Monday, April 30, 2012

Kay and Tarpley Debate

Haven't had a chance to watch much of it yet, but Canadian journalist, and author of Among the Truthers, Jonathan Kay debates polyconspiracy theorist Webster Tarpley in a debate moderated by David Frum and filmed for CSPAN.  Enjoy the looniness.

175 Comments:

At 30 April, 2012 19:22, Blogger Ian said...

Remember kids, Brian Good was expelled from the truth movement for being a liar and lunatic while Webster Tarpley remains a member in good standing who gets invited onto TV.

 
At 30 April, 2012 19:29, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

I was hoping he'd point out Nicolas Cage is in fact a Civil War-era vampire. Why does the corporate media insist on suppressing this?

 
At 30 April, 2012 23:39, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, it was very nice for you that the mods locked the thread so you could give the impression there that you knew what you were talking about.

Besides the affidavits of two former Senators about uninvestigated Saudi involvement, one of those Senators has written a Roman a Clef about Saudi involvement in 9/11. In doing so he can bypass the censorship that would apply to a non-fiction book.

If I'm harming the widows they are free to ask me to stop.

Your claims about what I was calling the 9/11 Commission are pure fantasy. I never even heard of the 9/11 Commission until just before the report was issued.

Only a very dishonest person would claim that the failure of a smoking gun to surface all by itself is a reason not to have an investigation. That would be like a homicide detective saying "Gee, I've been on the case for almost three hours and we haven't got a confession yet! We should pack it all in."

If you think there has been no leak to change the 9/11 narrative you haven't heard of Sibel Edmonds, Indira Singh, Craig Bartmer, Scott Ford, Behrooz Sarshar, Colleen Rowley, Philip Ruvolo, Father John Delendick, Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Shyam Sunder, Larry Mitchell, Sen. Bob Graham. Yours is an argument from ignorance.

Why would you expect a paper trail about 9/11? The truth is that the FBI reported in April 2002 that after an extensive investigation of seized al Qaeda materials they found not one document connecting al Qaeda to 9/11. So by your logic that means they didn't do it.

Julian Assange has indicated his hostility to 9/11 Truth and it could be that he's not publishing materials related to 9/11 because he believes that doing so would damage his credibility.

Your belief that the FBI would have been afraid of political criticism should they engage in perfectly legal investigation of known al Qaeda agents inside the USA who appeared to have been associated with the USS Cole bombing is just an ideologically-based fantasy.

You don't know what an ad hominem attack is. An ad hominem is a distraction from the true issues. Agent Rossini's "judgement and character" have nothing to do with the fact that his story was in "The Eleventh Day" and was not floating around in 2002, so your claim that "The Eleventh Day" was all old 2002-era news was just more bullshit.

Your claim that I said I was guilty of stalking, and harassing Carol and death threats is just loony.

Your spelling of terms like "judgement" and "liable" and "council" is a hoot.

 
At 01 May, 2012 00:13, Blogger sabba said...

I'm back!!!!!
Wow , I see the Bitch, Brian Good is still posting his nonsense. Hey Brian! Listen to me! This post shows you are a liar! remember when you said that no truther or 9/11 activist has received any C-SPan Coverage since William Rodriguez appeareance? BUAWAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
EAT YOUR OWN WORDS!!! BITCH!

 
At 01 May, 2012 00:32, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 01 May, 2012 00:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

Webster Tarpley has been effectively ejected from the truth movement. Looks like the Truth movement blogs see it as a big snooze hardly worth any comment.

 
At 01 May, 2012 01:22, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker whines, "...Webster Tarpley has been effectively ejected from the truth movement."

Yeah, Mr. Hypocrite, "shameless liar" and "miserable troll." Prattle on, fool.

Incidentally, given that you're a widely acknowledged "shameless liar" and "miserable troll," who, as it turns out, was "effectively ejected" by the Cult of 9/11 Troof, what gives YOU the right to whine about your fellow "polyconspiracy theorist," Webster Tarpley?

Proof?

What's this?

"...You're one miserable troll Brian.

"You are STILL pimping that "circular argument" reproach while it has been debunked pages ago. A domino falls because a domino falls. Is that a circular argument? No, it isn't. Of course not. It's a simple cause and effect chain where each element is physically and positionally distinct from the element causing its demise. You pretend you haven't read or haven't been made aware of this rebuttal of your ridiculous fallacy allegation, because you mean to irritate. Because you're butthurt. Because this is your disruption strategy, because you're so "polite". How utterly pathetic. You're not polite, you're a cunning troll who has optimized his survival tactics.

"You've been repeatedly asked to back up your ignorant assertions and the AE911Truth talking points you parrot. You simply don't. You think you'll be just fine trolling. I asked a couple of additional questions two times now and you've ignored them too. You claim not to believe CD but you've made a laundry list of declarative statements which match the description of a Controlled Demolition believer to a T. Your sole reason for non-committal is plausible deniability
[SIC] should any of your spurious claims be proven unequivocally false, but you might as well let go of that tactic, because, as you've demonstrated in this thread, you'd lie about visual observations even as they stand facing you when you quote them in reply. A shameless liar of your caliber needs no additional insurance policies." -- SnowCrash, 911: Only the tip of the Iceberg.

LOL! It's a wonder that you don't drown in your own flatulence and hypocrisy--you duplicitous degenerate.

Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

 
At 01 May, 2012 04:07, Blogger nxg said...

why would anyone want to debate cultist tarpley? isn't that giving him more facetime than he deserves? tarpley's a conspiracy whore and worse

http://lyndonlarouchewatch.org/larouche-duggan-coverup.htm

 
At 01 May, 2012 06:10, Blogger Ian said...

Webster Tarpley has been effectively ejected from the truth movement. Looks like the Truth movement blogs see it as a big snooze hardly worth any comment.

Brian, how would you know what the truth movement thinks of Tarpley? You've been expelled from the movement for being a liar and lunatic and pervert and stalker. Serious researchers like Tarpley and Kevin Barrett and Bill Deagle and Jim Fetzer don't want their reputations tarnished by association with someone like you.

 
At 01 May, 2012 06:12, Blogger Ian said...

On another note, the new 1 WTC became the tallest building in New York.

The WTC rises ever higher, while Brian continues to exist below ground: living in his parents basement while posting hysterical spam on this blog.

 
At 01 May, 2012 07:36, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, where did you get the idea that I was ejected my 9/11 Truth? Did an anonymous internet poster tell you that? And you believed it?

If Webster Tarpley was a member in good standing of the 9/11 truth movement, I would expect a lot of celebration of his appearance on C-Span after 4-1/2 years of truth movement blackout following Willie Rodriguez's 2 hours in August of 2007.
I don't see it. Do you see it?

Where did you get the idea that Snowcrash is talking to me? Did an anonymous internet poster tell you that? On what basis? Say, have you started any business relationships with any Nigerian bank officials lately?

Ian, I told you how I know what the Truth movement thinks of Tarpley. There's no celebration on the truth movement blogs of his C-Span appearance. There's not even any discussion.

 
At 01 May, 2012 07:56, Blogger Ian said...

UtterFail, where did you get the idea that I was ejected my 9/11 Truth?

Brian, it's well-known that you're a disgusting pervert your stalking of Carol Brouillet got you banned from the Northern California Truth Alliance.

If Webster Tarpley was a member in good standing of the 9/11 truth movement, I would expect a lot of celebration of his appearance on C-Span after 4-1/2 years of truth movement blackout following Willie Rodriguez's 2 hours in August of 2007.

There's plenty of celebrating. You don't know this because you've been banned from the truth movement.

Ian, I told you how I know what the Truth movement thinks of Tarpley. There's no celebration on the truth movement blogs of his C-Span appearance. There's not even any discussion.

False. They're celebrating, and you're squealing hysterically because you know you can't join them in celebrating because you've been banned from the truth movement for being a liar and sex stalker.

 
At 01 May, 2012 08:12, Blogger snug.bug said...

Skidmark, you can't back up any of those false claims. Your lying degrades the quality of this forum, and the mods' tolerance for it is quite mysterious to me. I suspect it represents an admission on their part that serious dialog is damaging to their case, and so they permit Ian to strew a lot of dog poop all over the place that might influence a few foolish 8-year-olds.

 
At 01 May, 2012 08:14, Blogger Len said...

"If you think there has been no leak to change the 9/11 narrative you haven't heard of Sibel Edmonds, Indira Singh, Craig Bartmer, Scott Ford, Behrooz Sarshar, Colleen Rowley, Philip Ruvolo, Father John Delendick, Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Shyam Sunder, Larry Mitchell, Sen. Bob Graham. Yours is an argument from ignorance."

What are you babbling about BRIan? Most of the people on your list aren't truthers and/or were not insiders.

 
At 01 May, 2012 08:22, Blogger Ian said...

Skidmark, you can't back up any of those false claims. Your lying degrades the quality of this forum, and the mods' tolerance for it is quite mysterious to me. I suspect it represents an admission on their part that serious dialog is damaging to their case, and so they permit Ian to strew a lot of dog poop all over the place that might influence a few foolish 8-year-olds.

Poor Brian. I've humiliated him yet again by pointing out how he has been banned from the truth movement, and now his hatred of democracy comes through as he wants me silenced for speaking truth to power. You're quite the Bushbot, Brian.

 
At 01 May, 2012 08:25, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 01 May, 2012 08:26, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 01 May, 2012 08:27, Blogger snug.bug said...

Skidmark, your claim that if somebody is not a "truther" and/or does not meet your definitions of "insider" therefore their information does not change the 9/11 narrative is simply dishonest.

And your bluster can not cover up the fact that you can not back up any of your claims.

You just make shit up.

 
At 01 May, 2012 09:00, Blogger sabba said...

Brian Good last year: "Willie damaged the relationship of C-span with the movement, C-Span will not cover any activist or take them seriously after his gabfest..."

BUAWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

Bitch!!!

 
At 01 May, 2012 09:03, Blogger sabba said...

So Brian, are you still in love with the studly hero WR?
Do you still fantasize about having the babies of the man you called a stud?

 
At 01 May, 2012 09:11, Blogger snug.bug said...

SO you think that for C-Span to put a disgraced activist on is taking the activist or the truth movement seriously? Obviously their intention was to have two neocons beat up a LaRouchie for the audiences's entertainment and to make the Truth movement look stupid. Perhaps they underestimated Dr. Tarpley--I don't know and it seems nobody cares.

 
At 01 May, 2012 09:19, Blogger sabba said...

Of course Bitch! Tarpley is a published author, compared to you who only writes on the internet stalking others...
Tarpley , like or not , is an intellectual,
amid wrong believes of 9/11. Compare that to you, an idiot who think that knows everything about 9/11, believes he is an expert on every expertise out there, an idiot who think that the closest thing of constructing a building is watching it go up from an office accross the street. Oh brother...
what a bitch! Have you called Carol's husband yet? 6 years after and Brian Good is still babling about C-Span and has not called them even once.

 
At 01 May, 2012 09:36, Blogger snug.bug said...

Any idiot can publish a book. Look at Kevin Barrett. Dr. Tarpley may be an intellectual, but as a truth movement activist he is disgraced--and the silence in the truth movement about his appearance on C-Span proves it.

Whenever I want to talk about important issues about 9/11, like the points I raised above, everybody only wants to make up lies about me. And then you wonder why I call you girly gossips.

Let's talk about

1) charges by 2 Senators that Saudi involvement in 9/11 may have been covered up

2) Sibel Edmonds, Indira Singh, Craig Bartmer, Scott Ford, Behrooz Sarshar, Colleen Rowley, Philip Ruvolo, Father John Delendick, Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Shyam Sunder, Larry Mitchell, Sen. Bob Graham. All of them credible people who have introduced information contrary to the official narrative.

3) FBI admissions that after an extensive investigation of seized al Qaeda materials they found not one document connecting al Qaeda to 9/11.

4) Julian Assange's hostility to 9/11 Truth and the likelihood that he has censored 9/11-related documents to protect his credibility.

5) The belief that the FBI would have been afraid of political criticism should they engage in perfectly legal investigation of known al Qaeda agents inside the USA who appeared to have been associated with the USS Cole bombing.

6) The nature of an ad hominem attack, about which there is still some confusion.

7) "The Eleventh Day" and the new information that it brought up.

8) Agent Rossini's frustration when he was blocked from sharing with the FBI his knowledge of 2 al Qaeda agents known to be in the USA.

 
At 01 May, 2012 10:23, Blogger SnowCrash said...

Brian Good said: "Where did you get the idea that Snowcrash is talking to me? Did an anonymous internet poster tell you that? On what basis?"

Yes Brian, I was talking to you.

 
At 01 May, 2012 10:28, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 01 May, 2012 10:29, Blogger snug.bug said...

Where do you get the idea you were talking to me? Did some anonymous internet poster tell you that?

 
At 01 May, 2012 10:53, Blogger sabba said...

Let's talk about:
1.Did you EVER going to call C-Span?
2.Are you still in love with the man you called a studly hero?
3.Do you still fantasize about having the babies of the man you called a stud?
4. Have you called JEan Luc, Carol's husband yet?
5. Is there ANY Activist out there that vouches for you?
6. Are you still working as a volunteer for Richard Gage o did you leave after all the others that jumped the boat?
7. Did you stopped making threats to others?

 
At 01 May, 2012 11:30, Blogger Ian said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 01 May, 2012 11:34, Blogger Ian said...

1) charges by 2 Senators that Saudi involvement in 9/11 may have been covered up

2) Sibel Edmonds, Indira Singh, Craig Bartmer, Scott Ford, Behrooz Sarshar, Colleen Rowley, Philip Ruvolo, Father John Delendick, Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Shyam Sunder, Larry Mitchell, Sen. Bob Graham. All of them credible people who have introduced information contrary to the official narrative.

3) FBI admissions that after an extensive investigation of seized al Qaeda materials they found not one document connecting al Qaeda to 9/11.

4) Julian Assange's hostility to 9/11 Truth and the likelihood that he has censored 9/11-related documents to protect his credibility.

5) The belief that the FBI would have been afraid of political criticism should they engage in perfectly legal investigation of known al Qaeda agents inside the USA who appeared to have been associated with the USS Cole bombing.

6) The nature of an ad hominem attack, about which there is still some confusion.

7) "The Eleventh Day" and the new information that it brought up.

8) Agent Rossini's frustration when he was blocked from sharing with the FBI his knowledge of 2 al Qaeda agents known to be in the USA.


Hmm, so al Qaeda did it? What about the magic spray-on nanothermite and the silent explosives planted by invisible elevator repairmen working for the Bush Administration?

Also, I love how the mindless speculation of a paranoid lunatic like Brian becomes "evidence". Yes, Julian Assange is in on the cover-up. How do we know? Brian, a mentally ill unemployed janitor who failed out of San Jose State said so.

 
At 01 May, 2012 11:34, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you lie and lie and lie. The affidavits of the Senators is news as 2 months ago and is said by the NYT to be "likely to reignite the debate" about Saudi involvement.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/01/us/graham-and-kerrey-see-possible-saudi-9-11-link.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

The evidence that Assange would censor himself is his expressed hostility to 9/11 Truth.

 
At 01 May, 2012 11:36, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, you lie and lie and lie. The affidavits of the Senators is news as 2 months ago and is said by the NYT to be "likely to reignite the debate" about Saudi involvement.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/01/us/graham-and-kerrey-see-possible-saudi-9-11-link.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

The evidence that Assange would censor himself is his expressed hostility to 9/11 Truth.


Thanks for proving my point. Your "evidence" is just the paranoid delusions that you always post here. Hey, at least you aren't babbling about invisible widows with "questions" as if that's evidence.

 
At 01 May, 2012 11:40, Blogger snug.bug said...

Skidmark, it is hardly delusional to think that Assange would censor documents that he regarded as of poor credibility. And it is hardly delusional to think that his expressed hostility to the 9/11 Truth movement is because he regards the truth movement to be of poor credibility.

You're not thinking clearly, as usual.

 
At 01 May, 2012 11:43, Blogger sabba said...

Let's talk about:
1.Did you EVER going to call C-Span?
2.Are you still in love with the man you called a studly hero?
3.Do you still fantasize about having the babies of the man you called a stud?
4. Have you called JEan Luc, Carol's husband yet?
5. Is there ANY Activist out there that vouches for you?
6. Are you still working as a volunteer for Richard Gage o did you leave after all the others that jumped the boat?
7. Did you stopped making threats to others?

 
At 01 May, 2012 11:49, Blogger snug.bug said...

Your questions make no sense. Many of them are based on irrational or erroneous assumptions.

 
At 01 May, 2012 11:59, Blogger sabba said...

Hey Brian Good, how does it feels to be recognized all over the internet as a Sex Stalker? you and all of your sockpuppets... Any comment Petgoat?

 
At 01 May, 2012 12:00, Blogger sabba said...

How come Richard Gage has never vouched for you ...not even once?

 
At 01 May, 2012 12:02, Blogger sabba said...

If David Ray Griffin was at C-Span, you will claim the same thing you have said about Tarpley. NO wonder , not even DRG will defend you, instead , all the opposite.

 
At 01 May, 2012 12:12, Blogger snug.bug said...

Was DRG on C-Span after Willie R's appearance in August 2007? Is that what you're saying?

 
At 01 May, 2012 12:14, Blogger Ian said...

Skidmark, it is hardly delusional to think that Assange would censor documents that he regarded as of poor credibility.

Yes. The truth movement talking points about magic thermite and death-ray beams from space and holographic airplanes are indeed of poor credibility.

And it is hardly delusional to think that his expressed hostility to the 9/11 Truth movement is because he regards the truth movement to be of poor credibility.

The truth movement IS of poor credibility. It consists of a handful of con artists like Richard Gage and pathetic lunatics like you. No one else is interested in magic thermite elves.

You're not thinking clearly, as usual.

Squeal squeal squeal!

 
At 01 May, 2012 12:26, Blogger snug.bug said...

Then you're proving my point. And your squealing only cements it.

 
At 01 May, 2012 12:32, Blogger Ian said...

You don't have a point, Brian. You just posted a bunch of delusions and irrelevant factoids, and then admitted that the truth movement's utter lack of credibility is why Julian Assange ignores it. That's also why everyone else ignores the truth movement.

 
At 01 May, 2012 12:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

Skidmark, it is hardly delusional to think that Assange would censor documents that he regarded as of poor credibility. And it is hardly delusional to think that his expressed hostility to the 9/11 Truth movement is because he regards the truth movement to be of poor credibility.

You're not thinking clearly, as usual.

 
At 01 May, 2012 12:44, Blogger anonymous said...

Like Nxg said, Tarpley is yesterday's news. Another conspiracy cult faggot pushing snake oil. Why give him face time?

If this is an example of this blog's "regulars", you're all nuts.

 
At 01 May, 2012 13:04, Blogger sabba said...

"Another conspiracy cult faggot pushing snake oil."
Are you claiming Brian Good to be a cult faggot? it will not surprise us the least.

 
At 01 May, 2012 13:47, Blogger snug.bug said...

I guess you're just trying to get me to say something homophobic about James Randi, right sabba?

 
At 01 May, 2012 13:49, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Tarpley proved himself illinformed within 30 secs. He apparently believes that if you become president you take over the government.

 
At 01 May, 2012 13:50, Blogger snug.bug said...

Nobody cares.

 
At 01 May, 2012 14:38, Blogger sabba said...

Brian Good the Ambiguously Gay gay truther says:"I guess you're just trying to get me to say something homophobic about James Randi, right sabba?"

Nope, don't know James Randi. Are you saying James Randi is gay? Please elaborate.In your case, you are a recognized sexual stalker who wears girls underwear.

and since you pick and choose what to answer Mr. Gay Blade, how about the questions from before?:1.Did you EVER going to call C-Span?
2.Are you still in love with the man you called a studly hero?
3.Do you still fantasize about having the babies of the man you called a stud?
4. Have you called JEan Luc, Carol's husband yet?
5. Is there ANY Activist out there that vouches for you?
6. Are you still working as a volunteer for Richard Gage o did you leave after all the others that jumped the boat?
7. Did you stopped making threats to others?

 
At 01 May, 2012 15:05, Blogger snug.bug said...

Your questions make no sense. Many of them are based on irrational or erroneous assumptions.

Was DRG on C-Span after Willie R's appearance in August 2007? Is that what you're saying? When?

 
At 01 May, 2012 16:12, Blogger anonymous said...

Tarpley proved himself illinformed within 30 secs. He apparently believes that if you become president you take over the government.

Nailed it

 
At 01 May, 2012 16:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

Nobody cares.

 
At 01 May, 2012 16:16, Blogger anonymous said...

sabba said...

"Another conspiracy cult faggot pushing snake oil."
Are you claiming Brian Good to be a cult faggot? it will not surprise us the least.


Reading comprehension fail:

"Tarpley is yesterday's news. Another conspiracy cult faggot pushing snake oil."

But nice troll attempt: 1/10

 
At 01 May, 2012 16:33, Blogger anonymous said...

Mod fagging now? The following was deleted by a blog owner:



snug.bug said...

Nobody cares.


Not exactly. Johnny Kay cares. But if he wanted to interview a conspiracytard he could have done better than a career cultist with German neo Nazi connections. Talk about shooting fish in a barrel.

Then there's the tard who blogged this without watching it all. Fuck, if he can't be bothered why should we?

This blog is over rated


U MAD?

 
At 01 May, 2012 17:33, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

". I never even heard of the 9/11 Commission until just before the report was issued."

Interesting...why? No, make that "How?". The only explanation was you were in prison in a foreign country.

Why were you in prison in another country?

It's the only reasonable explanation because the alternative explanation is you are a complete idiot...or they didn't allow TV in your wing of Atascadero.

"Only a very dishonest person would claim that the failure of a smoking gun to surface all by itself is a reason not to have an investigation. That would be like a homicide detective saying "Gee, I've been on the case for almost three hours and we haven't got a confession yet! We should pack it all in.""

Yay, another dumbass, Brian Goode analogy.

Three hours is not ten years.

Here's why you're wrong:

1. There are/were people against the Iraq war, and countries against the Iraq war. Just because we aren't looking doesn't mean they didn't.

Nobody has found anything.

2. Everything else has been revealed either by confessions, leaks, or testimonials. Last week's 60 Minutes is a prime example of the guy directly behind questionable actions sitting in front of a camera to explain, and defend himself.

3. We already know. Sorry, we do. We will never be able to prove motive unless the Princess comes out to admit she knew they were terrorists.

Now you have a bigger problem, you are now saying Al Qaeda was behind the attacks. This means no mystery behind the collapses of the three buildings at Ground Zero.

You can't have it both ways.

 
At 01 May, 2012 17:41, Blogger snug.bug said...

Now I see why you make stuff up--because when you refrain from doing so you make no sense at all.

 
At 01 May, 2012 18:43, Blogger sabba said...

Brian Good from Palo Alto said:"I guess you're just trying to get me to say something homophobic about James Randi, right sabba?"

We are waiting Brian, post your evidence... got scared?

We thought so bitch!

 
At 01 May, 2012 18:57, Blogger snug.bug said...

Why would I bother?

 
At 01 May, 2012 19:25, Blogger sabba said...

snug.bug said...

Why would I bother?

because you made an insinuation about somebody not involved in the conversation and in your case, we call your bluff...again.

bitch!

 
At 01 May, 2012 19:25, Blogger Ian said...

Skidmark, it is hardly delusional to think that Assange would censor documents that he regarded as of poor credibility. And it is hardly delusional to think that his expressed hostility to the 9/11 Truth movement is because he regards the truth movement to be of poor credibility.

Brian, just repeating the same dumbspam over and over again isn't going to get you anywhere. Of course Assange thinks the truth movement has no credibility. He's a rational human being. Everyone knows the truth movement has no credibility. It's just a tiny group of con artists (Gage, Griffin) and the pathetic failures and lunatics that they prey on (you).

 
At 01 May, 2012 19:27, Blogger sabba said...

Hey Brian,
Is there ANY Activist out there that vouches for you?
How come Richard Gage does not ever defends you even though you work for him for free?

 
At 01 May, 2012 19:29, Blogger sabba said...

Hi there IAN! long time, I see you have been busy all this months exposing the lies and personality traits of Brian Good. Bravo as always!
...just be careful, he may call you his new "stud" (as he called Rodriguez).

 
At 01 May, 2012 19:51, Blogger Ian said...

It's been 3 years now since I first started responding to Brian's babbling about widows' questions with simple answers: "false" or "no" or "the widows have no questions". He would just get more and more hysterical every time I destroyed his assertions with an irrefutable argument like "false".

He eventually got so upset that (according to an eyewitness), he threw his laptop across the room and it shattered against the wall. Brian's father almost threw him out of the house for that one.

And here we are, 3 years later. I've accomplished so many things in my life, and yet Brian is still babbling pointlessly about his widows. I guess he'll never learn.

 
At 01 May, 2012 19:53, Blogger Len said...

"Skidmark, your claim that if somebody is not a "truther" and/or does not meet your definitions of "insider" therefore their information does not change the 9/11 narrative is simply dishonest."

'Debunkers' who who know who you are think you're a nut job, AFAICT all 'truthers' who who know who you are think you're a nut job. Can you point to anyone who respects you?

Most of the people you cited never challenged the premise 9/11 was planned and carried out by AQ led by OBL et. al. without the connivance of people in the USG, the few who did were not insiders. A "leak" by definition is of "secret" information and thus must come from an insider.

 
At 01 May, 2012 20:25, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Now I see why you make stuff up--because when you refrain from doing so you make no sense at all."

Comedy gold...

See if the Senators think there was a Saudi link to the Al Qaeda hijackers then there was no government conspiracy...which means you've been wasting your time...because you're an idiot....

 
At 01 May, 2012 20:44, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, I guess you wouldn't know a false dichotomy if it sat on your face.

 
At 01 May, 2012 21:01, Blogger Ian said...

MGF, I guess you wouldn't know a false dichotomy if it sat on your face.

There goes Brian again: using big-boy terms like "false dichotomy" as if he has any idea what they mean.

Now it's time for him to demonstrate his understanding of the term with an....interesting analogy.

"MGF, yesterday I ate Froot Loops for breakfast. I also drove my clunker 1965 Volkswagen across the San Mateo Bridge. You girls probably think that I couldn't have done both because you think that there could be no al Qaeda responsibility for the attack and a US government conspiracy."

 
At 01 May, 2012 21:59, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

I'm sure Brian doesn't understand the concept of "Sitting on your face"...


Now if you want to talk about a real conspiracy, why has there never been an investigation into the possibility the real Spiderman was killed in Vietnam in 1966?

 
At 01 May, 2012 23:28, Blogger snug.bug said...

Thanks for demonstrating the general level of intellectual gerbil-power around this place.

 
At 02 May, 2012 06:29, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Nobody cares.

Brian no one is shocked that you don't care that your so called scholars are just as illinformed as you are, that they are delusional, & that you seem to think you speak for everyone.

What I love about these debates is that I go in thinking that such an educated person may have something new to add but what it boils down to is the same paranoid dot connecting and talking points. And its always reaffirmed in such ana exercise that 9/11 Truth has nothing to do with intelligence or education, but the willingness of humans to do mental backflips in favor of a world view.

 
At 02 May, 2012 06:32, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

I suppose Brian will salo tell us how no one cares that Tarpley is peddling the long debunked claim that the commissioners didn't support the report they themselves wrote and signed off on. Its been 6+ years and you loons are still peddling quote mining as evidence.

Trust me Brian, everyone knows you don't care what the facts are.

 
At 02 May, 2012 06:32, Blogger Ian said...

Thanks for demonstrating the general level of intellectual gerbil-power around this place.

Poor Brian. He actually wants us to take him seriously, even though he's a mentally ill unemployed janitor who failed out of San Jose State and believes in magic thermite elves.

No, Brian, we'd rather make fun of you. Your squealing and crying is much more entertaining.

 
At 02 May, 2012 07:18, Blogger Len said...

Brian,

We still await your reply to the following:

'Debunkers' who who know who you are think you're a nut job, AFAICT all 'truthers' who who know who you are think you're a nut job. Can you point to anyone who respects you?

 
At 02 May, 2012 07:38, Blogger snug.bug said...

GMS, I never called Tarpley a scholar. Nobody cares what Tarpley says or does. Not even Barrett bothered to blog about his buddy Webster's triumphant C-Span appearance.

Len, your question is based on a faulty premise.

 
At 02 May, 2012 08:01, Blogger Ian said...

GMS, I never called Tarpley a scholar. Nobody cares what Tarpley says or does. Not even Barrett bothered to blog about his buddy Webster's triumphant C-Span appearance.

And yet Tarpley is invited on television, while you can't even post at most truther blogs because you've been banned.

Poor Brian. He's such a liar and lunatic that even the truthers want nothing to do with him.

 
At 02 May, 2012 08:42, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Well thats a step in the right direction Brian. Now maybe you should consider why anyone should care what the rest of the fringes who run away from scrutiny say.

 
At 02 May, 2012 09:02, Blogger snug.bug said...

GMS I never said anybody should pay attention to what fringes who run away from scrutiny say.

 
At 02 May, 2012 09:13, Blogger John said...

Len, your question is based on a faulty premise.

That's true. The faulty premise is that Brian is somehow worthy of respect.

 
At 02 May, 2012 09:15, Blogger Ian said...

GMS I never said anybody should pay attention to what fringes who run away from scrutiny say.

So you acknowledge that none of us here should care what you say. So....why do you continue to post your nonsense here, other than that you've been banned from every other truther site out there?

 
At 02 May, 2012 11:36, Blogger Len said...

"Len, your question is based on a faulty premise"

How so?

 
At 02 May, 2012 15:00, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Offtopic: submitted without comment.

 
At 02 May, 2012 15:42, Blogger Ian said...

Offtopic: submitted without comment.

Apparently, Snowcrash is unaware of Brian's pathetic lies about his various internet identities.

Snowcrash, if you're reading this, yes, truebeleaguer is Brian Good, no matter how much he lies about it. He also lies about being petgoat, even though everyone knows he's petgoat and he even took credit for being petgoat on this blog.

Remember that you're dealing with someone with severe psychological problems.

 
At 02 May, 2012 16:00, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Apparently, Snowcrash is unaware of Brian's pathetic lies about his various internet identities.

I know, right? He's usually not this slow to catch on. On the other hand he's battling all kinds of CIA/NSA/Microsoft/Apple/Oracle Joint Mind Control Backdoor paranoia so who knows what the hell goes on in his head.

 
At 02 May, 2012 18:49, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, as usual you lie. I challenge you to back up your lying claim that I took credit for being petgoat.

 
At 02 May, 2012 21:22, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, as usual you lie. I challenge you to back up your lying claim that I took credit for being petgoat

See what I mean? Brian just lies hysterically about his various internet identities.

 
At 02 May, 2012 22:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

See what I mean? You refuse to back up your claim that I took credit for being petgoat.

 
At 03 May, 2012 07:15, Blogger Ian said...

See what I mean? You refuse to back up your claim that I took credit for being petgoat.

False. I've backed it up. You can squeal and cry all you want, but you've claimed to be petgoat on this blog.

Speaking of things that haven't been backed up, do you ever plan on presenting evidence that the widows have questions?

 
At 03 May, 2012 08:21, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 03 May, 2012 08:23, Blogger snug.bug said...

Whenever I want to talk about important issues about 9/11, like the points I raised above, everybody only wants to make up lies about me. And then you wonder why I call you girly gossips.

Let's talk about

1) charges by 2 Senators that Saudi involvement in 9/11 may have been covered up

2) Sibel Edmonds, Indira Singh, Craig Bartmer, Scott Ford, Behrooz Sarshar, Colleen Rowley, Philip Ruvolo, Father John Delendick, Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Shyam Sunder, Larry Mitchell, Sen. Bob Graham. All of them credible people who have introduced information contrary to the official narrative.

3) FBI admissions that after an extensive investigation of seized al Qaeda materials they found not one document connecting al Qaeda to 9/11.

4) Julian Assange's hostility to 9/11 Truth and the likelihood that he has censored 9/11-related documents to protect his credibility.

5) The belief that the FBI would have been afraid of political criticism should they engage in perfectly legal investigation of known al Qaeda agents inside the USA who appeared to have been associated with the USS Cole bombing.

6) The nature of an ad hominem attack, about which there is still some confusion.

7) "The Eleventh Day" and the new information that it brought up.

8) Agent Rossini's frustration when he was blocked from sharing with the FBI his knowledge of 2 al Qaeda agents known to be in the USA.

 
At 03 May, 2012 08:30, Blogger John said...

Actually, I don't want to talk about any of those things.I prefer to talk about the possibility of ignoring Brian's posts on one of the next threads. Any takers? J Rebori?

 
At 03 May, 2012 08:30, Blogger Ian said...

You have not only backed it up, you have failed to back up your claim that you backed it up. You lie and lie and lie.

I have many times presented the evidence that of the widows' 300 questions, only 273 were answered. Your inability to learn this simple fact suggests mental defects on your part.


False and false. Brian fails yet again!

 
At 03 May, 2012 08:33, Blogger Ian said...

Whenever I want to talk about important issues about 9/11, like the points I raised above, everybody only wants to make up lies about me. And then you wonder why I call you girly gossips.

Brian, you never raise "important issues about 9/11", you just post idiotic spam that coheres to no point.

Also, you call us "girly gossips" because you're mentally ill and a sex stalker and pervert. That's why you wear women's underwear, stalk Carol Brouillet, and were banned from wikipedia.

 
At 03 May, 2012 08:34, Blogger Ian said...

Actually, I don't want to talk about any of those things.I prefer to talk about the possibility of ignoring Brian's posts on one of the next threads. Any takers? J Rebori?

OK, I'll start ignoring Brian.

 
At 03 May, 2012 08:34, Blogger snug.bug said...

You have not only failed to back it up, you have failed to back up your claim that you backed it up, and you have failed to back up your claim that your claim that you backed it up was true. You lie and lie and lie.

I have many times documented the fact that of the widows' 300 questions, 273 were never answered. Your inability to learn this simple fact suggests mental defects on your part.

 
At 03 May, 2012 08:47, Blogger John said...

OK, I'll start ignoring Brian.

On one of the future threads. Go to town on this one, if you'd ike.

 
At 03 May, 2012 09:05, Blogger snug.bug said...

Since ignorance is what y'all are best at, I'm not surprised that you advocate it as tactic and policy.

I would much appreciate it if you clowns would ignore me. Then I get to point out the ludicrous assumptions, errors, and irrationality of your claims--and y'all won't engage in a lot of spamtastic responses. This will make the threads much easier to read and will be better for everyone.

 
At 03 May, 2012 09:10, Blogger Ian said...

Since ignorance is what y'all are best at, I'm not surprised that you advocate it as tactic and policy.

No, I'll ignore you in the next thread. Here, I will continue to remind you that you're a failed janitor who believes in magic thermite elves and just repeats the same dumbspam over and over again.

I would much appreciate it if you clowns would ignore me. Then I get to point out the ludicrous assumptions, errors, and irrationality of your claims--and y'all won't engage in a lot of spamtastic responses. This will make the threads much easier to read and will be better for everyone.

Squeal squeal squeal!

Poor Brian. He doesn't want us to respond to him, because our responses are a humiliating reminder that he's a mentally ill unemployed janitor who failed out of San Jose State.

 
At 03 May, 2012 09:25, Blogger John said...

Then I get to point out the ludicrous assumptions, errors, and irrationality of your claims

Which will also be ignored by anyone who reads these comments, if there are any.

What you and some of the other posters here don't realize is that these comments have zero effect on what people think about 9/11. They might have, back when the blog just started, but now they don't. No one, not even the other truthers that occasionally post here, have said "you know, Brian makes a good point about that. I agree with him." Not even Cowardly - he just shows up, mentions microspheres, calls Pat "fat" and disappears. Hell, snowcrash posted here just to clarify that he was disagreeing with you on another blog.

You may think that someday, maybe after you've gone, someone will come here take up your cause or whatever, but they won't. Ian is right about 2 things: no one cares about your idiotic and delusional ramblings about 9/11. And mockery, not arguing, is the only way to respond to you. Either that or disinterest.

 
At 03 May, 2012 10:23, Blogger snug.bug said...

I disagree with your belief that these comments have zero effect on what people think about 9/11. I think that people come here to find out how dumb those troofers are, and that when they read the comments any half-bright-or-better person is going to find it pretty obvious that the debunkers are a bunch of idiots and the truthers are not as dumb as they thought.

 
At 03 May, 2012 10:40, Blogger John said...

I disagree with your belief that these comments have zero effect on what people think about 9/11. I think that people come here to find out how dumb those troofers are, and that when they read the comments any half-bright-or-better person is going to find it pretty obvious that the debunkers are a bunch of idiots and the truthers are not as dumb as they thought.

Fine.

If there is anyone out there who is reading this, and has come to these comments sections thinking that truthers are stupid, and had their minds changed by Brian's posts, please post a comment saying so.

 
At 03 May, 2012 11:41, Blogger Scarlet said...

Okay, I'll bite. Brian, despite the childish and personal attacks on you, you've done nothing to convince me of anything you claim regarding 9/11. As off-putting as some of the back-and-forth and name-calling has been, I can understand why the other regulars on this blog have resorted to it. You're infuriating and anyone who has dealt with you as long as these guys obviously have can only respond with derision and mockery.

In all honesty, I haven't learned much about 9/11 directly from the comments on this blog in the couple of months I've been lurking, but I have been directed to some interesting sources and subjects to look in to. I just attribute the lack of useful information to the reluctance that some people have for repeating themselves ad nauseum. Unfortunately, Brian, you don't seem to have that problem.

 
At 03 May, 2012 12:27, Blogger John said...

Thank you for posting, Scarlet.

Any one else? Anyone out there agree with Brian?

 
At 03 May, 2012 12:59, Blogger Len said...

Still waiting for a reply Brian/snug.bug.

Identify any truthers or debunkers who respect you.

As for the topics you supposedly want to debate you must know the format here is not suited for in depth discussion. Most of us are at JREF if you really want to play ball

 
At 03 May, 2012 13:01, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

truthers are not as dumb as they thought.

I have to agree with at least this part. Truthers never stop showing me that they are far dumber than I assume.

 
At 03 May, 2012 13:07, Blogger GuitarBill said...

John, with all due respect, your efforts to ignore the goat fucker will fail. Remember, he's not an advocate for "9/11 truth," he's an advocate for the goat fucker (aka, Brian Good).

Trust me, the goat fucker lied when he wrote, "...I would much appreciate it if you clowns would ignore me."

He wants to be the center of attention because he's not at all interested in "9/11 truth."

The following article is his real concern:

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

The article was originally posted to SLC. The article, however, was deleted when Pat and James changed their blog comment management software a few years ago.

Make no mistake, the goat fucker's only concern is exacting his revenge against Pat, James, Ian, Willie, Carol Brouillet and, above all, Kevin Barrett. There is no other logical explanation for his behavior.

That said, his goal is not to advocate for "9/11 truth." His goal is to END THE DEBATE, and, in the process, ruin the blog. His behavior, moreover, is confirmation of that observation.

He's a troll, and there's only one cure for a troll: Officially ban him and remove all of his self-serving, disruptive bilge with extreme prejudice.

 
At 03 May, 2012 13:28, Blogger John said...

Well, since it's obvious that Pat and James aren't going to ban him, let's try ignoring him and see what happens.

 
At 03 May, 2012 13:50, Blogger GuitarBill said...

John, he's a troll. He knows that his outrageous lies and baiting [cough] "commentary" will always inspire a rebuttal.

The only language he understands is the language of force. And that's precisely why you'll never get anywhere with him until Pat and James are willing to honor their promise to ban him.

It's not possible to reason with an insane man who's blind with rage. You may as well try to reason with an angry bull.

 
At 03 May, 2012 14:06, Blogger John said...

Again Pat and James have repeatedly said they're not going to ban them. Brian may always inspire a rebuttal, but it's still our choice whether or not to respond to it. Let's control ourselves for one thread, just to see what happens.

And it's my opinion that he posts here and elsewhere online because he's got nothing else in his life. He craves attention and a false sense of superiority and we're giving it to him in spades.

Who knows? Maybe the threads will become boring without all the vitriol, but I'd like to give it a try.

 
At 03 May, 2012 14:29, Blogger GuitarBill said...

John wrote, "...Again Pat and James have repeatedly said they're not going to ban them. Brian may always inspire a rebuttal, but it's still our choice whether or not to respond to it. Let's control ourselves for one thread, just to see what happens...And it's my opinion that he posts here and elsewhere online because he's got nothing else in his life. He craves attention and a false sense of superiority and we're giving it to him in spades."

We're not talking about "them," we're talking about Brian "Petgoat" Good.

Normally, I would agree that we shouldn't ban real troofers. The goat fucker, however, is not a troofer. He's a revenge-seeking troll with a hidden personal and political agenda. Thus, he doesn't, by any means, qualify as "them."

John wrote, "...Who knows? Maybe the threads will become boring without all the vitriol, but I'd like to give it a try."

Be my guest. I sincerely hope your idea works. Unfortunately, I have years of experience with the goat fucker, and I can tell you that your chances of success are slim to none. Always bear in mind that he is not an authentic troofer, he's a political animal (operative?) with a hidden personal and political agenda.

The following article is the real issue:

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

Get to the bottom of this issue, as I have done, and you'll discover that his behavior is driven by a raging need for revenge, not a search for "the truth."

 
At 03 May, 2012 23:32, Blogger snug.bug said...

Without vitriol, ButtGale wouldn't have anything to say at all.

It's interesting that he seems to think that a text is significant even when it's posted by a liar (Barrett) with no authentication whatsoever and appears to be a discussion between two anonynmous internet posters.

What is the point of referencing that, ButtGale?

 
At 04 May, 2012 05:30, Blogger John said...

If there is anyone out there who is reading this, and has come to these comments sections thinking that truthers are stupid, and had their minds changed by Brian's posts, please post a comment saying so.

Seriously. Anyone at all.

 
At 04 May, 2012 06:12, Blogger Ian said...

I disagree with your belief that these comments have zero effect on what people think about 9/11. I think that people come here to find out how dumb those troofers are, and that when they read the comments any half-bright-or-better person is going to find it pretty obvious that the debunkers are a bunch of idiots and the truthers are not as dumb as they thought.

Like Carol Brouillet said, Brian is completely delusional.

 
At 04 May, 2012 08:19, Blogger ┬áNewly-Minted Truther said...

OK, I admit my mind has been changed by Brian's brilliant posts.

What really won me over was his above comment about Julian Assange and the Wikileaks team covering up the truth about 9/11. I read that and thought, gee, this snug.bug fella is really well grounded in reality.

But most convincingly, after an exhaustive Internet search, I discovered that all of Brian's opinions are independently supported by such luminaries as Dr. Punxsutawneybarney of the YouTube Institute of Technology, Professor Petgoat of Democratic Underground University, Dr. Truebeleaguer of Truth Action National Laboratory, and Dean Poordumbbastard of Yahoo Message Boards College of Engineering. Who am I to argue with that collection of genius?

 
At 04 May, 2012 08:28, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

OK, I admit my mind has been changed by Brian's brilliant posts.

+1000 Internets to you, sir.

 
At 04 May, 2012 10:00, Blogger snug.bug said...

If there is anyone out there who is reading this, and has come to these comments sections thinking that truthers are stupid, and had their minds changed by Brian's posts, please post a comment saying so.


The problem with your challenge is that the people who would answer in the affirmative are not here, and wouldn't consider posting here worth their time.

I dispute the proposition that water can call from the sky. I've been waiting for about 22 hours now to see this phenomenon demonstrated, and it hasn't happened.

 
At 04 May, 2012 10:11, Blogger Ian said...

The problem with your challenge is that the people who would answer in the affirmative are not here, and wouldn't consider posting here worth their time.

What happened to these people, Brian?

"I think that people come here to find out how dumb those troofers are, and that when they read the comments any half-bright-or-better person is going to find it pretty obvious that the debunkers are a bunch of idiots and the truthers are not as dumb as they thought."

I do agree with you that the people who would answer in the affirmative are not here, because they're not anywhere. 9/11 truth is dead. Take away all your sockpuppets that are spamming the internet, and there are about 4 people left in the truth movement.

I dispute the proposition that water can call [sic] from the sky. I've been waiting for about 22 hours now to see this phenomenon demonstrated, and it hasn't happened.

Water fell from the sky here this morning. Damn thunderstorm woke me up at 6 am.

As always, you fail, Brian.

 
At 04 May, 2012 11:39, Blogger snug.bug said...

An anonymous internet poster says water fell from the sky. I should believe that?

 
At 04 May, 2012 13:03, Blogger Ian said...

An anonymous internet poster says water fell from the sky. I should believe that?

http://www.erh.noaa.gov/okx/

It's pretty easy to confirm that water fell from the sky in New York this morning.

Of course, there's no other way to confirm that people are listening to you, because no site wants to host the insane babbling of a liar and pervert and lunatic who believes in magic thermite elves.

Strangely, after 3 years of you spamming this blog with nonsense about invisible widows, the number of people saying they've been convinced by you is equal to the number of people who give a shit that the "widows" have not had their questions answered.

I'll let you guess what that number is.

 
At 04 May, 2012 15:17, Blogger snug.bug said...

I'n not interested in checking the website. I want water to fall from the sky right here on demand. Since it hasn't happened in the 30 hours since I demanded it, I'm going to conclude that it doesn't happen.

 
At 04 May, 2012 18:44, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Brian...

Kicked out of college.

Values philosophy over science, then wonders why he doesn't understand it.

Run out of the Peace movement, and all of the 9/11 Truth sub-groups. Left to live out his life on the fringe of the fringe of a small fringe.

All he has is us. He is our clown.

Dance for us, Mr Clown.

 
At 04 May, 2012 21:55, Blogger Ian said...

I'n not interested in checking the website. I want water to fall from the sky right here on demand. Since it hasn't happened in the 30 hours since I demanded it, I'm going to conclude that it doesn't happen.

Conclude whatever you want. Either way, you're still a pathetic liar and lunatic who has no job and lives with his parents and will forever be the subject of ridicule at this blog.

 
At 05 May, 2012 02:46, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, where did you get the idea that I was kicked out of college?

Where did you get the idea that there's a conflict between science and philosophy? Once again, I think you're lying about your geology studies. Any real scientist knows that science IS philosophy.

Where did you get the idea that I was run out of the peace movement?

When are you going to get educated enough to understand the difference between what you know and what you don't?

 
At 05 May, 2012 06:51, Blogger John said...

The problem with your challenge is that the people who would answer in the affirmative are not here

Then how do you know they exist?

The correct answer is that they don't exist and never have existed. Except in your mind.

I dispute the proposition that water can call from the sky. I've been waiting for about 22 hours now to see this phenomenon demonstrated, and it hasn't happened.

But water falling from the sky has happened before and there is a science that can predict when it will happen again. No one has posted here supporting you (in fact one just posted here with the opposite reaction) and, until someone does post here, then I say they don't exist.

 
At 05 May, 2012 07:04, Blogger Ian said...

MGF, where did you get the idea that I was kicked out of college?

You told us yourself that you failed out of San Jose State.

Where did you get the idea that there's a conflict between science and philosophy? Once again, I think you're lying about your geology studies. Any real scientist knows that science IS philosophy.

Brian, you're neither a scientist nor a philosopher. You're a mentally ill unemployed janitor and pervert who spends his lonely Friday nights calling people "girls" on the internet.

Where did you get the idea that I was run out of the peace movement?

You've been run out of every group you've ever been a part of because you're a liar and sex stalker and obsessed lunatic.

When are you going to get educated enough to understand the difference between what you know and what you don't?

Squeal squeal squeal!

Boy, it's hilarious to hear a college dropout who couldn't hold down a job as a janitor babbling about "education".

 
At 05 May, 2012 07:17, Blogger Ian said...

Hey Brian, I've been listening to Bill Deagle lectures where he explains the connections between the Illuminati, weather-control devices, alien military technology, and 9/11.

It's good to see that a serious researcher like Deagle is still in good standing with the truth movement, while they've purged the lunatics like you.

 
At 05 May, 2012 09:38, Blogger snug.bug said...

John, it's axiomatic that people exist who can recognize the difference between
well-reasoned, fact-based commentary on the one hand, and the reliance on lying ad hominems and untruths disguised as humor on the other.

I'm sorry that you feel that people who can bring such powers of judgment to bear don't exist.

Water falling from the sky may have happened before, but it's now been nearly 48 hours after my call for it and I still haven't seen it. So I'm going to say it doesn't exist.

Ian, please tell us when I said I failed out of San Jose State.

Ian, you lie and lie and lie, and all you can do is "Squeal squeal squeal!"
Where did you get the idea that I dropped out of college? Where did you get the idea that I couldn't hold down a job as a janitor?

 
At 05 May, 2012 10:12, Blogger Ian said...

John, it's axiomatic that people exist who can recognize the difference between
well-reasoned, fact-based commentary on the one hand, and the reliance on lying ad hominems and untruths disguised as humor on the other.


Right, and those people will recognize that what you present is not well-reasoned, fact-based commentary, but paranoid delusions and lies.

Water falling from the sky may have happened before, but it's now been nearly 48 hours after my call for it and I still haven't seen it. So I'm going to say it doesn't exist.

Nobody cares.

Ian, please tell us when I said I failed out of San Jose State.

Here:

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=27396589&postID=3253585662683586972

Multiple times in this thread, you say "I failed out of San Jose State".

Where did you get the idea that I dropped out of college?

See above.

Where did you get the idea that I couldn't hold down a job as a janitor?

You told us you used to be a janitor and that you were let go.

 
At 05 May, 2012 13:05, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 05 May, 2012 15:34, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you lie. I never said I failed out of SJSU. I never even attended classes at SJSU. I did janitorial work when I was in college. It's a great job for a student because it's basically a responsibility thing--you are responsible to keep the space clean and if you can do it in ten minutes you get paid for an hour's work. If the floor's just a little bit dirty but it's Study Week you can just clean the dirty spots and let the total job slide until the new quarter. I never said I was "let go".

 
At 05 May, 2012 15:50, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"If the floor's just a little bit dirty but it's Study Week you can just clean the dirty spots and let the total job slide until the new quarter."

So you admit to doing a half-assed job. Wait, you brag about doing a half-assed job.

I detect a pattern...



"I never said I was "let go".""

So you are either still a janitor, or you were straight up fired for cause.

 
At 05 May, 2012 16:07, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, in janitorial work there's nothing wrong with "good enough" as long as you follow through with the honest deep cleaning when it's necessary. The grunt work is what I'd hire you to do, and that's how I'd get rich as a janitor. I change the towels and clean the mirrors and the chrome three times a week, and twice a year you come in for $7 an hour to scrape the gunk out behind the toilet.

 
At 05 May, 2012 18:16, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Goat fucker, you are the "gunk" "behind the toilet."

 
At 05 May, 2012 20:17, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"MGF, in janitorial work there's nothing wrong with "good enough" as long as you follow through with the honest deep cleaning when it's necessary. The grunt work is what I'd hire you to do, and that's how I'd get rich as a janitor. I change the towels and clean the mirrors and the chrome three times a week, and twice a year you come in for $7 an hour to scrape the gunk out behind the toilet."


See...I did janitorial work. I never did a half-assed job. I cleaned the fuck out of everything...because it was my job to do so. Nothing was left to build up - ever, and I still got out of the place early half the time.

I clocked out early when I did too. Why? I'm not a thief. I've never taken a paycheck I've never earned.

Once again you reveal your true self for all to see.

 
At 06 May, 2012 08:03, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 06 May, 2012 09:47, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 06 May, 2012 09:48, Blogger snug.bug said...

I was paid for taking responsibility for the job, not by the hour. When you're paid by the hour, working hard and working smart are penalized. You can't make any money that way.

 
At 06 May, 2012 13:55, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"I was paid for taking responsibility for the job, not by the hour. When you're paid by the hour, working hard and working smart are penalized. You can't make any money that way."

Working hard and working smart are penalized? Only if you are lazy and incompetent.

...or you work for the government.

You don't take a janitorial job to make money, you take the job to pay the bills.

Once again you reveal your true nature as a crook, and a guy who does the minimum while expecting to be paid the same as those who work hard.

Fucking 1%-er.

 
At 06 May, 2012 14:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, there's a lot of money in janitorial work if you have half a brain. There's a lot of trust involved when the client turns the keys over to someone who's given the opportunity to hack into the computers and go through the files. You never thought of that?

 
At 06 May, 2012 14:27, Blogger Ian said...

I see that Brian spent another lonely Saturday night pretending that he was actually not a failure as a janitor.

 
At 06 May, 2012 14:35, Blogger snug.bug said...

I see that Ian stops by to lie and lie again and reveal his incompetence in reading time stamps.

 
At 06 May, 2012 15:02, Blogger Ian said...

Poor Brian. He's hysterical because, after 3 years of posting endlessly on this blog, there is not one person who reads this blog who thinks Brian is right and that the WTC was destroyed by controlled demolition.

Of course, there are many people who realize that Brian is a pathetic liar and sex stalker who failed out of San Jose State and couldn't hold down a job as a janitor.

 
At 06 May, 2012 15:19, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I never said the WTC was destroyed by controlled demolition. Where did you get such a silly idea?

Where do you get your information that I failed out of SJSU?

 
At 06 May, 2012 15:39, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, I never said the WTC was destroyed by controlled demolition. Where did you get such a silly idea?

So your endless babbling about invisible elevator repairmen, silent explosives, magic spray-on nanothermite, and your delusions about symmetrical collapse and free-fall speed and squibs and molten steel....is that all performance art or something? Are you trying to play the part of an ignorant, paranoid lunatic even though you don't believe these loony things?

Where do you get your information that I failed out of SJSU?

I gave you the link earlier. You said many times, "I failed out of San Jose State".

 
At 06 May, 2012 15:55, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I never said the WTC was destroyed by controlled demolition. I never said "I failed out of San Jose State". I never even attended San Jose State.

 
At 06 May, 2012 16:01, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, I never said the WTC was destroyed by controlled demolition. I never said "I failed out of San Jose State". I never even attended San Jose State.

Poor Brian. He's hysterical because I've humiliated him again.

Well, maybe next week your "widows" will have their questions answered.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!

 
At 06 May, 2012 16:07, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you only humiliate yourself.

 
At 06 May, 2012 16:24, Blogger Ian said...

Yup, that's the kind of pathetic squealing I expect from an unemployed janitor who, after 3 years posting here, has not convinced a single person that controlled demolition is plausible. Not one.

He also hasn't presented any evidence that his so-called widows have questions.

 
At 06 May, 2012 21:27, Blogger snug.bug said...

Where did you get the idea I was trying to convince people that controlled demolition was plausible?

I have many times presented the evidence that the widows have 273 of their 300 questions pending.

http://www.justicefor911.org/Appendix4_FSCQuestionRatings_111904.php

 
At 07 May, 2012 07:25, Blogger Ian said...

Where did you get the idea I was trying to convince people that controlled demolition was plausible?

Can you explain to me why you babble endlessly about the "baffling" aspects of the collapse, such as symmetry, totality, squibs, the pulverization of the concrete, and molten steel, especially after the reason for each of these items has been explained to you many, many times?

Can you explain to me why you babble endlessly about invisible elevator repairmen spraying invisible magic thermite onto the steel columns...or placing invisible silent explosives on said columns?

If you don't believe in CD, why are you constantly babbling about this stuff?

I have many times presented the evidence that the widows have 273 of their 300 questions pending.

http://www.justicefor911.org/Appendix4_FSCQuestionRatings_111904.php


Nobody cares.

 
At 07 May, 2012 07:40, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I don't babble endlessly. You do. None of those baffling aspects have been explained. "Gravity" is not an explanation. "Things fall down" is not an explanation. I only post here to correct people when they say something stupid--which in your case is almost everything you say, including your taste in music.

The widows care, and they're not nobody.

 
At 07 May, 2012 07:47, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, I don't babble endlessly. You do. None of those baffling aspects have been explained. "Gravity" is not an explanation. "Things fall down" is not an explanation. I only post here to correct people when they say something stupid--which in your case is almost everything you say, including your taste in music.

Yup, I've humiliated Brian once again by pointing out that he's a pathetic liar and lunatic who believes in CD with religious certainty, so he's going to try to bury my questions in spam.

Also, it's hilarious that he thinks I care about my taste in music. Why should I care what a mentally ill unemployed janitor who failed out of San Jose State thinks about anything?

The widows care, and they're not nobody.

What makes you think that the widows care? Did Willie Rodriguez tell you that?

You care, and of course, you're nobody. You have no friends, no job, and can't get within 50 feet of a woman without getting pepper sprayed.

Also, you look like a homeless lunatic and have the worst haircut I've ever seen.

 
At 07 May, 2012 08:19, Blogger snug.bug said...

I've told you many times why I think the widows care. Because they wrote to Patrick Leahy expressing disgust with the 9/11 Commission report.

 
At 07 May, 2012 08:25, Blogger Ian said...

I've told you many times why I think the widows care. Because they wrote to Patrick Leahy expressing disgust with the 9/11 Commission report.

False. You've never told us this. You have, however, told us that you were kicked out of San Jose State, kicked out of the Northern California Truth Alliance, that you lost your job as a janitor, and that you're petgoat.

Also, you're obsessed with idiotic CD conspiracies because you're a mentally ill liar who lives with his parents.

All the squealing in the world won't change this.

 
At 07 May, 2012 08:30, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you lie, and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie. Why?

 
At 07 May, 2012 08:49, Blogger Ian said...

Poor Brian, he's hysterical. I guess it must be tough to be a mentally ill old man living on disability and get mocked every day by a young, successful, intelligent person.

I wouldn't mock you if you didn't want to exonerate mass murderers, Brian. And you probably wouldn't want to exonerate mass murderers if you'd get the psychiatric care you desperately need.

But by all means, keep posting spam about "widows" with "questions". I'll keep saying that the widows have no questions, and you'll keep squealing and crying. It makes no difference to me.

 
At 07 May, 2012 08:55, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, what could possibly inspire a young, successful person to spend a dozen hours a week posting the same stupid lies again and again?

Your claim that the widows have no questions is a blatant and shameful lie. Why are you trying to frustrate the widows' quest for answers? What makes you such a shithead? Did your big sister and her friends abuse you when you were little?

 
At 07 May, 2012 09:06, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, what could possibly inspire a young, successful person to spend a dozen hours a week posting the same stupid lies again and again?

A dozen hours? Brian, you really are delusional.

Also, I've explained why I taunt you. Entertainment. I am amused by your idiotic babbling about magic thermite elves.

Your claim that the widows have no questions is a blatant and shameful lie.

False. If the widows had questions, you would have presented evidence of those questions by now.

Why are you trying to frustrate the widows' quest for answers?

The widows are not frustrated. You are, because you're a liar and lunatic.

What makes you such a shithead? Did your big sister and her friends abuse you when you were little?

Like I said, I come here for the entertainment. I am greatly amused by this kind of hysterical squealing.

Also, I have no big sister. You make up your facts.

 
At 07 May, 2012 09:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, for a young successful person to spend a dozen hours a week posting the same stupid lies again and again because he regards it as "entertaining" is pathetic.

I have dozens of times presented the list of the widows' questions. Your continued lying on this is despicable.
http://www.justicefor911.org/Appendix4_FSCQuestionRatings_111904.php

Why do you delight in frustrating the widows' quest for answers? What is wrong with you?

 
At 07 May, 2012 09:26, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, for a young successful person to spend a dozen hours a week posting the same stupid lies again and again because he regards it as "entertaining" is pathetic.

What makes you think I spend dozens of hours here? Did Willie Rodriguez tell you that?

I do like how you don't dispute that you spend dozens of hours here because you're an old failure who lives on disability with his parents.

I have dozens of times presented the list of the widows' questions. Your continued lying on this is despicable.
http://www.justicefor911.org/Appendix4_FSCQuestionRatings_111904.php


What makes you think that there are questions at that link? Did Kevin Barrett tell you that?

Why do you delight in frustrating the widows' quest for answers? What is wrong with you?

The widows have no questions.

 
At 07 May, 2012 11:06, Blogger snug.bug said...

You're a liar. The questions are here:
http://www.justicefor911.org/Appendix4_FSCQuestionRatings_111904.php

 
At 07 May, 2012 12:45, Blogger Ian said...

You're a liar. The questions are here:
http://www.justicefor911.org/Appendix4_FSCQuestionRatings_111904.php


Nobody cares.

However, I notice that you still haven't answered my question about why you constantly babble about things like molten steel or symmetry of collapse if you don't believe in CD. I told Laurie Van Auken that you didn't answer my question and she burst into tears. Why do you enjoy the widows' frustration? What's wrong with you?

 
At 07 May, 2012 13:05, Blogger snuggery.buggery said...

You're a liar. The questions are here:
http://www.justicefor911.org/Appendix4_FSCQuestionRatings_111904.php


Do you have any reason to think those questions are authentic? Any idiot can fabricate questions.

 
At 07 May, 2012 13:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

The questions are authentic. They are
part of a petition and complaint filed with the attorney general of NY, and the website is sponsored by the organization that created the petition.

 
At 07 May, 2012 13:15, Blogger snuggery.buggery said...

Have you authenticated the petition and complaint?

 
At 07 May, 2012 13:25, Blogger Ian said...

The questions are authentic. They are
part of a petition and complaint filed with the attorney general of NY, and the website is sponsored by the organization that created the petition.


We're looking for evidence, Brian. That an anonymous internet liar says they are authentic is meaningless.

 
At 07 May, 2012 13:57, Blogger snug.bug said...

I have no way to authenticate the petition and complaint. That they appear on the website of the organization that sponsored them, and that the principals of that organization have a reputation for integrity support no doubts about the authenticity of the texts.

 
At 07 May, 2012 14:24, Blogger snuggery.buggery said...

I have no way to authenticate the petition and complaint.

Thank you. So you're tacitly admitting that the questions could have been fabricated.


That they appear on the website of the organization that sponsored them, and that the principals of that organization have a reputation for integrity support no doubts about the authenticity of the texts.

I see no evidence attesting to the integrity of the principals or members of that organization. William Rodriguez was part of that group, no? Do you trust Mr. Rodriguez?

 
At 07 May, 2012 15:22, Blogger snug.bug said...

No, I'm not admitting that the questions could have been fabricated.

I was not aware that Mr. Rodriguez was associated with the group. His claims were not incorporated in the petition or the complaint.

 
At 07 May, 2012 15:27, Blogger Ian said...

No, I'm not admitting that the questions could have been fabricated.

You've provided no evidence that they're authentic.

Thanks for proving my point: the widows have no questions.

 
At 07 May, 2012 15:44, Blogger snug.bug said...

The fact that the questions are featured on the website of the organization that sponsored them shows them to be authentic. You have no basis for supposing inauthenticity.

 
At 07 May, 2012 15:57, Blogger Ian said...

The fact that the questions are featured on the website of the organization that sponsored them shows them to be authentic. You have no basis for supposing inauthenticity.

False. You've lost again, Brian. The widows have no questions.

Now let's talk about something else. When is your "meatball on a fork" model going to be published in a journal of engineering?

 
At 07 May, 2012 16:12, Blogger snuggery.buggery said...

I was not aware that Mr. Rodriguez was associated with the group.

Mr. Rodriguez was one of the lead complainants.
http://www.justicefor911.org/press.php
http://www.justicefor911.org/signatories_10-28-04.pdf

Are you asking us to trust an organization that associated with someone you consider a liar and fraud?

I still see no evidence suppoting the authenticity of the questions.

 
At 07 May, 2012 16:37, Blogger snug.bug said...

sb, in 2004 everyone gave Mr. Ropdriguez's story the benefit of the doubt, because nobody could conceive of the notion that somebody outside of the official cabal might lie about the events of that day.

 
At 07 May, 2012 16:42, Blogger Ian said...

sb, in 2004 everyone gave Mr. Ropdriguez's story the benefit of the doubt, because nobody could conceive of the notion that somebody outside of the official cabal might lie about the events of that day.

They gave him the "benefit of the doubt" because he is a hero who saved lives that day. You hate him because he rejected your sexual advances. You're a pervert who wears women's underwear and are sexually obsessed with Rodriguez.

 
At 07 May, 2012 17:03, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 07 May, 2012 17:05, Blogger snug.bug said...

Really? Are I? And you think I have a thing for old fat guys? I'm not obsessed with anything. I let you guys lead the conversation around here.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home