My New Favorite Truther "Peer-Reviewed Paper"
At one time the Journal of 9/11 Studies announced it was no longer publishing, due to their supposed success at getting papers into mainstream journals, but now they are back with new works, albeit sporadically. This month a pair of papers, including what is basically a 21 page editorial on why Australia should not be involved in combat operations in Afghanistan. How exactly they "peer reviewed" this, who knows, but then again any journal which allowed 7 versions of a paper by Frank Legge arguing that no plane hit the Pentagon pretty much has given up any pretense of having standards anyway. In any case I was rather amused by this paper's start.
A Brief History.
The archaeological record shows that humans have occupied the area currently known as Afghanistan for more than 100,000 years. Strategically located at the crossroads of some of the ancient world’s greatest civilizations Afghanistan was crisscrossed by the Silk Road. This network of routes carried silk and spices from China to the west, and wool and gold to the east.
I couldn't help but flash back to an episode of the sitcom The Big Bang Theory where the socially dysfunctional Sheldon tries to teach the cute but dumb neighbor Penny physics. "It is there in ancient Greece that our story begins..."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEIn3T6nDAo&feature=player_detailpage#t=73s
posted by James B. @ 6:15 PM
83 comments
83 Comments:
Did you read the whole thing? It's like a checklist of every Bush Derangement Syndrome conspiracy theory there is. CIA-trained Bin Laden, oil pipeline through Afghanistan (apparently planned as far back as 1979), "illegal war", PNAC, US government as opium dealer, complicit media, and of course 9-11 as the isn't-that-convenient casus belli for it all.
It was stupid when Bush was still in office. Now it's stupid and out of date.
Brian Good is big into the whole US-as-heroin-dealer meme. It reminds me of the LaRouche claim that the Queen of England is running a drug cartel.
Yes, Brian, the US is running a drug smuggling operation. That's why we spend a colossal amount of money trying (and failing) to keep drugs out of this country.
JONES's "no more submissions" policy was a joke. They had nothing ot say and it was becoming apparent that a journal that doesn't produce is of no value. Also, IIRC someone on JREF submitted a paper for them to review and shortly following that notice went up. Guess they didn't want to tip their hand with regard to the rigor of their peer review process.
Ian, your belief that the fact that the US spends billions in the war on drugs somehow disproves the proposition that certain government agencies benefit from the drug trade is very naive.
"the proposition that certain government agencies benefit from the drug trade"
You do realize, do you not, that you are quite insane?
LL< you give me no reason to believe that your assertion is true.
The goat molester whines, "...Ian, your belief that the fact that the US spends billions in the war on drugs somehow disproves the proposition that certain government agencies benefit from the drug trade is very naive."
LOL! The goat molester read half of the first chapter of Alfred W. McCoy's "The Politics of Heroin" (Lawrence Hill Books, ISBN: 1-55652-125-1) and now he's an expert on the history of the global drug trade.
That said, is this phenomenon similar to the goat molester watching three or four 9/11 conspiracy videos, which, in the goat molester's feeble mind, transforms him miraculously into a fully-qualified civil engineer?
Inquiring minds want to know.
This comment has been removed by the author.
"...LL< you give me no reason to believe that your assertion is true."
All he needs to do is point out that you're delusional enough to believe that Willie Rod convinced a group of "Norwegian hackers" to perpetrate God knows what ghastly cyber-crime against you--which is absolutely...
Cuckoo! Cuckoo! Cuckoo! Cuckoo!
Hey, that's my bit. :)
Can you imagine that? Willie Rod convinced a group of "Norwegian hackers" to wage cyber war against the goat molester.
Here's how the "trap" was laid for the unsuspecting goat molester.
First, the evil "Norwegian hackers" compromised a web server's security and installed a script that infects the target client computer with malware, etc.
But the "Norwegian hackers" have one problem: They don't want to attack every client system that accesses the compromised web server. As a result, they would need to obtain the goat molester's IP address (assuming that he uses static IP, as opposed to DHCP. If he uses DHCP, all bets are off), and then write simple logic into the script that ensures the malware will be installed on the goat molester's machine, and the goat molester's machine only; e.g. the pseudo-code would look like the following,
if (goat molester's IP address) {
install malware;
else
do nothing;
}
Finally, the evil "Norwegian hackers" must trick the goat molester in such a way that he mistakenly clicks on a hyperlink that points to the compromised web server.
And if you believe the evil "Norwegian hackers" would go to the aforementioned lengths to wage cyber war against a delusional cretin who believes the malarkey spread by the 9/11 "truth" movement, I have a bridge in Florida I'd like to sell...cheap!
%^)
And why do this to a simpleton janitor who entire existence is to prove the scumbag nature of truthers?
This comment has been removed by the author.
In common with the bulk of the
media’s treatment of the issue, all assumed that the history of the West’s involvement with
Afghanistan commenced on 11 September 2001
What a crock of shit.
This sweeping statement is typical of truthers - a personal opinion promoted as fact, with no sources provided.
I live in Oz, and as far as I'm concerned, much of the stuff I've read about Afghanistan always mentions its varied history.
How can one not, when discussing this country?
The same mainstream media have uncritically accepted and promoted the US government’s version of
events about 11 September 2001, not because that account is plausible, which it manifestly is
not...
It is manifestly not?
Really?
Another personal opinion promoted as fact.
This 'paper' is just another truther nutter pretending they are articulate, knowledgeable, and informative because their article follows the same template used by professionals.
They are not.
It will also be used by others truthers to promote the 'movement' as articulate, knowledgeable, and informative.
It is not.
The important part of the Afghanistan narrative begins with the Soviet invasion. Bin Laden and other Arab jihadists pop up on the radar here. Then the story go should explain how after the Soviet pull-out the West lost interest in Afghanistan, which allowed the Taliban to assume power. Then Al Qaeda sets up shop there. Then 9/11...etc...etc
OT. As always, not sure if this has been covered.
Ed Asner talks about making a movie about 911.
'Confession of a 9/11 Conspirator - a feature film in development - dramatizes the first day of the President's New Investigation of 9/11.'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtWcxozbcSY
movie info and script:
http://www.911newinvestigation.com/
So they're making Dylan Avery's original movie again? Christ, how unoriginal can you get?
There is no way this dumb POS would pass peer review in a legit journal. Heck if I handed in a paper in high school without page numbers in the footnotes the teacher would have handed it back to me. And if I handed one in that was was almost exclusivly based on obscure 2ndary sources in college my prof would given me an F.
Ian, your belief that the fact that the US spends billions in the war on drugs somehow disproves the proposition that certain government agencies benefit from the drug trade is very naive.
OK, so what government agencies, and how do they benefit? Tell us, of wise failed janitor.
I should point out that Australia had a more direct interest in what happened in Afghanistan based on this 2001 incident:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/australia/1338765/Australians-bar-ship-laden-with-Afghan-refugees.html
I would ask the question if things were so freaking great, why did 400 Afghans risk their lives to go to Australia?
Ian, google "drug trade" with "Government agencies" and get a clue.
"...Ian, google "drug trade" with "Government agencies" and get a clue."
Never mind that all the Google search will yield are links to conspiracy web sites that are as credible as the goat molester.
And we all know the goat molester's credibility can be measured in negative engineering units.
google "drug trade" with "Government agencies"
I tried it. The first hit was... this thread.
Ian, google "drug trade" with "Government agencies" and get a clue.
As usual you have nothing. You're just a failed janitor babbling about nothing because the attention you get from the people laughing at you is the only attention anyone gives you.
You know, Brian, a psychiatrist would give you attention as well, and might actually help you.
You guys are showing that you didn't even bother to google.
"...You guys are showing that you didn't even bother to google."
Breathtaking hypocrisy!
This from the asshole who refuses to substantiate his argument with links to credible sources.
This is worse than Kafka.
Get this asshole out of here! Ban him!
You guys are showing that you didn't even bother to google.
You know what's fun to google? "Brian Good sex stalker". There's lots of interesting tidbits about what got you banned from the truth movement.
Actually, there are not lots of tidbits. There are simple bald assertions. WAQo tried to get confirmation from Ms. Brouillet and he failed.
Actually, there are not lots of tidbits. There are simple bald assertions. WAQo tried to get confirmation from Ms. Brouillet and he failed.
Yes, bald assertions confirmed by everyone in the truth movement.
You should add "failed truther" to your resume along with "failed janitor".
Stick this in your pipe and smoke it, goat molester.
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!.
Ian, confirmed by whom? GutterBall, the hypocrisy of you claiming I'm dishonest to cite the NIST report for facts while you cite Kevin Barrett as if his bald assertions were facts is duly noted.
WAQo contacted Ms. Brouillet and she did not confirm Dr. Barrett's assertions.
I see that Ian brings up the ad hominem because he wants to spam over the issue of US institutional involvement in the illegal drug trade, which has been thoroughly documented by researchers such as Dr. Alfred McCoy, Dr. Peter Dale Scott, and Senator John Kerry.
Ian, you have never provided any evidence that I failed as a janitor--no evidence that I was ever fired or lost a contract. Why is that? Could it be because you don't have any?
I think you got confused about my statement that I was the "janitor of the 9/11 Truth Movement". And so far I have failed. My efforts have helped to take out Craig Ranke and Willie Rodriguez, but since Niels Harrit appeared on Kevin Barrett's radio show today I guess there's one turd yet to clean up.
You guys are showing that you didn't even bother to google.
I tried it. The first hit was... this thread.
See what I mean?
Yeah, we see what you mean.
You're full-of-shit up to your eyebrows.
And remember, 'tard, I read Alfred W. McCoy's "The Politics of Heroin" (Lawrence Hill Books, ISBN: 1-55652-125-1) and it doesn't support your idiotic claim that "certain government agencies benefit from the drug trade."
Try reading for once in your life instead of making shit up as you go along.
Brian, can you make a video of yourself holding an umbrella while proclaiming yourself a hero of the truth revolution?
You and Muammar Qaddafi both have about as good a grasp on reality.
GutterBall, talk about your quote mining!
The complete title of McCoy's book is "The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade"
You must really like getting pwned by an unemployed janitor. You just keep coming back for more.
"...The complete title of McCoy's book is 'The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade'"
Another example of the stupidity that informs every post you scribble to this forum.
When will you learn that quote mining involves taking a passage out of context?
Thus, you can't quote mine a book's title--you cretin.
Careful goat molester, don't let your brains go to your head.
You can certainly quote mine a book's title when you claim that the book doesn't support the assertion that gov't agencies benefit from the drug trade, and you quote only part of the book's title and leave out the subtitle that says gov't agencies are complicit in the drug trade.
GutterBall, I very much doubt that you have the college degrees you claim. You're a joke.
"...You can certainly quote mine a book's title when you claim that the book doesn't support the assertion that gov't agencies benefit from the drug trade, and you quote only part of the book's title and leave out the subtitle that says gov't agencies are complicit in the drug trade."
I read McCoy's book. In fact, it's sitting on my bookshelf. And the book doesn't support your assertions.
Tell me, I want you to directly quote the first sentence of Chapter Six.
Here's the proof that I have the book. Here's the first sentence of Chapter Five--and I quote: "...The bloody Saigon street fighting of April-May of 1955 marked the end of French colonial rule and the beginning of direct American intervention in Vietnam."
Go for it, liar. Give me the first sentence of Chapter Six.
"...GutterBall, I very much doubt that you have the college degrees you claim. You're a joke."
No one cares what a sex stalker, habitual liar, failed janitor and man-boy who lives with his mother thinks.
This comment has been removed by the author.
GutterBall, anyone who looks at Amazon "Look Inside" can quote from the book.
Here's on page 383: "American involvement had gone far beyond coincidental complicity; embassies had covered up involvement by client governments, CIA contract airlines had carried opium, and individual CIA agents had winked at the opium traffic....Southeast Asia's Golden Triangle grew 70 percent of the world's illicit opium, supplied an estimated 30 percent of America's heroin, and was capable of supplying the United States with unlimited quantities of heroin for generations to come."
Wrong! That's not what page 383 says. Of course, you're lying and misrepresenting the content found therein.
Here's what page 383 says--and I quote:
"...As an indirect consequence of American involvement in the Golden Triangle until 1972, opium production steadily increased, no. 4 heroin production flourished, and the area's poppy fields became linked to markets in Europe and the United States. Southeast Asia's Golden Triangle grew 80 percent of the world's illicit opium, supplied an estimated 30 percent of America's heroin, and was capable of supplying the United States with unlimited quantities of heroin for generations to come."
Thus, we can see, once again, that you're lying.
I think it's clear who owns the book and who's lying. Have a nice day, Pinocchio.
Check and mate.
Now, stop the lying and evasion and answer my question:
Give me the first sentence of Chapter Six.
But you can't, can you?
Of course you can't, because you've never read the book.
GutterBall I'm quoting from 383 in the paperback edition.
The opening words to Chapter 6, Hong Kong: Asia's Heroin Laboratory, appear on page 262 and say "IN MANY WAYS THE BRITISH CROWN COLONY OF HONG KONG resembled Marseilles."
I hope your kids got their mother's brains and not yours.
Yeah, you got the opening sentence of Chapter 6 right, so why did misquote the paragraph on page 383?
You simply made up the following passage, because it's not found on page 383:
"...embassies had covered up involvement by client governments, CIA contract airlines had carried opium, and individual CIA agents had winked at the opium traffic."
Who do you think you're fooling, Pinocchio?
GutterBall, what I quoted is in the paperback edition. I'm really really sorry you're not smarter but it's not my fault.
I have the paperback edition as well.
The book is published by Lawrence Hill Books and distributed by the Independent Publishers Group. The ISBN is 1-55652-125-1. First edition. First printing. Copyright @ 1972. Printed 1991.
And I'm telling you that you deliberately altered the content of the paragraph you referenced on page 338.
I'm really sorry that you're so stupid as to think you can fool me with a deliberately altered quote from McCoy's classic. The book simply doesn't say what you claim it says.
The following portion, which you wrote, is simply not a part of the book--and I quote: "...embassies had covered up involvement by client governments, CIA contract airlines had carried opium, and individual CIA agents had winked at the opium traffic."
That's right! I'm saying you pulled the aforementioned sentence out of your ass.
Should any of this surprise anyone? Of course not. After all, you're a proven habitual liar, whose credibility can be measured in negative engineering units.
If there's anyone out there reading this who wishes to confirm that the quote I copied from McCoy's book is the real quote, feel free to do so. After all, I have nothing to hide.
GutterBall, you are lying, and anyone can go to Amazon "Look Inside" and see page 383.
At the bottom of the second complete paragraph it says "American involvement had gone far beyond coincidental complicity; embassies had covered up involvement by client governments, CIA contract airlines had carried opium, and individual CIA agents had winked at the opium traffic."
You lied in claiming that McCoy's book did not assert that gov't agencies benefit from the drug trade. And then you lied about the text of the book of the book to try to cover over your lie about the contents.
You are a complete waste of time.
Brian, can you tell us what your babbling about CIA heroin smuggling rings has to do with your belief that 9/11 was an inside job?
That is what this blog is all about, remember?
Ian, you brought up the drug trade angle in this thread.
When did I ever say 9/11 was an inside job?
According to an article in FT, al Qaeda got as much as $600 million a year from the opium trade before Taliban shut it down. The very next year the US invaded and opium production resumed, reaching all time records within three years.
"...You lied in claiming that McCoy's book did not assert that gov't agencies benefit from the drug trade."
Straw man argument.
I never made that claim. I said you read half of the first chapter of McCoy's book, and then you claimed to be an expert on the drug trade. Read my comment at 11:18 for the proof that you're lying.
Next, I proceeded to show that your "Willy Rod convinced a group Norwegian hackers to commit cyber crimes against me" story is unlikely and, frankly, insane.
Then you claimed the book contains a paragraph, which you claim to have faithfully reproduced, from page 383 of McCoy's book. In fact, you modified the paragraph with words the author never wrote, as I've proven above.
Now, you've dropped that argument, because you know I'm telling the truth. As a result, you're changing the subject to the paragraph fragment above the paragraph you deliberately modified. This is proof positive that you're lying.
In addition, you conveniently fail to mention the French governments' control of the heroin trade prior to US involvement in the region. You omit the French governments promotion of the heroin trade as a source of tax revenue, which directly financed the French government. You failed to point out that the US involvement in the heroin trade was strategic (primarily information gathering) not financial in nature, as opposed to a source of revenue in the case of the French government and French intelligence.
Thus, the use of the term "benefit," which you've abused as per your standard operating procedure, is meaningless without CONTEXT. And as usual you render the lessons of the book context-free in order to add your own dishonest and erroneous spin in an effort to make the US government appear to be the font of all evil.
The truth, however, is that YOU are the font of all evil--an habitual liar, America-hater, sex stalker, failed janitor, conspiracy nut and man-child who lives with his mommy.
Ian, you brought up the drug trade angle in this thread.
False.
When did I ever say 9/11 was an inside job?
Everywhere. You don't babble about thermite and lie about what Dr. Sunder said without believing that it was an inside job.
According to an article in FT, al Qaeda got as much as $600 million a year from the opium trade before Taliban shut it down. The very next year the US invaded and opium production resumed, reaching all time records within three years.
What point are you trying to make?
GutterBall, you can't even keep your lies straight. At 18:38 you wrote:
I read Alfred W. McCoy's "The Politics of Heroin" (Lawrence Hill Books, ISBN: 1-55652-125-1) and it doesn't support your idiotic claim that "certain government agencies benefit from the drug trade.
One of your favorite tactics is to use a quote that doesn't say what you're afraid of, and then claim that the quote that DOES say what you're afraid of doesn't exist. You're a cheap gunsel, you know that? You and Willie R are two peas in a pod.
Willie's sock-puppets often say things that sound insane, and you are only showing your epistemic incompetence.
You're lying about page 383, as anyone who goes to Amazon's "Look Inside" page can see. You have no shame, have you?
So now you admit that what I said was true--that the drug trade benefited US gov't agencies. And you're trying to cover up the fact that you lied about the facts, lied about what McCoy said, lied about the very text of the book.
You have no shame, have you?
Ian, in the second post in the thread you brought up the drug trade.
You cacapussies are a waste of time.
"...So now you admit that what I said was true--that the drug trade benefited US gov't agencies. And you're trying to cover up the fact that you lied about the facts, lied about what McCoy said, lied about the very text of the book."
No, that's not what I said--you drooling retard.
Here's what I wrote. Keep reading it until you get it through your thick skull:
"...In addition, you conveniently fail to mention the French governments' control of the heroin trade prior to US involvement in the region. You omit the French governments promotion of the heroin trade as a source of tax revenue, which directly financed the French government. You failed to point out that the US involvement in the heroin trade was strategic (primarily information gathering) not financial in nature, as opposed to a source of revenue in the case of the French government and French intelligence...Thus, the use of the term "benefit," which you've abused as per your standard operating procedure, is meaningless without CONTEXT. And as usual you render the lessons of the book context-free in order to add your own dishonest and erroneous spin in an effort to make the US government appear to be the font of all evil."
In other words, I've proven, once again, that you're lying about the content of McCoy's book, just like you lied about the content of "City in the Sky." In both cases, the books say the diametric opposite of what you claim.
And you have utterly failed to prove that I lied about page 338 of the book. Repeatedly making the claim that one has to look at Amazon to prove that you're telling the truth isn't proof. It's an unsubstantiated assertion.
Now, either offer proof that I'm not telling the truth, or STFU.
You lied about what's in the book. The language I quoted is on page 383 as anyone who looks at Amazon's "look inside" can see.
You're a lying blowhard, and you need to use mouthwash.
That's not proof, goat molester.
All you've given us so far are unsubstantiated assertions.
The following portion, which you wrote, is simply not a part of the book--and I quote: "...embassies had covered up involvement by client governments, CIA contract airlines had carried opium, and individual CIA agents had winked at the opium traffic."
In fact, here's a direct link to the "Have a look inside" section at Amazon. As the reader can see, I'm telling the truth.
The paragraph from page 383 reads as follows:
(The reader should type "383" into the search window and click on "Go", which will take you directly to the page in question, where you'll soon discover that I'm telling the truth. Be sure to scroll down to the bottom of page 383).
Here's what the reader will find at the bottom of page 383--and I quote:
"...As an indirect consequence of American involvement in the Golden Triangle until 1972, opium production steadily increased, no. 4 heroin production flourished, and the area's poppy fields became linked to markets in Europe and the United States. Southeast Asia's Golden Triangle grew 80 percent of the world's illicit opium, supplied an estimated 30 percent of America's heroin, and was capable of supplying the United States with unlimited quantities of heroin for generations to come."
Thus, we can see, once again, that you're lying.
As usual, I provide links that prove I'm telling the truth, while you lie and offer nothing but unsubstantiated assertions.
Have another heaping bowl of FAIL--you lying scumbag.
Willie's sock-puppets often say things that sound insane, and you are only showing your epistemic incompetence.
Nobody cares about Willie Rodriguez except you because you want to have sex with him. Also, you're a failed janitor.
Ian, in the second post in the thread you brought up the drug trade.
No, you did, because you're an obsessed lunatic who thinks anyone cares what you think about the drug trade.
You cacapussies are a waste of time.
Squeal squeal squeal!
Brian, if we're a waste of time, why have you been babbling at this blog for over 2 years? It wouldn't be because this is the only place where anyone pays you an ounce of attention, would it?
Once again, GutterBall, you are lying blatantly and persistently, claiming that because quote B exists, quote A does not exist.
"American involvement had gone far beyond coincidental complicity; embassies had covered up involvement by client governments, CIA contract airlines had carried opium, and individual CIA agents had winked at the opium traffic."
That's on 383, as anyone who goes to Amazon "Look Inside" can see.
Once again, GutterBall, you are lying blatantly and persistently, claiming that because quote B exists, quote A does not exist.
Wow, Brian is being a liar again! He lies about "widows", he lies about Willie Rodriguez, he lies about this NIST report, and he lies about this book.
"American involvement had gone far beyond coincidental complicity; embassies had covered up involvement by client governments, CIA contract airlines had carried opium, and individual CIA agents had winked at the opium traffic."
See what I mean?
This would be scary if Brian wasn't a failed janitor who is laughed at by everyone.
Ian, you are lying blatantly and stupidly. You and GutterBall have long been operating in "Samson Mode" where your only recourse to my facts is to bring down the roof on yourself. You're like the checkers player who throws the board against the wall.
Page 383 has the words I quoted, as anyone who Looks Inside at Amazon can see. I didn't lie about anything. If I needed to lie to support the truth movement, why would I consider it worth my time? You'd better look very carefully on why you lie to support dishonest official accounts.
Ian, you are lying blatantly and stupidly.
False.
You and GutterBall have long been operating in "Samson Mode" where your only recourse to my facts is to bring down the roof on yourself.
According to whom? You can scream "I win!" all you want, but nobody will hear you, because you're an unemployed janitor living in your parents' basement.
You're like the checkers player who throws the board against the wall.
Uh, no. I'm right, you're wrong. That's the way it is, Brian. Sorry.
Page 383 has the words I quoted, as anyone who Looks Inside at Amazon can see. I didn't lie about anything. If I needed to lie to support the truth movement, why would I consider it worth my time? You'd better look very carefully on why you lie to support dishonest official accounts.
Squeal all you want, but nobody cares what a failed janitor has to say about anything.
Ian, you lie about the lies about the lies.
You have provided no evidence that I failed as a janitor (or even that I was a janitor). I am one of the janitors of the truth movement, yes. I am one who puts on the rubber gloves and the rubber boots and puts the stinky trash in the dumpster. Ranke and Rodriguez are flushed. Barrett keeps floating back up but it's like waterboarding--he's getting nuttier and nuttier doing it.
Ian, you lie about the lies about the lies.
Brian, you're the one lying. Sorry.
You have provided no evidence that I failed as a janitor (or even that I was a janitor).
Boy, it really bothers you that you're an unemployed janitor instead of being revered as a genius, huh?
I am one of the janitors of the truth movement, yes.
No, you're a bum who was thrown out of the truth movement for being a sex stalker. We've been over this many times.
I am one who puts on the rubber gloves and the rubber boots and puts the stinky trash in the dumpster. Ranke and Rodriguez are flushed. Barrett keeps floating back up but it's like waterboarding--he's getting nuttier and nuttier doing it.
Nobody cares.
Ian, you lie about the lies about the lies about the lies.
I have not been thrown out of the truth movement. The sex stalker allegations are lies from Kevin Barrett, and when WAQo wrote to Ms. Brouillet seeking confirmation of his claims, she would not provide it.
You have provided no evidence that I am unemployed, that I am or ever was a janitor, or that I failed as a janitor. You seem to get some kind of kinky thrill out of lying blatantly, persistently, and stupidly under a pseudonym on the internet. Pathetic.
Ian, you lie about the lies about the lies about the lies.
Brian, your claim that I lie is amusing. You make up your facts.
I have not been thrown out of the truth movement.
False.
The sex stalker allegations are lies from Kevin Barrett, and when WAQo wrote to Ms. Brouillet seeking confirmation of his claims, she would not provide it.
The sex stalker allegations are from Carol Brouillet. They're why you were thrown out of AE911 Truth.
You have provided no evidence that I am unemployed, that I am or ever was a janitor, or that I failed as a janitor.
False. Squealing about it doesn't change the fact that you're an unemployed failure of a janitor.
You seem to get some kind of kinky thrill out of lying blatantly, persistently, and stupidly under a pseudonym on the internet. Pathetic.
More desperate babbling from a liar trying to cover up the fact that the "widows" have no questions.
The sex stalker allegations are from Kevin Barrett and from Willie's sock puppets. When WAQo asked Ms. Brouillet to confirm them she declined. I was not thrown out of AE911Truth. You have no evidence that I was. You also have no evidence that I am unemployed, that I am or ever was a janitor, that I ever failed at anything.
You also continue to lie blatantly, persistently, and stupidly with your claims that the widows have no questions. They had 300 questions and they only got 27 answers. That's 273 questions on the table.
Oh, I see you're just trying to liespam over the fact that I showed both you and GutterBall for liars.
Page 383 of Dr. McCoy's book says
among other things:
"American involvement had gone far beyond coincidental complicity; embassies had covered up involvement by client governments, CIA contract airlines had carried opium, and individual CIA agents had winked at the opium traffic."
Anyone who goes to Amazon "Look Inside" can see that.
You and GutterBall lied when you said it doesn't. GutterBall makes rash statements that are frequently untrue, and when he's wrong he tries to cover it over in lies. In the sports world such behavior would be known as cheating, poor sportsmanship, and sore losing.
But then, I don't think GutterBall knows too much about sportsmanship. I bet he was the kind that used to bring phony notes from his doctor to get out of P.E.
The sex stalker allegations are from Kevin Barrett and from Willie's sock puppets.
False. They are from Carol Brouillet. You stalked her, and that's why you've been thrown out of the truth movement.
I was not thrown out of AE911Truth. You have no evidence that I was.
False. Richard Gage threw you out of his group because you were using his e-mails to stalk Carol Brouillet.
You also have no evidence that I am unemployed, that I am or ever was a janitor, that I ever failed at anything.
False, false, and false.
They had 300 questions and they only got 27 answers. That's 273 questions on the table.
What makes you think that they're still asking those questions? Also, what makes you think they're widows? Did Willie Rodrgiuez tell you that?
Oh, I see you're just trying to liespam over the fact that I showed both you and GutterBall for liars.
Brian, you've showed nothing except your undying love for Willie Rodriguez.
Anyone who goes to Amazon "Look Inside" can see that.
False.
But then, I don't think GutterBall knows too much about sportsmanship. I bet he was the kind that used to bring phony notes from his doctor to get out of P.E.
Brian, you're a deranged liar who sniffs glue. I'm just glad you'll never get that new investigation you want.
"...Once again, GutterBall, you are lying blatantly and persistently, claiming that because quote B exists, quote A does not exist."
I'm not lying, and I gave EVERYONE THE LINK TO AMAZON IN ORDER TO PROVE THAT I'M TELLING THE TRUTH. Obviously, I have nothing to hide.
Anyone can check my claims and see that I'm telling the truth. Notice that not one person clicked on the link to amazon and reported back that I'm not telling the truth. The only person who claims I'm not telling the truth is the proven habitual liar known as the goat molester.
And, as we all know, your word isn't worth the ASCII characters you waste to post it.
FAIL
Ian, your persistent repetition of the same stupid lies serves what purpose? Do you think you can make me go away by repeating them? You're just making yourself look stupid.
GutterBall, here is the link to McCoy's book on Amazon.
Anyone who uses the "look inside" function can see page 383 and see that my quote is there at the end of the second full paragraph. They can see that you and Ian and stupid blatant liars.
http://www.amazon.com/Politics-Heroin-Complicity-Global-Trade/dp/1556524838#reader_1556524838
I reported that you were not telling the truth. You weren't telling the truth. GutterBall, you grow up. Trying to prop up your dignity with lies is pathetic.
"...GutterBall, here is the link to McCoy's book on Amazon."
There's no need to repost the link to Amazon, because I already gave everyone the link in my post at 17:18. And the link proves you're lying. All you've done is try to bury the link in a pile of your SPAM, and then try to make it look like you were the first to supply the link to Amazon. Well, once again, YOU'RE LYING AND PLAYING YOUR STUPID, DISHONEST GAMES.
The following words, ...embassies had covered up involvement by client governments, CIA contract airlines had carried opium, and individual CIA agents had winked at the opium traffic.", do NOT appear anywhere in the book.
Again, the only person who claims I'm lying is you, goat molester. And your word, as has been proven over-and-over again, is worthless.
Grade: F-
Now, give it up, goat molester.
I've just about enough of you and your off-topic bullshit.
If you can't stick to the original topic, get out of here.
Adios, pendejo!
You already gave the link, and your own link shows that you are lying. You're lying to say those words aren't there, and you're lying to say that I'm lying about it. You are a weak and pathetic bit of scuzzy fluff.
OK, GoiterBoob, I'm going to have to lay off you. I'm letting you make me ugly, taunting you. It's too easy, it's mean, and there's no sport in it. Like kicking a "little person" when he's down.
I'm sorry I've responded to your bullshit in kind. I'll try to be more dignified from now on.
Poor goat molester. He comes unglued when his own dirty, filthy tactics are used against him.
Maybe your mommy will buy you a pony for Christmas, Mr. Poopy Pants.
What would I do with a pony? I guess I could give it to you--you could put on a red cowboy hat and a pearl button shirt and see if your Gene Autry/Roy Rogers tribute goes over better than your Wayne Newton does.
"...What would I do with a pony?"
Knowing you, you'd try to blow it and fuck it.
But that's beside the point, because you're just trying to change the subject.
So, tell us, goat molester, why do you go ape shit when your own dirty, filthy tactics are used against you?
You can dish it out but you can't take it. Right, goat fucker?
You have a very dirty mind. Too bad for your daughters.
Goat molester, when you die, you should donate your brain to science. After all, they're looking for the perfect vacuum.
Ian, your persistent repetition of the same stupid lies serves what purpose? Do you think you can make me go away by repeating them? You're just making yourself look stupid.
I'm the one who thinks we don't need a new investigation. You think we do. Who is winning that fight?
Also, I don't lie. I don't need to since facts are on my side.
Post a Comment
<< Home