Friday, May 13, 2011

There Will Be A Lot of Mental Masturbation...

Over the news that Osama's hideout included a stash of porn:

The pornography recovered in bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, consists of modern, electronically recorded video and is fairly extensive, according to the officials, who discussed the discovery with Reuters on condition of anonymity.

The officials said they were not yet sure precisely where in the compound the pornography was discovered or who had been viewing it. Specifically, the officials said they did not know if bin Laden himself had acquired or viewed the materials.


I have no doubt that the Troofers will seize on this revelation to claim that obviously it could not have been Bin Laden that our forces killed a couple of weeks ago, because he is a holy man and regularly decries the decadence of the West.

94 Comments:

At 13 May, 2011 13:14, Blogger James B. said...

Heh, I was in theater in November of 2001 and our guys were already buying porn on the streets of Bagram. Those misogynist Islamic fundamentalists are quite the pervs.

 
At 13 May, 2011 14:31, Blogger CachorroQuente said...

Anyone who believes that consumption of pornography is incompatible with religious devotion, either Christian or Islamic, doesn't know many devout religionists. Same with other vices. If one believes that alcohol consumption and whore mongering are not common among devout Muslims, that person doesn't know many devout Muslims.

 
At 13 May, 2011 14:40, Blogger reframingTokyo said...

but what kind of porn was found? I hope it was at least Paul Thompson/Sexbox or facialabuse.com . Most likely it was gay porn though, lol ; please 'declassify'!

Also twitter was down maybe related to this as a 'test run' or result.

 
At 13 May, 2011 16:06, Blogger sabba said...

no surprise here. Is like Brian Good masturbating to Willie's picture and hoping to have his babies.

 
At 14 May, 2011 08:30, Blogger david said...

Top Ten Bin Laden porn movies

10."Hot Mosque Mama's"
9. "Sheep Gone Wild"
8. "Debbie does Damascus"
7. "Blow Job Burka Queens"
6. "My Pet Goat"
5. "Hot Ass Jihad"
4. "Mideast MILFs"
3. "72 Virgins, One Cup"
2. "Deep Goat"
1. "Bang Bus"

 
At 14 May, 2011 09:00, Blogger Pat said...

Burqa Bukkake.

 
At 14 May, 2011 10:40, Blogger Ian said...

Those misogynist Islamic fundamentalists are quite the pervs.

Yup. I recall seeing a study that showed that Saudi Arabia had one of the highest google search rates for porn on the planet. The more repressed a society is, the more they chase after what they can't have.

In the US, I think Utah, with its strict religious community, has one of the highest porn consumption rates.

 
At 14 May, 2011 12:47, Blogger Highland Host said...

This should not overly surprise us given that Bin Laden expected to have the personal use of 72 lovely, big-breasted virgins in paradise. I mean, the bloke was looking to go to a heaven that involves large-breasted women created purely for sex, of course he'd be attracted to porn images of large-breasted women created purely for sex (well, photo-manipulated for that purpose).

 
At 14 May, 2011 16:06, Blogger snug.bug said...

Is there any more reason to believe the "Osama porn" story than there was to believe the "Osama human shield" story?

Liars lie. Nothing the Obama administration says about this incident can be believed.

 
At 14 May, 2011 17:14, Blogger Pat said...

So Bri, when are we hosting the debate?

 
At 14 May, 2011 20:12, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Three more titles from bin Laden's collection:

Mary does Mecca
Two Camels for Sister Sarah
Back Door Jihad

 
At 14 May, 2011 22:02, Blogger Max said...

Fuck you Brian - No one cares what you believe or don't believe asshole.

 
At 15 May, 2011 00:48, Blogger 911truthinator said...

Also found in his mostly gay porn collection:

Anal fakirs.
ali beiber and the 40 billy boys.
1000 and 1 nights in Mecca.

 
At 15 May, 2011 05:40, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

" Nothing the Obama administration says about this incident can be believed."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!!!

Insane Boy Acts Insane.

 
At 15 May, 2011 07:49, Blogger Ian said...

Nothing the Obama administration says about this incident can be believed.

So do you believe Osama bin Laden is still alive, Brian?

Is there any more reason to believe the "Osama porn" story than there was to believe the "Osama human shield" story?

Yes. Osama bin Laden was a religious nutcase. Time and time again, religious nutcases with massively repressed sexual lives have proven to be perverts. This is the kind of critical reasoning that normal people do, Brian, and that you're utterly incapable of doing.

I'd love to know what kind of stuff bin Laden had in his porn stash. Knowing him, it's probably some seriously demented shit, like gay donkey porn or something.

 
At 15 May, 2011 09:57, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 15 May, 2011 10:19, Blogger snug.bug said...

Pat, I don't know when you're hosting the debate. Nobody ever tells me anything.

I never agreed to a debate hosted by you, and I have no reason to believe that the person who posted here as "William Rodriguez" is actually Willie. If Willie R wants to debate me, he'll have to contact me directly.

Of course if after four years he wants to start answering questions from which he has always fled before, he can just show up and answer them. But he doesn't have the guts. Instead, if past history is any guide, he's going to put on a lot of bluff and bluster about film crews and renting halls and how busy he is.

There is no reason to rent a hall and deplete the already meager resources of truth activists who might attend a debate. I offered years ago to have a debate on Carol Brouillet's radio show. He doesn't have the guts.

When he was on Barrett's radio show a couple of years ago all he had to say about those who question him was: "I don't give them the time of the day."

 
At 15 May, 2011 11:18, Blogger Triterope said...

Debate or GTFO, Brian.

 
At 15 May, 2011 11:20, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

"There is no reason to rent a hall and deplete the already meager resources of truth activists who might attend a debate."

Who needs a hall, this is 2011 and this can be done on http://www.ustream.tv/
or skype

Both parties should have or be able to find a webcam enabled computer, or just audio to keep it simple.

 
At 15 May, 2011 16:22, Blogger Ian said...

Uh oh, Brian, I thought you said Dave Kyte didn't post here anymore because he was scared of your "challenge". What happened?

Boy, I haven't seen someone get pwn3d this badly in the space of a week since Donald Trump!

 
At 15 May, 2011 20:57, Blogger snug.bug said...

Dave Kyte hasn't been here in weeks. I challenged him to find the biggest, baddest, meanest, hairiest, ugliest structural engineers he could find and go and make a fool of Richard Gage, the friendliest guy in the world.

Apparently DK couldn't find any engineers who were man enough for the job.

 
At 15 May, 2011 23:04, Blogger sabba said...

Willie's gay , lying bitch, Brian Good says: DK, I challenged you to take the meanest, smartest, ugliest, biggest, hairiest, structural engineers you could find to go make a fool of the nicest guy in the world, Richard Gage.

Hey we got you the Hunk of Latin Manhood and Charismatic Hero (Your words) Willie Rodriguez to make a fool of you and you refuse to face him.

 
At 15 May, 2011 23:40, Blogger snug.bug said...

Sabba, I haven't refused anything. Here I am. Where's Willie R? Is he on tour with the gutless wonder, Kevin Barrett?

 
At 16 May, 2011 01:16, Blogger sabba said...

Willie's scared gaye bitch, Brian Good, AKA-snug.bug said...

Sabba, I haven't refused anything. Here I am. Where's Willie R? Is he on tour with the gutless wonder, Kevin Barrett?
So tell us bitch, when are you ready to face him on a debate?

 
At 16 May, 2011 01:18, Blogger sabba said...

oops a typo! it should say GAY Bitch instead of Gaye Bitch. Sorry Brian Good!

 
At 16 May, 2011 03:40, Blogger Highland Host said...

What is said the best part of two weeks later is far more likely to be true than a garbled account given at the time. The fact seems to be that Bin Laden's wife tried to place herself between her husband and the men who shot him. Somehow this was garbled into Bin Laden using her as a human shield. Now, if the Obama administration was just making stuff up, why would they have made the correction? Why would thay have made any of the corrections? Let's look at this logically. If the whole thing is fiction - no corrections, because it never happened. If the Abama administration had no regard for the truth - no corrections. The idea that Bin Laden had a gun is obviously much better propaganda than the fact that he didn't! Shooting an unarmed man raises all sorts of questions that would never be raised had the original account simply been left to stand.

And there was no overwhelming reason to change the story. After all, who are the witnesses? Bin Laden's family members, people who may reasonably be regarded as exactly those who would make false statements for the sake of Bin Laden and to make him appear more of a martyr.

Incidentally, if you can't argue without the use of personalities and profanity, don't. You undermine your own position.

 
At 16 May, 2011 04:39, Blogger Ian said...

Dave Kyte hasn't been here in weeks. I challenged him to find the biggest, baddest, meanest, hairiest, ugliest structural engineers he could find and go and make a fool of Richard Gage, the friendliest guy in the world.

Apparently DK couldn't find any engineers who were man enough for the job.


Richard Gage makes a fool of himself every day. He doesn't need outside help.

Just like you prove yourself to be a deranged unemployed liar and sex stalker every day.

 
At 16 May, 2011 07:59, Blogger snug.bug said...

Sabba, here I am, calling Willie a liar and a fraud. Where's Willie? I'm here. He's afraid to defend himself, and has been for almost four years now.

Ian, look at yourself trying to spin DK's inability to find even one engineer to support his position as a good thing for you.

 
At 16 May, 2011 09:21, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Brian, I have not been here because unlike you I have a full rich life and have been racing a car in some SCCA event. But I have been kinking the shit out of truthers on a couple of Facebook pages, where I think debunking has more of an impact.

Brian I will take on Box Boy myself, if you have any influence with him let him know. I will take on you if you like.

So when are you going to do WIllie?

 
At 16 May, 2011 09:26, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

And I don't need an engineer for help, the fact Box Boy thinks dropping on box on some others show this man has the understating of physics you would expect from a guy who pushes paperwork at an architectural firm. He has got retarded simpletons like Brian Good fooled but nobody else.

 
At 16 May, 2011 09:35, Blogger snug.bug said...

DK, your inability to recognize that cardboard boxes can more validly demonstrate the 1st law of thermodynamics than the government's dishonest computer sims can shows you to be unqualified to take on Richard Gage.

Willy was did long ago. He's a liar and a fraud whose only rhetorical option is to use Carol Brouillet as a human shield and to lie about me.

His other option of course is to come clean and admit that he lied but claim it was for a good cause. There's about as much chance that he'll do that as that he'll be raptured on May 21.

Here I am. Here he isn't. I win.

 
At 16 May, 2011 11:39, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

A simpleton like you Brian know nothing of science. So yeah the box thing would seem like something to an idiot like you.

And if it is such a simple elegant demonstration why won't Gage put it front and center of on his web site or FaceBook page. Even Gage knows now what a moronic display it was.

 
At 16 May, 2011 11:40, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Here I am. Here Gage isn't. I win.

 
At 16 May, 2011 11:53, Blogger snug.bug said...

DK, the box experiment is a humorous and very elegant demonstration of the 1st law of thermodynamics. Your inability to recognize that shows that you have no grounding in the laws of physics.

DK, you haven't posed any questions that Gage can't answer. There's no reason for him to engage you.

 
At 16 May, 2011 15:57, Blogger Ian said...

DK, the box experiment is a humorous and very elegant demonstration of the 1st law of thermodynamics.

False. It's a demonstration of Gage's fraudulence and your ignorant gullibility.

Your inability to recognize that shows that you have no grounding in the laws of physics.

We should listen to Brian. He's a Stanford PhD in physics.

Oh wait, no, he's a failed janitor who lives with his parents and spends all day calling people "girls" on the internet.

 
At 16 May, 2011 19:06, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I only had freshman physics--that's kinetics and electricity and magnetism and the basic laws. Freshman physics is enough for me to recognize the validity of Gage's demo, so I guess you and DK never had it, huh?

 
At 16 May, 2011 21:21, Blogger snug.bug said...

So you're just ridiculing stuff you don't understand.

 
At 16 May, 2011 21:28, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

"Ian, I only had freshman physics--that's kinetics and electricity and magnetism and the basic laws. "

So that is why you are a janitor and haven't the capacity to be anything else? Really?

So this is why you hadn’t a clue on how scale effect structure until I rather rudely educated you on the subject, a subject you still don't comprehend fully?

So now you will say you understood this at age 6, the point when your rather limited brain stopped developing.

 
At 16 May, 2011 21:38, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 17 May, 2011 07:38, Blogger snug.bug said...

Actually, DK, I didn't understand that scale affects structure until I was seven. The book I read showed how volume increases by cubes, while the cross-sectional area only increases by squares. It showed that a giant humanoid would need to have outsized legs like treetrunks to support the weight of its trunk and head.

The issue of scale has nothing to do with the box model. That's why you're so confused about it. The box model shows the first law of thermodynamics--that the work of collapsing the lower structure takes away kinetic energy and makes free fall or near free fall or essentially free fall out of the question.

 
At 17 May, 2011 07:47, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

You see Brian every time you open you mouth you prove your mental adolescence once again.

So the slower collapse of Gages box proves something? OH Wait! it didn't collapse at all, not even a little. Of course it didn't because using boxes is stupidity from a very stupid man. But it was created to impress very stupid people, like you.

And as all informed people know, the towers didn't collapse at free fall, 18 to 25 seconds is over two times that required to match your free fall claim.

So I am here, where is Gage? I win.

 
At 17 May, 2011 07:59, Blogger snug.bug said...

DK, the box demonstration is not quantitative. You are expected to use your common sense, imagine a building collapsing, and recognize that free fall is out of the question unless energy is added to the system.

NIST tells us in section 6.14.4 that the buildings came down "essentially in free fall". Shyam Sunder told NOVA that the buildings "essentially came down in free fall" and he said they fell in about 9 seconds and about 11 seconds.

I haven't made any effort to time the collapses myself. I'm not interested in doing my own investigation. I'm not an engineer. If you really think the buildings took 25 seconds to collapse, then you should agree that Shyam Sunder is full of shit and we need new investigations.

 
At 17 May, 2011 11:10, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

"I haven't made any effort to time the collapses myself. I'm not interested in doing my own investigation."

So you can not count? I know you are not very bright, but can't count over 10 seconds is very stupid indeed.

So there we have it, Brian is so brain damaged he can't even count.

But let hear from NIST
NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A).

 
At 17 May, 2011 11:15, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.

So we have a guy like Brian who at the ripe old age of 60 can't even hold down a simpletons job of janitor trying to argue with people like me who is his superior in every aspects of life.

Poor little man.

 
At 17 May, 2011 13:02, Blogger snug.bug said...

DK, what you apparently don't know is that NIST contradicts itself. The report says in section 6.14.4 that "the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos." They're not talking about panels. They're talking about the top section, the top block. That's NIST's Final Report, September, 2005.

Dr. Sunder tells NOVA in 8/06:
"The measurements have indicated that Tower One collapsed in about 11 seconds, and Tower Two collapsed in about 9 seconds." That's what he says. He says: "It essentially came down in free fall." That's what the report says, and that's what Sunder says.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/debunking-9-11-bomb-theories.html


A month later NIST publishes the FAQs you cite. You left out the part where they quote the NIST report. The NIST FAQ is internally inconsistent--on the one hand it claims that panels hit the ground in 9 seconds and 11 seconds, and on the other it claims that "the building section above came down essentially in free fall." If the report was wrong, and if Sunder was wrong, why aren't the FAQs honest enough to say so? How can we trust FAQs that aren't honest enough to admit the report was wrong? This is why we need new investigations.

Your supercilious attitude is super-silly, coming from a guy who clearly doesn't understand the 1st law of thermodynamics.

 
At 17 May, 2011 14:06, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

And yet it took the building 18 to 25 seconds to fully collapse and no matter how you cut it that is NOT free-fall, even if some sections fall at about free fall the entire event did NOT.

Clearly you re not smart enough for this, go back to sweeping floors.

 
At 17 May, 2011 14:23, Blogger snug.bug said...

DK, you're missing the point. NIST said it was free fall. That's after three years of investigation. Sunder said it was free fall. That's after four years. If they're FOS, then we need new investigations. NIST can't just issue a non-correction in a FAQ that repeats the original erroneous information, even though in the context of their new statements the erroneous information makes no sense. And when the FAQ lacks the honesty to admit that the original claim was wrong, how can we trust that the FAQ is right?

 
At 18 May, 2011 02:26, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"Free fall"? My ass.

9/11 Debunked: World Trade Center - No Free-Fall Speed

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

Once again, you FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 18 May, 2011 09:24, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 18 May, 2011 09:25, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, I never said the buildings came down in free fall. I have never even bothered to try to time the collapse. However NIST said in section 6.14.4 that "the building sections above came down essentially in free fall" and Sunder told NOVA that they "essentially came down in free fall". If you disagree then you should have the integrity to join 13,500 others sign the petition at AE911Truth.org calling for a new investigation.

 
At 18 May, 2011 10:34, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"essentially in free fall" is meaningless.

How many times must I repeat myself--you jackass?

Essentially is a weasel word. When they used the word essentially they were saying the building didn't come down at free fall (whatever the Hell "free fall" means. The proper term is gravitational acceleration) The WTC towers didn't come down anywhere near "free fall." In fact, the North tower came down at more than twice (2X) the rate of gravitational acceleration. The South tower fell at more than ~1.5 times the rate of gravitational acceleration.

Has anyone ever told you that you're an illiterate, goat fucker? Not only are you an illiterate, a stopwatch is beyond your ability to comprehend. Do you still use an abacus, genius.

Once again, you FAIL.

Grade: F-

 
At 18 May, 2011 11:31, Blogger snug.bug said...

What you're not getting, UtterFail, is that NIST and Sunder said the collapses were essentially in free fall. If you think they're FOS then you should join those who are calling for new investigations.

 
At 18 May, 2011 12:04, Blogger GuitarBill said...

No, wrong again, Pinocchio.

What you fail to get is the English language.

You're so poorly educated that you never heard of the phrase weasel word before I presented the concept to you last year--and you still don't get it.

And you can take your "new investigation" and shove it up your foul mangina.

Once again, you FAIL.

Grade: F-

 
At 18 May, 2011 12:16, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, I knew about weasel words when I was in high school.

So please tell us, what is the limit on "essentially"? When Sunder says the towers came down essentially in free fall, and in about 9 seconds and 11 seconds, what does it really mean? 20 seconds and 25 seconds?

Doesn't "about 9 seconds" mean closer to 9 than to 10? Doesn't that mean a maximum of 9-1/2?
Aren't you being silly?

 
At 18 May, 2011 12:22, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...UtterFail, I knew about weasel words when I was in high school."

Sure you did, Pinocchio. That explains why you keep making the same stupid mistakes (and lying in the process) over-and-over-and-over again.

The remainder of your post is irrelevant stupidity--a red herring.

The video I provided proves the North Tower fell at more than two times (2X) the rate of gravitational acceleration. The South tower fell at more than ~1.5 times the rate of gravitational acceleration.

End. Of. Story.

Once again, you FAIL.

Grade: F-

 
At 18 May, 2011 12:28, Blogger snug.bug said...

If the North Tower fell at more than two times (2X) the rate of gravitational acceleration and the South tower fell at more than ~1.5 times the rate of gravitational acceleration, then NIST is wrong and their investigation was incompetent. Thanks for proving my point.

 
At 18 May, 2011 12:32, Blogger GuitarBill said...

No, the only thing that's proven is that you'll resort to a straw man argument ("free fall speed", the oldest troofer lie in the book) in order to cast doubt on the NIST Report.

As always, all you have are lies and logical fallacies.

Once again, you FAIL.

Grade: F-

Squirm, goat fucker, squirm--you lying weasel.

 
At 18 May, 2011 12:44, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, if it doesn't bother you that the official reports say the collapses were essentially in free fall, then you simply don't have any intellectual integrity.

It's not my fault that the official reports are lies. I'm trying to do something about it.

 
At 18 May, 2011 12:53, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 18 May, 2011 12:58, Blogger GuitarBill said...

No, "intellectual integrity" isn't the question, because Sunder's erroneous claim is irrelevant. You, moreover, have no "intellectual integrity" whatsoever, as I've proven over-and-over-and-over again.

Your failure to understand the nuances of the English language are your failure, not NIST's.

Once again, you FAIL.

Grade: F-

Squirm, goat fucker, squirm--you lying weasel.

 
At 18 May, 2011 13:07, Blogger snug.bug said...

It's not irrelevant because the NIST report says the same thing.

You hit the quadfecta, GutterBall: Stupidity, ignorance, dishonesty, and arrogance. A deadly combination. Deadly for you.

 
At 18 May, 2011 13:14, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...It's not irrelevant because the NIST report says the same thing."

An erroneous claim that the buildings fell at "free fall speed" has no bearing on the investigation whatsoever. There's less than zero evidence to support your idiotic conspiracy theory, no matter what your Uncle Osama told you--you lying prat.

You're picking gnat shit out of pepper and making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Once again, you FAIL.

Grade: F-

Squirm, goat fucker, squirm--you lying weasel.

 
At 18 May, 2011 13:23, Blogger snug.bug said...

I didn't say "free fall speed" and neither did NIST.

An erroneous conclusion about the duration of the collapse sequence shows the extreme carelessness of NIST's investigation and the unreliability of their claims.

Dr. Sunder's wild statement that "The measurements have indicated that Tower One collapsed in about 11 seconds, and Tower Two collapsed in about 9 seconds" means that either a) Sunder doesn't know what he's talking about or b) the towers did fall in 9 seconds and 11 seconds or c) Sunder is telling the world "pay no attention to me, I'm lying!"

No matter which it is, we need new investigations.

 
At 18 May, 2011 13:51, Blogger GuitarBill said...

We don't need a new investigation, you need to have your head examined by a psychiatrist.

You're lying again. Sunder's erroneous statement has no bearing on the outcome of the investigation. People make mistakes, and Sunder's misstatement proves nothing, nor does it indicate that we need a new investigation--period.

 
At 18 May, 2011 14:12, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, Sunder never corrected his "mistake", you have never shown that it was a mistake, and sometimes people make mistakes deliberately, as in case c) where Sunder's "mistake" would actually be saying telling the world "pay no attention to me, I'm lying!" That needs to be investigated.

Also, there's still the matter of the "erroneous" conclusion in 6.14.4 that NIST has never corrected.

The issue needs resolved.

 
At 18 May, 2011 14:17, Blogger GuitarBill said...

9/11 Debunked: World Trade Center - No Free-Fall Speed

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

Thus, Sunder's misstatement was just that, an innocent error.

"...The issue needs resolved."

Bullshit. You're picking gnat shit out of pepper. Your argument is almost as irrelevant as 9/11 "truth."

 
At 18 May, 2011 15:26, Blogger snug.bug said...

Sunder's statement was not an innocent error. He never corrected it, and the published report says the same thing and they never corrected it.

 
At 18 May, 2011 16:05, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, I only had freshman physics--that's kinetics and electricity and magnetism and the basic laws. Freshman physics is enough for me to recognize the validity of Gage's demo, so I guess you and DK never had it, huh?

Brian, stop pretending you went to college. It's as amusing and obvious a lie as your claim that Willie Rodriguez doesn't have the guts to debate you.

 
At 18 May, 2011 16:27, Blogger Ian said...

Sunder's statement was not an innocent error. He never corrected it, and the published report says the same thing and they never corrected it.

False.

 
At 18 May, 2011 16:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

Willie doesn't have the guts to debate me. He issued a phony challenge with an unrealistic timeframe, he made no effort to work out an acceptable arrangement, and he ran away from the thread here, simply declaring that he was done.

He'll never have the guts to debate me 'cause he knows that I'm wise to the fact that he stole the story of a true 9/11 hero, Pablo Ortiz.

 
At 18 May, 2011 16:58, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Willie doesn't have the guts to debate me."

Yeah, that explains why he's been asking you to debate him, while you steadfastly refuse to debate in any forum other than Carol Brulliet's show, which you know she'll never allow.

You're a liar and a con artist, goat fucker.

 
At 18 May, 2011 17:42, Blogger Ian said...

Willie doesn't have the guts to debate me. He issued a phony challenge with an unrealistic timeframe, he made no effort to work out an acceptable arrangement, and he ran away from the thread here, simply declaring that he was done.

He'll never have the guts to debate me 'cause he knows that I'm wise to the fact that he stole the story of a true 9/11 hero, Pablo Ortiz.


Stop lying, Brian. You're terrified of Rodriguez, because he'll make you look pathetic.

 
At 18 May, 2011 17:43, Blogger Ian said...

Also,

He issued a phony challenge

Says the guy who wanted to debate Rodriguez on the radio show of a woman who is frightened of Brian because he sexually harassed her and stalked her. Yeah, that would have worked...

 
At 18 May, 2011 18:16, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 18 May, 2011 18:19, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 18 May, 2011 18:24, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you're a liar. Willie stole Pablo Ortiz's story and used Carol Brouillet as a human shield. He won't have the guts to debate anybody and there's no need for anyone to waste their time.

 
At 18 May, 2011 21:36, Blogger sabba said...

So Brian, any luck getting 911blogger and visibility911 to host you?

Well forget visibility911 since Rodriguez was apparently smart enough to call the Michael Wosley guy and had a great laugh about you.
Interesting how lunatic you have become,

Brian Good says: "The fact that he can't get any cooperation from the truth movement for his bullshit and must resort to the sponsorship of a debunker site speaks volumes.

Try again, the fact that nobody in the truth movement cared about Brian Goods obsession...
At least W-ROD had the self assurance to face you here and for a WEEK , to put up with your evasions, shows what a pathetic life you must be living.
Bitch!

 
At 18 May, 2011 21:41, Blogger snug.bug said...

Sabba, Willie does not have the guts to answer my questions here. He ran like a Barrett, like a Ranke, like a Balsamo.

He stole Pablo Ortiz's story, he lied about 15 rescued and hundreds saved, and he used Carol Brouillet as a human shield.

Taking the garbage out is a dirty, thankless job, but somebody has to do it or it starts to stink up the place.

 
At 19 May, 2011 01:01, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...and he used Carol Brouillet as a human shield."

Projecting again, goat fucker?

 
At 19 May, 2011 06:31, Blogger snug.bug said...

I never used Carol as a human shield. You're really not very bright, are you? You must have worked very hard to get where you are, and you don't seem to recognize that it's nowhere.

 
At 19 May, 2011 07:50, Blogger William_Rodriguez said...

My bitch Brian Good says:Well, sabba, I think the reason they don't want to host the debate is because they've known for a long time that Willie is a liar, they knew I was going to take Willie apart, and they didn't think that was good for the movement.
Not so, They do not want YOU is the answer Brian Good, they do not respect you and they think that to give you a platform is to allow an idiot to mumble idiocy.
You were the one who said who needed time to arrange anything with them Remember? When I told you I called Michael Wosley, you wanted to take the ball and go home. Is like when I called Carol last Sunday to verify and validate the fact that she does not talks to you or wants anything to do with you. Nobody wants you Brian, not even your family. Get a life. I am married and so is Carol, we do not want you either.
And by the way, I know the family of Hero Pablo Ortiz and guess what, I invited them to read here also, so go ahead and have luck trying to babble your BS for their family here. They know me better and respect all the work I do. That is your problem, you do not talk for us, the victims, the survivors or the Widows.
I bet you I can get any coverage I want in visibility911 and 911blogger any time I want. You? I totally doubt it. Wanna bet?


My bitch Brian Good says:Why do you think they won't do it? If Willie's a hero and I'm a pariah, wouldn't they want to have the debate to boost Willie and trash me?

I can get any coverage there as I told you, why will I need a piece of trash to get anywhere? You claimed that YOU needed time to work details with those two places and I proved you lied about that too.

Is it true that Willie is going to buy Pablo Ortiz's family a new Prius to try to make up for the fact that he stole Mr. Ortiz's story?

See what I mean. ( I am so sorry for you ELAINE)

So, do you want to bet about those 2 websites? I do not think so. You know better than that.

 
At 19 May, 2011 09:19, Blogger snug.bug said...

William, I may be your dream-bitch but I am not now and have not ever been anyone's bitch. You are trying to provoke me into saying something that can be construed as homophobic, but I'm not going to take the bait.

I'm not mumbling idiocy. I demolish you in three bulletproof and very succinct points:

1. You stole the story of Pablo Ortiz, a 9/11 hero who saved dozens of people by breaking down doors and letting trapped people out and who died himself when WTC1 fell down.

2. Your claim that you saved hundreds is verified by no one, proven by death statistics to be untrue, and depends on a belief that any fireman, cop, security guard, janitor, or architect can see in an instant is a lie--the notion that people were trapped behind locked fire exit doors waiting for an Angel of God with a Key of Hope to come and set them free.

3. Since the summer of 2007 you have been using Carol Brouillet as a human shield to try to intimidate me and to distract from your lies and delay the day when your fraudulence is exposed to all.

Lying about 9/11 in order to induce people to give you money makes you a common criminal, makes your admirers look like gullible fools, and corrupts the truth movement leaders who know you're a liar but who tolerate your discrediting antics whether they do so for pity or fear.

 
At 19 May, 2011 10:21, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 19 May, 2011 10:40, Blogger snug.bug said...

I'm not out to destroy you, Willie. I feel sorry for you. Be a man: face the music, admit you lied, examine why you lied (because you can't change what happened that day, because your admirers needed you so much), apologize to the dead whose glory you stole, move on, make up for it.

You've got everything to gain and nothing to lose by admitting that you lied--because everybody already knows anyway. You can be a real hero instead of a fake one if you do that, and then maybe you can even build up some degree of dignity and stop displaying your silly fantasies that I am your bitch.

 
At 21 May, 2011 22:39, Blogger sabba said...

gold! pure gold! the stalker, the obsessed, the potential terrorist giving advise to his victim. Only in Palo Alto California!!

 
At 22 May, 2011 20:03, Blogger snug.bug said...

Wow, that's really feeble, Willie! I mean sabba! Whatever. Can anybody tell you two girls apart?

 
At 22 May, 2011 21:22, Blogger sabba said...

Getting delusional gay stalker? I mean Brian Good.

 
At 23 May, 2011 13:30, Blogger snug.bug said...

I don't stalk gays, sabba. Willie's personal life is not an issue here.

 
At 23 May, 2011 19:43, Blogger sabba said...

I don't stalk gays, sabba.
Why a gay stalker will stalk gays?
no, really, you only stalk married women, married men and "Latin Hunks of Manhood", your words not ours Brian Good.

Have you stalked anybody lately Brian?
Have you ever stalked your bro, Scott?

 
At 23 May, 2011 20:17, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 23 May, 2011 20:19, Blogger snug.bug said...

So is that guy in your avatar Willie's bitch?

Willie is a sagging blob of latin manboob.

 
At 23 May, 2011 21:56, Blogger sabba said...

Willie's Bitch Brian Good AKA snug.bug said...

So is that guy in your avatar Willie's bitch?
Yes Brian! you will love the new picture I was just supplied!!!

Willie is a sagging blob of latin manboob.

Lol, yes, MR. Lover, Stalker, you will know. I guess you are pissed he gained weight, it damages your sexual fantasies about him. In fact, it is the title of this thread and you fit perfectly in it!

 
At 25 May, 2011 11:51, Blogger snug.bug said...

Willie's perfectly free to go the way of Chris Farley if he wants--why should I care? I was simply pointing out that to call him a hunk of anything was very far from the truth, and if I ever called him anything like a "hunk of latin manhood" I must have been joking.

 
At 25 May, 2011 12:18, Blogger sabba said...

You were not joking Brian Good. You were in love with Willie and wanted him to break with his wife so he could make you some babies.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home