you know, this is actually kind of bullshit. We actually have more oil in Alaska, Montana, and the Gulf of Mexico (well, until the current situation, I guss) than is in the middle east. If I recall correctly.

But how is this, "evil?" Don't we feed those countries in return for thier oil?

“I cannot think of a time when we have had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian. But the oil and gas there is worthless until it is moved. The only route which makes both political and economic sense is through Afghanistan.”
--- Dick Cheney, Chief Executive of Halliburton (1998)


This is "evil"... how?

“To be truthful about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened on September 11.”
--- Tony Blair comments to the Commons liaison committee, (London) Times, July 17, 2002


And this proves.. what?

Seriously, what benefits of any kind have come from the war in Afghanistan? 3000 American lives "murdered by Dick Cheney" in order to secure, what... Gas at $3 a gallon? When it was way cheaper BEFORE 9/11? I fail to see the logic in how this is somehow proof that 9/11 turned out in anyone's favor, or how a qoute from TONY BLAIR proves Dick Cheney is "evil" which is what youre supposed to be proving by posting these quotes, right?

 
At 25 May, 2010 17:02, Blogger Billman said...

“[W]e oftentimes find ourselves operating in some very difficult places. The good Lord didn't see fit to put oil and gas only where there are democratically elected regimes friendly to the United States. Occasionally we have to operate in places where, all things considered, one would not normally choose to go. But, we go where the business is.”
---Richard B. Cheney, CEO Halliburton, Defending Liberty in a Global Economy, speech delivered at the Collateral Damage Conference, Cato Institute , June 23, 1998


OH NO! Someone else NAMED CHENEY! Well, that certianly has convinced me of INSIDE JOBBY JOB! Just like the whole Popular Mechanics editor with the same last name!!!! AH!!

Are you gonna pull a Bermas and start calling everyone a liar, now? (Strawman, I know, but I'm just trolling with this last sentence).

 
At 25 May, 2010 17:19, Anonymous Gost said...

"OH NO! Someone else NAMED CHENEY!"

Actually it's the same guy, but no matter, the quote provides no evidence for his supposed evilness. Nor do any of the other quotes. If those are all the truthers can come up with after quotemining a life's worth of words, I'm not impressed.

 
At 25 May, 2010 17:26, Blogger Billman said...

Actually it's the same guy,

Heh, oops! Had a troofer moment.

 
At 25 May, 2010 17:47, Blogger Triterope said...

Billman, I'm also not sure why you directed that post at me. I didn't say anything about Cheney one way or the other.

 
At 25 May, 2010 18:12, Blogger Billman said...

No, Triterope, I was making sure people knew you posted the top part about Cheney being a patriot, (which right now, I realized was Lazarus... oops! I'm batting 1000 today) the rest was directed at Anonymous.

 
At 25 May, 2010 18:14, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"I had other priorities in the '60s than military service."
--- Dick Cheney, 1989

And your MOS was.....what, fucktard?


"“Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.”
--- Dick Cheney August 26, 2002"

And the problem with that statement would be....what, fucktard?

"What I saw was a cabal between the vice president of the United States, Richard Cheney, and the secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, on critical issues that made decisions that the bureaucracy did not know were being made.
---Larry Wilkerson, Former secretary of state Colin Powell's ex-chief of staff"


HAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!!!

So the executives were making executive decisions that flew in the face of back office inertia?

HAHAHHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!

If that is an accusation, then for fucks sake let's see more of it.

"“Oil companies are expected to keep developing enough oil to offset oil depletion and also to meet new demand...So where is this oil going to come from? Governments and national oil companies are obviously in control of 90 percent of the assets... The Middle East with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost is still where the prize ultimately lies.”
--- Halliburton Chairman Dick Cheney speech to the London Institute of Petroleum Autumn Lunch, November 1999"


"So the executives were making executive decisions...."

Oh, wait, we covered that already. And proved that you are a fucktard.


"“I cannot think of a time when we have had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian. But the oil and gas there is worthless until it is moved. The only route which makes both political and economic sense is through Afghanistan.”
--- Dick Cheney, Chief Executive of Halliburton (1998)"

Liar.

Fucktard.

"“To be truthful about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened on September 11.”
--- Tony Blair comments to the Commons liaison committee, (London) Times, July 17, 2002"


Aaaaaaannnd, what?

You have a point there, fucktard? Other than the one on the top of your head?


Oh, and thanks for confirming the hatred of America you have.

 
At 25 May, 2010 18:20, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous drooled: Checkmate

After years of claiming that the Corporate Media is covering up the Truth about 9/11, suddenly you're pointing to this story in the Washington Post as proof of... something. OK, wiseass. Explain briefly the criteria you use to evaluate information from the Washington Post as credible or not credible.

(I actually know the answer to that question. This is a test to see if you know.)

 
At 25 May, 2010 18:27, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What are you implying, Anonymous? That being in politics is not patriotic in anyway?

“Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism.”
--- George Washington

But serving in the military is... yet, aren't you the same Anonymous who is consistantly condemning anyone who has served in the Iraq, Aghanistan wars as being a mass murderer? This kind of flip-flopping to suit your current argument is nothing if short of confusing.

No you are confusing me with another anonymous. I'm the real anonymous. The other guys are fakes (just like all those OBL video tapes)

And this implies Cheney is evil... how? Our intelligence was wrong, but everyone believed it at the time. That makes someone evil?

Our intelligence was not wrong! That is another one of your lies. The Downing Street Memo states: "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." What part of the word "fixed" do you not understand? And that is high treason!

 
At 25 May, 2010 18:29, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What I saw was a cabal between the vice president of the United States, Richard Cheney, and the secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, on critical issues that made decisions that the bureaucracy did not know were being made.
---Larry Wilkerson, Former secretary of state Colin Powell's ex-chief of staff

Well, that could work, I guess. I can give you this one. But depends on what the decisions were.

What a stupid thing to say! So it's OK to subvert the rule of law, separation of powers, not to mention the constitution. In your world a secretive cabal of the Vice President and the SecDef doing an end run around everybody, lying about the WMD (see the Downing Street memos above) to go after the f--king oil? And you call yourself an American?

“Oil companies are expected to keep developing enough oil to offset oil depletion and also to meet new demand...So where is this oil going to come from? Governments and national oil companies are obviously in control of 90 percent of the assets... The Middle East with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost is still where the prize ultimately lies.”
--- Halliburton Chairman Dick Cheney speech to the London Institute of Petroleum Autumn Lunch, November 1999

Ah. Well, you know, this is actually kind of bullshit. We actually have more oil in Alaska, Montana, and the Gulf of Mexico (well, until the current situation, I guss) than is in the middle east. If I recall correctly.

Oh yea, we have plenty of oil all right...you can see it from space right now! Drill baby Drill right? If we have so much oil, why did your boy Cheney say in 1999:

By some estimates there will be an average of two per cent annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead along with conservatively a three per cent natural decline in production from existing reserves. That means by 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day. So where is the oil going to come from?
--- Dick Cheney, speech at the London Institute of Petroleum when he was Chairman of Halliburton, Autumn, 1999. A full text of the talk had been available on the website of the Institute of Petroleum, but has now been removed (wwww.petroleum.co.uk/speeches.htm).

 
At 25 May, 2010 18:32, Anonymous Anonymous said...

But how is this, "evil?" Don't we feed those countries in return for thier oil?

???? ?????? ???????????????? You must be an idiot!!!!! No we give them money. You ever hear of the PetroDollar? To dictatorships like Saudi Arabia, Kuwaiti, UAE, Qatar. Have you not noticed that wherever the terrorists are is where the oil is ???

“I cannot think of a time when we have had a region emerge as suddenly to become as strategically significant as the Caspian. But the oil and gas there is worthless until it is moved. The only route which makes both political and economic sense is through Afghanistan.”
--- Dick Cheney, Chief Executive of Halliburton (1998)

This is "evil"... how? see below

“To be truthful about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened on September 11.”
--- Tony Blair comments to the Commons liaison committee, (London) Times, July 17, 2002

And this proves.. what? see below

Seriously, what benefits of any kind have come from the war in Afghanistan? 3000 American lives "murdered by Dick Cheney" in order to secure, what... Gas at $3 a gallon? When it was way cheaper BEFORE 9/11? I fail to see the logic in how this is somehow proof that 9/11 turned out in anyone's favor, or how a qoute from TONY BLAIR proves Dick Cheney is "evil" which is what youre supposed to be proving by posting these quotes, right?

Headlines last month:

US military warns oil output may dip causing massive shortages by 2015
Shortfall could reach 10m barrels a day, report says
Cost of crude oil is predicted to top $100 a barrel
Terry Macalister
guardian.co.uk
Sunday 11 April 2010 18.47 BST

Now go back and read what your favorite DICK wrote:

" natural decline in production from existing reserves. That means by 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day. So where is the oil going to come from?"

and

" The Middle East with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost is still where the prize ultimately lies.”

2 and 2 rocket scientist

 
At 25 May, 2010 18:44, Anonymous Anonymous said...

When it was way cheaper BEFORE 9/11? I fail to see the logic in how this is somehow proof that 9/11 turned out in anyone's favor

Well Cheney knew in 1999 (before 9/11) when oil "was way cheaper" that in 2010 the supply would go down and the demand would go up and "by 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day." And the he asked "So where is the oil going to come from?" knowing full well that the "Middle East with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost is still where the prize ultimately lies.” So now you have the military admitting that "oil output may dip causing massive shortages by 2015, Shortfall could reach 10m barrels a day"

That's exactly what Cheney said in 1999 "10m barrels a day." He was off by five years.

“This whole damn thing was about oil, wasn't it?”
--- Robert Redford's character "Condor," to the CIA Deputy Director of Operations, Mideast Division, in "Three Days of the Condor" (1975).
“This whole damn thing was about oil, wasn't it?”
--- Robert Redford's character "Condor," to the CIA Deputy Director of Operations, Mideast Division, in "Three Days of the Condor" (1975).

 
At 25 May, 2010 18:49, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I fail to see the logic in how this is somehow proof that 9/11 turned out in anyone's favor

Are you kidding me? You're a comedian.

All the people who build the ships, the bombs, the bullets, the missiles and the planes....these are the best of times. They're doing great!!!

You guys are laughably naive.

 
At 25 May, 2010 19:00, Anonymous Anonymous said...

After years of claiming that the Corporate Media is covering up the Truth about 9/11, suddenly you're pointing to this story in the Washington Post as proof of... something. OK, wiseass. Explain briefly the criteria you use to evaluate information from the Washington Post as credible or not credible.

I was just discussing that very question with someone. Either (A) Jeff Stein of WaPo had no idea the ramifications of what he was saying (likely) or he (B) knows full well the implications. On one hand it's hard to imagine his not knowing but I think it's the former.

As far as your question, there is quite a bit if deliberate misinformation in this article. For instance he writes “Saddam playing with boys would have no resonance in the Middle East -- nobody cares,” agreed a third former CIA official with extensive experience in the region. “Trying to mount such a campaign would show a total misunderstanding of the target. We always mistake our own taboos as universal when, in fact, they are just our taboos.”

That is not so. This would be equally as taboo in the muslim religion as the Christian or Jewish religion. The assertion is absurd.

 
At 25 May, 2010 19:04, Blogger Billman said...

“Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism.”
--- George Washington


And troofers are the "patriots" trying to save the country? Amiright? You guys really should get medals of honor for all the libel and ad-hominem commenting and YouTube videos you post trying to save the world.

No you are confusing me with another anonymous. I'm the real anonymous. The other guys are fakes (just like all those OBL video tapes)

And those OBL videos are fakes because the guy in them wears gold on his hand, right? Which is IMPOSSIBLE FOR OBL!! Right?

Our intelligence was not wrong! That is another one of your lies.

Oh, so I'm (admittedly) not too educated about the beginning of when we went to war in Iraq (because I was in Navy boot camp preparing to take station in non Iraq war related areas that required my attention instead), and I'm really just echoing shit I've heard about the intelligence being wrong, and that means I'm intentionally lying. Troofer logic, I guess.


The Downing Street Memo states: "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." What part of the word "fixed" do you not understand? And that is high treason!

Ok, a memo says that. Is that really enough to convict Bush of treason?

C'mon, educate me on what the "truth" is. That's what you're supposed to be doing, right?

 
At 25 May, 2010 19:08, Blogger Billman said...

What a stupid thing to say! So it's OK to subvert the rule of law, separation of powers, not to mention the constitution. In your world a secretive cabal of the Vice President and the SecDef doing an end run around everybody, lying about the WMD (see the Downing Street memos above) to go after the f--king oil? And you call yourself an American?

No, I'm saying "that could work" in context to mean "I guess that could be considered evil." But you're right, it's stupid.

I served in the US Navy, so yeah, I'd call myself an American.


Oh yea, we have plenty of oil all right...you can see it from space right now! Drill baby Drill right? If we have so much oil, why did your boy Cheney say in 1999:

By some estimates there will be an average of two per cent annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead along with conservatively a three per cent natural decline in production from existing reserves. That means by 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day. So where is the oil going to come from?
--- Dick Cheney, speech at the London Institute of Petroleum when he was Chairman of Halliburton, Autumn, 1999. A full text of the talk had been available on the website of the Institute of Petroleum, but has now been removed (wwww.petroleum.co.uk/speeches.htm).


Cause he's wrong, and a fear-mongering idiot? Doesn't mean he's "evil" and gonna kill us all over oil or whatever it is you're trying to imply.

 
At 25 May, 2010 19:10, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, and thanks for confirming the hatred of America you have.

“To question the government story about 9/11 is to question the very foundations of our entire modern belief system regarding our government, our country, and our way of life. To be charged with questioning these foundations is far more serious than being labeled a disgruntled conspiracy nut or an anti-government traitor, or even being sidelined or marginalized within an academic, government-service, or literary career. To question the official 9/11 story is simply and fundamentally revolutionary. In this way, of course, questioning the official story is also simply and fundamentally American.”
--- Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Former Political-Military Affairs Officer in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Also served on the staff of the Director of the National Security Agency. 20-year Air Force veteran.

 
At 25 May, 2010 19:17, Blogger Billman said...

All the people who build the ships, the bombs, the bullets, the missiles and the planes....these are the best of times. They're doing great!!!

You guys are laughably naive.


Maybe not the "best of times" but according to the lowest esitmate of deaths per war:

World War II 40,000,000
An Shi Rebellion 33,000,000
Mongol Conquests 30,000,000
Qing Dynasty conquest of the Ming Dynasty 25,000,000
Taiping Rebellion 20,000,000
Conquests of Timur 15,000,000
World War I 10,000,000
Muslim Rebllion 8,000,000
Russian Civil War 5,000,000
Second Congo War 3,800,000
Napoleonic Wars 3,500,000
Thirty Years War 3,000,000
Korean War 2,500,000
Vietnam War 2,495,000
Iran-Iraq war 400,000

War on Terror (including 9/11 deaths)

9/11: 2976 (not including the hijackers)
Iraq: 62,570
Afghanistan: 10,960
Total: 76506

Compared to all of the above, times certianly are "BETTER" relatively, when it comes to how many people are dying in wars... not that that in anyway justifys them, but things aren't "WORSE THAN EVAR!"

 
At 25 May, 2010 19:31, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hmmm, anonymous, good job.

If there's anything the military intelligence crowd here at the SLC dislikes, it is you quoting back to them the words of their treasonous idols.

Sheer panic in the SLC camp.

Of course, the majority here still defends the Iraqi invasion. Because they are little Dick Cheneys in their own respect.

We are not debating people here, we are actually talking to the enemy. Every single one of these SLC fans are treasonous scumbags. It's extremely useful to have them go on the record with their "opinions" as much as possible. It reveals quite clearly which personal, financial and ideological investments prevent them from even acknowledging the true facts of 9/11-related events.

We are talking to the actual crowd that shares (or wishes to share) guilt. No wonder they're so 'defensive' or better yet, deceptive.

The US Navy huh? That pillar of the military that has smelly connections to every suspicious aspect of 9/11? That taught torture techniques to the CIA at the request of the White House? No wonder, no wonder.

 
At 25 May, 2010 19:39, Blogger Triterope said...

which right now, I realized was Lazarus... oops! I'm batting 1000 today)

That's okay. I've experienced this too, mis-reading and mis-attributing things. Like on the New Hampshire results thread. Oy. Not my finest hour.

I think the lesson here is that dealing with Twoofers for extended periods can take a surprising toll on one's own thought process.

 
At 25 May, 2010 19:39, Blogger Billman said...

The US Navy huh? That pillar of the military that has smelly connections to every suspicious aspect of 9/11? That taught torture techniques to the CIA at the request of the White House? No wonder, no wonder.

So you, who have never taken an oath to defend the United States, just accused:
330,218 Active Duty personnel
and
102,952 Reserve personnel

...of being "in on a 9/11 inside job", simply by association because they serve in the Navy,

...and SLC are the ones who "hate america."

Then you guys must despise america and take dumps on the flag.

 
At 25 May, 2010 19:40, Blogger Billman said...

I have friends in the Navy who are still troofers, god bless them. So what about them? They MUST BE IN ON IT TOO!!! AHHH!!! DIS-INFO! COINTELPRO!

 
At 25 May, 2010 19:41, Anonymous Anonymous said...

62,570 deaths in Iraq?

You disgusting, mendacious scumbag.

US navy huh? Bias much?

40 million in some ancient war compared to 654,965 casualties in Iraq (Lancet, 2006)?

Your point is WHAT, putrid bag of shit? Those weapons of mass destruction must be somewhere!

FOAD.

 
At 25 May, 2010 19:45, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So you, who have never taken an oath to defend the United States, just accused:
330,218 Active Duty personnel
and
102,952 Reserve personnel

...of being "in on a 9/11 inside job", simply by association because they serve in the Navy,


No. I accuse you, Walt, and the cadre at the time, of being either an accessory before or after the fact. And any other Navy grunt who behaves like you do.

 
At 25 May, 2010 19:51, Blogger Triterope said...

Either (A) Jeff Stein of WaPo had no idea the ramifications of what he was saying (likely) or he (B) knows full well the implications.

Or (C) it's just a fucking newspaper column, of which millions are written every day.

Christ, why does everything have to be so epic with you people? Believe it or not, newspaper reporters do not sit around thinking "gosh, I better consider how the 9-11 Truth Movement will react to this story before I file it!"

Get over yourself, buddy. You sound just like all the losers on that Truthaction thread, all aflutter about provocateurs and counter-provocateurs and counter-counter-provocateurs and compromises and traps that exist only in their own fantasies.

And what the fuck is your point, anyway? "Saddam Hussein is gay, therefore 9-11 was an inside job?" At least it's original -- oh wait, it's not, you said the same thing about James Randi.

 
At 25 May, 2010 19:53, Blogger Billman said...

62,570 deaths in Iraq?

You disgusting, mendacious scumbag.

US navy huh? Bias much?


I don't support either the Iraq or Afghanistan war, so no Bias here.

I served in Japan on the Taiwan, North Korea front lines against their diesel submarine fleets. I feel bad for my friends over there right now, but I think North Korea is just blowing smoke up everyone's ass.

40 million in some ancient war

Korea, Vietnam, and WWII aren't ancient. Way to cherry pick.

Still 650,000 isn't 40 million.

compared to 654,965 casualties in Iraq (Lancet, 2006)?

I did say "LOWEST ESTIMATE" for each war, did I not? Actual totals for all of the above facts (except for 9/11 total deaths, according to the spooky "official story") are obviously going to be much higher than LOWEST ESTIMATES, which I clearly pointed out. Yay ad-hominems! (which I haven't resorted to.)

Your point is WHAT, putrid bag of shit?

Just about made, thank you.

 
At 25 May, 2010 19:56, Blogger Billman said...

No. I accuse you, Walt, and the cadre at the time, of being either an accessory before or after the fact. And any other Navy grunt who behaves like you do.

Oh, and how am I "behaving?" exactly? Cause I hate to break it to you... you'd be hard pressed to find another sailor with as good of a record as myself. I got the medals to prove it.

But accuse me if you'd like. I served in Japan, not Iraq or any of the Stans. So, I'll await my subpeona to stand trial by the 9/11 troof squad.

 
At 25 May, 2010 20:08, Blogger Billman said...

My point is: there actually have been wars in history that are a LOT worse than the War on Terror.

Some even, with higher death tolls, that are recent.

Where were you then, to complain about THOSE lost lives? Or do THEY not matter, because it doesn't help you prove a point with an ad-hominem attack that justifys your purchase of a crappy black t-shirt?

What singles out your phantom 9/11 inside job as the worst thing to ever happen to humanity, compared to say, World War II?

Why should everyone get in an uproar and storm the streets over "thermitic material found in WTC dust" and the like?

Look, when there's any HARD PROOF, that 9/11 was actually an inside job, then everyone here WILL be on your side. But you don't have ANYTHING except speculation, and name calling (which I still haven't resorted to) when someone doesn't agree with you (and yes, it goes both ways here).

Granted, it's the internet, and you benefit from being Anonymous with libel, etc... which is fine. I believe in a real world setting, I could have a real conversation with some of you troofers (save Dylan Avery or Jason Bermas), that would be polite.

But the level of butthurt some of you show on this blog over EVERY SINGLE COMMENT, just... why is all the speculation that you parrot from a movie made by a douchebag, worth getting that upset about?

HARD PROOF, then I understand. But speculation, which is all you have... is a little crazy.

 
At 25 May, 2010 20:10, Anonymous Anonymous said...

And troofers are the "patriots" trying to save the country? Amiright? You guys really should get medals of honor for all the libel and ad-hominem commenting and YouTube videos you post trying to save the world.

“The notion that a radical is one who hates his country is naive and usually idiotic. He is, more likely, one who likes his country more than the rest of us, and is thus more disturbed than the rest of us when he sees it debauched. He is not a bad citizen turning to crime; he is a good citizen driven to despair.”
---H.L. Mencken

 
At 25 May, 2010 20:21, Blogger Billman said...

“The notion that a radical is one who hates his country is naive and usually idiotic. He is, more likely, one who likes his country more than the rest of us, and is thus more disturbed than the rest of us when he sees it debauched. He is not a bad citizen turning to crime; he is a good citizen driven to despair.”
---H.L. Mencken


Ah, but does this apply to:

James W. von Brunn who shot up a musuem? Or was he "not a bad citizen turning to crime" he was a good citizen driven to despair?

or does it apply to:

Curtis Boone Maynard, who shot his wife, his daughter in the face, and then himself? Because he was one who liked his country more than the rest of us, and was thus more disturbed than the rest of us when he saw it debauched?

or maybe:

Sean Fitzgerald murdered his dad, because he didn't hate his country, and to think otherwise is naive and usually idiotic.

No, I get it:

John Patrick Bedell shot up a train station because I personally, was in the Navy, and it's all MY fault directly (and any grunt who acts like me.)

Well then, I'll go turn myself into the FBI.. oh wait, they're NWO. Uh.. then I'll find David Ray Griffin and turn myself over to him.

 
At 25 May, 2010 20:21, Anonymous Anonymous said...

War on Terror (including 9/11 deaths)
9/11: 2976 (not including the hijackers)
Iraq: 62,570
Afghanistan: 10,960
Total: 76506

From George Orwell's 1984:

And in spite of the endless slaughters reported in the Press and on the telescreens, the desperate battles of earlier wars, in which hundreds of thousands or even millions of men were often killed in a few weeks, have never been repeated.

The problem was how to keep the wheels of industry turning without increasing the real wealth of the world. Goods must be produced, but they must not be distributed. And in practice the only way of achieving this was by continuous warfare.

But when war becomes literally continuous, it also ceases to be dangerous. When war is continuous there is no such thing as military necessity. Technical progress can cease and the most palpable facts can be denied or disregarded.

A peace that was truly permanent would be the same as a permanent war. This -- although the vast majority of Party members understand it only in a shallower sense -- is the inner meaning of the Party slogan: War is Peace.

 
At 25 May, 2010 20:22, Anonymous Anonymous said...

There ain't no time to be friendly about the most recent imperialist wars.

I'll grant you I feel ambivalent about (A) The troops condemned to death over a war based on a pack of lies
(B) Those same troops following orders and killing people over lies

Because the people dying by the hundreds of thousands aren't wearing the coveted "American uniform".

Although I oppose imperialist aggression and those who implement that aggression in the field, somehow I can't condemn people who I don't know personally, and who died over this bullshit.

But there is one kind of grunt I despise, and that is a grunt who'll whitewash the grotesque lies and atrocities of the Bush and Obama administrations because of "patriotic" pride a.k.a. nationalist zealotry. Prime example: Lazarus Long.

You people are so strung up about "truthers" and "conspiracy theories" you'll deny *everything*. Justify *everything*. And if not *everything*, then almost everything.

You can accuse truthers of "delusion" and "mental illness" all you want, and perhaps many times you are right, but by the same token you are just as loony, albeit on the complete opposite side of the spectrum.

 
At 25 May, 2010 20:31, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Look, when there's any HARD PROOF, that 9/11 was actually an inside job, then everyone here WILL be on your side.

Here's A major piece (and certainly not the only) proof.

NIST in August 2008 and November 2008 trying to have to poth ways:

“[A] free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it.... What the... collapse analysis shows, is that same time [sic] that it took for the structural model to come down from the roof line all the way—for those 17 floors to disappear—is 5.4 seconds. It's about 1.5 seconds, or roughly 40 percent, more time for that free fall to happen [sic]. And that is not at all unusual, because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous.”
--- NIST's lead investigator Shyam Sunder, explaining why WTC 7 could not have come down in free fall, NIST Technical Briefing, August 26, 2008

“A more detailed analysis of the descent of the north face found three stages: (1) a slow descent with acceleration less than that of gravity that corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns at the lower floors, (2) a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s[econds], and (3) a decreasing acceleration as the north face encountered resistance from the structure below.”
--- NIST's Final Report on WTC7, NCSTAR 1-9, page 607. NIST contradicting it's claim made in its Q&A document of August 2008, that “WTC7 did not enter free fall,” and its August 26, 2008 Technical Briefing explaining why WTC 7 could not have come down in free fall.

 
At 25 May, 2010 20:32, Blogger Billman said...

I'll grant you I feel ambivalent about (A) The troops condemned to death over a war based on a pack of lies
(B) Those same troops following orders and killing people over lies


Well, define what the lies are you are referring to. Do you have something specific? Because with troofers it's usually a vague "because!" kind of thing.

Because the people dying by the hundreds of thousands aren't wearing the coveted "American uniform".

No, they aren't. And it's horrible, I agree. But it's been like that in every war.

Although I oppose imperialist aggression and those who implement that aggression in the field, somehow I can't condemn people who I don't know personally, and who died over this bullshit.

Fair enough. And I agree.

But there is one kind of grunt I despise, and that is a grunt who'll whitewash the grotesque lies and atrocities of the Bush and Obama administrations because of "patriotic" pride a.k.a. nationalist zealotry. Prime example: Lazarus Long.

I don't think he's truly whitewashing. People here TROLL. Truthers come to vent, and accuse people they don't know of henious crimes for not buying the stuff like they do, and the opposite side comes here to troll and vent exasperation that none of them ever look at the real tradegies.

You people are so strung up about "truthers" and "conspiracy theories" you'll deny *everything*. Justify *everything*. And if not *everything*, then almost everything.

Again, that's just trolling. You take it seriously, and people like to poke the bear here.

You can accuse truthers of "delusion" and "mental illness" all you want, and perhaps many times you are right,

Respect for you x1000 for saying that.

but by the same token you are just as loony, albeit on the complete opposite side of the spectrum.

I could agree with this statement, if it weren't for that fact that I don't think anyone here really takes anything the 9/11 truth people say as seriously as the 9/11 truth people think they do. It's a hobby for most of us. A sick hobby (laughing at people) to be sure, but a hobby really.

 
At 25 May, 2010 20:37, Anonymous stilicho said...

From George Orwell's 1984:

And in spite of the endless slaughters reported in the Press and on the telescreens...

Why do loser 'truthers' hang onto Orwell like barnacles? For one thing, Orwell would mock 'truthers' with less mercy we do. For another, Orwell was just a journalist and a novelist and wasn't necessarily prophetic or even accurate all the time. He tended to hold contrary political ideas at the same time and incorrectly believed that totalitarianism would be so overbearing that its 'subjects' would be unable to rebel.

He was also what most people today would call 'lib-left'.

And he would punch Alex Jones in the face if he met him.

 
At 25 May, 2010 20:39, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Trolling again, Anonymous?

After all, you hijacked the thread, didn't you?

And remember, I'm just askin' questions...

 
At 25 May, 2010 20:39, Blogger Billman said...

Anonymous, the NIST report isn't proof. It's a bunch of words on an aparently shitty document that was never proof read.

It's the same thing as speculation. You're arguing that a bunch of idiots who wrote a paper and probably got something wrong, is PROOF. It's not.

I've never read the document, so I cant say I support whatever conclusion it comes to. When I see the WTC collapse, I see a building collapsing. And the fires, and the jets causing structural damage, it all works.

I've seen real controlled demolitions, and nothing that happened that day looks like that. WTC 7 kind of does, the the way the whole thing comes down at once, but it's missing the loud bangs, and flashes of charges all over the exterior, as well as the split into 3 parts type collapsing I've seen in every other controlled demo. On the other hand, it also looks like a building that collapses.

NIST is really speculation, isn't it? It explains things pretty well, but not perfectly, and I think it even admits that. But whatever erros there are in it, it's not proof because of those errors. It just means a bunch of monkeys on a typewritter messed up.

If this is what you mean by the "official story" being bullshit, then fine. It still doesn't PROVE 9/11 was an inside job. It means the official story documents, are SURPRISE, not written very well. That's all you're really proving at this point. To me anyway.

 
At 25 May, 2010 20:40, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't know...perhaps in the 9/11 truth denial world you can explain how if in the "Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation," NIST, August 2008 they said, “WTC7 did not enter free fall,” and on 8/26/08 NIST explaing why it could not have entered free-fall.............then in the final NIST report on WTC7 they now adnit after they were challenged, "a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s[econds]."

How do you explain that one away?

Just asking

 
At 25 May, 2010 20:49, Anonymous stilicho said...

Anonymous said...

NIST --blah blah-- a freefall descent

How do you explain that one away?

--------

Well--obviously what the NIST is saying there is that 9/11 was an inside job. And you were the only one clever enough to catch it! Congratulations.

So now what are you going to do about it? Post anonymously on an internet blog comments section?

How is that going to accomplish anything? I mean--you have the proof of an inside job there from the NIST itself.

Go do something about it.

--------

 
At 25 May, 2010 20:52, Blogger Billman said...

I don't know...perhaps in the 9/11 truth denial world you can explain how if in the "Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation," NIST, August 2008 they said, “WTC7 did not enter free fall,” and on 8/26/08 NIST explaing why it could not have entered free-fall.............then in the final NIST report on WTC7 they now adnit after they were challenged, "a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s[econds]."

How do you explain that one away?

Just asking


If you can explain:

How them ADMITTING "okay, I guess it happened that way" means WTC 7 was a controlled demolition from a 9/11 inside job...

Then sure.

SO some scientists say one thing, then are challenged to look at it another way, and then agree with that other way after looking at it again... that proves it was an inside job, or a controlled demo?

Isn't that what we WANT scientists to do?

Or am I simplifying it too much.

Does freefall for ANY length of time PROVE controlled demolition? Is there NO WAY WHATSOEVER that a collapse due to fire could happen with any kind of free fall? Is that what you're arguing? And because a document says so?

 
At 25 May, 2010 20:58, Anonymous Anonymous said...

(There is more that one Anonymous in these threads so don't assume everything said here is me)
---------------------------------

Anonymous, the NIST report isn't proof. It's a bunch of words on an aparently shitty document that was never proof read.

The NIST report is the US governments official explaination for why all three WTC towers came down. The collapse is under serious challenge whether you wish to dismiss or belittle that fact or not. Their job was to explain to us in a plausible, believable way how the buildings collapsed. This is the official story!!! This is what you are defending.

In August they said that it did not and could not have come down in free fall. In November they said it did come down in free fall.

Sorry, you cannot have it both ways.

If WTC7 came down for 2.25 seconds in absolute free fall, that would be impossible if your only source of energy available is gravity.

Facts are stupid things
--- Ronald Reagan

 
At 25 May, 2010 20:59, Blogger Billman said...

Look, I'm not a structural engineer, so I won't go into extreme detail about the science of the whole thing, not because I don't KNOW or UNDERSTAND it, but because no matter what, truthers never answer my questions with anything other than "well, then where are YOUR qualifications? And why don't YOU write a peer-reviewed" paper, as if that some how nullifies the argument.

So I'll ask to dumb it down to the simplist terms, and we'll go from there.

Freefall for any length of time = controlled demo and NO OTHER POSSIBILITY?

Even without lack of bomb material, or any other kind of evidence. It's the FREEFALL for any length of time that gives away the inside job? Is that it?

 
At 25 May, 2010 21:02, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Why should everyone get in an uproar and storm the streets over "thermitic material found in WTC dust" and the like?"

Because until now, it is irrefutable, and (firmly) circumstantially supported by other evidence, such as the unexplainable temperature anomalies at Ground zero.

And if you think I think OBL is innocent, you're wrong. He planned it. He sent people over to go do it. KSM was just a middle man. But it's unlikely that Jones, Basile, Harrit, Ryan et alia conspired to fabricate some nanothermite and contaminate it with trace WTC materials for complexity, and then insert it into dust samples. So somehow, Bin Laden's plan was detected and co-opted for geopolitical expediency. Just like the 93 bombing with Salem & Anticev. Only in that case Clinton covered it up and did not try to link it to Iraq as was likely the intention.

So whatever about "controlled demolition", most evidence supporting it is tenuous and explainable by other means than "bombs". But that energetic material was present, and should Jones et al. be con artists, we still have loads of witness testimony and other reports (RJ Lee, USGS) to account for.

Somebody wanted these towers to fail. Somebody sat down and calculated what it would take, and it wasn't just qualified engineer Bin Laden. (Maybe it was Bazant, who published his first paper demonstrating the failure mechanisms only approximately three days after 9/11. How impressive) Then they planned to somehow provide the requisite high temperatures to get it done. I don't exactly know how they got it in, though I strongly suspect it was the fireproofing upgrades.

The RJ Lee reports lead me to believe these exothermic reactions occurred near fireproofing. Why? I can only speculate, and I'd rather not.

Am I outraged about that? Fucking yes! And I'm even more outraged about those people who'll do anything to undermine anything that doesn't "conform". Fuck conformity. Do you believe the Kremlin's story about Litvinenko? Politkovskaya? Of course not. Why? Because you're not conditioned to worship the Kremlin, that's why. You've been cajoled to distrust and despise it. The whole core ideology of America is more anti-communist than it is pro-capitalism. You'd believe any conspiracy theory about Russia pandered to you by the mainstream media (e.g. BBC). Because it's Russia. Because it's socially "allowed". And.. because it's the fucking truth. But the White House? No. The White House is "just too incompetent". Or "just too realistic about the chances of getting caught".

Well here's some news for you: LBJ was a fucking gangster. Just listen to the White House tapes. Nixon was a fucking choir boy compared to him. Had JFK not been assassinated, LBJ would probably have had to face charges for his mafia past. The assassinations he had his hatchet man Malcom Wallace carry out on his behalf. Presidents (and careerist politicians in general) can and will do *anything*. Listen to the LBJ White House tapes. Get to know the man. You'll realize just what sort of insane power hungry, ruthless maniacs get an oval office.

Obama? Hah! He's a ruthless, truthless, power addicted scumbag. Bush? There is no room in blogger comment space to even begin to describe the power of the Bush dynasty. How fucking naive can you be. America is the most powerful country in the world, and the men who run it have absolutely no scruples in keeping it that way. There are plenty of factual inaccuracies in truther literature, let alone the conspiracy crowd in general. But this incessant, obsessive whitewashing of White House crimes under the guise of so-called "skepticism" is inexcusable.

 
At 25 May, 2010 21:03, Anonymous Marc said...

"The US Navy huh? That pillar of the military that has smelly connections to every suspicious aspect of 9/11? That taught torture techniques to the CIA at the request of the White House? No wonder, no wonder."

The US Navy taught torture techniques to the CIA? The same CIA that got nailed for teaching torture at the School of the Americas in Panama? When has the Navy ever tortured anybody (outside of making it's members wear white). Naval Intelligence never embraced torture so what techniques could they possible have to teach?

Is this something you learned while you were pretending to be an OIF vet?

 
At 25 May, 2010 21:04, Anonymous Anonymous said...

By the way, there are two anonymouses talking here, and I somewhat expect/hope you can distinguish by writing style. Otherwise I'll pick a name, whatever.

So "There ain't no time to be friendly about the most recent imperialist wars." and the one above are by "me".

 
At 25 May, 2010 21:08, Blogger Billman said...

(There is more that one Anonymous in these threads so don't assume everything said here is me)
---------------------------------


Ok. Fair anough. You could... choose a name to be called if this bothers you so much. Anonymous #1 or something.

The NIST report is the US governments official explaination for why all three WTC towers came down.

Ok. Does that mean it's right? It's still a bunch of guys speculating using what science they know to explain what they saw, right? Is it PERFECT?

The collapse is under serious challenge whether you wish to dismiss or belittle that fact or not.

I'm not trying to dismiss or belittle it. Just wanna know what problems the truthers have with it, and what it means to them.

Their job was to explain to us in a plausible, believable way how the buildings collapsed.

Is that all they do? I thought NIST was responsible for finding out how it collapsed, so they can find ways to prevent that kind of collapse in future buildings by applying new Standards and apply them to Technology used to build things in the future.

This is the official story!!! This is what you are defending.

I'm not defending something I haven't read. I'm going off what I think I saw, and what limited knowledge of anything that applies to it. I've never read NIST, and can't say I defend it.

Maybe some of the things I say are things the NIST report has also said. Coincedence, I guess.

In August they said that it did not and could not have come down in free fall.

Ok...

In November they said it did come down in free fall.

So... later they changed thier minds after more study of the situation?

This is "BAD?"

Sorry, you cannot have it both ways.

But it's NOT both ways. They said at the later date it DID have free fall.

Is this NIST thing NOT like software, were a newer version overwrites the previous?

Or are they claiming both things?


If WTC7 came down for 2.25 seconds in absolute free fall, that would be impossible if your only source of energy available is gravity.

Ok. WHY would it be impossible? THERE'S NO WAY it could free fall from gravity? EVER? Under any circumstances? That's a PROVEN FACT?

If all the world's a stage, I want to be the one that operates the trap door ---Steve Martin

 
At 25 May, 2010 21:08, Anonymous Anonymous said...

SO some scientists say one thing, then are challenged

Exactly! Still waiting for a peir reviewed challenge in a scientific journal explaining why the thermite paper was all wrong....so far just dead silence.

Does freefall for ANY length of time PROVE controlled demolition? Is there NO WAY WHATSOEVER that a collapse due to fire could happen with any kind of free fall? Is that what you're arguing? And because a document says so?

Excellent question.

When an object falls through the air it falls at the acceleration of gravity. All the potential energy available (gravity or so they tell us) getsconverted to kinetic energy (motion). There is only enough kinetic energy to do one thing FALL DOWN! If the falling mass has to use any of it's kinetic energy (the source of which is gravity) to do anything else, it cannot fall at free fall.

Your argument is not with me, it is with Issac Newton.

If it fell at free fall there had to be another source of energy other than gravity.

 
At 25 May, 2010 21:13, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Billman,

Anonymous is trolling.

The subject of the thread is David Ray Grifter, his allegations against Larry Silverstein, and the tortuous arguments found in the blog's comment section.

Ask yourself a question: Why does Anonymous work so hard to derail every discussion?

Could it be that David Ray Grifter was caught making false allegations (lies) again, which is embarrassing to the troofers, and as a result, Anonymous' unstated goal is to derail any discussion of Grifter's false allegations?

Think about it.

 
At 25 May, 2010 21:16, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Look, I'm not a structural engineer, so I won't go into extreme detail about the science of the whole thing, not because I don't KNOW or UNDERSTAND it, but because no matter what, truthers never answer my questions with anything other than "well, then where are YOUR qualifications? And why don't YOU write a peer-reviewed" paper, as if that some how nullifies the argument.

With all due respect, we are taking about high school level physics.

David Chandler, a high school physics teacher put out three shorts videos (they are posted on ae911truth.org) which FORCED NIST to admit free-fall. Those videos explain it very clearly.

I mean it's common sense.

10% of the mass of the building cannot crush through 90% of the mass of the building as if that 90% mass was not there.

For every action there is an equal and oposite reaction. The rest of the building woould have resisted the fall. And these would be the only three steel framed buildings in history to collapse totally, symetrically and at free fall and still not be controlled demolitions.

And WTC7 was not hit by a plane and there was no jet fuel so you cannot use that excuse

 
At 25 May, 2010 21:17, Blogger Billman said...

Exactly! Still waiting for a peir reviewed challenge in a scientific journal explaining why the thermite paper was all wrong....so far just dead silence.

Well, I could explain why the spectra on the figures is wrong and is also not thermite. And also why there's no thermite of any kind that can do what Jones says it could, and why even the very thing he descibes couldn't do what he says it could.

And I could also explain that Jones paper isn't "peer reivewed" either, nor published in a respected journal either, and therefore doesn't even meet YOUR requirements yet.


Excellent question.

When an object falls through the air it falls at the acceleration of gravity. All the potential energy available (gravity or so they tell us) gets converted to kinetic energy (motion). There is only enough kinetic energy to do one thing: FALL DOWN! If the falling mass has to use any of it's kinetic energy (the source of which is gravity) to do anything else, it cannot fall at free fall.


Ok.

Your argument is not with me, it is with Issac Newton.

Ok.

If it fell at free fall there had to be another source of energy other than gravity.

And so, that other source could ONLY have come from bombs?

Is there NO OTHER EXPLANATION that could explain why it fell at free fall? Is there NO OTHER SOURCE of energy during a building collapse that could cause freefall in WTC7 for 2.25 seconds?

 
At 25 May, 2010 21:17, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The US Navy taught torture techniques to the CIA? The same CIA that got nailed for teaching torture at the School of the Americas in Panama? When has the Navy ever tortured anybody (outside of making it's members wear white). Naval Intelligence never embraced torture so what techniques could they possible have to teach?

December 30, 2002- January 4, 2003
Two Navy SERE instructors brief members of Guantanamo's interrogation team in the use of SERE techniques. Their briefing includes a chart which lists coercive interrogation techniques mirroring the communist tactics of the 1950s.


Source

 
At 25 May, 2010 21:20, Blogger Billman said...

Billman, Anonymous is trolling.

I know. I'm sorry if my humouring the derailing from the main topic is bothering you.

For once, I just want ONE TROOFER to stop being vague and explain to me in laymans terms (for thier benefit) why the hell any of this means 9/11 inside job and ONLY inside job.

So far, they really can't. My apologies if this is bothering you.

 
At 25 May, 2010 21:26, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

"If it fell at free fall there had to be another source of energy other than gravity."

Provided that the roofline indeed accurately transmits the motion of the crush front at the bottom of WTC 7. Provided the resolution of the camera observing allows for measurement of the jolts expected from impact. Provided seven floors didn't buckle simultaneously, and that there was still a core section available over this span to provide resistance.

Remember, even in a controlled demolition, jolts have to be observed when potential energy is doing the work released by cutting columns.

Although the above objections are unlikely, it is prudent to mention them, since we (the truth movement) don't want to be caught off guard w.r.t. WTC 7, based on the popular scientific musings of AE911Truth. I have good reason to believe (based on science) they are wrong about several collapse related issues of WTC 1 & 2, and that is because they focus more on PR than they do on scientific study.

WTC 7 is a mystery, but what I would really like is a proper FEA examination of NIST's WTC 7 collapse theory.

 
At 25 May, 2010 21:26, Blogger Billman said...

With all due respect, we are taking about high school level physics.

Fair enough. I was never good at it, though, I will admit that.

David Chandler, a high school physics teacher put out three shorts videos (they are posted on ae911truth.org) which FORCED NIST to admit free-fall. Those videos explain it very clearly.

I mean it's common sense.

10% of the mass of the building cannot crush through 90% of the mass of the building as if that 90% mass was not there.


Ok. Why not? Does it not depend on what it's made of and how it's put together? Is WEIGHT not a factor?

For every action there is an equal and oposite reaction. The rest of the building woould have resisted the fall.

Ok. How would it have resisited the fall?

And these would be the only three steel framed buildings in history to collapse totally,

Untrue. But continue.

symetrically and at free fall and still not be controlled demolitions.

Ok. IS that scenario IMPOSSIBLE? Could they NOT be the first?

And WTC7 was not hit by a plane and there was no jet fuel so you cannot use that excuse

But a 110 story building DID fall on it... I don't know of any other situation where that happened either.

 
At 25 May, 2010 21:28, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If it fell at free fall there had to be another source of energy other than gravity.

And so, that other source could ONLY have come from bombs?

Is there NO OTHER EXPLANATION that could explain why it fell at free fall? Is there NO OTHER SOURCE of energy during a building collapse that could cause freefall in WTC7 for 2.25 seconds?


Our side is not on the defensive her as much as some on this site would like us to believe. It is the official story that is under attack not the other way around. We are on offense.

The official story says the only energy available was gravity. NIST claims no other energy source. (The fire, damage, is what brought to the point where it could no longer resist the forces of gravity)...but your only energy is gravity. So gravity has to explain all the observations especially the pulverization and dust cloud.

Historically every other collapse has been a controlled demolition.

Perhaps NIST should explain is WTC7 fell at free fall for 2.25 seconds where the other source of energy came from as gravity cannot account for the observations.

 
At 25 May, 2010 21:28, Anonymous Marc said...

David Ray Griffin is delusional.

Also, there is no such thing as "Freefall Speed". There is someting called "Terminal Velocity" which is the maximum speed that a falling object can reach, it varies by weight. I'm not sure what the terminal velocity of a building the size of WTC7 is but a single steel beam would have a terminal velocity of around 70mph. Reguardless, WTC-7 never reached terminal velocity. It fell at the speed of a collapsing building.

Thanks for playing though, and we have a copy of the Debunker-Cult boardgame as a consolation prize. Maybe you can trade it for a refill on whatever psychotic medication you are taking.

 
At 25 May, 2010 21:36, Blogger Billman said...

Ok, Anonymous, so let's just say NIST is wrong.

And let's say that these buildings ARE the first to do that outside of controlled demolition.

Is that impossible?

And in order for it to be a controlled demolition, doesn't there need to be evidence of explosives and wiring and all the OTHER usual signs of controlled demolition?

There are no similarities, only nefarious absolutes?

 
At 25 May, 2010 21:36, Anonymous Anonymous said...

But a 110 story building DID fall on it... I don't know of any other situation where that happened either.

Yes, but the final NIST REPORT says that this was not a factor in the collapse, and neither was the deisel fuel.

The fact that steel beams from WTC1damaged the south face of WTC7 causes the problem of explaining where the energy comes from to fling massive steel columns that distance. There was another building WTC6 and two streets between those buildings.

Again, there was only enough kinetic energy to fall down. the 9/11 Commission Report says WTC1 fell in ten seconds. Thats free fall acceleration also. So your dead that way too.

 
At 25 May, 2010 21:41, Anonymous Marc said...

Your "Source" is shit.

First off, why would the Navy send SERE instructors? The people who put together the SERE programs are academics and civilians who work for DoD.

Second, the CIA already had interrogators and through their civilian contractors they also had access to more interrogators, so they wouldn't be calling the Navy.

Third. The CIA's "Secret Prison" program existed because there were limits to the techniques that they could use. So they'd hustler prisoners to countries where intelligence officials had a more liberal philosophy about making people talk. So if that is true then why would the CIA be calling to NAVY to teach Cold-War era interrogation techniques when they seem to have hired the very people who invented and perfected those techniques?

Fourth, why the Navy? The Air Force, Army and FBI all have interrogators too. I can tell you from what little I know about SERE that the Navy's version isn't uch different than the Armys or USAF's. The Army's SERE program was investigated a couple of times because of abuses during the 1990s, so by following you logic it should have been Army SERE guys.

Talk about chasing your own tail.

 
At 25 May, 2010 21:44, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ok, Anonymous, so let's just say NIST is wrong.

They are wrong.

And let's say that these buildings ARE the first to do that outside of controlled demolition.

Is that impossible?

Yes, it violates the laws of physics.

And in order for it to be a controlled demolition, doesn't there need to be evidence of explosives and wiring and all the OTHER usual signs of controlled demolition?

Did you really sit down and read the thermite paper? ...and all the other papers Jones and company put out?

There is abundant evidence. Do you know about the microsheres which were found by three different teams of scientists including the US geological servey?

Free fall is only one of many many things

 
At 25 May, 2010 21:45, Anonymous Marc said...

No such thing as "Freefall Excelleration" either.

The phrase is "Terminal Velocity", and none of the buildings at the WTC ever came close to reaching it.

 
At 25 May, 2010 21:47, Anonymous Anony said...

David Ray Griffin is delusional.

Who cares. Debate the science.

Also, there is no such thing as "Freefall Speed". There is someting called "Terminal Velocity" which is the maximum speed that a falling object can reach, it varies by weight.

Almost correct. "Freefall speed" indeed does not exist. Terminal velocity is the maximum speed attained, after first accelerating in freefall, where the resistive force due to drag is in equilibrium with the force of gravity, so that the net force on the object is 0.

I'm not sure what the terminal velocity of a building the size of WTC7 is but a single steel beam would have a terminal velocity of around 70mph.

The "terminal velocity" of building 7, or the terminal velocity of a single steel beam is irrelevant here, because observation through physics toolkits tell us the building was in full freefall for 2.25 seconds, as confirmed by NIST.

Reguardless, WTC-7 never reached terminal velocity. It fell at the speed of a collapsing building.

Nonsense. See above. Furthermore, studies of pneumatic demolitions (removal of supporting walls by hydraulic pumps) show freefall only for the distance of the floors compromised, (e.g. three floors) after which a large jolt and deceleration occurs, as soon as potential energy starts to do crushing work.

Thanks for playing though, and we have a copy of the Debunker-Cult boardgame as a consolation prize. Maybe you can trade it for a refill on whatever psychotic medication you are taking.

Maybe you can smash your piggy bank and take a crash course in physics. You need it. Oh, and for medication, call Troy Sexton, he's got plenty laying around in his mom's basement.

 
At 25 May, 2010 21:49, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Billman wrote, "...So far, they really can't. My apologies if this is bothering you."

That's okay, you're not bothering me.

There's a pattern emerging, however, and we need to address the issue.

Here's how Anonymous plays the game: His hidden agenda is to end all debate. Thus, he must change the subject of the discussion. For example, today's subject is very embarrassing for the troofers, so in order to end the debate, he makes outrageous statements. The outrageous comments are designed to derail (or start an unrelated argument, if you prefer) and end the debate.

For example, his first comment

"...SLC: where good little reactionary statist [SIC] errand boys learn how to stop thinking for themselves and love Big Brother"

is pure trolling. Notice that the comment is totally unrelated to the subject of Pat's post.

But that comment did not yield the necessary result (derail the thread); thus, he resorted to another outrageous comment, which was guaranteed to rile the right wingers:

"...Would Dick Cheney murder 3000 people?"

And from that point on, the thread was derailed.

Every comment that follows is off-topic.

Mission accomplished, Anonymous.

Starting to get the picture?

You're being manipulated, and the blog is being trashed.

 
At 25 May, 2010 21:54, Anonymous Anonymous said...

FYI: "Anony" = Anonymous #2

 
At 25 May, 2010 21:56, Blogger Billman said...

Did you really sit down and read the thermite paper?

Yes, I actually honestly have read the Active Thermitic Material paper, but none of his other works.

 
At 25 May, 2010 21:57, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

"Mission accomplished, Anonymous."

No, because the first comment you cited is indeed mine, the second is not.

That's because you still think your "intuition" amounts to "fact". You're almost a truther ;-)

And the topic of Pat's post isn't embarrassing for me at all. I sorta agree with Truthaction, although the convoluted paranoid ramblings about disinfo tactics are bullshit. This is a recurring meme over there, who cares though, I am not them.

 
At 25 May, 2010 22:00, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Billman,

I gotta go. I enjoyed debating with you. You are one of the only reasonable people on this site at least that I have encountered.

I really understand that you do not want to believe that 9/11 was an inside job. Frankly, I wish these guys could convince me that it was not. It is a horrible thing.

All I ask is stop listening to these guys on this site....google Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse? ....this is Jone's first paper. READ IT carefully. Decide for yourself.

If you think it's screwball stuff then stop right there. Otherwise go on to read the series of papers that his team has published.

Good Night

 
At 25 May, 2010 22:02, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh and by the way, a "statist" is a "supporter of statism". Look it up on Wiktionary. But why bother. You never use your [sic]'s appropriately anyway.

 
At 25 May, 2010 22:04, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous prevaricates, "...No, because the first comment you cited is indeed mine, the second is not."

Says who? A proven compulsive liar?

LOL!

Try again, Pinocchio.

 
At 25 May, 2010 22:05, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

All I ask is stop listening to these guys on this site....google Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse? ....this is Jone's first paper. READ IT carefully. Decide for yourself.

Bad advice. That paper contains serious errors, due to Jones's journalistic sleuthing blunders. Rather, start here

9/11 families = truth movement.

 
At 25 May, 2010 22:05, Blogger GuitarBill said...

And the term is statist reactionary, retard.

 
At 25 May, 2010 22:06, Anonymous Anonymous said...

One more comment. I did not see this exchange:

Did you really sit down and read the thermite paper?

Yes, I actually honestly have read the Active Thermitic Material paper, but none of his other works.

You really should really all the papers in succession. To start with that one not having read the rest...I would think you might not know whats going on. All these papers build upon the last.

His first paper was before they dicovered the microsheres and the red grey chips. start there.

Catch David Chandler's vids

If your going to argue against us, at least educate yourself what we are saying.

 
At 25 May, 2010 22:08, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

"Says who? A proven compulsive liar?

LOL!

Try again, Pinocchio."

I'm not, but you are a proven compulsive denialist, and I didn't even bring it up.

If I said that about Cheney, I would gladly admit to it, but I didn't. I don't address you guys in those simplistic terms, because I know you, and asking you such a question is pointless from a time management perspective.

 
At 25 May, 2010 22:09, Blogger Billman said...

Billman,

I gotta go. I enjoyed debating with you. You are one of the only reasonable people on this site at least that I have encountered.


Back at you, I guess. You don't always need to resort to the ad-hominems, though.

I really understand that you do not want to believe that 9/11 was an inside job.

It's not that I don't "want to" it's that I just don't.

I once bought into this shit when I first saw Loose Change, and THIS BLOG did a good job of being cordial and directing me to real information when I first came here. I guess you could say I'm one of the ones they converted.

Frankly, I wish these guys could convince me that it was not. It is a horrible thing.

All I ask is stop listening to these guys on this site....

Heh, whoever said I did listen to anyone here? I get all my info elsewhere, usually. I come here for the "What the troofers are up to now," stuff. And to hang with GB, and the others. But taking anything anyone here says seriously? Meh.

google Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse? ....this is Jone's first paper. READ IT carefully. Decide for yourself.

Ugh... why? He's wrong about everything else I've read, so far.

 
At 25 May, 2010 22:11, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Oh fuck you.

I've asked you dozens of questions that you REFUSE TO ANSWER.

Shall I list the questions you won't touch with a ten foot pole again, troll?

 
At 25 May, 2010 22:12, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

"And the term is statist reactionary, retard."

I was paraphrasing Chomsky, who often uses the term. He uses "reactionary statist" here for example, and also in a documentary I fail to remember the name of at the moment.

And yes, I know Chomsky is anti-9/11 truth.

 
At 25 May, 2010 22:14, Blogger GuitarBill said...

No, wrong again.

Chomsky uses the term "statist reactionary."

Do you always lie, Pinocchio?

 
At 25 May, 2010 22:18, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

"Ugh... why? He's wrong about everything else I've read, so far."

So forget Jones. Is Wikipedia wrong about Ali Mohamed though? Did he not work for the CIA, FBI and special forces as well as Al Qaeda (as their military trainer)? So are the CIA, the FBI and special forces all THAT stupid and incompetent? Who took the rap for that then? Where is Ali Mohamed now?

 
At 25 May, 2010 22:21, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

GuitarBill: "No, wrong again.

Chomsky uses the term "statist reactionary."

Do you always lie, Pinocchio?"

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

"The terms of political discourse have been virtually deprived of meaning, but it is helpful to learn how the reactionary statists in the guise of libertarians understand the concepts the people and the left."

Noam Chomsky

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

Same source I linked you to earlier. Now what? More denial? Of course... you are you.

 
At 25 May, 2010 22:28, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

"Shall I list the questions you won't touch with a ten foot pole again, troll?"

Even after I linked you to this and most recently this.... you persist in your bizarre denialism about Israeli nukes.

I think that's indicative of some sort of mental problem (or extreme ego protection) on your part, not "lying" on my part.

And remember, Israeli nukes are a tangent, and if you can't even be forthright about THAT, well.... quelle surprise you're mendacious about 9/11.

I admit, I taunted you to the point of breakdown. And you deserve it.

 
At 25 May, 2010 23:09, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

You see Billman gets it:

"Oh, and this is just speculation. But perhaps, if South Africa ever tested their weapons, then perhaps Israel was there with them. That would kill two birds with one stone, so to speak."

Billman, of course, is referring to the Vela incident

However, should this test be SA's and not Israel, no matter, because Israel has already indicated it specifically wants to avoid verifiable tests because it undermines its policy of ambiguity:

"Subsequent memorandums from Kissinger to Nixon provide a limited sense of what the national security adviser understood happened at the meeting. Kissinger noted that the president had emphasized to Meir that "our primary concern was that the Israeli [government] make no visible introduction of nuclear weapons or undertake a nuclear test program." Thus, Israel would be committed to conducting its nuclear affairs cautiously and secretly; their status would remain uncertain and unannounced."

.....and:

"Politically, the Nixon-Meir agreement allowed both leaders to continue with their old public policies without being forced to openly acknowledge the new reality. As long as Israel kept the bomb invisible -- no test, declaration, or any other act displaying nuclear capability -- the United States could live with it."

So you see, all of your questions have been answered, and the debate has been settled.

Earlier, I didn't want to make the effort to look up and publish those links again, because it's not my job to read back to you what you choose to deliberately ignore.

 
At 25 May, 2010 23:42, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous prevaricates, "...Same source I linked you to earlier. Now what? More denial? Of course... you are you."

What's this, jackass:

"...The ACLU is conservative in the traditional sense: close to classical liberal. Hence its insistence on the Bill of Rights and constitutionalism generally. The terms “liberal” and “conservative” as used today refer, basically, to what in traditional (or European) terms would be called social democratic versus statist reactionary." -- Noam Chomsky

Source: framingbusiness.net: Conversations with Chomsky.

Furthermore, Chomsky's Necessary Illusions refers to Ronald Reagan as a "statist reactionary" throughout the book.

So, what were you saying about "denial", Pinocchio?

 
At 25 May, 2010 23:56, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

"Why do loser 'truthers' hang onto Orwell like barnacles? For one thing, Orwell would mock 'truthers' with less mercy we do."

Bullshit.

``The rocket bombs which fell daily on London were probably fired by the Government of Oceania itself, "just to keep people frightened."´´

— Nineteen Eighty-Four

 
At 25 May, 2010 23:59, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous lies again, "...So you see, all of your questions have been answered, and the debate has been settled."

You didn't answer one questions.

Try again, Pinocchio:

[4] Then perhaps you can explain why Israel has no record of nuclear weapons testing?

[7] And I'm still waiting for you to answer the question: Show me one nation that signed the NNPT that didn't test their nuclear weapons?

[8] How does a nation test its alleged nuclear arsenal "secretly"? Can you give me an example of ANY nation that's ever pulled that "miracle" off?

[9] So how did Israel manage to test their alleged "nuclear arsenal" without nuclear fallout?

No military will rely on UNTESTED ORDINANCE--the risk is simply to great. Furthermore, no sane military commander will risk potential loss of battle and the lives of his troops on untested ordinance--period. Thus, you're insane, Anonymous.

So, where is the evidence that Israel performed nuclear testing?

After all, it's easy to prove that the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan and North Korea posses nuclear weapons, AND THEIR NUCLEAR TESTING PROGRAMS CAN BE VERIFIED.

For example,

Source: New York Times: North Korea Claims to Conduct 2nd Nuclear Test.

Source: New York Times: China Tests Atomic Bomb, Asks Summit Talk On Ban; Johnson Minimizes Peril.

So where's your proof? I'm waiting, Anonymous.

And if they did, in fact, test their nuclear ordinance, how did they "hide" the fallout?

Now, stop avoiding my questions--you lying cocksucker--get to work and give me DIRECT ANSWERS, Pinocchio.

 
At 26 May, 2010 00:04, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

So, what were you saying about "denial", Pinocchio?

I'm saying that I can find this quote on Chomsky's official website, featuring a quote from a Chomsky interview:

"On the other hand, they are less resistant to attacks from the reactionary statist elements (called "conservative" in political rhetoric)."

So in a nutshell, Chomsky uses both forms, and the one I used I just quoted you from his official website and so not only was your "[sic]" unjustified, since we've now clearly established the use of the word "statist" in general, you were also in error for attempting to correct me as if Chomsky doesn't also use the form I use.

But... you are you.. and you will never be reasonable, sane, or forthright. I suspect that by the time I post this, you'll have another denialist rant ready. ;-)

 
At 26 May, 2010 00:06, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Quit changing the subject, cocksucker, and answer my questions.

Now, get to work, cretin.

 
At 26 May, 2010 00:08, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

"Now, stop avoiding my questions--you lying cocksucker--get to work and give me DIRECT ANSWERS, Pinocchio."

Nope, I have to be firm with you now, Sideshow Bill. By once again deliberately ignoring points brought forth by myself (Washington Post: Meir/Nixon) that (perfectly, I might add) address your "questions", you have forfeited your right to further debate. I refer back to my earlier comment which clearly and concisely deals with your obsessive, mendacious, denialist, obstructionist poppycock. The debate is settled. Much as I would like to save your wife from you joining her, I suggest you go to bed now. Sleep quickens.

 
At 26 May, 2010 00:11, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

"Quit changing the subject, cocksucker, and answer my questions."

I bet you talk like that out loud when you're alone in the elevator, too. Ha ha ha.

 
At 26 May, 2010 00:14, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Lying cocksucker.

I just produced articles that prove China and North Korea's nuclear weapons testing programs.

Why can't you do that for Israel?

And remember, Pinocchio, I'm just askin' questions...

Now, get to work---you lying cocksucker--and give me DIRECT ANSWERS to my questions.

Fuck you!

 
At 26 May, 2010 00:17, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

The debate is settled, Sideshow Bill. Your concern is addressed in the Meir / Nixon citation.

 
At 26 May, 2010 00:17, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Cocksucker tries more misdirection, "...I bet you talk like that out loud when you're alone in the elevator, too. Ha ha ha."

That's not an answer, cocksucker.

Thus, you lose the debate again, because you refuse to provide DIRECT ANSWERS to my questions.

Anonymous, your middle name is denial--not to mention compulsive liar.

 
At 26 May, 2010 00:19, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

And, I might add, several countries in the EU possess nukes without ever having conducted tests, so that point is moot to begin with.

Aren't you tired of desperately trying to save face?

 
At 26 May, 2010 00:21, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

I bet your wife would agree: you don't have but are the biggest dick ever to lie beside her. Hi hi.

 
At 26 May, 2010 00:23, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous sock puppets his "Anonymous" handle and bald-faced lies, "...And, I might add, several countries in the EU possess nukes without ever having conducted tests, so that point is moot to begin with."

Name them, cocksucker.

Go for it, liar.

 
At 26 May, 2010 00:24, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

Sleep tight! I'm unfortunately needed for more pressing and interesting activities, such as staring at the insides of my eyelids ;-)

You can always continue this pointless face-saving desperado quest with your SLC homies. Remember, you've still got to convince them too. *G*

 
At 26 May, 2010 00:26, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

"Name them, cocksucker.

Go for it, liar."


Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Turkey.

Tah-ta!

 
At 26 May, 2010 00:26, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...I bet your wife would agree: you don't have but are the biggest dick ever to lie beside her. Hi hi."

Yeah, and your SO hasn't boinked you in years because--and I quote your SO--"...I already have one asshole in my pants."

So when will you answer my questions, cocksucker?

 
At 26 May, 2010 00:28, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

(Turkey's not EU, but.. you get the point =)

 
At 26 May, 2010 00:29, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous prevaricates, "...Sleep tight! I'm unfortunately needed for more pressing and interesting activities, such as staring at the insides of my eyelids ;-)"

In other words, you can't substantiate your hair-brained assertions, idiot.

Thanks for proving, once again, that you're nothing but a compulsive liar, Anonymous.

Any more bald-faced lies for us, cocksucker?

 
At 26 May, 2010 00:31, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous prevaricates, "...Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Turkey."

Liar.

That's not proof.

Where's your evidence, liar?

And remember, I'm just askin' questions, Pinocchio.

 
At 26 May, 2010 00:41, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

"Any more bald-faced lies for us, cocksucker?"

I'll give it a shot. How about:

"GuitarBill is a well-read, intelligent, sincere, objective, forthcoming, pleasant debater with a keen interest in facts and a craving for reliable sources, particularly known for decisively admitting his errors and conceding lost debates graciously. He avoids cheap shots and never repeats himself. He takes great care not to deliberately ignore arguments from his opponents which completely sweep away his own. He studiously avoids contact with child abusing scum (even though they might agree with him on key issues) merely because he is a man of principle. He's patient, courteous, charming and good looking, and has an acquired taste in music and literature. He doesn't care about keeping up appearances nor does he care about prestige, he cares about issues"

Well? That's gotta be the first time I've ever told a bald-faced lie on here, and it's gotta be an epic one, Billy Boy ;-]

Nite! ;-]

 
At 26 May, 2010 00:49, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's not an answer, cocksucker.

That's right, coward. slither away under the guise of "sleep", after you've suffered another devastating defeat.

Coward.

Pussy.

Compulsive liar.

Deranged sociopath.

And don't forget to kiss mommy 'nite before you slither back down into her basement, Pinocchio.

 
At 26 May, 2010 00:52, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Oh, and after suffering another devastating defeat, be sure to return tomorrow, pat yourself on the back, and declare yourself the "winner" of the "debate".

You're lower than a snake's belly, cretin.

 
At 26 May, 2010 01:50, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous bald-faced lies, "...You can always continue this pointless face-saving desperado quest with your SLC homies. Remember, you've still got to convince them too. *G*"

Really? No Kidding?

%^)

What's this--you lying cocksucker?

And I quote:

"...Bill, with all due respect, don't you realize that they're never going to answer you?" -- Triterope

"...Anonymous: Oh, I've answered him, Tripeyoke...Tritrope: No, you haven't. You make no fucking sense whatsoever." -- Triterope

Source: SLC: Greens Reject Truther Hicks; Will Libertarians Go for Truther Hancock?.

"...GB, I've never had any luck with this, but have you EVER had a troofer answer a 9/11 question directly?" -- Billman

Source: SLC: David Ray Griffin, the King of Recycling.

"...Well, GB, in light of this, a new possibilty occurs to me. Israel, apparently, has in fact never tested their weapons. So they have a lot of faith in them. And wow, 35 years at LEAST?" -- Billman

Source: SLC: Birthers and Truthers: Equally Moronic, But Not Equally Pernicious.

So, what were you saying about "you've still got to convince them too", cretin?

Any more lies for us, Pinocchio?

And remember, I'm just askin' questions, liar.

 
At 26 May, 2010 05:18, Anonymous Jmaes said...

lol

 
At 26 May, 2010 07:46, Blogger Billman said...

What does Israel having nukes supposed to prove, anyway? Is proving you wrong, GB, somehow supposed to also prove 9/11 was an inside job?

And I'm just amazed that after all this time, and all these different threads, that you're not trying to prove that Israel doesn't have the weapons, but in fact simply trying to get Anonymous to answer a fucking question with any kind of actual proof that isn't speculation, and he STILL doesn't get it.

And I love how he points to my uneducated speculative answer that I came up with on a whim to just throw out there as "getting it." That's awesome. Let's throw facts and proof out the windows, because SPECULATION is the truth!

 
At 26 May, 2010 08:33, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"SLC are the ones who "hate america.""

Actually, it's twooooofer™ scum who hate America.

And prove it every day.

 
At 26 May, 2010 10:14, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

Yesterday,May 25 at 21:49,the "GitFiddler" unveiled his latest whiskey soaked and addled conspiracy theory.It seems that "truthers" have hatched a zany,malicious subterfuge in the form of anonymous commenters steering threads South here at the World Headquarters of the Debunker Cult.Only the latest of the completely insane debunker cult theorems,this one neatly illustrates the cliff the wacky guitar schnook just went off and surely crashes the insane Yuppie's credibility once and for all!! I guess this is what happens when you get your butt waxed regularly in front of the whole world!! Turns out it's the blustering Debunker Cult that has all the most ridiculous conspiracy theories,topped by the indefensible and disproven Official Conspiracy Theory!!

 
At 26 May, 2010 10:32, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The ArseHooligan™ gives us another demonstration of the breadth and depth of his ignorance, and scribbles, "...Yesterday,May 25 at 21:49,the "GitFiddler" unveiled his latest whiskey soaked and addled conspiracy theory.It seems that "truthers" have hatched a zany,malicious subterfuge in the form of anonymous commenters steering threads South here at the World Headquarters of the Debunker Cult."

On the contrary, it's not a conspiracy at all, ArseHooligan™. After all, a conspiracy involves two or more people. In fact, I'm accusing Anonymous of trolling--and Anonymous alone.

Try again, cretin.

The ArseHooligan™ prevaricates, "...Only the latest of the completely insane debunker cult theorems,this one neatly illustrates the cliff the wacky guitar schnook just went off and surely crashes the insane Yuppie's credibility once and for all!!"

Yeah, that assertion carries a lot of weight around here, ArseHooligan™. And especially so when one considers that you're a citizen of the State of Persistent Lunacy.

The ArseHooligan™ whimpers, "...I guess this is what happens when you get your butt waxed regularly in front of the whole world!!"

Really? No kidding?

Would you care to answer my questions with something other than speculation, unsubstantiated allegations or opinion?

[4] Then perhaps you can explain why Israel has no record of nuclear weapons testing?

[7] And I'm still waiting for you to answer the question: Show me one nation that signed the NNPT that didn't test their nuclear weapons?

[8] How does a nation test its alleged nuclear arsenal "secretly"? Can you give me an example of ANY nation that's ever pulled that "miracle" off?

[9] So how did Israel manage to test their alleged "nuclear arsenal" without nuclear fallout?

Now, get to work, ArseHooligan™, because I'm still waiting for answers.

And remember, I'm just askin' questions...

 
At 26 May, 2010 11:08, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Allow me to give everyone another example of The ArseHooligan's™ boundless intellectual dishonesty.

The ArseHooligan™ wrote, "...Yesterday,May 25 at 21:49,the "GitFiddler" unveiled his latest whiskey soaked and addled conspiracy theory.It seems that "truthers" have hatched a zany,malicious subterfuge in the form of anonymous commenters steering threads South here at the World Headquarters of the Debunker Cult.Only the latest of the completely insane debunker cult theorems,this one neatly illustrates the cliff the wacky guitar schnook just went off and surely crashes the insane Yuppie's credibility once and for all!!"

Thus, The ArseHooligan™ is accusing me of formulating a "conspiracy theory". His assertion, however, is utterly false--a bald-faced lie.

Proof?

Here's what I wrote:

Here's how Anonymous plays the game: His hidden agenda is to end all debate.

Now, if my intent was to formulate a conspiracy theory, I would have used their (plural) instead of his (singular), when I wrote:

His hidden agenda is to end all debate.

After all, a conspiracy always involves two or more individuals. So why did I choose to write in singular rather than plural? The answer should be obvious to anyone with an IQ in excess of room temperature.

So what's The ArseHooligan™ up to, you ask?

He resorts to logical fallacy--a straw man to be exact. In fact, he pretends that I didn't use the singular form--his--and then he proceeds to attack that caricature of my argument.

So, what were you saying about "credibility", ArseHooligan™?

After all, you have no credibility, as I've just amply demonstrated.

Have a nice day, ArseHooligan™.

 
At 26 May, 2010 11:23, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

"And I'm just amazed that after all this time, and all these different threads, that you're not trying to prove that Israel doesn't have the weapons, but in fact simply trying to get Anonymous to answer a fucking question with any kind of actual proof that isn't speculation, and he STILL doesn't get it."

Hey Billman, didn't I link to a Washington Post article clearly explaining why Israel studiously avoids letting the world know it has nukes?

Israel, given the Nixon/Meir discussion and Kissinger's advice, would try to avoid making it known! You hit the nail right on the head with your comment about the Vela incident. If any testing did occur, that was likely it, in partnership with South Africa.

The body of evidence for Israeli nukes is overwhelming. And no, it has nothing to do with 9/11 but everything with Sideshow Bill's credibility.

Tell me you ain't going to go along with it just because you're on the same page about conspiracy theories. Some independent thinking here would be appreciated. By the way, that's what I meant with denying (nearly) *everything* and justifying *everything*, which is just as loopy as explaining everything away with a conspiracy theory, as far as I'm concerned.

 
At 26 May, 2010 11:30, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So, Sideshow Bill, by your logic, South Africa also never had nukes, right? And Greece? And Canada? The nuclear sharing program is also a myth, right? Correct?

Germany doesn't have nukes either? Even though in Germany, there was a debate about returning them back to the States?

Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, Greece, they all never performed tests. Yet they had operational nukes.

Your reasoning is full of holes. Israel was specifically asked by Nixon to keep their nuclear weapons a secret, so as not to escalate the Middle East.

What's your major malfunction buddy? At this point, I'm starting to believe Troy Sexton is saner than you are.

 
At 26 May, 2010 11:41, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

By the way, what about Cuba's nukes? They never performed nuclear tests either!

You're being complete impossible Sideshow Bill!

 
At 26 May, 2010 11:42, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

That's why I think the debate is settled... you're just plain off your rocker! =)

 
At 26 May, 2010 11:52, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Another 100% fact-free non-answer, Anonymous?

Try again,

[4] Then perhaps you can explain why Israel has no record of nuclear weapons testing?

[7] And I'm still waiting for you to answer the question: Show me one nation that signed the NNPT that didn't test their nuclear weapons?

[8] How does a nation test its alleged nuclear arsenal "secretly"? Can you give me an example of ANY nation that's ever pulled that "miracle" off?

[9] So how did Israel manage to test their alleged "nuclear arsenal" without nuclear fallout?

As I stated earlier: No military commander will jeopardize the success of his mission on untested ordinance.

So, how did Israel manage to test their alleged "nuclear arsenal" without producing radioactive fallout? And how did Israel manage to test their alleged "nuclear arsenal" without the rest of the World's knowledge?

As I stated earlier, it should be easy for you to produce articles, from credible sources, that document Israel's nuclear arms testing program.

For example, it took me 1 minute to verify China and North Korea's nuclear arms testing programs. Here are two articles from the New York Times:

Source: New York Times: North Korea Claims to Conduct 2nd Nuclear Test.

Source: New York Times: China Tests Atomic Bomb, Asks Summit Talk On Ban; Johnson Minimizes Peril.

So tell us, Anonymous, why can't you produce similar articles from credible sources that concern Israel's alleged "nuclear arms" testing program?

Are you honestly (yeah right, "honesty" from you. LOL!) trying to convince us that Israel's military commanders are willing to rely on UNTESTED nuclear ordinance?

If that's the case, then you're insane--period.

Now, get to work, because I'm still waiting for DIRECT ANSWERS to my questions that are based on FACTS, not speculation, unsubstantiated allegations or opinion.

And remember, Mr. Thick-As-Brick, I'm just askin' questions...

 
At 26 May, 2010 11:56, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

Hey...did you just completely avoid answering *my* questions?

What about Cuba, Bill? Greece? Belgium? Germany? South Africa?

They didn't have nukes? Would you like to extend your "logical" argument to them?

In short: your nuclear testing argument makes no sense. You're delusional... =)

 
At 26 May, 2010 12:08, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous tells another bald-faced lie, and scribbles, "...Germany doesn't have nukes either? Even though in Germany, there was a debate about returning them back to the States?...Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, Greece, they all never performed tests. Yet they had operational nukes."

You lying sack-of-shit.

The weapons you speak of are controlled by NATO and were produced by the United States; thus, no testing was necessary. Moreover, the countries you name--Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and Greece--are NOT in control of the nuclear weapons you mention. Read on...

Wikipedia writes, "...Under NATO nuclear weapons sharing, the United States has provided nuclear weapons for Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey to deploy and store.[36] This involves pilots and other staff of the "non-nuclear" NATO states practicing, handling, and delivering the U.S. nuclear bombs, and adapting non-U.S. warplanes to deliver U.S. nuclear bombs...The Institute of Strategic Studies Islamabad (ISSI) has criticized the arrangement for allegedly violating Article I and II of the NPT, arguing that 'these Articles do not permit the NWS to delegate the control of their nuclear weapons directly or indirectly to others.' NATO has argued that the weapons' sharing is compliant with the NPT because 'the U.S. nuclear weapons based in Europe are in the sole possession and under constant and complete custody and control of the United States.'"

Source: Wikipedia: List of states with nuclear weapons--Nuclear weapons sharing.

Got it, jackass?

Read it again:

"...the U.S. nuclear weapons based in Europe are in the sole possession and under constant and complete custody and control of the United States."

Thus, you stand exposed as a liar once again.

So Anonymous, tell us, how does it feel to know that your alleged credibility can be measured in negative engineering units?

And remember, Pinocchio, I'm just askin' questions...

 
At 26 May, 2010 12:11, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous lies, "...Hey...did you just completely avoid answering *my* questions?"

I just answered your questions, jackass (See my last post). And guess what, Pinocchio, I exposed you as a liar again.

And remember, liar, I'm just askin' questions...

 
At 26 May, 2010 12:33, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

Awesome! I got you to concede! Remember, earlier, you said the following, and I quote:

Anonymous prevaricates, "...Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Turkey."

Liar.

That's not proof.

Where's your evidence, liar?

And remember, I'm just askin' questions, Pinocchio.


Sure, they are part of the "nuclear sharing" program... but they do have nukes on their bases, do they not? You completely denied they had any nukes in the first place! When I borrow you a nuke, is it fair to say you have a nuke, Bill? Yes it is.

And why is Wikipedia now a reliable source all of a sudden? Do you see the picture in that article of South African nuclear weapons? So did South Africa nukes or not? What does the article say about South African nuclear testing, Bill?

 
At 26 May, 2010 12:56, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous lies again, "...but they do have nukes on their bases, do they not? You completely denied they had any nukes in the first place! When I borrow you a nuke, is it fair to say you have a nuke, Bill? Yes it is."

I didn't "completely deny" anything. Here's what I said: "...That's not proof."

Your statement was clear--and I quote--"......Germany doesn't have nukes either? Even though in Germany, there was a debate about returning them back to the States?...Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, Greece, they all never performed tests. Yet they had operational nukes."

You tried to tell us that Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and Greece produced nuclear weapons without testing them, and you also implied that they control the weapons.

Well, as I just proved, that's a bald-faced lie.

Furthermore, your idiotic and underhanded misdirection attempts will NEVER repair the damage to your credibility, Anonymous.

Put simply: You're a liar.

Anonymous the idiot scribbles, "...And why is Wikipedia now a reliable source all of a sudden?"

How many times must I explain this to you, Jackass? Wikipedia's comments on Israel are based upon speculation, not facts.

Read on, idiot...

"...Israel is also widely believed to have nuclear weapons, though it has refused to confirm or deny this."

"...widely believed"?!?!?!?!?

That's not a fact, jackass. That's speculation--period. And it doesn't matter how many times you misrepresent speculation as FACT, Anonymous, because I'll BUST YOU EVERY TIME.

Got it, Pinocchio?

Now get to work, scumbag, and answer my questions with FACTS, not opinion, speculation and unsubstantiated allegations.

 
At 26 May, 2010 13:06, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

I never used the word "produced" Bill. I literally said they "had" nukes. Of course, if you afford yourself the luxury of putting your words in my mouth, yes, then you can accuse me of anything. I didn't say "produced".

Look at what the Wikipedia also says:

"However, there is EXTENSIVE EVIDENCE Israel has nuclear weapons or a near-ready nuclear weapons capability."

Extensive evidence, Bill =)

Now that we've settled the nuclear sharing debate (I wasn't a liar after all =), let's move on to South Africa.

Do you deny South Africa produced nuclear weapons? And if so why?

This is important, since you maintain that nuclear testing is the only form of evidence of nuke possession allowed.

 
At 26 May, 2010 13:18, Blogger GuitarBill said...

You haven't settled anything asshole.

Read it again:

"...Israel is also widely believed to have nuclear weapons, though it has refused to confirm or deny this."

And you can shove your "extensive evidence". There is no substantive evidence--period.

Now, answer the questions with FACTS, not opinion, speculation and unsubstantiated allegations:

[4] Then perhaps you can explain why Israel has no record of nuclear weapons testing?

[7] And I'm still waiting for you to answer the question: Show me one nation that signed the NNPT that didn't test their nuclear weapons?

[8] How does a nation test its alleged nuclear arsenal "secretly"? Can you give me an example of ANY nation that's ever pulled that "miracle" off?

[9] So how did Israel manage to test their alleged "nuclear arsenal" without nuclear fallout?

As I stated earlier: No military commander will jeopardize the success of his mission on untested ordinance.

So, how did Israel manage to test their alleged "nuclear arsenal" without producing radioactive fallout? And how did Israel manage to test their alleged "nuclear arsenal" without the rest of the World's knowledge?

As I stated earlier, it should be easy for you to produce articles, from credible sources, that document Israel's nuclear arms testing program.

For example, it took me 1 minute to verify China and North Korea's nuclear arms testing programs. Here are two articles from the New York Times:

Source: New York Times: North Korea Claims to Conduct 2nd Nuclear Test.

Source: New York Times: China Tests Atomic Bomb, Asks Summit Talk On Ban; Johnson Minimizes Peril.

So tell us, Anonymous, why can't you produce similar articles from credible sources that concern Israel's alleged "nuclear arms" testing program?

Are you honestly (yeah right, "honesty" from you. LOL!) trying to convince us that Israel's military commanders are willing to rely on UNTESTED nuclear ordinance?

If that's the case, then you're insane--period.

NOW PRODUCE THE ARTICLES FROM A CREDIBLE SOURCE THAT DOCUMENT ISRAEL'S NUCLEAR ARMS TESTING PROGRAM, because without that evidence, your argument is based on nothing but speculation and unsubstantiated allegations.

Now get to work, stop avoiding the substance of my argument and answer my questions with FACTS, liar.

 
At 26 May, 2010 13:25, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

Note that I use the word "produced" deliberately this time.

And by the way, if you're looking for an admission of nuke possession by Israel...see this and this! =)

Then we have this, from the US military no less! =))

Are you ready? Grab your ankles!

Abstract
This paper is a history of the Israeli nuclear weapons program drawn from a review of unclassified sources. Israel began its search for nuclear weapons at the inception of the state in 1948. As payment for Israeli participation in the Suez Crisis of 1956, France provided nuclear expertise and constructed a reactor complex for Israel at Dimona capable of large-scale plutonium production and reprocessing. The United States discovered the facility by 1958 and it was a subject of continual discussions between American presidents and Israeli prime ministers. Israel used delay and deception to at first keep the United States at bay, and later used the nuclear option as a bargaining chip for a consistent American conventional arms supply. After French disengagement in the early 1960s, Israel progressed on its own, including through several covert operations, to project completion. Before the 1967 Six-Day War, they felt their nuclear facility threatened and reportedly assembled several nuclear devices. By the 1973 Yom Kippur War Israel had a number of sophisticated nuclear bombs, deployed them, and considered using them. The Arabs may have limited their war aims because of their knowledge of the Israeli nuclear weapons. Israel has most probably conducted several nuclear bomb tests. They have continued to modernize and vertically proliferate and are now one of the world’s larger nuclear powers. Using “bomb in the basement” nuclear opacity, Israel has been able to use its arsenal as a deterrent to the Arab world while not technically violating American nonproliferation requirements.


So.. *you* even turn against the US military in your crazed denialism, Bill?
And you're still calling me a liar? How low can you go? =)

 
At 26 May, 2010 13:34, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

By the way, Bill, do you consider Seymour Hersh to be a credible source? A good journalist? Just askin' =)

 
At 26 May, 2010 13:36, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous tries, once again, to dress up speculation and unsubstantiated allegation as fact, and scribbles, "...Israel has most probably conducted several nuclear bomb tests."

"...most probably"?!?!?!?!?

LOL!

You're a joke anonymous. Trying to pass off more weasel phrases like "most probably" as FACT again--you compulsive liar?

You've not presented one fact. In reality, once again, all you've managed to produce are speculation and unsubstantiated opinion.

Try again, Pinocchio, and this time I want FACTS from a credible source.

And remember, I'm just askin' questions that you refuse to answer...

 
At 26 May, 2010 13:40, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous tries to change the subject, and scribbles, "...By the way, Bill, do you consider Seymour Hersh to be a credible source?"

No, because he relies on unnamed sources. And, like you, he's joke.

Now, get to work, and answer my questions with FACTS, not opinion and unsubstantiated allegations.

 
At 26 May, 2010 13:42, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Anonymous #2 said...
By the way, Bill, do you consider Seymour Hersh to be a credible source?"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!!!

Seymor Hersh?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!

Seymor Fucking Hersh?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAAA!!!!


Seymor "Pull Shit Out OF My Ass And Make Up Quotes With It" Hersh?

BBWWWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!!!


For Cthulu's sake, fucktard, don't make me laugh like that, I think I just hurt a rib!

 
At 26 May, 2010 13:45, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

"You've not presented one fact. In reality, once again, all you've managed to produce are speculation and unsubstantiated opinion."

Yet... Wikipedia refers to it as extensive evidence... from a multitude of sources.. including Olmert and Peres, who I cited =)

Besides, do you know which newspaper actually said that Israel was "widely believed, however, to be the world’s sixth largest nuclear power."? The Jerusalem Post!

You see, faced with heaps of credible evidence and sources, I consider it fact that Israel has nuclear weapons. That what's corroboration does for you. =)

You on the other hand.... thanks for helping me understand the pathological denialism so pervasive in the debunker cult... an eye-opener!

 
At 26 May, 2010 13:47, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

"For Cthulu's sake, fucktard, don't make me laugh like that, I think I just hurt a rib!"

Well, he's got a Pullitzer Prize, while I doubt you even finished grammar school, since you can't even spell his name right ;-)

 
At 26 May, 2010 13:56, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous continues to refuse to answer my questions, and scribbles, "...Yet... Wikipedia refers to it as extensive evidence... from a multitude of sources.. including Olmert and Peres, who I cited =)"

That's not an answer, scumbag.

Try again, and this time answer the questions with DIRECT ANSWERS:

[4] Then perhaps you can explain why Israel has no record of nuclear weapons testing?

[7] And I'm still waiting for you to answer the question: Show me one nation that signed the NNPT that didn't test their nuclear weapons?

[8] How does a nation test its alleged nuclear arsenal "secretly"? Can you give me an example of ANY nation that's ever pulled that "miracle" off?

[9] So how did Israel manage to test their alleged "nuclear arsenal" without nuclear fallout?

Tell us, Anonymous, when you attended high school at the local trailer park, did they ever take the time to explain the difference between speculation and FACT?

Apparently not.

Now, get to work, and answer my questions with DIRECT ANSWERS based on FACTS. And remember, I can sit here for as long as you like, until you finally answer the questions (yeah, I know, he'll never answer my questions). It's no skin off my teeth, Pinocchio.

 
At 26 May, 2010 14:07, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

Much more interesting would be to discuss the psychological reasons behind your rampant, compulsive denialism...since no amount of credible sources is going to change your mind anyway..

Thanks for admitting I was right about the nuclear sharing program... I hope you've learned something, it appears you know preciously little about this program when you called me a liar.. ;-)

The debate is settled, Bill. Your questions have been answered. I even cited you a source from the military who believes Israel most probably conducted [secret] nuclear tests. A source from the military believes it possible, you don't... hmm, I guess I'll believe him, and not you.. ;-)

And by the way, you still haven't answered my question about South Africa, Bill. Did they ever have nuclear weapons?

Remember Bill, it all revolves around question [4]. I don't assert nuclear testing is the only credible evidence of possession of operational nuclear weapons. I actually accept other evidence too.

So what is it?

 
At 26 May, 2010 14:12, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous prevaricates, "...The debate is settled, Bill."

No, the debate is not "settled", and the debate never will be settled as long as you insist on dressing up speculation and unsubstantiated allegations as "fact".

Now, for the one millionth time, answer the GOD DAMNED QUESTIONS WITH FACTS, NOT SPECULATION, UNSUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATIONS AND OPINION.

[4] Then perhaps you can explain why Israel has no record of nuclear weapons testing?

[7] And I'm still waiting for you to answer the question: Show me one nation that signed the NNPT that didn't test their nuclear weapons?

[8] How does a nation test its alleged nuclear arsenal "secretly"? Can you give me an example of ANY nation that's ever pulled that "miracle" off?

[9] So how did Israel manage to test their alleged "nuclear arsenal" without nuclear fallout?

Now get to work--you dishonest and recalcitrant fucktard.

 
At 26 May, 2010 14:19, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous prevaricates, "...And by the way, you still haven't answered my question about South Africa, Bill. Did they ever have nuclear weapons?"

Trying to change the subject, fucktard? Well, it's not going to work, cornhole.

In fact, I've answered dozens of your idiotic questions, and proven that you're a liar over-and-over again.

Now, I refuse to answer any more questions UNTIL YOU ANSWER THE FOUR FOLLOWING QUESTIONS WITH FACTS, NOT SPECULATION, OPINION AND UNSUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATIONS:

[4] Then perhaps you can explain why Israel has no record of nuclear weapons testing?

[7] And I'm still waiting for you to answer the question: Show me one nation that signed the NNPT that didn't test their nuclear weapons?

[8] How does a nation test its alleged nuclear arsenal "secretly"? Can you give me an example of ANY nation that's ever pulled that "miracle" off?

[9] So how did Israel manage to test their alleged "nuclear arsenal" without nuclear fallout?

Now get to work--you dishonest and recalcitrant fucktard.

 
At 26 May, 2010 14:27, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Anonymous #2 said...
"For Cthulu's sake, fucktard, don't make me laugh like that, I think I just hurt a rib!"

Well, he's got a Pullitzer Prize, while I doubt you even finished grammar school, since you can't even spell his name right ;-)"

His name?

I spelled it as accurately as one of his stories.

And that just goes to show you how worhthless a Pulitzer is anymore.

They hand it out for the most outrageous lying story that forwrds the reactionary leftist narrative.

 
At 26 May, 2010 14:27, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"the debunker cult"

Lather.

Rinse.

Repeat.

 
At 26 May, 2010 14:40, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

"They hand it out for the most outrageous lying story that forwards the reactionary leftist narrative."

Usually, journalists get praised for publishing articles that challenge authority. Since the extreme right runs America, leftists often get a Pulitzer Prize..

You see Watergate reporting by Woodward & Bernstein won the Washington Post the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service in 1973....

So Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein wrote an "outrageous lying story that forwrds [sic] the reactionary leftist narrative."?

Are you sure?

 
At 26 May, 2010 15:26, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous,

It's easy to prove which nations posses nuclear arsenals, and which nations are alleged to have conducted nuclear weapons tests. Read on...

China:

Source: New York Times: China Tests Atomic Bomb, Asks Summit Talk On Ban; Johnson Minimizes Peril.

Source: defense.gov: FY04 Report to Congress on PRC Military Power.

North Korea:

Source: New York Times: North Korea Claims to Conduct 2nd Nuclear Test.

France:

Source: BBC: 1960: France explodes third atomic bomb.

Soviet Union:

Source: BBC: 1961: World condemns Russia's nuclear test.

United Kingdom:

Source: BBC: Operation Hurricane--Maralinga.

India:

Source: BBC: India--Third World joins the nuclear club.

Pakistan:

Source: Pakistan carries out another nuclear test.


Continued...

 
At 26 May, 2010 15:28, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Continued...


According to Wikipedia, the nations alleged to have conducted nuclear arms test include:

Japan; Vela incident; Pakistan; North Korea; and Germany.

[1] Japan.

Wikipedia writes, "...There is a disputed report about the Japanese atomic program being able to test a nuclear weapon in Korea on August 12, 1945, a few days after the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and 9, and three days before the Japanese surrender on August 15, but this is seen as being highly unlikely by mainstream historians."

[2] Vela incident.

Wikipedia writes, "...In what is known as the Vela Incident, some country may have detonated a nuclear device on September 22, 1979 in the Indian Ocean, according to satellite data. It is not certain whether there was actually a test, or if it was who would have been responsible for it although France, Israel or South Africa are sometimes named."

[3] Pakistan.

Wikipedia writes, "...n the their book, The Nuclear Express, authors Thomas Reed and Danny Stillman allege that the People's Republic of China allowed Pakistan to detonate a nuclear weapon at its Lop Nur test site in 1990, eight years before Pakistan held its first official weapons test."

[4] North Korea.

Wikipedia writes, "...On September 9, 2004 it was reported by South Korean media that there had been a large explosion at the Chinese/North Korean border. This explosion left a crater visible by satellite and precipitated a large (2 mile diameter) mushroom cloud. The United States and South Korea quickly downplayed this, explaining it away as a forest fire that had nothing to do with the DPRK's nuclear weapons program."

[5] Germany.

Wikipedia writes, "...Hitlers Bombe, a book published in German by the historian Rainer Karlsch in 2005, has alleged that there is evidence that Nazi Germany performed some sort of test of a "nuclear device" (a hybrid fusion device unlike any modern nuclear weapons) in March 1945, though the evidence for this has not yet been fully evaluated, and has been doubted by many historians."

Source: Wikipedia: List of nuclear tests--Alleged tests.


Notice that Israel is conspicuously absent from the list, cretin.

Now, why can't you produce similar articles with respect to Israel's alleged nuclear arms testing program?

And remember, I'm just askin' questions...

 
At 26 May, 2010 15:44, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Now, I'll ask you again, Anonymous:

[1] So, how did Israel's arms manufacturers manage develop nuclear weapons that don't require extensive testing programs to verify their ability to detonate reliably?

[2] How did Israel manage to test their alleged "nuclear arsenal" without producing radioactive fallout?

[3] And how did Israel manage to test their alleged "nuclear arsenal" without the rest of the World's knowledge?

And last, but not least:

[4] Who are the insane Israeli military commanders who are willing to trust the success of their mission (not to mention that safety of their troops) to untested nuclear ordinance? Can you name them?

LOL!

Face it, you're insane and grossly misinformed.

And remember, I'm just askin' questions...

 
At 26 May, 2010 15:56, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

"Who are the insane Israeli military commanders who are willing to trust the success of their mission (not to mention that safety of their troops) to untested nuclear ordinance? Can you name them?"

And you're saying... what? That they feel safer not having nuclear weapons? I don't quite follow that one there. Besides, it's an argument from incredulity based on a faulty premise: that Israel is unable to conducts tests in secret: I quoted you a source from the military that found it very probable that Israel conducted nuclear tests in secret. Who knows better? You or him?

But anyways, I was just curious, do you admit that South Africa actually had nuclear weapons? Or are you going to extend your comical denial antics in that direction ;-)) ?

Next question of course being: "My god...how did the RSA obtain nukes without testing?" ;-)

 
At 26 May, 2010 16:00, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

By the way, do you realize that a nuclear reactor is technically more complex than a nuclear bomb?

Why do you think US authorities are so incredibly anal about Iran's nuclear energy program?

Well duh... [speculation] the Iranians want the bomb and are using nuclear energy as cover. The Mossad is so uptight they were probably behind the assassination of a nuclear scientist in Iran not too long ago. [/speculation]

So far, I don't see much support from others for your argument that Israel has no nukes, Bill. This is your personal ego struggle and you know it ;-)

 
At 26 May, 2010 16:09, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The idiot scribbles, "...But anyways, I was just curious, do you admit that South Africa actually had nuclear weapons?"

Trying to change the subject again, cretin?

No, I don't admit "that South Africa actually had nuclear weapons".

And you have no evidence to substantiate that assertion beyond speculation, unsubstantiated allegations and opinion.

Remember jackass, I deal in facts, not speculation.

Now, why don't you explain why Israel is conspicuously absent from the list of nations that have VERIFIED nuclear weapons testing programs?

And answer the questions:

[4] Then perhaps you can explain why Israel has no record of nuclear weapons testing?

[7] And I'm still waiting for you to answer the question: Show me one nation that signed the NNPT that didn't test their nuclear weapons?

[8] How does a nation test its alleged nuclear arsenal "secretly"? Can you give me an example of ANY nation that's ever pulled that "miracle" off?

[9] So how did Israel manage to test their alleged "nuclear arsenal" without nuclear fallout?

And then you can answer these questions:

[1] So, how did Israel's arms manufacturers manage to develop nuclear weapons that don't require extensive testing programs to verify their ability to detonate reliably?

[2] How did Israel manage to test their alleged "nuclear arsenal" without producing radioactive fallout?

[3] And how did Israel manage to test their alleged "nuclear arsenal" without the rest of the World's knowledge?

And last, but not least:

[4] Who are the insane Israeli military commanders who are willing to trust the success of their mission (not to mention that safety of their troops) to untested nuclear ordinance? Can you name them?

Now, get to work, and stop trying to change the subject, cretin.

 
At 26 May, 2010 16:12, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous prevaricates again, and scribbles, "...So far, I don't see much support from others for your argument that Israel has no nukes, Bill. This is your personal ego struggle and you know it ;-)"

Really? No kidding?

What's this, liar?

And I quote:

"...Bill, with all due respect, don't you realize that they're never going to answer you?" -- Triterope

"...Anonymous: Oh, I've answered him, Tripeyoke...Tritrope: No, you haven't. You make no fucking sense whatsoever." -- Triterope

Source: SLC: Greens Reject Truther Hicks; Will Libertarians Go for Truther Hancock?.

"...GB, I've never had any luck with this, but have you EVER had a troofer answer a 9/11 question directly?" -- Billman

Source: SLC: David Ray Griffin, the King of Recycling.

"...Well, GB, in light of this, a new possibilty occurs to me. Israel, apparently, has in fact never tested their weapons. So they have a lot of faith in them. And wow, 35 years at LEAST?" -- Billman

Source: SLC: Birthers and Truthers: Equally Moronic, But Not Equally Pernicious.

So, what were you saying about "support from others for your argument", cretin?

Any more lies for us, Pinocchio?

And remember, I'm just askin' questions, liar.

 
At 26 May, 2010 16:26, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous prevaricates, "...Besides, it's an argument from incredulity based on a faulty premise: that Israel is unable to conducts tests in secret: I quoted you a source from the military that found it very probable that Israel conducted nuclear tests in secret. Who knows better? You or him?"

There you go again with the "very probable" bullshit.

No, what you--not to mention your alleged "expert"--must do, is show me one nation that has ever conducted nuclear arms testing in secret.

I just proved to you that every nation on earth with a nuclear arsenal can be verified by its history of nuclear arms testing. And there are no exceptions--period.

Make no mistake, it's a fact that military commanders will not trust the success of their mission to untested ordinance. As a result, it's necessary to test all potential designs of nuclear weapons. So where's your evidence that Israel has a "nuclear arms testing program"?

I'm waiting for evidence based on facts, not speculation, unsubstantiated allegations and opinion.

Now, get to work, and answer my questions.

And remember, I'm just askin' questions...

 
At 27 May, 2010 04:39, Blogger Triterope said...

So far, I don't see much support from others for your argument that Israel has no nukes, Bill.

That's because nobody fucking cares. And even if I care, I have no personal knowledge of the Israeli nuclear program. Neither does anyone else here. I really don't know what this argument is even about.

 
At 27 May, 2010 08:34, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

GuitarBill: "No, what you--not to mention your alleged "expert"--must do, is show me one nation that has ever conducted nuclear arms testing in secret."

Well it wouldn't be secret anymore if somebody told you about it, now would it. ;-)

"That's because nobody fucking cares. And even if I care, I have no personal knowledge of the Israeli nuclear program. Neither does anyone else here. I really don't know what this argument is even about."

It's about Bill's ego. If it was about truth, he would have already conceded that Israel and the RSA had or have nukes. I do find this statement a little bit slippery and ambiguous.

 
At 27 May, 2010 09:27, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous prevaricates, "...It's about Bill's ego. If it was about truth, he would have already conceded that Israel and the RSA had or have nukes."

That's not an answer, fuck-face.

Where are your facts, jackass?

I will concede NOTHING--you lying piece of shit--until YOU PRODUCE FACTS.

GOT IT, COCKSUCKER?

NOW GET TO WORK!

 
At 27 May, 2010 10:06, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

Calm down Bill. The world doesn't end if you're wrong.

 
At 27 May, 2010 10:08, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

Hmmm, then again, maybe in your mind, it does. Denial ain't a river in Egypt ;-)

 
At 27 May, 2010 15:56, Blogger Triterope said...

It's about Bill's ego. If it was about truth, he would have already conceded that Israel and the RSA had or have nukes.

"If it was about truth, others would see that I'm right." Yeah, you're a 9-11 Truther.

 
At 27 May, 2010 19:11, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Calm down Bill. The world doesn't end if you're wrong."

That's not an answer.

So where are your facts, cocksucker?

Once again, you lose the debate because you refuse to produce facts.

And why do you refuse to produce facts?

Because you don't have any facts.

So where are your "facts", asshole?

I'm waiting.

 
At 28 May, 2010 05:39, Anonymous sock puppet all in your face said...

Mordechai Vanunu?
i know he allegations have never proven to your satisfaction (not sure what that would be since the goal posts move around so much)

but his allegations were credible enough to warrent a front page, above the fold story about israels nukes on the Oct 5th 1986 edition.

his alligations were credible enough to make israel toss him in jail and throw away the key.

 
At 28 May, 2010 05:44, Anonymous sock puppet all in your face said...

ahh forgot to mention the paper that found his allegations factual enough to print

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article830147.ece

 
At 28 May, 2010 07:15, Blogger Triterope said...

the Oct 5th 1986 edition.

I knew 9-11 Truthers live in the past, but geez.

 
At 28 May, 2010 09:29, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

I didn't know facts have an expiration date. We'd better put them in the refridgerator.

 
At 28 May, 2010 09:37, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

"If it was about truth, others would see that I'm right." Yeah, you're a 9-11 Truther.

Exactly. I don't need to lie to reinforce my belief system or defend my ego. If the facts say otherwise, my belief system will adapt. It's that simple. And if believed the 9/11 truth movement was completely without merit, I wouldn't be here.

You guys are stuck denying nearly *everything* and justifying nearly *everything*. That's your problem. You paint every theory with the same brush, you ended up reflexively and instinctively hand waving all inconvenient facts related to 9/11, and now you find yourself jumping through hoops so you keep lying to yourselves.

Not everything the truth movement claims is correct, but there are plenty of facts you have failed to rebut, despite the monumentous character assassination campaign that is this blog's purpose. I don't see much in-depth analysis here. Mostly name-calling, idle gossipy chitter-chatter about Dylan Avery's hair and Jeremy Rothe-Kushel's beard, and irrelevant, peevish backtalk.

That about sums up this blog.

 
At 28 May, 2010 16:49, Blogger Triterope said...

Exactly.

So you're too stupid to realize my earlier comment was an insult? Okay then.

 
At 30 May, 2010 11:56, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

"So you're too stupid to realize my earlier comment was an insult? Okay then."

No, I'm telling you that you're not just subjectively wrong, but objectively wrong.

And you're a complete and utter cum breathing clusterfuck for believing you'd actually get away with quote mining one word from a lengthy comment directly under said comment.

Cheers. =)

 
At 30 May, 2010 18:14, Blogger Triterope said...

No, the rest of your shit just wasn't worth responding to.

 
At 31 May, 2010 17:28, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

"No, the rest of your shit just wasn't worth responding to."

Excuses, excuses. You're dumbfounded, aghast and bewildered, and not capable of a coherent rejoinder, cream pie. Stop squirming and sit still.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home