Conspiracy Con 2012
The 2012 version of this event is coming this summer, and it looks to be another humdinger of fruitcakery. Jim Fetzer continues his descent into no-planes:
Jim
Fetzer
9/11, PLANES OR
NO PLANES
Shocking Evidence Of
Video Fakery
And I have to say, it sounds like he will fit right in. Check out some of the other speakers:
Deborah Tavares
&
Gary Richard
Arnold
SMART METERS OR MURDER
METERS
The Grid That Can Kill
Jay
Weidner
FROM HOLLYWOOD TO THE
MOON
How Director Stanly Kubrick Faked
Apollo
I particularly like that smart meter bit; anything new is an attempt by the Illuminati to kill us all.
The Truthers will of course snort about nobody in the movement respecting Uncle Fetzer anymore, but at last year's Conspiracy Con, Steven Jones was a featured speaker and Richard Gage was a "special guest".
posted by Pat @ 3:09 PM
101 comments
101 Comments:
Actually, smart meter conspiracies are something I'm familiar with, and, like 9/11 truth, somewhere that the deranged left and deranged right converge. The insane left thinks the meters are sending deadly radiation into your house and the insane right thinks it's a way for the UN/NWO to take away your right to run an air conditioner.
I'm not surprised they're talking about it this year.
What are the arguments for "No Planes"?
1. Not one bag of over-priced peanuts was found in the wreckage.
2. The entire attack was faked. Stanley Kubrick (the guy who filmed the fake Apollo landings) had his death faked so he could spend two years building a giant, quarter-scale model of Manhattan on the same sound stage the US Government used to fake the entire Vietnam war.
The attacks were used to evacuate everyone off of the island. Then the next morning when they returned they unknowingly returned to a full-size replica of Manhattan whose construction began during the first Bush Administration. It has been concealed by a cloaking device. Meanwhile the REAL Manhattan has become a second Jewish homeland/ HQ for the NWO. The Twin Towers are still there, Bin Laden runs Windows on the World, and he and the Bush family laugh it up whenever their in town.
...why didn't I see this before?
Or They're in town...
And here I just assumed they were a sinister plot to get rid of meter readers....
And yet they expect us to believe they are taking away freedom of speech. The simplest nad best response is, "And yet here you are".
If Apollo was fake, then how did the Laser Reflector that I can get a reading off of by bouncing my own laser off it, get up there?
If Apollo was fake, then how did the Laser Reflector that I can get a reading off of by bouncing my own laser off it, get up there?
Aliens.
"If Apollo was fake, then how did the Laser Reflector that I can get a reading off of by bouncing my own laser off it, get up there?"
Your laser is fake. Since 1969 all lasers have a secret government/Illuminati program installed so the laser knows when it's pointed at the Moon.
"Doc Marquis was raised as a child in the international, occult group known as the Illuminati. For 20 years he was trained as an Illuminist and attained the rank of Master Witch (a 3rd level Illuminati Witch). As a result of GOD's sovereignty and mercy, Doc became surrounded by Christians who presented him with the Gospel. "
"Douglas Dietrich was a D.O.D. (Department of Defense) Research Librarian for almost a decade, responsible for incinerating highly classified materials on critical historical topics, such as Pearl Harbor, Roswell, Viêt-Nam, and the different ethnic holocausts; as well as documents exposing the reality behind vampires, zombies, Soviet psychic warfare, and other occult phenomena."
LOL
Your laser is fake. Since 1969 all lasers have a secret government/Illuminati program installed so the laser knows when it's pointed at the Moon.
Snowcrash? Is that you?
Former conspiracy loon. I can come up with this stuff on a dime.
*I'm having fun at truther's expense
So...the explosives at the WTC were hidden in the "smart" meters...fucking brilliant!!!!
They were made by da Joooos too... how much ya wanna bet?
The truly amazing thing is that these guys seem to think they're clever.
"The truly amazing thing is that these guys seem to think they're clever."
He said to nobody because the rest of the guys at the half-way house were watching the MMA post fight interviews.
The truly amazing thing is that these guys seem to think they're clever.
Poor Brian. He's upset that Jim Fetzer is still a highly respected truther who gets to speak at conferences like this.
Meanwhile, Brian can do nothing but post spam on this blog and get laughed at. Life's not fair!
Aliens.
Oh, so Ian, are you acutally this guy?
I guess I'm the only one to notice no extraterrestrials were killed on 9/11...
...so obviously they were behind it.
How do you know no extraterrestrials were killed on 9/11? I hope you're a halfway decent tractor driver 'cause you're sure as hell no scientist.
"Conspiracy Con 2012."
Could the cult of 9/11 conspiracy come up with a more appropriate name for their paranoia pow-wow?
I think not. :)
How do you know no extraterrestrials were killed on 9/11? I hope you're a halfway decent tractor driver 'cause you're sure as hell no scientist.
This goes back into the reasons the investigations were dishonest, incomplete, and unbelievable. They did not investigate the essential mysteries of the WTC collapse, such as burnt baboon fur in the wreckage, radiation in the dust cloud, laser burns on the steel, and unidentifiable aircraft parts in the wreckage.
Ian, you just make stuff up. Stop pretending you understand stuff you're not smart enough to understand.
Looks like the rebunkers over at 911debunkers.blogspot.com have seen the light on the red gray chips.
http://oystein-debate.blogspot.com/2012/03/another-primer-at-wtc-laclede-standard.html?showComment=1337074569867#c6043118423403730821
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=8288624#post8288624
Considering they've been such ardent defenders of the nanothermite BS for the past three years, this is pretty big.
http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2011/04/debunker-debunkers-exploding-paint.html
Ian, you just make stuff up. Stop pretending you understand stuff you're not smart enough to understand.
Hilarious coming from someone who says there are "widows" with questions....
The widows have questions, as I have proven many times. Your refusal to learn is pathological.
http://www.justicefor911.org/Appendix4_FSCQuestionRatings_111904.php
The widows have questions, as I have proven many times. Your refusal to learn is pathological.
http://www.justicefor911.org/Appendix4_FSCQuestionRatings_111904.php
You've proved nothing. You've repeatedly posted a link to an unauthenticated website. Given that you're an obsessive liar, it seems likely that you created that website yourself.
So there are no widows with questions, but there is compelling evidence that modified attack baboons planted micro-nukes in the towers, and you have yet to present any evidence to the contrary.
It's an authenticated website. It is the website of justicefor911.org. You are using terminology you're not smart enough to understand.
The EPA reports are evidence to the contrary of micro-nukes. Micro-nukes would have caused radiation far in excess of what was recorded.
It's an authenticated website. It is the website of justicefor911.org. You are using terminology you're not smart enough to understand.
Squeal squeal squeal!
It's hilarious being lectured on intelligence from someone who is too stupid to hold down a job mopping floors. You live with your parent because you're an unemployed liar, Brian.
The EPA reports are evidence to the contrary of micro-nukes. Micro-nukes would have caused radiation far in excess of what was recorded.
What makes you think the EPA actually investigated radiation? Did Willie Rodriguez tell you that?
I believe the EPA investigated radiation at Ground Zero and found nothing beyond what you'd expect from ruptured smoke alarms and cathode ray monitors.
You are the one with an affirmative claim that mini-nukes were used at GZ. It is thus your duty to show that the EPA records corroborate your mini-nukes.
I believe the EPA investigated radiation at Ground Zero and found nothing beyond what you'd expect from ruptured smoke alarms and cathode ray monitors.
"I believe"? Please, Brian. We want evidence, not the speculation of anonymous internet liars.
We need new investigations. The NIST report did not explain the baffling aspects of the collapse, such as laser burns on the steel, radiation, burnt baboon fur in the wreckage, and unidentified aircraft in the wreckage.
You are the one with an affirmative claim that mini-nukes were used at GZ. It is thus your duty to show that the EPA records corroborate your mini-nukes.
I already have. The radiation in the dust cloud, the mushroom shape of the collapse cloud, and the health problems of the first responders all suggest micro-nukes were used. 6,497 nuclear physicists and health professionals have signed Bill Deagle's petition calling for new investigations.
"Squeal squeal squeal!"
As convincing and original as ever. Or as Pat. Either way, you're making Hugh real proud.
Ian, you lie and lie and lie and lie. Your demand that somebody disprove your evidence-free claims is a logical fallacy.
PC, who's Hugh?
This comment has been removed by the author.
It's Pat's dead waste of a father, whom he continues to "honor" by mocking (or avoiding) the research and data he fails to "debunk".
It's been going on for so long, there can be no question that he's feigning his impressive level of ignorance. He flees like a coward from direct questions, and when tries to answer, it's always pathetically inadequate. The question is: why would anyone intentionally make such asses of themselves? Pat? James? Don't be shy, cowards.
mocking (or avoiding) the research and data
The debate is over. There was no thermite. You were duped.
"Assertions aren't evidence"
-Patricide HughKiller
Assertions aren't evidence
Facts are facts.
Yawn... and I can even predict your response. Something containing the words "source" and "debunk" (in quotes).
The only still clinging to the ATM paper is ScootleRoyale, and he's about 30 IQ points too low to mount a coherent defense.
Hey, Pat Cowardly is back! Has that "It's not a beer belly, it's a fuel tank for my sex machine" shirt gotten you laid yet?
Ian, you lie and lie and lie and lie. Your demand that somebody disprove your evidence-free claims is a logical fallacy.
Poor Brian. 3 years ago, I began taunting him over his ridiculous claims that the widows have questions. The more I said "the widows have no questions", the more hysterical Brian became.
Fast-forward to today, and my life has changed in major ways. I've graduated from business school and now have a great job as a VP for a major company, and my girlfriend and I are planning the rest of our lives. Brian, on the other hand, is still babbling hysterically about "widows". He's still an unemployed janitor with delusions about 9/11.
Maybe you should seek professional help, Brian.
"How do you know no extraterrestrials were killed on 9/11? I hope you're a halfway decent tractor driver 'cause you're sure as hell no scientist."
Please. Show me a dead ET, if not from the WTC or Pentagon 9/11 attack then from anywhere.
Show me.
I will buy your airline ticket to Stockholm when you pick up your Nobel Prize.
I'm funny, you're a clown.
So if I can't show you a dead ET, no ET's were killed? Like I said, you're no scientist. Shall we conclude that everything I can't (or won't) show you doesn't exist?
So if I can't show you a dead ET, no ET's were killed? Like I said, you're no scientist. Shall we conclude that everything I can't (or won't) show you doesn't exist?
More reason to believe that Bill Deagle was right: the towers were destroyed by modified attack baboons who planted micro-nukes.
Ian, please explain why no radiation consistent with micro-nukes was detected. You think you're funny, but you're not smart enough to realize how dumb you are.
Ian, please explain why no radiation consistent with micro-nukes was detected.
They didn't search for radiation consistent with micro-nukes. That's why we need a new investigation. The 6,439 physicists, engineers, and doctors who have signed Bill Deagle's petition agree.
You think you're funny, but you're not smart enough to realize how dumb you are.
Poor Brian. He's a mentally ill unemployed janitor who was expelled from the truth movement, and he can't stand being the target of ridicule that he is at this blog.
Ian wrote: They didn't search for radiation consistent with micro-nukes. Please back up this claim.
Ian wrote: The 6,439 physicists, engineers, and doctors who have signed Bill Deagle's petition agree. Please back up this claim.
He's a mentally ill unemployed janitor who was expelled from the truth movement Please back up this claim.
"Micro-nukes would have caused radiation far in excess of what was recorded."
Explosives would have caused noise far in excess of what was recorded, but that never bothered you.
Please back up this claim.
I already have, but to be nice to you, I will present you with the links to each of these claims.
First you have to admit that you are petgoat.
"First you have to admit that you are petgoat."
Nah, he can't admit it now. Not after putting so much time into pretending he's not petgoat. Not after saying stuff like this:
Meatball on a fork is petgoat's model, not mine.
That's petgoat's model.
Not my model. Petgoat's. No need to publish. It's axiomatic to anyone with any experience with physical reality.
Yes, petgoat's drawings are crude but they are perfectly clear.
Why shouldn't I defend the rakes and meatballs scribbles? They make perfect sense.
There's nothing insane about petgoat's rake on rake model.
Ian, the persistence of the South Tower core shows that petgoat's meatball model was exactly correct.
Petgoat's "meatball on a fork" model and his "rake on rake" model may be gibberish to a graphically illiterate person like yourself or to someone like yourself whose abstact reasoning skill are so inadequate, but they are quite apt representations of certain principles applicable to the study of the demise of the twin towers.
PetGoat's cracker model very effectively shows that the official explanation for the squibs does not work.
MR, explosives planted inside the hollow core columns that bulged but did not breach the core columns would have brought little noise to the outside world. Explosions taking place when the collapse was already underway would not have been noticed.
Ah yes, here you go again with the CD charges that didn't cut the columns. Do you really not see what's wrong with that idea?
"please explain why no radiation consistent with micro-nukes was detected."
Well, maybe the mass-homicidal elevator mechanics installed lead housing around the micro-nukes. Maybe the EPA shills who reported a lack of radiation were paid off by the Bush administration. Maybe Bush's diabolical henchmen tampered with the radiation detectors. Where's your imagination?
There's nothing wrong with CD charges that don't cut the columns. Bulging them would be sufficient to weaken them.
Ian has no evidence for micro-nukes. He doesn't even provide any evidence that they exist, let alone that they were used.
So Ian has the exact same hard evidence for his claims that you do for yours.
But yours requires another investigation and his doesn't. Seems logical and scientific to me.
You've finally convinced me, snug,
Brian, is there any demolition expert who agrees that putting bulges in box columns is an effective CD technique? For that matter, is there any truther who agrees with you?
"So if I can't show you a dead ET, no ET's were killed? Like I said, you're no scientist. Shall we conclude that everything I can't (or won't) show you doesn't exist?"
Yeah, kinda how I have to approach things in the lab.
See, there are no ETs on earth. I know this because there is zero evidence of ETs in any official record, or any CREDIBLE record.
Since there are no ETs, there were no ETs killed on 9/11.
If someone produces an little green man, dead or alive, THEN we revise the hypothesis.
Not before.
Yes, this is how we do it in the lab. If wishful thinking was realistic we wouldn't have to beg the state for funding, and I would have to sell body parts to pay for tuition.
JR, my claims that the NIST reports are incomplete and did not fulfill their stated objective to explain "why and how" the towers collapsed are fully evidenced. They have not explained how the towers collapsed.
MR, do you dispute the proposition that bulges in the column walls cause stress concentrations and weakness? It's axiomatic.
MGF, your logic is illogical. You have a faulty view of science. You think it proves things, and that absence of proof is disproof. Maybe if you'd studied more philosophy your logic wouldn't be so lousy.
"MGF, your logic is illogical. You have a faulty view of science. You think it proves things, and that absence of proof is disproof. Maybe if you'd studied more philosophy your logic wouldn't be so lousy."
I had philosophy. Got an A.
I also used to be a conspiracy nut-job like you (only smarter). Getting an "A" in philosophy insures I can never be sucked into another fucking retard-laced conspiracy (like 9/11 Troof).
Was your failing grade in philosophy the reason for your expulsion from college?
This comment has been removed by the author.
I'm sorry, since it was too complex a logical structure for your mind let me be more specific.
Your ridiculous claims of explosives being used to bring down the WTC buildings have exactly the same amount of evidence as Ian's ridiculous claims of micro-nukes.
It is amusing that the only way you had to respond to my pointing out that fact was to pretend you misunderstood my statement and shift the focus to a completely irrelevant position that hasn't been discussed in this thread.
Ian has no evidence for micro-nukes. He doesn't even provide any evidence that they exist, let alone that they were used.
False. I've presented the evidence. You're just trying to cover it up with hysterical spam.
JR, my claims that the NIST reports are incomplete and did not fulfill their stated objective to explain "why and how" the towers collapsed are fully evidenced. They have not explained how the towers collapsed.
False.
MR, do you dispute the proposition that bulges in the column walls cause stress concentrations and weakness? It's axiomatic.
Yes. Now provide evidence that these explosives would have been silent. That's your claim, Brian: that silent explosives destroyed the WTC.
Also, you claim that the collapse of the WTC should have resembled a meatball on a fork, because you're petgoat.
"MR, do you dispute the proposition that bulges in the column walls cause stress concentrations and weakness? It's axiomatic."
Actually, I asked you whether anyone except yourself thinks that putting bulges in box columns would be an effective method of controlled demolition.
It's interesting that MGF responds to a criticism of his poor logic skills with a fallacious argument from authority.
JR, I didn't make any claims of explosives being used to bring down the WTC buildings. You seem to have some trouble with reading comprehension. Your belief that the way I responded to your nonsense was the only way I could respond is irrational. I respond the way I respond because your posts don't deserve any more than they get.
Ian, I never said there were silent explosives in the WTC. I said that if explosives were inside the steel columns and failed to rupture the columns, the ability of the shock wave to propagate as sound in the world outside the columns would be severely limited.
MR, it is axiomatic that bulges in box columns would create stress concentrations and weaken the columns. It is also axiomatic that standardized explosive charges could create identical effects in identical columns.
So, Brian, you've told us that the CD involved (1) silent explosives, so weak they only produced bulges in the columns; (2) extremely powerful explosives that launched multi-ton debris sections 600ft at 60mph; and (3) incendiaries that melted the steel.
Sorry, but I still don't understand the workings of these apparently very fancy demolitions. Can you explain in detail?
MR, did it never occur to you that your confusion about the workings might be by design?
Has it not occurred to you that a reason someone might be blasted with a shotgun, chopped into little bits, ground up like hamburger, and then fed to sharks would be to disguise the fact that they were originally shot with a 9 mm pistol?
Has it not occurred to you that the argument is then very simpleminded that feeding someone to sharks after shooting them makes no sense because they were already dead?
Still not understanding. How does the use of incendiaries disguise the use of explosives?
Use of incendiaries enables the argument "But incendiaries can't pulverize the concrete, and can't hurl multi-ton segments of the building hundreds of feet at 55 miles an hour!"
Do me a favor, Brian..... read your last couple of comments again, pretending for the moment that someone else wrote them. Do the words sound like those of a sane, reasonable person, or rather like a drunk paranoid schizophrenic babbling on a street corner?
"Still not understanding. How does the use of incendiaries disguise the use of explosives?"
Mike, the guy thinks there were aliens killed at the WTC.
MR, use of incendiaries allows the feeble-minded to assumes that no explosives were present. I'm sorry, I can't make it any more simple than that.
MGF, I never said such a stupid thing. You are neither scientist nor philosopher.
"JR, I didn't make any claims of explosives being used to bring down the WTC buildings. You seem to have some trouble with reading comprehension."
You lie.
Anyone who spends 2 mintues searching this site will see that you do indeed claim explosives were involved. As you said in this very thread "MR, explosives planted inside the hollow core columns that bulged but did not breach the core columns would have brought little noise to the outside world. Explosions taking place when the collapse was already underway would not have been noticed." You may think that isn't a claim that explosivess were used, but no rational person would agree.
"Your belief that the way I responded to your nonsense was the only way I could respond is irrational. I respond the way I respond because your posts don't deserve any more than they get."
You responded in the way that was the best you could think of to cover how irrational and foolish your claims are. Are you going to claim your attempt to obfusate and misdirect the discussion was only because you couldn't be bothered to actually defend your position?
You and your claims are laughable.
JR, I never claimed that explosives were involved. I'm sorry that you guys don't know how to read, but it's not my fault.
A bright seven-year-old can understand the difference between slapping down a stupid, false argument, and asserting that the opposite is true. But it seems that you guys are unable to function on the level of a bright seven-year-old.
"...I'm sorry that you guys...[blah][blah][blah]."
Yes, you are sorry, goat fucker.
You're not sorry in the expressing sympathy, pity, or regret sense of the word. You're sorry in the worthless, inferior and paltry sense of the word.
So JR and Mike: Are you fed up with the "shameless liar" and "miserable troll"?
Maybe now you see why scumbag should be unceremoniously banned from SLC? Or perhaps not. In that case, carry on.
Your belief that you know what's in my mind is irrational. I'm sorry in that I pity your lazy intellects.
Scum.bag squeals, "...Your belief that you know what's in my mind is irrational."
Why would I want to "know" what passes for the "mind" of a lying psychopath? No, my "belief" is based on years of experience with your special brand of pathology, scum.bag.
Scum.bag whines, "...I'm sorry in that I pity your lazy intellects."
Still trying to pass off condescension as an argument, flunky?
Figured out the meaning of the word "unsafe," scum.bag? Still working on the definition of ΔT, genius?
Care to substantiate your ideas with something more than your worthless, unprofessional, unscientific and psychotic opinion?
Probably not.
Babble on, scum.bag.
UtterFail, nobody said they felt unsafe, and your continual harping on trivia like ΔT suggests mental illness on your part.
This comment has been removed by the author.
The only person who suffers from "mental illness" can be found between your chair and your keyboard, nut.bag.
Perhaps you should learn to read before you have the unmitigated gall to excoriate your detractors for their alleged "lazy intellects"?
"...I don't think your attacks on me, Kevin Barrett, and William Rodriguez have anything to do with Kevin Barrett or William Rodriguez or anything rational. The attacks have to do with Brian Good and Carol Brouillet and are completely emotional. You have a crush on me and erroneously hold delusions about me. You are being irrationally jealous of Kevin and William. You cannot accept the fact that I am happily married and refuse to allow you to TRY to cause trouble between my husband and I. Because of your delusions, I cannot ever feel 'safe' in your presence alone, and would rather not see you again, but you are so desperate for attention that you are doing extremely negative, destructive things- attacking me and respected members of the 9/11 Truth Movement to force me to pay attention to you." -- Carol Brouillet, an excerpt from 9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
Now lie to us again, scum.bag, and deny the evidence while it stares you straight in your ferret face.
We've already been over this very thoroughly. Your source for this claim is Kevin Barrett, who lied four times in the first 4 minutes of his interview with Russia Today.
Lying again, scum.bag. The source is ScrewLooseChange blog, 29 September-06 October 2009.
See what I mean? You're a pathological liar.
(And don't give me that "your link doesn't work" malarkey, scum.bag. We've been over it a hundred times. Pat and James deleted the thread in 2010 when they changed the blog's comment management software. So stuff your idiotic rationalizations).
Thus, I can sum up your reply in one word: Lame.
Well, at least you're consistent. Consistently dishonest, that is.
UtterFail, you seem to be so divorced from reality that you don't realize that your ScrewLooseChange source does not say what you claim. Your belief that you can cite a source that does not exist is really, really dumb.
Debating you is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good I am at chess, the pigeon will just knock over the pieces, shit on the board, and strut around like it's victorious.
MR, use of incendiaries allows the feeble-minded to assumes that no explosives were present. I'm sorry, I can't make it any more simple than that.
Well, except that there's no evidence of incendiaries. That's not a problem, because there's no evidence of explosives either. None of this matters, because you're a deranged lunatic who lives in his parents' basement and is dismissed as such by normal people.
Your belief that you know what's in my mind is irrational. I'm sorry in that I pity your lazy intellects.
Brian, we know what's in your "mind" because you tell us constantly. You've been babbling about explosives and thermite and how they were used to destroy the WTC for 3 years at this site.
All the hysterical squealing in the world won't change the fact that you're delusional and believe in CD without any evidence of CD. Also, all the hysterical squealing in the world won't change the fact that you're an unemployed janitor who failed out of San Jose State.
Anyway, Brian, do you think the "widows" will have their questions answered this week?
Lying again, scum.bag?
On 5 October 2009 you wrote the following to the 9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked! thread:
"...The evidence comes from Kevin Barrett's report of what Carol said. Barrett is a liar. He told Chomsky he had lost a tenure-track position when in fact he was a temporary part-time lecturer." -- The goat fucker, 5 October, 2009 - 2:15 pm, 9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!.
On 5 May 2012 you wrote the following:
"...Kevin Barrett, who "reproduced" the thread, is a bigoted liar. He told Noam Chomsky that he had lost a tenure-track position. Barrett never had a tenure-track position." -- The goat fucker, 05 May, 2012 16:12, More Hecklivism from Luke.
Why would you make the same argument on 5 May 2012 that you made on 5 October 2009 if the thread isn't authentic?
You're making the same arguments today that you made three years ago. And the arguments are virtually the same--word for word.
Thus, we can see, once again, that you're a pathological liar. scum.bag.
Your BS is as transparent as a piece of Saran Wrap.
So I guess you think that if there's a 6-32 machine screw in my toaster, and there's a 6-32 machine screw in a Cadillac, then my toaster must be a Cadillac?
Poor Brian. He's so hysterical that he's babbling about toasters and Cadillacs now.
Brian, we all know you don't have a Cadillac. You're too poor to afford one because you're an unemployed janitor living on disability. That's why you live with your parents and drive a broken-down Volkswagen Beetle.
I'm sorry you are deficient in analogical reasoning, Ian, but it's not surprising. I suppose you're still wondering where are the bulls and the bears on wall street.
You lied, scum.bag.
You lied when you claimed that the 9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked! is un-sourced.
And you incriminated yourself when you wrote the following on 5 May 2012:
"...Kevin Barrett, who 'reproduced' the thread, is a bigoted liar. He told Noam Chomsky that he had lost a tenure-track position. Barrett never had a tenure-track position." -- The goat fucker, 05 May, 2012 16:12, More Hecklivism from Luke.
Which is virtually identical to the lies you told in the 9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked! thread:
"...The evidence comes from Kevin Barrett's report of what Carol said. Barrett is a liar. He told Chomsky he had lost a tenure-track position when in fact he was a temporary part-time lecturer." -- The goat fucker, 5 October, 2009 - 2:15 pm, 9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
Your continued insistence on lying, while the evidence stares you straight in your ferret face, suggests that you're not only a compulsive liar, you're a psychopath as well.
UtterFail, there is no source for the Barrett article. What you claim as a source does not exist. Why do you keep harping about the fact that Barrett lied to Chomsky? What significance do you ascribe to this fact other than that Barrett is a liar?
Yes, there is a source. It's at the top of the page--and I quote:
"...from the comments on the 9/21/2009 entry at http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2009_09_01_archive.html"
See what I mean? You're a pathological liar.
Thus, the remainder of your lame "rebuttal" is just so much obfuscatory offal.
Once again, you FAIL, scum.bag.
"MGF, I never said such a stupid thing. "
"How do you know no extraterrestrials were killed on 9/11?" - Brian Wackjob Goode
"So if I can't show you a dead ET, no ET's were killed? ... Shall we conclude that everything I can't (or won't) show you doesn't exist?" - Brian Dipshit Goode
*The (or won't) remark implies you either have proof of an alien body, or believe there are alien dead at ground zero.
This is why you failed philosophy at San Jose State.
UtterFail, the source you cite does not exist. Why don't you understand that you can't cite a source that doesn't exist? What's wrong with you?
MGF, I never attended San Jose State. A bright seven-year-old can understand the difference between slapping down a stupid, false argument, and asserting that the opposite is true. But you can't function on the level of a bright seven-year-old.
Debating you is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good I am at chess, the pigeon will just knock over the pieces, shit on the board, and strut around like it's victorious.
I'm sorry you are deficient in analogical reasoning, Ian, but it's not surprising. I suppose you're still wondering where are the bulls and the bears on wall street.
I know where the bull is. It's located on Broadway by Bowling Green. You live in a fantasy world.
MGF, I never attended San Jose State. A bright seven-year-old can understand the difference between slapping down a stupid, false argument, and asserting that the opposite is true. But you can't function on the level of a bright seven-year-old.
Poor Brian. He's just squealing hysterically again, because we all know that he believes in controlled demolition and we've humiliated him for it.
Debating you is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good I am at chess, the pigeon will just knock over the pieces, shit on the board, and strut around like it's victorious.
See what I mean?
Also, it's hilarious that Brian sits in the park all day playing chess with pigeons. That's what I would expect from a mentally ill homeless person, and while Brian is certainly mentally ill, he's not homeless because his parents haven't thrown him out of the house.
The source is authentic. I watched the thread unfold. Ian and Dylan Unsavory PARTICIPATED IN THE THREAD (Ian is "New Yorker").
You're a liar. And you're a liar who incriminated himself when you wrote identical "rebuttals" on 5 May 2012 and 5 October 2009.
"...Kevin Barrett, who 'reproduced' the thread, is a bigoted liar. He told Noam Chomsky that he had lost a tenure-track position. Barrett never had a tenure-track position." -- The goat fucker, 05 May, 2012 16:12, More Hecklivism from Luke.
"...The evidence comes from Kevin Barrett's report of what Carol said. Barrett is a liar. He told Chomsky he had lost a tenure-track position when in fact he was a temporary part-time lecturer." -- The goat fucker, 5 October, 2009 - 2:15 pm, 9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
Déjà vu, right scum.bag?
Thus, you're not only a liar, you're a bad liar--which proves beyond a doubt that you're an ass-clown.
This comment has been removed by the author.
NOTE:
I've [1] given you TWO sources for the article (Barrett and SLC), and [2] given you TWO WITNESSES who participated in the thread.
Thus, my argument is substantiated.
Now, the ball is in your court, scum.bag.
Either prove that the thread was altered or, once again, you are guilty of accusing your detractors of the crimes YOU commit. Namely, you're making an argument from ignorance (where ignorance, which is defined as lack of evidence to the contrary, somehow becomes "evidence"). Thus, you're not only a pathological liar, you're a hypocrite, too.
Once again, you FAIL, scum.bag.
Brain the fact is that as many things can be made up to rationalize mini nukes as there can for silent explosives. I know you don't understand this as it contradicts the holy truther faith. Sadly Brian when something contradicts what you believe you simply try to come up with anything to help you believe your own nonsense and never consider whether or not what you are saying has a basis in fact.
GMS, how can you rationalize the lack of radiation? Mini nukes would make detectable radiation.
Who said anything about silent explosives? Only very dishonest framing of the issues can protect your illusions.
Do you dispute the fact that sound is propagated in air and thus an explosion inside a sealed steel container that does not breach that container will cause little noise in the outside world?
MS, how can you rationalize the lack of radiation? Mini nukes would make detectable radiation.
Its simple, evil gubmint has sekret technolujy.
Who said anything about silent explosives? Only very dishonest framing of the issues can protect your illusions.
You just argued they would be quiet.
Do you dispute the fact that sound is propagated in air and thus an explosion inside a sealed steel container that does not breach that container will cause little noise in the outside world?
Its not a steel container Brian. I know you have a hard time with this but a partial property of something does not tell you the whole. ITs like saying a human is a bone container.
Sorry but your delusions on this matter are just your say so. Just because you say it, doesn't make it real nor believable.
Got to love the compartmentalization that must be going on in Brian's mind
There is much evidence for use of explosives--squibs, eyewitness testimony, dust clouds including upward ejections.
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2010/12/nist-did-test-explosives.html#c8603315339349184527
So we can see the squibs, and upward ejections that are the result of these explosives but the bang accompanied by them is somehow hushed inside Brian's non-existant tin can.
GMS, how can you fail to recognize that a hollow box column is a steel container? You really don't know anything about the construction of the World Trade Center, do you?
Post a Comment
<< Home