Thursday, May 24, 2012

Ricky G is Coming to Town

Not much is happening on the Truther front, although Richard Gage is coming to the Northwest this Friday promoting yet another version of his movie, called 911 Experts Speak Out: The Final Edition (yeah, right).  I was considering stopping by and saying hello, but they want $10 to get in to the stupid thing.  For that much I could go see The Avengers.

In other news, one of the leading candidates for the Egyptian presidency, former member of the Muslim Brotherhood Abdel-Moneim Abolfotoh, turns out to be a Truther.  Mahmoud Ahmadinjad, Hugo Chavez, Richard Gage, and now Abolfotoh.  Distinguished company.

105 Comments:

At 24 May, 2012 08:09, Blogger Ed said...

I thought from the title you were talking about Ricky Gervais. But in fact you meant a totally different comedian.

 
At 24 May, 2012 10:04, Blogger snug.bug said...

Not to mention Howard Zinn, Peter Dale, Scott, Peter Phillips, Michael Parenti, Mark Crispin Miller, Ralph Nader, Ray McGovern, Rabbi Michael Lerner, David Korten, Thom Hartmann, Bruce Gagnon, Daniel Ellsberg, Kevin Danaher, Ernest Callenbach, David Cobb, Robert Bowman, Dennis Bernstein, and Michael Badnarik.

 
At 24 May, 2012 12:36, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Not to mention Howard Zinn, Peter Dale, Scott, Peter Phillips, Michael Parenti, Mark Crispin Miller, Ralph Nader, Ray McGovern, Rabbi Michael Lerner, David Korten, Thom Hartmann, Bruce Gagnon, Daniel Ellsberg, Kevin Danaher, Ernest Callenbach, David Cobb, Robert Bowman, Dennis Bernstein, and Michael Badnarik."

You could have just typed "Plus every other anit-American loser".

 
At 24 May, 2012 12:37, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

"For that much I could go see the Avengers" -James Bennett, Coward.

Way to prioritize your beliefs, James. You're a real "debunker". Enjoy the company of Troy Sexton while you fail to debunk anything.

 
At 24 May, 2012 13:39, Blogger anonymous said...

http://sandiego.indymedia.org/sites/default/files/newswire/nw_image/12/05/gage-911crap.jpg

lol

 
At 24 May, 2012 13:49, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

I for one fully support a new investigation into how Scarlett Johhanson fit into her costume.

An inside job I volunteer for.

 
At 24 May, 2012 13:54, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, there is no-one so anti-American as the flag-waving fool who celebrates the betrayal of the principles that our forefathers fought and died for, principles that once made this the greatest country in the world.

 
At 24 May, 2012 14:08, Blogger James B. said...

The Avengers is more believable.

 
At 24 May, 2012 14:09, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Dark Shadows is really not all that bad. Kind of aimless but good for a few chuckles.

 
At 24 May, 2012 14:10, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Given that you're a proven unprincipled liar, what the Hell do YOU know about "principles"?

You know, scum.bag, it's a wonder that you don't choke on your hypocrisy.

 
At 24 May, 2012 14:28, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

", there is no-one so anti-American as the flag-waving fool who celebrates the betrayal of the principles that our forefathers fought and died for, principles that once made this the greatest country in the world."

1. - We were never that great, it's just everyone else sucks.

2. Our forefathers were assholes, which is really the key to America's "greatness".

3. Our response to the attacks of 9/11 was pretty low key, our forefathers would have nuked a huge chunk of west-Asia.

4. You are the last guy to talk about priciples, unless it's the one who kicked you out of SJ State (Go Spartans!)

 
At 24 May, 2012 14:31, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

snug, as of May 9th Snowcrash was considering banning you from truthaction. Your last post was May 9th. Were you banned?

 
At 24 May, 2012 15:20, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Nice find. Thanks for the link, RGT.

"...Who cares? You're (by your own request) an 'anonymous' troll who disrupts forums and groups violating every single guideline you plead. There is widely held consensus on that throughout all 'camps'. I'm testing the waters to have you removed. Should I fail, you're welcome to troll here in perpetuity but I leave. I've got better things to do than cater to the delusions and obsessions of a 9/11 survivor stalking freak...That's the only thing me and the regulars at the SLC blog agree on. (And if I find consensus with them, that's quite amazing considering our irreconcilable differences about 9/11)" -- Snowcrash

I think we can rest assured that he was banned because Snowcrash gave them an ultimatum: Either scum.bag goes, or Snowcrash goes.

I think the choice is obvious, don't you?

On the other hand, it's a real shame that SLC's moderators are unwilling to ban the pseudo-troofer, scum.bag.

 
At 24 May, 2012 15:40, Blogger GuitarBill said...

And then there's this little beauty:

"...I want my time spent productively. It took me way too long to understand that forum and blog back-and-forth with online characters who have abandoned any commitment to integrity, self-critique and honesty is an insult to my self-worth. I will invest no time convincing or debating incorrigible sciolist [SIC] trolls and nutcakes, [SIC] even if I realize that the neutral observer might be initially won over by the façade of politeness, persistence, eloquence and arrogant pseudo-intellectual pretense...all of which are eventually unmasked as troll survivability techniques to the seasoned participant." -- Snowcrash

Again, it's a real shame that our moderators force us to endure this troll. And it's my personal opinion that they should be slapped repeatedly until they come their senses.

 
At 24 May, 2012 15:49, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Think about it, gentlemen.

Scum.bag trolls debunker sites and troofer sites. Does that make sense to you?

Face it, he's a tool.

Enough is enough. Ban him!

 
At 24 May, 2012 16:05, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFool, I know a lot about principles. Principles of logic and science and the Constitution.

MGF, thanks for making your cynicism clear. The generation that fought and died to protect the world from the domination of the Nazis and the Japanese imperialists were assholes, huh?

And you think that a war that resulted in the death of a million innocents was a "low key" response? You think surrendering our Constitutional liberties was "low key"?

I don't really follow truthaction. It appears that YT got more interested in Occupy than in 9/11 and few people bother with truthaction anymore.

 
At 24 May, 2012 16:18, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Scum.bag brays, "...I know a lot about principles. Principles of logic and science and the Constitution."

You don't have a principled bone in your body, sex predator. And you trample on "logic" (arguments from ignorance, straw man arguments, no true Scotsman fallacy, the list is endless) and "science" (Tell us more about ΔT. Or how about your statistical "calculations," which were off by an order of magnitude?).

You know nothing about "principles," "logic" or "science." You belong in a psychiatric institution, not the general population.

You're nothing but a troll, liar, pervert and a tool.

Now, get out of here--you God damned troll.

 
At 24 May, 2012 16:22, Blogger GuitarBill said...

And notice how carefully scum.bag avoids RGT's question.

Answer the question, scum.bag:

"...Your last post was May 9th. Were you banned?"

Coward. Liar. Pervert. Tool.

 
At 24 May, 2012 16:42, Blogger Ian said...

Poor Brian. This site hadn't updated in days, and he couldn't post his idiotic spam anywhere else because he had been banned. How many times per day do you think he refreshed this sit, waiting for the moment when he could post again?

 
At 24 May, 2012 16:50, Blogger Ian said...

UtterFool, I know a lot about principles. Principles of logic and science and the Constitution.

If you know a lot about these principles, how come you constantly make a fool of yourself babbling incorrectly about them?

MGF, thanks for making your cynicism clear. The generation that fought and died to protect the world from the domination of the Nazis and the Japanese imperialists were assholes, huh?

Some people are assholes, some people are good. Generations have nothing to do with it.

Byron de la Beckwith was one of that generation that fought in WWII. He was also a racist murderer. You really are a complete moron, Brian.

And you think that a war that resulted in the death of a million innocents was a "low key" response? You think surrendering our Constitutional liberties was "low key"?

Yup, on planet petgoat, Byron de la Beckwith was a hero, but the response to 9/11 caused a million deaths.

I don't really follow truthaction. It appears that YT got more interested in Occupy than in 9/11 and few people bother with truthaction anymore.

In other words, you were banned from it for being a liar and lunatic.

 
At 24 May, 2012 19:09, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

I think we can rest assured that he was banned because Snowcrash gave them an ultimatum: Either scum.bag goes, or Snowcrash goes.

I imagine that was it. Truthaction is a weird, insular cult. The regulars' words are gospel and questions are not exactly encouraged.

On the other hand, it's a real shame that SLC's moderators are unwilling to ban the pseudo-troofer, scum.bag.

Is that even possible on blogger? I get the impression one needs to do stupid PHP tricks for that.

 
At 24 May, 2012 19:59, Blogger GuitarBill said...

RGT, it's possible to add code to the blog. Most of the code I've seen is written in Javascript.

Failing that, if they can manually remove commercial spam (and they do remove commercial spam), they can remove scum.bag's drivel.

Whatever decision is made, one thing is certain, scum.bag needs to go. He doesn't "debate." He's an insane, lying troll who wore out his welcome months ago.

Does anyone really think that a person who trolls both sides of the debate has an ounce of credibility?

He's either an insane troll, or a tool with a hidden political agenda. Either way, he needs to go.

NOW GET BUSY, PAT AND JAMES, AND BAN THE SON OF A BITCH.

 
At 25 May, 2012 06:23, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

I just think its interesting how they continue to fleece truthers with the same movies over and over again; but I guess that evolution at work. Richard must have taken a page from the Loose Change Boys.

 
At 25 May, 2012 09:48, Blogger snug.bug said...

GMS, how do you know "they continue to fleece truthers with the same movies over and over again"? Have you seen "9/11 Explosive Evidence; Experts Speak Out"?

 
At 25 May, 2012 10:25, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Simple Brian point out the difference between the 2 different versions of "Experts Speak out", or for that matter what new information is even presented in either? Its just the same nonsense as before just by no one of any importance.

Sorry Brain , but even if there was a difference, asking people to buy 10 of the same video is fleecing.

 
At 25 May, 2012 10:34, Blogger snug.bug said...

The earlier "pre-release" version was 2 hours and 15 minutes long and was rushed into production for the 10th anniversary of 9/11.

The new version is 35 minutes shorter and has many added clips from C-Span, NIST, and news sources. Many added graphics from official reports, the NYT, and technical articles.

 
At 25 May, 2012 11:17, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

So nothing of substance. But I guess Gage had to get it to there for the 10th Anniversary, thats prime time for marketing 9/11 merchandise.

 
At 25 May, 2012 13:29, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

"The Avengers is more believable."
-James Bennett, coward.

More so than your non-"debunking", certainly.

So James would rather flee to a child's movie than spread his twoof against nefarious lies?

Brave "debunker". Taking cues from Pat Craven again, I see.

 
At 25 May, 2012 15:38, Blogger Ian said...

GMS, how do you know "they continue to fleece truthers with the same movies over and over again"? Have you seen "9/11 Explosive Evidence; Experts Speak Out"?

Re-posted for the laughs.

The new version is 35 minutes shorter and has many added clips from C-Span, NIST, and news sources. Many added graphics from official reports, the NYT, and technical articles.

Yup, just another way to get ignorant simpletons like Brian to part with their cash.

 
At 25 May, 2012 15:39, Blogger Ian said...

More so than your non-"debunking", certainly.

So James would rather flee to a child's movie than spread his twoof against nefarious lies?

Brave "debunker". Taking cues from Pat Craven again, I see


Poor ScootleRoyale. We're not paying him any more attention that McDonalds hiring managers or single women do, so he re-posts his stupidity.

 
At 25 May, 2012 15:40, Blogger Ian said...

I was considering stopping by and saying hello, but they want $10 to get in to the stupid thing. For that much I could go see The Avengers.

For $10 (plus the cost of gas to drive there from Seattle), you could visit the Johnston Ridge Observatory at Mt. St. Helens and learn about pyroclastic flows and how, contrary to what Dicky Gage says, they aren't caused by building collapses.

 
At 25 May, 2012 17:34, Blogger snug.bug said...

GMS, thanks for showing you're panning a movie you haven't seen. There's no reason to think you've seen the pre-release version either.

And your review of expert testimony from Gene Corley and Shyam Sunder as "nothing of substance" is duly noted.

 
At 25 May, 2012 18:18, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

The generation that fought and died to protect the world from the domination of the Nazis and the Japanese imperialists were assholes, huh?

And you think that a war that resulted in the death of a million innocents was a "low key" response? You think surrendering our Constitutional liberties was "low key"?

If the guys who fought in WWII fought in Iraq & Afghanistan there might actually be a million dead civilians (the actual number is far less).

You have surrendered nothing. The very fact you hand out your clown-fliers whenever Condoleezza makes the rounds in Palo Alto without being arrested to be shipped off to a secret prison is proof your Constitutional rights are just fine

 
At 25 May, 2012 18:29, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, the actual number of war dead as determined by the Opinion Research Business, a respected polling business in the UK, was one million, and that was many years ago.

If you have quibbles with their methodology, by all means share it. But don't expect any one to care about the opinions of someone, such as yourself, who is dumb enough to think I flunked out of a university I never attended.

My Constitutional rights are not just fine. Obama has claimed the right to assassinate anybody anywhere any time. No due process. The sneak and peak warrentless searches are still in effect. The illegal warrentless wiretaps Bush bragged about are still in effect. You don't know what you're talking about.

I have the right to pass out flyers only because I have aggressively defended that right, and because shipping me off to a secret prison would only serve to publicize my work.

it would become news all over the country.

 
At 25 May, 2012 19:27, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 25 May, 2012 19:30, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Scum.bag brays, "...My Constitutional rights are not just fine."

You don't give a damn about anyone's "Constitutional rights" but your own.

And if you had a brain in your 8 meter thick, steel-reinforced concrete skull, you'd know that our "Constitutional rights" were rendered meaningless at the beginning of WWII.

Ask the Japanese-Americans who were forced into internment camps about our alleged "Constitutional rights." I'm sure they'll happily laugh you out of the room.

 
At 25 May, 2012 20:49, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"MGF, the actual number of war dead as determined by the Opinion Research Business, a respected polling business in the UK, was one million, and that was many years ago."

The survey has been shown to be false, the actual number is between 350,000 and half a million.

So of course you'd quote it. Facts are a weak spot for you.

"If you have quibbles with their methodology, by all means share it. But don't expect any one to care about the opinions of someone, such as yourself, who is dumb enough to think I flunked out of a university I never attended."


So you admit you never went to college at all. Figures.

 
At 25 May, 2012 21:10, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"My Constitutional rights are not just fine. Obama has claimed the right to assassinate anybody anywhere any time."

Good. We needed this ability 20 years ago.



"I have the right to pass out flyers only because I have aggressively defended that right, and because shipping me off to a secret prison would only serve to publicize my work."


The reason the G-men/black helicopters haven't come for you is because they know you're a fool. They've seen your arrest record, they've read your files from the mental health clinic, and they don't care.

If a woman is elected President this will change because you're a pervert who have problems with women in authority.

 
At 25 May, 2012 21:42, Blogger Ian said...

MGF, the actual number of war dead as determined by the Opinion Research Business, a respected polling business in the UK, was one million, and that was many years ago.

Nobody cares.

If you have quibbles with their methodology, by all means share it. But don't expect any one to care about the opinions of someone, such as yourself, who is dumb enough to think I flunked out of a university I never attended.

Nobody cares what you think, either. You're an unemployed janitor.

My Constitutional rights are not just fine. Obama has claimed the right to assassinate anybody anywhere any time. No due process. The sneak and peak warrentless searches are still in effect. The illegal warrentless wiretaps Bush bragged about are still in effect. You don't know what you're talking about.

Squeal squeal squeal!

How about the Constitutional rights of Japanese-Americans in 1942? Somehow you glossed over that they were rounded up and sent to prison camps by the very people you laud. How about Medgar Evers? He was murdered by a decorated hero of World War II for having the gall to believe in equal rights for blacks.

I have the right to pass out flyers only because I have aggressively defended that right, and because shipping me off to a secret prison would only serve to publicize my work.

Poor Brian. He's delusional enough to think the government is afraid of him, or cares about his idiotic flyers.

Nobody cares about you, Brian. You're a pathetic lunatic and failed janitor who wears women's underwear. If you end up in jail, it will be because you violated a restraining order put on you by Carol Brouillet.

 
At 26 May, 2012 09:27, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, by your logic if one woman gets beat up by her drunken boyfriend then all laws protecting women from domestic violence are overturned.

MGF, who exactly has shown the ORB data to be false? Your logical leap from the fact that I never attended San Jose State to the conclusion that I never attended college at all only demonstrates your fundamental irrationality. Did you attend San Jose State?

Your belief that the president needs fascistic powers is very telling. Why do you believe that? Do you have some weird Daddy hangup? What you want is an elected dictator. And of course with the hackable voting machines, we'll never know if our "elected" officials were really the voters' choice or not.

I don't have a problem with women in authority. I have a problem with doofusses in authority. Many women in authority, such as Nancy Pelosi, Diane Feinstein, and Anna Eshoo--are doofusses.

Ian, a lot of people care that 1,000,000 innocents have been slaughtered in illegal, immoral, and unnecessary wars. If you don't care, it only shows you to be a racist tool.

I never lauded anyone who sent Japanese Americans to concentration camps. You make up your facts. Where did you get your information about a restraining order put out against me? Kindly provide the name of your legal counsel so that I might get this information from an accountable source.

provide details about the restraining

 
At 26 May, 2012 10:03, Blogger Ian said...

I see Brian is spending his Memorial Day weekend squealing hysterically because he's a failed janitor who stalks Carol Brouillet and we've humiliated him by pointing this out.

Your deranged obsessions are why I worry about the "widows". Who knows when you might show up at Laurie Van Auken's front door and expose yourself to her....

 
At 26 May, 2012 10:28, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, please provide the name of your legal counsel so that I may get from an accountable source your information about stalking and a restraining order.

 
At 26 May, 2012 10:59, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, please provide the name of your legal counsel so that I may get from an accountable source your information about stalking and a restraining order.

I will when you admit that the widows have no questions.

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

 
At 26 May, 2012 11:04, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Scum.bag squeals, "...by your logic if one woman gets beat up by her drunken boyfriend then all laws protecting women from domestic violence are overturned."

Another idiotic "analogy," scum.bag?

You have all the reading comprehension skills of 2nd grader.

Question: Have you made any death threats to harmless women lately, stalker freak?

 
At 26 May, 2012 11:08, Blogger GuitarBill said...

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 26 May, 2012 12:44, Blogger snug.bug said...

So the "authority" UtterFail cites is Kevin Barrett--the liar, wifebeater, incompetent scholar, bigot, and violence monger. When Barrett was interviewed by Russia Today he lied 4 times in the first 5 minutes of the interview.

 
At 26 May, 2012 12:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

Barrett's not even competent to put up a simple quote. Look how he mangles the quote from Rex Tomb at the opening to Barrett's book "Questioning the War on Terror".

 
At 26 May, 2012 13:05, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Lying again, scum.bag?

The source is SLC, not Kevin Barrett. And I have the witnesses, Ian and Dylan Unsavory, to prove it. They participated in the thread.

In fact, you are the "incompetent, bigot, and violence monger." The only reason you don't qualify as a "wife beater" is because sane women want nothing to do with bisexual men.

And who are you to excoriate anyone for "lying"? Every word that proceeds from your semen encrusted keyboard is a bald-faced lie.

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 26 May, 2012 13:23, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail you are only demonstrating your logical incompetence when you continue to fail to recognize that when the SLC source does not exist, the source is Barrett.

 
At 26 May, 2012 14:55, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Accidental deletion of the data does not change the original source--you cretin.

In fact, Barrett included the source (a link to SLC) at the top of the page.

Thus, who are you to talk about "logical incompetence"? "Logical incompetence" is your middle name.

FACT: Your claim that the document was "altered" has never been established. Now either prove the document was altered, or STFU, sex predator.

 
At 27 May, 2012 08:35, Blogger snug.bug said...

Deletion does not change the source? Gee, is that what you tell your IT clients after you accidentally delete all their data?

I never claimed the document was altered. I said the document was unverifiable. Your inability to understand the difference only shows your incompetence in logical matters.

 
At 27 May, 2012 10:09, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Another idiotic and totally inappropriate analogy, jackass?

The document is verifiable, and YOU participated in the thread.

I gave you two witnesses who vouch for the authenticity of the document--they participated in the thread as well.

It's not Kevin Barrett's fault that the original thread was deleted by Pat and James. Barrett gave a link to SLC at the top of the document, which, at the time he published the webpage, pointed back to the original. This proves that he didn't alter the document.

So what is the point of claiming the "document was unverifiable" if you're not trying to insinuate that the document was in fact altered?

Talking out of both sides of your mealy mouth again, stalker freak?

Now either prove that the document was altered, or STFU, sex predator.

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 27 May, 2012 10:23, Blogger GuitarBill said...

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." -- Scum.bag, 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." -- Scum.bag, 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.

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 27 May, 2012 11:31, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

And your review of expert testimony from Gene Corley and Shyam Sunder as "nothing of substance" is duly noted

Crap we have seen parade before right? What does Gene Corely think happened on 9/11?

Point was, and of course you missed it, its the same ole same ole, and just another way to get money out of the gullible.

 
At 27 May, 2012 11:50, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, the document is 19,000 words. Only a fool like you would claim he could verify from memory a 19,000-word document posted by a proven liar. The fact that the document is unverifiable means it is not reliable. You seem determined to demonstrate your logical incompetence.

Those two statements are not identical, and even if they were, what is your point?

 
At 27 May, 2012 12:01, Blogger GuitarBill said...

scum.bag lies, "...The fact that the document is unverifiable means it is not reliable."

Giving your lies advance billing as "fact" again, scum.bag?

And, of course, once again, you're resorting to misdirection. Well, it's not going work, scum.bag. Your underhanded "debate" tactics are getting old, scum.bag, and they're no longer working for you. So my suggestion is that you give it up, sex predator.

Now either prove that the document was altered, or STFU, sex predator.

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

And remember, scum.bag, your encroaching senility is no reflection on the quality of my memory.

 
At 27 May, 2012 13:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

ButtGale, as usual you can offer nothing but empty flatulence. You obviously lack the reasoning capacity to understand that your belief that you can vouch for the authenticity of a 19,000-word document is absurd.

How can I prove the document was altered when the original does not exist? The point is--you can't prove the document is authentic. It would not be admissible in court for reasons that are obvious to anyone with half a brain but which seem to escape your pseudo-skeptical crippled epistemology.

 
At 27 May, 2012 16:16, Blogger Ian said...

I see Brian spent another lonely weekend babbling hysterically on this blog.

Brian, are there any truther blogs/message boards left that haven't banned you?

 
At 27 May, 2012 19:29, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, nothing I did was done hysterically. I slapped down a lot of irrational nonsense posted by people who seem to be afraid to face facts.

 
At 27 May, 2012 20:37, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Oh we'll face facts as soon as we see some from you.

 
At 27 May, 2012 20:51, Blogger snug.bug said...

I've given you many facts.

Dr. Sunder says the towers fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds.

NIST acknowledges that WTC7 fell at free fall for 2.25 seconds.

NIST's reports stop their analysis at the moment of collapse initiation, and thus dodge all the essential mysteries of the towers' collapses, all 8 of them.

 
At 27 May, 2012 22:09, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Dr. Sunder says the towers fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds."

Not a fact, it is an opinion.

"NIST acknowledges that WTC7 fell at free fall for 2.25 seconds."

Yes, but what was it doing for the rest of the collapse?

"NIST's reports stop their analysis at the moment of collapse initiation, and thus dodge all the essential mysteries of the towers' collapses, all 8 of them."

Hardly a dodge. The people who wear the big-boy pants understand there's no point of going beyond the initiation because gravity did the rest.

 
At 28 May, 2012 01:42, Blogger snug.bug said...

Your inability to distinguish fact from opinion goes a long way to explain why you're so confused about 9/11. Dr. Sunder said 9 seconds and 11 seconds. That's a fact.

WTC7 fell at free fall for 2.25 seconds. What happened for the rest of the collapse is irrelevant.

"Gravity" can not explain the 8 essential mysteries of HOW the towers collapsed.

 
At 28 May, 2012 06:43, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, nothing I did was done hysterically. I slapped down a lot of irrational nonsense posted by people who seem to be afraid to face facts.

Yup, like I said, hysterical babbling.

Dr. Sunder says the towers fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds.

Irrelevant.

NIST acknowledges that WTC7 fell at free fall for 2.25 seconds.

Irrelevant.

NIST's reports stop their analysis at the moment of collapse initiation, and thus dodge all the essential mysteries of the towers' collapses, all 8 of them.

The 8 "essential mysteries" have been explained: they're the delusions of a mentally ill unemployed janitor who was banned from the truth movement for stalking people.

 
At 28 May, 2012 09:32, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, the only officially-reported measurement of the towers' collapse times, given by NIST's lead investigator on the project and disputed only by anonymous, lying pseudo-skeptics, is not irrelevant. It is essential.

Free fall in WTC7 is not irrelevant, because according to the first law of thermodynamics, one of the fundamental laws of physics, that would be impossible without added energy inputs such as explosives or incendiaries. NIST implicitly acknowledged the lack of conformance to the laws of physics when they removed from the final version of the report their claim in the draft that their analysis was "consistent with physical principles".

Just as you can not break down a door in the same amount of time as you can walk through an open door, a building can not fall through itself in the same amount of time as it falls through air. Your unwillingness to investigate these very simple principles of physics betrays the brittle and frantic nature of your beliefs about 9/11.

The 8 essential mysteries of the towers' collapses have not been explained. None of them have even been been investigated by the officials, and few of them have been investigated by independent researchers. You are a liar.

 
At 28 May, 2012 10:52, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, the only officially-reported measurement of the towers' collapse times, given by NIST's lead investigator on the project and disputed only by anonymous, lying pseudo-skeptics, is not irrelevant. It is essential.

Nope, it's irrelevant, as the fact that only you dwell on it demonstrates. You're a failed janitor who believes in magic thermite elves.

Free fall in WTC7 is not irrelevant, because according to the first law of thermodynamics, one of the fundamental laws of physics, that would be impossible without added energy inputs such as explosives or incendiaries. NIST implicitly acknowledged the lack of conformance to the laws of physics when they removed from the final version of the report their claim in the draft that their analysis was "consistent with physical principles".

Yup, irrelevant. Thanks for proving my point.

Just as you can not break down a door in the same amount of time as you can walk through an open door, a building can not fall through itself in the same amount of time as it falls through air. Your unwillingness to investigate these very simple principles of physics betrays the brittle and frantic nature of your beliefs about 9/11.

And now the failed janitor begins his hysterical squealing....

The 8 essential mysteries of the towers' collapses have not been explained.

Yes they have. They're the delusions of a mentally ill liar and pervert.

None of them have even been been investigated by the officials, and few of them have been investigated by independent researchers.

How are people supposed to investigate your delusions if you won't check yourself into a mental hospital? Psychiatrists are busy people. They're not going to make house calls just because you're too lazy to leave your parents' basement.

You are a liar.

Hey Brian, have the widows had their questions answered yet?

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

 
At 28 May, 2012 11:03, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you lie and lie and lie and lie, and then top it off by rejoicing in the frustration of the victims of 9/11. You're digusting.

I'm not asking anyone to investigate delusions. I'm asking them to investigate facts that have not been explained.

 
At 28 May, 2012 11:17, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, you lie and lie and lie and lie, and then top it off by rejoicing in the frustration of the victims of 9/11. You're digusting.

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

I'm not asking anyone to investigate delusions. I'm asking them to investigate facts that have not been explained.

Brian, nobody is going to investigate the paranoid delusions of a failed janitor who wears women's underwear and was kicked out of the truth movement for stalking Carol Brouillet.

That's a fact.

 
At 28 May, 2012 11:25, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, kindly provide the name of your legal counsel so I may determine from a verifiable source the basis of your libelous claims.

Just as you can not break down a door in the same amount of time as you can walk through an open door, a building can not fall through itself in the same amount of time as it falls through air. The only way you can walk through a closed door as if it didn't exist is if energy is used to take the door out of the way. It's the same with a falling building.



Your unwillingness to investigate these very simple principles of physics betrays the brittle and frantic nature of your beliefs about 9/11.

 
At 28 May, 2012 11:34, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, kindly provide the name of your legal counsel so I may determine from a verifiable source the basis of your libelous claims.

Sure, as soon as you admit that the widows have no questions.

Just as you can not break down a door in the same amount of time as you can walk through an open door, a building can not fall through itself in the same amount of time as it falls through air. The only way you can walk through a closed door as if it didn't exist is if energy is used to take the door out of the way. It's the same with a falling building.

Your unwillingness to investigate these very simple principles of physics betrays the brittle and frantic nature of your beliefs about 9/11.


Sigh, just more pathetic spam from a mentally ill unemployed janitor who failed out of San Jose State and has been banned from the truth movement for being a liar and lunatic and sex stalker.

I feel bad for your parents, Brian. I'm sure they never expected that they'd have to care for you at age 60 because you're too stupid and insane to hold down a job mopping floors.

 
At 28 May, 2012 15:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you lie and lie and lie.

 
At 28 May, 2012 16:51, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Just as you can not break down a door in the same amount of time as you can walk through an open door, a building can not fall through itself in the same amount of time as it falls through air. The only way you can walk through a closed door as if it didn't exist is if energy is used to take the door out of the way. It's the same with a falling building."

Wow, you really really suck at this stuff don't you.

The buildings didn't fall as fast as you think they did. Period.

 
At 28 May, 2012 17:10, Blogger snug.bug said...

Dr. Sunder, Dr. Kausel, Dr. Eagar, and Popular Science's 2011 edition of the Debunking 9/11 book all said it was a collapse time near freefall.

Kausel said 9 seconds, Eagar said 10 seconds, PM said 10 and 12 seconds, and Sunder said 9 and 11 seconds.

Where do you get the notion that the buildings didn't fall as fast as I think they did. I think they fell as fast as they fell.

 
At 28 May, 2012 17:23, Blogger Ian said...

Dr. Sunder, Dr. Kausel, Dr. Eagar, and Popular Science's 2011 edition of the Debunking 9/11 book all said it was a collapse time near freefall.

Kausel said 9 seconds, Eagar said 10 seconds, PM said 10 and 12 seconds, and Sunder said 9 and 11 seconds.


Nobody cares.

 
At 28 May, 2012 17:26, Blogger Ian said...

You know, it was 3 years ago this weekend that I graduated from business school.

I was posting at this blog and would tell Brian that the widows had no questions and enjoy his hysterical squealing.

Well, 3 years later, and my life has changed in so many good ways, but it's good to know that Brian Good is still squealing hysterically every time I tell him that the widows have no questions.

I guess some people are better at accomplishing things with their lives than others....

 
At 28 May, 2012 21:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

I don't squeal hysterically at your lies. I simply point out that they are lies. The widows have questions, as this page clearly shows.

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

Any idiot can get an MBA. It's nothing to brag about. I bet yours came with a free laptop computer.

 
At 28 May, 2012 21:47, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Any idiot can get an MBA. It's nothing to brag about. I bet yours came with a free laptop computer."

Beats the bowl of soup you got with your GED

 
At 28 May, 2012 23:46, Blogger snug.bug said...

Any idiot can get an MBA, MGF. All it takes is time and money.

 
At 29 May, 2012 04:49, Blogger Ian said...

I don't squeal hysterically at your lies. I simply point out that they are lies. The widows have questions, as this page clearly shows.

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

Any idiot can get an MBA. It's nothing to brag about. I bet yours came with a free laptop computer.


See what I mean? More hysterical squealing about "widows" with "questions".

And I love being told "anyone can get an MBA" from an unemployed janitor. Brian, you can't get an MBA. You need a bachelors degree, which you don't have as you failed out of San Jose State. Also, you need good work experience, which you don't have because you couldn't hold down a job mopping floors.

 
At 29 May, 2012 08:11, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, the widows have questions. Your inability to learn this simple fact is pathological.

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

Ian, I'm not an unemployed janitor and I didn't say "anyone can get an MBA". I said "any idiot can get an MBA".

Please provide evidence to support your libelous claim that I flunked out of San Jose State.

Please provide evidence for your claim that I attended San Jose State.

 
At 29 May, 2012 12:55, Blogger anonymous said...

lawdy lord look at der spam!

on topic >there's a good post on gage here

http://la.indymedia.org/news/2012/05/253409.php

 
At 29 May, 2012 14:49, Blogger SnowCrash said...

Brian, stop lying by omission. You were banned from TA, by YT.

 
At 29 May, 2012 14:59, Blogger SnowCrash said...

And Brian (alias "snug.bug", alias "truebeleaguer") just to preempt more of your usual evasive pedantry and semantic pettifoggery, TA refers to Truth Action: you were banned from the Truth Action Forum at truthaction.org/forum and you were banned because of trolling.

 
At 29 May, 2012 16:24, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 29 May, 2012 16:28, Blogger snug.bug said...

That's not the way I heard it. The way I heard it was that you brought three crashing bores (is that trolling or what) to the truthaction forum, and truebeleaguer made fools out of every one of them--one, two, three. Crash and burn.

The word is that you've become so accustomed to people telling you you're the smartest man in the room that you've lost the ability to recognize when you're wrong.

 
At 29 May, 2012 16:54, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Brian, stop lying by omission. You were banned from TA, by YT...And Brian (alias 'snug.bug', alias 'truebeleaguer') just to preempt more of your usual evasive pedantry and semantic pettifoggery, TA refers to Truth Action: you were banned from the Truth Action Forum at truthaction.org/forum and you were banned because of trolling." -- Snowcrash, 29 May, 2012 14:49 and 29 May, 2012 14:59.

LOL! And you wonder why you're widely regarded as a compulsive liar?

So scum.bag, tell us, why do you troll "truther" forums and blogs controlled by the opposition?

(Does anyone else find this pathological behavior strange?)

The motivation for your continued anti-social behavior couldn't possibly be the following document and the damning information found therein, could it, Prince Charming?

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

You wouldn't happen to be an insane, butt-hurt sex predator with an axe to grind, would you?

Maybe that explains why you stalk Pat, James, Ian, Willie Rodriguez, Carol Brouillet, Kevin Barrett, John Bursill, and a plethora of victims too numerous to name in this venue?

Isn't your harassment of CIT just a smoke screen to provide cover for your real targets: Pat, James, Ian, Willie Rodriguez, Carol Brouillet, Kevin Barrett, John Bursill, etc?

You know, the same individuals who exposed your anti-social behavior in the Fall of 2009?

Nah, couldn't be, right scum.bag?

 
At 29 May, 2012 17:10, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Scum.bag, isn't "YT" widely known by the pseudonym, "Cosmos?

I've watched videos on YouTube wherein "Cosmos" and John Bursill are described as "close friends."

Maybe this connection explains why you troll TA?

Nah, couldn't be, right scum.bag?

 
At 29 May, 2012 17:43, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Yep, "Cosmos" describes John Bursill as "a great friend."

"...Before anything I have to say a few words about our organizer, John Bursill. John is such an amazing man, and over the past few years he's become not only a really great alley in the fight for 9/11 truth, but also a great friend." -- Cosmos, Hard Evidence Tour Sydney Oz 2009 - Cosmos www.truthaction.org Clip 1

So scum.bag, you wouldn't happen to be a greasy rat-fucker with a closet-full of hidden personal and political agendas, would you?

Of course, you would never spend every waking minute cyber-stalking the objects of your pathological obsessions, would you?

Nah, that would never happen, right scum.bag?

I mean, who should we believe? Our lying eyes, or an insane sex predator who lies with abandon?

 
At 29 May, 2012 18:06, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Yep, our resident compulsive liar and World-class sex predator is livid and butt-hurt. E.g.,

"Who is Brian Good?...Who cares? Just some asshole from San Francisco. See, he admitted it in the previous post. And Willie's crack research team has unmasked him. I heard he used to be a janitor and he has a gay crush on Willie and he flipped out when Willie got married. That would explain a lot, wouldn't it? He has a hardon for Kevin Barrett 'cause he has a bad case of PhD-envy and microphone-envy." -- John Bursill.

As anyone familiar with your pathological behavior will attest, you have an ego the size of the Titanic. It's a wonder that you can get your 8 meter-thick, steel-reinforced concrete skull through a door. That said, I'll bet you blew a fuse when you read Bursill's comment. Does Bursill's comment make you seethe with rage, scum.bag? Are you livid, rat fucker? Does the thought of exacting your twisted revenge on Bursill, Pat, James, Ian, Willie Rodriguez, Carol Brouillet, Kevin Barrett and their associates make your life worth living--you insane sex predator?

So, do you think I've established motive, scum.bag?

Nah, couldn't be, right scum.bag?

 
At 29 May, 2012 18:09, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, some liars try to dismiss truth as trolling, others try to dismiss it as stalking.

And liars like you make non sequitur connections between facts (like Cosmos and John Bursill being friends) and your libelous fantasies.

 
At 29 May, 2012 18:37, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...non sequitur"??????

Using words that you don't understand again, Mr. Pseudo-intellectual?

Stick to trolling, scum.bag. After all, you can't pass a formal examination in elementary logic.

That said, you deliberately avoided my question, scum.bag:

Why do you troll "truther" forums AND blogs controlled by the opposition?

Obsess, obsesss, obesss! Redirect redirect, redirect! Lie, lie, lie!

Right, scum.bag?

Scum.bag whines, "...libelous fantasies"

It appears that my "libelous fantasies" were taken seriously by TruthAction. In fact, the same "libelous fantasies" led to your removal from TA. Must I cite Snowcrash's comment where he describes you as a "stalker freak"?

So much for your idiotic whining about "libelous fantasies."

Insane, aren't you, rat fucker?

So when do you plan to answer the questioon, rat fucker?

Why do you troll "truther" forums AND blogs controlled by the opposition?

 
At 29 May, 2012 18:42, Blogger snug.bug said...

GB, the signal/noise ratio of your posts is about 0.000000 something.

 
At 29 May, 2012 18:48, Blogger GuitarBill said...

No, that would be the signal-to-noise ratio for the two functioning synapses between your ears.

So when do you plan to answer the question, rat fucker?

Why do you troll "truther" forums AND blogs controlled by the opposition?

Come on, scum.bag! Obsess, obsess, obsess! Redirect, redirect, redirect! Lie, lie, lie!

Anything but answer legitimate questions. Right, rat fucker?

 
At 29 May, 2012 18:57, Blogger snug.bug said...

Questions that are based on unjustified assumptions are not legitimate.

 
At 29 May, 2012 19:14, Blogger GuitarBill said...

You haven't proven that the "assumptions" are "unjustified."

All you've given us are naked lies and half-baked rationalizations.

So given that you lied about being kicked out of TruthAction, why should we believe anything you say? After all, you bald-faced lied when you wrote--and I quote:

"...I don't really follow truthaction. It appears that YT got more interested in Occupy than in 9/11 and few people bother with truthaction anymore." -- scum.bag, 24 May, 2012 16:05.

Given that you're a proven compulsive liar, Your word isn't worth a plugged nickle.

So why did Snowcrash refer to you as a "9/11 survivor stalking freak" if he doesn't believe the allegations against you, scum.bag?

"...Who cares? You're (by your own request) an 'anonymous' troll who disrupts forums and groups violating every single guideline you plead. There is widely held consensus on that throughout all 'camps'. I'm testing the waters to have you removed. Should I fail, you're welcome to troll here in perpetuity but I leave. I've got better things to do than cater to the delusions and obsessions of a 9/11 survivor stalking freak...That's the only thing me and the regulars at the SLC blog agree on. (And if I find consensus with them, that's quite amazing considering our irreconcilable differences about 9/11)" -- Snowcrash

So, not only are we not dealing with assumptions, we can see that you're a liar who has been banned from numerous "truther" forums and blogs. Why is that, scum.bag?

So get on with it, scum.bag!

Obsess, obsess, obsess! Redirect, redirect, redirect! Lie, lie, lie!

Anything but answer legitimate questions. Right, rat fucker?

So when do you plan to answer the question, rat fucker?

Why do you troll "truther" forums AND blogs controlled by the opposition?

 
At 29 May, 2012 19:37, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Correction: "Alley" should read ally. My bad.

 
At 29 May, 2012 20:19, Blogger snug.bug said...

Reading a post that's not worth reading is dumb; responding to it would be even dumber.

 
At 29 May, 2012 20:48, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Question: How do you know when scum.bag is lying?

Answer: His liver-spotted hands are touching a keyboard.

Now get on with it, scum.bag!

Obsess, obsess, obsess! Misdirect, misdirect, misdirect! Lie, lie, lie!

So when do you plan to answer the question, rat fucker?

Why do you troll "truther" forums AND blogs controlled by the opposition?

 
At 29 May, 2012 20:57, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Brian, stop lying by omission. You were banned from TA, by YT...And Brian (alias 'snug.bug', alias 'truebeleaguer') just to preempt more of your usual evasive pedantry and semantic pettifoggery, TA refers to Truth Action: you were banned from the Truth Action Forum at truthaction.org/forum and you were banned because of trolling." -- Snowcrash, 29 May, 2012 14:49 and 29 May, 2012 14:59.

So scum.bag, as Snowcrash pointed out, you were banned at TruthAction on 9 May 2012. Why did you lie about the decision to revoke your TruthAction account?

"...I don't really follow truthaction. It appears that YT got more interested in Occupy than in 9/11 and few people bother with truthaction anymore." -- scum.bag, 24 May, 2012 16:05.

Thus, once again, we can see that you're a compulsive liar.

Answer the questions, scum.bag:

Why do you troll "truther" forums AND blogs controlled by the opposition?

Why did you lie about the decision to revoke your TruthAction account?

Now get on with it, scum.bag!

Obsess, obsess, obsess! Misdirect, misdirect, misdirect! Lie, lie, lie!

 
At 29 May, 2012 23:44, Blogger snug.bug said...

Silly child.

 
At 30 May, 2012 04:35, Blogger Ian said...

And Brian (alias "snug.bug", alias "truebeleaguer") just to preempt more of your usual evasive pedantry and semantic pettifoggery, TA refers to Truth Action: you were banned from the Truth Action Forum at truthaction.org/forum and you were banned because of trolling.

Yup, just another "truth" organization that wanted nothing to do with Brian.

I don't blame them, given that Brian is a pervert and liar and lunatic failed janitor who believes in magic thermite elves.

 
At 30 May, 2012 08:39, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you lie and lie and lie and lie.

 
At 30 May, 2012 10:08, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"That's not the way I heard it. The way I heard it was that you brought three crashing bores (is that trolling or what) to the truthaction forum, and truebeleaguer made fools out of every one of them--one, two, three. Crash and burn.

The word is that you've become so accustomed to people telling you you're the smartest man in the room that you've lost the ability to recognize when you're wrong."


Translation: I'm butt-hurt, and your a big mean man. Waaaaaaaaah!

 
At 30 May, 2012 13:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

Nope, I don't know anything about your butt, and don't want to know. A man is mean when it's necessary.

 
At 31 May, 2012 04:38, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, you lie and lie and lie and lie.

Brian, please the contact info for your legal counsel. I want to speak to him about your libelous claim that I lie.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home