Hey Jon, Here is a Quarter, Buy a Clue.
Pat made a couple of posts earlier on the article in a Philadelphia paper profiling Jon Gold. The article wasn't that fascinating, however, the entertainment continues. Jon is now all upset because 911 Blogger, a site that he helped start, won't run the article in a blog post:
Cosmos, the founder of the "Eleventh Day of Every Month Until Justice" action, as well as one of the founders of www.911truthnews.com, posted the CityPaper's article to 911blogger.com. For some reason, the post has not been allowed through. Cosmos sent an email asking why, and has not heard anything from anyone.
It's ironic that an article that made the front page of Philadelphia's largest weekly newspaper, that just happens to mention me, a co-founder of 911blogger.com, is not allowed to be posted on 911blogger.com today.
I think the truth hurts.
Hey Jon, why are you surprised? This is what happens when you have a movement based not on reality, but on a paranoid ideology and emotional fervor. One of my professors once told me that the difference between conspiracy theory and science was that science allowed for good predictions, and guess what, this was entirely predictable. In fact if you want to know how the psychology of such movements go, people have been writing about it for centuries. I suggest reading up on the French Revolution for starters, or you can try one of my favorite books.
Labels: Jon Gold
posted by James B. @ 5:02 PM
198 comments
198 Comments:
The article about the Philly twoofers was on the front page? Granted, it more or less painted them all as lunatics but the author was a bit too sympathetic to some of their bs.
As an aside, I checked SLC earlier today and was redirected to a site that implied the domain was free for purchase. Did anyone else have that experience?
One of the scripts was going crazy. I edited the source and took out the link. Not sure what was happening but haven't looked into it much yet.
What's with the ego trip? "Oh no, they won't mention me! My name was published!" Get over yourself. You were published in a newspaper, why do you need vanity from 911blogger? That would be like if I had the chance to collaborate with Christopher Nolan and got all butthurt because Aaron Seltzer didn't make the same offer.
http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2011/09/01/podcast-show-53/
OK, so people speculating on Clarke's speculation. How is that in any way significant?
And Jon, don't you find it ironic that this is the only major website on the 9/11 truth movement which will actually cover everyone involved, without calling you a government operative?
Jon Gold's a government plant!
Damnit, posted too late.
I like how you think that linking to stuff all the time is enough to persuade anyone. You seem to be incapable of realizing that only you and a select few individuals actually find such crap convincing.
OK, so people speculating on Clarke's speculation. How is that in any way significant?
CIA and FBI conduct in regard to al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar has never been credibly explained.
Pulitzer Prize winning author on the CIA's censorship of Soufan's book:
For a decade now, the agency has successfully avoided a reckoning with its own culpability in letting this tragedy transpire. Now that it has raised the issue once again in its blatant attempt to erase history, it’s time to hold the C.I.A. accountable.
The C.I.A., Censorship, and National Security
Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan, authors of The Eleventh Day comment on the issue on their blog:
We could not resolve this issue, but we have – with multiple pages of source notes – laid out the possible explanations – including the suggestion that the Agency may have hoped to track the pair’s U.S. movements itself – perhaps using an allied intelligence agency as surrogate, thus ensuring deniability.
Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan blog
Why did the CIA and FBI obstruct al Qaeda invesigations before 9/11? One would think that SLC would want an answer to this question just as much as any member of the 9/11 truth movement. Why don't you guys interview Richard Blee?
You seem to be incapable of realizing that only you and a select few individuals actually find such crap convincing.
Because you hold the 9/11 truth movement in contempt you find it unnecessary to question the government's conduct in regard to 9/11? Anyone who does should rightly be marginalized?
What is your point here? That anyone who questions Tenet is out of line or delusional? That all the secrecy is justified? That the media has done a brilliant job of reporting on 9/11?
Are truthers capable of anything but 'just asking questions'? Can they write anything without using a question mark? Why do they not understand the meaning of 'may', 'possible', and 'perhaps'? Why do they forever end their comments with multiple questions? Why did track need to use nine - NINE - question marks in just two posts?
Paul W. wrote, "...Why did track need to use nine - NINE - question marks in just two posts?"
Because, like all troofers, he mistakenly believes that questions are evidence.
In other words, he's an idiot.
Paul W. wrote, "...Why do they not understand the meaning of 'may', 'possible', and 'perhaps'?"
Because Orwellian doublespeak is the stock-and-trade of troofers. For example, "may" means "will"; "possible" means "definitely"; and, of course, "perhaps" is a forgone conclusion.
In other words, he's intellectually dishonest--not to mention an idiot.
or example, "may" means "will"; "possible" means "definitely"; and, of course, "perhaps" is a forgone conclusion.
Also, "it was like" means "it was", as in "it was like a missile" and "it was like a bomb".
Because it is all speculative. These questions were investigated years ago, and no evidence was found to back up these theories. The theories are no more valid now, just because someone proposed them again. You are not just asking questions, you are ignoring answers.
That's my favorite "debunker" technique. Saying or inferring that something was looked into, or resolved "years ago," even though it wasn't. That really is my favorite. Keep up the good work. You guys are a credit to "debunkers" everywhere.
Because you hold the 9/11 truth movement in contempt you find it unnecessary to question the government's conduct in regard to 9/11? Anyone who does should rightly be marginalized?
Wow! When did I say any of that? All I said was that posting the same shit over and over is not the equivalent of a convincing argument. I think if there's something questionable about what happened that day, they should be questioned. But nothing particularly substantial can be argued as worthy of a new investigation.
That's my favorite "debunker" technique. Saying or inferring that something was looked into, or resolved "years ago," even though it wasn't.
That's a good one. My favorite truther technique is pretending something hasn't been explained already repeating the same refuted bullshit with the smugness of a delusional idiot.
Saying or inferring that something was looked into, or resolved "years ago," even though it wasn't.
You mean, "resolved to your satisfaction". Just because you don't accept or believe the answers, doesn't mean those answers are false.
Doesn't matter what you believe anyway. There will never be another investigation.
i loathe and abhor the nine-eleven conspiradroid-moonbats, so i applaud this site, but i have to wonder if James B. understands the enlightened wisdom behind the author of one of his favorite books.
i strongly suspect he does not.
i'll let the man speak for himself:
"After what I have seen in Spain I have come to the conclusion that it is futile to be 'anti-Fascist' while attempting to preserve capitalism. Fascism after all is only a development of capitalism, and the mildest democracy, so-called, is liable to turn into Fascism when the pinch comes. We like to think of England as a democratic country, but our rule in India, for instance, is just as bad as German Fascism, though outwardly it may be less irritating. I do not see how one can oppose Fascism except by working for the overthrow of capitalism, starting, of course, in one’s own country. If one collaborates with a capitalist-imperialist government in a struggle 'against' Fascism, i.e. against a rival imperialism, one is simply letting fascism in by the back door.
[...]
"Where I part company from him [Franz Borkenau] is where he says that for the western democracies the choice lies between Fascism and an orderly reconstruction through the cooperation of all classes. I do not believe in the second possibility, because I do not believe that a man with £50,000 a year and a man with fifteen shillings a week either can, or will, co-operate. The Nature of their relationship is quite simply, that the one is robbing the other, and there is no reason to think the robber will suddenly turn over a new leaf. It would seem, therefore, that if the problems of western capitalism are to be solved, it will have to be through a third alternative, a movement which is genuinely revolutionary, i.e. willing to make drastic changes and to use violence if necessary, but which does not lose touch, as Communism and Fascism have done, with the essential values of democracy. Such a thing is by no means unthinkable. The germs of such a movement exist in numerous countries, and they are capable of growing. At any rate, if they don’t, there is no real exit from the pigsty we are in."
- George Orwell
i fervently wish such germs existed in amerika, but, tragically, they do not (not to any reasonably effective degree).
we're not going to grow, consume, indebt and complicate our way out of the problems of growth, consumption, debt and complexity.
but we're damn sure going to "proudly" collapse and die trying (inflicting and experiencing tremendous suffering in the process):
"Jared Diamond's recent book [Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed] detailing the ways societies collapse suggests that American society, or industrial civilization as a whole, once it is aware of the dangers of its current course, can learn from the failures of the past and avoid their fates. But it will never happen, and for a reason Diamond himself understands.
"As he says, in his analysis of the doomed Norse society on Greenland that collapsed in the early 15th century: 'The values to which people cling most stubbornly under inappropriate conditions are those values that were previously the source of their greatest triumphs over adversity.' If this is so, and his examples would seem to prove it, then we can isolate the values of American society that have been responsible for its greatest triumphs and know that we will cling to them no matter what. They are, in one rough mixture, capitalism, individualism, nationalism, technophilia, and humanism (as the dominance of humans over nature). There is no chance whatever, no matter how grave and obvious the threat, that as a society that we will abandon those.
"Hence no chance to escape the collapse of empire."
- Kirkpatrick Sale
Animal Farm is a great book. Doesn't mean I agree with every word he ever wrote. Atlas Shrugged is a great book too, but Ayn Rand was nutty as a fruitcake.
OT
And now folks, it's time for another exciting episode of "Luke Rudkowski--Exit Stage Left."
Larry Silverstein No Response to WTC 7 Lies.
"...Hey, get your hand's off me--you big brute. I'm just asking questions." -- The intrepid Luke Rudkowski
And don't forget--questions are evidence.
Love the comment from Prancer1231, with no less than 102 "likely/suspected co-conspirators". Not one of them came forward? Not one said "maybe this idea isn't so hot"?
"Because it is all speculative. These questions were investigated years ago, and no evidence was found to back up these theories. The theories are no more valid now, just because someone proposed them again."
What a craven, lying coward you are, paper soldier.
What an eloquent, thought-provoking argument that is, Pat Cowardly.
Um, folks, get a clue:
"Pat Cowardly" = The Goat Fucker.
Can you say "sock puppet"?
Additionally, this is the same "Pat Cowardly" (aka, the goat fucker) who made disparaging remarks about Pat's late father.
Thus, "Pat Cowardly" (aka, the goat fucker) sees nothing wrong with kicking a dead man who can't defend himself.
You're such a "brave" and "courageous" degenerate, goat fucker--you vomit inducing bastard.
Paper soldier? That is the best insult you could come up with? Speaking of that, what ever happend to Guy Razer?
Saying or inferring that something was looked into, or resolved "years ago," even though it wasn't
So what wasn't investigated or resolved years ago, Jon?
I'll grant you these: modified attack baboons, death-ray beams from space, holographic planes, and the WTC being constructed with explosives in place. Now can you come up with any others?
http://fightingforliberty.ning.com/profile/GuyRazer
http://www.youtube.com/user/guyrazer
Is Guy Razor anything like "gay blade"?
Hey, I'm just askin' questions...
On Luke's video he interviews W-Rod. It appears W-Rod is still holding on to his 'explosives in the buildings' belief. Why are we letting him get away with that when he comes on this site?
Brian, my comment is not an endorsement of your theory that W-Rod is a fraud. I still think he did heroic things on 9/11....he's just an attention starved, ill-advised hero.
GB, how are you so sure that Pat Cowardly is Brian?
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hi roo,
Answer: Two reasons.
[1] Read the open thread. [2] In addition, the goat fucker has a long and sordid history of resorting to sock puppets. He's also known to be particularly viscous when he loses a "debate." Thus, kicking a dead man who can't defend himself is par for the course for the goat fucker.
Finally, there's a reason why he's been banned from practically every 9/11 website on the 'net. After all, he's such a "charming" character.
As concerns Willie Rodriguez.
There's a big difference between someone who's misinformed or confused (e.g., Willie) and an habitual liar (e.g., the goat fucker).
Willie Rodriguez sincerely believes he heard bombs in the basement of the WTC. That doesn't make him a bad person.
"And Jon, don't you find it ironic that this is the only major website on the 9/11 truth movement which will actually cover everyone involved, without calling you a government operative?"
And I suppose you're ready to provide a source for this ridiculous lie?
Sources? We're SLC! Our gossip IS our source! Just don't ask us anything about phyzix, because we'd look like idiots.
The goat fucker squeals, "...Just don't ask us anything about phyzix, because we'd look like idiots."
This comment, of course, comes from the cretin who tried to convert an acceleration to a velocity.
Beyond parody.
I don't think willie is a bad person. Yes, he's ill-informed. But his testimony is masturbation material for truthers. He is quoted all the time, and his testimony is dangerous, since it supports stupid theories.
People on this board need to challenge his beliefs when he's here.
I'm JamesB! I don't NEED sources!
Hear me as I misrepresent evidence and giggle about mass casualty events! Watch my friend Pat attribute 6% of the dust to clean-up torches, all without a HINT of corroboration! Come to SLC, and watch us ignore the facts the way we ignore GoiterBitch's ravings!
I still don't see the spectra to support your "elemental iron in the dust," assertion, ass.
I guess that's the way it goes when the RJ Lee Report doesn't support troofer lies.
Come to SLC, and watch us ignore the facts
I've seen a lot more Hyundais on the road nowadays than earlier this year.
Dude, stay off the crack.
Pat, it seems peculiar to use the fact that Clarke speculates about the reasons as an excuse to distract from the explosive claim that 60 CIA people hid from the White Houe their knowledge that two known al Qaeda operatives were at large in the country.
Paul w, yes truthers are capable of more than asking questions. Cole proved thermite cuts on vertical surfaces are practical for building demolitions; Chandler proved 2.25 seconds of freefall on WTC7, which means no structural support for that period whatsoever.
Roo, it's a fact, not a theory, that Willie's claims that he single-handedly rescued fifteen persons and saved hundreds are not true and he is therefore a fraud.
UtterFail, Willie stole his hero story from a true hero, Pablo Ortiz, who saved dozens of people on the 89th and 90th floors before he died on 9/11. He's a lying scumbag. I didn't mistake velocity for acceleration--you did. You wrote acceleration as m/s2 when everybody knows it's m/s^2, and then you denied you were wrong. What a turkey!
The goat fucker lies, "...I didn't mistake velocity for acceleration--you did. You wrote acceleration as m/s2 when everybody knows it's m/s^2, and then you denied you were wrong."
Give it up, goat fucker.
I proved that you're an idiot with the following post--and anyone who can read can see that I'm telling the truth.
You'd lie to your mother if thought for one microsecond that you could gain an advantage from the lie.
Is it any wonder that your parents disowned you?
That's my favorite "debunker" technique.
Jon's back. His citypaper 15 minutes must be up.
Willie stole his hero story from a true hero, Pablo Ortiz
Prove it.
"UtterFail, Willie stole his hero story from a true hero, Pablo Ortiz, who saved dozens of people on the 89th and 90th floors before he died on 9/11. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/29/nyregion/port-authority-tapes-overview-fresh-glimpse-9-11-files-struggles-for-survival.html
THE PORT AUTHORITY TAPES: OVERVIEW; Fresh Glimpse in 9/11 Files Of the Struggles for Survival
By JIM DWYER
Published: August 29, 2003
Until yesterday, when the Port Authority released its raw historical records from Sept. 11, the two men were remembered from glimpses as the north tower of the World Trade Center was heaving toward collapse. One was short, the other tall. They carried a crowbar, a flashlight and walkie talkies. Beyond that, say some who survived that day, the smoke had blurred their faces and hair and clothes into gray.
With their tools, the two men -- Frank De Martini, an architect, and Pablo Ortiz, a construction inspector -- attacked the lethal web of obstacles that trapped people who had survived the impact of the plane but could not get to an exit.
At least 50 people stuck on the 88th and 89th floors of the north tower were able to walk out of the building because Mr. De Martini, Mr. Ortiz and others tore away rubble, broke down doors and answered calls for help. Everyone above the 91st floor died.
In the most essential ways, these men, employees of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, pushed back the boundary line between life and death in favor of the living. Both Mr. De Martini and Mr. Ortiz, who continued to help other trapped people, died in the building.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/29/nyregion/port-authority-tapes-overview-fresh-glimpse-9-11-files-struggles-for-survival.html?pagewanted=2&src=pm
The audio of the transmissions, which were recorded in Port Authority facilities at the trade center and in New Jersey, was not made public. The printed transcripts indicate that many parts of the tapes were inaudible, and many others were fragmentary.
The transmissions arose from people in a vertical village -- spread across two 110-story buildings, each floor with an acre of space -- from the cavernous subbasement of the trade center to nearly the very tops of the towers. Fewer than half of the people speaking are identified.
At their most wrenching, the transmissions reflect the critical difficulties faced by those who survived the plane crashes -- at least 1,100 people, an investigation by The Times found last year -- yet were unable to escape the buildings. Sometimes fire blocked their paths. Often staircases at the core of the building protected only by sheetrock had become impassable. And at times, they were given mistaken advice to stay in their offices.
Few, if any, of those speaking over the radio appear to realize that the buildings are moments from total collapse. The messages include some desperate calls for help, but many of the transcripts deal strictly with the logistics of evacuations -- of saving people in the building, and of survival.
While they echo the most somber and stirring notes of the day, the transmissions also provide fresh views into little-known aspects of the human struggle against a catastrophe that fell beyond the imagination. Among these were the plain words and remarkable deeds of Mr. De Martini, Mr. Ortiz and several of their colleagues. Another set of transmissions are from George Tabeek, a Port Authority official who ran up 22 flights of stairs with firefighters to free a group of authority security workers locked in a secret command bunker.
''After about 15 minutes, Frank returned to the corner office,'' Ms. Serpe said in a statement she provided to the De Martini family. ''He was covered with gray soot -- even his hair looked gray with smoke -- and his eyes were completely red. Frank then told us he found a clear stairwell, but we would have to climb over to it.''
Mr. Ortiz and Mr. Hanna were dispatched to move some of the debris. Mr. Gaeta and Doreen Smith accompanied the burned woman, Elaine Duch.
Among those leaving was Ms. De Martini. She said she urged her husband to come along, and he assured her he would be coming down behind her. ''How could he come down the stairs and step over his secretary -- or anyone?'' she asked. ''He wouldn't have done that. He did what he had to do.''
The floor was all but clear. At the end of the line of people were Mr. De Martini, Mr. Ortiz and Mr. Hanna. ''Somewhere, out in the stairwell, we heard banging from upstairs,'' Mr. Hanna recalled.
On the 89th floor, the biggest tenant was MetLife, which occupied most of the eastern side of the building. Thirteen people were at work when the plane hit. ''The building bent so far, I thought we were going into the ocean,'' said Rob Sibarium, now a managing director for the company.
With fires breaking out, the people from MetLife moved from their office to a law firm down the hall, Drinker Biddle & Reath. The receptionist, Dianne DeFontes, said she was knocked out of her seat when the plane hit.
''I don't know why, but it seemed like everybody on the floor came into my office,'' she said. A friend, Tirsa Moya, who worked for an insurance brokerage, Cosmos Services America, came in with an older man, Raffaele Cava, who was working by himself in a shipping company.
The public corridor was filling with smoke and flames. ''The floor was actually melting,'' Mr. Sibarium said.
Stairway Door Jammed Shut
Walter Pilipiak, the president of Cosmos, looked for an exit, but any stairway door he could safely reach was jammed shut. ''And bone can't break steel on steel,'' he said. He retreated into his office.
Others tried to fight with meager weapons. Rick Bryan, a lawyer who works at MetLife, actually found an extinguisher and tried to douse a fire in the elevator shaft, then realized the futility. ''We were doomed,'' he said. ''We had only minutes.''
Nathan Goldwasser, a MetLife employee, recalled the frustration, and then a moment of deliverance.
''We were pounding on those doors,'' Mr. Goldwasser said, ''and almost like a miracle, we heard a voice on the other side yelling, 'Get away from the door!' The next thing, there's a crowbar coming through the wall.''
Mr. Goldwasser felt sure that it was Mr. De Martini who broke through the wall. Mr. Hanna, who was in the stairway, said it was actually Mr. Ortiz who did it, as he and Mr. De Martini looked on. Mr. De Martini held the door open, and the MetLife employees poured into the stairwell from the law office.
Then Mr. Ortiz noticed a door on the other side of the hall. It was the Cosmos office, where Mr. Pilipiak and his staff were trying to figure out their next move.
''This distinguished-looking man with an earring sticks his head in,'' Mr. Pilipiak said. ''It was Pablo. He said, 'Come on, let's go.' ''
The 23 people on the 89th floor were launched into the stairways, and toward life. The people on the 88th floor -- whether 25 or 40 -- were already making their way down.
-snip-
Edna Ortiz remembers her husband as a very human man. ''I'm very proud of what he did.'' she says. ''But I wish he had come home.'' His children from his first marriage plan a memorial service for him on Sept. 11 in upstate New York, and Tirsa Moya and others Cosmos employees who were saved plan to be there.
roo.
No need to challenge me, I am here and can answer your questions. My belief of explosions has nothing to do with explosives. I saw an article in "Before it is News" and the writer quoted me saying that I believe there were bombs, and that I am positive of explosives planted in the building. I have not ever said that. I also do not believe that anything that explodes has to do with bombs. My only concern was that explosions were not investigated even though they could have come from even electrical spikes in the building Grid that may have made fax machines of computers to blow up (do not quote me in this as a fact! just as an example and pure 100% speculation). I have clearly said that I do not agree with many of these conspiracy theories and I have personally attacked many of the proponents of these beliefs. I cannot stop people using the material to "masturbate" like somebody from Palo Alto may be doing on my name all the time. And for the record I may have expected again for that to be investigated but then again, the Commission was only concentrating on the Intelligence aspect of 9/11 and not the mechanics of evacuation/ collapse per se. I do not have or never had any security clearance in the Government to know, understand or explain why or how some things are investigated, my comments, even the ones that have been changed by reporters, manipulated or just wrongly said by me, should not be construed as a fact or believe that I was the only important witness on the 9/11 Commission, far from that. Cheers Roo and Ian! Thanks again Sabba!
Cole proved thermite cuts on vertical surfaces are practical for building demolitions; Chandler proved 2.25 seconds of freefall on WTC7, which means no structural support for that period whatsoever.
Um, no, Brian, they didn't prove these things. You think they did because you're an ignorant lunatic who believes in invisible widows. Normal people don't think they proved anything.
Roo, it's a fact, not a theory, that Willie's claims that he single-handedly rescued fifteen persons and saved hundreds are not true and he is therefore a fraud.
Brian, it's a fact and not a theory that you are Petgoat, punxsutawneybarney, contrivance, truebeleaguer, truetruther, and several other internet identities.
UtterFail, Willie stole his hero story from a true hero, Pablo Ortiz, who saved dozens of people on the 89th and 90th floors before he died on 9/11. He's a lying scumbag.
False. You're just a jealous obsessed lunatic who wishes Willie wouldn't reject your sexual advances.
This comment has been removed by the author.
W-Rod,
Thank you for the clarification. I appreciate it and clears up many questions I have had the past few years.
One additional question. Why do you still speak/interview with the likes of Luke R. et. al. (conspiracy nuts) that you know will use your quotes to push their malicious agendas?
"Ian said...
UtterFail, Willie stole his hero story from a true hero, Pablo Ortiz, who saved dozens of people on the 89th and 90th floors before he died on 9/11. He's a lying scumbag.
False. You're just a jealous obsessed lunatic who wishes Willie wouldn't reject your sexual advances.
02 September, 2011 20:01"
can you not read?
Willie's story is nothing like Pablo Ortiz, it's much different.
The only thing they have in common are a number of witnesses who are thankful for the actions of both men. There are dozens of other men who also did the same thing as Willie and Pablo, none of their stories are the same.
I'm not sure why Willie has been singled out, other than his ethnic background. Had Ortiz got out of the building I suspect Bwian would call him a fraud too. It's something that little people do.
"Because it is all speculative. These questions were investigated years ago, and no evidence was found to back up these theories. The theories are no more valid now, just because someone proposed them again. You are not just asking questions, you are ignoring answers."
I posted recent comments from Wright, Summers and Swan. Evidently you only care what they have to say when it backs your beliefs about 9/11. Their recent comments note that CIA conduct in regard to al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar has never been properly explained.
Ignoring answers? You believe Tenet's watchlisting failure? That has been exposed as a lie. Bureaucratic inefficiency ala Farmer? He admitted to Aram Roston that he doesn't know why the CIA withheld the information. Turf battle? That theory doesn't account for the fact that the information was shared in August of 2001. It also doesn't account for inter-agency withholding at the FBI between the intel and criminal side. The 9/11 Commission admitted in a footnote that the NSLU attorney did not instruct the intel agent to keep the criminal side out of the al-Hazmi/al-Mihdhar investigation.
I haven't ignored anything. The only thing I am guilty of is not cheerleading for cover-up investigations.
Brian asks if I can read, and I'll just go with what MGF said: Ortiz and Rodriguez have very different stories, but being the racist that he is, Brian just assumes that one guy with a Spanish name is stealing stories from another guy with a Spanish name.
Ignoring answers? You believe Tenet's watchlisting failure? That has been exposed as a lie.
Even if that's the case, Tenet's lie pales next to Cosmos' lies about Mark Rothenberg. Cosmos has presented no evidence that he knew, nor ever met, Mark Rothenberg.
Cosmos is a fraud, and his sidekick Jon Gold is pathetic for hanging out with him.
Brian? Where are you? Don't you want to debate Willie?
This comment has been removed by the author.
I second Arcterus' post. I've had to slog through endless debates about the specific notations of acceleration and velocity, self aggrandizing comments about how Brian's smarter than everyone here about everything, widow's questions, how Willie Rodriguez is a huge liar and fraud, etc. etc.
Willie's here. And he's posting. So debate him. Don't tell us that you "don't have to" because you "already kicked his ass" or some bullshit like that. If you did, kick his ass again. Prove it to us. Here. Now. Else you just confirm what we've known all along. You're a liar and a coward. To say again for emphasis: You refuse to debate Willie Rodriguez here, you are a coward.
BTW, Brian, any post addressed to me will be ignored, as before. If you can write a post to me (or Guitar Bill or anyone else for that matter), you can write one to Willie.
Put up or shut up.
John, Brian will never debate Rodriguez. Willie specifically challenged him to a debate here after Brian blustered about how he would debate Willie "any place and any time".
Brian refused. He ran away squealing and crying about how he would only debate Rodriguez on Carol Brouillet's radio show, which Brian knows will never happen because Brouillet would never allow a disgusting pervert who has been stalking her on her show.
So Brian is proven as a liar and coward every time Rodriguez shows up here.
Just making it official. :)
I remember the last time Rodriguez showed up. Brian had been active in that thread, then mysteriously disappeared once Willie came to post. Once he said he was leaving, Brian suddenly showed up again! What a coincidence! Also, he suddenly found the motivation to continue bashing him and insisting that had already proven him a fraud - without providing proof of course!
So, why do you keep 'debating' him?
"...So, why do you keep 'debating' him?"
Yeah, it's our fault that Pat and James won't do the right thing and ban the son-of-a-bitch (troll). Everyone suffers so Pat and James can maintain their idiotic and unworkable "open comment policy."
What a crock of shit.
God, I'm sick of this shit.
You know what Bill? Pat & James killed the entire village to get rid of you as well. How many threads were co-opted by you and Brian over that stupid velocity vs. acceleration argument? When it comes to posting spam, you're just as bad as Brian.
Pat and James can do whatever they want with their blog. Get the fuck over yourself.
John,
Fuck you.
Is that clear enough for you?
Crystal.
My vote? Either ban both Brian and GuitarBill, or go back to the no comments policy.
So, why do you keep 'debating' him?
I can't speak for anyone else, but I enjoy poking Brian just to see what gibberish he comes up with next. Admittedly, it's not a lot of new stuff of late, but occasionally, he posts a gem.
It's the same side of me that enjoys stuff like Jerry Springer. I can't help but gawk at people who are total trainwrecks.
GB, quite frankly, if you just ignored Brian instead of getting riled up by him all the time, nothing would have to be done. Nothing is "unworkable" about open comments as long as you can control yourself. I, for one, applaud Pat and James in their effort to make this open to all parties. I always hated that so many 9/11 Truth sites censored people who disagreed with them - something very far from "looking for the truth". It is fair that the truthers are allowed to come here and have their say. As infuriatingly stupid as their arguments may be, they still deserve as much right as anyone to make that argument. If it bothers you so much, just ignore it. If you want to argue about it, rejoice in the opportunity.
Your little temper tantrum over Brian's freedom to post here has just gotten agonizingly dull. Every other bloody post you bring up the velocity/acceleration debate from who knows how long ago. Like, seriously, who gives a fuck anymore? Then you start threatening to leave if Brian is allowed to post here - as if anyone would really give a shit about one person leaving. Personally, if it were me, I would have just let you leave instead of shutting the comments down, but I understand why they'd do it this way too.
Let's be clear about this: Pat and James did not close down the comments because of Brian's idiocy. They closed them down because of your tantrum. Because every single thread was suddenly being spammed with a demand that Brian be BANNED! Because every other sentence was "See here where the goat fucker lies...." and all this annoying bullshit that wasn't any better than any of the stupid shit Brian has said.
TL:DR As John said, get the fuck over yourself.
John,
Until you demonstrate the ability to debunk troofer lies (and you have not done so thus far), you'll get NO respect from me.
You want respect, John? Earn it!
There's a very good reason why the goat fucker constantly repeats doctrinaire troofer lies after being debunked over-and-over again. As Paul pointed out two weeks ago, his goal is to constantly introduce doubt in the minds of the uninformed and gullible, while constantly defaming the debunker community.
Now I have a question: Since when is SLC a platform for the goat fucker's propaganda? (The goat fucker, by the way, is a self-admitted propagandist).
When you can answer that question, ass, you'll know why he should be banned.
Now get to work, John, and prove that you have the brains and the knowledge to debunk troofer propaganda. Because, as far as I'm concerned, you're nothing until you demonstrate that ability.
FACT: 50,000 Johns isn't worth one Triterope.
Since when is SLC a platform for the goat fucker's propaganda? (The goat fucker, by the way, is a self-admitted propagandist).
GB, what's your plan? Are you trying to set him straight? Are you trying to wear him out? It's not working, whatever it is.
Arcterus,
First of all, you're full-of-shit.
You want to know why I'm pissed off, little man?
Pat and James IGNORED Triterope's plea to have the goat fucker banned. I repeat: They ignored his request. As a result, a person who I RESPECT chose to leave SLC rather than put up with a scumbag and psychopath like Brian "goat fucker" Good.
Got it, little man?
Furthermore, as others have pointed out, I'm perfectly capable of civil debate. But the goat fucker is another matter. In case you haven't noticed, the goat fucker doesn't "debate." Like all psychopaths, he lies and poisons EVERYTHING he touches. He's toxic. And he should be removed like waste material by the most harsh methods available.
Now take your speculation and uninformed twaddle and shove it.
RGT wrote, "...GB, what's your plan? Are you trying to set him straight? Are you trying to wear him out? It's not working, whatever it is."
I'll tell you what, RGT. You answer my question, and I'll answer yours.
Deal?
Pat and James IGNORED Triterope's plea to have the goat fucker banned. I repeat: They ignored his request. As a result, a person who I RESPECT chose to leave SLC rather than put up with a scumbag and psychopath like Brian "goat fucker" Good.
Got it, little man?
What the fuck does this have to do with anything? I don't care.
Furthermore, as others have pointed out, I'm perfectly capable of civil debate.
I never said you weren't capable of it, only that you weren't exercising it, instead ranting and whining and bitching in every thread about how much you hate Brian and want him banned. It was fun and shit at first but now it's just annoying.
But the goat fucker is another matter. In case you haven't noticed, the goat fucker doesn't "debate." Like all psychopaths, he lies and poisons EVERYTHING he touches. He's toxic. And he should be removed like waste material by the most harsh methods available.
If he lies, he can be called out on it or ignored. No reason to get your panties in a bunch. Brian pisses me off all the time, but I don't have this ridiculous fuckitall reaction you have just because he's allowed to post here.
Now take your speculation and uninformed twaddle and shove it.
What the bloody hell are you talking about? I didn't speculate about anything. I pointed out what an insufferable little twat you've been and how it's far more to blame for the limited comment allowance than Brian. What about that is speculation or uninformed?
If you smell a "twat," Arcterus, it's probably your upper lip.
And if you can't understand why I'm pissed off about Triterope's departure, there's nothing I can do to help you.
"...Let's be clear about this: Pat and James did not close down the comments because of Brian's idiocy. They closed them down because of your tantrum."
Suits me just fine. No skin off my nuts.
I'd much rather see the comment section shut down than give that psychopath a platform for his antics.
In case you haven't noticed, the goat fucker doesn't "debate." Like all psychopaths, he lies and poisons EVERYTHING he touches. He's toxic.
So what? Yes, he posts a ton of the same old gibberish on this blog, but nobody has to take it seriously. It's not like one middle-aged mentally ill person on disability in Palo Alto has the ability to shape the debate in this country. 9/11 truth is dead, no matter what Brian does.
That's why I long ago learned that the best way to deal with him isn't to debate him seriously, it's to throw non-sequiturs at him and watch him get enraged. Mockery, not serious debate, is the best cure for Brian.
his goal is to constantly introduce doubt in the minds of the uninformed and gullible, while constantly defaming the debunker community.
With what, his meatball on fork idiocy? Or the rake on rake model? Even if the uninformed and gullible are spending time here, they're spending more at 9/11 blogger.
prove that you have the brains and the knowledge to debunk troofer propaganda.
I did so on this thread with your whipping boy, Brian
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=27396589&postID=4568085849651512453
And a few other threads. But debunking truthers is like talking to Creationists about dinosaurs - no science gets through their skulls. Also I don't post that often here because, frankly, I'd rather be doing other things.
Until you demonstrate the ability to debunk troofer lies you'll get NO respect from me.
Like I care? What was that about getting over yourself?
I don't agree with you, Ian. And I'll go out on a limb and speculate that Triterope doesn't agree with you, either.
The goat fucker is a troll--pure and simple.
And the only viable solution is to get rid of that God damned psychoapth.
I don't agree with you, Ian. And I'll go out on a limb and speculate that Triterope doesn't agree with you, either.
Well I'm sorry that you don't, but it seems rather pointless to get bent out of shape over him, doesn't it? I'd rather use him as a source of train wreck-style entertainment, which is what I do.
And you'll notice just how upset he gets with me because I choose to laugh at him rather than take him seriously.
It's noteworthy that not one of you has expressed concern about Triterope's departure.
We lost one of the best contributors to SLC on that fateful day. And not one of you gives a flying fuck.
Disgusting.
John wrote, "...I did so on this thread with your whipping boy, Brian
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=27396589&postID=4568085849651512453"
Well whoopy do!
I guess that makes you a one post wonder.
Ian,
Take a good, long look at the goat fucker's history. He's been BANNED from practically every 9/11 discussion site on the 'net.
No one else puts up with that God damned psychopath, so why should we?
It's noteworthy that not one of you has expressed concern about Triterope's departure.
Nobody told him to leave. Yeah, it sucks that he's gone, but it is what it is. This blog is nothing more than a mild source of amusement for me after work. That's not to crap on Pat and James who did some great and necessary work when "Loose Change" first appeared, but the truth movement is dead, so there ain't much left to cover anymore. There's just mocking Brian Good, and perhaps trying to talk some sense into Jon Gold, who I doubt will still cling to this stuff in 5 years.
Bill,
Leave.
Ian,
9/11 "truth" is "dead"? You could have fooled me. I guess that explains why A&E 9/11 "truth" continues to grow.
I guess that explains why Richard Gage gave up his alleged "profession" in order to poison the minds of the gullible and misinformed.
I'll go out on a limb and speculate again. There's a sinister reason why Pat and James allow Brian "goat fucker" Good to defecate on their blog. Without 9/11 "truth" this website loses its reason to exist.
Yes, they have done a lot of good work. But I fear that they love the fame this blog affords them more than they want to kill the 9/11 "truth" movement.
And if that's the case, we're all being played for fools.
roo,
Choke.
Bill, seriously man, get a grip. Fame? How many people do you think know who Pat and James are? I'd say it's a few orders of magnitude fewer than know who Wesley Willis was. Pat and James aren't doing this for the fame. They're doing this for the same reason I play the guitar: they enjoy it.
And yes, Richard Gage quit his going-nowhere career designing car washes to make a decent middle-class wage selling his nonsense to the literally tens of people who show up to his events. You quote the figure of 1,500 architects and engineers? You know who is listed as one of them? None other than Brian Horatio Good, unemployed janitor extraordinaire.
9/11 truth is dead. The mainstream media isn't talking about it. No 3rd party political candidates are talking about it. No new ideas have come out of what's left of the group.
There's nothing left to do but laugh at the bitter-enders like Brian.
Ian,
What's this?
"...As Seen in Vanity Fair's August 2006 Issue!
"As Seen in US News & World Report's September 11 Fifth Anniversary Issue!
"As Seen in Time Magazine's September 11, 2006 Issue!
"As Seen in Phoenix New Times' August 9, 2007 Issue!"
Maybe that's not fame, but it certainly is notoriety.
And a google search for the term "Brian Horatio Good" returns nothing.
He was kicked out of A&E 9/11 "truth."
Now, if A&E 9/11 "truth" won't put up with that psychopath, why should we?
There's a sinister reason why Pat and James allow Brian "goat fucker" Good to defecate on their blog.
Inside job, eh?
Maybe you have misconstrued what the blog is about. Maybe SLC is not about stopping 9/11 Truth, but about observing and studying it.
Maybe that's not fame, but it certainly is notoriety.
...from 5 years ago when people were still talking about 9/11 truth, especially in the wake of "Loose Change" coming out. Pat and James had their 15 minutes and now it's over. It's not to denigrate their work, it's just to point out that the creature they created this blog to battle is dead. Only you and Brian Good can't seem to figure this out.
9/11 "truth" is hardly worthy of "study."
SLC's top page says--and I quote: "Exposing the lies, distortions and myths of the 9/11 'truthers'."
The goal seems clear enough to me.
Since when is bullshit worthy of "study"?
"...It's not to denigrate their work, it's just to point out that the creature they created this blog to battle is dead."
Really? No kidding?
Go to Jeff Rense's misinformation website, and tell me, how many articles related to 9/11 "truth" are linked in the "news" section?
Go to YouTube, and do a search on "9/11 truth 2011" and tell me how many links are returned from YouTube's database?
9/11 "truth" is anything but dead.
And how many of those articles were published in the last 5 years?
And you're using youtube as a guide? Let's compare the number of truther videos to the number of videos of cats doing silly things and the number of parodies of Rebecca Black's "Friday".
Like I said, get a grip, Bill.
Yes, they have done a lot of good work. But I fear that they love the fame this blog affords them more than they want to kill the 9/11 "truth" movement.
Fame? LOL! Yes it was cool getting mentioned in those magazines, and interviewed by those radio programs. But I don't think I've done a radio show in almost three years, and aside from the mention in Kay's book we haven't had any magazine coverage in over four years. So no, we don't do it for the fame.
As for why we allow Brian to defecate all over the comments section, it's really simple. WE CAN'T STOP HIS COMMENTS WITHOUT STOPPING THEM ALL, YOU FUCKING MORON! How many times do I have to say it before it penetrates that thick head of yours?
"Yes, they have done a lot of good work. But I fear that they love the fame this blog affords them more than they want to kill the 9/11 "truth" movement.
And if that's the case, we're all being played for fools."
If that's the way you feel about the site, why are you staying here to continue to be played for a fool?
Seriously, the limited comments are a direct result of you trying to blackmail the site owners when they wouldn't ban someone you wanted banned. It was childish on your part.
Triceratope left, get over it. Either follow him, or realize that means he couldn't handle a two bit idiot like BG and maybe he doesn't need to be idolized.
Basic point is, it's Pat and Jim B.'s house, not yours. Their house, their rules. They don't have to follow some rules of yours on how they run their blog. If you want people doing things your way on a blog, start one of your own.
9/11 "truth" is hardly worthy of "study."
That's where you're wrong. To study 9/11 Truth is to study human behavior. It's not just about the junk science, it's about the weird personalities that populate the Movements.
SLC's top page says--and I quote: "Exposing the lies, distortions and myths of the 9/11 'truthers'." The goal seems clear enough to me.
It doesn't say "and killing the movement". Maybe that's your personal motivation.
Since when is bullshit worthy of "study"?
In 9/11 Truth, bullshit is often studied for its origins. It's how we not only know claims are false but also where they came from.
Seriously, no irc users here?
If you want people doing things your way on a blog, start one of your own.
"I went to goatfucker.blogspot.com but it was just about some guy named Brian..."
I'd much rather see the comment section shut down than give that psychopath a platform for his antics.
Fuck you, GB.
Pat and James have repeatdly said they cannot ban Brian. The last time, in this post, was in CAPITAL LETTERS.
Capital letters, GB. Even fucking truthers realise what that means.
Your above comment shows your selfish attitude writ large; if they do not do what you want, everyone pays.
And, before you start demanding I 'prove' myself worthy of your god-like respect, I spent hours a day for about two fucking years trying to debate idiot truthers (on truther sites) before you showed up.
I like SLC. Not to debate truthers - a complete waste of time - but to see what the fuckers are up to, and laugh at their antics.
Get fucked. Leave. Piss off. Go away.
I was going to say that in capital letters, but I figured it would go way over your head.
Pat wrote, "...As for why we allow Brian to defecate all over the comments section, it's really simple. WE CAN'T STOP HIS COMMENTS WITHOUT STOPPING THEM ALL, YOU FUCKING MORON! How many times do I have to say it before it penetrates that thick head of yours?"
You can make that bogus claim as many times as you wish, Pat, and it will never be true.
And in the end, it's just code, Pat--ones and zeros. A website's functionality is limited by your imagination, and your imagination only.
Don't tell me it can't be done. That's bullshit.
Is that clear enough, sir?
OT:
911oz nutbars are all in a huff because a radio interview didn't agree with their views.
Dubbed a 'sham' interview (one can only assume it was therefore an accurate account of 9/11), one would-be caller offered this comback in the letters section:
"Another ploy used by Fordham that shed no light at all on the subject was to imply that 9/11 truthers are similar to people who deny that men landed on the moon.
One caller called 9/11 truthers 'morons' and was not taken to task for this as far as I can recall."
Sounds like a more than reasonable radio interview to me!
I'll try and get a link.
Best of all, was this comment:
"I did mean to leave my own voice recorder running so that I could at least transcribe interesting parts, but forgot to press the 'record button'."
Beyond parody. The NWO mustr be shaking in its boots.
Also, this (may have already been covered):
'Canadian Public Broadcasting TV Station TVO Interviews Gage, Zwicker, Zarembka with Hit Piece Author Kay'
http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=10683
Bill,
Leave.
Don't tell me it can't be done. That's bullshit.
Do it then.
Anyway, to get back on topic, Jon Gold still hasn't told us exactly what hasn't been investigated that he thinks is so important to investigate.
Please enlighten us, Jon.
ok, I waited enough. Back to more important things. By the way to the loser BG, tomorrow I will be on 2 CNN en Espanol Shows for all over. You were saying? never be on the news? Feel free to call them on the air.
GB- give him a call and post it here.
Brian good phone number is (650) 327-6214
And if you can't understand why I'm pissed off about Triterope's departure, there's nothing I can do to help you.
I didn't say I don't understand, I just personally don't care at all, and also it had nothing to do with what I was saying. At least Triterope actually left instead of crying over Brian and threatening to LEAVE unless you get YOUR WAY. Hahaha, it's like my two-year old sister when she wants something.
You can make that bogus claim as many times as you wish, Pat, and it will never be true.
And in the end, it's just code, Pat--ones and zeros. A website's functionality is limited by your imagination, and your imagination only.
Don't tell me it can't be done. That's bullshit.
Hahaha, all right, please tell me that's a joke. Your argument doesn't have any specifics about how Pat and James would be able to do this, but you're pretty sure that there's a way because after all it's just one's and zeroes and all that stuff, right? That sounds like a truther argument, bud. Simplifying something much more complicated than you make it out to be and drawing a conclusion based on said simplification without any specifics whatsoever. Nicely done.
"...I didn't say I don't understand, I just personally don't care at all, and also it had nothing to do with what I was saying."
Yeah, it's all about YOU, isn't it?
"...Simplifying something much more complicated than you make it out to be and drawing a conclusion based on said simplification without any specifics whatsoever."
How many times must I repeat myself? I provided two solutions. AND BOTH SOLUTIONS ARE PROVEN TO WORK WITH BLOGGER AND BLOGSPOT.
What part of that paragraph don't you understand?
The problem with banning Brain is that it gives him credibility. He can truthfully (for the first time in his life) that he has been banned from a Debunker site because they couldn't handle what he had to say.
Letting him stay and post his lunacy is the ethical thing to do. He's an idiot, he knows he's an idiot, and he doesn't care because he is a professional chain yanker.
It's like MIT keeping Noam Chompsky around, ask anyone on staff there and they'll tell you he;s comedy relief.
"How many times must I repeat myself? I provided two solutions. AND BOTH SOLUTIONS ARE PROVEN TO WORK WITH BLOGGER AND BLOGSPOT."
And once you offered those choices and were refused, the mature action would have been to accept the owners decision, or leave.
Instead you threatened to throw a tantrum unless they did what you wanted.
Get it into your head, this is thier house, they are under NO obligation to do anything the way you want them to. That ranges from banning people you disapprove of to running code you want them to.
I hate to break this to you, JR, but they already banned the asshole, and then failed top follow through with the ban.
I find it strange that commercial spammers are not tolerated, and their comments are removed.
The goat fucker's commentary is described as "dumbspam" or "squealspam." And in my opinion that's an accurate description. After all, how many times do we have to listen to him repeat known falsehoods? How many times must we debunk this crap? 10 times? A 1000? 10,000? When is enough enough?
What makes the goat fucker higher on the food chain than a common commercial spammer?
Spam is spam.
When did SLC morph into the Brian "goat fucker" Good spam blog?
"...Instead you threatened to throw a tantrum unless they did what you wanted."
False.
The SLC community spoke back in May of this year. And the community demanded that they remove Brian "goat fucker" Good. Pat banned him and then refused to follow through with the ban. As a result, I'm not asking Pat and James to do what I want. On the contrary, I'm asking them to keep their promise, a promise they made to this virtual community.
"...Get it into your head, this is [their] house, they are under NO obligation to do anything the way you want them to."
Wrong again. I never claimed to control SLC, nor have I ever said that they're under "obligation" to do anything the way I want them to.
Get it through your thick skull.
They made a promise to the SLC community, and they broke that promise.
""...Instead you threatened to throw a tantrum unless they did what you wanted."
False."
Not false
remember these comments?
"The clock is ticking, Pat. Hopefully you'll make the right decision. And God help you if you fail to make the right decision."
"I DEMAND THAT YOU UNCEREMONIOUSLY BAN THE GOAT FUCKER.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.
The clock is ticking, Pat."
That's you threatening a tantrum if you didn't get your way twice. You should know from reading my debates with BG that I don't claim things I can't back up.
"Wrong again. I never claimed to control SLC, nor have I ever said that they're under "obligation" to do anything the way I want them to."
Bullshit.
How about this quote of yours?
"It's Pat's responsibility to REMOVE TROLLS from the blog. And he's received numerous requests to BAN the goat fucker. Yet, he refuses to live up to HIS RESPONSIBILITY."
It simply is NOT his responsibility to do anything on this blog, whether you want him to or not. It's his, he can do as he damn well sees fit. Including allowing BG or you to post or not. If you don't like how he runs his blog, you can leave. Otherwise shut up and deal with it like an adult.
"Get it through your thick skull.
They made a promise to the SLC community, and they broke that promise."
And if that upsets you so much you can't conrol your temper, perhaps you should leave and not provide tacit support for their actions.
Either that or put on your big boy pants and deal with it.
Quote mining my comments is not a particularly convincing argument, JR.
Did Pat promise to ban the goat fucker after the SLC community demanded that he remove him, or not?
Who broke that promise to the SLC community?
This comment has been removed by the author.
Back to the topic. sort of...
Slate magazine has a couple of 9-11 articles:
http://www.slate.com/slideshow/news-politics/they-were-there-911-photographers#slide_1
Jesus, GB!
Both Pat and James have said they cannot ban Brian's comments.
That's why they called it a semi-ban.
In reality, it meant monitoring Brian's every comment, and in retrospect, I figure that was simply too much time tied up in watching the blog, especially...and this is the issue here...when the overwhelming majority of the time, he was corresponding with you!
All you had to do was ignore the guy, but because you think he's a paid spammer, or whatever, you continued to debate with him (a logic that makes no fucking sense whatsoever).
The problem is just as much you, as Brian.
I mean, those endless post about velocity and acceleration!
Give me strength, it was boring, counter-productive, and highly frustrating to have to scroll down through that shit to find any reasonable comment.
GB, if you're gonna continue to 'debate' Brian in the way you have, fuck off.
It isn't quote minig to point out that you threatened exactly what I said you threatened.
They didn't say they would ban him, but that they would monitor and delete comments that were off topic. But since you and he could not keep your comments on topic, they were probably overwhelmed and gave up.
Again, it's their house. If you don't like how they do things, shut up and deal or leave.
I vote that Bill leaves.
And if he doesn't I threaten to not care either way and continue to post and read the comments of all us crazy people.
I vote that Bill leaves.
I vote for a public apology to Pat and James for that stupid commenting maneuver. Snug is tiresome but that was worse.
And if he can't man up and admit his error, then yeah, sod off.
Yeah, I was wrong. I readily admit that. And for that, I'm sorry.
Pat and James, however, owe every one of us an apology.
They made a commitment to "monitor [Brian] and delete comments that were off topic"--the so-called "partial ban"--and then broke that promise.
To add insult to injury, they closed the comment section, not because they feared my threat--after all, they tolerate Brian's spam week in and week out. They closed the comment section in order to avoid taking the heat for their failure to live up to their commitment.
I would have no problem whatsoever if Pat had never made the commitment to "monitor [Brian] and delete comments that were off topic." I would have no compliant, nor would I have a reason to complain. They, however, made a commitment and broke it. Brian, moreover, broke his end of the bargain.
As Triterope pointed out, it has become clear that Pat and James are not committed to living up to their end of the bargain. After all, Brian blatantly violated the terms of the agreement.
So stop trying to put the onus for this situation on my shoulders. Pat and James are by no means free from blame. They chose to close the comment section, not me (they had other options, but they chose the draconian route). And they chose to back out of their commitment to put a stop to Brian's antics.
So yeah, I was wrong. And I apologize. But that doesn't free Pat and James (to say nothing of Brian) from their end of the bargain.
PS.
I was never part of the agreement between Pat, James and Brian. I was never asked to enter into the agreement. The agreement was limited to Brian, and Brian only. Nor was I asked to refrain from replying to Brian.
Here's an article about the FBI's Minnesota office and how their investigations ran into a brick wall from upper management:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/09/04/the-terrible-missed-chance.html
It think people needed to lose their jobs over this, yet never did.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Re: the Hitchens article.
In the comments, a truther is revealed.
Itr's a classic 'just asking questions':
Just asking questions. Tick.
Numerous question marks. Tick.
People 'knew'. Tick.
Put options. Tick.
WTC 7. Tick.
'Not hit by a plane'. Tick.
Bush. Tick.
Despite risking being conflated with the "demented fringe," I would say this: There are many, many unanswered questions about what really happened on 9/11, and about what the Bush administration knew ahead of time, and when it knew it.
Why were there warnings to certain people in the administration, and to then-Mayor Willie Brown in San Francisco to avoid commercial flights before the 9/11 attacks? Why was someone betting in the stock market against the very airlines that were going to be affected?
And I'm sure you readers out there have heard all the dozens of other questions that remain unanswered, including why 7 World Trade Center collapsed without ever having been hit by an airplane, and then was not even mentioned in the 9/11 Commission report.
Surely these questions deserved answers, and yet the Bush administration did everything in its power to THWART an investigation into the worst terrorist attack ever on our soil.
Well, he's right, he's part of the demented fringe. Stuff like that is what I mean when I say 9/11 truth is dead. It's recycling the same claims Pat and James (and many others) debunked years ago. It's just the "demented fringe" will never accept the answers.
Speaking of the demented fringe, Brian has been awfully quiet of late. I wonder if they finally committed him to a mental hospital. Or maybe the library revoked his computer privileges.
Watched the smithsonian 9/11 show and Martin Sheen did a good job. Its not like he needs the money, so maybe he is atoning for previous flirtations with twooferism and his idiot son.
"Speaking of the demented fringe, Brian has been awfully quiet of late. I wonder if they finally committed him to a mental hospital. Or maybe the library revoked his computer privileges."
Library's closed for the 3-day weekend. That or he actually is a paid CIA troll, in which case it is a government holiday.
"Speaking of the demented fringe, Brian has been awfully quiet of late. I wonder if they finally committed him to a mental hospital. Or maybe the library revoked his computer privileges."
4 days and he ran away from Rodriguez, once more as expected. Word is that Brian left to New York to support Richard Gage there and to meet Willie at Ground Zero to debate him face to face in front of the families of 9/11...wait for the pictures....right Brian? LOL
Willie Turdriguez, as usual, you lie.
You claim you never said there were explosives in the buildings. You were the plaintiff in a lawsuit against the president of the USA and about 50 others that alleged that there were bombs in the buildings.
MGF, Willie's story is exactly like Pablo Ortiz's. Both climbed up the stairs when others were descending, both opened doors and set people free, both saved dozens of lives.
The only differences are: Mr. Ortiz used a crowbar and Willie used a key, Mr. Ortiz saved dozens and Willie saved hundreds, Mr. Ortiz died and 9/11 and Willie didn't, Mr. Ortiz's story was told to us by witnesses who were willing to appear on TV and Willie's story is told by no one but himself, and Mr. Ortiz's story is true and Willie's is a lie.
Your claim that there are witnesses to Willie's story is a lie. Not one person will come forward and say Willie saved him or her--except John Schroeder, and Mr. Schroeder's story is so bizarre it appears to have been concocted deliberately to embarrass Willie.
William Rodriguez is a scamming swindler.
Willie, how about some links to your TV appearances? When I go looking for them I can't find them. And why don't you put them up on youtube? Every time you so much as get a celebrity to shake your hand you put it on youtube, so why not your alleged TV appearances?
Re: Hitchens, it's his usual empty bombast. One thing struck me, though: his claim that the 9/11 op was designed to maximize civilian casualties. What a crock!
If the planes had struck at 10:00 am there would have been 50,000 people in the buildings. They never would have got all those people down the stairs and out the door before the buildings collapsed.
Striking at 8:46 guaranteed that the towers would be evacuated before they fell. 99% of the civilians underneath the impact zones survived. (This is what proves Willie's claims that he saved hundreds is a lie. If Willie had saved hundreds on his 39 floors, then thousands should have died on the other 129 floors under the impact zone that he never reached. They didn't. He lied. He stole his glory from dead heroes. I guess spending years in the stairwell picking up used condoms when everybody else is making money hand over fist does something to a guy's ethics.)
LOL - Brian talking ethics. CLASSIC!
Brian- "you will never be on the news"-Good
The only clown we have seen here is you.
ROdriguez was on CNN yesterday, twice. Why don't you call CNN and get the copies?... and just to screw with you, he just appeared on the main Spanish newspaper in California and get this...3 pages.
and you still said: "you will never be on the news"
Buawahahahahahahhahahah!
Bitch!
"Willie Turdriguez, as usual, you lie."
Y A W N!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
indeed...
YAWN!!!!
Sabba, google news does not list any CNN appearances for William Rodriguez.
Hmm, I did find an article in Der Spiegel. It says Willie lives with a dog named Elvis. It says nothing about a wife and kids. It says FDNY refuses to confirm or deny his story. It says that David Lim says he decided years ago that he will not talk about Rodriguez.
The story concludes that perhaps Rodriguez's story is only partly true, that maybe he has by sleight-of-hand made a $1 bill appear to turn into a $20--and that maybe he's actually come to believe his own exaggerations.
Link for Spiegel article
http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/gesellschaft/0,1518,781226,00.html
This comment has been removed by the author.
I'm not surprised that you clowns yawn when Fraudriguez lies blatantly and provably. After all, you know he's a liar.
9/2 20:28 above Turdriguez said: "My belief of explosions has nothing to do with explosives. I saw an article in "Before it is News" and the writer quoted me saying that I believe there were bombs, and that I am positive of explosives planted in the building. I have not ever said that."
Part III of his lawsuit against Bush, "FACTS ON WHICH CLAIMS FOR RELIEF ARE PREDICATED" contains four allegations of fact. The first allegation is entitled: "THE WTC TWIN TOWERS, AS WELL AS WTC BUILDING #7, WERE DESTROYED BY CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, AS CLEARLY PROVEN BY THE LAWS OF PHYSICS; THIS DEMOLITION COULD ONLY HAVE
BEEN AN 'INSIDE JOB.'"
Fraudriguez claims he never said there were bombs. His lawsuit is predicated on the allegation that there were bombs.
He's a liar, but what do you expecvt from a talking turd.
Of course and did you or did you not see Rodriguez answer to you on this blog way back about this lawsuit and that he did not agree with it? that he lent the name to Phil Berg and that it was a mistake?
You loosing it again Brian Good... I meant, bitch!
oh look what I found for you Brian.
Rodriguez on the Lawsuit
Buawhahahahhahahahahha!!!
Brian Good said "You will never be on the news"
He "lent his name"? He sued the president and 156 others, accusing them of planting bombs in the building. What, he claims he was tricked into suing the president like Van Jones claims he was tricked into signing the 911truth petition? He was tricked into filing a lawsuit with which he disagrees? The suit was filed in October 2004. Berg was still acting as the W-Fraud's lawyer in 2006.
A court filing from 2006 starts out: "WILLIAM RODRIGUEZ, being of full age, first being duly sworn according to law, says:".
In Point 28 Willie says "If, as I believe, explosives were in place to tear out the 48 central core columns of each of the Twin Towers ... that scenario excludes ... the carrying out of the WTC attacks by mere amateurs."
http://sites.google.com/site/rodriguezlawsuit/
W-Turd swore that he believes that explosives brought down the towers. Now he denies that he ever said such a thing. He's a liar. He's a Fraud. He's a talking Turd.
Buawhahahahhahahahahha!!!
Brian Good said "You will never be on the news"
Whatsamatter buggy? Can't handle people coming to their senses?
Rodriguez, years ago regarding Phil Berg
He is being honored right now, but you, you are being laughed at. Comes 9/11 Ceremony, He will be at Ground Zero with the Families of 9/11 while you will be laughed at by the truthers and us alike while you complain of moping floors and wearing women underwear...
Bitch!
Sabba, this isn't about people changing their minds. This is about W-Fraud lying blatantly on this very thread, claiming that he never said there were explosives, when he swore in 2006 that he thought there were explosives.
When did W-Turd fire Berg? Before the case was thrown out of court or after?
Before bitch
So I guess you will not come and meet "us" survivors on Ground Zero on Sunday...
hey willie, did Brian Good lied here about Carol Brouillett?
Congrats on your article on Spiegel.
W-Turd, I've got important stuff to do. I don't need to come to NY to scrape you off my shoe.
The only reason you got away with your scam so long is because nobody could believe that anybody could be such a scumbag as to lie about 9/11 and steal the glory of dead heroes.
Well they were wrong. You were that scumbag.
Yes Sabba, he lied about Carol aand others and also about 9/11blogger and John Wright. Thanks , the Spiegel article was a great effort by Jonathan (the writter) and we spent a lot of time in it. He is also a great person. The sad part is that he was sent to Tripoli after this and that city is not very welcome to Reporters.
Brian Good:snug.bug said...
W-Turd, I've got important stuff to do. I don't need to come to NY to scrape you off my shoe.
So sad you will not come Brian, we could have used your panties to wipe the lenses of the cameras and then to clean the spitting contest of the families against your face.
Another wasted effort to have you anywhere, lost case.
YAWN...
Now I understand IAN, GB, PAT and everybody else here. Dealing with this "cabron" stupidity and lack of conviction must be a torture in a daily basis.
I believe you were asked about your statements that I will never be on the news...
Brian, I do not want you, and do not like you and I am married and happy. I am also straight. Stop wanting to be with me once and for all. Get a life.
to PAT and Sabba. Give me a holler if you need me to come back...
to IAN, I will be around all week at GZ.
William, I didn't lie about anything. All I have done is expose you for a liar and a swindler and a fraud. Are you ever going to repay the $1400 you took away from the Grand Lake Theater under the fraudulent pretense that you have "single-handedly rescued fifteen (15) persons"?
You steal your glory from dead heroes, and if you ever dare to come to Bay Area you will wish you hadn't.
"and if you ever dare to come to Bay Area you will wish you hadn't."
LOL - sure pussyboy. Are you going to pummle him while wearing your Mom's girdle?
IO'm not going to pummel him. I'm going to confront him, I'm going to call him out for a liar, I'm going to send a press release to every media outlet in the state, I'm going to leaflet progressive events, I'm going to picket the venue, and I'll make sure everybody knows that W-Turd is a swindling fraud who steals his glory from dead heroes like Pablo Ortiz.
And why do you care about my underwear while I'm going it?
IO'm not going to pummel him. I'm going to confront him, I'm going to call him out for a liar, I'm going to send a press release to every media outlet in the state, I'm going to leaflet progressive events, I'm going to picket the venue, and I'll make sure everybody knows that W-Turd is a swindling fraud who steals his glory from dead heroes like Pablo Ortiz.
And why do you care about my underwear while I'm going it?
HAHAHAHA, sure you can do most of that. It is your right and I don't care, go ahead. But I seriously doubt you will confront me. Try it. I dare you, get on my personal space, I dare you, let see what you are made off bitch. We know the answer of that and do not forget ... I am not Kevin Barrett and neither Carol, I will retaliate. Try me. And since you have so much bravado, why don't you come here since you are such a big man (Ha!). Wouldn't it make more sense that those efforts are spent here in NYC where it really matters? Then again you ran away from me when I offered to face you in PALO ALTO CALIFORNIA, your own turf, Who is the bitch now?
HA!
Slate has an article about truthers.
http://www.slate.com/id/2302831/
This comment has been removed by the author.
Willie, when Condi Rice went to football games I went there with a big sign that said "Condi Lied Under Oath to the 9/11 Widows" and I waded into the crowd of 70,000 people. I had people get in my face, I had people rip my sign, grab it out of my hands. More than once bystanders called the police because they thought I was in danger.
If you think I'm afraid of a two-bit scamster like you, you're very wrong.
You're free to come to Palo Alto any time, fat-ass. Let me know when you do. I could have confronted you at the Freedom Law School early in the year, but you're not worth the drive. Why would I want to go to New York? There's nothing happening in New York.
A comment about the article:
"The really sad part is that both sides of the debate seem incapable of conducting a rational discussion. Both sides have valid points but neither side listens. It's kind of like when an atheist tries to have a logical discussion with a person of faith."
A classic example of how truthers make a legitimate argument about their views.
The article is in three parts:
Part 2:
http://www.slate.com/id/2302830/
Part 3:
http://www.slate.com/id/2302834/
More articles to be published tomorrow
YES, PUNXSUTAWNEY PETGOAT GOOD IS BACK!!!!
Re: Hitchens, it's his usual empty bombast. One thing struck me, though: his claim that the 9/11 op was designed to maximize civilian casualties. What a crock!
Brian, they flew two large commercial jetliners into large office buildings full of people who work there. I'd say that is designed to maximize civilian casualties. You'd realize this if you understood a thing about 9/11.
Also, I love Brian taking a shot at Hitchens. Whatever you think of the man, he's no coward. He was beaten up by Hezbollah goons in Beirut not long ago. Meanwhile, Brian pisses his pants at the thought of debating Willie Rodriguez.
If the planes had struck at 10:00 am there would have been 50,000 people in the buildings. They never would have got all those people down the stairs and out the door before the buildings collapsed.
Brian would know this. He's a civil engineer and was director of the NYC department of emergency management.
Oh wait, no, he's a failed janitor who wears women's underwear and believes in modified attack baboons.
W-Turd, I've got important stuff to do. I don't need to come to NY to scrape you off my shoe.
Brian, since when do you do anything put post gibberish on blogs about your obsession with Rodriguez and magic thermite elves and some mysterious widows with "questions" and then squeal and call people "girls" when you get laughed at for it?
Ian, you missed the point that the planes hit the buildings when there were only 18,000 people inside. If the terrorists had waited an hour there would have been 50,000 people inside.
I know the normal population of the building and the death statistics because I have read the NIST reports. I don't need to be an engineer to read the NIST reports.
IO'm not going to pummel him. I'm going to confront him, I'm going to call him out for a liar, I'm going to send a press release to every media outlet in the state, I'm going to leaflet progressive events, I'm going to picket the venue, and I'll make sure everybody knows that W-Turd is a swindling fraud who steals his glory from dead heroes like Pablo Ortiz.
No you're not. You're going to run away squealing and crying just like you do every other time Rodriguez challenges you.
Ian, I don't talk here about everything I do. Pearls before swine and all that.
Ian, you missed the point that the planes hit the buildings when there were only 18,000 people inside. If the terrorists had waited an hour there would have been 50,000 people inside.
And if they had used a nuclear weapon, they could have killed 8 million people.
I know the normal population of the building and the death statistics because I have read the NIST reports. I don't need to be an engineer to read the NIST reports.
Brian, if you've demonstrated one thing consistently here, it's that you don't understand anything you read. Remember "essentially in free-fall" and the endless babbling you did about it and how it shows that there was no resistance to the collapsing towers? Exactly.
Ian, I don't talk here about everything I do. Pearls before swine and all that.
Brian, who are you kidding? You have no friends, no family, no job. You spend every waking hour posting the same dumbspam to people who laugh at you.
Speaking of laughing, are you still claiming the widows have questions? That was always hilarious.
" snug.bug said...
W-Turd, I've got important stuff to do. I don't need to come to NY to scrape you off my shoe."
Like what? Steam-cleaning your shopping cart before another month searching trash cans for recylables?
Or maybe you can't be pried away for pan-handling from the Prune Yard in September because it's your big month?
No wait, you think you're on the No-Fly list.
" snug.bug said...
The only reason you got away with your scam so long is because nobody could believe that anybody could be such a scumbag as to lie about 9/11 and steal the glory of dead heroes."
You do this every time you post.
" I'm going to confront him, I'm going to call him out for a liar, I'm going to send a press release to every media outlet in the state, I'm going to leaflet progressive events, I'm going to picket the venue, and I'll make sure everybody knows that W-Turd is a swindling fraud who steals his glory from dead heroes like Pablo Ortiz. "
We'll make sure LULAC knows who you are too.
"I could have confronted you at the Freedom Law School early in the year, but you're not worth the drive. "
Translation: I chickened out.
"Why would I want to go to New York? There's nothing happening in New York."
So Willie invited you to come back to NYC for the 9/11 tenth anniversary, and you blow him off by saying "there's nothing happening"...
What a class act.
Part 3:
http://www.slate.com/id/2302834/
What does Avery think of 9/11 conspiracy theories now? He thinks that while orchestrating the attacks was beyond the scope of the Bush administration, there was "considerable foreknowledge" within the government so that it should have been able to prevent them.
Sounds like Dylan Avery has mostly outgrown this nonsense (and good for him). If he wants to investigate incompetence and the attempt to cover up said incompetence instead of investigating cruise missiles, remote-control aircraft, and thermite, more power to him.
Ian, it seems to give you pleasure to make up lies about someone you don't know.
"Ian, you missed the point that the planes hit the buildings when there were only 18,000 people inside"
...only 18,000 people...
Oh I forgot, that's nothing to a war criminal such as yourself.
"And why do you care about my underwear while I'm going it?"
Because I'm always up for a good laugh.
Ian, it seems to give you pleasure to make up lies about someone you don't know.
Could you identify these lies, Brian?
MGF, LULAC is not in the business of protecting swindlers. Please do notify them about Willie Turdriguez.
No job, no friends, no family for one. Harassed Carol Brouillet for another. Wear women's underwear, fired as a janitor, no education. You make stuff up.
Ian, you missed the point that the planes hit the buildings when there were only 18,000 people inside. If the terrorists had waited an hour there would have been 50,000 people inside.
Are you suggesting that the terrorists deliberately timed the attacks to minimize casualties?
This comment has been removed by the author.
RGT, I don't have a crystal ball to tell me what the terrorists were thinking. I was simply disputing the stooopid claim that the terrorists tried to maximize casualties, which is contrary to the evidence. If they wanted to maximize casualties they would have struck at 10:00 am whrn the building was fully populated and they would have released poison gas in the stairwells so nobody could get out of the building.
No job, no friends, no family for one. Harassed Carol Brouillet for another. Wear women's underwear, fired as a janitor, no education. You make stuff up.
Brian, I said to identify lies, not facts. Thanks for proving my point.
Are you suggesting that the terrorists deliberately timed the attacks to minimize casualties?
Uh oh, you're asking Brian to explicitly state what he believes. You know what that means...
RGT, I don't have a crystal ball to tell me what the terrorists were thinking
Yup, the evasions of a coward who runs squealing and crying from every confrontation he's ever had to face.
If they wanted to maximize casualties they would have struck at 10:00 am whrn the building was fully populated and they would have released poison gas in the stairwells so nobody could get out of the building.
Or they could have nuked NYC. That would have maximized casualties.
That would have sent the wrong message. You're not very smart, are you?
If they wanted to maximize casualties they would have struck at 10:00 am whrn the building was fully populated
You're saying that the terrorists deliberately reduced their body count by timing the attacks when they did? Trying to resolve "I don't have a crystal ball" with "I know what they wanted".
I don't know what they wanted. How would I know that?
I don't know what they wanted. How would I know that?
OK. Now trying to resolve "I don't know what they wanted" with "If they wanted to maximize casualties they would have struck at 10:00 am".
"and they would have released poison gas in the stairwells so nobody could get out of the building."
That is pure gold right there.
RGT, Is there something about conditional logic you don't understand?
Striking at 8:46 was not consistent with a desire to inflict maximum casulaties. Striking at 10:00 would have killed many more people.
You guys are so anxious to cast doubt on what I say that you don't care whether you make any sense or not.
"...Striking at 8:46 was not consistent with a desire to inflict maximum casulaties [SIC]."
Bullshit. Wrong again, spelling bee champ.
Striking at 8:46 PM was consistent with one thing and one thing only: The hijacker's ability to obtain airline tickets.
Who are you to lecture anyone about "logic"?
Stick to wearing women's underwear and stalking defenseless married women.
UtterFail, what makes you think the hijackers had problems getting airline tickets?
You make up your facts.
UtterAsshole, who said the hijackers had problems getting airline tickets?
You can't debate without straw man arguments.
Don't you have a troofer to stalk or sexually harass?
IOW, you can't support your claim and must resort to changing the subject.
I guess the word logistics isn't a part of your limited "vocabulary." Right, spelling bee champ?
It's not my problem that you read at the second grade-level. (Or, more likely, you deliberately misinterpret what I've written so you can muck-up the thread with dumbspam).
So tell us, UtterAsshole, how many times have you been arrested for aggravated homosexual assault?
RGT, Is there something about conditional logic you don't understand?
And now it's that time of the show where Brian brings out big boy terms like "conditional logic" even though he doesn't have a clue what they mean. Join us next week when he babbles about Newton's third law and pyroclastic flows!
Striking at 8:46 was not consistent with a desire to inflict maximum casulaties. Striking at 10:00 would have killed many more people.
Setting off nuclear weapons would have killed the most people.
You guys are so anxious to cast doubt on what I say that you don't care whether you make any sense or not.
Squeal squeal squeal!
Brian, nobody needs to cast doubt on you. You're completely self-discrediting.
Striking at 8:46 was not consistent with a desire to inflict maximum casulaties. Striking at 10:00 would have killed many more people.
Was potential body count was the only factor considered in timing the attacks?
Post a Comment
<< Home