Friday, October 14, 2011

Have they Found the $2.3 Trillion Rumsfeld Stole Yet?

As usual, the Truthers miss the true story. While getting all up in arms over the fake claim that Donald Rumsfeld claimed that $2.3 trillion was stolen, they missed the real scandal of just how bad Pentagon accounting practices are. As someone who works in both IT and finance, I can at least take satisfaction in the fact that none of my projects has ever blown $6 billion and still not done the job.

The DOD has already promised to clean up its accounting practices for public scrutiny by 2017, and has pledged an estimated $300 million annually to do just that. They will likely need an additional $1 billion to meet that goal, CPI reports, and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is allegedly poised to announce a speeding-up of the auditing process, which might raise the cost of reigning in spending even more.

The CPI report states: "Experts say the Pentagon's accounting has never been reliable. A lengthy effort by the military services to implement new financial systems at a cost so far of more than $6 billion has itself been plagued by overruns and delays, senior defense officials say."

Just last month, the Government Accountability Office said in a report that although the services can now fully track incoming appropriations, they still cannot demonstrate their funds are being spent as they should.

182 Comments:

At 14 October, 2011 08:24, Blogger Jon Gold said...

Hey... you missed this from 2007...

http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showpost.php?p=90676&postcount=1

And you seem to have missed this from today which is on the front page...

http://www.salon.com/2011/10/14/insiders_voice_doubts_cia_911/

But nah... there has never been a cover-up regarding 9/11... just a MULTITUDE of cover-ups regarding 9/11.

 
At 14 October, 2011 08:32, Blogger James B. said...

We have already covered both of those stories extensively. What is your point?

 
At 14 October, 2011 08:52, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

James, obviously that $6 billion goes to fund the government's on-going alien space craft back-enigneering projects at Nellis and Dugway, and a giant gorilla breading project in the South Pacific.

 
At 14 October, 2011 09:22, Blogger Jon Gold said...

I'd like to see where you cover Thomas Kean's comments "extensively." Or Robert Baer, Mark Rossini, Tony Shaffer, etc... and so on. With regards to the "Who Is Rich Blee?" podcast. Where is Alfreda Frances Bikowsky mentioned on this site? You're full of it.

 
At 14 October, 2011 09:27, Blogger Jon Gold said...

Show me where you address George Tenet's lies.

 
At 14 October, 2011 09:32, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Jon Gold should go out to Washington D.C. and try to handcuff himself to another historical landmark. I like to see him yelling while the Secret Service take him off to jail for being unpatriotic.

 
At 14 October, 2011 09:38, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Jon Gold's greatest hits:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YwQORV1Ieg&feature=BFa&list=PLCC10F5FA85B40880&lf=results_main&index=3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0o2Caotr1Hw

Jon,

The point is to stand with the Jersey Girls, not go out alone and act like a total dick by getting yourself arrested.

PS: Get a wig or something, baldy!

 
At 14 October, 2011 09:46, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

Nothing substantive on anything Jon has to say, huh James? Why is that not surprising? Why do you and Pat flee like craven bitches so often?

Is it because you'd be even MORE humiliated on your own blog if you actually discussed things like the Richard Blee research?

How typically pathetic.

 
At 14 October, 2011 09:59, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Dave Thomas did an experiment with steel wool and a BIC lighter and looked in a microscope and saw an "Iron rich sphere".

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=7671740#post7671740

Well, goes to show that Pat Cowardly was wrong all along about those spheres. Sux to be him!

 
At 14 October, 2011 10:16, Blogger Max said...

Sorry jon - I miss the front page of salon everyday.

cowardly - when your family is making arangements to bury your rotting corpse do you think any of them will think to put some crap about you wasting your life being a troofer on your tombstone?

 
At 14 October, 2011 10:16, Blogger Ian said...

This article demonstrates Hanlon's Razor pretty well, especially when it comes to the missing $2.3 trillion.

 
At 14 October, 2011 12:04, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

I suppose it's too much to ask James to produce a single citation of anyone saying Rumsfeld stole $2.3 trillion? Thought so.

Great research there, Jimbo. You're approaching Pat's level now. Congratulations: I know how much you hate playing second banana to him.

 
At 14 October, 2011 13:35, Blogger Pat said...

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ArticleFetzer_28Jul2006.html

"I have often wondered what Donald Rumsfeld was doing with the 2.3 trillion dollars he reported to congress was missing from the Pentagon's budget that he could not account for on."

 
At 14 October, 2011 13:39, Blogger Ian said...

C'mon, Pat, don't you know that Jim Fetzer is a lunatic and not representative of the real truth movement?

 
At 14 October, 2011 14:01, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

So Pat waddles into the fray, thinking he can rescue the hapless JamesB, and posts...nothing that says Rumsfeld stole 2.3 Trillion dollars.

Try again, Cowardly Curley.

And don't forget to clam up about Blee, Tenet, etc. We'd expect nothing more from you.

 
At 14 October, 2011 14:06, Blogger Ian said...

So Pat waddles into the fray, thinking he can rescue the hapless JamesB, and posts...nothing that says Rumsfeld stole 2.3 Trillion dollars.

Try again, Cowardly Curley.

And don't forget to clam up about Blee, Tenet, etc. We'd expect nothing more from you.


Ever get the feeling that this guy just really, really needs to get laid?

 
At 14 October, 2011 14:17, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

It's more fun to watch Pat and James get forcibly bent over and reemed every day. Especially on their own blog. Priceless.

 
At 14 October, 2011 14:42, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Well, I guess I owe Billman an apology.

"Pat Cowardly" is The ArseHooligan.

So ArseHooligan, did you attend some form of therapy for the mentally retarded in order to overcome your aversion to using a space bar?

And have you decided to patent your special brand of stupid?

And remember, cretin, I'm just askin' questions...

 
At 14 October, 2011 15:59, Blogger Max said...

come on cowardly - you can tell me

 
At 14 October, 2011 16:09, Blogger Arcterus said...

It's more fun to watch Pat and James get forcibly bent over and reemed every day. Especially on their own blog. Priceless.

DEFINITELY, Ian.

 
At 14 October, 2011 16:54, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

And don't forget to clam up about Blee, Tenet, etc.

Blee, Tenet, etc. are non-stories.

 
At 14 October, 2011 17:44, Blogger 911truthinator said...

WhyAskQuestions said...

Jon Gold's greatest hits:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YwQORV1Ieg&feature=BFa&list=PLCC10F5FA85B40880&lf=results_main&index=3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0o2Caotr1Hw

Poor jon jon, he must be pissed off at that luke rudkowski's video of the retard swearing at the cops has gotten more views,195,478 views, than his "Peace Activist Arrested at White House Anti-War Protest" video,357 views, lol.

all that effort, sacrafice humiliation and getting hammeroids from sitting on the cold cell floor ALL FOR NOTHING!!!

go on jon jon, go and sit on luke's face till he stops wiggling, everyone will think it was an accident,after all no one will believe it was an "inside job".


jon jon, you should consider having a cannon shoot a canon ball at you and you catch it with your stomach.
make a video of that and you will also get 100,000s of views.

GO FOR IT JON JON!!!

 
At 15 October, 2011 09:50, Blogger Track said...

"Blee, Tenet, etc. are non-stories."

I suggest you read The Looming Tower by Lawrence Wright. It won a Pulitzer by the way. Wright notes that CIA conduct in regard to withholding information amounted to obstruction of justice in the Cole investigation. There were key links between the Cole investigation and the 9/11 hijackers. Oddly enough Tom Wilshire, the deputy chief of Alec Station, knew that al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar were linked to Cole plotters but for reasons he has never explained continued to withhold this information from the Cole investigators.

I have no idea why being dismissive of this story is something of which to be proud. Over the years I have heard comments from debunkers like "Well all the nonsense about missiles and thermite distract from real questions." Yet many debunkers are just as dismissive of the real questions. Why is that?

 
At 15 October, 2011 10:27, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Yet many debunkers are just as dismissive of the real questions. Why is that?

The key is intent. Nobody disputes that better information sharing could have prevented the attacks. Where Responsible Truthers go wrong is the idea that some of the information withholding was deliberate, for the purposes of permitting the attacks to succeed.

Until Responsible Truthers can demonstrate that some individual acted outside their reasonable discretion at the time, I'm not too interested in who they're blaming this month. Rich Blee is just the latest scapegoat.

 
At 15 October, 2011 11:06, Blogger Track said...

"Where Responsible Truthers go wrong is the idea that some of the information withholding was deliberate, for the purposes of permitting the attacks to succeed."

Why was the information withheld? Nobody in the US government has credibly answered this question. The 9/11 Commission failed to do so.

The context of the withholding is not indicative of good faith conduct by the intelligence community. At the time we are told the CIA was extremely worried about a possible terrorist attack. So not telling the FBI about known al Qaeda operatives associated with this possible terrorist attack is extremely difficult to understand. The FBI unit that received the information in late August of '01 went of their way to obstruct the Cole investigation.

 
At 15 October, 2011 11:47, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Why was the information withheld? Nobody in the US government has credibly answered this question. The 9/11 Commission failed to do so.

There's "credible" and then there's "satisfying". The official explanations of 4th Amendment protocol, turf wars, incompetence, etc. aren't satisfying. But I don't see what's so hard to believe about them.

Counterexamples here don't disprove the official explanations. They just further prove incompetence.

 
At 15 October, 2011 17:22, Blogger snug.bug said...

You are demanding from truthers proof of malevolent intent, while for yourself you settle for a lesser standard of assuming benign intent.

Only an honest and open investigation can prove either case. To demand proof before there's even been an investigation is irrational.

 
At 15 October, 2011 17:38, Blogger Billman said...

Well, I guess I owe Billman an apology.

"Pat Cowardly" is The ArseHooligan.


No apology neccessary. You've been preoccupied.

 
At 15 October, 2011 18:53, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

You are demanding from truthers proof of malevolent intent, while for yourself you settle for a lesser standard of assuming benign intent.

Most people do assume benign intent. Innocent until proven guilty, etc.

I guess I don't understand why truthers claim to have so much evidence and then get irritable when asked to demonstrate anything with it. So forget about malevolent intent for a moment. How about just proving abuse of discretion?

 
At 16 October, 2011 07:00, Blogger Ian said...

You are demanding from truthers proof of malevolent intent, while for yourself you settle for a lesser standard of assuming benign intent.

Um, no Brian. There is no assumption of benign intent. There's just the absence of any evidence of malevolent intent.

Only an honest and open investigation can prove either case. To demand proof before there's even been an investigation is irrational.

Brian, there has been an investigation. If you'd stop sniffing glue and learned to Google, you'd know this.

Also, "irrational" describes pretty much all of your beliefs about 9/11. It's amusing to hear you call others irrational when you believe in magic spray-on thermite and "widows" with "questions".

 
At 16 October, 2011 12:44, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, you don't assume benign intent at the investigation stage. You simply determine what are the facts.
In particular you don't assume that no investigation is needed based on assumptions of benign intent.

Richard Clarke's claim that 60 CIA knew of the presence of al Qaeda operatives in the USA and did not tell the White House appears to show abuse of discretion. The revelations in the recent "Who is Richard Blee" material appears to show abuse of discretion. The revelations in "Disconnecting the Dots" appear to show abuse of discretioon. And James Bamford was saying years ago that the silencing of FBI agents Rossini and Miller was an abuse of discretion.

Ian, the tolerance the posters on this board show for your persistent lying about the widows indicts their credibility.

 
At 16 October, 2011 13:33, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, the tolerance the posters on this board show for your persistent lying about the widows indicts their credibility.

Squeal squeal squeal!

Brian, your claim that the widows have questions is irrational. You live in a fantasy world.

 
At 16 October, 2011 13:50, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you lie.

 
At 16 October, 2011 15:08, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, you lie.

Brian, if I lie, how come the "widows" haven't had their "questions" answered yet?

 
At 16 October, 2011 15:42, Blogger John said...

Here's a few question for truthers:

IF, as they believe, 9/11 was an inside job, and IF, as they believe, the same elements of the US government that pulled it off either paid or threatened witnesses and investigation officials who know the truth about 9/11 to lie about it, who says they won't do the same during the 2nd investigation?

Also, IF, as they believe, the people in the US gov't who pulled off 9/11 had no qualms about killing thousands of US citizens to further their war agenda, why haven't they killed thousands more in the past 10 years when people marched against the Iraq War?

 
At 16 October, 2011 17:05, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 16 October, 2011 17:08, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, your GIGO syllogism seems to go:

If there are questions, answers will be provided.

No answers were provided. Therefore the widows have no questions.

From a faulty premise you arrive at a faulty conclusion. That's the kind of logic dictators use, and their toadies are too cowed to correct them. But you are only the dictator of your own mind. You should try encouraging dissent in your mind, and a free press.




John, maybe they will do the same during the second investigation. The difference this time is, we'll be prepared. We can stand outside the building with big signs saying "Why Not Ask Sibel?" and "What About Behrooz Sarshar?" and "Who is Rich Blee" and any number of questions they're trying to sidestep. We can take the C-span tapes of the hearings and make 10,000 Youtubes and a feature film, and we have the numbers in the movement to get the truth out.

Why do you think the government would want to kill "thousands more in the past 10 years when people marched against the Iraq War?" What purpose would that serve?

 
At 16 October, 2011 17:38, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, your GIGO syllogism seems to go:

If there are questions, answers will be provided.

No answers were provided. Therefore the widows have no questions.


False.

Brian, until you have any evidence that the "widows" have questions, this is all meaningless.

 
At 16 October, 2011 17:41, Blogger Ian said...

John, maybe they will do the same during the second investigation.

There won't be another investigation, Brian. You've failed yet again. HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!

The difference this time is, we'll be prepared. We can stand outside the building with big signs saying "Why Not Ask Sibel?" and "What About Behrooz Sarshar?" and "Who is Rich Blee" and any number of questions they're trying to sidestep. We can take the C-span tapes of the hearings and make 10,000 Youtubes and a feature film, and we have the numbers in the movement to get the truth out.

Hey, if these delusions help you sleep better at night, more power to you. I'd still suggest seeking psychiatric treatment. You're not well, Brian.

Why do you think the government would want to kill "thousands more in the past 10 years when people marched against the Iraq War?" What purpose would that serve?

The same purpose that killing thousands on 9/11 served. You're not very bright, are you?

 
At 16 October, 2011 19:00, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Why do you think the government would want to kill "thousands more in the past 10 years when people marched against the Iraq War?" What purpose would that serve?"

Brian has a point here.

The 9/11 Truth Movement's ultimate goal was to successfully undermine the anti-war movement. The government didn't need to kill people to silence anyone, they knew that when some idiot with a "9/11 was an inside job!" banner passed in front of a camera all credibility went out the window.

The shadow government didn't need assassins, they had Brian, Jon Gold, and the rest of the troofers doing their work for them.

 
At 16 October, 2011 19:44, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, as Appendix 4 at justicefor911.org shows, the widows have 273 unanswered questions pending.

If the purpose of killing 3000 on 9/11 was to incite Americans to give up their constitutional liberties and approve of two stupid wars, what purpose would be served by killing any more? The government can't afford any more wars. A parasite must never kill its host.

 
At 16 October, 2011 20:02, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

In particular you don't assume that no investigation is needed based on assumptions of benign intent.

Actually, yeah, you do. Innocence is the presumption even for government workers.

[several different things] appear[] to show abuse of discretion....

If that's what you want to see, then I suppose so. Most people don't see that.

The difference this time is, we'll be prepared. We can stand outside the building with big signs...

"Keep doing what you're doing, keep getting what you're getting." -- my gym teacher or somebody, don't remember

 
At 16 October, 2011 20:14, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, as Appendix 4 at justicefor911.org shows, the widows have 273 unanswered questions pending.

False.

If the purpose of killing 3000 on 9/11 was to incite Americans to give up their constitutional liberties and approve of two stupid wars, what purpose would be served by killing any more? The government can't afford any more wars. A parasite must never kill its host.

This is a nice intellectual exercise and all, Brian, but you're forgetting one small detail. The government wasn't responsible for 9/11.

 
At 16 October, 2011 20:15, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"The government can't afford any more wars."

And yet we engaged Lybia and are sending 300 troops to Uganda.

Throws your theory out the window.

 
At 16 October, 2011 23:32, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGF, in the investigative phase information is gathered. If presumption of innocence were used as an excuse to avoid investigation, then there would be no reason to have any investigation at all--ever.

James Bamford and Richard Clarke see abuse of discretion. It's worthy of investigation. You are using Argumentum ad Numerum as an excuse for your own willful blindness and laziness.

MGF, why don't you stick to your area of expertise, geology, and tell us again that California has more oil reserves than the 'stans.

 
At 17 October, 2011 07:54, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

James Bamford and Richard Clarke see abuse of discretion. It's worthy of investigation.

That's where you're mistaken. Bamford's and Clarke's opinions are not dispositive.

Convincing people who matter in sufficient numbers is they key to a new investigation. Keep working on it.

 
At 17 October, 2011 08:40, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Hey Brian, what's the matter? Your disability check not stretching far enough to cover your Viagra this month?

 
At 17 October, 2011 08:59, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, there is not going to be a dispositive opinion until there is a full and honest investigation. You are engaging in the classic circular BushBot argument: We don't need an investigation because there is no proof of guilt.

 
At 17 October, 2011 10:15, Blogger Ian said...

RGT, there is not going to be a dispositive opinion until there is a full and honest investigation.

Brian, there was a full and honest investigation. Just because a failed janitor like you didn't like the results because it didn't look into magic spray-on thermite doesn't mean we need a new one.

You are engaging in the classic circular BushBot argument: We don't need an investigation because there is no proof of guilt.

Brian babbles 'bout Bushbots!
Brian babbles 'bout Bushbots!

 
At 17 October, 2011 11:03, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, there is not going to be a dispositive opinion until there is a full and honest investigation. You are engaging in the classic circular BushBot argument: We don't need an investigation because there is no proof of guilt.

Don't worry about proving guilt or naming names right now. You only need to make out a plausible case that one or more individuals, intentionally or unintentionally, committed an act or omission that fell outside the realm of their reasonable judgment under the circumstances at the time.

I'm starting to wonder whether Responsible Truthers are just working backwards from "9/11 happened, therefore somebody on the inside must be punished". They keep picking out guilty people without telling us what they're guilty of.

 
At 17 October, 2011 12:17, Blogger GuitarBill said...

RGT wrote, "...I'm starting to wonder whether Responsible Truthers are just working backwards from '9/11 happened, therefore somebody on the inside must be punished'."

The goat fucker ALWAYS works backwards from a predetermined conclusion and cherry picks the evidence.

And that's precisely why it's so laughable when when he claims to have an alleged "scientific reputation."

The reality, RGT, is that the goat fucker couldn't pass a formal examination in elementary logic.

He's a FUCKING cretin, and he's beneath contempt.

 
At 17 October, 2011 14:16, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

To demand proof before there's even been an investigation is irrational.

Brian: "Your honor, I make a complaint against the U.S. Government."

Judge: "Do you have evidence to persue this case against them?"

Brian: "Yes your honor I do."

10 minutes later....

Judge: "I thought you said you had evidence?"

Brian: "I do!"

Judge: "I waited 10 minutes for this evidence which you speak of. I've not seen any sir!"

Brian: "I uhhh....I ummmm....Hang on judge."

Brian leaves the courtroom and never returns.

Judge: "Case dismissed on account of LACK OF EVIDENCE."

 
At 17 October, 2011 14:18, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Brian must be the father of Jon Gold. Both of them are fixated on the Widows for some strange reason. God damn stalkers!

 
At 17 October, 2011 17:52, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, you are playing dumb. The "Who is Richard Blee" story tells exactly what they did and didn't do. "Disconnecting the Dots" tells what was done and not done. In the case of Maltbie and Frasca's sabotaging of the Moussaoui FISA search warrant, we know exactly what they did. In the case of Condi Rice ignoring dire warnings and keeping Richard Clarke away from the president, we know exactly what she did.

 
At 17 October, 2011 18:16, Blogger Ian said...

WAQ, you've forgotten that Brian has tons of evidence. He's going to present to a judge all the baffling aspects of the collapse, such as the speed, symmetry, totality, the molten steel in the pile, the burnt baboon fur, the radiation detected in the dust clouds, and the alien spaceships photographed above the burning towers.

 
At 17 October, 2011 19:21, Blogger VVME said...

i like your blog very much and Your article give me a big view.it is excellent. welcome to my blog ,my blog is about

hid conversion kit, here has a lot of the article is about carhid kits,

motorcycle lamps, and the light of the knowledge of the installation, maintenance, hope we can communicate on

blogger, and become good friends .welcome to my blog

 
At 17 October, 2011 21:27, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I do have lots of evidence. None of it has to do with baboons or radiation or alien spacecraft, however. You make stuff up.

 
At 17 October, 2011 21:34, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, I do have lots of evidence. None of it has to do with baboons or radiation or alien spacecraft, however. You make stuff up.

So what evidence do you have, Brian?

Wait, don't tell me: it's the "baffling" aspects of the collapse, such as speed, symmetry, and totality, the pulverization of the concrete, and molten steel.

Do I have that right, Brian? It's just the sort of delusional nonsense that I would expect from a failed janitor who wears women's underwear. You might as well include alien spaceships, radiation, and baboons.

 
At 17 October, 2011 22:31, Blogger roo said...

That spambot 'VVME' provide about as much evidence that 9/11 was an inside job as brian ever has.

 
At 17 October, 2011 23:31, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, that "delusional nonsense" has caused 1600 architects and engineers to put their careers on the line, including 46 PhD engineers.

 
At 18 October, 2011 02:56, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

The "Who is Richard Blee" story tells exactly what they did and didn't do....

If the facts are established, then you don't need a new investigation.

 
At 18 October, 2011 07:00, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, that "delusional nonsense" has caused 1600 architects and engineers to put their careers on the line, including 46 PhD engineers.

See what I mean?

 
At 18 October, 2011 08:29, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Ian, that "delusional nonsense" has caused 1600 architects and engineers to put their careers on the line, including 46 PhD engineers."

I'm sure Stuckey's doesn't mind what their busboys do in their off hours.

 
At 18 October, 2011 09:13, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

Still no sources showing anyone saying Rummy stole the money, huh?

Wow James, you really showed that straw man! Hit 'im again! Help Pat with his terrible form, though: he won't be able to carry out his threat to punch David Ray Griffin without some SERIOUS help, and his "10 Straw Men a Day" regimen is doing him no good at all. Keep on punching. It really impresses Ian and M. Gregory.

 
At 18 October, 2011 09:23, Blogger John said...

John, maybe they will do the same during the second investigation. The difference this time is, we'll be prepared. We can stand outside the building with big signs saying "Why Not Ask Sibel?" and "What About Behrooz Sarshar?" and "Who is Rich Blee" and any number of questions they're trying to sidestep.

Which will have absolutely no effect on this imaginary second investigation. All those issues would be whitewashed again. Plus, aren't truthers already carrying signs and making Youtube videos?
None of that is helping even to launch a new investigation.

Why do you think the government would want to kill "thousands more in the past 10 years when people marched against the Iraq War?" What purpose would that serve?

Maybe thousands is an exaggeration, but more US citizens deaths would strengthen this so-called agenda that truthers believe the Govt has to turn the US into a police state. People will support anything if they think their personal safety is constantly threatened.

that "delusional nonsense" has caused 1600 architects and engineers to put their careers on the line, including 46 PhD engineers.

And I have to point out ONCE AGAIN that the head of AE911Truth, Richard Gage, USED CARDBOARD BOXES TO SIMULATE THE COLLAPSE OF A STEEL STRUCTURE!!! If the rest of these architects and engineers believe that to be an appropriate simulation, their degrees aren't worth shit. They are putting their "careers on the line" not because of any threats of loss of money, jobs or reputation, but because they're incompetent.

 
At 18 October, 2011 09:32, Blogger John said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 18 October, 2011 09:33, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, that "delusional nonsense" has caused 1600 architects and engineers to put their careers on the line, including 46 PhD engineers.

Getting back to this, what if I trotted out a list of biology PhDs who endorse "intelligent design"? You know there are many who exist. Would that indicate that "intelligent design" is valid and evolution in question, or would it indicate that those who endorse it are either frauds or incompetents?

Brian, I know you have a hard time with logic and reason, which is to be expected from a failed janitor who sniffs glue, but just think about this for a while.

 
At 18 October, 2011 10:06, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Brian, I know you have a hard time with logic and reason, which is to be expected from a failed janitor who sniffs glue, but just think about this for a while."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!

 
At 18 October, 2011 11:08, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 18 October, 2011 11:10, Blogger snug.bug said...

John, the point is that we'll be able to show the whitewash for a whitewash blow by blow as it happens. New investigations will provide an organized framework for debate and discussion.

Why would you think more citizens' death would strengthen the police-state agenda? Too much fear will make people numb to fear after a while. A friendly police state is more likely to last than an oppressive and terror-stricken one. Fearing for personal safety is not realistic. 3,000 out of 300,000,000 died on 9/11. That's 0.001%. 99.999% of us did not die.


A terrorist attack under a Republican government would give the impression that our police state is incompetent. A terrorist attack under a Democratic government would generate suspicions on the part of Dems that it was a Republican dirty trick.

Richard Gage did not use cardboard boxes to simulate the collapse of a steel building. He used cardboard boxes to demonstrate Newton's Third Law and the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. Do you have any reason to think that cardboard boxes are not subject to the same laws of physics that govern everything else?

Ian, let's see your list of biology PhDs who support intelligent design. While you're at it, let's see your list of architectural and engineering PhDs who have expressed confidence in NIST's findings about the collapses of the towers.


'

 
At 18 October, 2011 11:34, Blogger Ian said...

Why would you think more citizens' death would strengthen the police-state agenda? Too much fear will make people numb to fear after a while. A friendly police state is more likely to last than an oppressive and terror-stricken one. Fearing for personal safety is not realistic. 3,000 out of 300,000,000 died on 9/11. That's 0.001%. 99.999% of us did not die.

Hmmm....nope, it still doesn't make a lick of sense. I do like "friendly police state" though. That's up there with "rake on rake" and "smoldering carpets" among Brian Good's classics.

So which police states are friendly, Brian? North Korea? Burma? Syria?

 
At 18 October, 2011 11:36, Blogger Ian said...

A terrorist attack under a Republican government would give the impression that our police state is incompetent. A terrorist attack under a Democratic government would generate suspicions on the part of Dems that it was a Republican dirty trick.

"Our polics state"? Also, a terrorist attack under a Democrat might give YOU the impression that it was a dirty trick, but that's because you're a lunatic who believes in magic thermite elves. Normal people won't get that impression.

 
At 18 October, 2011 11:37, Blogger Ian said...

Richard Gage did not use cardboard boxes to simulate the collapse of a steel building. He used cardboard boxes to demonstrate Newton's Third Law and the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. Do you have any reason to think that cardboard boxes are not subject to the same laws of physics that govern everything else?

Brian, please explain to us your understanding of Newton's Third Law and 1st Law of Thermodynamics.

This ought to be good....

 
At 18 October, 2011 11:41, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, let's see your list of biology PhDs who support intelligent design. While you're at it, let's see your list of architectural and engineering PhDs who have expressed confidence in NIST's findings about the collapses of the towers.

Brian, I will give you my list of Biology PhDs who believe in intelligent design when you admit that you are Petgoat.

I will also give you my list of architectural and engineering PhDs who expresed confidence in the NIST report when you give me your list of astronomers who have expressed doubt that Russell's Teapot is orbiting the sun out by Mars.

 
At 18 October, 2011 11:47, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"WAQ, you've forgotten that Brian has tons of evidence." - Ian

ROTFLMFAO!

 
At 18 October, 2011 11:48, Blogger John said...

Richard Gage did not use cardboard boxes to simulate the collapse of a steel building.

No, that's exactly what he's doing. Check the video again. He calls those cardboard boxes steel buildings.

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

To quote: "I have a 95 story building. I have two 15 story buildings that I'm going to drop."

And: "The one that has 80.000 tons of structural steel on it. It doesn't even give."

He is comparing cardboard to steel. THEY AE NOT THE SAME!! Not even close. If they were, we'd make buildings out of cardboard and mailing steel packages.

As for Newton, he says "It is met by an equal and opposite reaction known as the conservation of momentum."

Equal and opposite reaction is Newton's 3rd law. Conservation of momentum is Newton's 2nd law. They're not the same. More proof that Gage doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.

 
At 18 October, 2011 11:50, Blogger John said...

That should read "80,000" tons of structural steel". Sorry

 
At 18 October, 2011 11:54, Blogger John said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 18 October, 2011 11:54, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Brian has alot of evidence that he doesn't have evidence.

He's been coming to SLC for how many years? And every time he replies he gives us evidence of his behavior, motives and agenda.

Brian is a certifiable nutcase, no question about it. His behavior towards the Truth Movement got him into trouble, his flammatory remarks to Fetzer were seen, his stalking of Carol Brouillet, Kevin Ryan and others was talked about amoung the Truthers and they all said that he's not Truther material.

So why is Brian hanging around here?

A: He doesn't have a life
B: He's lazy
C: He's incompetent
D: He acts like a child

We can study Brian through his own behavior. And there's not a damn thing Brian can do about it, except don't reply back.

 
At 18 October, 2011 12:18, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

FYI Brian:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey_Girls

After the 9/11 Commission issued its report, the Jersey Girls pressured the Administration to follow its recommendations. They specifically commended the Commission for not politicizing blame in the report. "The USS Cole was bombed under Clinton's watch, and 9/11 happened under Bush's watch," said Rosemary Dillard. "I don't blame either administration; I blame the people who were reporting to them."

Rosemary Dillard is blaming the people, not the Government.

So what's that about the "Unanswered Questions" from the 9/11 Widows you'd been so despritely lying about??

 
At 18 October, 2011 13:04, Blogger snug.bug said...

John, nobody can possibly think that a hollow cardboard box is a model of a building that has a structural core in the middle.

You're quibbling about semantics. You might as well say Gage is lying when he shows a slide of the WTC and says "This is the World Trade Center." NO NO NO, IDIOT! That's a projection of light on a movie screen! That's not the World Trade Center!

WAQo, I'd like to know where you get your erroneous information. Or do you just make it up?

I'm not lying about the widows' questions. They had 300 questions and they got 27 answers--as anyone who looks at Appendix 4 at justicefor911.org can see.

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

Yeah, never mind that 273 of the widows "questions" were politically motivated, grossly biased, and thus don't deserve an answer.

Cretin.

 
At 18 October, 2011 13:18, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, I'd like to know where you get your erroneous information. Or do you just make it up?

All I do is google up "Brian Good 9/11 Truth" and I can find all kinds of shit about you. Even what you wrote to other Truthers.

Looks like your google fu isn't great.

 
At 18 October, 2011 13:20, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

I'm not lying about the widows' questions.

But yet they said:

They specifically commended the Commission for not politicizing blame in the report.

So techinically you are lying!

 
At 18 October, 2011 13:21, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

justicefor911.org

Copyright (c) 2004 The "Justice for 9/11" Steering Committee.

Brian, you have nothing that's up-dated to 2011?

 
At 18 October, 2011 13:27, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Appendix 4 at justicefor911.org has 28 questions "has been satisfactorily answered by the 9/11 Commission Report."

Brian doesn't need to bitch about the "unanswerd questions" due to 28 being answered by the 9/11 Commission.

 
At 18 October, 2011 13:35, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

The questions on justicefor911.org (which Brian is constantly bitching about) are about National Security.

Now Brian thinks that we shouldn't have National Security because he believes those questions should've been answered.

If Brian hates National Security, then he might as well leave this country and never come back.

 
At 18 October, 2011 13:45, Blogger John said...

John, nobody can possibly think that a hollow cardboard box is a model of a building that has a structural core in the middle.

Well, Gage does. You're just too deluded to see it. He uses the cardboard box as an example to show what should have happened to a steel building on 9/11.

You're quibbling about semantics. You might as well say Gage is lying when he shows a slide of the WTC and says "This is the World Trade Center." NO NO NO, IDIOT! That's a projection of light on a movie screen! That's not the World Trade Center!

My God, you're a moron.

 
At 18 October, 2011 13:54, Blogger Ian said...

John, nobody can possibly think that a hollow cardboard box is a model of a building that has a structural core in the middle.

So in other words, Richard Gage is a fraud. Thanks for clearing that up, Brian.

You're quibbling about semantics. You might as well say Gage is lying when he shows a slide of the WTC and says "This is the World Trade Center." NO NO NO, IDIOT! That's a projection of light on a movie screen! That's not the World Trade Center!

Poor Brian, he's desperately defending Richard Gage's work when it's obvious the man is a charlatan. Your desperation is like the Bushbots who insisted that Saddam Hussein had WMDs.

WAQo, I'd like to know where you get your erroneous information. Or do you just make it up?

Brian, you're a liar who was thrown out of the truth movement, so his information is not erroneous. You're just desperately squealing to try to cover it up.

I'm not lying about the widows' questions. They had 300 questions and they got 27 answers--as anyone who looks at Appendix 4 at justicefor911.org can see.

See what I mean? Brian is trying to cover up the facts with irrelevant dumbspam about "widows". Typical Bushbot tactic.

 
At 18 October, 2011 14:17, Blogger John said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 18 October, 2011 14:18, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Brian probably thinks that Gage should've lit the cardboard boxes on fire to simulate the effects it had on the structure to turn it into dust. Since he believes that magical fairies turned hardened steel into "dust".

 
At 18 October, 2011 14:21, Blogger John said...

You know what was really missing from Gage's cardboard model?

A large gorilla

 
At 18 October, 2011 14:50, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

I know what else is missing from Gage's cardboard boxes.

Styrofoam popcorn.

 
At 18 October, 2011 15:00, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, please advise which of the widows' questions were politically motivated, and grossly biased.

WAQo, so if you google "Bigfoot" do you go around repeating whatever you find?

You don't consider that some people were highly motivated to lie about me because it was the only way they could respond when I exposed their wrongdoing?

Wikipedia says "They specifically commended the Commission for not politicizing blame in the report." And you believe them. I never heard of Rosemary Dillard. I am not aware that she ever was in a position to speak for the Jersey widows. She lived in Michigan.

The questions had not been answered in 2004 and they have not been answered today. What's to update? 27 have been answered, and 273 have not.

John, Gage doed not think a hollow cardboard box is a model of a building that has a structural core in the middle. He is demonstrating basic laws of physics. The boxes do not demonstrate what should have happened and he doesn't say they do.

If your God is a moron perhaps that is because you make Him in your own image.


WAQo, where did you get the idea that I was thrown out of the truth movement?

I never said steel was turned to dust.

 
At 18 October, 2011 15:34, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, so if you google "Bigfoot" do you go around repeating whatever you find?

I'd be like you screaming: "There's 200 questions from the Widows of Bigfoot that wasn't answered."

The questions had not been answered in 2004 and they have not been answered today. What's to update? 27 have been answered, and 273 have not.

Here's a fact: You're not related to any of the widows.

If your God is a moron perhaps that is because you make Him in your own image.

Attack the aspects of religion lately or is that a bigot in your pocket?

WAQo, where did you get the idea that I was thrown out of the truth movement?

By the Truthers within the Truth Movement using Google to search about info reguarding you.

 
At 18 October, 2011 15:37, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

I never heard of Rosemary Dillard.

See what the lack of research does to your brain?

 
At 18 October, 2011 15:44, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, truthers don't say anything bad about me. The people who say bad things about me are liars who are not invited to speak at conferences.

 
At 18 October, 2011 15:47, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Technically if you took Dickie Gage's cardboard boxes to the airport and put them in front of a 767 they'd get crushed, so maybe Gage is onto something because neither tower reacted like a giant cardboard box.

...they did, on the ohter hand, act like steel-framed, floating truss buuildings...

 
At 18 October, 2011 16:01, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, truthers don't say anything bad about me. The people who say bad things about me are liars who are not invited to speak at conferences.

Ummm Willie Rodriguez, Kevin Barrett, Carol Broulliet, just to name a few who talk about you over the internet.

But you've never taken a conference for anything, Willie asked you to debate him on the radio and you turned him down. So, you'e calling yourself a liar then?

 
At 18 October, 2011 16:04, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, truthers don't say anything bad about me.

What a fucking liar you are:

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

http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/3083747/1/

 
At 18 October, 2011 16:08, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"Brian Good is an alleged 9/11 truth activist whose reputation has been built primarily around belligerent attacks against others in the 9/11 truth movement.", "He has zero credibility, respect, or influence and is seen only as a provocateur." - Craig Ranke CIT

"Brian Good is an absolute joke - and it's plain to see. His MO is no different to the JREFers that have come and gone over the years." - Lin Kuei

 
At 18 October, 2011 16:43, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...please advise which of the widows' questions were politically motivated, and grossly biased."

What's the point? You can't read, and you lie with abandon.

Eat shit and die, goat fucker.

 
At 18 October, 2011 17:00, Blogger snug.bug said...

Thanks for proving my point, WAQo, None of those people you quote are invited to speak at conferences.

 
At 18 October, 2011 19:48, Blogger Ian said...

WAQo, truthers don't say anything bad about me. The people who say bad things about me are liars who are not invited to speak at conferences.

False. You've been banned from the truth movement for being an obsessed liar who stalks people and wears women's underwear. Just ask Craig Ranke or Kevin Barrett or any number of other esteemed truthers.

Thanks for proving my point, WAQo, None of those people you quote are invited to speak at conferences.

Brian, do you know who does get invited to speak at conferences? Bill Deagle, whose ideas about modified attack baboons and micro-nukes make a lot more sense than your ideas about magic thermite elves.

 
At 18 October, 2011 19:49, Blogger Ian said...

UtterFail, please advise which of the widows' questions were politically motivated, and grossly biased.

None. The widows have no questions, so how could any of them have been biased or politically motivated?

 
At 18 October, 2011 19:54, Blogger Ian said...

I never heard of Rosemary Dillard. I am not aware that she ever was in a position to speak for the Jersey widows. She lived in Michigan.

Of course Rosemary Dillard is not in a position to speak for the Jersey widows, but a failed janitor and sex stalker who wears women's underwear and lives in California is in a position to speak for them.

 
At 18 October, 2011 19:55, Blogger Ian said...

The questions had not been answered in 2004 and they have not been answered today. What's to update? 27 have been answered, and 273 have not.

Brian, stop lying about your invisible widows.

 
At 18 October, 2011 20:33, Blogger Ian said...

Brian knocks Bill Deagle, but the man knows that the government has been lying to us about the Oklahoma City Bombing:

http://www.government-propaganda.com/oklahoma-city.html

Meanwhile, Brian is too much of a coward to tell us what he believes about 9/11. He just runs away squealing and crying as he did when Willie Rodriguez challenged him to a debate.

 
At 18 October, 2011 20:55, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian--Ranke and Barrett are not esteemed truthers. They are never invited to speak at conferences.

Conspiracy Con is not a truth movement conference. Deagle hasn't been invited to a truth conference in years.

I don't speak for the widows. I simply point out the fact that Condi lied to them under oath and that 91% of their 300 questions were not answered.

 
At 18 October, 2011 21:02, Blogger Ian said...

Ian--Ranke and Barrett are not esteemed truthers. They are never invited to speak at conferences.

False. Ranke and Barrett are important figures in the truth movement. You, on the other hand, are a failed janitor who was banned from the truth movement.

Conspiracy Con is not a truth movement conference. Deagle hasn't been invited to a truth conference in years.

False. Deagle is an important figure in the truth movement. You, on the other hand, are a failed janitor who was banned from the truth movement.

I don't speak for the widows. I simply point out the fact that Condi lied to them under oath and that 91% of their 300 questions were not answered.

Of course you don't speak for the widows. Laurie Van Auken wouldn't want a failed janitor who wears women's underwear and is known for stalking underage girls to speak for her.

And the widows have no questions.

 
At 18 October, 2011 21:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you lie and lie and lie and lie.

 
At 18 October, 2011 21:57, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

I just rewatched this:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/engineering-ground-zero.html

It's about the new WTC. They're reinforced the building's inner core, used a refromulated concrete, and used a stronger steel.


I wonder why.

 
At 18 October, 2011 22:08, Blogger snug.bug said...

You can't deduce that the changes are because the new design is based on the fantasy that fires brought down the original towers?

 
At 19 October, 2011 06:53, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, you lie and lie and lie and lie.

You squeal and squeal and squeal and squeal because you've been pwn3d so many times. It's hilarious how pathetic you are, Brian.

You can't deduce that the changes are because the new design is based on the fantasy that fires brought down the original towers?

We'd better listen to him, guys. He's the chair of the civil engineering department at Purdue.

Oh wait, no, he's a failed janitor who came up with such unintentionally hilarious ideas as "meatball on a fork" and "rake on rake".

Also, Brian, it wasn't just fires that brought the towers down. They were also hit by airplanes. The fact that you're unaware of the airplane impacts goes a long way towards explaining why you're so confused about 9/11.

 
At 19 October, 2011 07:09, Blogger John said...

John, Gage doed(sic) not think a hollow cardboard box is a model of a building that has a structural core in the middle. He is demonstrating basic laws of physics. The boxes do not demonstrate what should have happened and he doesn't say they do.

You either didn't watch the video, are intentionally lying, live in your own little world where you see only what you want to see, or are the stupidest person on the face of the earth.

To point out again: He says, grabbing the cardboard boxes, "I have a 95 story building. I have two 15 story buildings that I'm going to drop."And, "The one that has 80.000 tons of structural steel on it. It doesn't even give." He is obviously using it as a model.

And as I pointed out before, he confuses Newton's 2nd Law (conservation of momentum) with his third law (every action has an equal and opposite reaction)

Anyone who comes here (all 20 of you) can watch the video and decide for yourself.

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

But you're just going to respond that I'm lying or whatever.

 
At 19 October, 2011 08:30, Blogger Ian said...

You either didn't watch the video, are intentionally lying, live in your own little world where you see only what you want to see, or are the stupidest person on the face of the earth.

3 of the 4 above. Brian is a hopeless and hilarious liar. He's so dumb that he couldn't hold onto a job mopping floors, and obviously inhabits an alternate universe in which new investigations will be made, in which "meatball on a fork" gets published in an engineering journal, and in which he gets to marry Carol Brouillet.

 
At 19 October, 2011 09:18, Blogger snug.bug said...

John, Gage does not believe a 3-foot cardboard box is a 1365-foot building, so obviously he's joking when he says "I have a 95 story building." I'm sorry you're not smart enough to recognize this, but it's not my fault.

Ian, why does it require an alternate universe to have a world where the widows' 273 pending questions will be answered and NIST will fulfill the charge given it by Congress to explain why and how the towers fell?

 
At 19 October, 2011 09:44, Blogger Ian said...

John, Gage does not believe a 3-foot cardboard box is a 1365-foot building, so obviously he's joking when he says "I have a 95 story building." I'm sorry you're not smart enough to recognize this, but it's not my fault.

Brian, your slavish devotion to such a con artist is amusing. You live in a fantasy world.

Ian, why does it require an alternate universe to have a world where the widows' 273 pending questions will be answered and NIST will fulfill the charge given it by Congress to explain why and how the towers fell?

Because nobody cares about these things. You care, but you're an unemployed janitor who stalks people online. Nobody cares what you think.

Also, we already know why and how the towers fell, and the widows questions are irrelevant.

But by all means, Brian, spend the next 10 years exactly as you spent the last 10: babbling about magic thermite and talking about how some day, there will be a new investigation.

Yes, and Jesus will return on a cloud trailing fire.

 
At 19 October, 2011 09:56, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, the widows care, and the widows are somebody.

We don't know how the towers fell. NIST dodged the question. Basically they say "They fell because they fell. You can see in the videos that they fell."

I'd like to see you try to explain it. You're going to come up with some fantasy like an entire story of the building suddenly vaporized and then the top came hammering down and took the rest of the building down. You guys are so ignorant that you imagine that a hammer can sink a nail in one blow.

 
At 19 October, 2011 10:02, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, the widows care, and the widows are somebody.

Hey Brian, I thought you weren't speaking for the widows?

Brian, they haven't updated their website since 2004. They obviously don't care. You're just a cross-dressing pervert who is sexually obsessed with them and you think by babbling about them endlessly, you'll win their love. It's disturbing.

We don't know how the towers fell. NIST dodged the question. Basically they say "They fell because they fell. You can see in the videos that they fell."

You don't understand how the towers fell because you're an ignorant lunatic. The rest of us who have some grasp of physics and engineering understand it.

I'd like to see you try to explain it. You're going to come up with some fantasy like an entire story of the building suddenly vaporized and then the top came hammering down and took the rest of the building down. You guys are so ignorant that you imagine that a hammer can sink a nail in one blow.

See what I mean?

 
At 19 October, 2011 10:25, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, the website has been updated. Once again you lie.

The widows recently called on the 9/11 Commission to comment on the testimony of Behrooz Sarshar.

Ian, you can not explain how the towers fell at 2/3 gravitational acceleration through a structure that was designed to resist 3 to five times the gravitational load.
Stop pretending that you can. You can not explain symmetry or totality of collapse, the pulverization of the concrete, or the presence of molten steel in the rubble.

You're so ignorant you imagine that a hammer can sink a nail in one blow.

 
At 19 October, 2011 10:48, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, the website has been updated. Once again you lie.

False.

The widows recently called on the 9/11 Commission to comment on the testimony of Behrooz Sarshar.

False.

Ian, you can not explain how the towers fell at 2/3 gravitational acceleration through a structure that was designed to resist 3 to five times the gravitational load.

Of course I can. That you find such an occurrence suspicious just shows how hopelessly ignorant you are of basic science. Not that it surprises me how ignorant you are: after all, you're an unemployed janitor, not a professor of physics.

 
At 19 October, 2011 10:50, Blogger Ian said...

Stop pretending that you can. You can not explain symmetry or totality of collapse, the pulverization of the concrete, or the presence of molten steel in the rubble.

I also can't explain the burnt baboon fur in the rubble, the radiation detected in the debris cloud, or the alien spacecraft photographed above the burning towers.

There's a reason I can't explain those things. Would you like to hazard a guess as to what that reason is?

You're so ignorant you imagine that a hammer can sink a nail in one blow.

Squeal squeal squeal!

 
At 19 October, 2011 11:17, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Thanks for proving my point, WAQo, None of those people you quote are invited to speak at conferences.

But yet you refuse to debate Willie and others while in a conference.

 
At 19 October, 2011 11:37, Blogger snug.bug said...

I didn't refuse to debate Willie. I proposed many alternate venues for a debate. Willie insisted that it had to be sponsored by his gossip-mongering JREF buddies Pat and James. Why do you suppose that was?

 
At 19 October, 2011 11:50, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

I didn't refuse to debate Willie.

No, you chickened out many times, including on here. Liar!

I proposed many alternate venues for a debate.

Yeah right, in your mind only you'd talk & you'd pay someone to keep Willie quiet. That's not much of a debate, but a cowards way out.

Willie insisted that it had to be sponsored by his gossip-mongering JREF buddies Pat and James. Why do you suppose that was?

Because JREF is a place where questions reguarding your theories are put to the scientific test to see if your "facts" hold any validity. But your refusal to debate only shows Pat & James that you're just sitting there making up shit & lying out your ass. And you do exactly that.

 
At 19 October, 2011 11:56, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Here's undeniable proof that BRian wanted Willie Rodriguez to be kept quiet while Brian debated Willie on Carol's radio show:

"I proposed a debate on Carol's radio show so she would have edit power, because I feared that Willie would introduce material that reflected poorly on her."

Edit power? Really Brian?! Why the fuck would you want Carol edit anything Willie had to say against you? I guess when it comes to mice or men you're the mouse.

 
At 19 October, 2011 11:58, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Brian's obsession with Carol:

roo, the need to edit the debate is because for years the con artist Willie Rodriguez and the bigot Kevin Barrett have been hiding behind the skirts of Carol Brouillet.

What Kevin Barrett & Willie had to say wasn't reguarding Carol, it was reguarding you.

 
At 19 October, 2011 12:01, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"The debate would need to be edited to remove Willie's cowardly lies involving Carol Brouillet--which have nothing to do with the fact that he stole his hero story from Pablo Ortiz, and that he is a lying con artist."

I didn't know that Carol knew Pablo Ortiz or is it in you imagination that she did meet him?

 
At 19 October, 2011 12:03, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"Real time media are not appropriate for dealings with people who will lie."

So you would back down in a debate with Willie on live TV because you know that it was you that was lying?

Please tell me more Brian!

 
At 19 October, 2011 12:05, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

We've all heard this one before when Brian said:

"I'm fully prepared to discuss Willie Rodriguez's lies."

What's stopping you Brian? Don't want to make yourself look like an ass on radio or TV??

 
At 19 October, 2011 12:12, Blogger John said...

obviously he's joking when he says "I have a 95 story building."

*facepalm*

Oh what the heck. Once more for old times' sake:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chVPi-CZ34E

 
At 19 October, 2011 12:16, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Brian, let me get this straight: You think that Willie Rodriguez, one of the heros of 9/11, is secretly a "vigilante" that took Pablo Ortiz's words and used it for his own personal gain. And your plan is to blackmail Willie with rhetoric and slanderous statements? Good luck.

 
At 19 October, 2011 12:22, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

I'm waiting for Brian to have some come back posts reguarding his own statements about paying someone to keep Willie Rodriguez quiet if Willie debated him.

Either that or he's going to come back with more whining about how Willie is a "little girl" & saying: "Willie doesn't want ot debate me beasue he's a coward."

 
At 19 October, 2011 12:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

I never chickened out. I proposed many alternate venues for a debate.

Yes, I wanted Carol to have edit power over Willie's statements.

 
At 19 October, 2011 12:52, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

I never chickened out. I proposed many alternate venues for a debate.

When you say "proposed" ou really mean chickening out, right?

Yes, I wanted Carol to have edit power over Willie's statements.

But that's not a real debate if you manipulate Willie's arguements against you. Still suggesting that you're a coward and don't want to be a man and "take it in the ass" (figure of speech) from Willie?

 
At 19 October, 2011 12:56, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Let me get this straight Brian.

You would PAY someone to physically keep Willie quiet while you talked shit about him, but you wouldn't let him counter your arguements because you're a chickenshit?

 
At 19 October, 2011 13:00, Blogger Ian said...

I never chickened out. I proposed many alternate venues for a debate.

False. This is what actually happened: you blustered about debating Willie Rodriguez "any place, any time". He challenged you to a debate hosted by Pat and James. You ran away squealing and crying from the challenge, babbling the whole time about how you would only have the debate on Carol Brouillet's radio show, even though you know full well that Carol considers you a disgusting sex predator and pervert and would never let you on her show.

Yes, I wanted Carol to have edit power over Willie's statements.

Of course you did. You're a pathetic coward in women's underwear who could never stand up to a hero like Willie, so you need the power to change the record when you lose.

A coward and bully who wears women's underwear and can't even mop floors correctly. That's you, Brian.

 
At 19 October, 2011 13:06, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Brian openly admits to being banned from 9/11 Forums "more than once":

"Having been banned myself at most of the popular 9/11 forums (sometimes more than once!) I agree that censorship is a brute-force tactic. But I also recognize that bad actors can be extremely disruptive if given the opportunity. I put quite a lot of time in at ScrewLooseChange, and people who post blatant lies persistently there are very disruptive and harmful to the credibility of the forum."

Screw Loose Change isn't Brian Good's own personal blog. Though he wishes it was, but that's his imagination.

 
At 19 October, 2011 13:07, Blogger Garry said...

'Ever get the feeling that this guy just really, really needs to get laid?'

'Pat Cowardly' has had sex before. It's just that he needed six tequilas to wash the foul taste out of his mouth afterwards.

 
At 19 October, 2011 13:14, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

In Brian's own words:

"Carol personalized my criticisms of those two discrediting people (Kevin Barrett/William Rodriguez) as criticisms of her. She indicated in an email that if I was going to attend meetings, she wouldn't."

If Carol wasn't going to attend meetings while Brian was there is a clear indication that Brian was stalking and harassing her and Brian constantly lied about not harassing her.

 
At 19 October, 2011 13:26, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

I guess I've stumped Brian with his own words.


Waiting for Brian's meltdown in

5

4

3

2

1

 
At 19 October, 2011 13:30, Blogger Ian said...

Where did you find those comments, WAQ?

I'm curious if we can add another sockpuppet to Brian's collection: petgoat, punxsutawneybarney, truebeleaguer, truetruther, contrivance, snug.bug, etc.

 
At 19 October, 2011 13:31, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Craig Ranke CIT talks about Brian's attempts to discredit him when Brian e-mailed him back in 2009:

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1092

Brian backs down!

 
At 19 October, 2011 13:32, Blogger Ian said...

Having been banned myself at most of the popular 9/11 forums (sometimes more than once!) I agree that censorship is a brute-force tactic.

This is rich coming from someone who wants to be able to edit (re: censor) Willie Rodriguez in a debate, and has demanded that Pat and James ban me from this blog.

But at least we have him confirming what we all knew: that the truth movement doesn't want a loon like Brian anywhere near it.

 
At 19 October, 2011 13:38, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Ian,

I did a Goolge search: "Brian Good 9/11" and just stumbled on some of his own posts. Of course I should've made a mental note on where they are but I'll find them again in time.

 
At 19 October, 2011 13:38, Blogger Ian said...

From the Craig Ranke link that WAQ posted above:

He pretty much kept quiet while listening to me intently the entire time with a bit of a disturbed look on his face.

C'mon, Craig, that's just how Brian looks normally. An unemployed middle-aged man with serious mental health problems just looks like that all the time.

 
At 19 October, 2011 13:39, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

But at least we have him confirming what we all knew: that the truth movement doesn't want a loon like Brian anywhere near it.

LMFAO! Dammit now my sides are hurting from laughing too hard.

 
At 19 October, 2011 13:42, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"Sadly Brian is putting all his energy into counterproductive attacks, and I am doing my best to ignore him, and not let bother me, and I try to channel my anger into something productive like the work at hand."
-Carol Brouillet

November 20th, 2007


Coming from Carol none the less! Brian, WTF did you do to her?

 
At 19 October, 2011 13:44, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Craig Ranke:

"Brian Good immerses himself in various truth groups with volunteer activism. He eventually gets upset, angry, antagonistic, controlling and demanding with the leaders of these groups over whatever he chooses to disagree with, and he ultimately causes disruption, division, distraction, and strife."

No shit Craig, we knew that also!

 
At 19 October, 2011 13:50, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Brian's own words (from Craig Ranke site):

"Since I studied science in college, and worked in law firms after, I am familiar with both scientific and legal (civil and criminal) standards of proof. "

Wow, just wow! What a great white lie Brian told Craig.

 
At 19 October, 2011 13:54, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Craig Ranke:

"So after days and days of extremely detailed "debate" during this email discussion it ended with Brian Good running scared from MY challenge to an audio debate."

Yup, just like he ran away from Willie Rodriguez's challenge for an open debate.

 
At 19 October, 2011 14:16, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

I thought I heard Brian fart as he left with his face in his hands screaming: "Why won't they leave me alone?!"

Well Brian, after so much abuse I just had to take matters into my own hands. I'm gonna start using your own words against you and see how you like it.

 
At 19 October, 2011 15:06, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, I proposed that Carol have edit power so that she could cut anything Willie said that was damaging to innocent third parties. I didn't propose to pay her for it.

Ian, you lie, as usual.

WAQo, you leap to ludicrous conclusions.

I didn't "attempt to discredit" Ranke. I pwned him every time--in an email exchange, at 911oz, at Op Ed News, at a French blog, and at the artists' zetaboard.

I told you what I did to Carol: I humiliated her by exposing people she considered friends as bigots and liars. She found that very stressful.

 
At 19 October, 2011 15:36, Blogger Ian said...

WAQo, I proposed that Carol have edit power so that she could cut anything Willie said that was damaging to innocent third parties. I didn't propose to pay her for it.

Stop lying, Brian.

Ian, you lie, as usual.

False.

I didn't "attempt to discredit" Ranke. I pwned him every time--in an email exchange, at 911oz, at Op Ed News, at a French blog, and at the artists' zetaboard.

False. You just posted endless dumbspam about an esteemed truther which is one of the many things that got you expelled from the truth movement.

Now you're reduced to posting dumbspam here because no truther site will have you. It's hilarious.

I told you what I did to Carol: I humiliated her by exposing people she considered friends as bigots and liars. She found that very stressful.

Which is why she accused you of trying to wreck her marriage, right?

Brian, what's so hilarious about your lies is how obvious they are. You lie about as well as you mop floors and understand physics.

 
At 19 October, 2011 17:09, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ranke is not an esteemed truther. He is not invited to speak at conferences.

Carol didn't accuse me of trying to wreck her marriage. She said she thought I wanted to wreck her marriage (and she was wrong about that). Your inability to recognize these simple differences shows you for a fool.

 
At 19 October, 2011 18:22, Blogger Ian said...

Ranke is not an esteemed truther. He is not invited to speak at conferences.

How do you know who is esteemed in the truth movement? You're not part of the movement, as they kicked you out for being a liar and a sex stalker.


Carol didn't accuse me of trying to wreck her marriage. She said she thought I wanted to wreck her marriage (and she was wrong about that). Your inability to recognize these simple differences shows you for a fool.

See what I mean? You're a liar and a sex stalker and you pretty much admitted that you're a liar and sex stalker with this ridiculous statement. You can squeal all you want, Brian. It doesn't change the facts about you.

 
At 19 October, 2011 21:01, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, it seems you are easily misled by liars who tell you what you want to believe.

You also have a great capacity for self-deception. It's a deadly combination.

All in all, you have an enormous aptitude for being FOS.

 
At 20 October, 2011 06:52, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, it seems you are easily misled by liars who tell you what you want to believe.

Brian, I don't believe your lies, so obviously I'm not misled by liars. I also don't want to believe that you're a vicious pervert and stalker, but that's what everyone who knows you says.

You also have a great capacity for self-deception. It's a deadly combination.

This coming from the guy who says that he isn't petgoat, insists there will be a new investigation, and acts as a spokesman for the Jersey widows.

All in all, you have an enormous aptitude for being FOS.

Squeal squeal squeal!

So Brian, are we getting that new investigation? Has "meatball on a fork" been published in an engineering journal? Did Richard Gage let you back in his group?

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!

 
At 20 October, 2011 09:31, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian you lie.

 
At 20 October, 2011 09:34, Blogger Ian said...

And Brian is reduced to just saying "you lie". Hey, at least he didn't call us "girls" this time!

Game. Set. Match. I win again, Brian. I will always win over you because I'm smart and sane while you're stupid and insane. I'm successful and you're a failure. That's just the way it is.

 
At 20 October, 2011 10:30, Blogger snug.bug said...

You will always make empty claims of victory and when you do, you lie.

You're doing a touchdown dance in an empty stadium.

 
At 20 October, 2011 10:34, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, I proposed that Carol have edit power so that she could cut anything Willie said that was damaging to innocent third parties. I didn't propose to pay her for it.

I never said that you'd pay Carol, I said SOMEONE. Learn how to read you illiterate jackass.

WAQo, you leap to ludicrous conclusions.

As do you Brian, as do you.

I didn't "attempt to discredit" Ranke. I pwned him every time--in an email exchange, at 911oz, at Op Ed News, at a French blog, and at the artists' zetaboard.

As I read the exchange you and Craig had it seems that you did back off when he told you off. You actually never pwned him, he pwned you and your emails to him show that he did pwn you.

I told you what I did to Carol: I humiliated her by exposing people she considered friends as bigots and liars. She found that very stressful.

Lies and more lies Brian, according to Carol it didn't happen that way.

 
At 20 October, 2011 10:39, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Carol Brouillet in her own words about Brian:

You cannot accept the fact that I am happily married and refuse to allow you to TRY to cause trouble between my husband and I. Because of your delusions, I cannot ever feel "safe" in your presence alone, and would rather not see you again...Leave me alone- stop the email attacks on me and others. I think it probably harms your reputation more than mine, although it is horrifically embarrassing to me to think that at one time I thought of you as a friend. Now I only see you as a threat to me, my family, the Northern California 9/11 Truth Alliance and the 9/11 Truth Movement. I have zero confidence in your judgement and rationality."

I needn't say anymore. Brian will continue to lie about harassing and stalking Carol.

 
At 20 October, 2011 10:43, Blogger Ian said...

You will always make empty claims of victory and when you do, you lie.

You're doing a touchdown dance in an empty stadium.


My, such squealing!

Brian, you haven't gotten a new investigation, or the widows questions answered yet, or "meatball on a fork" published. You haven't gotten Willie Rodriguez to marry you.

Every day that goes by while you haven't gotten these things accomplished is a victory for me. Every day where you just post dumbspam on this blog is a victory for me.

 
At 20 October, 2011 10:46, Blogger Ian said...

Hmm, Carol thinks Brian is delusional and she has no confidence in his judgment or rationality.

But he seems like such a sane, rational person here....

 
At 20 October, 2011 11:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 20 October, 2011 11:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, I not only pwned Ranke every time, I forced him and that nutjob Rob Balsamo to abandon the claim that flight 77 landed at DCA runway 15 because I showed that runway 15 was not long enough for 757s to land on it.

Carol's statement complains about what she (wrongly) believed was in my mind. There is nothing in there about harassing her. She was upset because I exposed some of her friends as bigots and liars, and for a long time the only way she could process that information was to invent fantastical rationalizations for her wish that I was wrong. I did not harass her. Maybe somebody made prank phone calls (whatever happened to Troy, by the way?), but it wasn't me.

 
At 20 October, 2011 11:25, Blogger Ian said...

Carol's statement complains about what she (wrongly) believed was in my mind.

No, she was quite right about what was in your mind. You're a sick pervert who stalks men (Willie R.), women (Carol), and children (Chinese gymnasts).

She was upset because I exposed some of her friends as bigots and liars, and for a long time the only way she could process that information was to invent fantastical rationalizations for her wish that I was wrong. I did not harass her. Maybe somebody made prank phone calls (whatever happened to Troy, by the way?), but it wasn't me.

False. You harassed her. You tried to wreck her marriage. You did this because you are a sick perverted maniac who is incapable of having a normal relationship with people.

And this laughable paragraph above does nothing to dispel the notion that you're delusional as Carol says.

 
At 20 October, 2011 12:01, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, I not only pwned Ranke every time, I forced him and that nutjob Rob Balsamo to abandon the claim that flight 77 landed at DCA runway 15 because I showed that runway 15 was not long enough for 757s to land on it.

No you didn't liar!

Craig Ranke said the following:

"Brian Good has been on an internet rampage to personally discredit CIT and the witnesses we present. He has claimed numerous times publicly that he has "kicked" my "ass" in a private email debate that we had and that I have "fled" from his questions so I have decided to make that discussion public for others to judge for themselves despite his failure to grant permission. His insistence on making claims and accusations about this discussion while not wanting others to be able to read the discussion speaks volumes.

The irony here is the fact that at the end this rather involved email discussion, where I clearly did not flee, you will see how I challenged him to a public debate that he quickly declined."


I quote:

"I clearly did not flee, you will see how I challenged him to a public debate that he quickly declined."

Liar!

 
At 20 October, 2011 12:02, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

There is nothing in there about harassing her.

Actually you did and she made this very statement about you:

"You cannot accept the fact that I am happily married and refuse to allow you to TRY to cause trouble between my husband and I. Because of your delusions, I cannot ever feel "safe" in your presence alone..."

Liar!

 
At 20 October, 2011 12:09, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

I like this bit where Brian says something about Flt. 77 "flying over" the Pentagon then changes his mind:

"All along I have supported the concept of flyover, saying maybe
witnesses saw the plane AND something else caused the damage,
as Dr. Griffin suggested in TNPH.

I'm not saying flyover is impossible, I'm just saying it's not proven."


Clearly Brian doesn't do well with intellectual thinking. But I'm glad he did say that Flt. 77 didn't "fly over".

 
At 20 October, 2011 14:01, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian you lie and lie. You don't seem to recognize your circular reasoning. You seem to think I'm guilty of what you accuse me of because I'm the kind of guy that does what you accuse me of. You're wrong.

WAQo, Ranke's lying. He fled the email exchange, claiming that all my questions had been raised before (but not providing any answers). Then he lied about the email exchange by presenting only part of it on his website.

There's nothing in Carol's statement about harassment. She says she refuses to allow me to try to hurt her marriage. If I say I refuse to allow Ian to lick my butthole, that's not saying that Ian is trying to lick my butthole.

 
At 20 October, 2011 14:17, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, Ranke's lying. He fled the email exchange, claiming that all my questions had been raised before (but not providing any answers). Then he lied about the email exchange by presenting only part of it on his website.

Craig said to you:

"So let's play hardball. I will debate anyone anytime anywhere on this issue. You just called Kevin a "gutless wonder" for allegedly not wanting to debate you "on the record". Do YOU have the "guts" to stand up to YOUR convictions in a debate "on the record" with me? Since you have obviously become passionate about this topic and have such a definitive opinion against the evidence we present I formally challenge you to a live debate either video or audio recorded over the phone. Do you accept or are you proclaiming yourself a "gutless wonder" by your own standards?"

And you replied:

"A written internet forum would provide an opportunity for thoughtful reponses and
well-crafted statements of the points. Real-time media such as those favored by
Dr. Barrett just further glib bullshit. You're already shot down, and I don't see how
re-enacting it will help anything. If CIT isn't going to get the NYC platform, I'm not sure there's any point in discussing it any more."


I quote what you said in the end: I'm not sure there's any point in discussing it any more.

You backed down from Craig, period!

There's nothing in Carol's statement about harassment. She says she refuses to allow me to try to hurt her marriage.

That's harassment!

 
At 20 October, 2011 14:25, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Yup, when challenged to a debate Brian (the no) Good (coward) backs down from it.

He backed down from debates with Kevin Barrett, Willie Rodriguez & Craig Ranke. That leaves him in the postiion of being a chickenshit.

I challenge Brian to a debate about 9/11.

 
At 20 October, 2011 14:33, Blogger Ian said...

Ian you lie and lie. You don't seem to recognize your circular reasoning. You seem to think I'm guilty of what you accuse me of because I'm the kind of guy that does what you accuse me of. You're wrong.

No, I think you're guilty of what I accuse you of because the evidence is quite clear that you're guilty of what I accuse you of.

It's obvious from the statements made by Carol, as well as your endless internet activity, that you're a disgusting pervert who stalks people.

 
At 20 October, 2011 14:35, Blogger Ian said...

There's nothing in Carol's statement about harassment. She says she refuses to allow me to try to hurt her marriage.

Right, you were stalking her and harassing her and telling her husband that she was having an affair with Barrett and Rodriguez. I'm sure there were other disgusting things you did (send photos of yourself in a thong, perhaps) to get her to dissociate herself from you, but I have to go with what we have evidence for.

And of course you try to get people on this blog to contact her for you since she won't have anything to do with you. That's classic stalker behavior.

 
At 20 October, 2011 14:38, Blogger Ian said...

And of course, Brian the coward ran squealing and crying from Craig Ranke just as he ran squealing and crying from Willie Rodriguez.

Brian is a big tough guy when it comes to women and anonymous internet forums. Ask him to stand up to those he harasses, and suddenly his courage collapses at free-fall speed.

 
At 20 October, 2011 15:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 20 October, 2011 18:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 20 October, 2011 22:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, I'm sorry you're incompetent but it's not my fault. You make stuff up.

Ian, you have provided no evidence. You make stuff up. A lawyer friend advises me to tell you "You are libeling me. I am asking you nicely. Cease and desist."

 
At 21 October, 2011 06:52, Blogger Ian said...

WAQo, I'm sorry you're incompetent but it's not my fault. You make stuff up.

False. He's not making stuff up. You're just a liar. We have far more evidence for your sexual predator nature than you have for thermite in the WTC.

Ian, you have provided no evidence. You make stuff up. A lawyer friend advises me to tell you "You are libeling me. I am asking you nicely. Cease and desist."

Squeal squeal squeal!

Brian, you have no friends. You also have no family, no job, you wear women's underwear, and you were thrown out of the truth movement for being a liar and sex stalker.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home