Paul's Truther Buddy Franchi Gets Attention
Now will the Ronulans shut up about the media ignoring their candidate?
The leader of the group, its founder, chairman and treasurer, is Gary Franchi, a promoter of conspiracy theories and sophisticated social-media entrepreneur in the resurgent movement known as the Patriots.No surprise, Franchi's PAC intends to cover yet another conspiracy theory:
The 34-year-old political activist from the Chicago suburbs told msnbc.com that his goal is a "non-violent intellectual revolution, which results in a full restoration of the federal Constitution." Franchi has supported the 9/11 Truth Movement, which supports the idea that the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, werean inside job to create a pretext for a reduction in American liberty, or at least involved a cover-up, with the World Trade Center brought down by a planned U.S. demolition, instead of terrorist-controlled airplanes.
A Super PAC supporting Paul has pledged to monitor the vote in all the remaining states, using an army of exit pollsters to fight what it calls results that are "outrageous, unacceptable and patently un-American." The group, called Revolution PAC, has spent half a million dollars supporting Paul with videos, webcasts, online ads, direct mail, billboards and radio ads in primary and caucus states.Yep, they assume that Ron Paul has won every primary out there, but the voting machines have been stealing votes from him. After all, hasn't Ron Paul won every online primary?
posted by Pat @ 9:52 AM
52 comments
52 Comments:
Pat wrote, "...Yep, they assume that Ron Paul has won every primary out there, but the voting machines have been stealing votes from him. After all, hasn't Ron Paul won every online primary?"
Recall Bernard Baruch's old adage--and I quote:
"...If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." -- Bernard Baruch
This sounds like a variation on Brian's 84%. One of the necessary elements of a conspiracy theory is that everyone secretly agrees with you, they're just being suppressed/intimidated/paid off/whatever. So everyone in this country is really a truther who would vote for Ron Paul.
Ronulans... that's good one. Heh.
Diebold and ES&S were two companies that between them controlled 80% of the US market for electronic voting machines. Originally they were one company, so the technology of both had the same heritage. Now ES&S has bought Diebold's voting machine division, so now one company controls 80% of the US voting machine market.
These clowns are so lousy at security that when they installed the machines in Georgia, several of them were stolen from their hotel.
They put their code on an unsecured FTP site where election-integrity activists were able to download it.
They posted a picture of a spare case key on their web store--the actual key, so anybody could make their own copy.
Diebold also does ATMs. Every password to every single one I work on, no matter which bank it is for, is exactly the same.
But I'm not saying there's a conspiracy, in fact.. WHY AREN'T MORE ATMS GETTING ROBBED?! Seriously, it'd be too damn easy.
Once again, Brian has innuendo and nothing else. He'll babble about companies that benefited from 9/11, Diebold, Supreme Court Justices that were going to face impeachment before 9/11, etc.
Brian refuses to acknowledge that Cantor Fitzgerald could have benefited from 9/11. Brian, did you know that the (Jewish, of course) CEO of Cantor wasn't at his office on the morning of 9/11? I wonder how much stock in Lockheed Martin and Halliburton he owned at the time....
Skimark, you can not possibly incorporate so much logical fallacy (red herring, straw man, ad hominem) into so few words without doing it deliberately.
Skimark, you can not possibly incorporate so much logical fallacy (red herring, straw man, ad hominem) into so few words without doing it deliberately.
What did I tell you about babbling about "logic", Brian? Everyone just laughs at you when you do that since you have no idea what that term means.
So, by all means, continue to entertain us all by babbling about magic thermite elves if you want, but it's not going to get the widows' questions answered.
"everyone" meaning jobless Ian, GutterBitch, and Shillman, who can't help but make asses of themselves here every single day. You know, THAT 'everyone'.
"everyone" meaning jobless Ian, GutterBitch, and Shillman, who can't help but make asses of themselves here every single day. You know, THAT 'everyone'.
I'm sorry that you're not as amusing as Brian, but you should be used to failure by now, given that you're an unemployed virgin living with mom after you "defeated" Burger King.
Still have the unintentionally hilarious beard?
"everyone" meaning jobless Ian, GutterBitch, and Shillman, who can't help but make asses of themselves here every single day. You know, THAT 'everyone'.
So....how's that new investigation coming along?
It's coming well. Many of Dr. Jones's thermite findings were replicated by another lab. Jonathan Cole has shown that with 2 pounds of thermate he can cut a substantial steel girder. Mainstream books have raised the issue of coverups of Saudi involvement. Kevin Fenton's book "Disconnecting the Dots" and Dr. Paul Rea's book "Mounting Evidence" are solidly researched and devastating to the official claims. David Chandler continues to refine his work about the acceleration involved in the destruction of the towers and WTC7, and the FOIA releases are taking a lot of energy to go through, so that takes time. Thanks for asking.
Ron Paul doesn't like the military, he doesn't like national security and he's an anti-semite.
In 4 short words: He's a Dick!
It's coming well. Many of Dr. Jones's thermite findings were replicated by another lab. Jonathan Cole has shown that with 2 pounds of thermate he can cut a substantial steel girder. Mainstream books have raised the issue of coverups of Saudi involvement. Kevin Fenton's book "Disconnecting the Dots" and Dr. Paul Rea's book "Mounting Evidence" are solidly researched and devastating to the official claims. David Chandler continues to refine his work about the acceleration involved in the destruction of the towers and WTC7, and the FOIA releases are taking a lot of energy to go through, so that takes time. Thanks for asking.
So to answer John's question, there are no new investigations, but there are a bunch of crackpots tilting at windmills, and a failed janitor and lunatic who believes in modified attack baboons wants to tell us about this.
Yes, there are new investigations. And there's no need to rush. Increasing computer power will permit the running of new computer models that NIST claimed they didn't have the computer power to run in 2005 (actually I suspect that they ran them and ran them and ran them and, of course, found that no matter how the fudged the inpute they could not get the results they wanted).
Yes, there are new investigations. And there's no need to rush. Increasing computer power will permit the running of new computer models that NIST claimed they didn't have the computer power to run in 2005
Yes, you've said this many times before, Brian. And once they run these models, and they don't tell you what you want to hear, you'll start squealing and babbling about how they didn't account for the "baffling" aspects of the collapse, like symmetry, totality, pulverization of the concrete, burnt baboon fur in the wreckage, laser burns on the steel, and radiation detected in the dust.
actually I suspect that they ran them and ran them and ran them and, of course, found that no matter how the fudged the inpute they could not get the results they wanted
Of course you suspect this. You're a paranoid lunatic, liar, and ignoramus who believes in magic thermite elves.
I'm surprised the investigation isn't further along, given the contributions that Ian, John, and GutterBitch bring to the discussion. Also, Pat's grasp of the physics, and JamesB's knowledge of both the scientific method AND homonyms...
Oh wait. Nevermind.
Skidmark, the reason I suspect that NIST ran computer models that gave results not to their liking is because in the same letter where they admitted that they could not "provide a full explanation of the total collapse", they also admitted that they terminated their collapse models at the point of collapse initiation because after that the models did not converge on a single solution. It other words, no matter how many times they they tried they couldn't get a symmetrical, total, near-freefall collapse--it was always asymmetrical, as any reasonable person would expect from asymmetrical damage.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I'm surprised the investigation isn't further along,
I'm not. Because there will never be a second investigation.
Just like there wasn't another investigation into JFK's assassination.
Or how there wasn't a first investigation about how the Air Force is hiding information about UFOs.
Or how there wasn't investigation on how the radical Republicans of 1865 killed Lincoln.
Or how there wasn't another investigation on how FDR knew Pearl Harbor was coming. After 9 inquiries cleared him. 9.
The mad beliefs and actions of a minority of conspiracy crackpots never causes investigations.
BTW, thanks for finally responding to my question after a year of my posting it.
BUt, please, continue to waste your life by posting insults on this blog. I'm sure you'll be proud of it on your deathbed, when there still won't be another investigation into 9/11.
Another investigation is inevitable. It will become a challenge for computer modelers to try to build a model that can act like the towers did or that can exhibit 2.25 seconds of freefall like WTC7 did. It will probably become a very popular subject for Master's theses and PhD dissertations.
NIST states in the first pages of every volume of its tower reports that one of the objectives was to explain why and how the towers collapsed. They did not explain how. They did not fulfil the objectives of their investigation.
"everyone" meaning jobless Ian, GutterBitch, and Shillman, who can't help but make asses of themselves here every single day. You know, THAT 'everyone'.
Please, I'm barely here once a month anymore.
Anyway, you're also forgetting TroyFromWV and Unsecured Coins. They drop by occasionally too.
Another investigation is inevitable. It will become a challenge for computer modelers to try to build a model that can act like the towers did or that can exhibit 2.25 seconds of freefall like WTC7 did. It will probably become a very popular subject for Master's theses and PhD dissertations.
NIST states in the first pages of every volume of its tower reports that one of the objectives was to explain why and how the towers collapsed. They did not explain how. They did not fulfil the objectives of their investigation.
Alright Brian, let's say we buy all of that. And I'm sorry if this is a strawman or "shilling for the GOV" or whatever, but WHY does it HAVE TO BE thermite caused the buildings to collapse?
It other words, no matter how many times they they tried they couldn't get a symmetrical, total, near-freefall collapse--it was always asymmetrical, as any reasonable person would expect from asymmetrical damage.
And whaddya know, the collapse of the towers weren't total or symmetrical (BTW, nice dodge with "near-freefall").
Another investigation is inevitable. It will become a challenge for computer modelers to try to build a model that can act like the towers did or that can exhibit 2.25 seconds of freefall like WTC7 did. It will probably become a very popular subject for Master's theses and PhD dissertations.
Yup, and when they don't account for pyroclastic flows in the dust cloud, you'll start squealing and call the scientists who do the simulations "girls".
THE NEXT 911 WILL BE IN WASHINGTON DC!!! - http://nucleardc2012.livejournal.com/
Just like there wasn't another investigation into JFK's assassination.
Oh, but there was. The resulting mess is a lesson against pandering to conspiracy nuts. Some of the testimony is really interesting, particularly volume 4, in which the Deep Mystery of the Umbrella Man is finally solved.
THE NEXT 911 WILL BE IN WASHINGTON DC!!! - http://nucleardc2012.livejournal.com/
So... wouldn't that solve all of the troofers problems with the government, then? Plus, the prevailing winds will carry any fallout into the ocean.
no matter how many times they they tried they couldn't get a symmetrical, total, near-freefall collapse--it was always asymmetrical,
That's interesting. Where are you getting that? "The models failed to converge" doesn't lead there by itself.
Billman, it doesn't have to be thermite, so that's a straw man.
RGT, if the models didn't converge then obviously they did not provide a centered collapse. Only a centered collapse can provide the total, near-free-fall collapse that we observed in the videos.
Billman, it doesn't have to be thermite, so that's a straw man.
Right, it's thermite when it's convenient, and it's explosives when it's convenient. Also, al Qaeda did it when it's convenient, and the Bush administration. Holding contradictory positions is fine so long as the absolutely certainty in 9/11 being an inside job is maintained.
Brian will now start squealing about how these positions are not "contradictory" and give us a wonderful analogy like "I can shave with soap and shave with shaving cream". He'll also deny believing that 9/11 was an inside job, and will call us "girls".
Skidmark, I am really tired of explaining to you that your insistence that we must all operate at your sixth-grade functional level and leap to comparing theories before we have even established the facts is unscientific, unintelligent, and muddies the waters.
There's no reason it can't be about al Qaeda when it's about al Qaeda and the Bush administration when it's about the Bush administration. Obviously al Qaeda did not disrupt the air defense or perpetrate the investigatory coverups.
I wouldn't call you a girl, skidmark. I call you what you are.
RGT, if the models didn't converge then obviously they did not provide a centered collapse.
Is it possible you're construing the word "converge" in the wrong sense?
Skidmark, I am really tired of explaining to you that your insistence that we must all operate at your sixth-grade functional level and leap to comparing theories before we have even established the facts is unscientific, unintelligent, and muddies the waters.
Like I said, Brian will start squealing and deny that all the dumbspam he posts contains multiple contradictory positions.
There's no reason it can't be about al Qaeda when it's about al Qaeda and the Bush administration when it's about the Bush administration.
So when was it about al Qaeda and when was it about the Bush administration?
This should be good....
I wouldn't call you a girl, skidmark. I call you what you are.
Actually, you haven't called me an intelligent, successful adult who dismisses conspiracy theories, as that's what I am.
I do call you what you are, however. You are a failed janitor, liar, and lunatic who was thrown out of the truth movement for stalking Carol Brouillet, spams the internet as "petgoat", "punxsutawneybarney, "truebeleaguer", "contrivance", etc, washes his hair with soap, wears women's underwear, and believes in magic thermite elves and invisible widows.
Oh man, this is rich:
"Skidmark, I am really tired of explaining to you that your insistence that we must all operate at your sixth-grade functional level and leap to comparing theories"
Now we can establish where Brian was booted from school and educated at home - 5th grade.
Skidmark, you lie.
RGT, of course it's "possible" that I am in error, but I doubt it. Either the towers failed symmetrically or asymmetrically. For me to be wrong the different iterations of the model would have resulted (out of dozens of possible collapse modes) in multiple symmetrical modes which could differ only in terms of collapse speed.
If that were the case, then NIST would be expected to proclaim that their model confirmed collapse symmetry, though the mechanics of the total collapse were too complex to model accurately.
That's not what they did. They terminated the model at the moment the collapse began, and they said that after that the solutions did not converge.
Ron Paul isn't a truther. Who cares what one of his supporters believe?
I guess people who are desperate to scrape up anything that can possibly be twisted into something they can frame as reflecting negatively on the truth movement care.
RGT, of course it's "possible" that I am in error, but I doubt it.
Of course you doubt it. Dunning-Kruger and all that. You're too stupid to understand how stupid you are.
Either the towers failed symmetrically or asymmetrically. For me to be wrong the different iterations of the model would have resulted (out of dozens of possible collapse modes) in multiple symmetrical modes which could differ only in terms of collapse speed.
See what I mean? You're babbling about "symmetry" to the collapses, even though there's absolutely no evidence that the collapses were symmetrical. You just sniffed a lot of glue and watched youtube videos to come to that conclusion.
I guess people who are desperate to scrape up anything that can possibly be twisted into something they can frame as reflecting negatively on the truth movement care.
Brian, there's no need to "twist" anything to reflect negatively on the truthers. The fact that the "movement" is a tiny crackpot fringe of liars, lunatics, charlatan, anti-semites, etc. is enough. I mean, look at you. You're a failed janitor who wears women's underwear and babbles about magic thermite elves. How can you expect anyone to take you seriously?
Skidmark, anybody can look at the videos and see that the collapses were as symmetrical as any tree, squid, or crystal.
The fact that you must resort to lying ad hominems only shows that you can not support your position on a rational basis.
Skidmark, anybody can look at the videos and see that the collapses were as symmetrical as any tree, squid, or crystal.
Thanks for proving my point. The assertions of "symmetry" are nothing but the lunatic babblings of a failed janitor who wears women's underwear and was thrown out of the truth movement for being a disgusting sex stalker.
The fact that you must resort to lying ad hominems only shows that you can not support your position on a rational basis.
Poor Brian. He knows I'm right and he knows his "widows" will never have their questions answered, so all he can do is squeal and squeal.
If that were the case, then NIST would be expected to proclaim that their model confirmed collapse symmetry, though the mechanics of the total collapse were too complex to model accurately.
To paraphrase, you're saying the collapse models must have shown asymmetrical collapses because NIST would have called attention to them had they shown symmetrical collapses?
No I'm not saying "must". I'll leave that kind of irrational hyperbole to youse guys.
I'm saying the most reasonable suspicion is that because NIST failed to cite symmetry in its collapse models, therefore there was no symmetry in its collapse models.
No I'm not saying "must". I'll leave that kind of irrational hyperbole to youse guys.
This is just another variation on "I don't know what happened, that's why we need a new investigation". Brian always runs away squealing and crying when asked to make an assertion about what he believes happened on 9/11. That's because he knows that stating what he believes will make him look like a liar and lunatic.
Brian, we already know you're a liar and lunatic, so you wouldn't lose anything by clearly stating your belief that the WTC towers were destroyed by magic thermite sprayed-on by invisible elevator repairmen.
I'm saying the most reasonable suspicion is that because NIST failed to cite symmetry in its collapse models, therefore there was no symmetry in its collapse models.
No, the most reasonable suspicion is that "symmetry" is yet another one of your delusions, like your belief that the widows have questions.
Also, Brian, you still haven't told us whether or not you believe that baboons exist. What are you afraid of? Did Willie Rodriguez tell you that baboons don't exist?
Really, Paul's not a truther. I don't want to get involved in a 9/11 debate, but I'm not sure why people think this.
http://www.rlc.org/2011/09/09/ron-paul-is-not-a-truther/
Skidmark, you're living proof that baboons exist.
Skidmark, you're living proof that baboons exist.
Thanks for proving my point. Modified attack baboons could have planted micro-nukes in the towers. Given that a serious researcher like Dr. Deagle made this claim, I'll take it more seriously than the babbling of a failed janitor and liar who washes his hair with soap.
Shit, Ian, I thought you were making up the whole modified attack baboons thing! Didn't know some truther came up with it.
Shit, Ian, I thought you were making up the whole modified attack baboons thing! Didn't know some truther came up with it.
Nope. Bill Deagle has been talking about modified attack baboons for a while. And unlike Brian, he is still a member in good standing with the truth movement.
As usual, Brian has nothing to say about anything. It's always the same repetative bullshit.
Yeuh, repetation is soch a dreg.
Yeuh, repetation is soch a dreg.
You know, you have no reputation as far as intelligence goes. But however, your reputation to be a thorn in the TM's ass is noted.
Post a Comment
<< Home