You Can't Handle the Truther
The guys over at Skeptic Magazine try their hand at humor. Pretty funny.
posted by James B. @ 8:49 PM
42 comments
As Seen in Vanity Fair's August 2006 Issue!
As Seen in US News & World Report's September 11 Fifth Anniversary Issue!
As Seen in Time Magazine's September 11, 2006 Issue!
As Seen in Phoenix New Times' August 9, 2007 Issue!
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
Previous Posts
- Dylan is Back
- Abby Martin Gets Bent Out of Shape
- Boston Bomber a Truther?
- Coach Kook?
- Psychological Study of Truthers and Debunkers Online
- Pakistani Report on bin Laden Leaked
- The Org Chart From Hell
- Where Did the Money Go Dick?
- Alex Jones Loses it on the BBC
- You Work for Cobra!
View My Stats
Allies:
42 Comments:
It is pretty damn funny.
Jon Gold should be along any moment to say "Yeah, but read this thing I wrote five years ago".
Offtopic: Further evidence that 9/11 Truthers tend toward antisocial behavior.
Agent Fisher: "It's a prototype of our latest technology, the Voice Altering Global Inter-sectional neo-logistic assistant."
Agent Smart: "It doesn't have an acronym?"
Agent Fisher: "Let it go."
ROTFLMAO!
"Antisocial" is a strange term for a propaganda campaign. It seems pretty social to me.
GutBleat is easily amused.
Shit for brains wrote, "...GutBleat is easily amused."
On the contrary, queer boi, you have no sense of humor. After all, the charming combination of Asperger's and Dunning Kruger syndrome--which compel you to obsess about minuscule details while you completely miss the point--render humor an impossibility for you. Weirdo.
By the way, freak, don't you have a gullible troofer to sexually harass?
It is precisely because I do have a highly developed sense of humor that I can recognize that the level of humor involved in the acronym V.A.G.I.N.A. is juvenile. When Beavis and Butthead get all giggly, like "heh heh, she said penal", we laugh at them because it's funny that they think it's funny. We're not laughing with them. We don't think "penal" is funny.
Well Brian, it's certainly interesting how you ran away, squealing and crying, from the last comment page after GB (rather masterfully, I must say) slammed your lies right into the ground! I guess you'll just acquire a case of selective amnesia about the whole event, and pretend you never ran away with your tail between your legs. You were proven to be a complete liar, you were utterly humiliated, and so you ran away.
I guess you just don't handle humiliation well -- which is certainly a shame, since you experience it on a daily basis.
Brian, you of all people have no right to call others "juvenile" -- after all, you're the one who thinks making illogical, Kindergarten style comments and stalking people is fun. You're the one who thinks spamming Wikipedia pages is fun. Hell, I'd go so far to say you have the maturity of a preschooler. A retarded, mentally damaged preschooler to be sure, but a preschooler nonetheless.
Voice Altering Global Inter-sectional neo-logistic assistant.
Yes, it spells VAGINA.
We don't think "penal" is funny.
Well I've said this before to all my colleagues: You're the biggest dick with ears I've ever seen.
And you are Brian.
Alec, I didn't run away from anything. The moderator closed the thread before I even read GutterBall's blather.
I wasn't proven a liar. What I said is true. GutterBall did a techno snow-job. You guys are credulous enough that you will believe a known liar's alleged cut and pastings of alleged emails.
I don't need to handle humiliation well. Lies don't humiliate me. They only humiliate the liar. But how humiliated can an anonymous internet poster get? Next to the floater-water statue of the cynic we should have a monument to anonymous internet liars.
That would be a pit dug in the ground full of heavy vapors with a strong dose of erthyl mercaptan.
You ran away from the other thread and never answered my question? What was it at the Palo Alto table that people said that made you think What was said that made you think people didn't know what they were talking about?
Did Mrs. Brouillet or any of the people at her table "spew verbal refuse all over" you? Did they make anything up? What refuse did they spew? What did they make up?
How was maintaining an informational table subjecting the people of Palo Alto to "stupidity"? Were people not free to walk on past?
What have you done to defend the constitutional rights of the people lately?
Alex, I have the right to call "juvenile" someone who thinks the acronymn VAGINA is ROTFLMAO funny. You'd almost think he'd never seen one before.
I didn't stalk anybody. Kevin Barrett started that story.
Alec, it's nice of you to spend your Saturday night posting your fantasies about me at my fan club blog, but I'm not interested in your attentions. I hope you understand.
The SLC's resident illiterate homosexual liar lies, "...I wasn't proven a liar. What I said is true. GutterBall did a techno snow-job. You guys are credulous enough that you will believe a known liar's alleged cut and pastings [SIC]of alleged emails."
And what does "snug.bug" offer to prove my post is a "techno snow-job" or prove that I'm a "known liar"? Answer: Absolutely nothing. After all, lies can't be substantiated.
Tell us more about "libel," liar.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: Talking to Brian Good (aka "snug.bug") is like stepping in dog shit.
The lying liar lies, "...I didn't stalk anybody. Kevin Barrett started that story."
More lies. Carol Brouillet outed your sorry ass, not Kevin Barrett.
"...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.
"Please stop attacking Kevin, William and I. Do something useful- attack the people who did 9/11, not the people who are putting so much effort into exposing the lies and stopping them. Leave me alone- stop the email attacks on me and others. I think it probably harms your reputation more than mine, although it is horrifically embarrassing to me to think that at one time I thought of you as a friend. Now I only see you as a threat to me, my family, the Northern California 9/11 Truth Alliance and the 9/11 Truth Movement. I have zero confidence in your judgement and rationality." -- Carol Brouillet
UtterFail, I don't have the knowledge to take apart this particular techno snow-job, though I have demolished most of your attempted techno snow-jobs in the past, which involved things I do know something about, like chemistry and the NIST report.
You are lying when you claim that Carol said I stalked her. Anyone who reads that text can see that all she complained about was what she thought (wanted to believe) was in my mind. She complained that I attacked her and Kevin and Willie. Kevin is a bigot and Willie is a con artist and both of them needed attacking. I didn't attack Carol. I expressed some exasperation, that's all.
Now, for the record, is it your claim that email headers include IP addresses?
The only place I have ever heard such a thing is from liars like you and Wizzie Fraudriguez.
We should recruit a hacker to hack Brian's computer and get his IP Address. Or better yet make a fake 9/11 Truther website with the things only Brian believes in and get his IP Address that way.
Brian's such an idiot.
The lying liar lies, "...UtterFail, I don't have the knowledge to take apart this particular techno snow-job, though I have demolished most of your attempted techno snow-jobs in the past, which involved things I do know something about, like chemistry and the NIST report."
More 100% fact-free nonsense and dumbspam, liar? Of course, you can't provide an iota of data to substantiate your lies, so, as always, your "rebuttal" is 100% fact-free. And we all know that lies can't be substantiated, so absolutely no evidence to support your lies will ever be presented.
Once again, you FAIL, liar.
The lying liar lies, "...You are lying when you claim that Carol said I stalked her."
Read it again, liar:
You have a crush on me and erroneously hold delusions about me...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 -- Carol Brouillet
See? You're a sex stalker who tried to destroy Carol Brouillet's marriage. You're the scum of the Earth.
Once again, you FAIL, liar.
The lying liar lies, "...Now, for the record, is it your claim that email headers include IP addresses?"
I already proved that IP addresses are inlcuded in email header -- you droolin' 'tard.
Once again, you FAIL, liar.
Now post more easily refuted dumbspam, jackass.
UtterFail, the silly nonsense you've claimed about microspheres in French firefighters' lungs, about fly ash in tieback grout, and about the chemistry of pyrotechnics show your habit of wielding the big scoop about stuff you know nothing about. The record of your bullshittery is clear and devastating to you.
You lie when you claim that Carol says I stalked her. Your quote does not say that. It complains about something she believed (wished) was in my mind. It wasn't. You keep repeating this same libelous lie, even though I've explained a dozen times why I had no desire whatsoever to damage Carol's marriage. Who is your legal counsel?
You haven't answered my question. is it your claim that email headers include IP addresses?
The only place I have ever heard such a thing is from liars like you and Wizzie Fraudriguez.
The lying liar lies, "...the silly nonsense you've claimed about microspheres in French firefighters' lungs, about fly ash in tieback grout, and about the chemistry of pyrotechnics show your habit of wielding the big scoop about stuff you know nothing about. The record of your bullshittery [SIC] is clear and devastating to you."
Wrong again, liar. And I don't see any links and quotations to substantiate your lies, liar.
In fact, you deliberately MISINTERPRET my argument and then you "refute" your bogus interpretation of my argument. In other words all you have are straw man arguments -- which is naked intellectual dishonesty.
As always, I'm constantly explaining to you WHAT I DIDN'T SAY.
And notice that you can't provide links to substantiate your lies. Of course you won't provide the link because anyone who reads the link will see that your "refutation" is actually a deliberate misinterpretation of my argument -- a straw man argument.
The lying liar lies, "...You lie when you claim that Carol says I stalked her. Your quote does not say that."
Bullshit.
Anyone can read Carol Broulliet's statement and see that she fears you, and that you tried to wreck her marriage. You're sex stalker and a degenerate with the morals of street-walking whore.
You have a crush on me and erroneously hold delusions about me...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 -- Carol Brouillet
Once again, you FAIL, liar.
What you've done repetitively is say something really stooopid, and then pick a fight over some triviality to try to spam over the fact that you said what you said.
You lie when you claim that Carol says I stalked her. Your quote does not say that. Your repetitively libelous lies are getting quite tiresome. Kindly provide me with the name of your legal counsel.
The quote does not say I stalked her. It does not say I tried to cause trouble with her husband.
At the time Carol was struggling with the emotional distress and the loss of authority associated with the fact that I had exposed her close associate Kevin Barrett as a liar and a bigot, and had exposed her close associate Willie Rodriguez as a con artist. Since there is no defense for a con artist or a bigot, the only thing they could do was go on the offensive. So instead of denying the undeniable facts, they attacked my motivation in revealing the facts. So they invented a juicy tale that has been titilating the fashion critics of SLC ever since.
That's right, goat fucker, now that your ass has been kicked and your bottomless ignorance of Internet Protocol (IP) is exposed for all to see, spam the thread with nonsense about Carol Broulliet.
You can't provide anything but your worthless lies and opinion to substantiate your idiotic argument. That dismal outcome, however, should surprise no one because lies can't be substantiated.
You're a waste of skin. Hell, you couldn't hold down a job mopping floors. Thus, the odds that you could understand IP are less than nil.
You know nothing. You're a blowhard with a sub 100 IQ who's so arrogant that you think you can challenge an Internet expert.
Thus, you're not only dishonest to the core, you're delusional.
Once again, you FAIL, jackass.
Since Carol Broulliet is your accuser, the burden of proof rests on your shoulders to prove that she's lying.
And the OPINION of a proven compulsive liar isn't "proof" of anything.
You have a crush on me and erroneously hold delusions about me...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 -- Carol Brouillet
Care to provide real evidence to prove that she's lying? Of course not, because she's telling the truth.
If you had anything on Carol Brouillet, you'd take her to court an sue her for libel. But that's not going to happen is it, liar? After all, her husband and friends will testify on her behalf and destroy your bogus "law suit," and in the process prove that YOU'RE THE VILLAIN.
You're nothing but a lying gasbag and degenerate sex stalker.
Once again, you FAIL, pervert.
We should recruit a hacker to hack Brian's computer and get his IP Address.
I'll just leave this here.
It's not necessary to "hack" the idiot's computer. He left a digital "footprint" from one end of the Internet to the other that does a fine job of incriminating the lying bastard. The trail of email alone is enough to indict the jackass.
Apparently he hasn't learned that the Internet and the digital footprint one leaves is forever.
ButtGale, I haven't spammed any nonsense.
Where do you get the idea that I couldn't hold down a job mopping floors? Why would I want to do that?
Carol did not accuse me of stalking. Learn to read. William Rodriguez accused me of stalking him--because I used tro comment on internet news articles about him. He doesn't get any internet news coverage any more. The last one I remember seeing was the article in Der Spiegel that concluded that his story was like trying to pass of a $1 bill as a $20 bill.
Barrett accused me of stalking him because I would comment on his news articles. Barrett doesn't really get any coverage any more, except that he writes for PressTV and Veterans Today.
I suspect that his 9/11/09 interview with Russia Today kind of finished him off with the mainstream press. He lied four times in the first half of the interview.
That's right, faggot, when your ignorance and dishonesty are exposed for all to see, MOVE THE GOALPOST AND CHANGE THE SUBJECT TO WILLIE RODRIGUEZ. Par for the course. You're as predictable as you are dishonest to the core.
Should we expect anything less from a technology illiterate, sex stalker, college dropout and compulsive liar? Probably not.
Now get of here, puto.
I didn't change the subject. The subject was stalking. I didn't stalk anybody. Willie and Kevin lied and said I stalked them.
What is this obsession you have with me? It's not my fault that I'm smarter, better-looking, and better-educated than you.
The lying liar lies, "...Willie and Kevin lied and said I stalked them."
Willie and Keven aren't your accusers, liar, Carol Brouillet is your accuser. They based their argument against you ON THE INFORMATION SHE PROVIDED.
You have a crush on me and erroneously hold delusions about me...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 -- Carol Brouillet
You won't take your accuser, Carol Brouillet, to court and sue her for libel because you know she's telling the truth. You know damned well that her husband and her friends will expose YOU as the VILLAIN and the sex predator.
Anyone can read Carol Broulliet's statement and see that she fears you, and that you tried to wreck her marriage. And she fears you because you're a sex stalker.
FACT: Any UNWANTED attempt on your part to break up a woman's marriage is, BY DEFINITION, sexual harassment.
Furthermore, your idiotic diversionary tactics are as transparent as the air between your ears. You're trying to hide the facts: Carol Brouillet, the women you REPEATEDLY SEXUALLY HARASSED, is your accuser, not Willie or Dr. Barrett.
Once again, you FAIL, liar.
Carol never said I stalked her. I didn't stalk her. Kevin and Willie said I stalked them, because I commented on internet news about them and because I protested their public events.
Why would I want to sue Carol? Kevin and Willie have done enough damage to her. Why would I want to do more?
She didn't say I tried to wreck her marriage, either, and she didn't say I sexually harassed her. She didn't actually say I did anything.
Why are you obsessed with me, ButGoo? It's not my fault that I'm smarter, better-looking, and better-educated than you.
The lying liar lies, "...She didn't say I tried to wreck her marriage, either, and she didn't say I sexually harassed her. She didn't actually say I did anything."
That's right, goat fucker, continue to lie while the evidence stares you straight in your ferret face.
You have a crush on me and erroneously hold delusions about me...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 -- Carol Brouillet
Who do you think you're fooling, goat fucker? Anyone can read Carol Broulliet's statement and see that she fears you, and that you tried to wreck her marriage. And she fears you because you're a sex stalker who sexually harassed her on numerous occasions.
You're pathetic. And your bullshit story doesn't add up.
The lying liar whines, "...Why are you obsessed with me"
I'm not "obsessed," I'm just taking the trash (you) out.
Once again, you FAIL, liar.
The arrogant liar lies, "... It's not my fault that I'm smarter, better-looking, and better-educated than you."
Really? Prove it.
And you can start right here:
[1] Calculate the weight of each WTC Tower floor in kilograms.
[2] Given the weight of each floor, calculate the upper and lower static load boundaries for each floor in kilograms.
[3] Given Newton's Second Law of Motion, which states
F = ma
derive a differential equation that describes an accreting mass.
[4] At collapse initiation, NIST tells us that the upper floor hit the lower floor in 0.43 seconds. How fast was the accreting mass moving when the upper floor struck the lower floor? Give your answer in m/s and MPH.
[5] Calculate the force the upper portion of the tower exerted on the lower floors. Give your answer in kg.m/s^2 and convert that answer to lbs.
[6] Compare the value from question number [5] to the upper and lower static load boundaries for each floor which you gave us in question [2]. Which value is greater? And by how much?
Of course, you can't do the calculations because you are a college dropout and a math illiterate who lies about 9/11.
So let's see your intellectual chops, Mr. bogus "scientific reputation."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Now STONEWALL and lie, gay boi.
GutBleat, you act as if you repeat the same nonsense enough it will be true.
You're pathetic.
You don't understand anything about Newton's laws of Motion, and you demonstrate your incompetence every time that you STONEWALL and lie.
You're the one who claims to have a "scientific reputation" (your words), so where are the calculations, liar?
You won't do the calculations because you know I'm right, and, unlike you, I can do the calculations. And, unlike you, my answer are correct.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
You're a pathetic liar who couldn't think his way out of a wet paper bag.
You're worthless.
What makes you think I need calculations? NIST didn't do calculations. Why should I?
The lying liar lies, "What makes you think I need calculations? NIST didn't do calculations. Why should I?"
Bullshit.
We've already been over this a million times -- you goddamned jackass.
You have no evidence to substantiate that assertion, liar. Of course NIST performed calculations. The collapse simulations are based on nothing but calculations used by experts in structural mechanics.
You're an idiot.
But that's neither here nor there, liar, WHERE ARE YOUR CALCULATIONS -- you lying charlatan?
[1] Calculate the weight of each WTC Tower floor in kilograms.
[2] Given the weight of each floor, calculate the upper and lower static load boundaries for each floor in kilograms.
[3] Given Newton's Second Law of Motion, which states
F = ma
derive a differential equation that describes an accreting mass.
[4] At collapse initiation, NIST tells us that the upper floor hit the lower floor in 0.43 seconds. How fast was the accreting mass moving when the upper floor struck the lower floor? Give your answer in m/s and MPH.
[5] Calculate the force the upper portion of the tower exerted on the lower floors. Give your answer in kg.m/s^2 and convert that answer to lbs.
[6] Compare the value from question number [5] to the upper and lower static load boundaries for each floor which you gave us in question [2]. Which value is greater? And by how much?
What's the matter, charlatan, are math and physics beyond your so-called "skill set"? I thought you claimed to have a "scientific reputation"? I guess that was another lie. Right, Pinocchio?
Oh, that's right! You can't hold down a job mopping floors. My bad.
You're almost as pathetic as you are worthless.
NIST didn't do calculations on the collapses of the towers, and claims they did not analyze the collapses. So why should I?
NIST didn't release any collapse sims on the towers. Presumably that's because the results were not to their liking.
Bullshit. Get it through your thick skull, liar: The simulations consisted of millions of calculations -- you lying charlatan.
You claim, "...It's not my fault that I'm smarter, better-looking, and better-educated than you."
Prove it. And you can start right here, liar:
[1] Calculate the weight of each WTC Tower floor in kilograms.
[2] Given the weight of each floor, calculate the upper and lower static load boundaries for each floor in kilograms.
[3] Given Newton's Second Law of Motion, which states
F = ma
derive a differential equation that describes an accreting mass.
[4] At collapse initiation, NIST tells us that the upper floor hit the lower floor in 0.43 seconds. How fast was the accreting mass moving when the upper floor struck the lower floor? Give your answer in m/s and MPH.
[5] Calculate the force the upper portion of the tower exerted on the lower floors. Give your answer in kg.m/s^2 and convert that answer to lbs.
[6] Compare the value from question number [5] to the upper and lower static load boundaries for each floor which you gave us in question [2]. Which value is greater? And by how much?
STONEWALLING IS A VIOLATION OF THE RULES OF DEBATE. REFUSAL TO ANSWER LEGITIMATE QUESTIONS IS GROUND FOR FORFEIT OF THE DEBATE.
Thus, you lose, I win.
What are you, 60 going on 7? You're the definition of juvenile. You behave like a Goddamned child.
You couldn't do the calculations to save your worthless life. You're a blowhard and a charlatan.
Adios, puto!
Lookit you stamping your little patent leather pig feet!
You're so funny when you try to pretend you're smart!
NIST didn't do calculations on the collapses of the towers, and claims they did not analyze the collapses. So why should I?
NIST didn't release any collapse sims on the towers. Presumably that's because the results were not to their liking.
The lying liar lies, "...NIST didn't release any collapse sims on the towers. Presumably that's because the results were not to their liking."
We've already been over this, too, liar.
NIST is under no obligation to release their data or calculations. After all, what would a math illiterate putz like Lyin' Brian Good do with it?
FACT: You can't run a simulation without doing millions (if not billions) of calculations. Thus, your 100% fact-free denial of the obvious only exposes your bottomless ignorance and dishonesty.
And NIST has nothing to do with it, liar. You never mentioned NIST until after I challenged you to prove your assertion as regards your alleged superior [cough] "intelligence." Your whining about NIST is nothing but a red herring to distract from your failure to substantiate your assertion.
You fool no one, Little Brian Good. You're a liar, fraud and a recalcitrant putz who behaves like a child.
Is it any wonder that you can't hold down a job mopping floors? It's a wonder that you were ever toilet trained.
UdderBalls, NIST is under no obligation to do anything. They can just give us 10,000 pages of blank paper and call it a report.
The fact remains that NIST claims they did not analyze the collapses. This is puzzling, since Dr. John Gross did his PhD work on Progressive Collapse and so he should have been one of the world expert and he should have known all the other world experts.
Not analyzing the collapses is not the same thing as not releasing the calcs they claim they didn't do.
Not analyzing the collapses is not the same thing as not releasing the data they claim they don't have.
You just get sillier and sillier. Why don't you buy a motorcycle?
Post a Comment
<< Home