Tuesday, January 18, 2011

Free Gaza Movement Troofers

Check out this twit, errr, twitter, errr, tweet:

I liked a YouTube video -- NEW PROOF 9 11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! Richard Gage. Architects a... http://youtu.be/KSideg_ORbk?a


I checked and that is indeed the twitter account for the Free Gaza Movement. You may recall them from last spring, when their boat running the Gaza Blockade was boarded by Israeli commandos. In the ensuing skirmish at least nine people were killed. Minor correction: The Free Gaza Movement is part of a coalition of groups that organized the flotilla.

It's no particular surprise that these folks have signed onto the Troof banner; Cynthia McNinney, the 2008 Truther/Green Party Candidate has sailed on their ships.

Labels:

174 Comments:

At 18 January, 2011 10:50, Blogger snug.bug said...

Initially the Free Gaza Folks were flirting with Kevin Barrett. Ken O'Keefe appeared with Barrett and Fetzer in London (100 people in a 100-seat hall).

I think they're wise to Barrett now.

 
At 18 January, 2011 11:11, Blogger Ian G. said...

Initially the Free Gaza Folks were flirting with Kevin Barrett. Ken O'Keefe appeared with Barrett and Fetzer in London (100 people in a 100-seat hall).

I think they're wise to Barrett now.


Sure they are, petgoat. That's why they've rejected 9/11 "truth" as the nonsense it is.

Oh wait....

 
At 18 January, 2011 15:30, Blogger Len said...

"(100 people in a 100-seat hall)"

You make that sound like an accoplishment. " London's metropolitan area...[has] an estimated total population of between 12 million and 14 million." Even IF what you say is true les then 0.001% attended

 
At 18 January, 2011 16:45, Blogger paul w said...

Completely OT (sort of), but since the truthers are always using the quote, I found this interesting:

'Beware the Military-Industrial Complex - Eisenhower's farewell address has been completely misunderstood.'

http://www.slate.com/id/2281124/

"Its "true significance," Williams maintained, "has been distorted beyond recognition."

Sounds like ideal truther fodder!

 
At 18 January, 2011 17:29, Blogger snug.bug said...

Len, that's my point. Barrett and Fetzer flew to England to talk to 100 people.

 
At 18 January, 2011 17:48, Blogger paul w said...

Bullshit, Bwain.
"100 people in a 100-seat hall."
You meant it was full; that's why you said it was a 100 seat hall.
Now, you're changing your tune to keep the conversation going.
Stop lying.

 
At 18 January, 2011 18:02, Blogger Ian G. said...

Len, that's my point. Barrett and Fetzer flew to England to talk to 100 people.

Which is 100 more than you could get to watch a speech of yours. Barrett and Fetzer are reputable members of the truth movement, while you've been banned by the movement.

 
At 18 January, 2011 18:54, Blogger snug.bug said...

Oh sorry. It was 100 people in a 1000-seat hall. Now does it make sense?

 
At 18 January, 2011 20:20, Blogger Ian G. said...

Oh sorry. It was 100 people in a 1000-seat hall. Now does it make sense?

Yes: the truth movement is dead. All that's left to do is laugh at suckers like you.

 
At 18 January, 2011 23:04, Blogger snug.bug said...

No, not the truth movement is dead. There were a lot of people writing to the UK to ask truthers to boycott Barrett and Ftezer, and apparently it worked.

 
At 19 January, 2011 03:46, Blogger Garry said...

Ken O'Keefe is ex-USMC, and he bottled out of fighting in 'Desert Storm'. I've had dealings with him online - he's a complete fanatic and a rabid anti-Semite, so he fits in well with what's left of the 'troof' movement:

http://worldcitizen.uk.net/

 
At 19 January, 2011 06:45, Blogger Ian G. said...

No, not the truth movement is dead. There were a lot of people writing to the UK to ask truthers to boycott Barrett and Ftezer, and apparently it worked.

That's the way to make a movement grow: boycott its prominent members!

 
At 19 January, 2011 08:21, Blogger snug.bug said...

Garry, I know some Jews who see to think well of O'Keefe, and I've seen no evidence that he's antisemitic.

Barrett, however, is clearly a Jew-hater. Like I said, the Free Gaza folks seem to be wise to him now.

 
At 19 January, 2011 09:43, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

I think Brian is jealous that Barrett and Fezter is getting all the attention from the media spotlight & poor Brian is at home on his computer bitching to us about Barrett and Fezter.

Brian, you attention loving whore!

 
At 19 January, 2011 09:44, Blogger Garry said...

Brian, the site where I encountered O'Keefe ('Harry's Place') unfortunately does not preserve its threads, owing to a cyber-attack it had suffered.

Let me assure you however that during the course of my 'conversation' with him he ranted about Israeli 'genocide' against the Palestinians, claimed that the 'Zionists' (read Jews) controlled US foreign policy, and indulged in all the usual false-flag bollocks (such as the 'Liberty' attack) which gives both troofers and the likes of David Duke hard-ons.

If that doesn't convince you, maybe you should see his stint on Press TV. That, BTW, is the English-language Iranian state media channel, whose 'exclusives' include endorsing Holocaust Denial and claiming that the recent bombing of a Coptic Church in Alexandria was done by Mossad:

http://www.oyvagoy.com/2011/01/15/a-new-low-from-ken-okeefe/

Behind the pacifist/'world citizen' veneer, he's a rabid hater, and there's one particular ethnic group he's got a grudge against.

I should also add that during the course of the thread he admitted that he'd been thrown out of the USMC for refusing to take his NAPS tablets prior to 'Desert Storm', which of course meant he was taken out of the front-line. His claim was that he knew that the NAPS tablets would give him Gulf War Syndrome, which makes him either (1) a psychic, as no-one could have predicted this controversy before the war, or (2) a coward, who was looking for a convenient excuse to get out of theatre.

His claim that he was 'exposed to depleted uranium in Iraq and Kuwait' is also bizarre, seeing as by his own admission he never left Saudi Arabia.

Anyway, I think we all need to be clear as to what kind of man he is.

 
At 19 January, 2011 09:45, Blogger Garry said...

There's more on O'Keefe here. Even his fellow 'Free Gaza' maniacs think he's a cunt:

http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2010/12/krazy-ken-okeefe-unmasked-by-fellow.html

Press TV's endorsement of Holocaust Denial is here:

http://edition.presstv.ir/detail/56287.html

 
At 19 January, 2011 10:41, Blogger snug.bug said...

Noam Chomsky was on PressTV. Does that make him an anti-semite?

 
At 19 January, 2011 10:44, Blogger snug.bug said...

Also, he's an anti-zionist, and he talks about the USS Liberty.

I've met survivors of the USS Liberty attacks. Are you saying it didn't happen?

 
At 19 January, 2011 10:58, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

I've met survivors of the USS Liberty attacks. Are you saying it didn't happen?

No, we're saying what's that got to do with 9/11?

If there's a connection, then where's the evidence?

 
At 19 January, 2011 11:28, Blogger Garry said...

'I've met survivors of the USS Liberty attacks. Are you saying it didn't happen?'

Brian, you really are a fucking retard aren't you.

The 'USS Liberty' attack was what we on Planet Earth call an 'accident'. The ship was attacked because it was misidentified as an Egyptian vessel, not because of some sinister ZioNazi plot:

http://www.amazon.com/Liberty-Incident-J-Cristol/dp/1574885367

Cristol has not only done the relevant research through the US and Israeli documentary sources. He also shows that previous authors on this subject have at best been careless with their facts, and have at worst openly misrepresented them. James Bamford, for example, deliberately distorted the content of an interview with a US Navy SIGINT specialist, Marvin Nowicki, in order to 'prove' that the IDF knew the 'Liberty' was a USN vessel before they attacked it:

http://www.thelibertyincident.com/nowicki.html

Is that clear enough for you, or do you need me to write it in crayon.

PS: The word verification for this post is 'kerapp', which if said out aloud sounds like a fair way of describing what troofers are full of.

 
At 19 January, 2011 11:31, Blogger Garry said...

Furthermore, as far as O'Keefe's attitude is concerned, let me cite the conclusion to his interview:

‘I want to ask the Jewish people of this world. I want to ask you, does Israel represent you? Is Israel synonymous with Judaism? Because if Israel is synonymous with Judaism, then you as a people are a threat to to every, every ounce of humanity and decency that exists.

I would like to think, and I sure hope, that Judaism is not synonymous with the Israeli state, but it is now a responsibility – as it was for the decent Germans of pre-World War II Nazi Germany – just like the so-called decent Germans who did not speak out and do what they needed to do to prevent the rise of Hitler, it is now on you the Jewish people of the world, to speak up now and condemn all of these acts of racism, of mass murder, that the Israeli state that purports to represent you, to speak out now! You have a special burden!’

So, according to O'Keefe, if you are Jewish, and you do not subscribe to his (shall we say) rather idiosyncratic views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, you are on a par with the Germans who refused to stand up to the Nazis, and you are 'a threat to to every, every ounce of humanity and decency that exists'.

But he's not an anti-Semite.

 
At 19 January, 2011 11:38, Blogger Garry said...

'WhyAskQuestions', the 'Liberty' incident forms a point of commonality between neo-Nazis like David Duke and troofers, in that the claim is that the IDF deliberately attacked this vessel, and the US government covered up the evidence, thereby proving that (1) Israel is capable of killing US citizens in cold blood, and (2) that US officialdom is ready to assist in preventing truth-seekers from proving point (1).

Given the prevalence of 'Mossad did 9/11' 'theories' amongst the troofers ('4,000 Jews didn't turn up to work at the WTC, '5 dancing Jews' were 'filmed celebrating' when the WTC towers collapsed etc), the 'Liberty' has assumed a totemic status.

Funnily enough, I can cite at least one other case - twenty years on from the 'Liberty' - in which a USN vessel was hit by an air-strike during the course of an inter-state conflict in the Middle East. And in this case given its distance from the war-zone claims that the attack was accidental lack a certain degree of plausibility. But for some reason 'truth-seekers' have no interest in examining whether the Iraqi attack on the USS 'Stark' in May 1987 was deliberate. I wonder why.

 
At 19 January, 2011 12:22, Blogger Ian G. said...

I've met survivors of the USS Liberty attacks. Are you saying it didn't happen?

The USS Stark was attacked too, Brian. Why do the various conspiracy nuts never talk about that one? Hint: it has to do with which country was responsible for the attack.

 
At 19 January, 2011 12:23, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ah, I see Garry already mentioned the Stark.

 
At 19 January, 2011 14:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

Misidentified, schmisidentified.

The Liberty had radio towers so elaborate it looked like a drilling rig. It was obviously a converted WWII Victory Ship. Did the Egyptians have any ships like that?

I never heard of the Stark.

 
At 19 January, 2011 14:57, Blogger Garry said...

'The Liberty had radio towers so elaborate it looked like a drilling rig'.

Bollocks.

'It was obviously a converted WWII Victory Ship'.

Bollocks.

'Did the Egyptians have any ships like that?'

Read Cristol's book and find out for yourself. Although I expect you'll tell us all that through your expert training as a janitor you learnt how easy it was for a fighter-bomber pilot to correctly identify every naval vessel in the world from a quick flight over them, and instantly decide which one is friend or foe.

'I never heard of the Stark'.

That's because you're a fucking cretin.

 
At 19 January, 2011 15:44, Blogger snug.bug said...

What Egyptian ship was the Liberty mistaken for?

Look at the picture at Wikipedia. Have you ever in your life seen another ship that looked like that? It looks like a floating Hi-voltage transmission line.

 
At 19 January, 2011 16:23, Blogger paul w said...

See what I mean?

Now, it's a debate about how a ship looks. Next, after a little 'research' (i.e. searching conspiracy sites about the ship), you'll have numerous questions about 'anomalies'.

 
At 19 January, 2011 17:02, Blogger snug.bug said...

Not about how the ship looks.

A debate about Garry's ridiculous and evidence-free claim that the ship was misidentified.

Did the Egyptians have a ship that looked like that, yes or no?

 
At 19 January, 2011 18:46, Blogger paul w said...

See what I mean?

 
At 19 January, 2011 18:49, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The Goat Molester whines, "...evidence-free claim."

Isn't that your middle name, goat molester?

 
At 19 January, 2011 19:18, Blogger paul w said...

OT. Sorry if this has been covered before:

"This site, of which I am a co-founder, has been created as a direct response to the marginalization, suppression and outright censorship at high profile sites like visibility911, truthaction, and 911blogger."

http://911newscentral.com

Sounds like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb_qHP7VaZE

 
At 19 January, 2011 19:23, Blogger paul w said...

OT. Ditto as above.

"Today on The Intel Hub Radio, Shepard interviewed former U.S. asset Susan Lindauer. Susan worked primary in the Libyan and Iraqi embassies and warned of the 9/11 attacks months before they happened.

Susan was eventually arrested and charged under the Patriot Act as an Iraqi Agent. Essentially, the United States government turned its back on one of its most trusted assets and locked her in a Texas military prison.

Susan revealed, for the first time, Iraq’s immediate reaction to the 9/11 attacks and what they promised to do for the United States. This is explosive information that confirms our worst suspicions."

http://www.911oz.com/

 
At 19 January, 2011 19:56, Blogger snug.bug said...

No, GutterBall, I don't make evidence-free claims. But I note that Garry refuses to back yo his ridiculous claims.

 
At 19 January, 2011 19:58, Blogger Ian G. said...

Look at the picture at Wikipedia. Have you ever in your life seen another ship that looked like that? It looks like a floating Hi-voltage transmission line.

Nobody cares, petgoat.

A debate about Garry's ridiculous and evidence-free claim that the ship was misidentified.

So you have evidence that the ship was correctly identified, petgoat?

Another reason why Brian Good is so entertaining is his inability to ever concede error. This thread will soon have 100 posts in which Brian babbles about the appearance of the USS Liberty.

Hey Brian, did the USS Stark look like any ship in the Iranian navy?

 
At 19 January, 2011 19:58, Blogger Ian G. said...

No, GutterBall, I don't make evidence-free claims. But I note that Garry refuses to back yo his ridiculous claims.

See what I mean?

 
At 19 January, 2011 20:04, Blogger snug.bug said...

Garry's ridiculous and evidence-free claim is that there was mistaken identitity.

If you look at the pictures, you'll see it's impossible to mistake the Liberty for any other ship in the world because of it's enormous electronics masts.

 
At 19 January, 2011 20:06, Blogger Ian G. said...

Garry's ridiculous and evidence-free claim is that there was mistaken identitity.

Brian, saying that Garry's claim is ridiculous and evidence free is not logical. You make up your facts.

If you look at the pictures, you'll see it's impossible to mistake the Liberty for any other ship in the world because of it's enormous electronics masts.

My Uncle Steve served in the navy and said it was easy to mistake two ships for each other, especially from an airplane.

 
At 19 January, 2011 20:53, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Wrong again, goat molester.

Most people who can fog a mirror understand that if an idea is promoted by the Willis Carto Institute, the late Eustace Mullins, Jeff Rense or David Duke that it's a good indication the idea is not only false, but a malicious lie.

So what's your excuse, goat molester?

 
At 19 January, 2011 21:31, Blogger snug.bug said...

My excuse is that the Liberty was probably unique in the world and the claim that it could be mistaken for another ship is absurd.

And the poor reasoning here (one ship looks like another, and guilt by association) is just typical for the low quality of thinking generally among you girls.

 
At 19 January, 2011 21:34, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"probably"?????

Tell us about "poor reasoning", while you advocate neo-Nazi and anti-Semitic propaganda, goat molester.

Proving, once again, that if you scratch a troofer, you'll find a Nazi just under the surface.

 
At 19 January, 2011 22:01, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

And the poor reasoning here (... guilt by association) is just typical for the low quality of thinking generally among you girls.

How about declaring that an engineer cannot be considered "independent" because his firm once accepted a contract from NIST? Is that also invalid guilt by association?

 
At 19 January, 2011 22:20, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, there is nothing antisemitic about pointing out the obvious about the Liberty incident, as Noam Chomsky does.

It's funny that the OP gets all up in arms about the Free Gaza folks, when he could be writing about Barrett's lovely little Anne Frank?I Love Hitler graphic on his radio blog.

RGT, conflict of interest considerations are a matter of professional ethics; guilt by association (which is related) is a logical proposition.

 
At 19 January, 2011 23:10, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, conflict of interest considerations are a matter of professional ethics; guilt by association (which is related) is a logical proposition.

When you're finished evading, please answer the question. Does declaring that an engineer cannot be considered "independent", solely because his firm once accepted a contract from NIST, constitute invalid guilt by association? Why or why not?

 
At 19 January, 2011 23:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

I told you. It's valid guilt by association because it represents a conflict of interest.

A judge would not rule on a case that involved a friend of hers. That's not guilt by association, it's conflict of interest.

 
At 19 January, 2011 23:55, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat molester prevaricates, "...GutterBall, there is nothing antisemitic about pointing out the obvious about the Liberty incident."

Says whom? An intellectually dishonest sex stalker, failed janitor and compulsive liar?

Then why do you parrot the aforementioned neo-Nazis and anti-Semites?

If you walk like a duck, and you quack like a duck...

 
At 20 January, 2011 00:53, Blogger snug.bug said...

I didn't parrot anybody. I called out Garry's bullshit about the Liberty being misidentified.

 
At 20 January, 2011 00:58, Blogger GuitarBill said...

You didn't nothing of the sort, goat molester.

You made an unsubstantiated assertion backed by nothing more than your utterly worthless, lying opinion.

In fact, you're standing toe-to-toe with the Willis Carto Institute, the American Free Press, the late Eustace Mullins, Jeff Rense and David Duke, etc.

If you're not a neo-Nazi, why do you advocate their misinformation with such zeal?

 
At 20 January, 2011 01:04, Blogger snug.bug said...

It's not misinformation to challenge the ridiculous claim that the ship was misidentified. I note that when Garry was challenged, he ran away.

 
At 20 January, 2011 01:31, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Wrong again, liar.

He gave you two direct links to credible sources that substantiate his argument.

You, on the hand, responded with your worthless, head-up-your-ass opinion. And in the process you parrot known neo-Nazis--the Willis Carto Institute, the American Free Press, the late Eustace Mullins, Jeff Rense and David Duke.

Furthermore, he didn't "run away"--you thoroughly dishonest scoundrel. He lives in the UK. Therefore, it's reasonable to conclude that he has other more pressing matters to deal with than "debating" a deranged, lying 9/11 troofer.

 
At 20 January, 2011 01:48, Blogger snug.bug said...

I'm not interested in your links. Tell me what Egyptian ship was confused with the Liberty.

You can't. Because there is no Egyptian ship that can possibly be confused with the Liberty.

 
At 20 January, 2011 02:06, Blogger GuitarBill said...

They're not my links--you fucking jackass.

If you're unwilling to look at evidence that refutes the neo-Nazi propaganda you spew like a fire hose, then it's safe to conclude that you're just playing childish games while attempting unsuccessfully and dishonestly to elevate your worthless opinion to the realm of fact.

Furthermore, it's not incumbent upon me, or anyone else, to prove or disprove your specious argument. If you want to claim that it's impossible for the Israelis to confuse the USS Liberty with an Egyptian ship, prove it. And your fucking worthless opinion isn't evidence or proof--you thick as a brick jackass.

So where's your alleged proof that it was impossible for the Israelis to mistake the USS Liberty with an Egyptian ship? We're waiting, Pinocchio.

Now, get to work and substantiate your assertion, Pinocchio, or go fuck yourself--you thoroughly dishonest, illogical, self-serving neo-Nazi misinformation spewing Al Qaeda apologist.

 
At 20 January, 2011 02:24, Blogger Garry said...

I presume that at some point in his life Brian was a fast-jet fighter pilot. How else could he be so sure that it would be a piece of piss to identify the 'Liberty'?

The Egyptian vessel the Israelis thought they were attacking was the 'El Quseir'. And if you bear in mind that during the course of the Six Day war the IAF managed to strafe their own ground forces in the West Bank, it's not exactly difficult to see how a 'blue-on-blue' could happen. These incidents happen quite often in war.

Cristol's book is a must-read on this subject, and if you bear in mind the fact that he's not only gone through all the available material (including NSA audio tapes), but was also a naval aviator with practical operational experience, his case should be seen as unanswerable. Except if you happen to be retarded like Brian.

BTW, Chomsky is on record re: the 'Liberty' as saying that '[its] attackers were disguised', which is an outright lie. The IAF jets and the IN patrol boats involved flew under their own colours, and the inference that the Israelis disguised themselves as part of a 'false-flag' attack is yet another distortion on Saint Noam's part:

http://web.media.mit.edu/~nitin/mideast/chomsky_lecture.html

 
At 20 January, 2011 04:02, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

I told you. It's valid guilt by association because it represents a conflict of interest.

What evidence do you have that NIST's interests conflict with anybody else's? You need to demonstrate there is such a conflict, not just assume there is one or might be one.

 
At 20 January, 2011 05:55, Blogger Ian G. said...

And the poor reasoning here (one ship looks like another, and guilt by association) is just typical for the low quality of thinking generally among you girls.

YAY!!! You could tell Brian was in one of his pissy moods last night, and he finally called us girls.

Please, Brian, never change. You're just way too entertaining.

I didn't parrot anybody. I called out Garry's bullshit about the Liberty being misidentified.

Hey, if a deranged liar and failed janitor who quotes neo-Nazis says Garry is wrong about the Liberty being misidentified, we'd better believe him!

I'm not interested in your links. Tell me what Egyptian ship was confused with the Liberty.

Brian, can you tell us what Iranian ship the Stark was confused with?

Poor Brian, he just continues to babble like a deranged liar.

 
At 20 January, 2011 07:36, OpenID jrebori682 said...

During the battle of Midway, Japanese search planes, crewed by trained observers and reporters asopposed to combat flyers, misidentified the USS Neosho AO-23 as a carrier.

Carriers as we all know are flat and wide, an AO, oiler, is narrow and has cranes to handle the hoses.

The Neosho, unlike the Stark had another ship, the USS Sims, DD-409, in company with it. That would allow the trained observers to compare and make better calls about size and the like.

So if trained observers on an observation mission can mkae that big an error, fighter pilots in the rush of an attack with less to work with can even more easily misidentify a ship.

 
At 20 January, 2011 09:22, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, we weren't talking anout NIST's conflicts. We were talking about your hypothetical engineer who was a member of a firm that had had a contract with NIST.

NIST is conflicted because it was an agency operated by a political appointee of the Bush administration. Many of its investigators have ties to the defense industry and were thus motivated to overstate US vulnerability to attack. Also, many of the investigators had much knowledge of recent developments in nanothermite incendiaries, and apparently considered this a state secret that should be covered up.

 
At 20 January, 2011 09:31, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, questioning the absurd claim that the Liberty could have been mistaken for an Egyptian freighter is hardly Nazi propaganda.

Is Clark Clifford a Nazi propagandist? "That the Liberty could have been mistaken for the Egyptian supply ship El Quseir is unbelievable." Clifford cites the
hull markings (numbers) in US naval ships.

Is Admiral Thomas H. Moorer a NAzi propagandist? "The Liberty was conspicuously different from any vessel in the Egyptian navy. It was the most sophisticated intelligence ship in the world in 1967. With its massive radio antennae, including a large satellite dish, it looked like a large lobster and was one of the most easily identifiable ships afloat."

As to the "heat of battle" argument, reportedly Israeli boats circled the Liberty for 9 hours before the shooting began.

You girls are afraid of facts.

 
At 20 January, 2011 09:39, Blogger snug.bug said...

Speaking of Nazi propagandists, how come nobody has anything to say about Barrett's Anne Frank/I Love Hitler graphic? After all, according to Ian, Barrett is a highly respected pillar of the truth movement.

 
At 20 January, 2011 10:34, Blogger Ian G. said...

Speaking of Nazi propagandists, how come nobody has anything to say about Barrett's Anne Frank/I Love Hitler graphic? After all, according to Ian, Barrett is a highly respected pillar of the truth movement.

Because nobody cares about an irrelevant lunatic like Barrett. And yes, Barrett is a highly respected member of the truth movement. This is hardly surprising, given that the truth movement is a tiny group of liars, lunatics, and charlatans.

 
At 20 January, 2011 10:38, Blogger Ian G. said...

You girls are afraid of facts.

No, we just like taunting a babbling liar who calls people "girls" when he gets upset.

Brian, your belief that the Israelis deliberately targeted the Liberty is amusing. It sounds like something Kevin Barrett and Willie Rodriguez would agree on.

 
At 20 January, 2011 11:19, Blogger Garry said...

'Is Clark Clifford a Nazi propagandist? "That the Liberty could have been mistaken for the Egyptian supply ship El Quseir is unbelievable." Clifford cites the
hull markings (numbers) in US naval ships'.

Clifford was not SecDef at the time, and had no idea of what happened. I could add here that it is 'inconceivable' that the USAF could mistake British armoured vehicles for Iraqi ones in two Gulf Wars (1991 and 2003). But they somehow managed it, despite the fact that the latter were marked with recognition panels to avert a 'blue on blue'.

'Is Admiral Thomas H. Moorer a NAzi propagandist? "The Liberty was conspicuously different from any vessel in the Egyptian navy. It was the most sophisticated intelligence ship in the world in 1967. With its massive radio antennae, including a large satellite dish, it looked like a large lobster and was one of the most easily identifiable ships afloat."'

Moorer could conceivably be avoiding a more important fact. Namely, that his service (the USN) sent an unarmed vessel into a war-zone, and didn't tell the IDF that there was a US Navy ship floating around off the Egyptian coast.

'As to the "heat of battle" argument, reportedly Israeli boats circled the Liberty for 9 hours before the shooting began'.

Prior to the attack on the 'Liberty', there was an explosion at an arms dump in El Arish, and the IDF (wrongly) reported that they had been shelled from the sea.

Have you read Cristol's book, Brian? Or are you as receptive to proof that you're wrong on this subject as you are on 9/11-related matters?

Perhaps you can share also - from your career as a fast-jet pilot - how easy it is to identify vessels correctly and determine whether they are friend or foe.

 
At 20 January, 2011 11:38, Blogger Ian G. said...

Let me ask you, Brian, exactly what Israel was trying to accomplish by deliberately attacking its superpower patron? How would Israel benefit by such an attack?

I mean, we all know why you think the US attacked itself on 9/11 (oil in Iraq, the need to destroy the towers because of asbestos and the threat of a hurricane, the need to control the world's heroin supply in Afghanistan, etc.) but I'm interested to know what you think is the reason for the attack on the Liberty.

 
At 20 January, 2011 11:42, Blogger Ian G. said...

A note to everyone else: when I ask Brian questions, I'm doing what I call the "Wesley Willis" test of insanity. Basically, the question is "could someone pretending to be crazy have come up with this?" When I listen to the music of Wesley Willis, it's so far out there that nobody pretending to be insane could have created it. Wesley had to have actually been insane.

You get similar results from Brian. He once stated his opinion that the WTC towers were built with explosives already in place, that way they could be demolished if a hurricane was approaching and could damage the towers, and this is why 9/11 was carried out.

That's the kind of stuff that passes the Wesley Willis test with flying colors. It's way too insane for someone pretending to be insane to come up with it.

Anyway, I can't wait for Brian to free-associate on the USS Liberty.

 
At 20 January, 2011 12:51, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat molester is a pathetic, attention seeking, contrarian conspiracy theory spewing nut bag. His larger than life ego, psychopathy and Napoleon Complex make it impossible for him to question his insane ideas.

"Never frighten a little man, because he'll kill you." --An old adage.

 
At 20 January, 2011 18:37, Blogger paul w said...

"NIST is conflicted because it was an agency operated by a political appointee of the Bush administration."

Brian, the government had to appoint SOMEONE. That's its job.

Even if it were a truther, if one used your argument, one could still say it was a political appointee, and therefore suspect.

You need something far more substantial to suggest the appointment was in any way corrupt, other than the government simply doing its job.

"Many of its investigators have ties to the defense industry and were thus motivated to overstate US vulnerability to attack."

Brian, you have to expound on the meaning of 'ties'.

I once worked, in a very tenuous manner, for the defense industry by teaching some young cadets (unrelated) skills.

Does that make me suspect?

I'm no legal boffin, but are the 'ties' one that could plausibly indicate their work would be in any way corrupted, or skewered?

More info, Brian; what exactly do you mean by 'ties'?

 
At 20 January, 2011 18:52, Blogger paul w said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 20 January, 2011 18:55, Blogger paul w said...

Also, where's Subba gone?
Bitch.

 
At 20 January, 2011 19:41, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I never said the Israelis deliberately targeted the Liberty.

I simply disputed facile claims that it had been mistaken for a ship that looks nothing like it, and the claims that only Nazi propagandists would question it.

I don't know the conspiracy theories about why Israel would attack the Liberty. Perhaps they thought the US news media would report that the Egyptians did it.

I never stated the belief that the towers were built with explosives in place. I simply argued that the notion that they could not have been was dumb.

Paul, the fact that we need a NIST does not change the fact that they are conflicted when it comes to explaining Ground Zero. Perhaps an independent blue ribbon panel would have been less subject to the political influence of "Bush Science".

Kevin Ryan has written on the ties of the 9/11 Commissioners to the defense industry. You are certainly free to evaluate for yourself whether these ties skewed their attitudes.

 
At 20 January, 2011 19:42, Blogger snug.bug said...

Do you suppose Subba went on tour in South Africa?

 
At 20 January, 2011 19:52, Blogger paul w said...

"Kevin Ryan has written on the ties of the 9/11 Commissioners to the defense industry. You are certainly free to evaluate for yourself whether these ties skewed their attitudes."

I'm not the one who cried foul, Brian. It was you; "Many of its investigators have ties to the defense industry and were thus motivated to overstate US vulnerability to attack."

So, your proof is?

 
At 20 January, 2011 19:57, Blogger snug.bug said...

The proof is Kewvin Ryan's article.
SAIC, for instance, was quite prominent among the contractors on the NIST report.

 
At 20 January, 2011 21:00, Blogger paul w said...

That's not what I asked for, nor is it proof.

Paste the relevant quotes and/or information here.

 
At 20 January, 2011 23:50, Blogger snug.bug said...

If I did, it would just be buried under Ian-spam.

 
At 21 January, 2011 00:35, Blogger snug.bug said...

Not to mention WAQo-dung.

 
At 21 January, 2011 05:15, Blogger Garry said...

'Ian, I never said the Israelis deliberately targeted the Liberty.

I simply disputed facile claims that it had been mistaken for a ship that looks nothing like it, and the claims that only Nazi propagandists would question it'.

So on the one hand you're saying it was an accident, but on the other you're saying that there's no way any IAF pilot could have erroneously identified the 'Liberty' as the 'El Quseir'.

'I don't know the conspiracy theories about why Israel would attack the Liberty. Perhaps they thought the US news media would report that the Egyptians did it'.

Well Brian, can I make one suggestion, which is that you get hold of a copy of Cristol's book and read it before you make yourself look like even more of an arse?

 
At 21 January, 2011 06:10, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, I never said the Israelis deliberately targeted the Liberty.

Stop lying, petgoat.

I simply disputed facile claims that it had been mistaken for a ship that looks nothing like it

Based on absolutely nothing but your own inability to ever admit you don't know what you're talking about....

I don't know the conspiracy theories about why Israel would attack the Liberty.

Brian, you don't know anything. You've made that abundantly clear over the last 2 years with your non-stop babbling about nothing.

I simply argued that the notion that they could not have been was dumb.

Yes, and this argument demonstrates how much of an ignorant lunatic you are.

Paul, the fact that we need a NIST does not change the fact that they are conflicted when it comes to explaining Ground Zero. Perhaps an independent blue ribbon panel would have been less subject to the political influence of "Bush Science".

An "independent blue-ribbon panel" would have come to the exact same conclusions, and then you'd be babbling about the need for new investigations because said panel never investigated magic thermite elves.

 
At 21 January, 2011 06:14, Blogger Ian G. said...

You can't make exchanges like this up:

petgoat: Kevin Ryan has written on the ties of the 9/11 Commissioners to the defense industry. You are certainly free to evaluate for yourself whether these ties skewed their attitudes.

paul w: I'm not the one who cried foul, Brian. It was you; "Many of its investigators have ties to the defense industry and were thus motivated to overstate US vulnerability to attack."

So, your proof is?


petgoat: The proof is Kewvin Ryan's article.

paul w: That's not what I asked for, nor is it proof.

Paste the relevant quotes and/or information here.


petgoat: If I did, it would just be buried under Ian-spam.

So in other words, Brian is full of shit, and he knows he's full of shit which is why he won't post any of his "proof" of his wild assertions. In his mind, as long as he never admits error, 9/11 truth might still be reality.

Seek professional help, Brian.

 
At 21 January, 2011 07:44, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Funny how professional engineers who are members of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), know what happened on 9/11

http://www.asce.org/Content.aspx?id=25300

 
At 21 January, 2011 08:24, OpenID yngvar said...

A related tip:

"[U.N. Human Rights Council’s Special Rapporteur on Palestine, Richard] Falk praised the books of David Ray Griffin, whom he called a “devoted scholar of high integrity.” He described Griffin’s book, The New Pearl Harbor, as “authoritative.” UN Watch

A lot of troofers among the anti-Semites.

 
At 21 January, 2011 09:23, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Brian's upset that I called him out on his lie about what Sunder said about WTC1 @ 2's exterior panels.

Sunder said in the NIST report:

"NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first EXTERIOR PANELS.......to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2"

Now Brian is arguing with me over at the "Dustification" thread that Sunder told NOva that it was the "buildings" that fell @ 9 & 11 seconds.

Please explain to that retard that Sunder didn't say such a thing & that's he's lying about his claim!

 
At 21 January, 2011 10:37, Blogger snug.bug said...

Garry, I'm really not interested in becoming an expert on the USS Liberty. Even to refer to it is to risk being labeled a Nazi.

Ian, the conclusions of an independent blue ribbon panel would have been the conclusions of an independent blue ribbon panel--and thus by definition they can not be the exact same conclusions as those done by a corrupt and politicized investigation. It's like the engineering calculations of an anonymous internet poster can not be the same as the calcs of a licensed structural engineer--even if they arrive at the same answer.

DK, of course there are a lot of truthers among the anti-semites. That's why the Mossad set the Dancing Israelis out there and why Larry Silverstein said "pull it". By distracting the truth movement with Nazi nonsense they were doing their neocon friends in DC a favor.

WAQo, Dr. Sunder told NOVA that it was the "buildings" (not the panels) that fell @ 9 & 11 seconds. Listen to it and you'll see.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html

 
At 21 January, 2011 12:06, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, the conclusions of an independent blue ribbon panel would have been the conclusions of an independent blue ribbon panel--and thus by definition they can not be the exact same conclusions as those done by a corrupt and politicized investigation.

How convenient that petgoat's imaginary blue-ribbon panel comes up with the same imaginary conclusions he does!

DK, of course there are a lot of truthers among the anti-semites. That's why the Mossad set the Dancing Israelis out there and why Larry Silverstein said "pull it". By distracting the truth movement with Nazi nonsense they were doing their neocon friends in DC a favor.

So Brian's into global Jewish conspiracy theories too, just like his buddy Kevin Barrett.

WAQo, Dr. Sunder told NOVA that it was the "buildings" (not the panels) that fell @ 9 & 11 seconds. Listen to it and you'll see.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html


He means panels, petgoat. Learn to Google.

 
At 21 January, 2011 12:17, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

I wasn’t aware the American Society of Civil Engineers were Jewish.

And this idiot thinks we need a completely new investigation because Sunder forgot to mention he was talking about the outside side panels only when saying "free fall" on a TV program. Never mind the fact that is made clear in the official report and that smart people understand what he was saying and only morons like Brian actually think the towers fell in 10 seconds.

Fuck stupid people like Brian, his opinions mean nothing because DUH! he is a ignorant low life person.

 
At 21 January, 2011 14:56, Blogger snug.bug said...

DK, Dr. Sunder said the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. He never issued a correction that I know of.

NIST section 6.14.4 says the buildings came down "essentially in free fall".

 
At 21 January, 2011 14:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, it's not an int'l Jewish conspiracy to suppose that the Mossad and Mr. Silverstein threw the Nazis (like Kevin Barrett) some nonsense they could make fools of themselves with.

 
At 21 January, 2011 15:00, Blogger Garry said...

'Garry, I'm really not interested in becoming an expert on the USS Liberty'.

I think that's as close as we'll get to Brian admitting that he'll gob off about subjects without even bothering to do any form of background research on the subject first.

 
At 21 January, 2011 15:59, Blogger paul w said...

If I did, it would just be buried under Ian-spam


Whatever.

Brian, you made the claim, so prove it.

Copy and paste the relevant info here.

 
At 21 January, 2011 16:06, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

"DK, Dr. Sunder said the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. He never issued a correction that I know of."

So what. All use smart people know what he meant, the fact you are as bright as a 15 watt blub and didn't know does not make NIST wrong.

Have you noticed that Brian? You by you own admission are ignorant as to the events of 9/11, and us who are your superiors in intelligence to you in every way know there is no big conspiracy.

 
At 21 January, 2011 16:13, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

"Ian, it's not an int'l Jewish conspiracy to suppose that the Mossad and Mr. Silverstein threw the Nazis (like Kevin Barrett) some nonsense they could make fools of themselves with."

Funny coming from a guys who's very life and actions show what fools truthers are.

Show picture of 58 year old retarded janitor living with his mom and dad. Add caption... This is your brain on trutherism"

 
At 21 January, 2011 18:23, Blogger paul w said...

"Ian, it's not an int'l Jewish conspiracy to suppose that the Mossad and Mr. Silverstein threw the Nazis (like Kevin Barrett) some nonsense they could make fools of themselves with."

Yes, it is.

It's also paranoid insanity.

 
At 22 January, 2011 08:25, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, Dr. Sunder told NOVA that it was the "buildings" (not the panels) that fell @ 9 & 11 seconds. Listen to it and you'll see.

Sorry Brian, NOVA wasn't part of the investigation & nor are they NIST. You're screwed!

 
At 22 January, 2011 08:28, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

NIST section 6.14.4 says the buildings came down "essentially in free fall".

Nope, it doesn't count!

Essentially:

Constituting or being part of the essence of something; inherent.


It was the essence of free fall, meaning:

Essence:

The intrinsic or indispensable properties that serve to characterize or identify something.


That it had to charactorize or identify itself with that of free fall.

So no, there was no "free fall". Even the 2.25 seconds is only a fraction of free fall & still doesn't constitute it being "essentially in free fall".

You've been schooled, now learn Brian!

 
At 22 January, 2011 09:14, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, it's not an int'l Jewish conspiracy to suppose that the Mossad and Mr. Silverstein threw the Nazis (like Kevin Barrett) some nonsense they could make fools of themselves with.

Actually, Brian, that's the definition of international Jewish conspiracy. There's absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the Mossad and Larry Silverstein had anything to do with 9/11, much less worked in tandem, but of course since Silverstein is Jewish, he must be working with Mossad (and the Rothschild family, and neoconservative publications like "Commentary" and Goldman Sachs and George Soros and...zzzzzz) to pull the wool over the eyes of red-blooded Americans, right?

For all the babbling about Kevin Barrett's anti-semitism that you do, it's amusing that you're not much different than he is.

 
At 22 January, 2011 11:00, Blogger snug.bug said...

Garry, I don't need to know anything about the Liberty except look at the pictures to see that your claim that it was mistaken for El Quseir is absurd. The ID numbers alone mark it as a US Navy ship.

DK, I see. So smart people have to rewrite the NIST expert's simple declarative sentence, which makes perfect sense. That's the kind of democracy DK wants to live in? How do you know what he meant? Are you a mindreader?

WAQo, the day I need a liar like you to school me in eytmology I might as well swim out to sea.

Ian, there's much evidence that the Mossad suspected that 9/11 was coming. They warned the CIA and named names, including at least 4 of the alleged participants in the attacks, including two who reportedly bought 10 airline tickets for 9/11.

I didn't say Mr. Silverstein was working with the Mossad. I said he threw the Nazis the "pull it" line so they would make fools of themselves (and they did), and the Mossad clearly did the Dancing Israelis stunt for the same reason.

 
At 22 January, 2011 11:15, Blogger Ian G. said...

Garry, I don't need to know anything about the Liberty except look at the pictures to see that your claim that it was mistaken for El Quseir is absurd. The ID numbers alone mark it as a US Navy ship.

Brian in a nutshell: "I don't know anything, and I don't want to know anything, but my opinions should be taken seriously."

Ian, there's much evidence that the Mossad suspected that 9/11 was coming.

That's nice. It doesn't mean they were in on it, it doesn't mean they and Larry Silverstein decided to collaborate in order to throw people like Kevin Barrett off the trail (after ritually murdering a Christian baby and drinking its blood, of course).

I said he threw the Nazis the "pull it" line so they would make fools of themselves (and they did), and the Mossad clearly did the Dancing Israelis stunt for the same reason.

And you, being a Nazi, believe this nonsense.

There's no difference between you and Kevin Barrett, Brian. You can squeal about it all that you want, but you're both the same.

 
At 22 January, 2011 12:06, Blogger snug.bug said...

Oh I see, large painted stereotyped numerals on US Navy ships and bizarre radio masts are ignorance.

No, pretending they're not there is ignorant.

I didn't say the Mossad was in on 9/11. I said there was much evidence that they knew it was coming.

You girls think I'm a Nazi and the Nazis think I'm a Jew.

 
At 22 January, 2011 12:12, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

You girls think I'm a Nazi and the Nazis think I'm a Jew.

Sorry, we're not chicks with dicks.

Besides, I think you have a fettish with those chicks that have dicks. Everytime you call us "girls", I'll always think you want to fuck or get fucked by a hairy girl whose got a surprise package for you.

 
At 22 January, 2011 12:16, Blogger Ian G. said...

Oh I see, large painted stereotyped numerals on US Navy ships and bizarre radio masts are ignorance.

Yes. If you think that those numbers can prevent misidentification, you're an ignoramus and a moron.

No, pretending they're not there is ignorant.

Nobody is pretending they're not there. We just think you're an idiot.

I didn't say the Mossad was in on 9/11. I said there was much evidence that they knew it was coming.

But you subscribe the the "dancing Israelis" nonsense.

You girls think I'm a Nazi and the Nazis think I'm a Jew.

We think you're a lunatic in serious need of psychiatric care.

 
At 22 January, 2011 12:25, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

We think you're a lunatic in serious need of psychiatric care

Ian,

No, he just needs some good loving from his hairy girlfriend named Kevin Barret. But wouldn't he also be cheating on Willie Rodriguez?

LMAO! I can't believe I said that!

 
At 22 January, 2011 12:51, Blogger snug.bug said...

The Dancing Israelis were arrested, detained for several weeks, and deported. Mainstream news such as abc reported it. "Forward" rpeorted that they were probably Mossad.

Your problem, Ian, is that you mistake your ignorance for wisdom.

 
At 22 January, 2011 13:11, Blogger Ian G. said...

The Dancing Israelis were arrested, detained for several weeks, and deported. Mainstream news such as abc reported it. "Forward" rpeorted that they were probably Mossad.

Ah yes, the ironclad proof that is second-hand hearsay.

Your problem, Ian, is that you mistake your ignorance for wisdom.

Squeal squeal squeal!

 
At 22 January, 2011 15:17, Blogger paul w said...

If I did, it would just be buried under Ian-spam


Brian, still waiting for you to back up your claim;

Many of its investigators have ties to the defense industry and were thus motivated to overstate US vulnerability to attack.

Copy and paste the relevant info here, please.

 
At 23 January, 2011 10:23, Blogger Garry said...

'Garry, I don't need to know anything about the Liberty except look at the pictures to see that your claim that it was mistaken for El Quseir is absurd. The ID numbers alone mark it as a US Navy ship'.

Brian, I'd take your judgements on the ease (or otherwise) of correctly identifying vessels from the air if you were a military pilot with operational expertise. Instead, you're an unemployed janitor and a sex pest. Your opinions on this subject are rendered further valueless by your refusal to actually do any form of reading on this subject which might mitigate your ignorance.

 
At 23 January, 2011 10:25, Blogger Garry said...

'The Dancing Israelis were arrested, detained for several weeks, and deported. Mainstream news such as abc reported it. "Forward" rpeorted that they were probably Mossad'.

Hmm, yes, Brian, and 4,000 Jews didn't turn up to work at the WTC on 9/11. 'Al Ahram' and 'Al Manar' reported that as well.

For someone who says he deplores anti-Semitism in the 'troof' movement, you do have a penchant for conspiracy theories that implicate Jews.

 
At 23 January, 2011 11:10, Blogger snug.bug said...

Garry, the Dancing Israelis are not a conspiracy theory.

Mainstream news reports have indicated that they were celebrating the attack on the south tower and they were Mossad agents. If you are going to deny that fact, it only shows that you are agenda-based.

Obviously it was their intention to be observed.

I need no expertise to notice that the Liberty looks nothing like the ship the Israelis claim they mistook it for and that the painted numbers on the bow marked it as a US Navy ship. The claim is made that Israeli boats circled the Liberty for nine hours before the attacks. What's your explanation for how they managed to avoid identifying her correctly?

How can a ship bristling with bizarre radio towers be mistaken for a freighter?

 
At 23 January, 2011 11:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

"A sex past", eh? And you don't have a sex past, I suppose. You were parthegenetically spawned like am aphid?

 
At 23 January, 2011 11:28, Blogger Garry said...

Pardon my typo, Brian', I meant 'sex pest'. As per your behaviour towards Rodriguez and Brouillet.

Incidentally, before you repeat the 'five dancing Israelis' lie I thought I'd link to this:

http://www.911myths.com/html/dancing_israelis.html

 
At 23 January, 2011 11:33, Blogger Garry said...

'Mainstream news reports have indicated that they were celebrating the attack on the south tower and they were Mossad agents. If you are going to deny that fact, it only shows that you are agenda-based.

Obviously it was their intention to be observed'.

OK, so Mossad decided that they would send in five of their elite agents to act conspicuously in a public place (if your lunacy is to believed) in order to achieve ... what, exactly?

'I need no expertise to notice that the Liberty looks nothing like the ship the Israelis claim they mistook it for and that the painted numbers on the bow marked it as a US Navy ship'.

So a janitor with no military experience knows about the challenges of aerial identification better than any air force or naval aviators. Brilliant, Brian. I suppose that's the same type of 'judgement' that makes you an expert on the GBAD systems the Pentagon had to 'protect' it on 9/11.

'The claim is made that Israeli boats circled the Liberty for nine hours before the attacks'.

Actually that's bollocks, Brian. An IAF reconnaissance plane overflew the 'Liberty' nine hours before the attack. The vessel was not shadowed constantly by the Israeli navy. That's yet more bullshit on your part.

But never mind, Brian. Why bother establishing the facts before you type a comment? You are a troofer, after all.

 
At 23 January, 2011 11:48, Blogger snug.bug said...

Garry, William Rodriguez is a lying con artist who for years was driving a wedge between the truth movement and the journalists, firefighters, lawyers, and janitors who can see through his lies in a minute and recognize him for the disgusting braggart that he is.

There is nothing sexual about trying to bring such a scumbag down. Willie and the Nazi scumbag Kevin Barrett have been circulating the notion that my problems with them have a sexual base simply to deceive the simple-minded like Ian into spreading nonsense about me.

 
At 23 January, 2011 14:28, Blogger Garry said...

'Garry, William Rodriguez is a lying con artist who for years was driving a wedge between the truth movement and the journalists, firefighters, lawyers, and janitors who can see through his lies in a minute and recognize him for the disgusting braggart that he is'.

OK, so why does that make him any different from anyone else in the troof movement? Because that's all you've ever done ever since the dust settled in NY and at the Pentagon.

'There is nothing sexual about trying to bring such a scumbag down. Willie and the Nazi scumbag Kevin Barrett have been circulating the notion that my problems with them have a sexual base simply to deceive the simple-minded like Ian into spreading nonsense about me'.

As they say, even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day. So while Barrett and Rodriguez are scumbags who lie about everything else, when they say you're a freak they're spot on.

 
At 23 January, 2011 14:38, Blogger snug.bug said...

How do you know? Was you there, Charlie?

Seems to me you're showing a pretty heavy case of selection bias and confirmation bias.

Honest people know what they don't know. That's me. Dishonest people think they know stuff they don't. That's you.

 
At 23 January, 2011 16:41, Blogger paul w said...

Brian, still waiting for you to back up your claim;

Many of its investigators have ties to the defense industry and were thus motivated to overstate US vulnerability to attack.

Copy and paste the relevant info here, please.

 
At 23 January, 2011 18:56, Blogger snug.bug said...

Sorry, Paul,

As long as you allow Ian to post crap like "The widows have no questions" and WAQ to post crap like "NIST is talking about the panels",
you have zero credibility with me. I thus have no reason to post links.

 
At 23 January, 2011 19:20, Blogger paul w said...

As long as you allow Ian to post crap like "The widows have no questions" and WAQ to post crap like "NIST is talking about the panels"

It's not up to me, you fucking idiot. If you don't like Ian or WAQ, ignore them!
I have no say in 'allowing' anyone, it's the site of Pat and James.

I thus have no reason to post links.

You DO have a reason, you back-stepping retard; you make the claim, now back it up!!!

Or, are you just full of shit???

 
At 23 January, 2011 20:55, Blogger Ian G. said...

Honest people know what they don't know.

Yes, and this is why you're a liar, because you pretend to know everything even though you make if obvious that you know nothing.

 
At 23 January, 2011 20:57, Blogger Ian G. said...

As long as you allow Ian to post crap like "The widows have no questions" and WAQ to post crap like "NIST is talking about the panels",
you have zero credibility with me. I thus have no reason to post links.


Hey Brian? You're the one who wants a new investigation, remember? How is hiding your "evidence" going to accomplish that?

 
At 23 January, 2011 21:37, Blogger snug.bug said...

Paul, when you allow Ian's bs to stand w/o chalenge, you're endorsing it.

 
At 24 January, 2011 04:52, Blogger Triterope said...

Brian, you have a very strange set of ethics.

 
At 24 January, 2011 09:58, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQ to post crap like "NIST is talking about the panels",
you have zero credibility with me.


Sunder is posting crap now since he said it was the panels that fell 9 & 11 seconds?

Let's read Sunder's statement again for clarity:

"NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first EXTERIOR PANELS.......to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2"

Yup, he said Exterior Panels, not the entire building.

Looks like you lose, again!

 
At 24 January, 2011 10:48, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, the day I need a liar like you to school me in eytmology I might as well swim out to sea.

Didn't catch this before!

Brian,

Go ahead & swim out to sea. Let's see how long you stay out there with all the sharks swimming around you.

 
At 24 January, 2011 11:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, Sunder told NOVA that the BUILDINGS came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. Not the panels, the buildings.

 
At 24 January, 2011 11:32, Blogger Ian G. said...

WAQo, Sunder told NOVA that the BUILDINGS came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. Not the panels, the buildings.

He misspoke. He meant the panels, Brian. People capable of critical thinking understand this.

 
At 24 January, 2011 12:10, Blogger snug.bug said...

Mis-spoke how? You mean he meant to say "The measurements show that the exterior panels hit the ground in 9 seconds and 11 seconds?"

Why would he want to say such an obvious and pointless thing?

He was asked about the speed of collapse, and he said the mesurements show that the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds.

 
At 24 January, 2011 12:52, Blogger Ian G. said...

Mis-spoke how? You mean he meant to say "The measurements show that the exterior panels hit the ground in 9 seconds and 11 seconds?"

Yes.

Why would he want to say such an obvious and pointless thing?

Because liars and lunatics like you have created an alternate reality in which Dick Cheney used death ray beams to destroy the towers (or spray-on thermite). Sane people with the facts on their side often try to inoculate against the spread of conspiracy theories.

He was asked about the speed of collapse, and he said the mesurements show that the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds.

He meant the panels, Brian. If you were capable of critical thought, you'd understand this. Of course, if you were capable of critical thought, you'd have a job, not live with your parents, and not be a sucker for 9/11 truth.

 
At 24 January, 2011 12:52, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Now you're arguing about the same off-topic garbage in two threads.

When will you learn that "debate" with a sophist like Brian "goat molester" Good is utterly pointless?

The goat molester doesn't care about debate. He's the male equivalent of an attention seeking adolescent girl. The "debate" is beside the point. The goal is to place the goat molester at the CENTER OF ATTENTION.

Got it?

 
At 24 January, 2011 15:09, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, Sunder told NOVA that the BUILDINGS came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. Not the panels, the buildings.

No he didn't! NOVA doesn't count because they're a Media outlet & not pat of the 9/11 Investigation.

Read it again shithead:

"NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first EXTERIOR PANELS.......to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2"

 
At 24 January, 2011 15:12, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 24 January, 2011 15:12, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

I got it Bill, it's just that Brian drags shit from 1 thread to the other.

I can't wait til Dr. Sunder gets back to ma about Brian's lying.

 
At 24 January, 2011 15:14, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"To me", not "to ma"

Damn keyboard keys are sticking!

 
At 24 January, 2011 15:22, Blogger GuitarBill said...

WAQ wrote, "...I can't wait til Dr. Sunder gets back to ma about Brian's lying."

You're wasting your valuable time.

After all, I did the same thing with Dr. Harris, and the goat molester simply ignored the evidence and continued to tell the same lies as though he was never debunked.

Again, you're wasting your time.

 
At 24 January, 2011 15:34, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Bill,

I'm not wasting my time. I just love to waste it on Brian since I love watching him squeal.

And if Brian rejects Sunders e-mail, then Brian would be lying for all time.

 
At 24 January, 2011 17:21, Blogger snug.bug said...

How do you know what Dr. Sunder meant, Ian? Are you a mind-reader?

WAQo, you lie. Sunder told NOVA that the BUILDINGS came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. Not the panels, the buildings.

GutterBall, I didn't lie about Dr. Harris. You did. You claimed that he was an independent engineer when he wasn't. He was appointed by NIST to a prestigious committee, and you can't seem to recognize that brings in a conflict of interest.

WAQo, I won't be in a position to reject Sunder's email because you won't be in a position to present it. Whatever you present will be something you claim to be Sunder's email. Your inability to recognize the difference explains your crippled epistemology.

 
At 24 January, 2011 17:36, Blogger Ian G. said...

How do you know what Dr. Sunder meant, Ian? Are you a mind-reader?

It's called "critical thinking", Brian, which is something that's apparently beyond your abilities.

WAQo, you lie. Sunder told NOVA that the BUILDINGS came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. Not the panels, the buildings.

See what I mean?

GutterBall, I didn't lie about Dr. Harris. You did. You claimed that he was an independent engineer when he wasn't. He was appointed by NIST to a prestigious committee, and you can't seem to recognize that brings in a conflict of interest.

False.

WAQo, I won't be in a position to reject Sunder's email because you won't be in a position to present it. Whatever you present will be something you claim to be Sunder's email. Your inability to recognize the difference explains your crippled epistemology.

My, such squealing!

 
At 24 January, 2011 18:18, Blogger GuitarBill said...

And that's precisely why this blog is no longer useful.

[1] The blog "owners" start a thread.

[2] At most a half-dozen on-topic posts appear.

[3] Brian "goat molester" Good makes an outrageous claim based on lies or stupidity that's designed solely to change the subject.

[4] The thread is derailed and the subject turns to Brian "goat molester" Good and his latest bowel movement.

Boring. Pointless. Infantile.

 
At 24 January, 2011 18:32, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The best thing the blog "owners" can do is BAN Brian "goat molester" Good.

After all, he's not here to "debate." His goal is as simple as it is obvious.

Furthermore, you'll never convince the goat molester of anything. The goat molester is a contrarian sleaze-ball who would argue against the claim that the sun rises in the east if the claim was made by a so-called "debunker."

Can't you see what the goat molester is doing? He's nothing more than a common troll, and he's trashing the blog.

You have a simple choice: [1] You can continue to allow the goat molester to control the blog, or [2] you can do the right thing and BAN him.

 
At 24 January, 2011 18:51, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat molester lies, "...GutterBall, I didn't lie about Dr. Harris. You did."

Do you see what I mean?

I called Dr. Harris and confirmed that he has NO CONFLICT OF INTEREST with NIST. In fact, I also confirmed that Dr. Harris is an independent engineer. Additionally, I gave the goat molester Dr. Harris's business phone number in order to confirm my claims. The phone number follows:

(303) 860-9021

And what was the goat molesters response? He refused to call the number to confirm that I was telling the truth. Then the son-of-a-bitch continued to claim that I'm lying.

This is beyond ridiculous.

Adults don't "debate" a lying imbecile like Brian "goat molester" Good. In fact, sane adults would immediately shun such a childish asshole and relegate him to the dust bin, where he belongs.

Again,

Boring. Pointless. Infantile.

 
At 24 January, 2011 19:33, Blogger paul w said...

Even more amazing is that all the other truthers are exactly the same as Brian.

Full of shit.

 
At 25 January, 2011 01:03, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, Dr. Harris's appointment by NIST to a prestigious committee represents a conflict of interest such that he can not be considered an independent engineer. Normal professional people understand these things and you're only showing your ignorance when you deny it.

Your persistent denial of Dr. Harris's conflict is not only ignorant--it highlights your inability to name a single independent engineer who endorses the NIST report.

 
At 25 January, 2011 05:48, Blogger Ian G. said...

GutterBall, Dr. Harris's appointment by NIST to a prestigious committee represents a conflict of interest such that he can not be considered an independent engineer.

False.

Normal professional people understand these things and you're only showing your ignorance when you deny it.

Brian, stop pretending you know what "normal professional people" understand. You're a failed janitor who lives with his parents. You call people "girls" when you get upset. You're a pathetic cretin.

Your persistent denial of Dr. Harris's conflict is not only ignorant--it highlights your inability to name a single independent engineer who endorses the NIST report.

We've already covered my Uncle Steve a million times, so you lose again, Brian.

One of these days, however, it would be nice if you named a single independent engineer who has publicly denied the existence of modified attack baboons.

 
At 25 January, 2011 08:16, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, where did you get the idea that I can't understand normal professional people?

I don't call you "girls" when I'm upset. You don't have the power to "upset" me. I call you girls when your continued ignorance, childishness, irrationality, and feigned stupidity exasperates me.

Your apparent belief that an anonymous internet poster's "Uncle Steve" should enter into the picture is either cynical, ignorant, or both.

Denying the existence of attack baboons is in no way analogous to endorsing the NIST report, and none of you can name a single independent engineer who does endorse the NIST report.

 
At 25 January, 2011 08:44, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, where did you get the idea that I can't understand normal professional people?

From all the babbling you do here about the FDNY, NIST, researchers at various universities, etc. It's called "critical thinking", Brian, which, as I've said before, is beyond your capabilities.

I don't call you "girls" when I'm upset. You don't have the power to "upset" me. I call you girls when your continued ignorance, childishness, irrationality, and feigned stupidity exasperates me.

Yes, because you have the intellectual and emotional maturity of a 7-year-old (that's how old I was when I used "girls" as an insult). No wonder you need your parents to take care of you.

Your apparent belief that an anonymous internet poster's "Uncle Steve" should enter into the picture is either cynical, ignorant, or both.

Nobody cares.

Denying the existence of attack baboons is in no way analogous to endorsing the NIST report, and none of you can name a single independent engineer who does endorse the NIST report.

Uncle Steve, Brian. Learn to read.

Can you name a single independent engineer who believes the WTC towers actually existed?

 
At 25 January, 2011 10:27, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, you lie. Sunder told NOVA that the BUILDINGS came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. Not the panels, the buildings.

NOVA wasn't part of the Investigation of 9/11. It doesn't count!

WAQo, I won't be in a position to reject Sunder's email because you won't be in a position to present it. Whatever you present will be something you claim to be Sunder's email. Your inability to recognize the difference explains your crippled epistemology.

Actually I'm in a great position to present it, the only thing that matter is will you reject Sunder's e-mail like you did with his NIST report? You probably will. No, I'll present his e-mail address along with the letter he wrote. If you have any doubts about the authenticity of the letter, you can e-mail Sunder yourself to verify it. I know you won't do that because you're a pussy. I know the difference between the words "exterior panels" & "building" on the NIST Report.

You're just too ashamed that Sunder will e-mail me back with the result of me confirming what he stated in hte NIST Report. You're scared that his e-mail will prove that you've quote-mined & lied about his statement from the NIST Report.

You're shaking Brian!

 
At 25 January, 2011 10:30, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

You have a simple choice: [1] You can continue to allow the goat molester to control the blog, or [2] you can do the right thing and BAN him.

Bill's right!

All those in favor of votingto BAN Brian out of this blog for good say "I".

I.

Those opposed say "Nay".

 
At 25 January, 2011 10:48, Blogger Ian G. said...

Those opposed say "Nay".

Nay. I dunno, Brian is entertaining in that "gawk at the train wreck" way that Jerry Springer is entertaining.

 
At 25 January, 2011 11:18, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Nay. I dunno, Brian is entertaining in that "gawk at the train wreck" way that Jerry Springer is entertaining.

True! But imagine if there was a blog dedicated to his insanity, where his imaginations can run rampant & he can say anything he wanted. Although he'll still be under our control as our puppet & do with him as we please.

Should call his blog:

"9/11: The Brian Good Story"

 
At 25 January, 2011 19:12, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, Dr. Sunder was the head of the NIST investigation of the WTC, so his statements to NOVA count.

Shaking, schmaking, schmuck. I know what Sunder said to NOVA.

 
At 25 January, 2011 19:21, Blogger Ian G. said...

WAQo, Dr. Sunder was the head of the NIST investigation of the WTC, so his statements to NOVA count.

According to whom? Since when do failed janitors and babbling liars have the qualifications to judge what "counts".

If what he said in some throwaway interview is contradicted by the NIST report, we go with the NIST report, Brian. This is simple enough for sane people to understand, but it's apparently beyond you.

I know what Sunder said to NOVA.

Nobody cares what he said to NOVA.

 
At 25 January, 2011 20:36, Blogger snug.bug said...

If it's wrong, it shouldn't be allowed to stand because it confuses people. Dr. Sunder should make a retraction.

 
At 25 January, 2011 21:54, Blogger Ian G. said...

If it's wrong, it shouldn't be allowed to stand because it confuses people. Dr. Sunder should make a retraction.

If anyone actually cared about it, I'm sure he would.

 
At 26 January, 2011 06:28, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

If it's wrong, it shouldn't be allowed to stand because it confuses people. Dr. Sunder should make a retraction.

Make a retraction to the "Buildings" claim in the NOVA interview or the "exterior panels" in the NIST Report?

Which 1 retard?

 
At 26 January, 2011 06:29, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, Dr. Sunder was the head of the NIST investigation of the WTC, so his statements to NOVA count.

Is NOVA part of the 9/11 Investigation? No it's not, it's a Media outlet & not a science based company.

It doesn't count you pussy!

 
At 26 January, 2011 09:41, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, far more people watched the NOVA TV report than ever read the NIST report. Thus Dr. Sunder's statements to NOVA count.

 
At 26 January, 2011 10:43, Blogger Ian G. said...

Anyone notice how Brian has pretty much conceded that his claims about Sunder are horseshit, and now he's just arguing that Sunder should have been more careful about what he said on television?

I believe we have a first here: Brian Good admitting error.

 
At 26 January, 2011 10:57, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, far more people watched the NOVA TV report than ever read the NIST report. Thus Dr. Sunder's statements to NOVA count.

It doesn't count cause NOVA isn't part of any investigation.

Sorry, loser!

 
At 26 January, 2011 11:00, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

I believe we have a first here: Brian Good admitting error.

Yeah, Brian admitted an error & pointed out us that error from the NOVA interview.

Sunder was talking about the exterior panels in the NIST Report. Thne Brian came here & said that he was talking about the buildings.

Thanks Brian, for saying that Sunder made an error on NOVA.

 
At 26 January, 2011 11:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I have not conceded anything. There is nothing to concede. I said Dr. Sunder told NOVA the buildings fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds, and you guys must have denied it and called me a liar 50 times. That is what he said and I was not in error.

And now you try to end the issue by claiming that I was in error and have conceded something. I concede only that you are a liar.

Sunder said THE BUILDINGS COLLAPSED in 9 and 11 seconds. He was not talking about the panels.
He said the buildings came down "essentially in free fall" and he showed amazing ignorance of the wall thickness of the core columns.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html


You guys lie and lie and lie.

 
At 26 January, 2011 12:45, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, I have not conceded anything. There is nothing to concede.

Sorry, Brian, no backsies! You conceded that you were wrong! HA HA HA!!!!

And now you try to end the issue by claiming that I was in error and have conceded something. I concede only that you are a liar.

Sorry Brian, but you lose!

Sunder said THE BUILDINGS COLLAPSED in 9 and 11 seconds. He was not talking about the panels.
He said the buildings came down "essentially in free fall" and he showed amazing ignorance of the wall thickness of the core columns.


Sorry Brian, but you can't start lying about this again! YOU LOSE! HA HA HA HA!

You guys lie and lie and lie.

SQUEAL SQUEAL SQUEAL!

 
At 26 January, 2011 13:48, Blogger snug.bug said...

This is what I mean about 8-year old girls. They think it's cute to lie persistently.

 
At 26 January, 2011 13:52, Blogger Ian G. said...

Aaaand there it is. Brian gets flustered and upset and calls us "girls".

You never fail to entertain, Brian.

 
At 26 January, 2011 14:05, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat molester whines, "...I concede only that you are a liar."

Imagine that--a compulsive liar admonishing others for alleged dishonesty.

Thanks for giving us another demonstration of the breadth and depth of your depravity, goat molester.

 
At 26 January, 2011 18:34, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I'm not flustered in the least. Sunder told NOVA 9 seconds and 11 seconds for the buildings to collapse. WAQo thought it would intimidate me if he threatened to email Sunder. I note that he has not yet reported about his results.

GutterBall, I do not lie. That would be stupid and ugly and unnecessary for me. You have lied many times on this board because it is necessary for you.

I challenge you to demonstrate even one lie on my part. (And no, "You lied when you claimed you didn't lie" won't cut it.)

You lied about Dr. Harris, claiming he was an independent engineer when he had been appointed to a prestigious committee by NIST.

 
At 26 January, 2011 19:24, Blogger GuitarBill said...

No fucktard, I didn't lie at all, and you've never proven that I lied--you demented scumbag.

In fact, I gave you Dr. Harris's phone number in order for you to independently confirm everything I wrote and YOU REFUSED TO CALL THE NUMBER.

(303) 860-9021

Who do you think you're fooling--you neo-Nazi son-of-a-bitch?

If you'd get your head out of Willie Rodriguez's crotch for half a minute you might get enough oxygen to that retarded lump of shit between your ear's to see the truth--you deranged pud huffer.

Ah, better yet, go honk a cock, goat molester.

 
At 26 January, 2011 19:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

I've proven you lied. You continue to claim that Dr. Harris is independent of NIST, and yet the fact that NIST appointed him to a committee shows he is not independent.

So I see you still can't backup your claim that I lied.

 
At 26 January, 2011 20:08, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, I'm not flustered in the least. Sunder told NOVA 9 seconds and 11 seconds for the buildings to collapse.

False and nobody cares.

GutterBall, I do not lie.

Brian, you lie every time you pretend you're not petgoat.

I challenge you to demonstrate even one lie on my part.

Brian, are you petgoat? Yes or no.

You lied about Dr. Harris, claiming he was an independent engineer when he had been appointed to a prestigious committee by NIST.

False.

I've proven you lied. You continue to claim that Dr. Harris is independent of NIST, and yet the fact that NIST appointed him to a committee shows he is not independent.

False. He's independent petgoat. Learn what words mean.

So I see you still can't backup your claim that I lied.

You lie when you say that the NIST report claims the buildings fell "essentially in free-fall".

 
At 26 January, 2011 20:23, Blogger snug.bug said...

The NIST report says the building section above came down essentially in free fall, and the building below was unable to arrest the moving mass.

The FAQs say the building below was unable to slow the moving mass.

Sunder tells NOVA the buildings came down essentially in free fall.

I know what words mean, and I know that someone who has been appointed to a committee by NIST can not be considered independent.

 
At 26 January, 2011 20:48, Blogger Ian G. said...

The NIST report says the building section above came down essentially in free fall, and the building below was unable to arrest the moving mass.

Right, which is not the same as the entire building coming down in free-fall. We've explained this to you multiple times, and yet you keep repeating your nonsense, so you're obviously lying.

So there's one lie, Brian.

Sunder tells NOVA the buildings came down essentially in free fall.

Nobody cares.

I know what words mean, and I know that someone who has been appointed to a committee by NIST can not be considered independent.

False.

Anyway, Brian, are you petgoat? Yes or no.

 
At 26 January, 2011 21:42, Blogger snug.bug said...

The NIST report says the building section above came down essentially in free fall, and the building below was unable to arrest the moving mass.

The FAQs say the building below was unable to slow the moving mass.

Sunder tells NOVA the buildings came down essentially in free fall.

 
At 26 January, 2011 23:27, Blogger Ian G. said...

The NIST report says the building section above came down essentially in free fall, and the building below was unable to arrest the moving mass.

The FAQs say the building below was unable to slow the moving mass.

Sunder tells NOVA the buildings came down essentially in free fall.


Brian, if you repeat this 1000 times, the magic thermite fairy will grant you a new investigation.

Also, are you petgoat? Yes or no.

 
At 26 January, 2011 23:36, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I've already made clear I do not comment on anonymous internet identities. If I were to confirm or deny then if at any time I refused to confirm or deny that would be taken as confirmation. I'm not interested in playing 20 questions.

Is it true that you're Mandy Moore?

 
At 27 January, 2011 07:04, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, I've already made clear I do not comment on anonymous internet identities. If I were to confirm or deny then if at any time I refused to confirm or deny that would be taken as confirmation. I'm not interested in playing 20 questions.

Except that you've denied being petgoat before, so here's yet another lie, Brian. You most certainly do comment on anonymous internet identities. You pretend you're not any of them.

Is it true that you're Mandy Moore?

No. See Brian? It's not hard to do this.

 
At 27 January, 2011 08:15, Blogger Ian G. said...

So I see you still can't backup your claim that I lied.

For those of you keeping track, Brian has lied about:

1) what the NIST report says about the speed of the WTC collapse

2) What Dr. Sunder says

3) Dr. Harris' independence as an engineer

4) whether or not he is petgoat

5) whether or not he has ever denied being petgoat

So that's 5 lies right off the bat. I'm sure as he babbles away, there will be more.

Good job, Brian. Your challenge has made it obvious what a deranged, glue-sniffing liar you are.

 
At 27 January, 2011 08:59, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I have the right to pretend whatever I want about anonymous internet identitities--even if I don't have any anonymous internet identities.

I didn't lie about any of the things you listed, and you have not showed that I did.

 
At 27 January, 2011 11:16, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, I have the right to pretend whatever I want about anonymous internet identitities--even if I don't have any anonymous internet identities.

Yes, you can pretend anything you want. You can pretend you're not petgoat, and everyone will consider you a delusional liar.

And you do have internet identities, but they're not anonymous since everyone knows it's you: petgoat, punxsutawneybarney, contrivance, truetruther, etc.

I didn't lie about any of the things you listed, and you have not showed that I did.

For those counting, this is lie #6. I guess we could do an infinite regress here, where Brian lies about what he lied about.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home