Sunday, September 15, 2013

Playing "A Beautiful Mind: The Home Game"



Kevin "Waterboy" Ryan has always been one of the nuttier and delusional members of the 9/11 Truth community, but I swear, he seriously needs to be checked for paranoid schizophrenia. Here he is on the Kremlin propaganda channel Russia Today pimping his Another 19 book.



There is much to choose from, but the most bizarre part is when he repeats this whole "we carried out 9/11 to invade Iraq and Afghanistan" thing.

Well there were many benefits, among them obviously the seizure of natural resources in countries like Iraq, which has the world's second largest reserves of oil, and Afghanistan which has natural gas and other mineral resources. And really the fact that in our day in age, whoever controls Eurasia controls the world, so it does appear that the war on terror driven on 9/11 was motivated by the seizure of Eurasian resources and that is what we have seen happen since 9/11.

Uhh, yeah. And exactly how much Iraqi oil do we control now? We invaded Afghanistan for the natural gas? Seriously? According to the CIA World Factbook Afghanistan produces about 38 million cubic meters of natural gas per year, which puts it less than half of that economic powerhouse, Gabon. The US by comparison produces over 650 billion cubic meters  per year, so otherwise we match their yearly production about every half an hour.

And how is that pipeline that Lauro Chavez guarded coming along?

47 Comments:

At 15 September, 2013 20:08, Blogger The Locke said...

Russia Today is basically like The Onion: everything on it is fake. The only difference is that RT isn't trying to be satire.

As for Kevin Ryan, while I do question his sanity (as I do any other 9/11 "Truther") I almost have to wonder if he isn't just some clever fraud whom is trying to sell these BS books to paranoid people???

 
At 16 September, 2013 07:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

If the Bushcists were really as dumb as they appeared to be, and they really thought that regime change in Iraq was going to be a walk in the park, then the fact that their lunacy failed to achieve control of the Iraqi oil is hardly an indication that it was not motivated by a desire to control the Iraqi oil--which can be produced at a cost of $1 per barrel.

In the same way, the fact that Afghanistan is ungovernable so that a pipeline can not be built does not dispose of the possibility that the Afghanistan war was motivated by an unrealistic and racist belief on the part of the Bushcists that Afghanistan could be conquered.

You guys give the impression that you are trying really, really hard--clicking your heels and wishing three times--to believe what you believe.

 
At 16 September, 2013 11:38, Blogger Len said...

So Brian get back to us with evidence US oil companies stood to profit more from Iraq being under US control than it being embargoed. You do understand that Iraqi oil being off the market increased the price.

As for waterboy's babble. I'd like to see a list which places Iraq 2nd in oil reserves.

And his "whomever controls Eurasia controls the world" claim is idiotic. Eurasia is home to over 72% of the world's population, almost 40% of its inhabited land mass, about half its petroleum and I'm guessing most of its GDP etc. etc..

He obviously meant Central Asia but that doesn't make much sense except in the mind of a loon. The Soviets controlled most of Central Asia for decades but they hardly dominated the world. And I've not seen any definitions of Central Asia which included Iraq.

 
At 16 September, 2013 13:03, Blogger snug.bug said...

I understand that keeping Iraqi oil off the market increased the price of oil--predictably increased the price, which was of great economic benefit to friends of GWB and Cheney.

If you would bother to google "List of countries by proven oil reserves" you would soon find a chart that shows that as of 2001, Saudi Arabia was first and Iraq was second.

 
At 16 September, 2013 13:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html?pagewanted=all

U.S. Identifies Vast Mineral Riches in Afghanistan


By JAMES RISEN
Published: June 13, 2010

WASHINGTON — The United States has discovered nearly $1 trillion in untapped mineral deposits in Afghanistan, far beyond any previously known reserves and enough to fundamentally alter the Afghan economy and perhaps the Afghan war itself, according to senior American government officials.

 
At 16 September, 2013 17:19, Blogger Len said...

snug.bug said: “I understand that keeping Iraqi oil off the market increased the price of oil--predictably increased the price, which was of great economic benefit to friends of GWB and Cheney.”

OK then spell out to us how bringing it back on to the market benifitted them, provide citations.

snug.bug said: 'If you would bother to google "List of countries by proven oil reserves" you would soon find a chart that shows that as of 2001, Saudi Arabia was first and Iraq was second.'

If this list is so readily available provide a link

snug.bug said: “U.S. Identifies Vast Mineral Riches in Afghanistan”

Provide us with evidence:

- the USG knew about this BEFORE 9/11

AND

the plotters could have expected it to have been economically viable to extract these “vast mineral riches” in the land-locked, practically infrastructureless, country about 1000 miles from the nearest port.

Also $1 trillion in untapped mineral deposits sounds like a lot to an economically illiterate unemployed janitor but that's about the value of the proven petroleum reserves of Angola and Mexico, i.e. not counting unproven reserves let alone the rest of their mineral wealth. Wouldn't it have made more sense to have invaded one those countries?

 
At 16 September, 2013 19:12, Blogger snug.bug said...

If you can anticipate changes in the prices of commodities--such as increases in the price of oil because of a reduced supply or reductions in the price because of an increased supply--you can profit from trading in oil futures or in options on energy industry stocks. You can make money coming and going.

Oil can be found from many sources. The article discusses cobalt, which is considered a "strategic mineral" because it is vital for many purposes but available only a few place on earth (including, IIRC, Russia and South Africa). They also discuss rare earth elements that are vital to emerging technologies. Such things would probably be transported out of Afghanistan by aircraft.

Your belief that you have all the answers keeps you from learning the facts.

 
At 16 September, 2013 21:35, Blogger James B. said...

Oh yeah, that makes perfect sense. We killed thousands of our own people and spent over a trillion dollars so that China could develop a few mines. Wow, with deductive powers like this, you should be able to blow this whole case open any day now.

"At the same time, American officials fear resource-hungry China will try to dominate the development of Afghanistan’s mineral wealth, which could upset the United States, given its heavy investment in the region. After winning the bid for its Aynak copper mine in Logar Province, China clearly wants more, American officials said."

 
At 16 September, 2013 22:04, Blogger snug.bug said...

If the Bushcists were really as dumb as they appeared to be, and they really thought that Afghanistan was going to be easy to conquer, then the fact that their lunacy failed to achieve control of the Afghan mineral resources is hardly an indication that their wish to conquer Afghanistan was not motivated by a desire to control the minerals.

It's not my fault the Bushcists don't make sense to you. They certainly did a great job at looting the public treasury for the benefit of their friends.

 
At 16 September, 2013 22:23, Blogger James B. said...

LOL You have to love conspiracy theory logic. The conspirators were geniuses enough to pull off a massively complex conspiracy involving dozens of government agencies and science fiction technologies, but apparently none of them were aware that Afghanistan was a politically unstable geographically remote country with a history of tribal warfare, since apparently none of them had read a newspaper since about 1972.

 
At 16 September, 2013 22:33, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"If the Bushcists were really as dumb as they appeared to be, and they really thought that Afghanistan was going to be easy to conquer, then the fact that their lunacy failed to achieve control of the Afghan mineral resources is hardly an indication that their wish to conquer Afghanistan was not motivated by a desire to control the minerals. "

We never set out to conquer Afghanistan. In fact since 1776 the only country the US has ever conquered was our corner of North America, and maybe the Confederacy. We didn't even conquer Japan, we just made them surrender. There is nothing in Afghanistan we can't get elsewhere.

As for your flawed Iraq economic theory, Haliburton was already in Iraq with the blessing of the Clinton Administration to modernize their oil fields. So how exactly did anybody make any more money than they were already going to make anyway?

Then there is the whole problem of NO IRAQIS among the 9/11 Hijackers, which would kinda be key if we wanted to blame them. There were those in the Bush Administration who believed that Iraq was behind 9/11, and like all 9/11 CT loons they believed this not based on any evidence but political prejudice.

 
At 16 September, 2013 22:48, Blogger snug.bug said...

9/11 was conceived and executed by lunatics, not geniuses.

Where do you get the idea that the Bushcists were unaware that Afghanistan and Iraq were both unstable countries?

I doubt that George Bush had read anything but a sports page since 1965. They had to hire Condi Rice to tutor him so he wouldn't make a fool of himself in the 2000 campaign when people asked him about countries he never heard of.

I never asserted any conspiracy with science fiction technologies.

MGF, how do you know what we set out to do in Afghanistan? I bet you still think it had something to do with getting bin Laden.

I already told you how you make money on moves in oil prices. You buy oil futures, or sell them. You buy options on energy industry stocks, or sell them.

The fact that none of the alleged 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi did not cause the Bushcists any difficulty in getting their war, did it?


 
At 17 September, 2013 16:29, Blogger Ian said...

I see Brian's babbling about "Bushcists" again while giving us his typical paranoid lunatic view of global politics and the oil market.

You guys give the impression that you are trying really, really hard--clicking your heels and wishing three times--to believe what you believe.

Poor Brian. He's hysterical because nobody does anything but point and laugh at him.

I understand that keeping Iraqi oil off the market increased the price of oil--predictably increased the price, which was of great economic benefit to friends of GWB and Cheney.

So the best thing to do would have been to not invade and keep the sanctions in place?

Is this where you come back with one of your brilliant analogies? "Skidmark, sometimes I draw models of the WTC collapse in crayon, sometimes I watch reruns of 'Days of Our Lives' at 2 am. There is no contradiction."

 
At 17 September, 2013 16:35, Blogger Ian said...

Oh yeah, that makes perfect sense. We killed thousands of our own people and spent over a trillion dollars so that China could develop a few mines. Wow, with deductive powers like this, you should be able to blow this whole case open any day now.

C'mon James. What does an MBA like you (or me) know about global commodities markets compared to the brilliant insight of an unemployed janitor with mental illness?

9/11 was conceived and executed by lunatics, not geniuses.

I'd say both. Khalid Sheik Mohammad was a mad genius, IMHO.

I already told you how you make money on moves in oil prices. You buy oil futures, or sell them. You buy options on energy industry stocks, or sell them.

And yet you're still living with your parents on disability despite your brilliant understanding of the commodities markets. What happened?

Oh, right, you don't understand anything about commodities markets. You've just sniffed glue while watching "Goldfinger" at 3am, and are now babbling about "Bushcists" like the paranoid lunatic that you are.

 
At 17 September, 2013 16:37, Blogger Ian said...

Anyway, Brian, thanks for the good laugh. Sometimes, I think I've humiliated you too many times and that you're afraid to actually tell us what you think anymore, and then we have a day like today, where you babble incoherently about WTC 7, "Bushcists", the world oil market, and the like. It's great entertainment for those of us who like to point and laugh at crazy people.

You just have to call us "girls" to finish this masterpiece.

 
At 17 September, 2013 19:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

Would you care to identify the contradiction between drawing models of the WTC collapse in crayon and watching reruns of 'Days of Our Lives' at 2 am?

It seems you don't understand metaphor. Your performance on the analogies section on the SAT should have made you more humble than it did.

 
At 17 September, 2013 19:54, Blogger snug.bug said...

Did anybody else notice that when Willie R. stopped posting here, his sock puppets stopped too?

 
At 17 September, 2013 20:41, Blogger Ian said...

Would you care to identify the contradiction between drawing models of the WTC collapse in crayon and watching reruns of 'Days of Our Lives' at 2 am?

There is no contradiction. That's the whole point. You're not very bright, are you?

It seems you don't understand metaphor. Your performance on the analogies section on the SAT should have made you more humble than it did.

I got the highest score on the SAT verbal in my high school's history. It got me into one of the top colleges in this country.

You, on the other hand, failed out of a safety school of a safety school.

 
At 17 September, 2013 20:43, Blogger Ian said...

Did anybody else notice that when Willie R. stopped posting here, his sock puppets stopped too?

Aaaaand now that Brian has been completely pwn3d on the subject of the global oil markets, he goes back to babbling about his lust for Rodriguez. Typical.

 
At 17 September, 2013 20:54, Blogger snug.bug said...

There is no contradiction. I said there was no contradiction. You're playing dumb, which is about all you're good for.

You lie and lie and lie. I was in no way pwned about the oil.

 
At 17 September, 2013 20:55, Blogger snug.bug said...

I had to explain to some people that predictable changes in commodity prices create a profit opportunity for informed purchases of derivatives.

 
At 17 September, 2013 21:07, Blogger snug.bug said...

Or sellers of derivatives, for that matter.

 
At 18 September, 2013 04:52, Blogger Ian said...

Boy, Brian is particularly hysterical right now! I guess the passing of another 9/11 anniversary not spent in Rodriguez' strong Latin arms is a reason for it. Or maybe the fact that nobody cares about his "widows". Or that there will never be a new investigation. Or that there are about 6 truthers left in the world.

I had to explain to some people that predictable changes in commodity prices create a profit opportunity for informed purchases of derivatives.

Uh, no. Learn what derivatives are before you make yourself look like an ignorant lunatic. Oh, right....

 
At 18 September, 2013 08:46, Blogger snug.bug said...

Lian, new investigations are inevitable. There will be deathbed confessions, there will be document leaks, there will be new computer models, the steel and the molten iron will be examined with new scientific techniques, the source of the sulfur in the "evaporated" samples will be found.

All you can do is try to delay the day of the new investigations, so that the Bushcist agenda can proceed unimpeded in Bushes 5th term.

I know what derivatives are, Lyan. Your empty expressions of attitude fool only simple-minded juveniles. You're nothing but an unfunny clown, and can't expect to be regarded as anything more.

 
At 18 September, 2013 15:42, Blogger Ian said...

Lian, new investigations are inevitable. There will be deathbed confessions, there will be document leaks, there will be new computer models, the steel and the molten iron will be examined with new scientific techniques, the source of the sulfur in the "evaporated" samples will be found.

Thanks for proving my point. There will be no new investigations because serious scientists don't waste time investigating the delusions of an unemployed janitor.

All you can do is try to delay the day of the new investigations, so that the Bushcist agenda can proceed unimpeded in Bushes 5th term.

More hilarious babbling about "Bushcists" from said unemployed janitor.


I know what derivatives are, Lyan.

No you don't. You just demonstrated that you know nothing about them. And my Spidey sense tells me that you're just going to make a fool of yourself babbling ignorantly some more in your next sentence.

Your empty expressions of attitude fool only simple-minded juveniles. You're nothing but an unfunny clown, and can't expect to be regarded as anything more.

Alas, I was wrong. It's just more hysterical squealspam from a failed janitor.

 
At 18 September, 2013 18:28, Blogger snug.bug said...

More lying liespam from Lyin Ian, I see.

 
At 18 September, 2013 18:42, Blogger Ian said...

More lying liespam from Lyin Ian, I see.

Yup, Brian has nothing of substance to say. He's been thoroughly pwn3d.

 
At 18 September, 2013 22:25, Blogger snug.bug said...

You employ an idiom of random and subjective absurdity because you can't prevail on the level of rationality--and then you claim that I'm the one who is babbling.

 
At 19 September, 2013 04:55, Blogger Ian said...

You employ an idiom of random and subjective absurdity because you can't prevail on the level of rationality--and then you claim that I'm the one who is babbling.

See what I mean?

 
At 19 September, 2013 10:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

Yeah. You mean I'm babbling when it's you that babbles.

 
At 19 September, 2013 16:49, Blogger Ian said...

As usual, Brian has nothing of substance to say.

Too bad he STILL can't identify a single widow with a question. Not one.

 
At 19 September, 2013 18:22, Blogger David Banner said...

If Brian considers 4 FAILED court appearances to prove 9/11 to be an "Inside Job" a "success". Then he's well on the road of not getting that "new investigation".

4 FAILED COURT APPEARANCES BY IDIOTS IN THE TM. LOL.

 
At 19 September, 2013 21:28, Blogger GuitarBill said...

James B wrote, "...The US by comparison produces over 650 billion cubic meters per year, so otherwise we match their yearly production about every half an hour."

You forgot to mention that ~250 billion cubic meters of methane per year are produced by the Republican baggertarian Congress.

 
At 19 September, 2013 23:18, Blogger snug.bug said...

David, I would invite you to take a look at the court documents filed by Stanley Hilton and Phil Berg. The documents are incompetent. There is no reason to think those lawsuits were sincere.

Bill Veals I believe was snowed by his client so that he did not recognize that he had a bad factual environment. Had he asked me, I could have told him.

I have not bothered to investigate Judy Woods's lawsuits.

 
At 20 September, 2013 05:08, Blogger Ian said...

David, I would invite you to take a look at the court documents filed by Stanley Hilton and Phil Berg. The documents are incompetent. There is no reason to think those lawsuits were sincere.

Bill Veals I believe was snowed by his client so that he did not recognize that he had a bad factual environment. Had he asked me, I could have told him.

I have not bothered to investigate Judy Woods's lawsuits.


Thanks for proving David's point. 9/11 truth is not to be taken seriously by anyone.

 
At 20 September, 2013 08:01, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 20 September, 2013 10:49, Blogger snug.bug said...

I didn't prove David's point. I showed that it's reasonable to suppose that those who pursued the legal actions had the intention of discrediting the truth movement--except Bill Veale, who was merely gullible.

 
At 20 September, 2013 13:40, Blogger David Banner said...

Doesn't matter, the TM has 4 failed court cases on their hands and still they think they'll "win".

And Brian's trying to be a "hero" and regain his reputation with the TM by getting a new investigation.

All i'm going to say is that Brian is like those 4 court cases, a huge failure.

 
At 20 September, 2013 13:42, Blogger Dylan Unsavery said...

There is no reason to think those lawsuits were sincere.


But every reason to believe that the kook lawyers who filed them were drawn in by the kook magnet that is 9/11 Troof.

Bill Veals (sic)


Not a kook, just a moron.

 
At 20 September, 2013 17:34, Blogger snug.bug said...

No, I don't think it would be possible for Stanley Hilton and Phil Berg to file such incompetent papers if they were sincere kooks. I think they deliberately filed incompetent suits in an effort to achieve court decisions that would hamper the effectiveness of truth movement in the legal arena.

What work I saw of Bill Veale's was well done; I just think he chose his clients and his witnesses unwisely.

I've never looked at the Judy Wood's lawsuits. DEW's are kind of out of my areas of experience and expertise.

 
At 20 September, 2013 20:50, Blogger Ian said...

DEW's are kind of out of my areas of experience and expertise.

Brian's areas of experience and expertise are modified attack baboons, magic thermite elves, and invisible widows.

 
At 20 September, 2013 20:51, Blogger Ian said...

Oh, and of course, he has a PhD in posting homosexual squealspam about Willie Rodriguez all over the internet.

 
At 21 September, 2013 10:00, Blogger snug.bug said...

William Rodriguez is a blatant con artist. That should have been obvious to everyone--and not just to 90% of the population--but people like you and Guitar Bill are kind of slow to grasp the obvious even after the last of Willie's truth movement advocates have thrown in the towel.

There's nothing sexual about exposing a common con artist for what he is.

 
At 21 September, 2013 10:28, Blogger Ian said...

William Rodriguez is a blatant con artist. That should have been obvious to everyone--and not just to 90% of the population--but people like you and Guitar Bill are kind of slow to grasp the obvious even after the last of Willie's truth movement advocates have thrown in the towel.

There's nothing sexual about exposing a common con artist for what he is.


See what I mean?

 
At 21 September, 2013 12:50, Blogger snug.bug said...

Playing dumb is what you're best at, and you're not even smart enough to do that very well.

 
At 21 September, 2013 14:16, Blogger David Banner said...

If Brian died today or tomorrow the world would be better off. 1 less nutcase not to worry about. No one would come to send him off on his journey to hell.

 
At 22 September, 2013 08:50, Blogger snug.bug said...

Why get personal, WAQo? You embarrass yourself. Your ignorance and irrationality is not my fault.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home