Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Ryan and Gage at Nation of Islam Rally

I've seen or listened to most of their presentation and have the following comments:

Ryan's speech is simply a weak version of Loose Change.  Like Dylan, he throws a blizzard of "facts" at you, but unlike Do-Over he doesn't tie it together into any sensible order. He does lead with a phrase that should make most "responsible" Troofers wince: "Muslims did not attack the US on 9-11."  I was surprised that this statement got a very tepid response from the huge crowd, and thought maybe they weren't as gullible as Farrakhan. Big mistake, as we shall see later.

From there he starts the blizzard of nuttery routine.  Atta ate pork, snorted coke and dated a stripper.  Not true, of course, as the stripper was the source for the other allegations about Atta, and she has since admitted that she dated another guy named Mohamed.  Ryan recommends Hopsicker and Griffin.

Did you know that half of the "alleged" hijackers are still alive?  This one has always struck me as quite bizarre.  Let's grant for a moment the Troofer fantasy that the US government was behind the attacks.  Why, exactly, leave 9 or more or your supposed hijackers alive to contradict the official story?  I mean, wouldn't it be relatively easy to, say, kidnap 19 young Muslims from various Middle Eastern countries, kill them, and then execute your plot and announce to the world that these were the guys who did it?

From there we gallop to "set up to fail" to the Afghanistan pipeline (still not built) to Norm Mineta to Sibel Edmonds.  Ryan flat-out lies when he says FBI agent Robert Wright was investigating al Qaeda; in fact his job was investigating Hamas and Hezbollah. Able Danger gets wheeled out.  Again, in the context of the conspiracy theory that Ryan apparently believes (no Muslim hijackers) Able Danger makes no sense.  The Defense Intelligence Agency was tracking a guy who by the way didn't hijack a plane and is still alive!  Inside Job!


Ryan expresses amazement that they knew the names of all the hijackers within 72 hours.  Shall we play the "Hunt the Hijacker" game again?  Ryan closes where he led off: The people accused of carrying out 9-11 were not Muslims.  Poor wording, of course, as even the dullest Troofer would have to admit that the people accused are Muslims.  He gets modest, polite applause, to the point where the junior minister emceeing the affair has to beg for another pity round.

Gage follows.  He does the usual routine where he asks how many believe in the official story?  Very few hands.  How many aren't sure?  Maybe 10 percent.  How many believe the government was behind it?  Almost everybody.  So apparently the tepid reaction to Ryan was not skepticism, but ennui.

Gage's presentation is fairly standard and long and I won't spend much time talking about it.   I did find it interesting that he persists in using segments from Sofia Shafquat's 9-11 Mysteries film during his talk.  As I never tire of pointing out, Sofia credits Holocaust Denier Eric Hufschmid with inspiring her crockumentary, and used to sell the Ernst Zundel Story on her website.

BTW, no sign of Kevin Barrett on that stage so apparently my source inside AE9-11 Truth was wrong on that score; maybe it was just a mix-up as to which loon named Kevin was appearing.

Labels: , , , ,

35 Comments:

At 29 February, 2012 11:47, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Pat wrote, "...From there he starts the blizzard of nuttery routine. Atta ate pork, snorted coke and dated a stripper. Not true, of course, as the stripper was the source for the other allegations about Atta, and she has since admitted that she dated another guy named Mohamed. Ryan recommends Hopsicker and Griffin."

Here's a link to the Herald Tribune article:

'LOVER': Amanda Keller, by Heather Allen, Sunday, 10 September 2006.

The article reads in part, "...For five years, Amanda Keller has been portrayed by conspiracy theorists as Mohamed Atta's lover.

"But the former Venice stripper now says her boyfriend was another flight student not connected to 9/11. And, for the first time, federal investigators say she's right.

"'There's nothing there to corroborate the relationship between the two,' a New York-based FBI counterterrorism agent said recently after reviewing 9/11 case files.

"...Among other things, the government checked Atta's phone records and found the two had never called each other.

"...'It was my bad for lying,' Keller said. 'I really didn't think about it until after I did it.'"


How many times do the "responsible" troofers intend to tell this bald-faced lie?

 
At 29 February, 2012 11:57, Blogger Ian said...

Do the truthers have any claims that weren't debunked 6 years ago?

 
At 29 February, 2012 12:01, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Ian wrote, "...Do the truthers have any claims that weren't debunked 6 years ago?"

The short answer: No.

 
At 29 February, 2012 12:12, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Well, hell, it's been 10 years, and you are going to tell me only NOW are the architects of truth going to look at the blueprints? They must have been using nice architectural drawing all this time.

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/611-wtc-7-blueprints-exposed-via-foia-request.html

 
At 29 February, 2012 12:43, Blogger Ian said...

They must have been using nice architectural drawing all this time.

Like this?

 
At 29 February, 2012 16:42, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Offtopic: Paint, not thermite.

 
At 01 March, 2012 08:58, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

Sure: paint no one can identify, happens to explode, and contains nano-aluminum in the red layer (confirmed in separate studies) that this study somehow wasn't able to find.

What exactly was debunked here again?

Oh yeah...absolutely nothing.

 
At 01 March, 2012 09:20, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 01 March, 2012 09:37, Blogger snug.bug said...

So RGT, I just got to say Wow! That paper was peer-reviewed by the renowned scientists invr4get911, Quad4 72, Spektator, and NoahFence!

So let's see, we've got one side that claims the sprayable nano-material was inconsistent with paint (but they don't provide a serious analysis of paint to show that's so), and we've got another side that claims the material was consistent with paint (but they don't provide a serious analysis of paint to show that's so).

Seems to me that we need some
serious analysis of paint.

 
At 01 March, 2012 09:56, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Troofers come up with nothing yet again.

Losers.

Note how Brian bitches about the last SLC post, yet ignores the follow up. Why? Because he's got nothing.

Crawl back under your rock of obscurity, Brian. You've lost.

 
At 01 March, 2012 11:02, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

Now we know there won't be ANYTHING of substance AT ALL from MGF. Which of you cowards is next? Pat?

 
At 01 March, 2012 11:06, Blogger Ian said...

It's hilarious to read the squealing and crying over this from Brian, an unemployed janitor who wears women's underwear and calls people "girls", and from Pat Cowardly, a scrawny zit-faced virgin who lives in his mother's basement.

I mean, if these two winners (the last two people left who haven't realized that the truth movement is dead) don't accept these results, who are we to argue? I mean, they've done so well in convincing the rest of the world that 9/11 was an inside job.

 
At 01 March, 2012 11:10, Blogger snug.bug said...

Skidmark, if you had an argument in the realm of reality you would not find it necessary to join an ad hominem fantasy and a straw man fantasy just to have something to say.

 
At 01 March, 2012 17:56, Blogger Ian said...

Skidmark, if you had an argument in the realm of reality you would not find it necessary to join an ad hominem fantasy and a straw man fantasy just to have something to say.

Squeal squeal squeal!

Speaking of the "realm of reality", have you presented any evidence yet that Laurie Van Auken is a widow? You've babbled endlessly about "widows" with "questions", and yet you still can't prove she's a widow.

 
At 02 March, 2012 08:50, Blogger snug.bug said...

Skidmark, I did present evidence that Lorie van Auken is a widow. You resd it, you responded to it, and now you're pretending you never saw it.

 
At 02 March, 2012 08:52, Blogger Ian said...

Skidmark, I did present evidence that Lorie van Auken is a widow. You resd it, you responded to it, and now you're pretending you never saw it.

False. You presented evidence that her husband is dead, not that she's a widow.

Would you consider OJ Simpson a widower? His wife, Nicole, is dead.

 
At 02 March, 2012 10:07, Blogger Ian said...

I notice that Brian doesn't babble about Willie Rodriguez anymore. That's probably because Rodriguez has completely humiliated him. The courageous hero Rodriguez repeatedly exposed Brian as a liar and lunatic who was expelled from the truth movement and who ran away squealing and crying when challenged to a debate.

Brian is so humiliated that he'll never talk about Rodriguez again.

 
At 02 March, 2012 17:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

I can't really improve on this: http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/gesellschaft/0,1518,781226,00.html

 
At 03 March, 2012 00:27, Blogger William_Rodriguez said...

snug.bug said...

I can't really improve on this: http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/gesellschaft/0,1518,781226,00.html

Yes, one of my favorites and still in contact with the writer, and still you do not get it. Not bad either since you used to say..."you will never be on the news again"...Remember Brian? So how is your scripting for Richard Gage new video going Brian? How come you did not quit because of the NOI issue? oh I forget, you cannot quit because you are a "volunteer".
ALso , I cannot improve on this...
Why I can't face Willie

 
At 03 March, 2012 00:37, Blogger William_Rodriguez said...

who can forget the look of Brian?

...and his companion?

 
At 03 March, 2012 07:23, Blogger Ian said...

Oh, so it was Brian's FRIEND, and not Brian, who wears women's underwear.

My apologies for saying you wear women's underwear, Brian. I mean, you're still a liar and lunatic and disgusting sex stalker, racist, misogynist, anti-semite, an unemployed janitor who babbles about magic thermite elves, and were banned from wikipedia, but you don't actually wear women's underwear.

 
At 03 March, 2012 07:44, Blogger snug.bug said...

Skidmark, where would you get the idea that Mr. Buttcheeks is my friend? Did Willie R tell you that?

 
At 03 March, 2012 08:07, Blogger snug.bug said...

Willie, if the Der Spiegel article is one of your favorites, you really should have someone read it to you. It's very carefully worded so as to create no vulnerability under Germany's libel laws. Since I didn't write the article, your focus on me makes no sense.

 
At 03 March, 2012 08:50, Blogger Ian said...

Skidmark, where would you get the idea that Mr. Buttcheeks is my friend? Did Willie R tell you that?

That's right, you don't have any friends. Nobody wants to associate with a perverted liar and lunatic like you.

 
At 03 March, 2012 12:46, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Captain Crotchrot squeals, "...Skidmark, where would you get the idea that Mr. Buttcheeks is my friend? Did Willie R tell you that?"

We're judged by the company we keep, Duchess. Thus, you're a shiny pated pervert who associates with men who wear women's underwear.

Details, details...

 
At 04 March, 2012 08:07, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 04 March, 2012 08:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

GooBowl, where did you get the idea that walking down a sidewalk near somebody was "associating" with them?

I guess you don't get out much.

 
At 04 March, 2012 11:04, Blogger Ian said...

GooBowl, where did you get the idea that walking down a sidewalk near somebody was "associating" with them?

Poor Brian. He's humiliated by the fact that his tiny truth group is a bunch of freaks and lunatics.

Brian, the guy in the thong probably isn't a failed janitor who lives with his parents and stalks people, so you're more of a freak than he is.

 
At 04 March, 2012 11:10, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 04 March, 2012 11:13, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Captain Crotchrot squeals, "...here did you get the idea that walking down a sidewalk near somebody was "associating" with them?"

More babbling from David Ray Grifter's special needs child, I see.

Unlike you, Duchess, I'm literate; as a result, I acknowledge the definition of words. For example,

Association n. An organized body of people who have an interest, activity, or purpose in common

So cretin, what part of the word association do you fail to understand?

Better yet, do us a favor and get the Hell out of here--you God damned troll.

 
At 04 March, 2012 12:44, Blogger William_Rodriguez said...

...Richard Gage associates with him. That should give you an idea.

So tell us about your work with the documentary, I really want to know. How about the defection of people because of the NOI issue? care to comment Brian Good?

 
At 04 March, 2012 14:18, Blogger snug.bug said...

ButtGale, so I guess in your mind if we're all walking down the sidewalk on a Sunday afternoon, we're a "Sunday Afternoon Walking Down the Sidewalk Association". So what?

 
At 04 March, 2012 14:27, Blogger Ian said...

ButtGale, so I guess in your mind if we're all walking down the sidewalk on a Sunday afternoon, we're a "Sunday Afternoon Walking Down the Sidewalk Association". So what?

So Brian is finally telling us what I've been saying all along: that he's not part of the "truth" movement.

Thanks for proving my point. An organization led by people like Kevin Barrett and Bill Deagle has no use for a liar and lunatic and sex stalker like you. That's why they threw you out.

 
At 05 March, 2012 12:39, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

I applaud Willie Rodriguez for putting Brian Good in his books. Brian just made himself infamous due to his own stupidity.

WTG Brian!

 
At 06 March, 2012 20:48, Blogger snug.bug said...

When did Willie put me in my books?

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home