Tuesday, April 05, 2011

Ventura on Piers Morgan

I love the way the Troofers can incorporate lots of little bits in their "proof" that contradict them, with no apparent difficulty. Jesse provides a classic bit here, when he says that he believes Cheney knew about 9-11 in advance. His evidence? That John Ashcroft switched over to private planes that summer.

But... if Ashcroft knew about the hijackers, why would he shift to private planes? All he would have to do is have the Justice Department screen the passenger manifest. If any of the pilot hijackers were on the list, he could just switch to another flight. And as I have commented in the past, if Ashcroft switched to private planes because he knew about the attacks comimg, doesn't this effectively rule out MIHOP? Because again, he would then know which planes were going to be hijacked?

Note as well the way he rocks back and forth. What a nut!

61 Comments:

At 05 April, 2011 12:22, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

I love his double-speak. Its entertainment.....err based on reality. Sort of like pro wrestling I guess with all those people saying wrestling is "real" because they do the stunts.

 
At 05 April, 2011 12:41, Blogger Falcon Apoda said...

"...if Ashcroft knew about the hijackers, why would he shift to private planes? All he would have to do is have the Justice Department screen the passenger manifest."

Ah, but none of the Arab names appeared on any passenger manifests. Remember?

Wheels within wheels... wheels within wheels...

 
At 05 April, 2011 13:52, Blogger Garry said...

As a Brit, can I point out here that Piers Morgan is a complete and utter cunt?

He was sacked as the editor for one of our tabloids, the 'Daily Mirror', for printing photos purporting to show British troops maltreating Iraqi detainees that were actually fakes.

Like the troofers, he didn't actually bother to check his 'evidence' before he ran with it.

 
At 05 April, 2011 14:41, Blogger Pat said...

Garry, was that the one where the troops were wearing shorts (or some other oddball attire) that gave the photo away?

 
At 05 April, 2011 16:48, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Jesse is entertaining the idea of being Ron Paul's running mate in 2012:http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/04/05/election-2012-ron-paul-and-jesse-ventura-ticket#ixzz1IfivgP2x

You can't make this up...

 
At 06 April, 2011 03:17, Blogger Garry said...

'Garry, was that the one where the troops were wearing shorts (or some other oddball attire) that gave the photo away?'

The soldier in the pics was carrying the wrong type of rifle (the SA80 A1 rather than the A2), and the supposedly beaten Iraqi detainee was wearing a T-shirt with the Baathist-era Iraqi flag on, which no self-respecting Iraqi Shiite would use to wipe his arse, let alone wear.

 
At 06 April, 2011 06:46, Blogger angrysoba said...

The whole thing is up here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZAUCEiaMN4&feature=player_embedded

It starts with HAARP, goes on to JFK - I think, 9/11 is up there with a what he thinks is a killer argument, "How could guys with box cutters taking orders from a man in a cave defeat a multi-gazillion air security system" or something like that. After the show he lamented that he forgot to add the other killer detail, "If bin Laden is guilty how come we haven't indicted him? Ha ha! The NWO still haven't closed that loophole!"

Also, I like the way he has a double standard when things come to him. His Vietnam record is a secret for national security reasons but everything else should be Wikileaked as there's no need for secrecy.

Also, he - Jesse Ventura - should not be searched by TSA because of how important he is and how he's served in many political capacities whereas everyone else whose ever made office such as Dick Cheney is potentially Hitler.

 
At 07 April, 2011 11:32, Blogger snug.bug said...

Pat, you need to think a little deeper.

How exactly does the notion that Ashcroft was concerned about hijacking in general translate to specific knowledge of "the hijackngs"? Ashcroft showed himself to be a poor player on the Bush team, expressing reservations about torture ("History will not look kindly on this") and refusing in his hospital bed to approve wiretap papers. He may have had reasons for personal paranoia.

Why would you think knowledge of the details of a MIHOP plot would be shared beyond the need-to-know few?

 
At 07 April, 2011 13:32, Blogger ConsDemo said...

Both birthers and twoofers are pond scum, but at least the twoofers can't claim to have a very wealthy celebrity bankrolling their "investigation."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/04/07/trump-obamas-citizenship-may-be-a-scam/

 
At 07 April, 2011 16:36, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Pat, you need to think a little deeper."

Yeah, Pat, you need to be asking the hard questions like:

1. Why wasn't the Cookie Monster in either tower on the day of the attacks? Sure, he'd never been to the WTC before, but why did he pick that specific day to also not go?

2. What about that NYC tour bus that vanished after the passengers had video taped and photographed a dozen highly trained attack baboons entering the North Tower at 7:30 am on 9/11? I know that there has never been a report of a missing tour bus, but because some allege that attack baboons were used to plant explosives and start the fires then Newton's 3rd law of attack primates states that attack primates are not invisible. So someone must have seen them, and because there are tour busses in NYC then there must, as logic dictates, have been one at the WTC complex as the baboons entered. Neither the 9/11 Commission nor the NIST reports accounted for all of the cheezy NYC tour busses, so how do we know one isn't missing? And since one is missing then what happened to the passengers?

3. Why hasn't Dick Cheney been cast as "The Penguin" in the next Batman movie?

4. Why didn't NORAD warn Pearl Harbor? The US government clearly can manipulate time, so why has nobody been held accountable under oath?

 
At 07 April, 2011 16:53, Blogger Ian said...

How exactly does the notion that Ashcroft was concerned about hijacking in general translate to specific knowledge of "the hijackngs"?

It doesn't. Congratulations on actually stumbling on a truth for once in your life, Brian.

Ashcroft showed himself to be a poor player on the Bush team, expressing reservations about torture ("History will not look kindly on this") and refusing in his hospital bed to approve wiretap papers. He may have had reasons for personal paranoia.

No doubt. I'm sure the time he found a modified attack baboon planted on a plane he was supposed to fly had something to do with it. Then there was the time he missed a flight he was scheduled to be on, and it had to make an emergency landing when the carpets started smoldering.

 
At 07 April, 2011 16:55, Blogger Ian said...

Why would you think knowledge of the details of a MIHOP plot would be shared beyond the need-to-know few?

Because the more people that know, the more likely that one of them will make an error and accidentally let it drop that it was an inside job, so that unemployed lunatics like you who spend every waking hour huffing glue and watching "Scooby Doo" re-runs can figure it out.

I mean, c'mon, Brian, why do you think they destroyed WTC 7 except to make it obvious to geniuses like you that it was an inside job?

 
At 07 April, 2011 19:20, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, generally satire is more effective when it has some reference to the facts--without that the attempted humor falls flat. Now certainly I can understand your frustration that your ignorance does not convince anybody, but you really can't expect that it should.

I think Building 7 was supposed to be destroyed when the dust clouds from WTC1 obscured it, and some patriot who is probably now dead sabotaged the op to give it away.

 
At 08 April, 2011 06:26, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

"I think Building 7 was supposed to be destroyed when the dust clouds from WTC1 obscured it, and some patriot who is probably no"

So basically your perception of reality is based on Die Hard?

 
At 08 April, 2011 06:34, Blogger Garry said...

'I think Building 7 was supposed to be destroyed when the dust clouds from WTC1 obscured it, and some patriot who is probably now dead sabotaged the op to give it away'.

And I think you're a social reject and a failure who's made a complete mess of his life.

One of us is right. It's not you.

 
At 08 April, 2011 11:13, Blogger Len said...

"As a Brit, can I point out here that Piers Morgan is a complete and utter cunt?

He was sacked as the editor for one of our tabloids, the 'Daily Mirror', for printing photos purporting to show British troops maltreating Iraqi detainees that were actually fakes.

Like the troofers, he didn't actually bother to check his 'evidence' before he ran with it."


Yes he made a careless error and basiclly no one but him was the worse for it. He opposed the Iraq War and by any objective standard was proven correct.

How then by comparison should we classify the editors of the NY Times and Washington Post who, `knowingly "resisted" publishing information that challanged the official excuse for invading Iraq.'?

It is impossible to know for sure whether or not the war would have gone a head anyway but it seems unlikely to me.

The war resulted in the deaths of 100,000 - 1,000,000 Iraqi civilians, about 4500 American, 140 British, 1200 pro-coalition Iraqi and 150 other soldiers, 1300 contractors and 260 aid workers journalists. Not to mention the much larger numbers of maimed, injured and displaced or the cost to the US, UK and allies in treasure and goodwill and toll on the Iraqi economy.

I'm not saying the NYT and WaPo editors suppressed the info knowing there were no WMD's but their error was a far more serious one than Morgan's. He was not trained in analyzing photos but they were supposed to what information is reliable and relevant.

 
At 08 April, 2011 14:34, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"MGF, generally satire is more effective when it has some reference to the facts--without that the attempted humor falls flat. Now certainly I can understand your frustration that your ignorance does not convince anybody, but you really can't expect that it should."

I'm not frustrated. I'm not the one with a mental problem. Maybe my humor falls flat and maybe it doesn't, I don't care, I'm making fun of you and your hillariously paranoid and stupid rants.

Then again you already knew that because you wrote this in the same post:

"I think Building 7 was supposed to be destroyed when the dust clouds from WTC1 obscured it, and some patriot who is probably now dead sabotaged the op to give it away."

That is way funnier than anything that I could ever come up with (maybe because I'd exchange "patriot" with "commando penguin"). Anyway, hugs and kisses, and get mental help soon.

 
At 08 April, 2011 15:30, Blogger Ian said...

I think Building 7 was supposed to be destroyed when the dust clouds from WTC1 obscured it, and some patriot who is probably now dead sabotaged the op to give it away.

Interesting theory, Brian, but there's a problem with it. Cheney obviously would have gotten his magic dust cloud gnomes (the ones who made the dust clouds symmetrical) to keep the dust cloud going until the building came down.

Plus, he would have anticipated saboteurs and could have sent a platoon of modified attack baboons to quickly eliminate any problems and re-set the demolition process.

 
At 09 April, 2011 08:50, Blogger anEthicalSociety said...

Jesse Ventura SmackDown

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLBMVtOwWk8

 
At 11 April, 2011 20:40, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 12 April, 2011 08:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

GMS, I've never seen "Die Hard".

Garry, you don't know any more about me than y0ou do about the construction of the WTC. Can you explain why GutterBall's belief that all 424,000 tons of WTC concrete was pulverized is loony? I didn't think so.

MGF, your "commando penguin" theory is simply a ripoff og "attack baboon". Don't quit your day job. I hope you'll consider attending college.

 
At 12 April, 2011 18:31, Blogger Ian said...

GMS, I've never seen "Die Hard".

I'm surprised. You've never come across it while flipping channels at 3am while sniffing glue?

Can you explain why GutterBall's belief that all 424,000 tons of WTC concrete was pulverized is loony? I didn't think so.

Brian, you're the one who babbles about pulverized concrete. Learn to read your own posts.

MGF, your "commando penguin" theory is simply a ripoff og "attack baboon". Don't quit your day job. I hope you'll consider attending college.

It's hilarious to see a failed janitor who believes in modified attack baboons talking about "college" as if he has any idea what college is like.

 
At 13 April, 2011 00:15, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Can you explain why GutterBall's belief that all 424,000 tons of WTC concrete was pulverized is loony? I didn't think so."

Lying again, sex predator?

Of course you're lying.

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.

To make the idiotic claim that the towers were constructed of 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.

Do you ever stop lying, sex predator?

(I know, that's a rhetorical question).

 
At 13 April, 2011 09:36, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, where did you get the idea that I didn't go to college?

UtterFail, your faith that the NRDC's claim is correct that all 424,000 tons of concrete was pulverized is loony for reasons I can explain in one sentence. Your belief that the NRDC is an official agency is typical UtterFail ignorance.

I don't lie. Even if were inclined to do so for the tactical advantages (especiallu among an ignorant an irrational group such as at this blog) it would be extremely unintelligent of me to stoop to your level. The facts alone are damning enough. There's no need to waste any credibility on any embroidery.

 
At 13 April, 2011 15:05, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The sex predator scribbles, "...UtterFail, your faith that the NRDC's claim is correct that all 424,000 tons of concrete was pulverized is loony for reasons I can explain in one sentence. Your belief that the NRDC is an official agency is typical UtterFail ignorance."

Logical fallacy: Straw man argument

I never claimed the NRDC is an "official agency"--you God damned liar.

This is what I wrote: "...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."

So where's your evidence that the NRDC is incorrect?

And remember, sex predator, the opinion of a homosexual psychopath isn't evidence.

The goat fucker continues to bald-faced lie, "...I don't lie."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Yeah, I guess that's why I just caught you lying again.

You're pathetic--not to mention mentally ill.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 13 April, 2011 23:09, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, you can't even remember what you wrote--especially when you were wrong. You're condemned to repeat the same old mistakes because you can't even admit to yourself that you made them.

Where's my proof that all 424,000 tons of concrete was not pulverized? It's obvious to anyone who knows the first thing about the construction of the WTC. I guess nobody here except me knows the first thing about the construction of the WTC.

 
At 13 April, 2011 23:51, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Another 100% fact-free pack of lies, sex predator?

I don't see any facts, all I see is your worthless, lying, uneducated and unqualified opinion.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 14 April, 2011 09:04, Blogger snug.bug said...

Why should I present the facts? It's much more fun to expose the ignorance of everyone on this board who doesn't know the first thing about the construction of the WTC.

 
At 14 April, 2011 18:31, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, where did you get the idea that I didn't go to college?

I dunno, do they have a degree program for people who want to be failed janitors who live at home with their parents at age 60?

If you went to college, you sure didn't learn anything.

I don't lie. Even if were inclined to do so for the tactical advantages (especiallu among an ignorant an irrational group such as at this blog) it would be extremely unintelligent of me to stoop to your level. The facts alone are damning enough. There's no need to waste any credibility on any embroidery.

Brian, you lie constantly. You lie about Dr. Sunder, you lie about the NIST report, you lie about your homosexual obsession with Willie Rodriguez, you lie about being petgoat.

All you do is lie. That's why everyone points and laughs at you.

 
At 14 April, 2011 20:06, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I don't lie about any of those things or any other things. You live in a boring, stupid, completely erroneous fantasy world.

Dr. Sunder told NOVA that "the measurements show that the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds" as anyone who listens to the first 90 seconds of this program can hear:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html

What you and GutterBall don't know, Ian, being only vocationally trained and not educated, is that what college is really about is not what you learn in college at all. What college is really about is what you learn after. It's about developing your mind so that you can think critically and continue learning your whole life.

 
At 15 April, 2011 06:17, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, I don't lie about any of those things or any other things.

False.

You live in a boring, stupid, completely erroneous fantasy world.

Poor Brian. All he can do is squeal when people point out how he's a failed janitor who was thrown out of the truth movement.

Dr. Sunder told NOVA that "the measurements show that the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds" as anyone who listens to the first 90 seconds of this program can hear:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html


As everyone can see, Brian is too dumb to stop lying about Dr. Sunder, so he posts more dumbspam about it. It's what I would expect from someone too stupid to mop floors.

 
At 15 April, 2011 06:20, Blogger Ian said...

What you and GutterBall don't know, Ian, being only vocationally trained and not educated, is that what college is really about is not what you learn in college at all. What college is really about is what you learn after. It's about developing your mind so that you can think critically and continue learning your whole life.

Aww, it's cute to see a failed janitor who lives with his parents at age 60 babble about what he thinks college is like. It's especially funny to see someone who believes in modified attack baboons and magic thermite elves and invisible widows babble about critical thinking and learning one's whole life.

The only thing Brian has learned in the last 40 years is how to create multiple internet identities so he can stalk that "strutting, lying, bragging, hot piece of sexy latin manhood" Willie Rodriguez.

 
At 15 April, 2011 07:23, Blogger snug.bug said...

Dr. Sunder told NOVA that "the measurements show that the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds" as anyone who listens to the first 90 seconds of this program can hear:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html

You lie and lie and lie and lie.

 
At 15 April, 2011 09:58, Blogger Ian said...

Dr. Sunder told NOVA that "the measurements show that the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds" as anyone who listens to the first 90 seconds of this program can hear:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html


False. You can post this dumbspam as many times as you want, but it doesn't change the fact that you're lying about it. No wonder the truth movement is dead.

You lie and lie and lie and lie.

Squeal squeal squeal!

 
At 16 April, 2011 10:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you lie blatantly, persistently, and stupidly.

Dr. Sunder told NOVA that "the measurements show that the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds" as anyone who listens to the first 90 seconds of this program can hear:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html

 
At 16 April, 2011 12:59, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Lying again about "free fall speed", goat fucker?

Here's the definitive proof that you're a lying degenerate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4

North Tower: 22.02 seconds.

South Tower: 15.28 seconds.

Thus, you're proven, once again, to be a liar.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 16 April, 2011 13:17, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, all your video proves is that RKOwens's opinion about the collapse time is different from Shyam Sunder's opinion.

I didn't lie about anything. Dr. Sunder told NOVA the measurements show that the buildings fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. Dr. Sunder did tell NOVA that, and I've proved it.

Did anybody ever tell you that your epistemology is crippled? I hope you're teaching your kids to be extremely conventional in all things, because your irrationality is going to confuse the hell out of them otherwise so they won't be equipped for life without a cribsheet.

 
At 16 April, 2011 13:28, Blogger GuitarBill said...

A stop watch doesn't render an opinion, gay boy.

It's a wonder that you can spell epistemology. After all, you're still working on the concept of a stop watch.

And yes, you're a liar. I've shown this video to you in the past, and you ignore the evidence found therein because you're a homosexual degenerate and a psychopath who will tell any lie in furtherance of your Al Qaeda apologetics and propaganda.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 16 April, 2011 14:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, RKOwen's evidence has nothing to do with what I said, which is that Shyam Sunder said the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. That was true, he did say that. Who cares what RKOwens's alleged stopwatch says? Dr. Shyam Sunder says the measurements show that the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. If he's wrong, RKOwens only proves we need new official investigations.

 
At 16 April, 2011 14:54, Blogger GuitarBill said...

More bullshit, gay boy?

That Sundar was wrong about the collapse duration is not evidence that we need a new investigation. Your position is a classic example of an argument from ignorance--a naked logical fallacy.

In fact, Ownen's evidence proves just the opposite. There's even less proof of foul play because the buildings didn't fall at anything near "free fall speed."

Thus, we have more proof that you're an idiot who couldn't pass a formal examination in elementary logic.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 16 April, 2011 15:01, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, that you think we should settle for the report of an amateur who tells you what you want to hear instead of an honest official report that is believable only shows your crippled epistemology.

We need official reports that we can believe. That's why we need new investigations. It's not enough to say "NIST was wrong, but that's okay because GutterBall says...."

 
At 16 April, 2011 15:16, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Another argument from ignorance.

A discrepancy between Sunder's erroneous statement and Owen's stop watch doesn't mean we need a new investigation. You're resorting to the same logic that creationists use when debating atheists (argument from ignorance).

You couldn't pass a formal examination in elementary logic.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 16 April, 2011 16:09, Blogger snug.bug said...

Owens is not qualified to issue corrections to NISt report. Only NIST is qualified to do that.

 
At 16 April, 2011 16:21, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Still trying to bury your latest defeat in an avalanche of gay squeal spam, felcher?

 
At 16 April, 2011 16:49, Blogger snug.bug said...

Is that the best you can do?

 
At 16 April, 2011 17:35, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, you lie blatantly, persistently, and stupidly.

False. I just point out how you post the same dumbspam over and over again.

Dr. Sunder told NOVA that "the measurements show that the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds" as anyone who listens to the first 90 seconds of this program can hear:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html


See what I mean?

 
At 16 April, 2011 17:37, Blogger Ian said...

We need official reports that we can believe. That's why we need new investigations.

We've had official reports and people believe them. We don't need new investigations, since nobody wants them. I mean, you do, but nobody cares what you want.

 
At 17 April, 2011 09:54, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, last time there was a poll only 16% of the American people said they agreed with the official reports.

A large portion of people have never even heard of Building 7, and thus are hardly in a position to agree with the reports about it.

Dr. Sunder told NOVA that "the measurements show that the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds" as anyone who listens to the first 90 seconds of this program can hear:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html

Your persistent denial of reality is not cute.

 
At 17 April, 2011 16:25, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, last time there was a poll only 16% of the American people said they agreed with the official reports.

Um, no, that's not what the poll you're citing says, but I understand why you're so desperate to believe otherwise. Without 9/11 "truth", you'd have to confront the utter failure that is your life.

A large portion of people have never even heard of Building 7, and thus are hardly in a position to agree with the reports about it.

Right, building 7 is irrelevant and thus nobody has heard of it.

 
At 17 April, 2011 16:27, Blogger Ian said...

Dr. Sunder told NOVA that "the measurements show that the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds" as anyone who listens to the first 90 seconds of this program can hear:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html


Posting this dumbspam again and again just demonstrates how little you understand 9/11, Brian. You should probably stop, unless you want to have everyone continue to laugh at you.

Your persistent denial of reality is not cute.

My, such squealing!

I guess you do want everyone pointing and giggling at you, huh Brian?

 
At 17 April, 2011 17:02, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, as usual you make up your facts. The 10/06 NYT/CBS poll found that only 16% of Americans believe the government is "telling the truth" about 9/11.

Building 7 is relevant because the government reports about it are dishonest, unscientific, and unbelievable.

Dr. Sunder told NOVA that "the measurements show that the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds" as anyone who listens to the first 90 seconds of this program can hear:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html

Your persistent denial of reality is not cute.

 
At 17 April, 2011 17:41, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, as usual you make up your facts. The 10/06 NYT/CBS poll found that only 16% of Americans believe the government is "telling the truth" about 9/11.

Um, no, that's not what it said. If you'd learn to read, you'd know that.

Of course, if you'd learn to read, you'd also stop posting dumbspam about Dr. Sunder.

Building 7 is relevant because the government reports about it are dishonest, unscientific, and unbelievable.

Nobody cares what a failed janitor who can't read thinks about building 7.

And then you post the same dumbspam about Dr. Sunder again...

 
At 17 April, 2011 18:30, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you lie and lie and lie.

 
At 17 April, 2011 18:39, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, you lie and lie and lie.

Poor Brian. It can't be easy to be a 60-year-old man with no job and no friends and get pwn3d every day by someone half his age.

Why don't you try seeing a psychiatrist, Brian?

 
At 17 April, 2011 22:10, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, thew only one you pwn is yourself.

You can't even lie competently, but you're doing a great job of exposing the hypocrisy and ignorance of your buddies on this board who either tolerate your lying or don't know you're lying.

 
At 18 April, 2011 04:43, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, thew only one you pwn is yourself.

False. I don't want a new investigation and I don't want the "widows" to have their questions answered. Guess what? There won't be a new investigation and the "widows" won't have their questions answered.

So I win, and you lose. You can squeal about it all you want, but those are the facts, Brian.

You can't even lie competently, but you're doing a great job of exposing the hypocrisy and ignorance of your buddies on this board who either tolerate your lying or don't know you're lying.

Yup, squealing about the fact that you've been pwn3d again and again is all you can do.

 
At 18 April, 2011 09:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

I'm not surprised that your idea of pwning somebody is bald crystal-gazing.

 
At 18 April, 2011 17:24, Blogger Ian said...

I'm not surprised that your idea of pwning somebody is bald crystal-gazing.

"bald crystal-gazing"? You've been sniffing glue again, huh?

Well, I've also pwn3d you by pointing out all your lies. I mean, you've got dozens of internet identities and you squeal every time I point that out. You were thrown out of the truth movement for stalking Carol Brouillet and you squeal every time I point that out. You're unemployed and live with your parents and you squeal every time I point that out.

And so on.

 
At 18 April, 2011 17:25, Blogger Ian said...

Anyway, today was another day the widows didn't have their questions answered, and all Brian can do is squeal about it on this blog. It's pathetic.

 
At 19 April, 2011 08:26, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you haven't pointed out any of my lies because there aren't any.

You, on the other hand, lie persistently, repeatedly, stupidly, and habitually.

 
At 19 April, 2011 17:18, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, you haven't pointed out any of my lies because there aren't any.

False.

You, on the other hand, lie persistently, repeatedly, stupidly, and habitually.

False.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home