Mark Udall Not a Truther in My Book
I'll make no bones about it; I am a Republican, and nothing would make me happier than to see the GOP take over the Senate this November. It would help quite a bit if they could oust Democratic Senator Mark Udall from Colorado.
But fair is fair. Apparently some conservative operatives are trying to claim that Udall is a 9-11 Truther moron, using this video:
-
This is selectively edited to indicate that Udall was claiming there was evidence of explosives planted in the Twin Towers. Of course, if you've ever attended any of these townhall meetings, you'll realize that what Udall was doing was repeating the comments of the 9-11 Truther audience member, so that everybody would know what he was responding to. If you watch this other video (slightly less edited), you'll see that in fact, Udall's response got the Truthers angry:
To me the key point in there is when he states (around 2:45) "When conspiracy theories surface, I almost always go to the stupidity theory. Or, more eloquently stated, "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." To me, that's a terrific retort to a conspiracy nutbar.
Further evidence that Udall has never been claimed by the Truthers as one of their own is evident. Look at the fruitcake site Patriots Question 9-11. Their home page lists many government nutbars, including definite Truthers like Jesse Ventura, Dennis Kucinich, and Cynthia McKinney. Do you really think that Udall, who would be the highest-ranking federal official to date to endorse the fruitcake theories, just somehow slipped under their radar?
Should Udall get an involuntary retirement from the voters? Count me as hoping it happens. But let's make it happen because of his real positions on the issues, not some fantasy BS.
Hat Tip to Consdemo from the comments section.
posted by Pat @ 6:34 PM
91 comments
91 Comments:
Those who subscribe to the "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" theory are likely to have a lot of stupid things happen to them if they're important enough.
Feigned stupidity makes a great cover for corruption and criminality, as George Bush demonstrated so well.
Poor Brian. He's hysterical because nobody cares what he thinks happened on 9/11.
Brian, maybe if you were smart and successful like Mark Udall, people would care what you think. Unfortunately, you're a failed janitor who lives with his parents and can't afford a decent haircut.
Hey Brian, did you know that there are over 3 million hits on Google for "Brian Good homeless mullet"?
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!!
This comment has been removed by the author.
Actually there are TWO hits for "brian good homeless mullet", both of which appear to have been authored by you.
Learn to google and perhaps you will be less ignorant.
The corollary is always ascribe to stupidity anything that emanates from Brian Good.
Feigned stupidity makes a great cover for corruption and criminality, as George Bush demonstrated so well.
How does one distinguish feigned stupidity from the real thing?
Actually there are TWO hits for "brian good homeless mullet"
i get 288,000 results..
As i told you earlier when you could not find pictures of Willy on Google: you should start learning how to use a search engine..
by the way, guess which picture was in the results:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-AO7BwnshkEg/U3qOP4awQNI/AAAAAAAAMsU/YoclgtaVE7s/s1600/IMG_1832.JPG
You really must hate your life :o)
RGT, the best way to distinguish feigned stupidity from the real thing is an investigation.
For instance, when a guy fatally shoots someone and claims it's an accident it's well to look into the circumstances surrounding the alleged accident, else "I'm an idiot" becomes a get-out-of-jail-free card for everything and anything.
th, you make empty claims.
@Brian:
911 has been investigated.
Deal with it!!
The 9/11 Commission Report contains 115 essential omissions and distortions as documented by DR. Griffin, and failed to answer 273 of the 9/11 widows' 300 questions. That may be a good enough investigation for you, but it's not good enough for honest people.
NIST claims that they did not analyze the collapses of the WTC twin towers. An investigation of the collapses that does not analyze the collapses may be good enough for you, but it is not good enough for honest people.
The 9/11 Commission Report contains 115 essential omissions and distortions as documented by DR. Griffin
Which he didn't.
, and failed to answer 273 of the 9/11 widows' 300 questions.
They weren't assigned to answer some list of questions.
That may be a good enough investigation for you, but it's not good enough for honest people.
You are in no position to determine what good enough is for honest people.
NIST claims that they did not analyze the collapses of the WTC twin towers.
Which is a typical truther distortion of what NIST actually claimed.
An investigation of the collapses that does not analyze the collapses may be good enough for you, but it is not good enough for honest people.
You are not in the position to determine what good enough for honest people is, nor to determine who is honest and who is not.
The fact that you site Griffin as source makes your claims about honest people laughable..
But at least you now acknowledge that 911 was investigated.
I wonder how long it takes before you back away from that acknowledgement again..
You are just being contrary, and not even trying to make sense. It seems you are desperately trying to prop up your delusions and justify your ignorance.
Dance, monkey-boy, dance!
Mirrortalk Brian, as usual...
RGT, the best way to distinguish feigned stupidity from the real thing is an investigation.
Presuming Bush's feigned stupidity has survived one public investigation, what makes you think it would buckle under a second one thirteen years later?
There have been several (not "one") public investigations of 9/11.
The first one concluded that it could not explain the collapse of WTC Building 7.
The second one had 28 pages censored, and there is legislation in Congress pending to secure release of those pages.
The third investigation failed to address 200 of the widows' 300 questions, and failed to answer 73 more that it did address.
The fourth investigation purported to explain the collapses of the WTC towers, but its practitioners later claimed that they had not analyzed the collapses.
The fifth investigation purported to explain the collapse of WTC 7 but was noteworthy in that its final version deleted every instance of the claim in draft versions that its analysis was "consistent with physical principles".
Those investigations may be good enough for you, but honest people demand more.
There have been several (not "one") public investigations of 9/11.
And they all involved Bush?
Those investigations may be good enough for you, but honest people demand more.
You are not entitled to determine what honest people find good enough.
There have been several (not "one") public investigations of 9/11.
Presuming Bush's feigned stupidity has survived multiple public investigations, what makes you think it would buckle under a new one thirteen years later?
The 9/11 Commission Report contains 115 essential omissions and distortions as documented by DR. Griffin
But the real question is what did Griffin omit and distort in his own research?
In a review published in the magazine The Nation, former Central Intelligence Agency agent Robert Baer dismissed the gist of Griffin's writings as one in a long line of conspiracy theories about national tragedies but stated that the Bush administration had created a climate of secrecy and mistrust that helped generate such explanations. In the review, Baer said:
"As more facts emerge about September 11, many of Griffin's questions should be answered, but his suspicions will never be put to rest as long as the Bush Administration refuses to explain why it dragged this country into the most senseless war in its history. Until then, otherwise reasonable Americans will believe the Bush Administration benefited from 9/11, and there will always be a question about what really happened on that day."
Remember people. Brian doesn't want to talk about the Pentagon because Brian told Craig Ranke that he doesn't want to discuss it at all.
What kind of truther is Brian? Not a truther at all cause he omits and distorts the Pentagon attack cause he fails to talk about it.
Brian hasn't been busy on YouTube for a good while:
https://plus.google.com/100158114115009712385/posts
Here's Brian's discussion board on his YouTube account:
https://www.youtube.com/user/punxsutawneybarney/discussion
He hasn't been on for 3 months.
Check out this hilarious exchange on Brian's YouTube page:
punxsutawneybarney3 months ago
+paul carter
Do you deny that the 9-month elevator renovation project involved materials delivered on pallets?
Reply ·
paul carter3 months ago
+punxsutawneybarney And what does it have to do with the price of eggs.
Reply ·
punxsutawneybarney3 months ago
+paul carter
What does the price of eggs have to do with the elevator renovation?
Reply ·
paul carter3 months ago
+punxsutawneybarney Neither has any relevance.
If you think those pallets contained anything BUT office supplies Brian then you're a God damned moron.
For instance, when a guy fatally shoots someone and claims it's an accident it's well to look into the circumstances surrounding the alleged accident, else "I'm an idiot" becomes a get-out-of-jail-free card for everything and anything.
And when you can't get evidence to confirm your pre-drawn conclusions and all the evidence points to him making a mistake you make up magical technology about a gun that someone can accurately fire by dropping it on the ground.
This comment has been removed by the author.
What conclusions do you think I've pre-drawn?
The 9/11 Commission report was so full of pre-drawn conclusions that Dr. Zelikow actually wrote up an outline to the report before the investigation even started. The Commission simply went around looking for evidence to support their foregone conclusion.
The circular reasoning of discarding the evidence of the put options because there was no connection to al Qaeda is one demonstration of this. Another is the dismissing of evidence of the alleged hijackers' support networks leading back to the Pakistani and Saudi governments as "of little practical significance".
Yet another is Chris Cojm's statement that Able Danger was left out of the report because "It did not fit with the story we wanted to tell". Another is Anthony Shaffer's testimony 2/15/06 to the HASC that
"the 9-11 staff refused to perform any in-depth review or investigation" of Able Danger when "it was their job to do a thorough investigation of these claims – to not simply dismiss them based on what many now believe was a “preconceived” conclusion to the 9-11 story they wished to tell."
The 9/11 Commission report is sloppy, incomplete, dishonest, and unbelievable. Are you claiming a dishonest investigation is acceptable as long as its conclusions are correct? How do you know they're correct unless you have an honest investigation?
NIST similarly started with pre-drawn conclusions. They considered their job to be to show how the buildings fell from fire, and they simply invented much of the data to support that conclusion. They explained that they did not analyze the dust for explosive residues because it would be a waste of time to look for something that wasn't there.
Unlike most of y'all here I have taken the time to learn to distinguish among axioms, assumptions, speculations, educated guesses, questions worthy of investigation, surmises, hypotheses, theories, and 1343conclusions.
and failed to answer 273 of the 9/11 widows' 300 questions
False.
The third investigation failed to address 200 of the widows' 300 questions, and failed to answer 73 more that it did address.
False.
More lyin Iananity from lying Ianinny, I see.
More lyin Iananity from lying Ianinny, I see.
False
I have taken the time to learn to...
No, you haven't.
You are just imaginging that you have...
You are just imaginging that you have...
Pretty much everything Brian claims is imaginary, starting with his claim that he's "proven" that Rodriguez is a fraud.
I proved that Willie is a fraud. Your sucky powers of analysis and logic are not my fault.
Brian bringing up the 115 Omissions and Distortions again? LOL!
As a reminder, the #1 item on that list was that six of the hijackers were still alive.
What conclusions do you think I've pre-drawn?
You endorse other truthers that came with pre-drawn conclusions...
That makes you no better than them...
I proved that Willie is a fraud.
Yes, you keep saying this, and I keep having to remind you that nobody cares what a failed janitor, liar, and sex stalker says.
I proved that Brian doesn't want to discuss the Pentagon.
definite Truthers like Jesse Ventura, Dennis Kucinich, and Cynthia McKinney.
Pat, the evidence is clear on Ventura and McKinney being Anti-American nutbars vis-a-vis 9/11, but what make lops Kucinich in that group? All I recall his some reference to a question about Saudi involvement from him. What else is there?
Yes Pat, of the 115 omissions and distortions listed by Dr. Griffin 2004, 4 or 5 of have been debunked. That leaves at least 110 remaining omissions and distortions in the 9/11 Commission Report, as well as the failure to answer 273 of the widows' 300 questions.
Where I come from, Dr. Griffin's 96% score would be an A, and the 9/11 Commission's 9% score would be an F.
th, what truthers have I endorsed and what pre-drawn conclusions do they have?
You make stuff up like Ian does.
Stewie, I'm perfectly willing to discuss the Pentagon with people who know something about it. That excludes you, of course.
Stewie, I'm perfectly willing to discuss the Pentagon with people who know something about it. That excludes you, of course.
Meaning that you won't discuss it because you know that I know you're so full of shit and would rather back down and admit that you're a fucking idiot. Am I right there pussy boy?
Stewie, I'm perfectly willing to discuss the Pentagon with people who know something about it. That excludes you, of course.
Stewie, I'm perfectly willing to discuss the Pentagon with people who know something about it. That excludes you, of course.
So you're saying you're a pussy and that you don't want to discuss it because Gage doesn't want to discuss it either? Gotcha!
Janice S Good
Brian C Good
So tell me who the hell is Janice? Your wife, mother, sister?
Stewie, please don't try to tell me what I'm saying. You're obviously not qualified to speak for me.
I'm willing to discuss the Pentagon, but not with 1) people who are so ignorant that they think there are no plane parts there, and not with 2) people who think a 757 flew into some kind of twilight zone east of the Pentagon, and not with 3) people who think that surreptitiously videotaping a cooperating witness to try to make him look bad is a clever thing to do and not with 4) people who think that the cloverleaf light poles could have been taken down the night before and left lying on the short grass and none of the rush-hour drivers would have noticed. Because I've had a bellyfull of those clowns.
as well as the failure to answer 273 of the widows' 300 questions.
The widows have no questions.
So tell me who the hell is Janice?
His mom. Brian lives with his parents because he has no job. He used to be a janitor. He wasn't mentally competent to mop floors.
Stewie, please don't try to tell me what I'm saying. You're obviously not qualified to speak for me.
Oh no Brian, you already did the speaking yourself when you told Criag Ranke that you don't like discussing the Pentagon.
Whose Janice S. Good, Brian?
Ian, you lie.
If I told Ranke I don't like discussing the Pentagon it was because I don't like discussing it with him. I don't like discussing it with him because, as I said, I don't like discussing it with 1) people who are so ignorant that they think there are no plane parts there, and not with 2) people who think a 757 flew into some kind of twilight zone east of the Pentagon, and not with 3) people who think that surreptitiously videotaping a cooperating witness to try to make him look bad is a clever thing to do and not with 4) people who think that the cloverleaf light poles could have been taken down the night before and left lying on the short grass and none of the rush-hour drivers would have noticed. Because I've had a bellyfull of those clowns.
If I told Ranke I don't like discussing the Pentagon it was because I don't like discussing it with him.
Because he pwn3d you and you ran away squealing and crying.
This comment has been removed by the author.
No, I kicked Ranke's scrawney ass every time I debated him, at five different internet sites.
It wasn't difficult. I didn't run away from anything. He withdrew the invitation to debate. He ran away.
There were a whole lot of problems with his claims, but there's no point in discussing the problems when nobody here even knows what his claims were--and nobody cares. As far as y'all are concerned, if he says negative things about Brian Good he must be a hero of the truth movement and of unimpeachable credibility. So you celebrate lunatics like Ranke and con artists like Willie and bigots like Barrett--all three of whom have been effectively ejected from the truth movement.
If I told Ranke I don't like discussing the Pentagon it was because I don't like discussing it with him.
Brian, why are you backpeddling so much about the Pentagon issue?
Pat or someone. Put this up on the JREF forum, people need to be updated:
Fire at the Flight 93 memorial, 3 administration buildings burned:
http://www.thonline.com/news/national_world/article_72c28995-fdaa-53b2-84e0-5a98792a15d3.html
PS: I think some truther did that.
I didn't backpedal about anything, fool.
I didn't backpedal about anything, fool.
You always backpedal Brian. You backpedaled when people from within the Truth Movement called you out on what you did to Carol. Then to Kevin Barrett and William Rodriguez.
Liars such as Barrett, Rodriguez, and Ranke lied about me when I exposed their lies. I didn't do anything to Carol except expose her "friends" Barrett and Rodriguez for what they are.
You clowns hate me because I am logical and you are not, and I know about 9/11 and you do not, and I have an education and you do not.
Because you hate me you scour the internet for anything negative you can find about me, and you're too lazy to distinguish blatant lies from truth.
You clowns hate me because I am logical and you are not, and I know about 9/11 and you do not, and I have an education and you do not.
Yeah Brian, you're a very SPECIAL man. And when I mean special I mean mentally inferior.
Because you hate me you scour the internet for anything negative you can find about me, and you're too lazy to distinguish blatant lies from truth.
Kind of sounds like what you do all the time.
I didn't do anything to Carol except expose her "friends" Barrett and Rodriguez for what they are.
You sexually harassed Carol. Even Kevin Barrett saw it when he was with her.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Brouillet
http://noliesradio.org/images/carolbrouillet.jpg
Doesn't it make you mad that you'll never get inside her pants Brian? You can jerk off to her picture if you'd like. I won't tell! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
I didn't sexually harass Carol and she never said I did. Kevin Barrett didn't see anything. He and Willie made it all up. He was mad at me because I exposed him as a bigot and an incompetent scholar, and he thought recrimination might help his image given the legal problems he was facing. Willie was mad at me because I exposed his hero story as a lie--and since he couldn't refute the truth he had to attack the truther.
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 06:47:35 -0700
To: sosfbay-discuss at cagreens.org
From: cbrouillet at igc.org
Subject: [GPSCC-chat] Brian Good's [snug.bug] Relentless Attacks on Kevin Barrett
Brian Good [ACE ACME] was banned from the Northern California 9/11 Truth Alliance meetings and our e-mail list. ...
Brian's behavior surprised and shocked people....
People in Sacramento were shocked when Brian came and leafletted outside of the library where Kevin Barrett spoke on Friday night, but they were even more shocked when he showed up to leaflet in front of the private home where Kevin gave his 2nd talk....
People felt that he was mentally disturbed.
Kevin, his wife Fatna, organizers from Sacramento, after everyone left the event, went out and tried to speak reasonably with Brian. They realized he was a very lonely guy and obviously obsessed with his delusions....
It should be pretty clear to those on this list that I have stopped going to Green Party meetings/events because I don't want to see or have to deal with Brian, because of his delusions, his complete lack of trust of me, his relentless persecution of Kevin and William....
I wish the moderators would not allow him to use this list to vent his animosity towards Kevin Barrett and William Rodriguez, which I still believe is rooted in his feelings/not his brain. I think Brian's judgement is very questionable and I have no doubt that he condemns me for most of my judgements/actions. I'm sure he'll respond to this email- but I don't want to waste any more of my time on him. I plan to continue to ignore/avoid him, as best I can.
My apologies to the group for not attending the meetings- if Brian does stop attending them - I might start going again.
Carol Brouillet
It doesn't say anything about sexual harassment there, silly.
It says that I persecuted Kevin and Willie. Carol seems to think that telling the truth about the bigot and the con artist is persecution.
So what is your point? Why are you clowns obsessed with me? Is it because I know about 9/11 and you don't? Is it because I am rational and you are not? If you don't like exposing your ignorance and irrationality, then just quit posting.
The fun is that you are a truther who tries to debunk other truthers on a debunking blog that has debunked all truthers already...
And you still don't see it...
If you don't like exposing your ignorance and irrationality, then just quit posting.
Why don't you take your own advice Brian?
Please read BOLDED sentences:
Frankly Brian,
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
Brian was sexually harassing her in front of Kevin Barrett. Brian's lying out of his ass like usual.
Though I'm sure that makes you go all jiggly inside, it doesn't say anything about sexual harassment.
My denunciations of the bigot Barrett and the con artist Rodriguez were entirely appropriate.
Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.
When will you graduate to denunciations of Box Boy Gage, Brian?
About the same time you graduate from high school, I suppose.
I have never agreed with everything Mr. Gage says, Pat. I have never agreed with all his policies, all of his framings of the issues, all of his priorities, or everything that was included in the "9/11 Explosive Evidence" movie.
Still, on balance, I think that a petition aimed at architects and engineers pointing out the obvious shortcomings of the official reports about the WTC is an activity well worth pursuing. While I disagree with Mr. Gage on some things, we have always been able to maintain a cordial collegial relationship and I see no need to denounce him. He is not, after all, a bigot or a lunatic or a con artist like Barret, Ranke, and Rodriguez.
My denunciations of the bigot Barrett and the con artist Rodriguez were entirely appropriate.
Except the part where you blamed them for having sex with Carol.
Barret, Ranke, and Rodriguez.
Why is Ranke involved in the sex scandal you tried to pull with Carol?
I think that a petition aimed at architects and engineers pointing out the obvious shortcomings of the official reports about the WTC is an activity well worth pursuing
You haven't shown any obvious shortcomings in the reports about wtc.
And about your Gage: as revealed in an earlier discussion with you: his website is full of claims based on lies and distortions. You didn't want to address them because they weren't on some leaflet.
I don't find that a group of architects and engineers who can only 'prove' their point by stating lies and distortions about the building collapses and the reports can demand for a new investigation.
In order to do so, they should first provide a good reason why the investigations should be done all over again.
And they haven't even really tried to give 1 valid reason.
And for good measure you not only sexually harassed Carol but you also stalked her as well.
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/square/index.php?i=3&t=12613
The only reason why you went here is because your name wasn't tagged, Carols was.
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/an-inside-job/Content?oid=1371159
Interesting to note that Carol has 3 sons:
I am a mother with three sons - Carol Brouillet on 09/16/2009 at 8:48 AM
How would her sons feel that a sexual deviant was sexually harassing their mother and making advances towards her while trying to break up their family by getting in between Carol and her husband?
Check this out people:
http://streetsheetsf.wordpress.com/2013/09/17/palo-altos-vehicle-habitation-ordinance/
On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Brian Good wrote:
Back in the 70s a friend of mine lived in a low-rent rooming house in North Palo Alto because that’s what he could afford on his pay as a janitor. I’m not sure if the house is still standing, but I saw one recently that might have been it offered for sale at $2.4 million.
For 40 years, the City Council has aggressively pursued policies to facilitate kicking low-income people out of rooming houses so that rich people can occupy multi-million dollar homes. The agents who are offering this property are college-educated, and have skills that might allow them to help make the world a better place. Instead, aided by the Palo Alto City Council, they are engaged in the trivial pursuit of providing nicer housing to rich people who already have nice housing.
We’ve all heard about the Greatest Generation, that fought the Nazis and made the USA great. I’m disgusted with my generation, the S**ttiest Generation, with its lazy cynicism and selfishness that has made this crumbling world the way it is.
How are your lies relevant to Mark Udall? What is your point, except to demonstrate that for some reason we probably don't want to know you have a raging hardon for Brian Good?
What is your point, except to demonstrate that for some reason we probably don't want to know you have a raging hardon for Brian Good?
Because Brian is just another loser in the world trying to make something of himself for which he is not: a researcher.
A true researcher looks at both sides of an issue, determines which side is telling a lie and then looks into it deeper. Ultimately coming to a conclusion based on actual facts and evidence. Brian has failed to look at both sides of the spectrum.
As far as a "hard on", it's quite the opposite.
What makes you think I have failed to look st both sides of the issue? And what conclusions do you believe I have reached prematurely?
You don't know what you're talking about and you make stuff up.
The fact is, I woke up to the 9/11 issue in 2004, and I hoped that NIST's 2005 report would dispose of my questions about the towers.
When I examined the 10,000 page snow job and found that it did not address the essential mysteries of the collapses, I was very disappointed and I realized that this country was in deep doo-doo.
What makes you think I have failed to look st both sides of the issue?
Not just me you twit. Other people (truther & debunker) saw that you failed to look at both sides.
And what conclusions do you believe I have reached prematurely?
All your conclusions up until now.
You don't know what you're talking about and you make stuff up.
Is Carol lying about you sexually harassing her and stalking her when Kevin Barrett was right in front of her?
The fact is, I woke up to the 9/11 issue in 2004, and I hoped that NIST's 2005 report would dispose of my questions about the towers.
It took you 4 years but you never came to your own conclusions about what happened that terrible day?
When I examined the 10,000 page snow job and found that it did not address the essential mysteries of the collapses, I was very disappointed and I realized that this country was in deep doo-doo.
You know Brian, no one knew of the SR-71 Blackbird nor the F-117 Stealth Fighter/Bomber until people were talking about it and the Government broke their silence. Don't you think anyone would've come forward with a picture of some demo guy putting a bomb inside the 3 towers? Or how about the 100's if not 1,000's of office workers milling about inside the 16 acre WTC complex?
You examined shit and you know it.
I asked you "what makes you think" and you responded with the non-sequitur "other people think".
Thanks for demonstrating your logical and epistemic incompetence.
What conclusions do you think I have made, and what makes them premature?
Carol never said I sexually harassed her or stalked her. That lie was made up by Kevin Barrett and Willie Rodriguez, and Carol has quite conspicuously refused to validate those lies.
What makes you think I have come to conclusions about what happened on 9/11?
You are a very silly person.
I asked you "what makes you think" and you responded with the non-sequitur "other people think".
You're trying to single me out. Ain't working!
Thanks for demonstrating your logical and epistemic incompetence.
Thank you for supplying me with information about yourself.
What conclusions do you think I have made, and what makes them premature?
That's for me to know and you to find out. After all you said you were a "researcher". Wouldn't wantto catch yourself lying now would you Brian?
Carol never said I sexually harassed her or stalked her. That lie was made up by Kevin Barrett and Willie Rodriguez, and Carol has quite conspicuously refused to validate those lies.
And that's why she isn't your friend anymore cause you were harassing her and stalking her. Not to mention the email exchange I saw some where online between you and Carol. My, my, my Brian, you're telling 1 hell of a whopper and I don't mean the hamburger at Burger King.
What makes you think I have come to conclusions about what happened on 9/11?
I said you haven't you fuck wit. Learn to fucking read for once in your life.
I never sexually harassed Carol or stalked her and she never said I did. You bury libels in blither.
I never sexually harassed Carol or stalked her and she never said I did. You bury libels in blither.
I'm gonna ask you a simple question Brian. I expect a simple answer.
Am I, in any way, shape or form, Carol Brouillet?
Yes or no!
Carol libeled you, not me you fucking twit.
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.
Carol Brouillet
Carol said that, not me Brian. You gotta problem you take it up with her. You're the 1 trying to weasel into her marriage, not anyone else.
http://truthjihad.blogspot.com/2009/07/slandered-by-sex-stalker-brian-good-and.html
Friday, July 31, 2009
"Brian Good" is probably the most hilariously dubious character in the whole 9/11 truth movement. Truth and justice activist Carol Brouillet reports that Brian volunteered to do the grunt work for her group, then started sexually stalking and harassing her. She should have had him charged, convicted, and imprisoned. Instead, she very firmly showed him the door.
Now why would Kevin Barrett say such a thing if he didn't WITNESS it? Certainly in any crime or case there are WITNESSES.
I move on the grounds that Brian is lying about not sexually harassing and stalking Carol Brouillet. That indeed there were WITNESSES to the fact that Brian and Carol WERE NOT ALONE. And that Brian is trying to weasel out of the issue. Therefore he is guilty of sexually harassing and stalking the married Mrs. Brouillet based on EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY provided by Kevin Barrett and his wife.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Messed up, let me try again.
And here comes the denials and squirming which in fact will prove that Brian did sexually harass and stalk Mrs. Carol Brouillet in......wait for it.......wait for it.......
Based on facts, if someone were telling a truth you'd ignore it.
But if it's the truth, why doesn't Brian ignore it?
Wait for it......wait for it.......
I never sexually harassed Carol or stalked her and she never said I did. Carol did not libel me. She offered her opinion about what was inside my mind, and she was wrong.
Why would Kevin Barrett lie? That's like asking why are sunflowers yellow. He's a liar. He's a bigot. I exposed him.
You're not making sense.
You're not making sense.
I am making sense and Im pissing you off Brian.
Post a Comment
<< Home