Friday, March 25, 2011

Gold Admits He's a Crackpot

Jon Gold decided to tackle Matt Taibbi. The headline on the piece is about Taibbi admitting that we've been lied to about 9-11 (not exactly Earth-shattering news), but I find it more interesting that he managed to paint Gold into a corner where he started having to admit his crackpot ideas. Jon doesn't usually do that; he's Mr "all about the families and justice and accountability" without actually revealing anything about what he thinks happened on 9-11.

Matt Taibbi: The fact that the government failed to prevent a terrorist attack through incompetence and, on some level, corruption, is simply not high on my list of outrages, at least not compared to other things that have gone on.

It is a very different thing than causing the attacks to happen, or being part of their planning, which is what the 9/11 Truth movement continually asserts. Moreover, it continually does so in a supremely intellectually dishonest way, charging complicity and then retreating into these nebulous calls for answers to questions about the official story, when asked to produce evidence of said complicity.

But I take it you are conceding that there is no evidence of US complicity in these attacks. Can you answer that question directly?

Jon Gold: 9/11 was a crime, and elements within our Government and others have MORE THAN EARNED the title of suspect for that crime. That’s how I answer your question of complicity.

But hey Matt… thanks for admitting that “of course we’ve been lied to about 9/11.” I’ll remember that the next time you take a shot at the only movement that has been supportive of the families seeking justice, and the 9/11 First Responders seeking health care.

Matt Taibbi: Again, I would be completely on board with calls for more investigation into the official story, if the movement would only stop with these childish insinuations that Bush and Cheney were somehow behind 9/11. It’s asinine and an incredible distraction.

Moreover the government’s failure in 9/11 was, comparatively speaking, a rather small-scale screwup, compared to its intentional invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and its failure to police Wall Street. I’m with Noam Chomsky on this one. If you’re looking down the list of US Government outrages, 9/11 doesn’t crack the top 100.

Jon Gold: Childish insinuations? I don’t think it’s childish at all to point to suspects of a crime. Especially when there is MORE THAN ENOUGH reason to think so. What I think is childish is a no talent journalist who has no idea what he’s talking about attacking a movement that represents a cause he knows nothing about. I think it’s cowardly, immature, and irresponsible. For a “journalist.” Please.


As you can see, Jon is one of those people who believe in the awesome power of ALL CAPS to prove his point. That's because he doesn't have strong arguments. I gotta love the part where he challenges Taibbi to "read" his 9-11 Troof starter kit:

Here is the 9/11 Report. I suggest you read it, and ask others to read it to understand the “official account.”

After that, I suggest you ask people to watch “9/11: Press For Truth“…

Then I suggest you ask people to watch the companion DVD “In Their Own Words: The Untold Stories Of The 9/11 Families“…

Then I suggest ask people to you watch then former Rep. Cynthia McKinney chair the 9/11 Omission Hearings that took place not two months after the release of the 9/11 Report in New York City on 9/9/2004…

Then I suggest you ask people to watch then Rep. Cynthia McKinney’s 9/11 Congressional Briefing held in Washington D.C. on 7/22/2005…


Yep, of the first five things Gold wants Taibbi to "read", only the 9-11 Commission Report is actually written down; the rest are movies.

Labels: ,

112 Comments:

At 25 March, 2011 10:45, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

And Jon Gold is dodging like a usual Truther does:

"Jon Gold: I gave you evidence Matt. You didn’t respond to it. Here it is again… Jon Gold’s Official 9/11 Justice Start Up Kit. Want me to show you how to read, Matt?

And again… by questioning whether or not I actually “picked up the telephone” in my investigation shows just how ignorant you are of this cause, and especially of me and who I am.

Was it Osama bin Laden and friends that obstructed justice, that fought against the family members for an investigation, that limited the funding and time for the investigation, etc… and so on? No, it most certainly was not.

Matt Taibbi: None of that has any relevance to the planning of and/or causing of the attacks. You’re conflating apples and oranges.

I ask you again: where is the evidence that the US had anything to do with the planning of or the carrying out of the 9/11 attacks? You keep talking about the investigation, but that has nothing to do with the planning of and carrying out of the crime.

Jon Gold: It’s all relevant. I can’t help it if you choose not to read it."

Jon Gold is a jackass!

 
At 25 March, 2011 11:04, Blogger Dylan Unsavery said...

That thing about troofers holding two
conflicting ideas to be true surfaces again.

Jon Gold: For those of you that don’t know, Matt Taibbi is an accomplished journalist for Rolling Stone Magazine.

Jon Gold (to Matt Taibbi) :What I think is childish is a no talent journalist who has no idea what he’s talking about attacking a movement that represents a cause he knows nothing about. I think it’s cowardly, immature, and irresponsible. For a “journalist.” Please.

Also interesting is the fact that Senator Graham had no idea of his part in troofer inside jobby job folklore.

 
At 25 March, 2011 16:45, Blogger Ian said...

This is like a high school fight between the smarmy asshole jock and the fat nerd. Normally, I'd be on the side of the fat nerd being picked on, but said fat nerd here is accusing thousands of people of complicity in mass murder without a shred of evidence in order to stroke his ego.

I'm with the smarmy asshole jock here.

 
At 25 March, 2011 20:00, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Another day, another thread for the sex predator to hijack.

 
At 25 March, 2011 20:57, Blogger angrysoba said...

I'm with the smarmy asshole jock here.



Jon Gold picked the fight in the first place. Matt Taibbi initially said, sure you can believe what you want. I won't condemn you for it. But like a religious cultist, Jon Gold is not happy with the idea of being able to have his own ideas and let others have theirs. Jon Gold needs others to share his delusions. So he persistently emails the usual barrage of just asking questions/I know it was an inside job accusations and then once it is clear that Matt Taibbi has Gold on "ignore" fires off with his parting shot:

"Are we done, because I’ve got other things I can be doing."

As if Matt Taibbi was the one wasting Jon Gold's time rather than the other way around.

 
At 26 March, 2011 16:44, Blogger Triterope said...

As if Matt Taibbi was the one wasting Jon Gold's time rather than the other way around.

That's nothing. The Truthers treated Noam Chomsky the same way.

 
At 26 March, 2011 17:14, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

When a writer with Rolling Stone magazine takes the time to talk to you about whatever your cause it then you treat it as an opportunity to get your message out.

A good reporter is going to play devil's advocate anyway because it's a good test to see if you know what you're talking about.

Tabbi even throws him a bone saying that he doesn't believe that the government has been honest about what it knew in advance of 9/11.

What does Gold do? Shits on him.

Standard Troffer tactic...

 
At 26 March, 2011 17:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

Whassamatter GutterBall, you're afraid that somebody's going to bring up the fact that neither you nor anybody else on this board has any idea why the NRDC's figure of 424,000 tons of pulverized concrete is bunk?

 
At 26 March, 2011 21:37, Blogger Greg said...

Brian,

You claim to know why it's bunk....share with us or shut the fuck up!

 
At 27 March, 2011 06:22, Blogger Steve Horgan said...

There are the usual unanswered questions. What is the Truther alternative narrative of the tragic events of 9/11 and where is the primary evidence that supports it? Because they have none of the latter: no turncoat plotters ready to testify, no documents detailing the evil plan, no forensic evidence showing emplaced explosives and no wiretaps of the conspirators then they resort to tiny inconsistencies in the reporting of the confused events of that day and calls for a 'new investigation'. Of course the inconsistencies are ironed out one by one, but then the obsessives just move on to another one, or even back to the one before last in the hope that everyone has forgotten about it. It's not only pathetic, but can be quite dangerous in terms of damaging the reputation of the US abroad and feeding weak but murderous minds domestically.

As ever, kudos to this site for trying to limit the damage, and giving us people to laugh at.

 
At 27 March, 2011 09:44, Blogger snug.bug said...

Why would you expect turncoat plotters ready to testify? Has it not occurred to you that perhaps the reason so many bizarre things happened on 9/11 is because there were saboteurs trying to expose the plot from within?

Why would you expect documents? Did you know that FBI Director Mueller said in April 2002 that "In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper either here in the United States or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere that mentioned any aspect of the September 11 plot"?

Videos seem to show explosions at the WTC in terms of the rapid expansion of the dust clouds and the high-velicity ejection of pulverized building materials in isolated squibs. Steel samples seem to show the presence of incendiaries.

Why would you expect ordinary citizens to have wiretaps of 9/11 plotters?

The inconsistencies in the official story are not limited to tiny reporting errors, and no they have not been "ironed out". The 9/11 Commission Report had 115 omissions and distortions, 91% of the widows' 300 questions were not answered, and NIST failed to address the most bafflinf mysteries of the WTC "collapses": speed, totality, symmetry, the pulverization of the concrete, and the presence of the molten metal in the rubble.

 
At 27 March, 2011 10:09, Blogger Pat said...

Sigh. Again with the 115 omissions and distortions? The list that starts--starts, mind you, at #1--with "the hijackers are alive?

 
At 27 March, 2011 10:34, Blogger Greg said...

There are the usual unanswered questions. What is the Truther alternative narrative of the tragic events of 9/11 and where is the primary evidence that supports it? Because they have none of the latter:

Most truthers don't even have an answer to the first half of your question. They just hate the country and the government and want others to hate it as well.

Right, Brian? When are you going to share with us your 420 ton bunk crap?

 
At 27 March, 2011 11:02, Blogger Steve Horgan said...

'Why would you expect turncoat plotters ready to testify?'

So, no turncoat plotters, despite the fact that insiders coming forward or making deals is a key method used by law enforcement to deal with real criminal conspiracies. Just one guy saying, 'look go easy on my felony case and I will give you something big', would be enough.

From the rest of the post, no paperwork or electronic records, despite the complexity of the supposed plot and no forensics. Stuff on TV that 'seems' odd to an amateur eye does not qualify by the way.

'Why would you expect ordinary citizens to have wiretaps of 9/11 plotters?'

Truthers have supposedly been investigating for the past 10 years and they appear to have have turned up no compelling evidence at all. We are constantly told of the vast number of Truthers. Can it be true that none of them have any real skills in investigation beyond looking for keywords on google?

 
At 27 March, 2011 11:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

OK, Pat, just 114 omissions and distortions to go.

 
At 27 March, 2011 11:47, Blogger snug.bug said...

Greg, it's not my 424,000 tons of pulverized concrete crap--it's GutterBall's, and heis sure making himself scarce around here since I challenged him to guess how I can prove it's total crap. It's obvious to anyone who knows the first thing about the construction of the WTC, so I'm still waiting to see if anyone here knows the first thing about the construction of the WTC.

 
At 27 March, 2011 11:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

Steve, there's compelling evidence.

Lorie van Auken says that "9/11 kindergarten" takes 400 hours.

One place you could start would be the widows' list of questions, 91% of which were not answered by trhe 9/11 Commission Report.

http://www.justicefor911.org/Appendix4_FSCQuestionRatings_111904.php

Another would be the documentary "9/11: Press for Truth"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3979568779414136481&hl=en#

 
At 27 March, 2011 13:11, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Telling the same lies over-and-over-and-over again doesn't add the force of credibility to your argument, sex predator.

Lie #1. It's not my argument, sex predator. The 424,000 ton figure comes from the Natural Resources Defense Council; was cited by the RJ Lee Report; and was used as evidence in a FEDERAL TRIAL. That means the NRDC figure was used as expert testimony. No one has ever proven that the figure cited by the NRDC is incorrect--including you.

Lie #2. Making the idiotic claim that the towers had only 180,000 tons of concrete, while ignoring the remainder of the complex, which was also destroyed during the conflagration, is a lie of Goodian proportions.

It's no secret, sex predator, that you would lie to your mother if you thought for one moment that you could gain some advantage from the lie.

Now, get on with it, cocksucker, and hijack another thread.

 
At 27 March, 2011 13:29, Blogger Ian said...

Brian, nonsensical questions from phony "widows" is not "compelling evidence". Learn what words mean.

 
At 27 March, 2011 13:35, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Sex predator, since you're a proven compulsive liar, why not lie about Carol Brouillet? After all, you hide behind a myriad of pseudonyms while you sexually harass a helpless woman--which is hilarious when you think about it.

Carol Brouillet wrote, "...I don't think your attacks on me, Kevin Barrett, and William Rodriguez have anything to do with Kevin Barrett or William Rodriguez or anything rational. The attacks have to do with Brian Good and Carol Brouillet and are completely emotional. You have a crush on me and erroneously hold delusions about me. You are being irrationally jealous of Kevin and William. You cannot accept the fact that I am happily married and refuse to allow you to TRY to cause trouble between my husband and I. Because of your delusions, I cannot ever feel "safe" in your presence alone, and would rather not see you again, but you are so desperate for attention that you are doing extremely negative, destructive things- attacking me and respected members of the 9/11 Truth Movement to force me to pay attention to you...Now I only see you as a threat to me, my family, the Northern California 9/11 Truth Alliance and the 9/11 Truth Movement. I have zero confidence in your judgement and rationality."

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?s=932bca5c6f420d2c43b2984356d506cc&showtopic=1092&st=0&#entry2389508

If you must lie, sex predator, at least have the common decency to amuse us when you do so.

 
At 27 March, 2011 13:37, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Why would you expect turncoat plotters ready to testify?

What if we used subpoena power on them?

 
At 27 March, 2011 14:16, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, when you assert the NRDC's argument you make it yours. Note the NRDC was highly motivated to exaggerate the scale of the environmental disaster, and whether through ignorance or dishonesty, they did so. I can disprove their 424,000 tons figure in one sentence.

The towers had only 180,000 tons of concrete above the ground, and there's nothing unfactual or dishonest about pointing that out.

Look at yourself, citing the Citizen Investigation Team as a source. Where's your scholarly principle of only citing sources whose conclusions you agree with? So now you're a flyover advocate are you?

Ian, there's nothing "phony" about the widows. Your lies are offensive.

RGT, subpoena power would certainly help get answers. There were FBI agents who were very anxious to testify about what they knew before 9/11, but were not permitted to testify unless they were subpoenaed. Unfortunately they never were.

 
At 27 March, 2011 14:25, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Nice try, Pinocchio.

FAIL

Grade: F-

Lie #1. It's not my argument, sex predator. The 424,000 ton figure comes from the Natural Resources Defense Council; was cited by the RJ Lee Report; and was used as evidence in a FEDERAL TRIAL. That means the NRDC figure was used as expert testimony. No one has ever proven that the figure cited by the NRDC is incorrect--including you.

Lie #2. Making the idiotic claim that the towers had only 180,000 tons of concrete, while ignoring the remainder of the complex, which was also destroyed during the conflagration, is a lie of Goodian proportions.

Tell us more about sexually harassing a defenseless woman named Carol Brouillet, sex predator.

 
At 27 March, 2011 14:31, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The Bible tells us all we need to know about the 9/11 "truth" movement and the degenerates who promote their lies:

"...When I looked for good, then evil came unto me; and when I waited for light, there came darkness." -- Job 30:26

 
At 27 March, 2011 14:40, Blogger snug.bug said...

So UtterFaiol, do you deny that you are claiming that 424,000 tons of concrete was pulverized at WTC? If you're not claiming that, why did you bring it up at all, and why (Mr. Applied Maths) did you use it for quantitative calculations of the tons of iron spheres you expect at GZ?

It's a fact that the towers had only 180,000 tons of concrete above ground, and there's nothing idiotic about it.

Carol Brouillet is not a defenseless woman, UtterFail. She could kick your flabby ass any day of the week.

You, however, are clearly defenseless when you must resort to ad hominem attacks that would be irrelevant even if they were true. There's nothing in that quote about sexual harassment. You can't even read.

And I can still prove the NRDC wrong in one sentence. Aren't you going to tell me about all their high-powered and infallible scientists?

 
At 27 March, 2011 14:45, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Telling the same lies over-and-over-and-over again doesn't add the force of credibility to your argument, sex predator.

Lie #1. It's not my argument, sex predator. The 424,000 ton figure comes from the Natural Resources Defense Council; was cited by the RJ Lee Report; and was used as evidence in a FEDERAL TRIAL. That means the NRDC figure was used as expert testimony. No one has ever proven that the figure cited by the NRDC is incorrect--including you.

Lie #2. Making the idiotic claim that the towers had only 180,000 tons of concrete, while ignoring the remainder of the complex, which was also destroyed during the conflagration, is a lie of Goodian proportions.

Your "facts" are lies, sex predator.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 27 March, 2011 15:00, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...What might explain such bizarre compulsive behavior? 'Brian' is reportedly obsessed with sick sexual fantasies about leading 9/11 truthers -- the kind of stuff he repeatedly inflicted on a very unwilling and utterly disgusted Carol Brouillet until she told him to get lost or she would call the police. William Rodriguez and I, like Carol, apparently suffer the misfortune of playing a role in 'Brian''s fantasy life. This is, of course, assuming that 'Brian' is what he appears to be -- a lunatic sex criminal -- rather than a paid provocateur pretending to be a lunatic sex criminal." -- Kevin Barrett

http://www.truthjihad.com/good.htm

 
At 27 March, 2011 16:25, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Has it not occurred to you that perhaps the reason so many bizarre things happened on 9/11 is because there were saboteurs trying to expose the plot from within?"

Has it not occured to you that men who'd plant explosives in an office building are sociopaths who get off on that kind of thing? Also a guy who works with explosives would have just called the FBI if he had a problem with the assignment.

"Why would you expect documents? Did you know that FBI Director Mueller said in April 2002 that "In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper either here in the United States or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere that mentioned any aspect of the September 11 plot"?"

Did you know that 2002 was nine fucking years ago?

Did you know that on 9th September 2001 Ahmed Shah Massoud was assassinated by Al Qaeda, and that Just before 9/11, Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and other key Al Qaeda guys left their quarters in Kandahar to hide in Tora Bora?

What do you think that was all about, shithead?

"Videos seem to show explosions at the WTC in terms of the rapid expansion of the dust clouds and the high-velicity ejection of pulverized building materials in isolated squibs. Steel samples seem to show the presence of incendiaries."

Nope, only to stupid people, and paranoid people, and people with serious mental problems.

"91% of the widows' 300 questions were not answered"

That's because those questions are political bullshit. None of the questions relate to the direct issues that blinded the FBI, to the flaws in the WTC design and construction, nor the confusion of the NYPD, Port Authority,and FEMA with communication problems that should have been anticipated.

Questions about mythical Afghan pipelines (that still have yet to be built) have nothing to do with 9/11.

"NIST failed to address the most bafflinf mysteries of the WTC "collapses": speed, totality, symmetry, the pulverization of the concrete, and the presence of the molten metal in the rubble"

The speed has been explained. That you don't buy it/understand it is due to your mental condition.

There was no totality, and there was no symmetry to the collapses.

The molten metal came from the massive UPS system of Fuji Bank which was located on the 81st floor of the South Tower.

Not that you care, Brian. You are only here to maintain the 9/11 Truth con-job and nothing more.

 
At 27 March, 2011 17:04, Blogger snug.bug said...

So all UtterFail can do is spam the same twice-debunked nonsense, and show the complete hypocrisy of citing a discredited source known to have altered the texts it features. And even then the text does not say what he claims, but is only a set of (false) opinions about my attitudes. And claims that I attacked some people. Yes, I called some liars "liar" because they lied, and I called Barrett a bigot cause he's a bigot.

MGF, I don't know how it is that you know so much about the men who would plant explosives in the WTC that you can divine their motivations. If they were elevator mechanics spray painting the columns and applying thermite-contaminated-fireproofing, they might not even have known what they were doing.

So what if 2002 was nine years ago? Where are the documents that show that al Qaeda did 9/11? Seems like we've got more documentation that Pakistan did it. And then we have to wonder about the 28 redacted pages from the Senate/House investigation, which probably pointed at the Saudis. Talk about your lack 9of leaks! How come nobody's leaked the 28 pages from a congressional report?

How do you know who assassinated Ahmed Shah Massoud. The Northern Alliance said it was al Qaeda and the ISI. The Americans would want him dead because he would have been President of a post-Taliban Afghanistan, not the US puppet Hamed Karzai.

Steel samples show the presence of incendiaries. Look at FEMA Appendix C and the work of Dr. Astaneh-Asl.

The widows' third question was "who was in charge of our country?". It was not answered. What's political bullshit about that?

The ninth question, also unanswered: "In your opinion, why was our nation so utterly unprepared?" What's political bullshit about that?

Why would you expect the Afghan pipeline to be built by now? Don't you know the country has not yet been pacified? Also, much of the Kazakh oil didn't pan out.

The speed of collapse has not been explained. The handwaving argument violates the 1st law of thermodynamics.

Oh, on MGF-island, the collapses weren't total? If the collapses weren't symmetrical, how come the videos are? The dust clouds are symmetrical.

How did a 40-pound ingot of molten iron come from the UPS power supplies? If the molten firefall was lead, how come NIST is reduced to claiming it's aluminum with bits of carpet in it?

 
At 27 March, 2011 18:09, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"One place you could start would be the widows' list of question"

Nobody cares, boron.

 
At 27 March, 2011 18:46, Blogger snug.bug said...

The widows care, LL, and by dissing the victims of 9/11 as "nobody" you show yourself to be a disgusting person who probably lives in an ideologically-based amoral and solipsistic world.

Thanks for showing your true colors.

 
At 27 March, 2011 19:03, Blogger Ian said...

The widows care, LL, and by dissing the victims of 9/11 as "nobody" you show yourself to be a disgusting person who probably lives in an ideologically-based amoral and solipsistic world.

Nobody cares about your imaginary widows, Brian, no matter how much you squeal about it.

Every night, I go to sleep with a smile on my face knowing that Laurie Van Auken will never have her questions answered. HA HA HA HA!!!!

 
At 27 March, 2011 19:10, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, the widows are not imaginary. They exist, and every day they wake up in the morning and their husbands are still dead, and their questions are still unanswered.

You think that's something to be gleeful about. I disagree, but maybe that's just because I sat in the armory building in lower Manhattan and filled out a missing persons report and came to understand that none of the other petitioners in the room were going to find their missing persons.

You may not know that you are a monster, but you are. And the fact that in this forum no one will tell you to STFU, no one will call you out for a lying, disgusting creep, shows that none of you here are interested in truth or justice.

It's people like you, Ian, that are bringing this once-great country down. I will do whatever I can for the rest of my life to see that you don't.

 
At 27 March, 2011 19:21, Blogger Ian said...

My, such squealing!

 
At 27 March, 2011 19:22, Blogger Ian said...

Brian, what makes you think the widows have questions? Did Willie Rodriguez tell you that?

 
At 27 March, 2011 19:48, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...So all UtterFail can do is spam the same twice-debunked nonsense, and show the complete hypocrisy of citing a discredited source known to have altered the texts it features."

Since when is compulsive lying defined as "debunking"?

You continue to lie about the source of the information I present, and you lie about the amount of concrete used to build the World Trade Center Complex.

Thus, we can see that you continue to lie with abandon about the events of 9/11.

That said, it should come as a surprise to no one that Kevin Barrett, Willy the Rod and Carol Brouillet "see you as a threat to...the 9/11 Truth Movement...[and] have zero confidence in your judgment and rationality."

Even 9/11 "truthers" know you're a liar and a freak. Do you honestly think you can pull the wool over the eyes of the debunker community?

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 27 March, 2011 20:01, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I think the widows have questions because this web page says so. http://www.justicefor911.org/Appendix4_FSCQuestionRatings_111904.php

UtterFail, the sources you cite for your information are the lying Citizen Investigation Team and Kevin Barrett's lying website. That's what I said and that's the truth.

Kevin Barrett and Willie Rodriguez are not 9/11 Truthers. They are 9/11 liars--like you and Ian.

 
At 27 March, 2011 21:06, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...UtterFail, the sources you cite for your information are the lying Citizen Investigation Team and Kevin Barrett's lying website. That's what I said and that's the truth...Kevin Barrett and Willie Rodriguez are not 9/11 Truthers. They are 9/11 liars--like you and Ian."

According to whom? A proven compulsive liar?

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 27 March, 2011 21:27, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, you have never proven that I lie about anything.

If you look at Barrett's 9/11/09 interview on RT you will see that he lies 4 times in the first 4 minutes.

If you read Willie's Los Angeles speech (see Arabesque) I can show you the lies one after another.

All you have is empty and lying personal attacks, to try to cover over the fact that you can't defend your claims on the facts.

 
At 27 March, 2011 21:35, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Telling the same lies over-and-over-and-over again doesn't add the force of credibility to your argument, sex predator.

Lie #1. It's not my argument, sex predator. The 424,000 ton figure comes from the Natural Resources Defense Council; was cited by the RJ Lee Report; and was used as evidence in a FEDERAL TRIAL. That means the NRDC figure was used as expert testimony. No one has ever proven that the figure cited by the NRDC is incorrect--including you.

Lie #2. Making the idiotic claim that the towers had only 180,000 tons of concrete, while ignoring the remainder of the complex, which was also destroyed during the conflagration, is a lie of Goodian proportions.

And who refuses to "debate" Kevin Barrett (among others who have called you on the myriad of lies you've told over the last decade) in a public forum?

Why it's the sex predator who refuses to debate Barrett (and others) in a public forum. Surprise, surprise.

And don't lecture me on Willie the Rod's lies. All 9/11 "truthers", including you, are liars.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 27 March, 2011 22:30, Blogger snug.bug said...

OK, UtterFail, if you are not claiming that 424,000 tons of concrete was pulverized at GZ, then why did you do calculations based on that figure to estimate the tonnage of iron microspheres?

I can prove the 424,000 ton figure incorrect in one sentence, and nobody in this forum knows enough about the twin towers to understand why.

There's nothing idiotic about pointing out that 180,000 tons of above-ground WTC floors were pulverized. For you to try to make this fact into a lie is typical UtterFail dishonesty.

When did I ever refuse to debate Kevin Barrett? I used to humiliate him in comments on his own blog until he started moderating comments and now he won't let me post.

When I confront Barrett in person--as in Berkeley, Sacramento, and Rancho Cordova I'm made out to be some kind of stalker; when I don't I'm a coward who won't debate.

If there really was a debunker community, they should be ashamed of your irrationality and your lies. You are given to making made-up claims, and obviously unable to admit when you are wrong. A poor combination.

 
At 27 March, 2011 23:05, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...OK, UtterFail, if you are not claiming that 424,000 tons of concrete was pulverized at GZ, then why did you do calculations based on that figure to estimate the tonnage of iron microspheres?"

You're a very prolific liar, sex predator. It's too bad that you still can't read beyond the third grade-level.

"...I can prove the 424,000 ton figure incorrect in one sentence, and nobody in this forum knows enough about the twin towers to understand why."

You can't prove anything. All you can do is lie like a rug.

"...When did I ever refuse to debate Kevin Barrett? I used to humiliate him in comments on his own blog until he started moderating comments and now he won't let me post."

See what I mean? You just can't stop lying, can you, Pinocchio?

"...When I confront Barrett in person--as in Berkeley, Sacramento, and Rancho Cordova I'm made out to be some kind of stalker; when I don't I'm a coward who won't debate."

What's the matter, sex predator, you don't like it when your own tactics are used against you?

"...If there really was a debunker community, they should be ashamed of your irrationality and your lies. You are given to making made-up claims, and obviously unable to admit when you are wrong. A poor combination."

Projecting again, Pinocchio?

 
At 27 March, 2011 23:26, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 27 March, 2011 23:28, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterFallatio, there is not a single factual assertion in your post.

Your claim that you are turning the tactics of personal confrontation on me is absurd. You are an anonymous internet poster, and have not confronted me anywhere. You don't have the guts. All you do is lie about me from the safety of your keyboard.

 
At 28 March, 2011 06:08, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, I think the widows have questions because this web page says so. http://www.justicefor911.org/Appendix4_FSCQuestionRatings_111904.php

Nobody cares.

Kevin Barrett and Willie Rodriguez are not 9/11 Truthers. They are 9/11 liars--like you and Ian.

Yes, Barrett and Rodriguez lie, but they've been nothing but truthful about you and why they felt it painful but necessary to ban you from the movement.

Poor Brian, he's been kicked out of the truth movement so he can't do anything but babble and call people "girls" here!

 
At 28 March, 2011 09:17, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you can always move the goalposts to "nobody cares" on any issue. Right. Nobody cares about justice for the victims of 9/11, about democracy, media integrity, torture, illegal wars. But that's not the issue. The issue was your stupid claim that "nonsensical questions from phony 'widows' is not "compelling evidence"--three lies in one sentence.

What steps have to taken to determine the truth of Barrett and Rodriguez's allegations about me?

You lie and lie and lie, and lie about the lies.

 
At 28 March, 2011 09:34, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, you can always move the goalposts to "nobody cares" on any issue.

Sure, but I only say "nobody cares" about issues that, um, nobody cares about, like your invisible widows and their nonsensical "questions".

Nobody cares about justice for the victims of 9/11, about democracy, media integrity, torture, illegal wars.

I would like justice for 9/11 victims, which is why I am not a truther. I want those responsible captured and tried in court. You want to pin the blame on others because you're an insane liar.

Also, maybe you should spend more time on the real crimes of the Bush administration (torture, illegal wars) and less on your imaginary crimes? George Monbiot and Noam Chomsky have pointed out what a ridiculous waste of time and resources your idiotic beliefs in holographic planes and magic thermite elves and death ray beams from space are.

 
At 28 March, 2011 09:35, Blogger Ian said...

What steps have to taken to determine the truth of Barrett and Rodriguez's allegations about me?

Many steps.

You lie and lie and lie, and lie about the lies.

Brian, posting this same squealspam again and again doesn't change the fact that you're a liar, lunatic sex stalker, and failed janitor who lives with his parents.

 
At 28 March, 2011 10:12, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, on the one hand you claim that you care about justice for the victims of 9/11, and on the other hand you declare that their widows are "phony" and "invisible" and their questions are "nonsensical". But you can say what is nonsensical about the questions. I bet you haven't even read them.

Your imaginings about what I believe are silly and childish. You may as well argue that I drink the blood of red-haired children in devilish rituals.

Your imaginings about my life are equally off the mark. Where did you get the idea that I live with my parents? How do you know where I live?

What steps exactly have you taken to verify the claims of the proven liars Rodriguez and Barrett?

I have completely demolished MGF and GuitarBill above, asking them questions that show they are operating from faulty premises and that they can not answer. And you are just trying to bury that in persistent libel.

The problem with lying, Ian, is that when you repeat a lie enough, you come to believe it's true. And then you've lost your grip on reality, and thus quite literally, your sanity.

 
At 28 March, 2011 10:46, Blogger Ian said...

Brian, all the squealing in the world doesn't change the fact that the widows have no questions.

 
At 28 March, 2011 11:17, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, that's a lie. 273 of the widows' 300 questions were never answered.

 
At 28 March, 2011 12:11, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, that's a lie. 273 of the widows' 300 questions were never answered.

No.

 
At 28 March, 2011 12:56, Blogger snug.bug said...

When were the questions answered?

 
At 28 March, 2011 14:37, Blogger Ian said...

When were the questions answered?

How does one answer questions that don't exist?

Brian, please name an independent widow who has questions. Otherwise, stop polluting this blog with your squealspam.

 
At 28 March, 2011 15:17, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, your persistent lies are not amusing.

 
At 28 March, 2011 16:32, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"Ian, that's a lie. 273 of the widows' 300 questions were never answered."

This is why I said that Brian is using the 9/11 Families as his own personal human shield. He's a coward, & like a terrorist he hides behind innocent people.

WTFG Brian!

 
At 28 March, 2011 17:03, Blogger snug.bug said...

I'm not hiding behind anyone, Mr. anonymous stalker creep.

 
At 28 March, 2011 17:29, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Nobody cares about justice for the victims of 9/11, about democracy, media integrity, torture, illegal wars."

There lies the irony.

Bush cared. Afghanistan was all about justice for the victims of 9/11. He also got the ball rolling on compensation.

He aslo put an end to torture and water boarding once he was briefed this was going on.

Both operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are well within legal boundries.

It is the Troofers who don't care about the windows, because they torture them directly and indirectly. For someone who gets upset about torture you are a master of inflicting it.

You are not interested in answers, just yanking chains. You are also a liar, not that you can help it because you are also mentally ill.

"have completely demolished MGF and GuitarBill above, asking them questions that show they are operating from faulty premises and that they can not answer. And you are just trying to bury that in persistent libel. "

You haven't burried jack shit. The facts are on our side, you are the one making accusations yet when you cite reports you contradict your bottom line message.

Again this is due to your mental illness.

 
At 28 March, 2011 18:04, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, your persistent lies are not amusing.

Brian, I don't lie. But it certainly is amusing to see you squeal as loudly as you did the day Willie Rodriguez broke your heart.

So, do you plan on naming an independent widow who has questions, or are you just going to bury everything in squealspam?

 
At 28 March, 2011 18:32, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, you are not only factually incorrect, you're not reading correctly. I didn't claim I'd buried anything. I complained that Ian was burying stuff in his lieprattle.

Afghanistan was about justice? You don't know what you're talking about! They let Osama walk out of Tora Bora with 1600 al Qaeda, and they let 4000 al Qaeda and Taliban fly out of Kunduz.

Compensation was hush money, requiring those who took the money to give up their legal rights to sue.

If Bush didn't know torture was going on it was because he didn't want to know. The Principals Committee approved torture in the spring of 2002, months before the Yoo memos.

Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan had any legal justification because they were not authorized by the UN and because the countries in question were not a threat to us.

I'm not torturing anybody. I'm trying to get the widows' questions answered.

I am not a liar. You can not show any time that I have lied.

 
At 28 March, 2011 20:02, Blogger Ian said...

They let Osama walk out of Tora Bora with 1600 al Qaeda, and they let 4000 al Qaeda and Taliban fly out of Kunduz.

Ah yes, our failed janitor is an expert in military operations as well as being an expert in physics and engineering.

I'm not torturing anybody. I'm trying to get the widows' questions answered.

Brian, you're aware you have to ask questions before they can be answered, right? Since the widows haven't asked any questions, there are no answers. See how this works?

I am not a liar. You can not show any time that I have lied.

This right here is a lie.

Anyway, I'm still waiting for you to name one independent widow who has questions.

 
At 28 March, 2011 20:56, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"I am not a liar. You can not show any time that I have lied."

Before that you wrote:

"I didn't claim I'd buried anything. I complained that Ian was burying stuff in his lieprattle."

But in a previous post - WHICH I QUOTED- you wrote:

"I have completely demolished MGF and GuitarBill"

So in one post it boils down to one of two options:

1. You are a pathologocal liar.

2. You lack basic reading comprehension skills.

Glad I could help.

 
At 28 March, 2011 21:45, Blogger J Rebori said...

Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan had any legal justification because they were not authorized by the UN and because the countries in question were not a threat to us.

You really do have problems with the US Constitution, don't you? Maybe you should actually read the thing, it isn't all that long.

There is no requirement in it for the US president to get approval from the UN to go to war, only from the US Congress, which Bush did.

 
At 29 March, 2011 00:09, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I don't have to be an expert in anything to know that they let Osama walk out of Tora Bora with 1600 al Qaeda, and they let 4000 al Qaeda and Taliban fly out of Kunduz. It was in the Christian Science Monitor, Newsweek, and tghe New Yorker.

The widows asked 300 questions, and they got only 27 answers.

MGF, you are misreading what I wrote, then presenting a false dichotomy--all the try to cover over with false claims of victory the fact that I demolished you. Twice. Now three times.

Give it up, you're not equipped for this. Brush up your Spanish and there will always be work for you, Mr. Supertemp.

JR, I guess you missed Article VI, where it says treaties entered into shall be the supreme law of the land. The UN Charter and the Nuremberg Principles, both of which are treaties entered into, prohibit aggressive war. The UN Charter requires that the UN approve wars if there is no imminent threat to one's own country.

 
At 29 March, 2011 14:18, Blogger J Rebori said...

JR, I guess you missed Article VI, where it says treaties entered into shall be the supreme law of the land. The UN Charter and the Nuremberg Principles, both of which are treaties entered into, prohibit aggressive war. The UN Charter requires that the UN approve wars if there is no imminent threat to one's own country.

That would be the article that specifically lists the US Constitution first on the list of things to be considered the Supreme law of the land? The one that puts State laws second to the Constitution, and then finally lists treaties and the like? That article?

The order is impostant. It is not the law that treaties can trump State laws or the Constitution, but the reverse. Treaties are the supreme law, as long as they do not conflict with State and Federal law, and State laws are supreme in their state unless trumped by the US Constituion.

You really do have to study these things and stop believing what someone you want to think is an expert tells you. The document is very clear as long as you apply a modicum of common sense to it.

Under your theory of Artcle VI, a UN charter statement that untrained jurors are a human rights violation in a civil complaint would suspend the seventh amendment. Is that really what you believe?

 
At 29 March, 2011 14:35, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

I'm not hiding behind anyone, Mr. anonymous stalker creep.

Bullshit Brian, you'd hide behind your sisters (if you have any) from the bully that wants to kick your ass at school.

You are a classic case of being a pussy.

 
At 29 March, 2011 16:05, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, I don't have to be an expert in anything to know that they let Osama walk out of Tora Bora with 1600 al Qaeda, and they let 4000 al Qaeda and Taliban fly out of Kunduz. It was in the Christian Science Monitor, Newsweek, and tghe New Yorker.

Well, I guess you can't read then. That would explain why you're so confused about 9/11.

The widows asked 300 questions, and they got only 27 answers.

Nobody cares.

The rest of his post is just dumbspam claims of victory. I guess when you're a failed janitor with no friends, family, or a job who has been kicked out of the truth movement, the best you can hope for is claiming victory over people laughing at you on a blog.

 
At 29 March, 2011 16:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

JR, I guess you missed the part of Article VI that provides that "judges in every state shall be bound" by the treaties. That shows that the treaties are the "supreme Law of the Land,” just as the the Constitution and federal statutes are. The clause "anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding" specifically negates any claim that state law is superior to the treaties.

WAQo, look at yourself, Mr. Anonymous creep. Who's the pussy, pussy?

Ian, the US military let Osama walk out of Tora Bora with 1600 al Qaeda, and they let 4000 al Qaeda and Taliban fly out of Kunduz. It was in the Christian Science Monitor, Newsweek, and the New Yorker.

The widows care about their unanswered questions, and I care. 16,000 people signed the petition of solidarity. That's not nobody.

 
At 29 March, 2011 19:49, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, the US military let Osama walk out of Tora Bora with 1600 al Qaeda, and they let 4000 al Qaeda and Taliban fly out of Kunduz. It was in the Christian Science Monitor, Newsweek, and the New Yorker.

Repeating dumbspam doesn't make it any less dumbspammy, Brian.

The widows care about their unanswered questions, and I care. 16,000 people signed the petition of solidarity. That's not nobody.

Like I said, nobody cares.

Christ, the Kansas City Royals can get 16,000 people to show up for a game on a Tuesday in August against the Toronto Blue Jays. That's how insignificant 16,000 is.

I circulated a petition that called for Dane Cook to be appointed Attorney General. It got 35,000 signatures.

 
At 29 March, 2011 22:55, Blogger snug.bug said...

Dane Cook? Now THAT's nobody.

 
At 30 March, 2011 08:07, Blogger J Rebori said...

I saw that part, it obviously refers to the list preceding it, the one I described. And when read in context it is clear it refers to the constitutions of the states (You do know states have constitutions don't you?), making clear that the federal constitution, laws and treaties supercede state constitution and laws. The point of the entire passage is that nothing supercedes the US Constitution in US law.

Since you are such a fan of taking phrases out of context to try to prove your point, I'm appending the entire relevant text of the Constitution to make clear to others how you are trying to spin the meaning.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

 
At 30 March, 2011 09:11, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, look at yourself, Mr. Anonymous creep. Who's the pussy, pussy?

Brian, atleast I don't go around women harassing them to the point where they give you pussy like you tried to do with Carol. Thank God I'm not a sex stalker like you, you coward!

 
At 30 March, 2011 09:14, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

The widows care about their unanswered questions, and I care. 16,000 people signed the petition of solidarity. That's not nobody.

No, they don't care anymore, it's dumbasses like you who care because you've got nothing to live for. You gave up your janitoral job for these retarded Conspiracy Theories? 16,000 people who don't have a fucking degree in structural engineering you mean?

 
At 30 March, 2011 10:00, Blogger snug.bug said...

JR, under your "order is priority" principle, since Article VI first deals with the United States taking on the debts of the Confederation, the debts would seem to have a higher priority than the Constitution.

The point of the entire passage is that three things "shall be the supreme Law of the Land", and treaties are one of them.

I'm not trying to spin the meaning of the paragraph. You were--by leaving out the clause that specifically subordinates state legislation to "the supreme Law".

WAQo, I didn't harass Carol Broullet. You're the one who emailed her asking her personal questions. She did not say I harassed her.

For you to speak for the widows is presumptuous and offensive. AE911Truth has 50 structural engineers. You guys can't even name one independent engineer who expresses support for the NIST report's findings on the collapses.

 
At 30 March, 2011 10:14, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, I didn't harass Carol Broullet. You're the one who emailed her asking her personal questions. She did not say I harassed her.

Yes you did Brian!

Carol wrote me saying: "Sadly, Brian used to be a friend. I ended the friendship when it was apparent to me that he would have liked to harmed my marriage.

If she didn't say you were harming her marriage, then you wouldn't have harassed her like you did. So don't fucking lie to me Brian cause I still have her email tucked safe and sound.

 
At 30 March, 2011 10:19, Blogger J Rebori said...

I didn't leave out anything relevant and I provided the text to prove it. You are lying.

After having tried to cherry pick the one sentence that comprises the second paragraph of the Article to twist it's meaning, you now want to conflate the first paragraph of the article with the second paragraph to confue the issue.

The first paragraph makes clear that the government under the US Constitution is reorganized from the one under the Articles of Confederation, but remains the same government with the same assets and liabilities. It does no more than that. The next paragraph, quoted by me above, defines the order and standing of the various laws of the land.

Amazing that you never actually provide quotes or proof, isn't it?

 
At 30 March, 2011 10:28, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

You guys can't even name one independent engineer who expresses support for the NIST report's findings on the collapses.

And you can't even show us any physical evidence of what you're saying. You're always repeating the same stupid shit every day of the week. How do you sleep at night knowing that you're fucking retarded?

 
At 30 March, 2011 12:04, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

The point of the entire passage is that three things "shall be the supreme Law of the Land", and treaties are one of them.

In the event of a conflict between a treaty and a US law, which takes precedence?

 
At 30 March, 2011 12:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, she didn't say anything about harassment. She was complaining about what she believed to be my attitude. And her belief was mistaken. I did not want to harm her marriage, and I gave her no reason to think I did.

JR, when you were claiming that order equals priority you left out the clause in the very same sentence that subordinates state law to the treaties. How can I cherry-pick the sentence? You're the one that quoted only the first half, and left out the part that shows your interpretation to be wrong!

WAQo, NIST has no physical evidence to prove their claim that the fires weakened the steel.

However there is a 40-pound ingot of formerly-molten iron, there are dust samples showing what appear to be thermitic chips, and there are the FEMA Appendix C samples showing a sulfidation attack on the steel.

 
At 30 March, 2011 16:26, Blogger Ian said...

For you to speak for the widows is presumptuous and offensive.

But a known sex stalker like you can speak for them, huh?

AE911Truth has 50 structural engineers.

Nobody cares.

You guys can't even name one independent engineer who expresses support for the NIST report's findings on the collapses.

False. Uncle Steve endorses them. You lose again, Brian.

 
At 30 March, 2011 16:41, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you're a liar and your Uncle Steve is doubtless as made up as the rest of your nonsense.

 
At 30 March, 2011 16:46, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, you're a liar and your Uncle Steve is doubtless as made up as the rest of your nonsense.

False. You lost again, Brian. This is why your "widows" will never get their questions answered. HA HA HA!

 
At 30 March, 2011 22:51, Blogger snug.bug said...

What's with the "scare 'quotes'", Ian.

 
At 31 March, 2011 04:34, Blogger Ian said...

What's with the "scare 'quotes'", Ian.

Brian, you say they're widows, but you still haven't presented any evidence for this. Hence the quotes.

 
At 31 March, 2011 09:51, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, she didn't say anything about harassment.

Bullshit Brian, you wanted her to break up with her husband and when she didn't you harassed her anyways. Don't sit there and fucking lie to me.

WAQo, NIST has no physical evidence to prove their claim that the fires weakened the steel.

And you have no proof that there was "molten steel". All you can do is repeat the same stupid retarded shit every day. Are you sure you're mind is all there or did the Truth Movement somehow made an unintelligent janitor think that he's "smarter" than a structural engineer or a firefighter?

 
At 31 March, 2011 10:50, Blogger J Rebori said...

JR, when you were claiming that order equals priority you left out the clause in the very same sentence that subordinates state law to the treaties. How can I cherry-pick the sentence? You're the one that quoted only the first half, and left out the part that shows your interpretation to be wrong!

And that, as anyone who scrolls up will see is what we call a bald faced lie.

when I quoted the document, I included the entire passage, unlike your little snippets of a handful of words. I did not list the state laws being of lower ranking to treaties because the discussion was whether a treaty had equal status to the federal constitution, and the ranking of the state l aws was irrelevant.

You lie, you misrepresent, and you are no more than a troll unwilling to debate honestly.

Thankfully, the proof of your lies is just a few column inches above the lies.

Dishonesty and stupidity, the very hallmarks of a truther. You should be proud.

 
At 31 March, 2011 12:36, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, how do you know what was in my mind?

If I remember right, Dr. Barrett's primary complaint was that I had "disgusting fantasies" involving him. How did he know?

There's proof of molten steel in the form of a 40-pound ingot of the stuff. There is also testimony from Dr. Astaneh-Asl, Dr. Alison Geyh, Dr. Ahmed Ghoniem, Ron Burger (CDC), Dr. Melissa Hunt (Penn), Father Edward Malloy (President of Notre Dame U), FDNY Captain Philip Ruvolo, and others. You don't know what you're talking about.

Where did you get the idea that I'm an unintelligent janitor? Did an anonymous internet poster tell you that?

JR, yes you quoted the entire sentence in Article VI, but only after I pointed out that you had neglected to read the second half of the sentence, which completely negated your interpretation of the first half of the sentence.

You said: "It is not the law that treaties can trump State laws." But the second half of the sentence showed that clearly treaties can trump state laws.

You people who say stupid and incorrect things, and then refuse to admit that you were wrong, are misleading the people who believe you.

I have no need of dishonesty and lies, which is why I refute them so aggressively, whether they come from putative truthers like Barrett and Rodriguez, from officials like Rice and Sunder, or from idiots like GutterBall and Ian.

I am in this business for truth--and for keeps. By lying you may maintain an ephemeral and illusory sway. Years from now you will look back on your posts and regret that you wasted your time on vanity.

 
At 31 March, 2011 17:25, Blogger Ian said...

WAQo, how do you know what was in my mind?

This is pretty pathetic, Brian. You sex stalked Carol Brouillet, because you're an obsessive lunatic. Hence your endless dumbspam at this blog.

You people who say stupid and incorrect things, and then refuse to admit that you were wrong, are misleading the people who believe you.

Brian, this desperate squealing is amusing. Did Willie Rodriguez tell you to squeal?

I have no need of dishonesty and lies, which is why I refute them so aggressively, whether they come from putative truthers like Barrett and Rodriguez, from officials like Rice and Sunder, or from idiots like GutterBall and Ian.

False. You're a pathetic liar, Brian. That's why you were kicked out of the truth movement.

I am in this business for truth--and for keeps. By lying you may maintain an ephemeral and illusory sway. Years from now you will look back on your posts and regret that you wasted your time on vanity.

Ah, such desperate dumbspam. It's amazing how entertaining failed janitors can be when they post babbling lies for everyone to laugh at.

 
At 31 March, 2011 19:11, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you lie, and lie, and lie and lie. And you're not even very good at it.

 
At 31 March, 2011 19:12, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, you lie, and lie, and lie and lie. And you're not even very good at it.

My, such squealing!

 
At 01 April, 2011 09:18, Blogger J Rebori said...

JR, yes you quoted the entire sentence in Article VI, but only after I pointed out that you had neglected to read the second half of the sentence, which completely negated your interpretation of the first half of the sentence.

You said: "It is not the law that treaties can trump State laws." But the second half of the sentence showed that clearly treaties can trump state laws.


I apologize for misspeaking. I had thought I wrote Federal Laws. That was an error on my part. But it in no way invalidates my proof that the US Constitution is not superceded by treaties such as teh UN Charter and therefore any war authorized by the US Congress is, by definition, legal and my original claim still stands.

(See Brian, that is intellectual honesty. Admitting an error, and showing how it does not fundementally change the actual points of the argument, or if it had, adjusting ones claims to incorporate facts. You can do it too.)

You people who say stupid and incorrect things, and then refuse to admit that you were wrong, are misleading the people who believe you.

Except of course, that I just did indeed admit the error as soon as you pointed it out. Who is lying and misleading people now?

You mean like claiming that a material you can not even prove exists can do something no material related to it can do?

Or that, as demonstrated in this thread, the UN Charter does not trump the US COnstitution?

I have no need of dishonesty and lies, which is why I refute them so aggressively, whether they come from putative truthers like Barrett and Rodriguez, from officials like Rice and Sunder, or from idiots like GutterBall and Ian.

I am in this business for truth--and for keeps. By lying you may maintain an ephemeral and illusory sway. Years from now you will look back on your posts and regret that you wasted your time on vanity.


You have lied repeatedly, you have refused to EVER admit an error, You have posited completely unsupported drivle and you want to claim any degree of honesty?

I have proven your lies repeatedly, I have proven you have ZERO evidence for your claims and suppositions repeatedly.

Your claim that you would ever admit an error is demonstrably false, as anyone who scans this site will see fo themselves.

You have no interest in honesty, truth or facts, you truly are typical of the truther movement.

 
At 01 April, 2011 10:18, Blogger snug.bug said...

JR, I admit when I am wrong, and simply by not saying stupid things I am able to minimize the occasions I must do so.

I never said the US Constitution was invalidated by treaties. Who would make such a stupid claim? Clearly under Article VI the Constitution and the treaties, both being the "supreme law of the land" are of equal status.

Think of it this way: One law permits physicians to administer drugs, and another law prohibits a physician from committing murder by maliciously administering a fatal dose. The existence of the second law does not take away the authority of a physician to administer drugs.

The outlawing of aggressive war by the Nuremberg Principles and the UN Charter do not take away Congress's power to declare war, or even to declare an illegal war. But that doesn't change the fact that the war is illegal under those treaties and thus under Article VI.

I have not lied. You can not demonstrate any untruthfulness to anything I have said. Obviously you live in an ideologically-based fantasy world.

 
At 01 April, 2011 13:50, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Clearly under Article VI the Constitution and the treaties, both being the "supreme law of the land" are of equal status.

Where the Constitution conflicts with a treaty obligation, which takes precedence?

 
At 01 April, 2011 14:50, Blogger snug.bug said...

I don't know. I'm not a Supreme Court Justice.

My guess, though, is that it's like the physician example I gave above--that one law gives you the power to prescribe medicine and another law constrains you from committing murder.

 
At 02 April, 2011 02:29, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

I don't know. I'm not a Supreme Court Justice.

You don't need to be. Start here and browse the Reid v. Covert article. In light of that, do you still think that treaty obligations are on equal footing with the Constitution?

 
At 02 April, 2011 06:00, Blogger Ian said...

JR, I admit when I am wrong, and simply by not saying stupid things I am able to minimize the occasions I must do so.

More squealing lies. Brian, you're wrong about Dr. Sunder, but you don't admit it. You just post the same hilariously wrong dumbspam about the guy. Stuff like this is why you're a failed janitor who lives with his parents.

 
At 02 April, 2011 09:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, the language of Article VI seems pretty clear--both treaties and the Constitution are the supreme Law. That seems to make them equal.

Reid v. Covert appears to involve an executive agreement, so I think one could dispute the proposition that the term "Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States" properly applies to it. Obviously we'd have a big problem if the military could go around making unsupervised agreements around the world and these would have the binding force of "the supreme Law of the land".

In addition, Reid v. Covert seems to involve an agreement which takes away the Constitutional rights of US citizens. That would make the treaty superior to the Constitution, not equal.

So I suspect that Reid v. Covert is a case with very limited implications, though Unitary Executive ideologues may wish that it shows that the USA need not be subject to international law.

Ian, Dr. Sunder told NOVA that the measurements showed that the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. Not panels, the buildings.

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

(at 55 seconds). Your continued lying about an easily-checked fact is typical Iananity.

Such collapse times are contrary to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, as anyone with freshman engineering knows.

 
At 02 April, 2011 09:38, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, Dr. Sunder told NOVA that the measurements showed that the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. Not panels, the buildings.

See what I mean?

Such collapse times are contrary to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, as anyone with freshman engineering knows.

Brian, nobody cares what a failed janitor who babbles online as "petgoat" all day thinks he knows about the laws of thermodynamics.

 
At 02 April, 2011 10:10, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, anybody who doesn't know about the 1st Law of Thermodynamics after being informed of its existence is an idiot.

That would be you. Also, anybody who continues to lie about what Dr. Sunder told NOVA about the collapse times, even though it can be easily checked, is an idiot. That would be you also.

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

 
At 02 April, 2011 11:10, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, anybody who doesn't know about the 1st Law of Thermodynamics after being informed of its existence is an idiot.

Oh, we know all about it. We just find it amusing that a failed janitor who believes in magic thermite elves claims to know anything about it.

That would be you. Also, anybody who continues to lie about what Dr. Sunder told NOVA about the collapse times, even though it can be easily checked, is an idiot. That would be you also.

False and false. You're really not too good at this whole telling-the-truth thing, are you petgoat?

 
At 02 April, 2011 11:49, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I had the 1st Law in my first quarter in college.

"Magic thermite elves" are your own fantasy. I've seen a few elves prancing around in San Francisco, but there was nothing magic or thermitic about them.

Dr. Sunder told NOVA that the measurements show that the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. (Go to 0:55)

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

You lie like a Calormene. You lie like an ape.



I just learned that the

 
At 02 April, 2011 12:13, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, I had the 1st Law in my first quarter in college.

Brian, stop pretending you went to college.

"Magic thermite elves" are your own fantasy. I've seen a few elves prancing around in San Francisco, but there was nothing magic or thermitic about them.

Brian, you're the one who thinks magical thermite brought the towers down, not me.

Dr. Sunder told NOVA that the measurements show that the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. (Go to 0:55)

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


Stop lying, petgoat.

 
At 02 April, 2011 16:20, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, there's nothing magical about thermite. It's commonly used to weld railroad rails and stocked as a military weapon.

Dr. Sunder told NOVA that the measurements show that the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. (Go to 0:55)

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

Your continuing denial of reality is noted.

 
At 03 April, 2011 06:12, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, the language of Article VI seems pretty clear--both treaties and the Constitution are the supreme Law. That seems to make them equal.

Yes, it would seem to. Does it?

 
At 03 April, 2011 09:00, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, I said I don't know. I'm not Supreme Court Justice. They probably don't know until they hear a case. Note that in Reid there was no finding that the executive agreement was unconstitutional.

 
At 03 April, 2011 09:35, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, there's nothing magical about thermite. It's commonly used to weld railroad rails and stocked as a military weapon.

Right, and it's not used to demolish buildings. Every time you're told this, you start babbling about magical properties of "spray-on nanothermite". You're hilarious, petgoat.

Dr. Sunder told NOVA that the measurements show that the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. (Go to 0:55)

Stop lying, petgoat.

 
At 03 April, 2011 10:01, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, Dr. Sunder told NOVA that the measurements showed that the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. Not panels, the buildings.

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

(at 55 seconds). Your continued lying about an easily-checked fact is typical Iananity.

Such collapse times are contrary to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, as anyone with freshman engineering knows.

 
At 03 April, 2011 11:23, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Ian, Dr. Sunder told NOVA that the measurements showed that the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. Not panels, the buildings.

But as you've mentioned, Dr. Sunder is a liar. Why do you believe this statement of his must be taken at face value?

 
At 03 April, 2011 11:37, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, Dr. Sunder told NOVA that the measurements showed that the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. Not panels, the buildings.

Brian, any time you want to stop posting lying dumbspam would be fine by me.

Your continued lying about an easily-checked fact is typical Iananity.

Squeal squeal squeal!

Such collapse times are contrary to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, as anyone with freshman engineering knows.

Since when do you have any engineering education? I don't think Stanford offers a program designed for prospective failed janitors.

 
At 03 April, 2011 12:08, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, where do you get the idea that I believe that Dr. Sunder's statements must be taken at face value?

I am simply trying to establish the facts. Ian is trying to cover up the facts. The fact is, Dr. Sunder told NOVA that the buildings (not exterior panels) came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds, and the NIST FAQs and section 6.14.4 say nothing to contradict these times, saying the buildings came down "essentially in free fall".

 
At 03 April, 2011 17:00, Blogger Ian said...

The fact is, Dr. Sunder told NOVA that the buildings (not exterior panels) came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds, and the NIST FAQs and section 6.14.4 say nothing to contradict these times, saying the buildings came down "essentially in free fall".

Those are not facts. They're the lies of a deranged failed janitor.

 
At 03 April, 2011 20:53, Blogger snug.bug said...

Those are facts, Ian. Look at the NOVA, look at the nISt FAQs, and look at section 6.14.4,

You are denying reality.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home