But Of Course....
The ONI released a bunch of information on Bin Laden's compound today, including a list of books that were found, some of them, not so surprising:
The release shows that the 9/11 mastermind was an avid reader of conspiracy theory books, with titles including: Bloodlines of the Illuminati by right-wing author Fritz Springmeier; The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11 by the 9/11 truther David Ray Griffin; Conspirators' Hierarchy: The Committee of 300 by John Coleman; and The Secrets of the Federal Reserve by Eustace Mullins, an anti-Semitic writer.
Although reading someone who claims he didn't do what he did must have presented some interesting existential questions, as well as bringing to mind the classic Onion video.
posted by James B. @ 5:55 PM
80 comments
80 Comments:
I wonder if he shopped at the same Palo Alto book store as another conspiracy loon we know?
I always figured bin Laden must've been annoyed at the truth movement. Here he's trying to rally the Muslim world to his side by demonstrating that he can hit the Great Satan (or whatever he called the US, I know I'm borrowing from Khomeini here) and make us bleed, and instead of the reaction he expects, he gets a bunch of obese unemployed virgins in black t-shirts who would shit their pants at the sight of an AK-47 loudly dismissing him as some primitive "in a cave" incapable of such things.
It'd piss me off if a bunch of abject losers were saying my great accomplishment wasn't actually mine.
Don't worry, Ian, nobody is going to take away your single great accomplishment. Its pathetic nature speaks for itself.
Don't worry, Ian, nobody is going to take away your single great accomplishment. Its pathetic nature speaks for itself.
"Single great accomplishment"? Brian, I'm accomplished much more than thoroughly humiliating you. I just stop by here once in a while to amuse myself by poking you and making you squeal hystetrically.
Poor Brian. He's envious of me because I'm still young, smart, successful, handsome, happily married, and with money to spend on luxury vacations. I've accomplished more in the last year than Brian has his entire life.
Meanwhile, Brian is pathetic that he can't even get one question from the widows answered, and can't get a decent haircut.
Going off topic here for a minute.
Anyone wanna know who Stundie is? You know the infamous Stundie that managed to get his name on the awards held on the old JREF every month?
Take a gander at this bit of info I pulled up:
https://pipl.com/search/?q=stundie%40hotmail.com&l=&sloc=&in=5
Poor Ian seems to think that his facials and manicures are an accomplishment.
I bet you've got some great shoes, Ian.
Brian, you will never give up even when the end of the world is here will ya?
You lost Brian. Give it up! No matter what you say or think you can never change our minds. So just give it up already and stop beating the dead horse.
Since when is my inability to change defective minds a measure of my effectiveness?
Since when is my inability to change defective minds a measure of my effectiveness?
I dunno which defective minds you're referring to, but a better measure of your effectiveness is the number of widows' questions you've gotten answered, whether you've gotten a new investigation into 9/11, and whether you've gotten "meatball on a fork" published in a journal.
Care to comment on any of that?
Ian, why is publication of "Meatball on a fork" an issue at all? Are you one of those guys who thinks that principles of physics can not be demonstrated with cardboard boxes?
I am, obviously, referring to the defective minds commenting here at SLC, which are surely a source of great embarrassment to Pat and James.
So where's your buddy Wizzie LiedRugAs, who wizzed all over the family members with his impossible hero story and who ran away screaming and crying after I exposed him as a fraud?
Ian, you might recall that GuitarBill left this board completely after I threatened him with legal action against his persistent libels of me. Willie R has the same legal protections I do--so when I point out that he is a fraudulent con artist I am subject to the full force of the libel laws just as Guitar Bill was (and you are--but you are such a silly fashion critic your remarks are just girly gossip). Willie is gone because my charges against him have the irrefutable defense of truth.
It's amazing how Brian thinks the only possible reason anyone could ever stop posting here is b/c of his empty threats. Self-delusion at it's finest.
Are you one of those guys who thinks that principles of physics can not be demonstrated with cardboard boxes?
Of course they can, Brian. However, only a dullard like yourself could think they could have some substantial bearing on what happened to the Twin Towers.
Lyin' Brian Good dissembles, "Ian, you might recall that GuitarBill left this board completely after I threatened him with legal action against his persistent libels of me."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Stop it, you're killing me.
@brian:, no Willy simply doesn't care what you think. And he know that nobody does, so taking legal actions against you is merely a waste of time.
He simply moved on, having the life of a 911 hero who gives speeches at meeting which include (former) presidents.
Face it Brian: he is a success, you are a failure. No matter what you think you expose, nobody will ever believe you.
GMS, the law was, and is, on the side of the injured. Guitar Bill's persistent libels of me were a crime. The point is that Willie Rodriguez has the same protection by the law as I do--but I can safely call him out as a fraudster with no fear because in the USA truth is a defense to charges of libel.
th, your belief that a two-bit con artist is a success is a real hoot. Wizzie and Bill Clinton deserve each other--they make a very cute couple.
Whatever you think of them, you cannot deny that they are a success, brian.
Unlike you.
The point of free fall is that it can only happen when all support has been removed.
No, the point is that according to your own quotes, the twin towers did not collapse at free fall and wtc7 only for 2.5 sec. Half way the collapse.
So you don't have a case at all.
You loose, brian....
Brian goode logic. he uses dr nordenson, a guy not associated with nist, not afraid to "stick his neck out" and thinks fire did it to support his claim engineers not in the A&E group would fear losing their reputations and only those associated with nist think fire did it. Dumb logic 101.
Brian, the point about stocking the neck out was yours. As always, you run away from an untenable claim trying to pin it on me. Nordensen wasn't stickinh his neck out. That's the whole point. Nist isn't the gestapo. Disagreements with them occur and no professional need stick their neck out in questioning them. That's why your precious 2500 A&E guys is so paltry. You know this is a pathetic number and that's why you have invented a fear of reprisals and conflict of interest rebuttal to justify this meaningless, insignificant group.
Still no desire to tell me what your professional reputation use to be huh? Coward.
th, if I stood next to Bill Clinton and shook his slimy hand I could never live down the failure.
You clearly do not understand the basic physics of falling into a bush, and your inability to spell "lose" tells us all we need to know about your successes.
Shamrock, a single swallow does not a spring make. Mr. Nordenson (why have you awarded him a PhD?) has his own engineering firm, he is a professor at Princeton, he has engineered many prominent structures. He obviously enjoys wealth and security far beyond that of ordinary engineers who must suck up to their bosses to have a job at all. Mr. Nordenson also speaks about the the building process -- "always collaborative because that is how things get built." Thus there is enormous pressure to avoid controversy.
Mr. Nordenson has chosen to speak out about the shortcomings of the official reports probably because his experience surveying the damage at Ground Zero and providing guidance on safety in the rescue and cleanup operations gives him strong feelings about the lack of integrity in the official investigations. He is a black swan. For you to cite him as an exemplar of Joe Engineer is highly disingenuous.
I never said that only those associated with NIST think fires did it. Probably most engineers "think" fires did it. Probably most engineers still "think" that diesel fuel fires brought down WTC7, and jet fuel fires brought down the towers--even though informed people know that neither is the case.
2500 credentialed critics of NIST is not a paltry number compared to the number you can muster to defend NIST--which is about 20.
Besides the point Brian.
What you think of
Clinton is irrelevant.
He is successful and surrounded by successful people, unlike you....
And who do you refer to as 'we'?
You are alone, brian....
You clearly do not understand the basic physics of falling
Totally besides the point.
Point is that you claimed that freefall would be impossible and at the same time come with quotes stating that there was no freefall collapse.
Face it brian, you loose.
Indeed, with double O
th, "we" means anyone who knows how to spell "lose".
The physics of falling into a bush are essential to understanding the physics of a collapsing building.
No one who understands the physics of collapse does not understand the physics of falling into a bush. No one who does not understand the physics of falling into a bush understands the physics of a building collapse.
I didn't present any quotes saying there was no free fall collapse. You are very confused.
NIST doesn't need anyone backing it dopey. That wasn't its purpose. 2500 is paltry because there are millions of qualified engineers who HAVE NOT joined that group. Now give any good reason why those successful engineers wouldn't join the fight if there were any cause too? Again, your density can't see how nordensen dismisses your two most basic held beliefs about the tiny 2500. He questions nist, isn't sticking his neck out to do so, he isn't affiliated with nist and he thinks fire did it.
So I'll take your avoidance to answerng my question as proof you held no relevant reputation in the fields of engineering or architecture.
When nist published its report did it have a vote on who accepts it and who denies it? Did I miss that vote taking place? Why would any engineer need give the thumbs up? Too placate you? Gage? Why? Why would any self respecting professional need to endorse something so few have taken issue with? You aren't that important to them Brian. Nor is gage. and the 2500 isn't even a compelling number to anyone but you.
Lyn' Brian Good whines, "Guitar Bill's persistent libels of me were a crime."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Absolutely! Provided you define "crime" as truth.
Shamrock, NIST does need backing because demonstrably they do not have it. There are only about 20 engineers who have overtly endorsed NIST's reports, and every one of them has professional ties to NIST.
As Mr. Nordenson said, "there was a lack of consensus over the results of the investigation," and the investigation "wasn't as open and not adequately peer reviewed, due in part to the veil of security concerns, so lots of people can disagree with the conclusions."
It seems that you do not understand the reluctance of professionals to engage in controversy. They have partners, they have clients; there is little to gain and much to lose by advocating honesty and science.
Mr. Nordenson's opinions on fires do not negate the fact that he reported widespread skepticism about the validity of the NIST reports. I already explained that Mr. Nordenson is of an exalted status in the engineering community and is thus free to disagree with NIST. Engineers who are not yet wealthy and who are not professors at Princeton and who do not own their own engineering firms have to be a little bit more reticent about their public statements--or face the consequences.
Engineers need to give thumbs up to NIST to dispel the reasonable suspicion that the lack of over support for NIST's findings is symptomatic of a lack of consensus that they are correct or, even worse, of a big chill on the subject at all.
Personally, I don't like people lying about 9/11, and I have confronted people like Willie Rodriguez and Ian and Guitar Bill and Kevin Barrett and Craig Ranke about that. If I thought that Richard Gage was lying about 9/11 I would attend one of his lectures and call him out for his lies. Nobody does that. Why not?
Your assumption that silence is assent is not justified when it's just as likely that silence is fear. A licensed structural engineer I know sent out 100 questionnaires about 9/11 to his engineering colleagues. Only 2 of the 100 has the guts to return the questionnaire.
GutterBall's belief that HAHAHAHAHA constitutes an argument suggests that he was educated by hyenas instead of the institutions he claims.
Lyin' Brian Good whines, "GutterBall's belief that HAHAHAHAHA constitutes an argument suggests that he was educated by hyenas instead of the institutions he claims."
I have no need or time to engage in "debate" with an insane liar who has more mommy issues than Oedipus. Anyone who wishes to see the mountain of lies Brian Good has told about the events of 11 September 2001 need merely read the SLC archives.
After all, everyone recognizes Brian Good as a liar, there's no doubt about that. I'm willing to bet he masturbates whenever he reads a long post debunking his lies. Brian Good feels like a prince because that's the only attention he gets in life. People in real life can, and have, written him off as a compulsive, shameless liar, but here at SLC he can involve himself in his narcissistic fetish for attention perpetually.
What happened to Brian Good, you ask?
It's simple -- his divorced parents never gave poor little Brian Good any attention until he realized he could demand it by telling outrageous lies. Little Brian Good, who was hated by every child and instructor in the school, would torture the family pet to death, making it blatantly obvious that he did it, and then say "Mommy, the policeman kidnapped the cat, I saw him." Then his brain-dead excuse for a "mother" would be forced to pay close attention to her budding psychopath because it was obvious something was terribly wrong. Brian Good got to sit in a big chair with a psychiatrist who paid attention to no one but little Brian Good. His fatuous mother would look at Brian lovingly, while catering to his every need -- until he stopped lying. At that point, the attention would stop, so Brian Good learned to never stop lying, and he loves any attention lying brings him. Now he's latched on to the 9/11 debunkers who spend their precious time debunking his never-ending stream of lies because, now that his mother is on her death bed, we are his newly "adopted" surrogate mother. Just like his real mother, we want nothing to do with him, so Brian Good forces us to pay attention to him by lying, and he's so fucked in the head that he confuses the universal revulsion that greets his every post with the love of his mother. And Pat and James B, who refuse to ban him or delete his idiotic lies, ARE HIS ENABLERS. Talk about a dysfunctional family.
That said, Brian Good is truly pathetic. Having him around is like stepping in dogshit.
No wonder Brian Good's parents hate him. He's a scoundrel.
I'd tell the insane, old compulsive liar for 9/11 troof to seek psychiatric intervention, but that's precisely his problem.
th, "we" means anyone who knows how to spell "lose".
You are not entitled to speak for others, Brian.
The physics of falling into a bush are essential to understanding the physics of a collapsing building.
You are not qualified to determine what is essential and what not considering physics, Brian...
No one ...
You are not entitled to determine what someone can or can not, Brian..
I didn't present any quotes saying there was no free fall collapse.
Yes you did, you quoted nist saying the collapse of the twin towers took 12 seconds.
That is not free fall, brian
You also quoted NIST that wtc7 only had 2.5 seconds of free fall half way the collapse.
So wtc7 did not collapse completely in free fall, Brian.
So your whole argument that every single piece of resistance had to be taken out of the towers is merely bogus..
You are very confused.
And you are a looser .
With double O
NIST does need backing
No, it does not.
because demonstrably they do not have it.
Nope, that is what you made up by yourself
As Mr. Nordenson said, "there was a lack of consensus over the results of the investigation," and the investigation "wasn't as open and not adequately peer reviewed, due in part to the veil of security concerns, so lots of people can disagree with the conclusions."
Can disagree.
Doesn't mean that they actually do.
And all besides the point.
You now the goal of the NIST-report: determine if and in what way the design and building materials incorporated to the global collapse and to come with recommendations to change building regulations accordingly.
The goal wasn't to make every single engineer in the world happy....
It seems that you do not understand the reluctance of professionals to engage in controversy.
You are not entitled to determine if professionals are reluctant to do something.
They have partners, they have clients; there is little to gain and much to lose by advocating honesty and science.
You are not entitled to determine what someone has to gain or loose (with double ) in your case).
Engineers who are not yet wealthy and who are not professors at Princeton and who do not own their own engineering firms have to be a little bit more reticent about their public statements--or face the consequences.
You are not entitled to determine how reticent anyone has to be.
Engineers need to give thumbs up to NIST to dispel the reasonable suspicion that the lack of over support for NIST's findings is symptomatic of a lack of consensus that they are correct or, even worse, of a big chill on the subject at all.
You are not entitled to determine what engineers need or dont need to do.
Personally, I don't like people lying about 9/11,
So you must hate yourself.
and I have confronted people like Willie Rodriguez and Ian and Guitar Bill and Kevin Barrett and Craig Ranke about that.
You are not entitled to determine what they lied about and what not.
If I thought that Richard Gage was lying
Is is a fact that he is lying.
But still, you are not entitled to determine wether or not Gage is lying.
I would attend one of his lectures and call him out for his lies. Nobody does that. Why not?
You are not entitled to determine if anyone does that or not.
A licensed structural engineer I know sent out 100 questionnaires about 9/11 to his engineering colleagues. Only 2 of the 100 has the guts to return the questionnaire.
A bogus argument, as you fail to mention who that licensed engineer is, what his credentials are, what those questions were and to whom he had sent them.
GutterBall's belief that HAHAHAHAHA constitutes an argument suggests that he was educated by hyenas instead of the institutions he claims.
You are not entitled to determine what type of educations GuitarBill has had.
You have yet to show silence is fear dopey. It's your fantasy and nothing more. Funny how you widen the goal posts regarding nordensen. I guess in your limited world view, he is just about the only successful engineer not willing to endorse nist entirely even though he says fire did it. Apparently His success hasnt brought him to question any alternative to fire induced collapse. So no matter the contortion you attempt, notdensen proves you wrong.
Only 2 gave a crap to return the questionIire you mean. that you assign any motive other then apathy is hilarious. As has been pointed out to you many times. Nobody cares about what you think Brian. A paltry 2500 prove it.
Ian wrote, "I always figured bin Laden must've been annoyed at the truth movement."
I couldn't agree more, Ian.
Al Qaeda says Iran’s 9/11 theory ‘ridiculous’
Claim: Towers not toppled by planes. By Maamoun Youssef - Associated Press - Thursday, September 29, 2011
CAIRO -- "Al Qaeda has sharply criticized Iran's president over his suggestions that the U.S. government was behind the Sept. 11 attacks and not al Qaeda, dismissing the comments as 'ridiculous.'
"During his trip to New York last week for the U.N. General Assembly, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claimed in an interview with the Associated Press that explosive material and not planes brought down the World Trade Center.
"He stopped short of saying the United States staged the disaster, but said that as an engineer, he's sure New York's twin towers were not brought down by jetliners.
"'A few airplanes without previous coordination known to the security forces and the intelligence community in the United States cannot become missiles and target the heart of the United States,' Mr. Ahmadinejad said.
"In an article posted online Wednesday in the terror network's English-language Internet magazine Inspire, al Qaeda rejected the Iranian leader's suggestions.
"'Why would Iran ascribe to such a ridiculous belief that stands in the face of all logic and evidence?' asked the article's author, Abu Suhail.
"He said Iran wants to portray itself as a country that stands up to the U.S.
"'For Iran, anti-Americanism is merely a game of politics. It is anti-American when its suits it, and it is a collaborator with the U.S. when it suits it,' Abu Suhail said.
"He cited several examples of when Iran allegedly cooperated with the U.S., including in the invasion of Afghanistan. He also said the Shiites in Iraq, who are supported by Iran, 'brought the American forces to the country and welcome them with open arms.'
"Abu Suhail said Iran is jealous of al Qaeda's 'success' in the Sept. 11 attacks, saying that because Tehran couldn't strike at the U.S. itself, the Iranians want to 'to discredit Sept. 11 and what better way to do so than conspiracy theories.'
"He said Iran and the Shiites opposed giving al Qaeda credit for the 9/11 attacks 'because this would expose their lip-service to jihad [holy war] against the Great Satan,' a term Iranian officials have used to describe the U.S.
"Al Qaeda mainly embraces Sunni militants, and is bitterly hostile toward Shiites, who make up the vast majority of Iran.
"Late al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in his many audio and video messages praised the attacks several times. In 2004 he publicly acknowledged al Qaeda's involvement and two years later asserted his responsibility for the attacks in an audio message defending Zacarias Moussaoui, who was on trial for his participation in the attacks.
"In the U.S., the National Institute of Standards and Technology conducted a probe that took six years to complete of the tower collapses. The last report found that fire caused the collapse of 7 World Trade Center, a skyscraper north of the twin towers.
"In the case of the twin towers, the agency found that extreme heat from the jetliner crashes caused some steel beams to lose strength, causing further failures until the entire structure succumbed."
See The Washington Times, Al Qaeda says Iran’s 9/11 theory ‘ridiculous’, 29 September 2011.
I love one gay stalker from Palo alto stills insists in calling my name. The same idiot I challenged countless of times to debate me but ran away with excuses of protecting "other" parties, the same "parties" who called him obsessed, stalker, jealous and crazy. Of course I have moved on and just like Ian, doing pretty good with my tours. I have been ( just this week) meeting with mayors, deputy mayors, Firemen and entrepreneurs and speaking to thousands that came to hear my speech. Real Heroes, come to hear me speak, companies want to learn and pay a pretty good amount for it. All while the idiot is doing nothing but writing idiocy on the INTERNET from his mama's apartment. While he cries and boils with envy, I filmed an appearance for a BBC Special and National Geographic about the New Century disasters...and while he still cries that Carol shunned him, I am happily married with 2 children and going to vacations all over the world as part of my presentations. I moved on and there is no way the idiot can take me out of my comfort zone. He was banned from every group from being obsessed with me, even Richard gage told him many times to stop the idiocy. He blamed me from being "fired" from employers, but failed to legally pursue me. Also he failed many times to call the attorney General in NY or other agencies to "expose" me. Life is good and I keep doing good work for the victims, as a matter of fact, I run the private pages in facebook for the survivors of 9/11 and have their support contrary to him who nobody supports. While he keeps living from his mother social security check , I keep raising my fee every year. Life must be tough for him. See you in September again.
Wow. It's been a long time since Brian has been thoroughly pwn3d like this. First, I humiliate him by noting that the widows will never have their questions answered, "meatball on a fork" will never be published, and that there will never be a new investigation into 9/11. That left him squealing and crying and calling us "girls", and babbling about Guitar Bill and Willie Rodriguez, both of whom show up to humiliate him.
Also, he still has no answer for the fact that Uncle Steve and my friend Carlos both endorse the NIST report.
I guess if I were an evil SOB, I could post the photo of Brian with the hideous homeless mullet right now, but I'll go easy on him.
Ian, you don't have the power to humiliate me.
Wille R., I have debated you a dozen times right here, and every time I proved that your hero story was a lie. You're a washed-up con artist who lived for too long on glory you stole from those who died. You'll have to live with that forever. Nothing you can do can make up for it. You are slimier than the brown-stained condoms you used to pick up in the stairwells of the World Trade Center.
You really believe he cares about your opinion, brian?
Face it, he moved on and has a life. Unlike you.
Tell the widows to move on, th. Tell them to forget their husbands, forget that 91% of their questions were not answered. Tell the family members to forget that Willie traveled the world lying about 9/11 and raking in money from his stolen glory--and that he's still bragging about how much money he gets from his grandstanding. I don't expect a sociopath to feel shame. It's not an opinion but a demonstrated fact that Willie's hero story is a lie.
After the truth movement rejected him, Willie claimed that he had moved on from the conspiracy theories, and that he had never claimed there were bombs. But the record is quite clear: his federal lawsuit claimed there were bombs. And when he had the opportunity to go to Iran, he was back to his same old schtick that he'd claimed he'd transcended.
@brian: ask the widows if they like your abuse of their sorrow.
I don't believe they do.
Stewie Griffin here! (Name change to reflect Stuart Green (Stunide fame)
Brian C. Good in literally a nutshell:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btKIxyrMp2M
Brian chickens out on debate with Willie R.
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2011/05/brian-good-chickens-out-on-debate-with.html
"At 11 May, 2011 23:32, snug.bug said...
My internet connection was down all afternoon. I offered a debate taking place on Carol's radio program. The reason for this is that Willie lies, and he hides behind Carol's skirts, and he would surely raise untrue ad hominem attacks on me with no regard for the potential damage to Carol. So she needs to have edit power over the debate."
Brian lied about his "lost internet connection" that day. He simply didn't want to debate Willie R. Why would Carol want a sexual devient on her radio show that stalked, harassed and threatened her and her husband?
"At 12 May, 2011 10:50, snug.bug said...
Sabba, when did I say "I will debate Willie, anyplace, anywhere, he does not have the guts"?
I offered years ago to have a debate on Carol's radio show. The reason it can not be in real time is because the hero Willie uses Carol as a human shield and I don't want her hurt."
You've hurt her really bad Brian. You stalked, harassed and threatened her multiple times. In the 2 statements you made above you're the one using Carol as a human shield, not Willie R.
"At 14 May, 2011 13:57, snug.bug said...
Wow, sabba, you sure have a hangup about Brian Good! What's your problem? Did he expose you as a liar and a fraud?
I have never run away from Willie and I'm not doing it now. Nobody needs to travel. We can debate on Carol's radio program just fine."
Who was hiding under Carols skirt the whole time in 2011? Certainly not Willie R., heavens no! Brian C. Good of Palo Alto, CA was the one OBSESSED with Carol and tried to hide under her skirt.
"At 14 May, 2011 15:10, snug.bug said...
Nobody has informed me of any challenge.
I have no reason to believe that the anonymous internet poster "William Rodriguez" is actually William Rodriguez.
I offered to have a debate with William Rodriguez on Carol Brouillet's radio show (so she would have edit power). That offer still stands."
Your back turned yellow didn't it Brian? It still is isn't it? You were challenged here on SLC IN FROM OF THE WORLD and yet you insisted (and still insist) that the challenge never took place. You are a gutless, spineless coward of a man Brian. Don't you get it shit for brains, Carol doesn't want your retarded ass! You threatened and harassed her through emails. You stalked her PUBLICLY in front of people who went to Kevin Barretts conference. You can't deny these allegations Brian (even though you'll moan like that whore of a mother you're living with or is your mother dead by now?).
Do you imagine that the widows care about your beliefs, th? Unlike you, they have taken the trouble to inform themselves about what happened on 9/11.
Last I heard, the widows were trying to publicize the story of Behrooz Sarshar, a FBI translator who in the spring of 2001 forwarded warnings from a retired Iranian intel expert about chatter he was hearing in Baluchistan about upcoming attacks by airplanes in the USA. The expert's information resulted in an FBI memo entitled "Kamikaze Pilots". This was just one of four FBI warnings soon before 9/11 from NYC, from Phoenix, from Minneapolis, and from DC. There were also warnings from 13 foreign countries and the CIA.
Willie Rodriguez is a washed up con artist and his hero story is a lie.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Wille R., I have debated you a dozen times right here, and every time I proved that your hero story was a lie.
False. You ran away squealing and crying because you're a pathetic coward and liar.
Tell the widows to move on, th. Tell them to forget their husbands, forget that 91% of their questions were not answered.
There are no widows.
Do you imagine that the widows care about your beliefs, th? Unlike you, they have taken the trouble to inform themselves about what happened on 9/11.
There are no widows.
Last I heard, the widows were trying to publicize the story of Behrooz Sarshar, a FBI translator who in the spring of 2001 forwarded warnings from a retired Iranian intel expert about chatter he was hearing in Baluchistan about upcoming attacks by airplanes in the USA. The expert's information resulted in an FBI memo entitled "Kamikaze Pilots". This was just one of four FBI warnings soon before 9/11 from NYC, from Phoenix, from Minneapolis, and from DC. There were also warnings from 13 foreign countries and the CIA.
Thanks for proving our point: bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. You can stop babbling about magic spray-on thermite and invisible silent explosives planted by elves now.
Stewie, when did you become an expert on my internet connection? Either you're lying or you know so much it's creepy.
I didn't stalk Mrs. Brouillet. I went to protest the publicly announced appearances of Dr. Kevin Barrett under the sponsorship of a peace group just a few weeks after he had advocated armed rebellion and arson on his blogs. You are very confused.
I wasn't hiding under any skirts. You are very confused. I have debated Willie here at SLC a dozen times. I have proven irrefutably that his hero story is a lie.
False. You were banned from the truth movement for stalking Carol Brouillet, and you ran away squealing and crying when Rodriguez challenged you to a debate.
Also, you're a failed janitor who lives with his parents. And you can't afford a decent haircut.
Stewie, when did you become an expert on my internet connection? You're lying about what you know. If your claim were true you would know so much it's creepy.
I didn't stalk Mrs. Brouillet. Dr. Barrett made publicly announced appearances under the sponsorship of a peace group just a few weeks after he had advocated armed rebellion and arson on his blogs. I went to protest. You are very confused.
I wasn't hiding under any skirts. You are very confused. How can you allege that I hid under the skirts of someone you claim I threatened and harrassed?
I have debated Willie here at SLC a dozen times. I have proven irrefutably that his hero story is a lie.
Ian, you're silly. I didn't run away. I proved that Willie's hero story is a lie. Here I am. Here he is not. Your belief that there are no widows is loony tunes. I was never banned from the truth movement. I am not a failed janitor. I was a very successful and well-paid janitor when I was in college. I guess either you never went to college or you didn't work while you were going.
Last I heard, the widows were trying to publicize the story of Behrooz Sarshar, a FBI translator who in the spring of 2001 forwarded warnings from a retired Iranian intel expert about chatter he was hearing in Baluchistan about upcoming attacks by airplanes in the USA.
Which does not fit in your inside job paranoia but points at al qaeda being behind the attacks..
Do you imagine that the widows care about your beliefs, th?
Nope and that wasn't the question.
Your reply is merely a smoke screen that you need to avoid my question.
Unlike you, they have taken the trouble to inform themselves about what happened on 9/11.
And according to your own quote, they came to the same conclusion as i did.
So tell me, Brian: do the widows like you abusing them for your own delusions?
. I am not a failed janitor. I was a very successful and well-paid janitor when I was in college.
You was.
And what are you now?
You are too affraid to answer that question (indeed, affraid with double F)
th, as usual you leap from ignorance to unjustified conclusions. When did I ever say 9/11 was an inside job?
I have proven irrefutably that Willie's hero story is a lie. NIST tells us that about 100 civilians under the impact zones failed to evacuate and died.
Some of those were trapped in elevators. Some of those were mobility impaired and slow to get down the stairs. Some of those remained in their offices because the authorities told them to stay put and await rescue.
100 people. There were 15,000 people in the towers when the attacks happened. Thus 14,900 evacuated successfully. Willie claims that his efforts to aid the evacuation saved hundreds. If Willie saved hundreds on 39 floors, how come hundreds more didn't die on the floors he didn't reach?
In fact, Willie claimed that there was a 22-story collapse above him, and that's why he stopped his upward climb at 39. There was no point in going further, because everyone up there was dead. But that wasn't true. If 22 floors collapsed, hundreds or even thousands would have died. Plus the tower would have fallen down because the structural insult would have been too much.
The truth movement rejected Willie's nonsense long ago. It's really amusing that only people who regard themselves as debunkers still believe him.
Lyin' Brian Good whines, "Ian, you're silly. I didn't run away."
Right! I suppose that's why ScrewLooseChange published a blog post on 24 May 2011, titled,
Brian Good Chickens Out On Debate With Willie Rodriguez [link]
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
When did I ever say 9/11 was an inside job?
So you are backing away from that too :o)
I have proven irrefutably that Willie's hero story is a lie.
Nope, you have not.
NIST tells us that about 100 civilians under the impact zones failed to evacuate and died.
Willie claims that his efforts to aid the evacuation saved hundreds. If Willie saved hundreds on 39 floors, how come hundreds more didn't die on the floors he didn't reach?
Since you need to ask, you admit that you don't have any evidence.
There was no point in going further, because everyone up there was dead. But that wasn't true.
Which is besides the point. He believed at that moment that the collapse would have kille anyone else above him.
You cannot blame him for being wrong, even if he was.
If 22 floors collapsed, hundreds or even thousands would have died.
No, only 100 would have died, as you state earlier.
Plus the tower would have fallen down because the structural insult would have been too much.
The tower did collapse because 22+ floors came down.
The truth movement rejected Willie's nonsense long ago.
You have no proof (again, with double O) for that.
Stewie, when did you become an expert on my internet connection? You're lying about what you know. If your claim were true you would know so much it's creepy.
Prove that I am "lying" Brian. All you do is talk shit about people and when they do it to you you moan. Just by you calling me "creepy" proves that what I say is true. You have a habit of telling people that they're right about you and you have no clue that you're doing it yourself.
I didn't stalk Mrs. Brouillet. Dr. Barrett made publicly announced appearances under the sponsorship of a peace group just a few weeks after he had advocated armed rebellion and arson on his blogs. I went to protest. You are very confused.
You still stalked her while in the presence of the public Brian. You protested in public Brian, which means many witnesses you stupid bastard. Yet again you prove that I am right by alledging that I'm "confused". Is there any oxygen in Palo Alto, Ca or were you born prematurely?
I wasn't hiding under any skirts. You are very confused. How can you allege that I hid under the skirts of someone you claim I threatened and harrassed?
You insisted on saying "Carol" this and "Carol" that. When you say confused, to me it refers to me telling the truth. Because that's how cyberstalkers are, they are obsessed with the thing they love the most.
I have debated Willie here at SLC a dozen times. I have proven irrefutably that his hero story is a lie.
You can say all kinds of shit Brian but it doesn't make it true. You claim that Willie R. did you injustice when you did the same injustice to him. The 1st Amendment doesn't apply to only you anymore Brian. This is America and in America people like you are the enemy, foreign or domestic. You are a domestic enemy of the United States and Willie R. and everyone else has the right to tell you like it is. You don't want to hear the truth, you'd rather have people confiorm to your world. You are a socalist, kind of like the socalist party known as the Nazi Party. Until you have evidence (such as documents) proving that Willie R. "lied" and is "slandering" you you have nothing to offer but words. You have nothing but word salad Brian.
LMAO Brian believes the Warren Commission about the JFK Assassination but won't admit to the 9/11 Commission's review that debunks his junk? Hilarious!
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/square/index.php?i=3&t=12613
Posted by Brian Good
a resident of Downtown North
on Aug 31, 2010 at 4:25 pm
Helen, I know very little about the JFK story, and on the face of it the suggestion that the allegedly strange trajectory of the magic bullet can be explained if JFK was leaning forward and Gov. Connelley was turning around to speak to JFK and had his left hand on his right knee seems to make sense.
The only JFK book I have ever read is the Warren Commission report. I read it cover-to-cover when I was 10 years old.
This comment alone deserves a Stundie Award:
Posted by Brian Good
a resident of Downtown North
on Sep 3, 2010 at 12:05 pm
When explosives in elevator shafts are outlawed, only outlaws will put explosives in the elevator shaft, I guess.
Prove that there are explosives in every elevator shaft in the entire world Brian.
The hilarity continues:
Posted by Brian Good
a resident of Downtown North
on Sep 4, 2010 at 12:42 pm
I've never been in an elevator shaft. So what? Is there some great mystery?
OMG! Never been in an elevator shaft? So if you're in an elevator the elevator disappears to Planet X or the Twilight Zone and not an elevator shaft?
Posted by Brian Good
a resident of Downtown North
on Sep 5, 2010 at 12:10 pm
I prefer to avoid theorizing myself, and stick to facts. The way it's put by Dr. Robert Bowman, Lt. Col. USAF (ret.), the former director of the space weapons program, is: "The truth about 9/11 is that we don't know the truth about 9/11--and we should!"
You misunderstood him like you always do Brian. He said that BEFORE the 9/11 Commission was established.
Posted by Brian Good
a resident of Downtown North
on Sep 6, 2010 at 11:19 pm
I am not proposing a theory that explosives were hidden in the columns of the World Trade Center...........The blueprints (available for viewing at the AE911Truth.org website) show that explosives could just as well be placed adjacent to the core columns as inside them.
It's a not a theory then it's a theory? Talk about sitting on the fence, huh! LOL
He suggests that explosives were placed, but denies admitting that he believes it was an inside job :o)
And at the same time he is calling everyone else confused...
"LMAO Brian believes the Warren Commission about the JFK Assassination but won't admit to the 9/11 Commission's review that debunks his junk? Hilarious!"
When will you guys learn? Brian Good is not a 9/11 "Truther". As Ian has pointed out on hundreds of occasions, he was kicked out of the 9/11 "Truth" movement.
Think about it for a moment. Has anyone who is critical of the 9/11 "Truth" movement ever encountered a "Truther" who wasn't obsessed with the Federal Reserve, the Kennedy assassination, "the Trilateral commission", etc? But not , Brian. Strange, eh?
In fact, Brian Good doesn't give a damn about 9/11 "Truth", or any conspiracy theory for that matter. All of this foolishness is simply a way for Brian Good to satisfy his narcissistic need for attention.
Thus, there's no point in "debate" with this individual because "debate" is not possible with someone whose primary motivation lies beyond the scope of this blog. Where Brian Good is concerned, the relevant subject isn't conspiracy porn, the subject is pathology.
That said, life is too short to waste on an attention starved pathological liar. Leave Brian Good to "debate" Pat and James B. They're a match made in Heaven.
@GuitarBill: you are absolutely right.
But nevertheless: debating any truther is a waste of time, as they always use tactics similar to the ones brian is using.
Debating them only helps to avoid that other people get appealed by their lies.
If anyone in my environment doubts the cause of 911 and feels appealed by the lies of Gage and such, i simply show him how people that keep the so called 911truth alive really are.
You see Brian. You are the one who posted a lot of shit online, not us. You alone were capable of leaving a "paper trail" or "bread crumbs" for people like me to follow. So I'm not "confused" as you assumed me to be, you're the one that's confused whether or not there was "explosives" in the elevator shafts. You're the one that's confused about the widows questions. You're the one that's confused about a lot of other shit too. But since this is America you are entitled to your own opinions and the same goes for us all. If you wanna make an outrageous claim then make one with evidence to prove it. Don't abuse the 1st Amendment because you feel like you're entitled to it. The 1st Amendment is a privilege, like a drivers license.
This comment has been removed by the author.
GutterBall, I didn't run away. Here I am. Here Willie R. is not. He is the one who ran away. He offered only one possible arrangement for a debate--one that unacceptable because it would be moderated by biased parties. I proposed alternative venues and was even offered hosting and moderation by 911blogger. Willie would not accept any alternatives.
th, your efforts at analysis only show your lack of experience in thinking. The truth movement rejected Willie long ago. His last truth movement event listed on his website was in Seattle, November 7, 2007.
Stundie I have proven that Willie R's hero story is a lie. His story is well documented. The videos are on youtube and there's even a transcript at Arabesque911. His self-serving and impossible story is contrary to known facts.
GutterBall, are you suggesting that the 9/11 widows are "obsessed with the Federal Reserve, the Kennedy assassination, the Trilateral commission, etc?" Do you have any evidence to that effect? Are you suggesting that the 9/11 widows are not truthers? What about the signatories to the 9/11 Truth statement? Are they obsessed with the Federal Reserve, the Kennedy assassination, the Trilateral commission, etc? Are they not truthers? How about the 2500 architects and engineers for truth? Are they obsessed with the Federal Reserve, the Kennedy assassination, the Trilateral commission, etc? Are they not truthers?
Stundie, your claim that the 1st amendment is a privilege and not a right is unAmerican. You are very confused.
I have debated Willie R a dozen times here, and every time I proved that his hero story was a lie. He's a washed-up con artist who lived for too long on glory he stole from those who died. He'll have to live with that forever. Nothing he can do can make up for it. He is slimier than the brown-stained condoms he used to pick up in the stairwells of the World Trade Center.
Stundie I have proven that Willie R's hero story is a lie. His story is well documented. The videos are on youtube and there's even a transcript at Arabesque911. His self-serving and impossible story is contrary to known facts.
You haven't proven it, you have no evidence that he "lied". Without evidence you have NOTHING. Keep playing the word salad Brian, make yourself look dumber each and everyday.
Stundie, your claim that the 1st amendment is a privilege and not a right is unAmerican. You are very confused.
I think you're sexuality is confused. You don't know whether or not to bang Carol or tap Willie R.
I have debated Willie R a dozen times here, and every time I proved that his hero story was a lie. He's a washed-up con artist who lived for too long on glory he stole from those who died. He'll have to live with that forever. Nothing he can do can make up for it. He is slimier than the brown-stained condoms he used to pick up in the stairwells of the World Trade Center.
12 times you ran away right Bri? You have no evidence that he "lied". He was in the towers saving people while you were on the internet looking at porno videos. How can he steal people lives when he saved them? Answer that 1 Brian! If he's a "used condom" then that must mean you're the brown stain on your mothers mattress or at least the red stain on her underwear.
Willie R. is a hero for saving lives. He should be commended for his bravery and made an honorary firefighter.
Brian, you are not a hero. You would run away from a disaster and leave people inside a burning building to save your own skin. Then like a pompous ass you would take credit for saving those lives from other heroes (namely Willie R.) You are a rank coward Brian.
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=160974.0
"There were about 12 of us...we got down to about the 3rd floor, and that's when the stairwell collapsed on us, and we had to dig our way out, and now the building's coming down, we can't see nothing, and once again saying our prayers, the show's over now, and with that we're looking for another stairwell........and that's where the maintenance fella, with a flashlight saved our lives, he pointed over, and if it weren't for him we never would have found another stairwell, the building would have collapsed.. Willie Rodriguez, thank you Willie, he saved our lives, he saved about 12 guys lives that day...at least"-- Firefighter John Schroeder
So according to Brian a FDNY firefighter is "lying" because he ran into Willie R. and helped Willie save 12 people? How many people are "lying" Brian?
I just find that "debating" Brian sets my mind at ease. I tell him he's full of shit and Brian goes ape shit. He tells me I'm "confused" and yet when I think outside the box he gets pissed that I mention anything about him or what he's done in the past.
Brian is guilty for harassing, stalking and threatening Carol. He's guilty of harassing and stalking Kevin Barrett. He's guilty of harassing, stalking and slandering the hell out of Willie R. His own words prove that he's guilty of those things. His denial only makes his guilt stronger.
You see Brian. We are not like you. We can think for ourselves and become aware of the real world around us. We are not like you to seek shelter on a damn computer or to beg, yes BEG for companionship like the dog you are. You are lonely and pathetic and you deserve what you get. You can dish it out but can't dish it in. You are nothing more than a weak link in the human evolutionary chain.
I have proven that Willie's impossible hero story is contrary to the facts. If you want to try to make the case that Willie was so crazy he thought his story was true, you are free to try. But he persisted in telling it even after some of us tried to warn him about it. The story is a lie. It is not true. He traded on it to collect money. He stole his glory from the dead.
I didn't run away from anything. Here I am; here Willie is not.
For you to involve John Schroeder is very amusing. Mr. Schroeder has told at least three different versions of how Willie rescued him, and thus none of the versions can be considered reliable. Willie has never to my knowledge corrected or disputed any of the versions Mr. Schroeder has told. Mr. Schroeder is the only person from FDNY who gives Willie any credit for saving lives.
You are very poorly informed and very confused. I never stalked Mrs. Brouillet. She invited me into her home many times. I never stalked Kevon Barrett. I protested his public appearances because he had the gall to present himself as a scholar and a peace advocate after writing blog posts advocating armed insurrection in general and burning down Governor Schwartzenegger's mansion in particular. I never stalked Willie Rodriguez and I certainly didn't slander him. It's not slander if it's true.
The most reasonable interpretation of Mr. Schroeder's tribute to Willie's alleged heroism is that he was deliberately trying to embarrass Willie by telling a story that was not true, and that Willie played into that by declining to set the record straight.
Mr. Schroeder specifically credited Willie with saving a dozen FDNY firefighters. Interestingly, a dozen FDNY firefighters were trapped in Stairwell B in WTC1 AFTER Willie left the building. Willie didn't rescue them. They rescued themselves--and exited the ruins hours AFTER the fraudster who calls himself the "Last Man Out" had left the premises.
Willie Fraudriguez stole his glory from true heroes. He's nothing but a common con artist.
Ididn't run away.
Yes you did, as has been proven multiple times.
Here I am. Here Willie R. is not. He is the one who ran away.
That demonstrates the coward you are. You were hiding until he was gone and then tried to make it look like he is the one that didn't want a debate.
He offered only one possible arrangement for a debate--one that unacceptable because it would be moderated by biased parties. I proposed alternative venues and was even offered hosting and moderation by 911blogger. Willie would not accept any alternatives.
So the whole internet failure story was indeed a lie.
As if 911blogger isn't biased.
And what was your worry about this blog? That they would alter your replies?
th, your efforts at analysis only show your lack of experience in thinking.
You are not entitled to determine what my efforts show.
The truth movement rejected Willie long ago.
You haven't provided any evidence for it.
His last truth movement event listed on his website was in Seattle, November 7, 2007.
Which is a good decision, as the truther movement is only capable of lying.
I have proven that Willie R's hero story is a lie.
Nope, you have not.
His story is well documented. The videos are on youtube and there's even a transcript at Arabesque911. His self-serving and impossible story is contrary to known facts.
Most stories are. For example, fireman Arthur Schreuermann saw wtc2 fall seconds after wtc1 collapsed.
We all know for a fact that that did not happen.
But that doesn't make Arthur a liar.
are you suggesting that the 9/11 widows are "obsessed with the Federal Reserve, the Kennedy assassination, the Trilateral commission, etc?" Do you have any evidence to that effect?
Are you suggesting that they are 911 conspiracy theorists?
Are you suggesting that the 9/11 widows are not truthers?
They are not truthers.
You have proven that yourself, stating that they want to know what the FBI found out from an informant in Pakistan.
your claim that the 1st amendment is a privilege and not a right is unAmerican.
Nope, he merely claims that you are unAmerican.
But of course, you failed to grasp that.
I have debated Willie R a dozen times here
Nope, you said yourself that Willie only offered 1 impossible arrangement for a debate.
So you have never debated him.
He's a washed-up con artist who lived for too long on glory he stole from those who died.
You have never been able to convinde anyone of that delusion, which is why Willie still travels around the world giving speeches and keynotes and meets presidents and other high ranking (and very successfull (notice the double L) people.
Unlinke you.
He'll have to live with that forever.
I doubt that he has any trouble living the live (yes, with a V) he now lives.
The most reasonable interpretation of ...
You are not entitled to do interpretations brian.
You are very poorly informed and very confused.
You are not entitled to determine how well informed someone is, nor to determine how confused he might be, brian.
th, here I am. Here Willie is not. I didn't run away. I wanted a debate. That's why I tried to set up neutral venues. He did not want a debate. He wanted to be able to claim that he wanted a debate. I have debated him many times right here. I have proven that his hero story is a lie. You are very confused.
Certainly I am entitled to interpret Mr. Schroeder's statements. I am entitled by virtue of my careful study of them.
I have proven that Willie's hero story is a lie. You are very confused. In your real life, that is surely no secret to you. So why do you pretend to competence here?
th, here I am. Here Willie is not.
Indeed, you waited until he was gone before you came.
I didn't run away.
Yes you did, as has been proven on this blog multiple times.
Even in this thread others have pointed out that you chickened out of the debate with Willy.
I wanted a debate. That's why I tried to set up neutral venues.
What is the point? You type text, willy types text. Whether that is on this blog or anywhere else. Doesn't really matter.
He did not want a debate. He wanted to be able to claim that he wanted a debate.
Nope, as anyone can read on the link provided in this thread. You challenged Willy, but as soon as he applied, you started to come with all kinds of excuses to avoid the debate actually taking place.
I have debated him many times right here.
No you haven't, as you have stated several times in this thread. You are very confused.
I have proven that his hero story is a lie.
Nope, you haven't .
Certainly I am entitled to interpret Mr. Schroeder's statements.
No you are not.
I am entitled by virtue of my careful study of them.
You are not entitled to determine of your study of his statements were careful or not.
I have proven that Willie's hero story is a lie.
Not even once.
You are very confused. In your real life, that is surely no secret to you. So why do you pretend to competence here?
That is a fine example of your mirrortalk, Brian.
So you should answer that question yourself..
th, the text matters because it is on the record. If you knew how to google, you would know that.
I didn't need "all kinds of excuses". I needed a neutral venue. Willie wasn't willing to do that.
I have proven Willie's story for a lie. You can deny it until you're blue in the face, but you can't change the fact.
th, the text matters because it is on the record.
You type it, so what is your problem?
If you knew how to google, you would know that.
You are the one who couldn't find anything with google, remember?
Anyway, besides the point.
Google has nothing to do with this.
I didn't need "all kinds of excuses".
So why did you come with all kinds of excuses?
I needed a neutral venue.
Not at first, only after Willy agreed in debating you.
Then you came with such excuses to avoid debating him.
I have proven Willie's story for a lie.
No you haven't.
You can say that until you are blue in the face, but you can't change the fact.
This comment has been removed by the author.
You are very confused, brian.
For years you complained that willie won't debate you and in this thread you claim that you only want to debate him on a neutral venue.
So no debate between the two of you.
But at the same time you claim to have been in debate with him lots of times...
You are very confused....
And you still haven't proven tha he is a fraud.
You are very confused.
I needed a neutral venue because Willie demanded a biased one. Willie wouldn't help find a neutral venue.
I have debated Willie many times, and I've kicked his saggy ass every time because he lies and I tell the truth. His hero story is a fraud. I have proven it. The official death statistics prove it. His inability to provide any reliable witness who will say he single-handedly rescued him or her proves it. Felipe David's church published an article about Felipe a year after 9/11 and it doesn't mention Willie at all.
http://www.thelutheran.org/article/article.cfm?article_id=4447
Post a Comment
<< Home