In alt.alien.visitors Michael Davis <mdavis19@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
: Notorious net kook and utter ignoramus Garrrry "Always Wrong" 
: Bryan wrote:

:  > In alt.alien.visitors Michael Davis <mdavis19@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
:   > : Notorious net kook and utter ignoramus Garrrry "Always Wrong"
:  > : Bryan wrote:
:   >
:  > : > In alt.alien.visitors Michael Davis 
: <mdavis19@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
:   > : > : Notorious net kook and utter ignoramus Garrrry "Always 
: Wrong"
:   > : > : Bryan wrote:
:   > : >
:   > : > :> In alt.alien.visitors Michael Davis 
: <mdavis19@ix.netcom.com>
:  > : wrote:
:   > : > :> : Notorious net kook and utter ignoramus Garrrry "Always
:  > : Wrong"
:   > : > :> : Bryan wrote:
:   > : > :>
:   > : > :> :> There was no information regarding the 9/11 plot 
: found on
:  > : any of the computer
:   > : > :> :> discs and hard drives they recovered during the latest
:  > : Pakistan arrest. . .
:   > : > :>
:   > : > :> : And you know this how, kook?
:   > : > :>
:   > : > :> They certainly didn't report that they had found intel
:  > : related to the Twin
:   > : > :> Towers
:   > : >
:   > : > : Are you claiming you are somehow privy to everything
:  > : recovered? So
:   > : > : you went down to CIA Headquarters and got yourself a 
: high-level,
:   > : > : personal briefing, did you? I have always known you were
:   > : > : delusional, Garrrrrry, but you just seem to be getting 
: more and
:   > : > : more out of touch with reality as time goes on.
:   > : >
:   > : > Blah blah blah, your opinions mean nothing. . .
:   >
:  > : Keep telling yourself that.
:   >
:  > It's true. . .

: Keep telling yourself that.

Request denied. 

:  >
:  > : >
:   > : > :> which they would parade out to "prove" Al Qeada was behind
:  > : the plot. . .
:   > : >
:   > : > : Um, that was proven beyond any doubt long ago, kook. 
: Have you
:   > : > : forgotten that Bin Laden himself has admitted to it on 
: several
:   > : > : occasions? Exactly how much more proof do you need, 
: kook? Found
:   > : > : those puddles of molten steel yet?
:   > : >
:   > : > The pools of molten steel were reported by Mark Loizeaux of
:  > : Controlled
:   > : > Demolition. He will tell you
:   >
:  > : He will? Have you confirmed this? I would have confirmed it 
: before
:  > : making a fool of myself. Kooks like you though just like to 
: charge
:  > : on ahead and "Damn the torpedoes" of truth that tend to come in
:  > : from all directions and blow you out of the water.
:   >
:  > Yep, email him if you like, just like I did. . .
:   > http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=5
:   >
:  > Three emails that can get in contact with him. . .

: So you still want me to confirm your story for you then? Some 
: kooks just never learn.

No, I want you to go to the source and not trust me. . .

:  >
:  > : > about the workers reports.
:   >
:  > : So assuming for a moment Mark Loizeaux actually did make that
:  > : claim, then he must have got his information second or third 
: hand
:  > : at best. So actually the supposed credibility of Mark Loizeaux
:  > : lends nothing to the credibility of the story, now does it?
:   >
:  > But it isn't made from whole cloth. . .

: Why not?

There are multiple references. . .Tully, Loizeaux, the workers to name a few. . 

:  > there is a chain of reporting . . .

: Yeah, it goes like this: "I know this this guy who knows somebody 
: who met someone who said somebody told him..."

: How does this prove the story isn't just a complete fabrication?

Several people reported it through two different channels. . .

:  >
:  > : > There are probably
:   > : > photos of it
:   >
:  > : Oh yeah, but no doubt the evil conspiracy has suppressed 
: them, right?
:   >
:  > I just don't have access to the photo archives,

: Apparently nobody else does either.

Huh? Then i guess you can't prove it was the most photographed demolition
claim. 

:  > the ones you claimed were the
:  > most extensive of any demolition activity. . .without proof. . .

: The fact that it was on all the major networks 24/7 isn't proof 
: enough for you?

Really? I guess I missed all those photographs documenting what they found and
where it was. . .

:  >
:  > : > since you claimed this was the most photographed clean up in
:   > : > history. Rag on him about the reports.
:   >
:  > : Why would I rag on him? He's not the one making an ass of 
: himself
:  > : here. You are.
:   >
:  > Sure gets your attention, doesn't it,

: Yeah, some loon publicly acting like an idiot does tend to attract 
: a lot of attention.

But only yours. . .

:  > oh Complusive One. . .

: Google shows 13 posts from you in the last 24 hrs. Only one from 
: me. All yours are crazy, conspiracy crapola and insane political 
: rants. So who is the compulsive one?

Why you, of course, because your one post was responding to me. . .

:  >
:  > : > and as far as bin Laden:
:   > : >
:  > : 
: http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_410936.html?menu=news.latestheadlines
:   >
:  > : Ananova???? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
:   >
:  > : Oh that's real credible. A story that doesn't cite any sources
:  > : appearing on a tabloid web shite is the best you can do? So the
:  > : translations of those videos that appeared on Al Jazeera 
: where he
:  > : claimed responsibility were all wrong? Sorry, kook, but it came
:  > : right out of the horse's own mouth in the world-wide media. This
:  > : feeble attempt of yours to perpetuate your kooky fantasy that 
: the
:  > : US government itself was somehow behind 9/11 ain't gonna fly. 
: Wake
:  > : up and smell the reality already, kook.
:   >
:  > Yopu claim "it came right out of the horses mouth",

: Yep.

:  > so do *you* understand
:  > Arabic?

: I don't need to. That's what translators are for.

And you trust the government translators, the ones who told us they were going
to lie to us regarding teh war on terror? You are exceedingly gullible and 
not very sceptical. . .

:  > Did you actually hear Osama make the claim or did you depend on a
:  > second and third hand report to make your mid up?

: Nice straw man, kook. Translating isn't the same thing as "I know 
: this this guy who knows somebody who met someone who said somebody 
: told him..." Translations can be checked. Do try to get a grip on 
: reality.

And you checked out these translation exactly how?

:  > Seems you are just as
:   > intellectually challenged as you accuse others of being. . .

: It only seems that way to you because you are an idiot. The thing 
: about translations is that the accuracy can be confirmed by having 
: multiple translators go over the same source and comparing the 
: results.

Which is how the German team came to the conclusions that what the US claimed
was said was never said:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=25815

Rotter worked with two other "independent" translators, all of whom concurred 
that statements incriminating to bin Laden "did not appear in the original 
Arabic version." 

You are a lousy sceptic. . .

:  > counting on the
:  > CIA to not put a spin on a blurry video of someone who 
: resembles Osama and
:  > the sound was so muddy that whole sections could not be made 
: out. . .

: Nice try, kook. First off, the recordings were nowhere near that 
: bad. Secondly, where is the huge cry coming out of the Arabic 
: speaking community that the published translations are inaccurate? 
: If their accuracy is not being disputed, then I have to assume 
: they are correct.

But the accuracy was disputed. . .there is even evidence that the man in the 
video is not bin Laden. . .
http://www.paktribune.com/forums/index.php?s=e23a3126bc56b42d708aa758fcd99169&showtopic=2258&st=0&#entry32399


:  >
:  > : --- Drivel snip ---
:   >
:  > : >
:   > : >
:   > : >
:   > : > :> just wait for the report to come out. . .
:   > : >
:   > : > : You mean like how you *couldn't wait* and started making 
: kooky
:   > : > : pronouncements about what was or wasn't found, despite 
: the fact
:   > : > : that actually you have no clue?
:   > : >
:   > : > What do you know about what I have or don't have? Wild
:  > : speculation on your part.
:   >
:  > : Experience, Garrrrrrry. I know from long experience that you 
: have
:  > : no clue about anything, and are just talking out of your ass as
:  > : always.
:   >
:  > Looks that way to someone who only sees asses. . .

: But I don't only see asses. I just see you being an ass.

Hence the complusive obsession with me. . .

:  >
:  > : >
:   > : > : or ask the FBI. . .
:   > : >
:   > : > : Ask them what? Whether you are a kook? I'm sure they 
: already
:  > : know
:   > : > : that. It would be interesting to do an FOIA request and 
: see what
:   > : > : sort of file they have on you. That Picture of you and your
:  > : "Pump
:   > : > : Room Gang" alone would have been enough to get you on their
:  > : radar
:   > : > : back in the J. Edgar Hoover era.
:   > : >
:   > : > Thread fade has begun. . .
:   >
:  > : Speaking of fading. What ever happened to your promise to fade
:  > : away into the sunset in a boat with that mule you married? What
:  > : happened to the great "happily ever after" you claimed was gonna
:  > : happen after Agilent downsized your lazy, worthless, ass?
:   >
:  > Funny how little you pay attention. . .

: Evasion noted.

You want me to do your research, huh? We are leaving in October. . .Friday is
my last day. . .dispite what you might project, I offered to be a candidate
since all my kids are adults now. . .I was even offered another job in the 
lab fast tracking technology to customers, but turned it down since we are 
already packing and I wouldn't get my serverance after the project was 
completed. . .

:  >
:  > : >
:   > : > :> but you never do
:   > : > :> your own work, just nay-say. . .
:   > : >
:   > : > : Hypocrisy noted, kook. Where is the work to back up your 
: nutty
:   > : > : claims, any of them?
:   > : >
:   > : > Why the fuck
:   >
:  > : A little melty today, Garrrrrry?
:   >
:  > No, and you?

: You don't see me shrieking the "F" word at people just because 
: they refuse to unquestioningly accept something I said.

Funny how you will unquestionally accept what the government tells you, the 
one that tells you they will be lying to you, the ones who recently told us
they *did* stage teh toppling of Saddams statue exactly like alternate news 
sources reported. . .but you are a lapdog for the neo-cons and will blindly 
defend their word. . .

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=army+staged+saddam+statue

Take your pick of news sources, it was on the major networks. . .some sceptic.

:  >
:  > : > do I need to prove anything to you?
:   >
:  > : Because that's the way it works. You make a claim, you back 
: it up,
:  > : otherwise you aren't worthy of being believed. I've only been
:  > : trying to get that through your thick skull for about five years
:  > : now. I guess you just can't teach old kooks new tricks.
:   >
:  > Sure, you taught me that nothing is good enough for you as 
: evidence unless it
:   > comes from a source that you have determined is acceptable

: Well of course. Would you accept something as evidence if it came 
: from a source you had determined wasn't credible? What exactly is 
: your point?

: My criteria for what constitutes good evidence has been posted 
: many times. It is not an impossible standard to meet. In fact, 
: most people can and do meet it with their sources. Only a very few 
: people fail for some reason. Those few people also happen to be 
: Usenet kooks. Funny how that correlates.

Funny how no one can prove anything using usenet. . .

:  > to you and if they
:   > oppose your viewpoint then they made a mistake. . .

: Garrrrrrrry, there is no doubt you make a lot of logical mistakes. 
: Your posting history is chock-full of them. My viewpoint has 
: nothing to do with your inability to get anything right.

it has to do with your inability to investigate something you chose not to
believe, unless the neo-cons tell you it's true. . .where are those WMD?

:  >
:  > : > You have been given evidence
:   > : > before regarding many things
:   >
:  > : Yes, as opposed to you.
:   >
:  > Huh?

: Perhaps you should proofread your posts before hitting the send 
: button. Spelling and grammar check would be nice too.

Request denied, your contextual impairity can not be fixed with spell check.

:  >
:  > : > and you just refuse to accept it.
:   >
:  > : Why would anyone accept anything you say? You've never been 
: right
:  > : about anything.
:   >
:  > it's not about accepting me,

: Of course it is. You are the one posting crap here in the 
: delusional expectation that it will be unquestioningly accepted as 
: the truth. It's up to you to prove the credibility of yourself and 
: what you post.

Which is impossible to do with someone who has a predetermined position of
disbelief. . .

:  > but the sources and reports that are presented to
:   > you for review,

: Are crap. Your link to the Ananova tabloid article on bin Laden is 
: a classic example. It cites no source or authority. It seems to 
: just be something some America-hating weenie made up out of whole 
: cloth. Certainly it proves nothing and doesn't deserve to be given 
: any credibility at all. Yet you think it somehow proves your 
: claims. Why is it that you are incapable of grasping the concept 
: that not all sources are credible? Could it be that you are a...

. . .student of research. . .try these sources:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2001/09/item20010917010639_1.htm

http://www.jsonline.com/news/nat/sep01/binladen-denial.asp

http://english.pravda.ru/accidents/2001/09/12/14910.html

http://www.metimes.com/2K1/issue2001-37/reg/bin_laden_denies.htm

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/index.html

 http://www.newsday.com/ny-wobin172369727sep17,0,7370581.story

http://www.welfarestate.com/binladen/denies-reuters-taliban.htm



:  > moron. . .

:Could be.

. . .you are afraid to have the reality of your blind faith exposed.

:  >
:  > : > Why should now
:   > : > bw any different. You still don't think that the flag that
:  > : draped on Saddam's
:   > : > toppled statue had flown over the Pentagon,
:   >
:  > : Revisionist history noted, kook. You originally claimed that 
: flag
:  > : was the one flying over The Pentagon on the day it was attacked,
:  > : not that it was just one of the thousands of flags run up the 
: pole
:  > : for a little while then hauled down and sold to tourists. Either
:  > : way, the claim remains unproven.
:   >
:  > I never made the claim,

: Sure you did, liar.

It was in the report and any idiot, except you, would know it wasn't the 
battalion flag that is flown but a standard display flag. . .you doubted it
was connected to the Pentagon in any way. . .

:  > I just posted the report and your attempts to discredit
:   > it were BS.

: The "report" had no credit to begin with. I just pointed that out.

BS they were direct interviews with the soldier and the squad who were there 
to stage the event, but that fact took a year to come out. . .

:  >
:  > : > even when I gave you the name of
:   > : > the marine and his fathers address to write to and get the
:  > : story. . .
:   >
:  > : Translation: You want others to research your claims for you.
:   >
:  > No, I want you to look at the proof. . .

: I will, if and when you ever present any, instead of just pointing 
: to more sources that repeat the same old baseless story. Repeating 
: a story over and over again doesn't make it any more credible.

Even when they tell you the source that you are too lazy to pursue because it
would destroy your may-sayer image you have cultivated?

:  > turns out that the whole thing was
:  > staged

: You keep claiming that, but you have never produced the first iota 
: of proof to back up that claim.

Again, pick a news source. . .
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=army+staged+saddam+statue

Here is a copy of the US Army report:
http://globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2004/onpoint/

I like this part:

The Marine Corps colonel in the area saw the Saddam statue as a target of 
opportunity and decided that the statue must come down. Since we were right 
there, we chimed in with some loudspeaker support to let the Iraqis know what 
it was we were attempting to do. The reporters were completely surrounding the 
vehicle, and we started having to ask the reporters to move out of the way, but 
they would not move. We were getting frustrated, but we were also laughing about
 it. We dismounted the vehicle again and just started pushing the people out of 
the way. They were starting to really inhibit our ability to conduct our 
mission. The tanks . . . formed up into a perimeter around the square, with the
 statue in the middle. 

http://globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2004/onpoint/ch-6.htm

Which certainly counters the BS you bought hook line and sinker:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/Primetime/iraq_main030409.html

Iraqis in al-Fardos (Paradise) Square on the eastern bank of the Tigris River 
threw a noose around the likeness of the leader and took turns pounding the 
concrete- and-tile base of the statue with a single sledgehammer.

Others took turns throwing slippers and shoes at the statue as they waited for iit to start falling. But when U.S. Marines saw that the Iraqis needed help, 
they intervened.

So now who are the liars? Let's see, the news media you were so wrongly 
defending. . .apology accepted at any time, but you won't because you are
pathologically unable to admit your errors.


:  > and you bought the initial story that the army just came upon 
: the Iraqis
:   > trying to pull it down but it was the Army that started to 
: pull it down and
:  > gathered the crowd for a photo op:

: Nonsense, kook. I watched the whole thing happen on live TV. In 
: the beginning there was no military presence in the square. Later 
: a crowd gathered, but the Marines didn't herd people into the 
: square at gunpoint or anything. It was clearly a spontaneous 
: gathering. The early amateur-hour attempts by the crowd to take 
: down the statue with sledgehammers and ropes certainly didn't look 
: staged to me. They were the very definition of spur of the moment 
: improvisation. After watching the futile efforts of the crowd for 
: a while, the Marines decided to help them out. BFD.

Liar. . .the Army report refutes your lies. . .admit you didn't see anything 
except what they wanted you to see. . .and your debunking ass bought it all.
Sceptic. . . BAHWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

:  > 
: http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Toppling_the_statue_of_Saddam_Hussein

: Sorry, not a credible source. Their bias is rather obvious. Also, 
: a wiki by definition allows anyone to post a story. So any loon 
: can post BS there, whether it is credible or not.

See above or see below:
http://globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2004/onpoint/

:  >
:  > So who was the more gullible?

: You, as always. You immediately accept anything you are told if it 
: dovetails with your kooky preconceived notions and pathological 
: anti-right paranoia.

. . .he says, projecting like the pathological fool he his. . .your are wrong
Mikey, the Army admitted they staged it and you bought it and even defended 
their obvious psyop. . .

:  > I was doubting the report and researching it, you
:   > just supported the status qou. . .real nice debunking there, 
: sport. . .

: I watched the "status quo" (note correct spelling) version play 
: out with my own eyes. Your kooky version doesn't fit what I saw, 
: so it will take some seriously high quality evidence from you 
: before I'd even consider your claims. But of course you can't 
: provide any.

Face it, you see what you want to see. . .remeber how easy it is to fool 
eyewitnesse? You have said it time and again and now you have proven how easy
it is to fool people cuz you got fooled. . .

:  >
:  > http://www.alternet.org/story/15656

: Sorry, not a credible source. Their bias is rather obvious.

:  >
:  > Here is the Laconia article

: I don't care if you have a thousand sites telling the same story. 
: That doesn't make the story any more true. Where is the hard evidence?

http://globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2004/onpoint/

:  > about the MArine and the flag. . .you can even
:  > write to his father and ask him about the flag. . .

: Translation: You still want me to prove your claims for you.

http://globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2004/onpoint/

:  >
:  > http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/891611/posts
:   >
:  > I successfully found his address and wrote to him, I'm sure you 
: could as well
:   > but you hate being proven wrong. . .

: Translation: You still want me to prove your claims for you.

http://globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2004/onpoint/

:  >
:  >
:  >
:  > : > you are
:   > : > intellectually lazy. . .
:   >
:  > : Look who's talking! You are beyond intellectually lazy, 
: Garrrrry.
:  > : You are incapable of even thinking for yourself. You have your
:  > : every thought spoon fed to you by the liberal lunatic fringe, 
: and
:  > : accept them all unquestioningly no matter how absurd they are,
:  > : rather than even try think for yourself. No wonder you call
:  > : yourself a Deadhead. You really are dead between the ears.
:   >
:  > Nice meltdown, Mikey. . .funny coming from someone who has to 
: have everything
:   > validated by sources he has predetermined to be acceptable. . .

: All rational people do. Why don't you? Oh, that's right, you're a 
: kook.

Nope, I investigate what is behind the claims and come to my own conclusions
based on a wide array of data. . .I don't trust the US media, you do, that is
the difference. . .and you are  a gullible kook. . .

Garry