KSM to Face Gitmo Military Commission
The wheels of justice grind slowly, but they grind inevitably:
Charged along with Mohammed are Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, a Pakistani who is Mohammed’s nephew; Ramzi Binalshibh and Walid bin Attash, both Yemenis; and Mustafa al-Hawsawi, a Saudi. All are accused of playing key organizational or financial roles in the attacks on New York and Washington, a plot that Mohammed has said he masterminded.
posted by Pat @ 1:23 PM
202 comments
202 Comments:
Although the rules have been improved, the military commissions continue to violate due process by allowing the use of hearsay and coerced or secret evidence.
That's not what 10 USC § 948r says. And a death sentence isn't exactly trivial to obtain under 10 USC § 949m.
But everybody knows the attacks wouldn't have succeeded if the Saudi government and FBI and CIA weren't assisting them. I'm sure it will all come out at the trial.
Pat, why are you afraid to voice an opinion about the Anthrax attacks? Either you believe a government insider caused a mass-casualty event in 2001 and tried to blame muslims for it, or you're a truther who doesn't trust the FBI's findings.
Which is it? It's a very simple question, and you've been dodging it for a long time.
Reading the Wikipedia entry on the case makes it sound like Ivins was probably the culprit. But I don't have a lot of interest in digging deeper into the matter than that.
It's a very simple question, and you've been dodging it for a long time.
Are you ScootleRoyale? That's an even simpler question, and you run like a nervous coward every time I ask it.
I expect the defense attorneys to create reasonable doubt by asserting that 9/11 was caused by the US government.
If that doesn't happen, then I expect that KSM and his fellow defendants to publicly deny their involvement in 9/11, as opposed to them admitting it. like they've done over the past number of years.
Just asserting that the US govt was behind it creates reasonable doubt? What kangaroo court law school did you graduate from?
I was being sarcastic.
So Pat believes the Anthrax Inside Job as reported by the FBI, but believes it's completely unrelated to 9/11, which he thinks can't possibly be an inside job.
This, despite the fact that 1 of the highjackers had a lesion that was probably cutaneous anthrax, that the white house started taking Cipro on 9/11, and that the the letters were dated 9/11 and said things like "this is next". Quite a coincidence, huh?
Where did you learn to think critically, Pat? Was RGT your teacher?
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Shit-for-brains lies, "...This, despite the fact that 1 of the highjackers [SIC] had a lesion that was probably cutaneous anthrax...[blah][blah][blah]."
Nice job, spelling bee champ.
"...the fact that...probably"
Don't you love it when shit-for-brains gives pure speculation advance billing as "fact", and contradicts himself (e.g., notice the word "probably" after he uses the word "fact") in the process?
Can you say Orwellian doublethink?
Do you always resort to deceptive language, quote mining and shifting the burden of proof when you haven't a shred of evidence to support your idiotic Al Qaeda propaganda, shit-for-brains?
So I'll ask you again for the thousandth time, jackass: When do you plan to provide evidence to substantiate your "iron microspheres" at Ground Zero malarkey, Ali of the East London Mosque?
Yeah, I know, when Hell freezes over. Right, he who only bathes once every four years?
Pat Cowardly said...
"Pat, why are you afraid to voice an opinion about the Anthrax attacks? Either you believe a government insider caused a mass-casualty event in 2001 and tried to blame muslims for it, or you're a truther who doesn't trust the FBI's findings.
Which is it? It's a very simple question, and you've been dodging it for a long time."
Because it was clear to Pat, and everyone else not on medication the Anthrax attacks were separate from the attacks of 9/11. The guy who did it may have worked for the government, but it doesn't make it a government sponsored attack.
So Pat believes the Anthrax Inside Job as reported by the FBI, but believes it's completely unrelated to 9/11, which he thinks can't possibly be an inside job.
Compulsive dot-connecting, resolving the incongruent with the absurd, abnormal fixation... singularly autistic behaviors. Are you autistic? Or has anybody ever suggested that you may be?
Pat believes it's just a coincidence that an inside job that was blamed on Muslims occurred just after a "real" event was blamed on Muslims. Yeah, those dots aren't related at all, huh Patty?
You think NORAD should have been "referred for criminal indictment", and that their lying was "unconscionable", then later you mutter "accountable for what?"
Have you been checked for Dementia or Alzheimer's, Pat? Be honest.
Oops. Let's not forget that Pat also thinks it's a coincidence that the one and only skyscraper that has ever fallen from a single-column "thermal expansion" failure just happened to contain offices of the Secret Service, the SEC, the CIA, the EMC, etc. etc.,
Do you also believe Superman died on the cross for you, Pat? Isn't that what's on your pajamas?
It's called "Namenda", Pat. Look into it. From now on, you should call yourself GeriCurl. Short for Geriatric Curley, the stumbling, demented fat-ass.
"Pat believes it's just a coincidence that an inside job that was blamed on Muslims occurred just after a "real" event was blamed on Muslims."
Nobody has blamed Muslims on the anthrax attack. The FBI gave up on that line of investigation in less than three weeks (once they identified the strain as coming from Ft Belvior). The news media crossed Muslims off the list, as did everyone else but you it seems.
" Let's not forget that Pat also thinks it's a coincidence that the one and only skyscraper that has ever fallen from a single-column "thermal expansion" failure just happened to contain offices of the Secret Service, the SEC, the CIA, the EMC, etc. etc., "
Yeah, and it's no coincidence nobody gave a shit about them having offices there in the first place, so obviously it would have been too much work to -I don't know - call a moving company - so they used an unknown 'splosive nobody on earth has ever seen in the history of ever to bring down a building...8 hours after they'd staged an attack on the Twin Towers because they're evil masterminds of confusion.
Forget there have not been many high-rise building building fires, let alone a fire in a building with similar design to WTC7, to have enough data to make a declarative statement as to what is "normal" for a fire in this kind of structure. All you have is the government rented offices in the WTC, the center of international trade & commerce so those agencies needed to be there, as your motive to make the collapse suspicious.
The Thai Embassy was in Tower 1. They have a quality spy service, you don't think they looked into the attacks? Why would they remain silent for 10 years?
spasm drool drool just a coincidence that an inside job that was blamed on Muslims occurred just after a "real" event was blamed on Muslims spasm drool drool
If the dots don't connect the first time, just connect them again. Bravo. Nostradamus would be very proud of you, along with David Icke.
MGF Wrote: there have not been many high-rise building building fires
NFPA wrote (John R. Hall) "In 2005-2009, there were an average of 15,700 reported structure fires in high-rise buildings per year and associated losses of 53 civilian deaths, 546 civilian injuries, and
$235 million in direct property damage per year."
The Thai Embassy was in Tower 1. They have a quality spy service, you don't think they looked into the attacks? Why would they remain silent for 10 years?
You expect a country that spends $4 billion a year on its military to antagonize a rogue state that spends over $800 billion a year on its military, maintains 700 military bases around the world, and claims the right to assassinate whoever they want wherever they want, even American citizens?
If Thailand did not speak out against the blatantly illegal invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, why would you expect them to speak out about 9/11?
"NFPA wrote (John R. Hall) "In 2005-2009, there were an average of 15,700 reported structure fires in high-rise buildings per year and associated losses of 53 civilian deaths, 546 civilian injuries, and
$235 million in direct property damage per year."
Neat. How many were caused by the impact of a jumbo jet? Get back to me on this.
"You expect a country that spends $4 billion a year on its military to antagonize a rogue state that spends over $800 billion a year on its military, maintains 700 military bases around the world, and claims the right to assassinate whoever they want wherever they want, even American citizens?"
How would stating the truth antagonize anybody except troofers?
"If Thailand did not speak out against the blatantly illegal invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, why would you expect them to speak out about 9/11?"
Yes, you racist puke, I do because they would. The Thai are a wonderful people, but they are the worst enemy you can ever have if you cross them.
Illegal invasions? Illegal to whom?
Afghanistan was a rogue state, and if the US is a rogue state then the laws apply to neither of us.
Iraq was already a rogue state, and if we play by your retarded rules then it's just a street fight. However we were already cleared by the rules of the cease-fire we signed with Iraq, so even if we aren't a rogue state we were covered legally.
Just because nobody prosecutes you because of your mental illness doesn't make you a legal expert. If we are a rogue state then we do what we want to. So why knock down the WTC? We're a rogue state (your words), so we don't need an excuse.
So when your claim that "there have not been many high-rise building building fires" is shown to be just pulled out of your ass, you move the goalposts and demand that we limit it to jumbo-jet fires. And you forget that WTC7, which was the context of your made-up claim, was not hit by any airplane at all.
But I'll do you the favor answering your question just because I'm a nice guy. How many of the 78,000 highrise fires in the last 5 years were caused by impact with a jumbo jet? None. How many in the last ten years? None. How many in the last 15 years? None. In fact the only time of which I am aware that a high-rise building has been hit by a jumbo jet was 4 October 1992. And guess what, Einstein, the building didn't fall down.
The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were totally illegal under the Nuremberg Principles and the Charter of the UN, to both of which the US is signatory, and thus they were illegal under Article VI of the US Constitution.
Knocking down the WTC was necessary because stupid and unnecessary wars would have been very unpopular among the American people without knocking them down.
So when your claim that "there have not been many high-rise building building fires" is shown to be just pulled out of your ass, you move the goalposts and demand that we limit it to jumbo-jet fires. And you forget that WTC7, which was the context of your made-up claim, was not hit by any airplane at all.
Nobody cares about WTC 7, just like nobody cares about your "widows". Also, nobody cares what you have to say about either, or Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Thailand, because you're a mentally ill unemployed janitor who failed out of San Jose State.
But I'll do you the favor answering your question just because I'm a nice guy. How many of the 78,000 highrise fires in the last 5 years were caused by impact with a jumbo jet? None. How many in the last ten years? None. How many in the last 15 years? None. In fact the only time of which I am aware that a high-rise building has been hit by a jumbo jet was 4 October 1992. And guess what, Einstein, the building didn't fall down.
My, such squealing!
Brian, nobody cares about your hair-splitting over whether or not a 767 is a jumbo jet. You're a mentally ill unemployed janitor who failed out of San Jose State.
The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were totally illegal under the Nuremberg Principles and the Charter of the UN, to both of which the US is signatory, and thus they were illegal under Article VI of the US Constitution.
We're not talking about Iraq or Afghanistan, Brian. We're talking about the fact that you're a mentally ill unemployed janitor who failed out of San Jose State. Also, you were thrown out of the truth movement for stalking Carol Brouillet. Also, you believe in modified attack baboons, magic thermite elves, and invisible widows.
Knocking down the WTC was necessary because stupid and unnecessary wars would have been very unpopular among the American people without knocking them down.
And Brian, in his delusional hysteria, forgets all the times he lied to us by claiming he didn't know what happened on 9/11 (and that's why we need a new investigation) and comes out and tells us what we already knew: that he believes that 9/11 was an inside job.
Thank you, Brian. Your hysterical squealing continues to amuse us. Alas, nobody cares what you think happened on 9/11, because you're a mentally ill unemployed janitor who failed out of San Jose State.
"So when your claim that "there have not been many high-rise building building fires" is shown to be just pulled out of your ass, you move the goalposts and demand that we limit it to jumbo-jet fires."
I'm playing by YOUR rules.
You pull a random stat about building fires, but not COMPARABLE building fires in comparable buildings.
"And you forget that WTC7, which was the context of your made-up claim, was not hit by any airplane at all."
It was damaged by WTC1, and burned out of control for 8 hours.
"In fact the only time of which I am aware that a high-rise building has been hit by a jumbo jet was 4 October 1992. And guess what, Einstein, the building didn't fall down."
So you compare an incident where an El Al 747, which had dumped most of its fuel into the ocean, and crashed into a 12-15 story structure at landing speeds while trying not to crash with a 767 flying with a full load of fuel at over 450mph into a 110 story building.
Sorry dude, you still have to sit at the kiddie table, and we're only allowing you a Spork.
"The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were totally illegal under the Nuremberg Principles and the Charter of the UN, to both of which the US is signatory, and thus they were illegal under Article VI of the US Constitution."
Nope.
Article 6 of the Constitution reads:
"All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
So there you go, Sporkboy.
MGF Wrote: You pull a random stat about building fires, but not COMPARABLE building fires in comparable buildings. Many of the 16,000 high-rise fires that take place every year are quite spectaular--for instance the Beijin CCTV tower, the Caracas Tower, the 1st Interstate Bank, the Meridian Plaza, and now the Moscow Federation Tower--and yet these buildings do not fall down.
[WTC7]was damaged by WTC1, and burned out of control for 8 hours. NIST says impact structural damage played no part in collapse initiation. The fires were "uncontrolled" in that FDNY refused to fight them. They were not "out of control" in the sense that they could not be controlled. The photos show they were wimpy fires, and NIST tells us that office fires burn only 20-30 minutes in any particular place before all the fuel is consumed.
So you compare an incident where an El Al 747, which had dumped most of its fuel into the ocean, and crashed into a 12-15 story structure at landing speeds while trying not to crash with a 767 flying with a full load of fuel at over 450mph into a 110 story building.
No, you do. You're the one babbling about "the impact of a jumbo jet". You're the one comparing a 360,000 pound 747 loaded with who-knows-how-many-tons of cargo to a 177,000 pound 767.
The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were totally illegal under the Nuremberg Principles and the Charter of the UN, to both of which the US is signatory, and thus they were illegal under Article VI of the US Constitution. Article VI clearly states that "all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land."
I'm sorry you don't know how to read, but it's not my fault.
Did Brian just hand wave away an argument by simply declaring fires "spectacular"? Brian there is a reason truthers always use pictures of fires at night, they cherry pick when to listen to the FDNY, and theres a reason why you can't make an actual comparison of those fires; because there is no comparison.
"No, you do."
You're the one who brought it up.
"Knocking down the WTC was necessary because stupid and unnecessary wars would have been very unpopular among the American people without knocking them down."
http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/adhom/posthoc.html
The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were totally illegal under the Nuremberg Principles and the Charter of the UN, to both of which the US is signatory, and thus they were illegal under Article VI of the US Constitution.
Executive orders may legally defeat treaty obligations.
Many of the 16,000 high-rise fires that take place every year are quite spectaular--for instance the Beijin CCTV tower, the Caracas Tower, the 1st Interstate Bank, the Meridian Plaza, and now the Moscow Federation Tower--and yet these buildings do not fall down.
They were also not hit by jetliners. The fact that you're not aware that aircraft struck the WTC explains why you're so confused about 9/11.
The fires were "uncontrolled" in that FDNY refused to fight them. They were not "out of control" in the sense that they could not be controlled.
And why didn't the FDNY fight them? Did evil Jew landlord Larry Silverstein pay them off?
The photos show they were wimpy fires, and NIST tells us that office fires burn only 20-30 minutes in any particular place before all the fuel is consumed.
Of course. A mentally ill unemployed janitor who failed out of San Jose State and believes in magic thermite elves just asserts that the fires were "wimpy" without evidence. Well surely that's overwhelming evidence!
No, you do. You're the one babbling about "the impact of a jumbo jet". You're the one comparing a 360,000 pound 747 loaded with who-knows-how-many-tons of cargo to a 177,000 pound 767.
Who said anything about cargo? You make up your facts.
Poor Brian. He's a failed janitor who believes in invisible widows and we've humiliated him so many times at this blog. No wonder he's so desperate and hysterical.
GMS, you're right--there's no comparison between the Caracas Towers fire, which burned for 17 hours and engulfed 26 floors--and WTC7, on which wimpy fires wandered around 6 floors and, in the operative area around column 79, burned out an hour before NIST said they did.
There's also no comparison between the Beijing CCTV fire, which burned all night on all 34 floors, and WTC7.
Neither the Caracas Towers nor the CCTV building fell down.
MGF made the stupid claim that there was no reason a rogue state bent on war would need knock down the towers. I pointed out that there was a reason that a rogue state bent on war would need knock down the towers.
There's nothing illogical there at all.
RGT, executive orders may not violate the Constitution. Article VI provides that treaties are the Supreme Law of the Land. A president whose executive orders can trump legal limits is by definition a dictator, and a military power whose commander in chief insists that no treaties apply to him is by definition a rogue state.
"I don't have a lot of interest in digging deeper..." Pat the so-called "researcher"
You said it brother. Keep up that quality investigative work you're doing! Grandmastershek admires the depth of your work.
Poor Brian. I've humiliated him so many times that he won't respond to me now. He'll just run away squealing and crying as he did from Willie Rodriguez, Craig Ranke, and Kevin Barrett.
How do you expect to get the widows questions answered if you're too much of a coward to debate me?
RGT, executive orders may not violate the Constitution. Article VI provides that treaties are the Supreme Law of the Land.
You're construing the law in a way that is logical, but incorrect.
GMS, you're right--there's no comparison between the Caracas Towers fire, which burned for 17 hours and engulfed 26 floors--and WTC7, on which wimpy fires....
And of course Brian in true truther fashion you leave out the facts...aka lying by omission. Each and every one of those fires had active fire fighting going on.
Caracas: Helicopters doused it.
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-202_162-649824.html
Beijing: Sores of fire trucks, 16 military units, & was thought to be in danger of collapse evne though it was concrete & steel.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123419045021563711.html
Meanwhile your "wimpy fires" are only confirmed by your fellow cult members while the FDNY confirms it was full involved and smoke emanates from almost
every floor.
http://www.oocities.org/factsnotfantasy/WTC7Fire.jpg
Again Brian, always a wonderful job lying & avoiding reality.
Ian, there's no point in debating liars after they have proven themselves to be liars.
RGT, so who says the constitution is incorrect? John Yoo? He addressed the commonwealth club a few weeks ago. I heard 15 people showed up to hear him speak.
So GMS, though helicopters doused the Caracas Tower it still burned for 17 hours and spread to 26 floors. And it didn't fall down. Do you have a point?
And though firefighters fought the CCTV fire it still burned all night on all 34 floors. And it didn't fall down. Do you have a point?
And NIST says that WTC7 only burned seriously on 6 floors. Now why would NIST cover it up if the building was "fully involved"?
I'm not lying and avoiding reality. You are demonstrating your ignorance.
RGT, so who says the constitution is incorrect?
The Constitution is correct. Your interpretation of what it says is incorrect.
Says who? John Yoo?
So GMS....
Seriously Brian, you can't understand the effect of putting water on fire might have? Wow...either willfully ignorant or just plain ignorant. Take your pick. Your black & white thinking is not impressive.
And NIST says that WTC7 only burned seriously on 6 floors...
Maybe you should find out what "fully involved" means?
http://www.lacountyfire.com/dept_terms_gen.php
I'm not lying and avoiding reality.
Oh...you're just lying. Got it.
As shocking as it is Brian, water is used by firefighters to control a fire and mitigate damage. I know this is way out there but if you put water on a fire it slows it down and when enough is available can be used to extinguish it. I know this isn't one of your articles of faith, but sadly the facts aren't exclusively found in the websites you mindlessly parrot. Luckily for myself I don't make shit up as I go.
Just because firefighters have to keep working for an extended period of time does not mean its burning out of control. Read something besides those BS websites you memorize.
http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/print/volume-164/issue-3/features/commercial-building-fires-when-to-go-defensive.html
Also of note, Brian wholly dodged the concrete structure and its feared collapse. Cherry picking his way through reality again.
Brian's "wimpy" fires:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtkWNHSG3MY
As always, he's delusional
Ian, there's no point in debating liars after they have proven themselves to be liars.
Thanks for proving my point. You run away squealing and crying from those who have humiliated you, like me, Willie Rodriguez, and Craig Ranke.
Says who? John Yoo?
We're not talking about John Yoo. We're talking about the fact that you're a mentally ill unemployed janitor who failed out of San Jose State and thus have no idea what you're talking about, whether it's the Constitution or WTC 7.
I'm not lying and avoiding reality.
All you do is lie, Brian. You lie about "petgoat", you lie about Willie Rodriguez, you lie about Dr. Sunder, you lie about the "widows", you lie about failing out of San Jose State, etc. etc.
Says who? John Yoo?
He would probably say so. Even Chemerinsky would probably say so, and he's no fan of the Bush administration. He's at Irvine these days, take a bus down there and ask him.
GMS, NIST says the fires only persisted on 6 floors. I missed the part where you explained why they would lie to minimize the fires in a building that was "fully involved".
Ever since the collapse of the WTC it's commonplace to fear collapse in fires. That doesn't mean that the fear is realistic.
Your videos just prove the point about the wimpy fires.
RGT, so first you claim that my interpretation of the clear language of Article VI is in error, and then you are unable to cite any authority for that claim.
So to sum up, Brian has no evidence of "wimpy" fires, but he's just going to keep repeating that nonsense, because that's what he does. It's the same as his endless babbling about "widows" with "questions".
And as I've pointed out many times before, nobody cares what a mentally ill unemployed janitor thinks happened at the WTC.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
NIST, if you would bother to take a look at the NIST report you will see that the fires in WTC7 were not unimpressive.
I don't know who NIST is, but I will agree that the fires in WTC 7 were impressive.
You're really losing it, Brian. I've humiliated you so much that you don't even bother trying to make sense anymore with your dumbspam.
It's not about what I think.
Of course not. You're a mentally ill unemployed janitor. Nobody cares about your insane beliefs except for the purpose of mocking and taunting you.
I mean, if you didn't have that delusional belief that Laurie Van Auken is a widow, I wouldn't be able to taunt you by pointing out how her questions have not been answered.
RGT, so first you claim that my interpretation of the clear language of Article VI is in error, and then you are unable to cite any authority for that claim.
Precedent trumps plain reading. It's on you to cite precedent for what you describe (an otherwise lawful military action made unlawful by treaty obligations).
Hint: "supreme law of the land" means that states cannot enter into their own treaties.
Skidmark, if you would bother to take a look at the NIST report you will see that the fires in WTC7 were unimpressive.
It's not about what I think. It's about the things that you think that aren't true.
RGT, so you're claiming that the "supreme law of the land" does not apply to the president?
Skidmark, if you would bother to take a look at the NIST report you will see that the fires in WTC7 were unimpressive.
You mean the NIST report that you constantly say is "dishonest, incomplete, and unbelievable"? Yeah, I'm going to disagree with them. It's quite clear that the fires were big and, more importantly, weren't battled by the FDNY.
It's not about what I think. It's about the things that you think that aren't true.
You already posted this dumbspam, Brian. I agree, what you think is irrelevant because you're a nobody. Also, you can't name a single thing that I think is true that is actually not true.
RGT, so you're claiming that the "supreme law of the land" does not apply to the president?
Technically, it doesn't. Read it carefully. What comes after "supreme Law of the Land"? Whose power does Article VI restrict?
Brian will now tell us why he can cite the NIST report despite it being "dishonest, unbelievable, and incomplete" by using one of his legendary analogies.
"Skidmark, your suggestions that I not cite the NIST report is irrational. Sometimes I eat blueberry muffins for breakfast, and sometimes I watch 'Three Stooges' re-runs at 2 am."
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Skidmark, can you provide any explanation for why NIST would report fires weaker than they actually were?
RGT, so you believe Article VI provides that the supreme law of the land applies only to judges in states? Doesn't that interpretation then imply that the Constitution only applies to judges in states, and thus the federal executive branch is immune to its strictures?
RGT, so you believe Article VI provides that the supreme law of the land applies only to judges in states?
Two errors. Try again.
Gentlemen, the goat fucker is trying to shift the burden of proof. The burden of proof rests on HIS SHOULDERS, not yours.
Don't allow SLC's resident scumbag to get away with it.
We know that Brian carries alot of baggage with him every time he replies on SLC.
His only major failure is that it's his duty to provide us with evidence of his claims. All we can do is point and laugh at him and he gets angry like a child.
Brian's mental condition is like that of a child. So we should talk to him like a child.
RGT, unless you are doing it for fun, this is old ground and, as usual, Brian is going back to a disproven theory hoping no one remembers he had his ass handed to him on it.
Apparently the simple fact that a treaty can not amend the US Constitution eludes him completely.
Skidmark, can you provide any explanation for why NIST would report fires weaker than they actually were?
Yes I can.
First, you have to provide evidence that the fires were small and that NIST said that the fires were small.
RGT, since you're the one claiming that Article VI does not mean what it says, it is for you to "try again", not me.
JR, I never said that a treaty can amend the Constitution. There are established means for adjudicating conflicts of laws, and this is not exception.
Skidmark, the photos in NIST's report show that the fires in WTC7 were small.
Skidmark, the photos in NIST's report show that the fires in WTC7 were small.
Well, that settles it. A mentally ill unemployed janitor who sniffs glue, believes in magic thermite elves and invisible widows, calls people "girls", and failed out of San Jose State says the fires were small. Who are we to argue?
Skidmark, if you actually had an argument you would not find it necessary to lie.
Skidmark, if you actually had an argument you would not find it necessary to lie.
And that's the end. Brian just starts babbling incoherently because he knows he failed, that his "widows" will never have their questions answered, and that Carol Brouillet will never leave her husband for him.
You certainly did, though I do realize since you didn't use the actual words you can't recognize that you did.
The US Constitution places the power to declare war solely in the hands of the US Congress. The redirction of any part of that power to others in any way is a direct change of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. And that can only be done by the amendment process, not by treaty.
"MGF made the stupid claim that there was no reason a rogue state bent on war would need knock down the towers. I pointed out that there was a reason that a rogue state bent on war would need knock down the towers.
There's nothing illogical there at all."
No, you didn't point out anything. You're logic spun out if control. A rogue state needs money, why knock out a key financial center? No other rogue state has done this.
"Gentlemen, the goat fucker is trying to shift the burden of proof. The burden of proof rests on HIS SHOULDERS, not yours."
Bill, this is all comedy gold. Brian's paranoid delusions, cherry-picking of selected facts, and inability to follow his own train of though is just too funny.
"Skidmark, if you would bother to take a look at the NIST report you will see that the fires in WTC7 were unimpressive."
Yeah, and whatever you do don't look at the pictures toward the bottom on this link which show a shit-load of smoke coming from those unimpressive fires. Plus looking at these pictures is a waste of time because it's a great source for the sequence of events (i.e. WTC7 clearly damaged after WTC1's wreckage and shockwave do their work).
http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/index.shtm
JR, I believe we had this conversation already and your misunderstanding of the issues was based on the faulty belief that simply because the Constitution granted the power to do illegal acts, therefore it legalizes illegal acts.
the faulty belief that simply because the Constitution granted the power to do illegal acts, therefore it legalizes illegal acts
Interesting. On what grounds can a grant of power in the Constitution be declared illegal? I'd really love an example here.
JR, you're right, I have no illusions about teaching snug anything. I'm mostly exploring the contours of his defect.
Brian, we've had all of these conversations before. They all end the same way: we laugh at you, you get upset, start squealing, and call us "girls".
RGT, this is one of his better pieces of comedic idiocy.
I just wanted to make sure you knew this was old ground. Carry on, Good Sir.
I realize you can't grasp this Brian, but one of the most basic tenet's of US jurisprudence is that if the US Constitution allows it, it is indeed legal.
GMS, NIST says the fires only persisted on 6 floors. I missed the part where you explained why they would lie to minimize the fires in a building that was "fully involved".
And Brian fails to find out fully involved mean even when the link is spoon fed to him. Shocking? No.
Ever since the collapse of the WTC it's commonplace to fear collapse in fires. That doesn't mean that the fear is realistic.
Except that fear existed pre 9/11. And the nay saying of a fringe cult and the incredulity of a random poster are not evidence to the contrary.
http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-049.pdf
Your videos just prove the point about the wimpy fires.
Sure Brian, let me know when you have more than the ramblings of you and your fringe cult. Your hand waving is not impressive.
It really shows Brian's detachment from reality that he can see smoke and flames billowing from multiple windows and claim they are "wimpy". You don't get much more delusional than that. Keep clutching at that blankie Brian!
But then again this the guy who doesn't understand the effect of water on fire.
RGT, I'm sorry for your miscomprehension but it's not my fault.
I didn't say "a grant of power in the Constitution be declared illegal". The grant of power is legal. It's the act that's illegal. I'm truly sorry you can't distinguish between those two things.
JR, I already know all about your neo-fascistic mangling of the Constitution. I'm not interested in your ignorant ideology.
GMS, NIST never said WTC7 was "fully involved". They said the fires only persisted on 6 floors.
High rise buildings do not collapse from fires--except on 9/11.
Oh gosh, there must be flames billowing out of six, seven, maybe even eight windows there! Wow!
NIST says the fires only persisted on six floors. You haven't explained why they would lie about that.
"I'm not interested in your ignorant ideology."
In other words, "I got nothin'"
In other words, all you've got is goofy propaganda from unqualified lunatics.
The grant of power is legal. It's the act that's illegal.
I think you're having trouble distinguishing between something expressly permitted vs. something not prohibited under the Constitution. Tell me which specific act you're referring to and I'll try to help.
JR, I already know all about your neo-fascistic mangling of the Constitution. I'm not interested in your ignorant ideology.
GMS, NIST never said WTC7 was "fully involved". They said the fires only persisted on 6 floors.
High rise buildings do not collapse from fires--except on 9/11.
Oh gosh, there must be flames billowing out of six, seven, maybe even eight windows there! Wow!
NIST says the fires only persisted on six floors. You haven't explained why they would lie about that.
And Brian is just squealing hysterically now because he's been humiliated yet again for being a liar and a lunatic who wears women's underwear and believes in magic thermite elves.
In other words, all you've got is goofy propaganda from unqualified lunatics.
Squeal squeal squeal!
Poor Laurie Van Auken. She's desperate to have her questions answered, but Brian won't actually help her. He'll just post spam about magic thermite elves on this blog.
You should be ashamed of yourself, Brian.
" goofy propaganda from unqualified lunatics"
LOL
that is priceless. Since you can attest to the gualifications of my sources, You must know who they are.
Who are they?
I forget. Dominionists, maybe?
I guess we can add "dominionists" to the list of big-boy words that Brian uses to try to sound smart, but of course ends up sounding like a pathetic lunatic instead.
Other such words include "logic", "physics", "thermodynamics", "pyroclastic flow", "symmetry", "totality", and of course "widow".
Are you asking?
You claimed to know them well enough to judge their qualifications, surely you don't have to guess. That would indicate you don't know who they are and therefore have zero basis for judging their qualifications.
That would be as logical as assuming a lump of metal came from where someone with an agenda told you it came from, without ever seeing any evidence that it did in fact come from there.
And we know you would never do that.
You are suh a stickler for facts and evidence.
If we're lucky Brian will tell us about the practicality of building bridges with cardboard again.
I don't remember who they were. I needn't clutter my head with trifles.
Dr. Jones's 40-pound blob of formerly molten iron only came up in the context of one of those stupid "there is no evidence" claims. Yes there is evidence: testimony of 5 PhDs, corroborated by Dr. Jones's sample. ButtGoo then tries to write a book on the subject of Dr. Jones's sample, but I never tried to build anything on it.
Yes there is evidence: testimony of 5 PhDs, corroborated by Dr. Jones's sample.
Is it fair to give statements the weight of testimony when they're out-of-court, unsworn, and in some cases clearly repudiated by the speakers?
If we're lucky Brian will tell us about the practicality of building bridges with cardboard again.
Don't forget his assertions that we can build semiconductors with cardboard too.
This comment has been removed by the author.
RGT, the statements have never been repudiated by the speakers. The problem with hanging out with liars is that you come to believe their lies.
Skidmark, I never said semiconductors could be built with cardboard. Without your lies, you'd have nothing to say at all, would you?
Captain Crotchrot squeals, "...The problem with hanging out with liars is that you come to believe their lies."
That's heavy, goat molester.
So I suppose it's safe to conclude that your parents were congenital liars, too.
I guess that makes you a chip off the old block. Right Pinocchio?
And your problem, ButtGoo, is that you come to believe your own lies. That way lies madness and you, like Kevin Barrett, are already halfway there.
RGT, the statements have never been repudiated by the speakers.
Dr. Astaneh-asl has expressly stated that his "melting of girders" comment has been misused. Dr. Barnett has said the same about his "evaporated" steel comment. Leslie Robertson says he did not see molten steel.
Your basis for rejecting these plain repudiations -- that they are not delivered in some public, formal manner -- is irrational.
Lying again, goat fucker?
I don't lie, goat fucker, because I have no reason to lie.
You, on the other hand, are a psychopath and a proven compulsive liar.
Tell us more about your alleged "scientific reputation," while I've proven that you can't pass a formal examination in elementary chemistry, physics or mathematics.
You're a good little fascist Republican scumbag, aren't you, Pinocchio? After all, you always accuse your detractors of the crimes YOU commit.
Since Dr. Millette's BRILLIANT data came into being about finding NO THERMITE in he WTC dust.
All Brian can do is cower in fear and be rediculed and he's trying to make himself look like, how shall I say it, a God.
Brian, you're God to mythology died on 9/11. Possibly along with your brain too.
I like how Brian praised Steven Jones in the Jon Gold thread. Here's something to remind our intrepid retard that Steven Jones did fuck up big time.
http://www.infinite-love-forum.com/viewtopic.php?f=72&t=4582
Steven Jones admits WTC 7 collapse time was at least twice as long.
(BNN - New York, NY) - Steven Jones admitted today that he and other 9/11 researchers "screwed up on the collapse time of WTC 7. We blew it."
For years, Jones and others have claimed that WTC 7 collapsed in 6.5 seconds, nearly free fall speed.
Jones's admission comes on the heels of a debate on the Rob Bishop show last night when Jason Bermas one of the amateur filmmakers responsible for the film, "Loose Change", became flustered when the question of the WTC 7 collapse time came up. Bermas was confronted with the CBS video of the collapse of WTC 7 clearly showing it took over 13 seconds to collapse from beginning to end.
"That is a fantasy! I've looked at all the videos. WTC 7 collpased in 6.5 seconds, period!", Jason declared in a nervous voice.
Pat Curley, who participated in the debate last night and co-wrote with James Bennett the debunking of the film, "Loose Change", demonstrated conclusively that WTC 7 collapsed in over 13 seconds.
"The CBS video clearly shows that the East Penthouse collapsed first, followed by the West Penthouse and the rest of the structure. Between the beginning of the East Penthouse collapse and the beginning of the structure collapse, 7 seconds went by. The structure collapse then took an additional 6 - 7 seconds," Pat explained.
Bermas, visibly shaken, responded by completely dismissing the video evidence.
Pat pointed out that the 9/11 Truth Movement has inexplicably argued against its own controlled demolition theory for years.
"The CBS video demonstrates that internal collapses were taking place in WTC 7 before the entire structure fell. The 9/11 Truth Movement could have argued that bombs were going off inside of WTC 7 to weaken the structure so structure collapse could take place, just like internal explosives are set off to cause a structure collapse in real controlled demolitions. Instead, they adamantly argue that no internal collapse took place before the building collapsed. Isn't that strange?"
Responding to the overnight controversy, Steven Jones announced this morning that WTC 7 did indeed take over 13 seconds to collapse.
"We screwed up. We had never seen the CBS video when we claimed that it took WTC 7 6.5 seconds to collapse. We only relied on the street video that does not show the Penthouses. By the time we saw the CBS video, we had so much invested in the 6.5-second collapse time, we could not disappoint our supporters who were successfully using the 6.5 free fall time to push 9/11 Truth. We just ignored the evidence.
But.. But.. I said "period!"
This comment has been removed by the author.
RGT, there is no reason to think that the statement attributed to Dr. Asteneh-Asl is genuine. Even if it were, it is not a repudiation. He told PBS "I saw melting of girders at World Trade Center." Your claim that he has repudiated it is a lie.
When did Dr. Barnett reject the "evaporated" statement?
When did Leslie Robertson say he did not see molten steel? He told a Stanford audience that he saw "like a little river of steel". Years later in a debate with Dr. Jones he started to say something to the effect that nobody ever said they saw any molten steel--and then he backed up and said, and if they did, it wasn't subject to an assay. But Dr. Astaneh-Asl's "melting of girders" is by definition melted steel.
ButtGoo, I don't know what your reasons for lying are, but you lie blatantly in a post where you claim you don't lie.
Toothless and Always Wacko, I see that you can't tell comedy from the real thing. Dr. Jones never said what you think he said. You prove nothing but your own idiocy.
The goat molester prevaricates, "...I don't know what your reasons for lying are, but you lie blatantly in a post where you claim you don't lie."
Another unsubstantiated assertion, ass?
Should we expect less from a psychopath with the morals of an alley cat? Probably not.
It's substantiated by your lies:
"Psychopath . . . proven compulsive liar . . . . I've proven that you can't pass a formal examination in elementary chemistry, physics or mathematics . . . .fascist Republican scumbag."
You can't back any of that up. I bet you're so fat you can't even reach the strings of your guitar anymore.
Scumbag squeals, "...It's substantiated by your lies...[blah][blah][blah]."
Another unsubstantiated assertion, ass?
So scumbag, what part of the following statement do you fail to understand?
"...please stop using a phrase 'molten steel' from eight years of my work and statements to further your absolutely misguided and baseless conspiracy theories and find another subject for your discussion. You are hurting the victims' families immensely and if you have any humanity you would stop doing so and will not use my name nor the out of context words from my work." -- Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Ph.D., P.E., Professor Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, UC Berkeley.
Now what were you saying about lying, scumbag?
I was saying there is no reason to believe that the quote is authentic.
I was also saying that the claim that the statement represents a "repudiation" is a lie. Dr. Astaneh said "I saw melting of girders at World Trade Center." He does not deny that he said it, and he does not say it's not true.
The statement is not authentic?
That means a lot coming from a proven compulsive liar.
Call him, scumbag. I did, and he's a nice guy. I'm sure the good professor would love the opportunity to rip your head off and shit down your neck.
(510) 642-4528
Now squeal for us, scumbag.
I see that you can't tell comedy from the real thing. Dr. Jones never said what you think he said. You prove nothing but your own idiocy.
The real thing is that your Lord and Worship Steven Jones admitted that he fucked up. The comical side of it is tat you're acting like a child and it's fucking hilarious to see you have a meltdown.
Steven Jones in HIS OWN WORDS:
"We screwed up. We had never seen the CBS video when we claimed that it took WTC 7 6.5 seconds to collapse. We only relied on the street video that does not show the Penthouses. By the time we saw the CBS video, we had so much invested in the 6.5-second collapse time, we could not disappoint our supporters who were successfully using the 6.5 free fall time to push 9/11 Truth. We just ignored the evidence."
And you prove that you've learned to follow a pathological liar like Steven Jones.
Now go play in traffic and tis time make sure a car hits you so it can knock some sense into that empty head of yours.
Speaking like the Croc Hunter:
"When cornered, the ostrich called "Brian" will run from fright. The facts about 9/11 not being an "Inside Job" has frighted it to the extent where it just puts its head in the sand and screams "La la la la la la".
This is also known as the "I don't care what you think because I'm stupid. I'm right and you're wrong and I don't need any evidence to prove anything." tactic.
Crickey!"
The goat fucker squeals, "...I was saying there is no reason to believe that the quote is authentic."
Really? No kidding?
What's this, scumbag?
-----Original Message-----
From: Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl [mailto:astaneh@ce.berkeley.edu]
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 12:02 PM
To: Ronald Wieck
Subject: Re: 'Hardfire' Appearance
"Dear Ronald: All those who use my quote in this context of conspiracy theories are absolutely wrong and are doing a dis-service to the truth, the victims and their families and the humanity. No one should use that specific quote "molten metal" out of context, to indicate that I have seen molten metal and then use my good name and reputation as a researcher to conclude that there was a conspiracy.
"All I tell to those who use my name is: "please stop using a phrase "molten steel" from eight years of my work and statements to further your absolutely misguided and baseless conspiracy theories and find another subject for your discussion . You are hurting the victims' families immensely and if you have any humanity you would stop doing so and will not use my name nor the out of context words from my work " . But will they listen?
"Best wishes and hoping that these conspiracy theorists will stop using my name in any context."
-- Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Ph.D., P.E., Professor
University of California, Berkeley
Now squeal for us, scumbag.
ButtGoo, I said there is no reason to believe the quote is authentic. It's for you to prove it's authentic. And it's not even true. The families are not hurt by my demands for a thorough and honest investigation of how the buildings came down. They're hurt by official lies.
TAW, you can't tell comedy from the real thing, and you can't tell a fake quote from a real one. What is the source of the quote?
Where do you get the idea that I follow Steven Jones?
You're not equipped for this. You should stick to what you're good at. I bet you can make real nice birdhouses, or maybe even whirligigs.
ButtGoo--what's that? Well I guess it's html on some website.
What's this?
From: Guitar Bill
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 12:02 PM
To: Snug Bug
Subject: My Idiocy
"Dear Snug Bug. Please pay no attention to my ramblings. Ever since I grew these tennis-ball-sized bunions I've been addicted to pain killers. I'm trying to build up the courage to get them taken off, but I just can't face it. I'm not really as dumb as I seem. Try to understand."
Still avoiding that phone number like plague, scumbag?
What are you afraid of, scumbag? The truth?
(510) 642-4528
See, I have nothing to hide and YOU have everything to lose.
Now squeal for us, scumbag.
ButtGoo, you are the one that is citing unauthenticated emails as if they were genuine. Not me.
TAW, you can't tell comedy from the real thing, and you can't tell a fake quote from a real one. What is the source of the quote?
Source of the quote is straight from the horses mouth, but in your case it's from the horses ass: Steven Jones.
Where do you get the idea that I follow Steven Jones?
You talk about him alot you idiot.
You're not equipped for this. You should stick to what you're good at. I bet you can make real nice birdhouses, or maybe even whirligigs.
Actually thinking is my best equipped device, you've done no thinking at all, you just ramble on like a fucking crazy person. Which you are! I'm good at getting you riled up and getting you to take hissy fits, if that's what you meant. I bet you can smoke pot and pretend to be whatever you dream you'd be but clearly you're not.
FYI: Someone from the Truth Movement did tell me one time that you do drugs.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I called up Astaneh-Asl, he said that if Brian wants to challenge him then Brian must learn to pick up a phone and dial his number.
Oh yeah, he also said that if Brian keeps it up, he's taking him to court for slander.
Changing the subject, scumbag?
If the email is "unauthenticated" you've provided nothing to substantiate your assertion, ass.
So what are YOU afraid of, scumbag? After all, your desperation is palpable.
(510) 642-4528
I have nothing to hide, and you have everything to lose.
Now dial the number, scat muncher, and prepare to have your head handed to you by the good professor.
Coward.
The families are not hurt by my demands for a thorough and honest investigation of how the buildings came down. They're hurt by official lies.
Tell that to the little girl in the wheelchair or the 12 people that other Truthers have killed in the past 10 years.
They're hurting because of people like you fuckface. You want to look at a real murderer Brian? Go look in a mirror!
TAW you just lie and lie and lie and lie.
ButtGoo, my assertion is that Dr. Astaneh told PBS that he saw "melting of girders". That's in the transcript, anyone can verify it.
RGT then claimed, falsely, that Dr. Astaneh "repudiated" that statement, and provided an unauthenticated statement to support that false claim.
My assertion is substantiated. Yours is not.
Captain Crotchrot squeals, "...my assertion is that Dr. Astaneh told PBS that he saw "melting of girders". That's in the transcript, anyone can verify it."
Changing the subject again, asshole? See, your desperation is palpable.
So where's the "evidence" that you claim brings the email's authentication into question? Or did you pull that garbage out of your filthy, unwashed ass?
And why do you refuse to call Dr. Astaneh-Asl's phone number? After all, the number is in your area code.
Or will making the call put pressure on your meager finances, Pinocchio?
(510) 642-4528
Again, I have nothing to hide, and you have everything to lose.
Now squeal, lie and change the subject again, shit-for-brains.
TAW you just lie and lie and lie and lie.
And you cry, cry, cry and cry. Why do you cry?
A day in the life of Brian:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paMZpkhAqNU
Captain Crotchrot squeals, "...My assertion is substantiated."
The only thing that's "substantiated" is your willingness to quote mine a professional engineer in service to your hidden political agenda.
Now call the number, coward.
(510) 642-4528
And we'll see who's lying.
ButtGoo, if you can't tell that an anonymous internet poster's posting of an alleged email is not authentic, then you are likely to be taken in by the bank agents of dead Nigerian oil executives and the like. It's not surprising that you're so confused about 9/11.
I refuse to call Dr. Astaneh because I choose not to harass busy people over meaningless issues. I have nothing to lose. You are the one quoting an unauthenticated email. Not me. And I'm not lying about anything.
I was saying there is no reason to believe that the quote is authentic.
Nobody cares what you think is "authentic". You're a failed janitor who lives with his parents. You serve no purpose except to amuse the people at this blog.
ButtGoo, I said there is no reason to believe the quote is authentic. It's for you to prove it's authentic. And it's not even true. The families are not hurt by my demands for a thorough and honest investigation of how the buildings came down. They're hurt by official lies.
Brian, no families have authorized you to speak for them. If they want someone to speak for them, they would not chose a disgusting pervert and liar who sniffs glue, babbles about magic thermite elves, and failed out of San Jose State.
ButtGoo, you are the one that is citing unauthenticated emails as if they were genuine. Not me.
Brian, this hysterical, desperate attempt to stick fingers in your ears and scream "I can't hear you" isn't going to convince anyone here that your belief that 9/11 was an inside job is true.
RGT, there is no reason to think that the statement attributed to Dr. Asteneh-Asl is genuine.
An unsworn statement on a PBS show and an unsworn statement in a private e-mail are on equivalent grounds of authenticity. Subsequent statements act to repudiate earlier inconsistent statements.
Barnett repudiated his earlier statements in an email exchange with Elias Davidsson. Leslie Robertson did the same in an email exchange with Mike Williams.
There's no legitimate debate here. You simply choose to believe things that are false.
ButtGoo, my assertion is that Dr. Astaneh told PBS that he saw "melting of girders". That's in the transcript, anyone can verify it.
RGT then claimed, falsely, that Dr. Astaneh "repudiated" that statement, and provided an unauthenticated statement to support that false claim.
My assertion is substantiated. Yours is not.
Brian, this hysterical squealing is pathetic even by your standards. No wonder you were thrown out of the truth movement. You're an embarrassment to serious scholars like Kevin Barrett, Jim Fetzer, Craig Ranke, and Dr. Bill Deagle.
ButtGoo, if you can't tell that an anonymous internet poster's posting of an alleged email is not authentic, then you are likely to be taken in by the bank agents of dead Nigerian oil executives and the like. It's not surprising that you're so confused about 9/11.
I refuse to call Dr. Astaneh because I choose not to harass busy people over meaningless issues. I have nothing to lose. You are the one quoting an unauthenticated email. Not me. And I'm not lying about anything.
Game, Set, Match. Brian has been completely humiliated by GuitaBill, and much as when Willie Rodriguez humiliated him, Brian runs away squealing and crying.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!
Skidmark, your comments are non sequitur.
I think you guys are just trying to spam away from the fact that RGT
1) lied about Dr. Astaneh's "repudiation"
2) can not support his claim that Dr. Barnett rejected the "evaporated" statement
and
3) can not support his claim that Leslie Robertson said he did not see molten steel
Let me rephrase that for you Brian.
I refuse to call Dr. Astaneh because..........
I'm a pathological liar and I quote mined the good doctor and I'm attempting to implicate his name in the conpspiracy because I'm a loser from California. I live with my mother, I live on welfare and I can't hold up a job as a janitor.
That sounds just about right coming from you Brian.
The goat fucker lies, "...I refuse to call Dr. Astaneh because I choose not to harass busy people over meaningless issues."
Another lie, goat fucker? If the issue is "meaningless" why do you lie about professor Astaneh-Asl? Why do you waste your time with so-called "9/11 truth"?
Talking out of both sides of your mouth again, Pinocchio?
FACT: Dr. Astaneh-Asl's phone number is available to the public. And he invites all inquiries--even from a lying jackass of your ilk.
So give up the cowardly rationalizations and make the call, scumbag.
(510) 642-4528
Or do you have something to hide, scumbag?
Brian did admit one thing though from this website:
"It’s time to face the cancer growing in the 9/11 Truth movement"
http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2011/03/11/it%E2%80%99s-time-to-face-the-cancer-growing-in-the-911-truth-movement/
Brian in his own words:
Different people have different conceptions of the movement. Some, and Craig McKee seems to be one, seem to define it as those who believe that 9/11 was an inside job. I reject this definition because I suspect that it excludes the Jersey widows and excludes many others who may be interested in new investigations of unanswered questions but are reluctant to associate with conspiracy theories.
So, Brian REJECTS the definition that 9/11 was an "Inside Job"? And he's here trying to make it appear that he's not rejecting that idea?
Brian's got some explainin' to do!
Taken from the same website.
Brian in his own words:
Some of us feel that the interests of the movement are better served if its members abide by certain standards of honesty, logic, evidence, and scholarship. Some of us also feel an obligation to subordinate our own personal wishes and interests to the wishes and interests of the family members who are trying to get answers for their questions.
Others prioritize their own wishes for personal notoriety.
And Brian is here because of his personal notoriety. Kind of ironic, ain't it Brian? You like eating crow don't ya? Shot yourself in your own foot?
Brian, let me know when I'm getting closer to the truth about you. Just squeal for me to prove that I'm getting close.
I'd like to remind Brian that nobody cares what he considers "authentic" or not. Whether you accept the "authenticity" of what Dr. Astaneh-Asl said is irrelevant for so many reasons:
1. It doesn't change the facts of what happened on 9/11.
2. It doesn't change what Dr. Astaneh-Asl believes (and he doesn't believe what "truthers" believe)
3. It doesn't change the fact that 9/11 truth is dead.
4. It doesn't change the fact that Brian is a mentally ill unemployed janitor who is completely ignored by everyone except a few people here who are entertained by his idiocy.
Brian, I know your mental illness feeds off of the attention you get here, and thus you'll never stop posting spam here, but you really should look into getting psychiatric care. You desperately need it.
Adam Syed (Truther) said this about Brian:
The reason that Brian Good supports the demolition of the towers while being so “debunker”-like with other aspects of 9/11 is that he’s what is known as a fake truther.
So, he's only lying and discrediting himself in the process of assuming the role of a Truther. Makes perfect sense to me.
ButtGoo, I didn't lie about anything, least of all about Dr. Astaneh-Asl. He told PBS "I saw melting of girders at World Trade Center" and he never repudiated the statement.
I think you are all just trying to spam away from the fact that RGT
1) lied about Dr. Astaneh's "repudiation"
2) can not support his claim that Dr. Barnett rejected the "evaporated" statement
and
3) can not support his claim that Leslie Robertson said he did not see molten steel
Brian wrote a book review:
http://www.amazon.com/review/RAU5NSI78WQYP
Here's a snippet where Brian praises Allah:
For Barrett's new book, "Questioning the War on Terror", he seems to have located a publisher in his home town of 900 souls. Allah is indeed great!
And now Brian, utterly humiliated and defeated, is just repeating his pathetic squealspam.
Just look at our hero. Isn't he a handsome devil?
http://911scholars.ning.com/profile/BrianGood
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!
Seriously, you've got to read this about Brian:
http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/sosfbay-discuss/2010-April/010939.html
Let's read a little bit of it shall we?:
Brian Good was banned from the Northern California 9/11 Truth Alliance
meetings and our e-mail list. He attended our last meeting, when
Kevin Barrett and his wife, Fatna were there. They had been invited
to join us for a potluck dinner prior to the meeting. Brian wore
black and a giant V for Vendetta mask, and at some point rudely verbally
attacked Dr. Barrett, and of course he gave his flyer/handout to all who
would take them, when they left the meeting.
Brian's behavior surprised and shocked people. Kevin didn't try to
defend himself verbally, especially since he had spoken before Brian came
and we had already had a lengthy dialogue with him, and whatever
issues/questions the group had about Kevin's work had already been
answered.
I felt badly about all the relentless attacks Brian has launched against
Kevin and William Rodriguez, who have probably helped the truth movement
more than Brian, who has probably harmed the truth movement more than
they have. I also was late for the dinner (which Ken Jenkins and I
were hosting) It took me an hour and forty-five minutes to get to
Berkeley- so I was an hour late with much of the food...
I did go to Sacramento on Saturday to have brunch with Kevin and his
wife, and local activists and to attend Kevin's 2nd talk at a private
home in the suburbs of Sacramento organized by Sacramento's Peace Pyramid
which was webcasted and is posted on
http://noliesradio.org/archives/14447 No Lies Radio.
People in Sacramento were shocked when Brian came and leafletted outside
of the library where Kevin Barrett spoke on Friday night, but they were
even more shocked when he showed up to leaflet in front of the private
home where Kevin gave his 2nd talk. That event was also a potluck,
and I went with a local organizer and Kevin's wife and we were a bit
late- it started at 5 pm. They had already contacted the police and
it was legal for Brian to leaflet on the sidewalk where he stood from
before 5 pm to probably 1 am in the morning (when it was freezing
cold).
Here's another great example of everyone pointing and laughing at Brian, and he's too mentally ill to realize how insane he sounds:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x94447
OMG, the link I provided is from......guess who.......Carol Brouillet.
Let's read some more shall we?:
In response to Brian's behavior, a couple of people advised me to get a
restraining order against Brian. Fatna, Kevin's wife, had, during
the stressful time of Kevin's run for Congress taken out a restraining
order against Kevin (which Brian was quick to blast all over the
internet). Fatna explained to me that she had done it to keep Kevin
away, because she loved Kevin still and knew if he spoke to her, he would
woo her back, which is precisely what happened, he sent her flowers and
she ended up getting back together with him. This was her first
tour with him, where she had a chance to meet a lot of the other
activists and she was favorably impressed (despite Brian) and has even
said that she would allow Kevin or support him to run for Congress
again. She is quite a strong, powerful, wonderful person and you
can hear her in the webcast of the Sacramento event (probably) as she
also spoke at that event. She told me what a pain in the neck the
restraining orders are, and how one must tell the police every time
whoever is given the restraining order attempts communication, or whoever
issues the restraining order is legally in trouble. My husband
urged me to call the police when I was getting death threats, and I
really didn't like having to go over the whole experience with the
police, and the follow-up.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!
Brian was kicked out of the truth movement just like he was kicked out of San Jose State!
They had already contacted the police and
it was legal for Brian to leaflet on the sidewalk where he stood from
before 5 pm to probably 1 am in the morning (when it was freezing
cold).
It's good to see you spend your time in such constructive ways, Brian. And you wonder why I suggest you go ride a bike or catch a Giants game. Or, for that matter, why I suggest seeking psychiatric care.
More from Carol about Brian:
It should be pretty clear to those on this list that I have stopped going
to Green Party meetings/events because I don't want to see or have to
deal with Brian, because of his delusions, his complete lack of trust of
me, his relentless persecution of Kevin and William. Certainly I
would have run for Congress again, if it wasn't for him and his obsessive
monitoring of my every action and words. It's hard enough for me to
challenge militarism without having to fight with the people I work with,
so I am only doing my activism where I feel comfortable/safe with the
people I am working with. I realize that the Green Party will not
oust a volunteer nor am I asking it to oust Brian, but I will do my
political work where I don't have to run into him, whenever
possible. It infuriates me when he stalks me and photographs me
when I'm trying to table.
Brian can't get out of this one. No siree!
I noticed something, Brian's awefully quiet all of a sudden.
But we know our resident troll, he'll deny everything and say that Carol's "lying".
Captain Crotchrot squeals, "...I didn't lie about anything, least of all about Dr. Astaneh-Asl. He told PBS "I saw melting of girders at World Trade Center" and he never repudiated the statement."
Changing the subject again, fellatio artist?
I asked you TWO questions, which, as per your standard operating procedure, you avoided like plague:
[1] Where is the evidence to support your "unauthenticated" email assertion, ass? And the worthless opinion of a proven compulsive liar isn't "evidence," scumbag.
[2] Why do you refuse to call Dr. Astaneh-Asl?
(510) 642-4528
And your cheap, transparent rationalizations don't constitute a valid reply, scumbag.
So why are you shakin' in your shit-encrusted boots at the thought of confronting Dr. Astaneh-Asl? Do you have something to hide? Or are you a mealy mouthed coward who never met a lie he didn't love?
Brian made death threats to Carol. How interesting!
Hey Brian, you running scared yet because we finally know the truth why you did what you did to Carol?
Well, I think I've humliated Brian long enough.................actually no, I've humiliated him to the extent where he shuts the fuck up.
We have Carol's statement about Brian stalking and photographing her. So, he can't lie out of this one because there's too many witnesses who saw Brian acting the way he acts.
"...It should be pretty clear to those on this list that I have stopped going to Green Party meetings/events because I don't want to see or have to deal with Brian, because of his delusions, his complete lack of trust of me, his relentless persecution of Kevin and William." -- Carol Brouillet.
As I suspected, he's a Nader republican who infiltrated the Green Party in order to destroy the party from within.
You don't believe a word of "9/11 truth," do you scumbag?
His goal is obvious: Slander liberals as conspiracy theorists, home wreckers and drooling nutters, and in the process, discredit the anti-war movement.
Scumbag.
"...Yes, a dreadful time when we had real heroes like Martin Luther King, Fred Hampton, and Bobbie Kennedy instead of a bunch of knaves like John Kerry and Barack Obama. But you wouldn't know anything about heroes, skidmark. You're pathetic." -- The Goat fucker, 01 April, 2012 14:55
"...Better for schmucks like you maybe--liars who care about nothing but their own personal fortunes. Worse for democracy, worse for liberty, worse for journalism and science. The only ones doing better are the 1% and the gays--and that's no mistake." -- The Goat fucker, 01 April, 2012 14:31
Does that sound like a liberal? I think not.
Exposing Brian for what he is is so soothing and knowledgable.
All he can do is curl up into a fetal position and suck his thumb.
No wonder why he kept saying: "You lie." all the time, he was covering up his own conspiracy.
Hmm, still trying to spam away from the fact that RGT
1) lied about Dr. Astaneh's "repudiation"
2) can not support his claim that Dr. Barnett rejected the "evaporated" statement
and
3) can not support his claim that Leslie Robertson said he did not see molten steel
Notice how Brian is still attracted to RGT while ignoring everything else that transpired about him and his attempts at Carol?
Something tells me I'm hitting a nerve, or Brian knows that I know something about him.
"...Where did you get the idea that I'm supposed to be a liberal?" -- The goat fucker, 01 April, 2012 21:30
Indeed.
You don't believe a word of "9/11 truth," do you scumbag?
TAW wrote, "...No wonder why he kept saying: "You lie." all the time, he was covering up his own conspiracy."
Yep, you nailed it.
Thanks GB. I just had to get the pieces of Brians gigantic puzzle together and figure him out.
He's doing this because he knows for a fact that he stalked and photographed Carol and he's pretending to be a Truther to hide he fact of his own conspiracy to hurt Carol. He lied constantly about not doing anything to Carol, but yet she mentioned this:
My husband
urged me to call the police when I was getting death threats, and I
really didn't like having to go over the whole experience with the
police, and the follow-up.
And Brian can't lie out of this one. Carol should've put his ass in prison. Then Brian could've sang this song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrLRe6bpMfU
The goat fucker squeals, "...Hmm, still trying to spam away from the fact that RGT...1) lied about Dr. Astaneh's 'repudiation'."
I don't recall so much as one instance where RGT "lied." You, on the other hand, are not above deliberately misinterpreting your opponent's argument in order to attack said deliberate misinterpretation (ie, a straw man argument).
TAW wrote, "...He's doing this because he knows for a fact that he stalked and photographed Carol and he's pretending to be a Truther to hide he fact of his own conspiracy to hurt Carol. He lied constantly about not doing anything to Carol, but yet she mentioned this:"
Yep, once again, you nailed it.
I urge Brian to reconsider his situation before I allow Pat or James to publish this link to the public on their domain:
http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/sosfbay-discuss/2010-April/010939.html
"...A lot of people think Brian is Cointelpro- although I don't, but I think he does "behave" that way and should be getting a stipend from whatever division in the government that in charge of neutralizing dissent." -- Carol Brouillet.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
TAW, the clowns on this board have been trying to intimidate me with lies for years. It hasn't worked in the past and it's not going to work now.
Hmm, still trying to spam away from the fact that RGT
1) lied about Dr. Astaneh's "repudiation"
2) can not support his claim that Dr. Barnett rejected the "evaporated" statement
and
3) can not support his claim that Leslie Robertson said he did not see molten steel
Brian doesn't care about 9/11. It's just a game. He's a predator so between the Green Party, and 9/11 troof he has access to addle-brained young women.
This is about nothing more than poontang to him.
MGF wrote, "...This is about nothing more than poontang to him."
Nope. He's a GOP operative.
Please read TAW's link to CA Greens.org:
Brian Good's Relentless Attacks on Kevin Barrett.
Pay special attention to Carol Brouillet's testimony.
Welcome to the hall of mirrors, where NOTHING is as it seems.
"...People in Sacramento were shocked when Brian came and leafletted outside of the library where Kevin Barrett spoke on Friday night, but they were even more shocked when he showed up to leaflet in front of the private home where Kevin gave his 2nd talk. That event was also a potluck, and I went with a local organizer and Kevin's wife and we were a bit late- it started at 5 pm. They had already contacted the police and it was legal for Brian to leaflet on the sidewalk where he stood from before 5 pm to probably 1 am in the morning (when it was freezing cold)." -- Carol Brouillet.
Nope, pussy is the last thing on his so-called mind.
"...A lot of people think Brian is Cointelpro- although I don't, but I think he does "behave" that way and should be getting a stipend from whatever division in the government that in charge of neutralizing dissent." -- Carol Brouillet.
I don't think Brian is a government agent either, but I always thought that if the US Government was going to use moles to discredit the truthers, the moles would be just like Brian.
Brian is mentally ill and unemployed and a college dropout, so he makes the truth movement look like a bunch of crazy people with nothing better to do. He constantly picks fights with other truthers and tries to discredit them and disrupt their activities. He's obsessive, he's a liar, he's a racist, an anti-semite, and a misogynist.
Seriously, you couldn't invent someone who could poison the truth movement worse than Brian.
Hmm, still trying to spam away from the fact that RGT
1) lied about Dr. Astaneh's "repudiation"
2) can not support his claim that Dr. Barnett rejected the "evaporated" statement
and
3) can not support his claim that Leslie Robertson said he did not see molten steel
Ian wrote, "...He's obsessive, he's a liar, he's a racist, an anti-semite, and a misogynist."
Yep, I couldn't agree more, Ian.
And your very apt description of Captain Crotchrot is a perfect description of virtually every member of the right-wing of the GOP (ie., the dirty tricks playing nut-wing of the GOP).
Captain Crotch rot prevaricates, "...Hmm, still trying to spam away from the fact that RGT..[blah][blah][blah]."
Squeal, squeal, squeal.
Hmm, still trying to spam away from the fact that RGT
1) lied about Dr. Astaneh's "repudiation"
2) can not support his claim that Dr. Barnett rejected the "evaporated" statement
and
3) can not support his claim that Leslie Robertson said he did not see molten steel
Nobody cares. It's more important to note that you made death threats to Carol Brouillet because you're an obsessive lunatic and sex stalker and pervert.
Right, nobody cares that you lie and that RGT can not support his claims.
I never made any death threats to anybody. You are libeling me because you haven't got an honest argument.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Right, nobody cares that you lie and that RGT can not support his claims.
False. I don't lie and RGT has supported his claims. Nobody cares about your hysterical squealing.
I never made any death threats to anybody. You are libeling me because you haven't got an honest argument.
Carol Brouillet says you made death threats against her. Also, I have an honest argument: there is no evidence of explosives or thermite at the WTC, and the delusional babblings of a deranged liar, pervert, and unemployed janitor who failed out of San Jose State are not evidence of either explosives or thermite.
Ian, you lie and lie, and RGT did not support his claims. Nobody has ever said I made death threats against them. You are libeling me because you can not support your claims.
Captain Crotchrot squeals, "...You are libeling me because you haven't got an honest argument."
Squeal, squeal, squeal.
Yeah, tell us about "honest arguments," Mr. Compulsive liar.
So who pays your [cough] "stripend," goat fucker: GOP headquarters located at 310 First Street SE, Washington, D.C., or Stanford University's Hoover Institution? You know, the same Hoover Institution that was the ideological force behind the so-called "Reagan Revolution"? You know the alleged "conservatives" who stage "revolutions" on behalf of the 1% and transnational corporations?
Inquiring minds want to know, scumbag.
Ian, you lie and lie, and RGT did not support his claims. Nobody has ever said I made death threats against them. You are libeling me because you can not support your claims.
Hey Brian, have the "widows" had their questions answered yet?
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!
Ian wrote, "...Hey Brian, have the 'widows' had their questions answered yet?"
Trust me, he doesn't give a flying fuck about the "widows."
Hmm, still trying to spam away from the fact that RGT
1) lied about Dr. Astaneh's "repudiation"
2) can not support his claim that Dr. Barnett rejected the "evaporated" statement
and
3) can not support his claim that Leslie Robertson said he did not see molten steel
So GuitarBill, what kind of music do you play? I have a couple of guitars myself (an acoustic and an electric) and while I haven't played in a band since college, I do enjoy learning to play some of my favorite songs. I taught myself "Decoration Day" by the Drive-By Truckers the other day.
I play everything from jazz to blues to flatpicking solos, which are based primarily on traditional transpositions of fiddle tunes. I compose my own arrangements.
My guitar collection includes a pre-war 1941 Martin HD-28, a 1960 Martin D-28, a 1959 Fender Stratocaster, a 1962 National O-Style and a 2004 Bourgeois Country Boy Custom.
ButtGoo doesn't play any more. He's so fat he can't even reach the strings. He can't even play an accordion.
On the contrary, I've played practically every day since I was a six year-old.
So what were you saying about "libel," goat fucker?
Yeah, I know, you're a typical Republican who lives by their motto: Do as I say, not as I do.
I have an Ibanez Iceman. I've played for a long time. Not professionally for years, but at home when the urge hits me.
My favorite Stones album is "Some Girls".
"1) lied about Dr. Astaneh's "repudiation"
2) can not support his claim that Dr. Barnett rejected the "evaporated" statement
and
3) can not support his claim that Leslie Robertson said he did not see molten steel"
Why? Your mental flaw won't allow you to accept an supporting link.
The Sarah Palin joke went right over your head.
Dr. Astaneh's letter is authentic, we've posted his phone number so you may reach him directly (which we know you will not do as you are paranoid, and a coward).
Robertson did see molten steel in the way you so desperately want it to mean.
This comment has been removed by the author.
MGF, are you like Toothless and Wacko confusing a comedy website with a "supporting link"?
Or perhaps mistaking some text entered by an anonymous internet poster for an actual email?
Do you have any idea how easy it is to send fake emails?
Mr. Robertson told a Stanford audience that he saw "like a little river of steel, flowing". He has never said that he didn't see molten steel.
Both my electric and my acoustic are Ibanez guitars. They're well-made.
"Sticky Fingers" is my favorite Stones record, FWIW.
The goat fucker brays, "...Do you have any idea how easy it is to send fake emails?"
It's not nearly as easy as quote mining expert witnesses (e.g., "like a little river of steel, flowing") and making specious accusations (e.g., "...some text entered by an anonymous internet poster for an actual email") without the benefit of evidence.
And unlike you, goat fucker, I know what I'm talking about.
So what's your excuse, goat fucker?
Made any death threats to harmless women lately, Prince Charming?
ButtGoo, I have never made any death threats to anyone. Contrary to RGT's claim, Mr. Robertson has never said he did not see molten steel.
You entered text in this thread, claiming it was an email, It wasn't an email. It was text installed by an anonymous internet poster in the comment section of a blog.
I see you're all still rying to spam away from the fact that RGT
1) lied about Dr. Astaneh's "repudiation"
2) can not support his claim that Dr. Barnett rejected the "evaporated" statement
and
3) can not support his claim that Leslie Robertson said he did not see molten steel
The goat fucker brays, "...You entered text in this thread, claiming it was an email, It wasn't an email. It was text installed by an anonymous internet poster in the comment section of a blog."
That's not a "fact," it's your self-serving opinion, which is substantiated by not so much as an ounce of evidence.
I know for a fact that Ronald Wieck tried to get Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl to appear on "Hardfire." So the email is not at all far fetched, nor is its origin.
Would you care to provide real evidence to substantiate your specious, 100% fact-free assertions, Prince Charming?
Yeah, I know, you'll provide evidence when Hell freezes over. Right scumbag?
The goat fucker brays, "...I see you're all still rying [SIC] to spam away from the fact that RGT"
Still trying to pass off your worthless, 100% fact-free opinion as "fact," weasel?
"Do you have any idea how easy it is to send fake emails?"
Do you have any idea how easy it is to pick up a phone and call the guy?
There's your solution, a simple phone call. You could even schedule a face-to-face meeting to discuss what the good doctor did or din't see.
You won't. You're a coward. How many times have you been in Berkeley since 9/11? It never occurred to you to drop in for a visit? Conduct actual research in the form of an on-the-record interview like a grown up?
I wonder why that is?
No I don't, you KNOW there was no melted steel, and you won't risk your fake claims.
So oink away, Skippy, nobody cares.
MGF, whenever a "debunker" tells me what I know, I know they're about to lie.
Dr. Astaneh Asl told PBS "I saw melting of girders at World Trade Center."
The goat fucker squeals, "...whenever a "debunker" tells me what I know, I know they're about to lie."
And how do we know the goat fucker is lying?
His finger's are touching the keyboard.
His finger's huh?
Yeah, you're right. I should have been more precise and said, "his liver-spotted hands."
Any more questions, Lothario?
Is it because your wife is so repulsive that you spend such enormous energies fantasizing about me?
As a heterosexual, I can tell you that my wife is hardly "repulsive."
And, in your case, as an insane homosexual, I'm sure that all women are repulsive in your demented opinion.
Any more questions, Lothario?
OK, got it. Your wife is a heterosexual, and not repulsive. Thus she probably has little time for you, an admittedly insane homosexual.
You've got more self-awareness than I gave you credit for. Did it take many years of therapy for you to arrive at that insight? Did it come to you slowly or in a sudden flash?
Another example of your inability to read, goat fucker? No wonder you're so confused about 9/11.
So how's "Hooked On Phonics For Adults" working out for you?
"...See goat fucker run! Run, goat fucker, run!"
I see Brian is still squealing hysterically since we challenged him to ask Dr. Astaneh-Asl whether he saw molten steel at the WTC. That's not surprising. Brian runs away squealing and crying every time he gets challenged.
He won't ask Dr. Astaneh-Asl anything because he knows what the answer will be, and that will force him to confront yet another pathetic failure in his life, a life that has left him an unemployed janitor with no friends, no family, and nothing better to do all day than post dumbspam about invisible widows on an obscure blog.
Let it Bleed.
I see you're all still rying to spam away from the fact that RGT
1) lied about Dr. Astaneh's "repudiation"
2) can not support his claim that Dr. Barnett rejected the "evaporated" statement
and
3) can not support his claim that Leslie Robertson said he did not see molten steel
Ian, I'm not going to harass busy people over trifles. The alleged quote from Dr. Astaneh is not, as RGT claimed, a "repudiation". It has not been authenticated either. It is not for me to authenticate it. I have no interest in it beyond pointing out that RGT lied about it and your inability to recognize that it has not been authenticated shows all of you to be very credulous about the empty claims of liars--which is surprising since you surely know that most of what you write yourselves is empty lies.
I see you're all still rying to spam away from the fact that RGT
1) lied about Dr. Astaneh's "repudiation"
2) can not support his claim that Dr. Barnett rejected the "evaporated" statement
and
3) can not support his claim that Leslie Robertson said he did not see molten steel
Squeal squeal squeal!
Ian, I'm not going to harass busy people over trifles. The alleged quote from Dr. Astaneh is not, as RGT claimed, a "repudiation". It has not been authenticated either. It is not for me to authenticate it. I have no interest in it beyond pointing out that RGT lied about it and your inability to recognize that it has not been authenticated shows all of you to be very credulous about the empty claims of liars--which is surprising since you surely know that most of what you write yourselves is empty lies.
So in short, you know that Dr. Astaneh-Asl didn't see molten steel, and you know he's not going to waste his time with the questions of a pathetic mentally ill unemployed janitor.
How does it feel to fail at everything, Brian?
In short, Dr. Astaneh-Asl told PBS "I saw melting of girders at World Trade Center", RGT's claim that he repudiated was a lie, the quote GutterBall attributes to him has not been authenticated, and all you do is try to spread confusion on the issues.
In short, Dr. Astaneh-Asl told PBS "I saw melting of girders at World Trade Center", RGT's claim that he repudiated was a lie, the quote GutterBall attributes to him has not been authenticated, and all you do is try to spread confusion on the issues.
Poor Brian, he's just going to endlessly repeat this dumbspam because he's so desperate for his delusions about 9/11 to be true.
Why are you so afraid of the truth?
Also, Brian, let's not forget that you told us on April 2, at 10:33, "I failed out of San Jose State". You have never repudiated that quote, and its authenticity has never been challenged.
Post a Comment
<< Home