Saturday, 1 August 2009

Example of 911 Troofiness - Larry Simons

Larry Simons is a good example of the calibre of people that populate 911 Troof. He's a good example of their atrocious and hypocritical behaviour too.

Larry enjoys the supreme accolade of being published at Alex Jones' Prisonplanet.

I came across him at Prisonplanet, where he had published a story attempting to distance Alex Jones from Richard Poplawski, the paranoid nut who shot dead three policemen in a siege at his home, after police had turned up in answer to a distress call from his mother.

Larry claimed Poplawski held "opposing views" to Alex Jones, apparently based on the claims that Poplawski had supported another poster's opinion that Alex Jones wasn't sufficiently anti-semitic. Obviously this was a transparent effort at minimising any responsibility Jones and his fellow-travellers have for spreading the sort of paranoid belief systems which arguably contributed to induce Poplawski's homicidal escapade. Clearly, even if Poplawski had criticised Alex Jones for being insufficiently anti-semitic it still does nothing to prove Poplawski held "opposing views" to Alex Jones. Indeed - Poplawski, as a visitor to Prisonplanet and Stromfront is a good example of how Jones operates to mainstream the views and ideology of the far-right: the views of Alex Jones segue into those of the extreme far-right and neo-nazism. Alex Jones' views are most certainly not anathema to fascists and neo-nazis, as Poplawski proves. Hence the need for Larry and Prisonplanet to falsely claim Poplawski "opposed" Alex Jones' views (and Larry's).

The Poplawski episode, and Larry Simon's effort at distancing Jones' views (and his own) from those of Poplawski come in the aftermath of the publication of the Dept of Homeland Security report on the potential dangers of far-right extremism. The report was heavily criticised and ridiculed by Prisonplanet, Alex Jones, 911 Troof and Larry Simons, etc. They were all outraged by the report which suggested people whom held such views might pose a threat - of "domestic terrorism". Hence the desperate effort by Larry Simons and others, to distance Poplawski's views from their own.

It's one thing for Prisonplanet to argue it isn't responsible for Poplawski's homicidal action - but it is quite another matter to argue Poplawski's views were wholly different and opposed to those of Alex Jones, Prisonplanet and Larry Simons. They're not.

When I visited Larry Simons' website and simply pointed out he'd done absolutely nothing to substantiate his claim that Poplawski held "opposing views" to those of Alex Jones et al, he became insulting and foul-mouthed. Then he deleted my comments.

Larry's deletions of my civil and relevant comments have proven Larry to be a hypocrite as his own website purports to champion "freespeech". His blog castigates others for having deleted or restricted his foul-mouthed trolling of their blogs, yet Larry doesn't hesitate to censor comments at his own blog, even if they are civil and relevant - something Larry cannot claim for his own comments elsewhere. Check his comments on this blog for example: he has managed to contribute nothing, except insulting ad hominem.

In my experience this is so typical of Troofers: whilst they bleat about censorship they don't hesitate to engage in censorship themselves. Desertpeace blog is another example. As is Les Visible's Smokingmirrors blog. As is Rivero's WRH wiki - which repeatedly deleted (embarassing) quotes I had posted there which were made by Rivero himself! I have lost track of the number of times I have been censored and banned at these supposedly "libertarian" haunts.

Larry has a pretty shameful episode proudly posted on his blog: Larry gave endless trouble to an old friend of his, constantly posting what appears to be his usual long-winded, foul-mouthed and disrespectful rubbish. (same as he's doing here at my blog.)

Once Larry had overstayed his welcome, and was seemingly prevented from continuing his vitriolic diatribes he posted this at his own blog:
I was being deleted on a regular basis and ultimately banned due to Dave’s Gestapo-like tactics by enabling comment moderation...ending free speech on his site ...
LINK
In light of Larry's own behaviour that's a hugely hypocritical claim.
Here's Larry admitting to his own form of "Gestapo-like tactics":
Larry Simons: I know I said no censorship, but I will NOT sit here and have you ridicule heroes you son of a BITCH!
LINK
And again:
I never DENIED I deleted your comment. I DENIED I CENSORED you. Two VERY different things. When you fail to abide by my EASY rules of my blog, I have the right to do what I want. I allow free speech, but free speech doesnt give you the right to disobey my rules how I see fit.
LINK
So, clearly our "truth-warrior" and "free-speech advocate", Larry Simons is a hypocrite.

And so twisted is Larry, he believes it's up to him what words mean - it's up to Larry what "censorship" means. Sorry Larry, but you don't get to decide words mean whatever you want them to.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less."

26 comments:

Larry said...

Your best post to date!

the_last_name_left said...

Larry's website links to -

==AmericanFreePress, Rense, WRH, NewsWith(far-right)Views, prisonplanet, etc.

Quality websites. LOL

This is the stuff of "troof": thinly-veiled racism, anti-semitism and pure bullshit.

Larry said...

LOL, I love how you typed a bunch of gooblygook for your story--it was something like "dkgkdgkfgkfgkfjdbfjkfja" nd then when I typed "Your best post to date" you simply erased that post and typed a story in place of it. Nice spin, but everyone here at your blog (your entire 3 fans) knows what you did.

I love how you twisted my responses to other commentors on my blog from like 2 years ago to fit your agenda now (in the present). Sure, Ive called people names on my blog and I have even said in my disclaimer above the posting box that people can call ME names, but they better "back it up". Whats wrong with name calling if you have the evidence to back up that they are the very thing youre calling them. Those people were ridiculing William Rodriquez, who saved lives at the WTC on 9-11, and I called them SOB's---that is what they are. When you insult a 9-11 hero, you ARE an SOB. So, you support and defend people who insult 9-11 heroes? Shows the pussy you are.

By th way, my disclaimer on my posting box was just recently put up about 5 months ago---way AFTER the thread that you posted a link to, but yet you dont tell your 3 readers THAT, do you?

I actually think your story on me is funny. I like it, because it might get my blog more hits. But the main reason I like it is because I know I make your blood boil with all the facts on my blog and the fact that PP posts MY stories and not yours. Youre jealous---that is plain to see.

Youre still a troll.

Larry said...

Youre not even a fucking American--so why do you care if Americans are denegrated or even killed? I do realize that not ALL non-Americans are as ignorant and uncaring as you are. Paul and Steve Watson who write for AlexJones for example are very concerned and caring Brits. Id be 100% on the money, Im sure, if I said that I bet they are ashamed to call you a fellow Brit---or a fellow human being or that matter. Keep linking to my site----I actually love it, gives me more exposure!

the_last_name_left said...

Paul and Steve Watson are a disgrace to journalism. They write for Prisonplanet - that's proof enough.

Larry: When you insult a 9-11 hero, you ARE an SOB. So, you support and defend people who insult 9-11 heroes? Shows the pussy you are.

Hold on, sunshine. If anyone was a hero on 911 it was the firefighters who risked their lives. Yet here's a quote from your publisher, prisonplanet.com, saying that Larry Silverstein and the New York Fire Brigade demolished WTC7 with explosives......

Professional Demolition of World Trade Center Building 7

Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC complex, admitted on a September 2002 PBS documentary, 'America Rebuilds' that he and the NYFD decided to 'pull' WTC 7 on the day of the attack. The word 'pull' is industry jargon for taking a building down with explosives.


LINK


You know that the New York Fire Department don't claim to have used explosives to demolish WTC7? You know that they don't claim to have demolished WTC7 at all? Indeed, they assert it collapsed all on its own, that they evacuated the area some time before, and it's clear that's what Larry Silverstein meant when he said he and FDNY decided to "pull" building 7 -- he meant the fire department decided to "pull" the rescue and firefighting teams.

Now - you'll accept firefighters and rescue teams were "heroes of 911", right?

And yet your publisher calls them liars.

And so do you?

Then we have this claim, again from your publishers at prisonplanet -

Update: People Died in WTC 7: This Makes Silverstein and the FDNY Guilty of AT LEAST Manslaughter

LINK


That's prisonplanet saying "the heroes of 911" - the firefighters - are guilty of manslaughter.

If you agree with Alex Jones, your publisher, then you too agree that "the heroes of 911" are guilty of manslaughter.

Incidentally that's your hero Paul Watson's story. (It actually shows how Watson can torture and distort language and meaning to obtain the conclusion he wants - typical of Troofers.)

the_last_name_left said...

[continued]

To be clear - what Larry Silverstein said in the now famous documentary was "I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, uh, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse." –Larry Silverstein

They = New York Fire Department. Specifically THEY was Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro, who was in charge of the World Trade Center incident following Chief of Department Peter Ganci’s death in the collapse of the north tower.

As someone else writes elsewhere:

.....did Larry Silverstein, a real estate developer, have the world’s largest fire department at his beck and call? Of course not. Larry Silverstein had no say in how fire-fighting operations in New York City were conducted. He may have liked to think that Chief Nigro was calling him for a consultation, but that idea is laughable. It was a courtesy call.

“And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

Who made the decision to pull? They. The fire department. Not “Me,” not “We.” They. This is ridiculously obvious to anyone but a CT (conspiracy theorist). Does the FDNY demolish buildings with explosives? No, they pull their people away from buildings that are too dangerous to be near.


But your publisher, Alex Jones, and your hero 'journalist' Paul Watson claim the firefighters were guilty of "at least manslaughter"!!

As do you? You think the firefighters are guilty of manslaughter too, right? And you think they're liars too, right?

If that isn't insulting "heroes of 9/11" I don't know what is.

BTW - Personally I see no reason to believe the jet-setting Rodriguez who has become a star in the firmament of Trooferdom - but I do see reasons to believe the FDNY who have not made any personal financial gains from 911 - indeed - they lost colleagues and actually risked their lives trying to save people.

Larry said...

It would make no sense to suggest that firefighters could take down a building since trained demolitionists are the only ones who could achieve such a feat, plus, it takes weeks to rig a building to do it---but one thing IS for sure, fire ALONE did NOT cause that collapse.

They are a disgrace to journalism? Just you SAYING IT makes it true huh? LOL

I love it. You PROTECT Silverstein's comments although he had more to gain from ANYONE in New York that day. He made 500 MILLION from WTC 7 alone! And you have the nerve to attack ME for saying Rodriquez is a hero when he has enjoyed celebrity as a result of his deeds? Did Rodriquez make 500 MILLION for his deeds? NO, but Silverstein did, from ONE building alone, and yet you protect that prick.

YOURE the disgrace!!!!

By the way, Silverstein and his cohorts have said that the term "pull it" refers to the "unit of firefighters" that were "pulled" from the building. Only the TRUTH is, the last firefighters left that building at 1130am. Ther was NO ONE in that building for SIX hours prior to collapse--so not ONLY is Silverstein lying on that count, but on the EXACT SAME documentary that he said "pull it" they showed clips of the WTC workers about to demolish the remains of WTC 4, 5 and 6 and you can overhear on of the workers say "We're ready to pull building 6".

So, stick that up your faggoty ass!

the_last_name_left said...

Larry: It would make no sense to suggest that firefighters could take down a building....

You might want to tell your publisher Alex Jones that. And Paul Watson.

On the other hand, the FDNY did pull down WTC6 - only with cables. So you're wrong again.

L: ...it takes weeks to rig a building to do it...

demolish with explosives, you mean? Sure - but that leaves you having to explain how they got in there, and why there's no evidence of explosives yet been established.

If there were some real evidence for demolition - like cord - like firing charges - people would have to believe it. The thing is such evidence does not exist. Whereas there's good evidence the buildings were all severely damaged and all suffered severe fires.

Find me ONE demolition charge? Or are you STILL saying all the firefighters and the rescue workers, and the demolition crew were "in on it" and are all "liars"?

If you are going to pursue the conspiracy line, which I know you are, you must maintain one thing throughout - the SIZE of the conspiracy. You cannot shift from a tiny conspiracy to a huge one, and back and fore, as necessary to maintain your thesis. Troofers always change the size of the conspiracy, as needed. That's a fraudulent method.

At the moment you are heading into territory which requires a massive conspiracy. And one which accuses the firefighters of manslaughter, let's not forget. You didn't address that Larry. Your publisher, Alex Jones, and Paul Watson accused the FDNY of being guilty of "at least manslaughter". Do you agree or not? Simple question. Where's your answer?

Larry: ...one thing IS for sure, fire ALONE did NOT cause that collapse.

Nobody says that is the only reason for any of the the collapses. Planes, (fuel) explosions, fires - collapse. And WTC7 was hit by falling debris from Twin Towers. So - no - not fire alone.

If you disagree with the FDNY version of events, you are calling them liars as well as agreeing with AJ and PW that they're guilty of manslaughter?

If you are - please be clear and just say it. Are you calling the firefighters (heroes of 911) liars and guilty of manslaughter or not? Simple question.

And remember - you said "when you insult heroes of 911 you ARE an SOB". So are you insulting the fire-fighters by saying they're liars and guilty of manslaughter or not? Simple question - are you going to answer it this time or not?

Larry: ....You PROTECT Silverstein's comments ...

Protect? I just told you what he actually said.

Larry: he had more to gain from ANYONE in New York that day. He made 500 MILLION from WTC 7 alone!

Evidence? Proof? Where is it?

You know Silverstein had fought with insurers when he bought the buildings? Silverstein wanted to insure the buildings for a smaller amount than the insurers demanded?

In its court papers, Swiss Re shows how Silverstein first tried to buy just $1.5 billion in property damage and business-interruption coverage. When his lenders objected, he discussed buying a $5 billion policy. Ultimately, he settled on the $3.5 billion figure, which was less than the likely cost of rebuilding

LINK


But go on - let's see how you figure he's made a killing out of it? (not that it proves anything about who was responsible, or why and how it happened: how did Silverstein get the planes to fly into the building? How did they know beforehand the planes would hit the spots where the collapses intitiated etc etc?)

You have an idea - conspiracy - and you will fit everything into that preconception. It's a fraudulent way of thinking.......it's typical of Troofers....and I just know you aren't going to change your mind. So what's the point? But go on, anyway?

Larry said...

3.5 BILLION is NOT a killing??? What fucking planet do YOU live on that 3.5 BILLION isnt a killing? You must wipe your ass with 1,000 dollar bills since you think thats petty cash.

"On the other hand, the FDNY did pull down WTC6 - only with cables. So you're wrong again."

Youre a fucking MORON. Yes, they pulled the REMAINS of WTC 4, 5 and 6 AFTER they suffered severe damage. Im glad you brought up the pulling of the smaller WTC buildings. Isnt it very ODD that of all 7 buildings of the WTC complex, building 7 was the FARTHEST away, yet the debris from the twin towers caused SO much damage, that the building collapsed, BUT the other smaller buildings like WTC 4, 5 and 6---hell, even building 3 as well (the Marriott hotel) did NOT suffer complete collapse even though the debris from the fucking twin towers fell RIGHT ON FUCKING TOP OF THESE BUILDINGS!! And lest we forget the Bankers Trust building which was right up against the South Tower, only seperated by a street suffered massive damage as well, yet did NOT collapse. The ONLY building to collapse that day outside of the twin towers was the FARTHEST building away from any of the buildings that suffered great damage. It takes more faith to believe WTC 7 collapsed because of massive damage and fires than it does what I believe!

Silverstein received 861 billion for WTC 7. He used 475 million of liberty bonds to cover most of the rebuilding costs. It cost 700 million to rebuild WTC 7, so when you subtract 475 from 700, you get 225 million he used from the 861 million. So, I was wrong, it wasnt a 500 million dollar gain, it was a 640 million dollar gain---fucktard.

Oh, and by the way, the answer to your stupid question that you felt the need to ask 6 times in your incredibly boring post---ask Larry Silverstein to answer that---since HE is the one he said "pull it" to. I have already pointed out that Silverstein LIED 2 years after saying that when he said "pull it" was not a demolition term because the phrase was used by a demolition workers on the VERY SAME documentary when they said "We're ready to pull building 6" (by the way, you completely IGNORED that---care to address it? Of course you wont)

I have a BETTER question:

Why did buildings that were RIGHT NEXT to the twin towers, in which debris fell RIGHT ON TOP ON, not suffer universal collapse, but WTC 7, the FARTHEST away, that had minimal damage and minimal fires collapsed not only universally, but in perfect symmetry??? Care to answer that?

Even if it was proven that the damage and fires DID cause the collapse, what made it collapse in PERFECT SYMMERTY?? The ONLY thing that would cause a perfect symmetrical collapse is perfectly leveled weakness all around the building at the very same level and the very same time. The fires were not leveled all around the building and the little damage was not leveled all around the building. In fact, photos of WTC 7 show very little fires in different locations. Now, tell me, WHAT CAUSED THE PERFECT SYMMETRICAL COLLAPSE? Hmmmmm?????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Larry said...

Also answer how did the building fall in 6 seconds in its own footprint, causing very little damage to surrounding buildings? On the video, you can even see the kink in the middle of the building collapse first as if it was the central column being demolished so the building falls in on itself. EXPLAIN THAT!

On videos just prior to WTC 7's collapse, you can hear policemen say "This building is coming down soon"----HOW WOULD THEY KNOW THAT IF A BUILDING HAD NEVER BEFORE IN HISTORY COLLAPSED DUE TO FIRE/DAMAGE? What was the precedent for saying "the building is coming down soon?" Has it happened before?? NO, it hasnt. PLUS, can you explain the plethora of buildings SINCE 9-11 that were fully ablaze where fire consumed the ENTIRE building and burned MUCH longer, even as long as an entire DAY and yet they did NOT collapse? Can you explain that?????? Of course you cant, because youre a stupid fucking braindead troll.

Why all the cover-ups about 9-11? Why wasnt an investigation conducted IMMEDIATELY instead of 441 days later? I KNOW you wont answer even ONE question I posted above even though I DID address your question. WE didnt say the firefighters pulled the building---Larry Silverstein did, and we are just reiterating his words. If he DID mean the unit of firefighters by using "pull it"--first of all, like I said, there was no one in the building for SIX hours prior to the collapse, and plus, when youre talking about a group of people like a unit of men, you dont say "Pull IT", you get "pull them". PLUS, the only way it would have made sense for Silverstein to have meant "firefighters" by saying "pull IT" is if he would have mentioned the firefighters ALREADY in his famous quote, but he did NOT, he had only mentioned the fire departmet COMMANDER---not the "unit of men" (which werent in the building by the way).

I dont have time to waste on your pathetic ass. Ive schooled you once again, and that will be further evidenced by the fact that you will ignore 90% of my post and ramble about other things.

Later troll.

Larry said...

i meant to say Silverstein got 861 million, not billion---obvious typo.

I guess you believe the Popular Mechanics people too huh?

Larry said...

Heres why the turd who runs this (can we even call it a "blog"?--lol) is a major FRAUD. He condemns people for removing comments on their particular blogs----BUT at the same time, he blames Alex Jones for having influence over the Pittsburgh cop killer, Richard Poplawski, because supposedly Poplawski was a "regular" at PrisonPlanet and was influenced by Jones (despite the fact that it has been debunked and several sites have even issued retractions of their stories blaming Jones).

Here's the contradiction: (since he is too much of a coward to display his name, Im just gonna call him "The Turd") The Turd cries "Ahhhhh, they censor people, they censor people--and whines and bitches that he has been deleted on other blogs and calls peopl hypocrites for deleting offensive comments---BUT, had Alex Jones NOT been an advocate of free speech on PP and DELETED Poplawski's comments, no one would have ever known Poplawski frequented the site and thus led to the accusations that Jones had influence.

No one denies that Poplawski visited PP. They deny Jones influenced him. He disagreed with other comments that agreed with Jones. My point is, The Turd is basically saying that Jones was being a standup guy for advocating free speech and not deleting comments, but because he DIDNT delete them, Poplawski got angry at the other comments posted on PP and went out and shot cops.

So, I ask you Turd, SHOULD ALEX JONES HAVE DELETED THE COMMENTS ON PP THAT LED POPLAWSKI TO KILL? YOURE the one saying Jones had influence on Poplawski AND you constantly bitch and whine when people delete you-----so, pussyboy, can you ADMIT that deleting comments AT CERTAIN TIMES is wise because it may prevent shootings? Or are you saying that not censoring is worth it even if it leads to murders?

I cant wait for your spin-ridden reply! (or ignoring the post in general, because once again, Ive schooled you)

socrates said...

If Larry Simons links to AmericanFreePress, Rense, WRH, NewsWithViews, and PrisonPlanet, that says it all. Also, anyone who omits apostrophes yet overuses capital letters and foul language is not to be trusted. Finally, if TLNL thinks the Brett Kimberlin story is murky, then what the heck is all this bullshit on September 11th? The Kimberlin story isn't murky or difficult to figure out. Someone is either being lazy or apathetic. But it's all good. TLNL can have fun covering obvious losers like this guy and Maynard, while the Speedway Bomber is too "murky" to be solved.

socrates said...

And that's despite Velvet Revolution being one of Tinoire's affiliates. TLNL says it's so difficult to prove these people are paid fakes. Yet, Tinoire admitted once to being military intelligence. Rivero doesn't even admit that he worked for McDonnell Douglas. Has TLNL made a response about Rivero working for the world's largest military contractor at the time? I don't think so. I just see him saying everything is so murky. Nothing personal here. I'm just tired of the bullshit. I giftwrap you info directly tying Brad Friedman to Michael Rivero. And all you have is oh alas the murkiness.

the_last_name_left said...

Socrates - what am I supposed to say about them?

Rivero worked for McDonnellDouglas? Right....

And Tinoire was Military Intelligence.......

And they're tight. Right.

It speaks for itself - I don't see what I can add to that, as I know nothing else to add.

Likewise with Brett Kimberlin. I don't know of anything to add to what you've said. I wish I did, but I don't. Likewise Brad Friedman.

So what am I supposed to say about it? I simply don't know any way to progress that line of enquiry. You tell me?

the_last_name_left said...

Larry, simply claiming "Silverstein made $3.5 bn" is not good enough. Silverstein's 99 year lease has obligations - not least of which is the annual fee, the reconstruction costs, and the uncertainty over future revenues and property valuations.

It's frankly ridiculous to just go from an insurance payout and claim that explains 911. It's simplistic in the extreme: terrorist cover was included in all such insurance in USA - does every insurance claim infer guilt on the claimant's part?

Likewise with all your claims - they're vacuous tbh. Some buildings didn't collapse - suspicious! Some buildings did collapse - suspicious! On and on it goes, and you have nothing. I've heard all the arguments, Larry, and I don't believe them. You won't change your mind, so there's no point in reasoning with you. You've maybe heard the rebuttals to your massive conspiracy before - and you don't believe them. Fine. You don't have to. And I don't have to believe what I find to be the vacuous and intellectually bankcrupt reasoning of Troofers.

It's funny you call me a troll at my own blog. HAHA.

the_last_name_left said...

The simple and clear point is that 911 Troof has myriad and close connections to the fascist far-right, as evidenced by Poplawski, Larry Simons' linking to Willis Carto, Prisonplanet's employ of Carto's long-time colleague Big Jim Tucker, Rivero's promotion of Curt Maynard, etc etc etc.

Troofers simply refuse to address these facts. As evidenced by Larry Simons' responses here.

Larry said...

LOL!!!! I KNEW you would ignore 90% of what I said. I also KNEW youd ignore my last post I left, the one about why you cry about being deleted but yet blame Jones for the Poplawski cop murders. I KNEW youd ignore your blatant hypocrisy there. You answered NONE of my questions....not one. Incase you need reminded of what they were, here they are, AGAIN:

1. WHAT CAUSED THE PERFECT SYMMETRICAL COLLAPSE? Hmmmmm?????????????????????????????????????????????????????

2. Why did buildings that were RIGHT NEXT to the twin towers, in which debris fell RIGHT ON TOP ON, not suffer universal collapse, but WTC 7, the FARTHEST away, that had minimal damage and minimal fires collapsed not only universally, but in perfect symmetry???

3. On videos just prior to WTC 7's collapse, you can hear policemen say "This building is coming down soon"----HOW WOULD THEY KNOW THAT IF A BUILDING HAD NEVER BEFORE IN HISTORY COLLAPSED DUE TO FIRE/DAMAGE?

4. can you explain the plethora of buildings SINCE 9-11 that were fully ablaze where fire consumed the ENTIRE building and burned MUCH longer, even as long as an entire DAY and yet they did NOT collapse? Can you explain that??????

5. Why all the cover-ups about 9-11? Why wasnt an investigation conducted IMMEDIATELY instead of 441 days later?

6. So, I ask you Turd, SHOULD ALEX JONES HAVE DELETED THE COMMENTS ON PP THAT LED POPLAWSKI TO KILL?

I LOVE when I school people like you and I can always tell whe I have. My brother had an argument about 9-11 too and after he was "sure" it wasnt an inside job, he gave me 3 sites to look at...when I went to ALL 3 sites, I discovered all 3 of them actually supported MY view! Know what his response was after I told him he did ZERO investigation on this?

"Know why I gave you the wrong sites? Because I dont fucking care."

Very similar to your comment:

"You won't change your mind, so there's no point in reasoning with you."

Funny how you ended with "Troofers simply refuse to address these facts. As evidenced by Larry Simons' responses here." --but yet you didnt answer a SINGLE question I asked you and didnt address ANYTHING but Silverstein's 3.5 billion. I destroyed every point you said and all you could come back with was Silverstein's 3.5 billion. Address the questions I listed above (and in my last post that were IGNORED) and maybe I'll find you a worthy opponent. Otherwise, I will just chalk you up as yet ANOTHER asshole who does ZERO research about 9-11 that I destroyed. I want responses to EACH of the 6 question above and number them. Can you do that? Or will you just say "I wont change your mind, no use in arguing" which will seal my victory?

People like you validate the truth movement every time you ignore questions we ask. My God, if a turd like YOU ignores them, then of course the government will! And then you have the NERVE to claim no questions have been ignored when YOU have ignored questions yourself!

I want answers to each of my 6 questions above. I answered yours, answer mine. Ignoring them a second time will CLEARLY be seen as a calculated effort to dodge, deflect and ignore---the typical tactic used by would-be debunkers.

the_last_name_left said...

Larry: I LOVE when I school people like you and I can always tell whe I have.

Like I said before:

Larry Simons is a hypocritical, censoring, self-worshipping twat.

You've proven all 3.

I don't care that you think you've 'won' Larry. Enjoy your victory.

I've already heard all these arguments, Larry. I simply don't believe they hold any water. That's having heard them all already....your mindless repetition won't change that. Only the production of actual evidence will change my mind. You're entitled to believe differently - and I think that betrays your inability to reason and the general intellectual bankcruptcy of 911 Troof.

larry: I will just chalk you up as yet ANOTHER asshole who does ZERO research about 9-11 that I destroyed. I want responses to EACH of the 6 question above and number them. Can you do that?

I know all these arguments Larry. I don't believe them - they are absent facts to persuade me otherwise.

I'm more interested in the FACTS that 911 Troof's intellectual bankcruptcy originates in the fascist movement.

That's the issue you're avoiding - even though you link to Willis Carto's AFP at your own website.

Many of your supposed "facts" about 9/11 Troof originate with Willis Carto's fascist propaganda rags. Your inability to recognise and address that fact, whilst loudly chanting your "theories" about 911 Troof is as typical as it is tedious.

You think boring people to death is victory?

Larry said...

LOL!!!!! I WIN!! You REFUSE to answer my questions, which means one thing and one thing ONLY........you CANT answer them. You are now added to the incredibly LONG list of trolls and wingnuts who love to criticize people like me who ask the hard questions and want answers, yet we arent given any. And then you have the nerve to claim there is NO cover-up and the government isnt ignoring our questions. YOU ignore them, and youre just some faggoty looking dickface NOBODY from the UK!

By the way, I already KNEW you wouldnt and COULDNT answer my questions. You have solidified 9-11 truth and have given it more credence by your CONSTANT refusal to answer questions!

You said:

"I've already heard all these arguments, Larry. I simply don't believe they hold any water. That's having heard them all already....your mindless repetition won't change that. Only the production of actual evidence will change my mind. You're entitled to believe differently - and I think that betrays your inability to reason and the general intellectual bankcruptcy of 911 Troof."

Heard all the arguments huh? Then it should be SIMPLE to answer my questions---but you REFUSE to.

Mindless repetition? I wouldnt have to repeat SHIT if youd ANSWER my questions! You dont think I havent heard all YOUR bullshit from the mile-long list of brainless twerps who "think" they can debunk 9-11 truth? Ive heard it ALL asshole and guess what---I answer questions....you DONT. And when your ilk doesnt answer them, I get the same old, tiresome excuse....."believe what you want" or "i dont care if you think youve won". THINK Ive won? I say my questions IGNORED repeatedly seals that!

You dont want evidence, because there's tons of it that you IGNORE. You ignore QUESTIONS I ask, so naturally youd ignore any real evidence. The cover-up alone is evidence. Like I always tell people. You dont need to know what REALLY happened to know theres a cover-up of what really happened. I'll give you an analogy so your pea brain can comprehend it:

If you walked down the street and saw a man laying on the sidewalk and he was obviously shot---do you need to know exactly WHO shot him to know he was shot? NO, you dont, but according to your logic, if the shooters' identity is not known, then the guy isnt really shot.

Funny thing is, you reject a conspiracy with 9-11, but you FULLY accept a conspiracy involving Willis Carto, Alex Jones and Jim Tucker---yet you have ZERO proof. Just links to another blogspot website full of OPINIONS like your site. Youre a conspiracy theorist too Turd, only yours is supported by ZERO facts, mine is supported by an abundance of them.

Tell me something TURD, why cant you answer the SIX questions? And dont give me the bullshit about having heard the arguments or any other diversion you want to spew, tell me flat out WHY you dont answer my questions. Im dying to hear this.

the_last_name_left said...

Larry, you haven't answered my questions:

1)Does Alex Jones use Big Jim Tucker - in Endgame, and elsewhere?

2)Does 'Big' Jim Tucker have a long and ongoing relationship with Willis Carto?

Answer them, and I'll resignedly address yours. (You just don't get it, do you?)

Larry said...

FOURTH TIME ANSWERING THEM NOW:

1) Yes

2) I have no idea, and even if he does...so what?

4th time Ive answered that. Now answer MY questions.

1. WHAT CAUSED THE PERFECT SYMMETRICAL COLLAPSE? Hmmmmm?????????????????????????????????????????????????????

2. Why did buildings that were RIGHT NEXT to the twin towers, in which debris fell RIGHT ON TOP ON, not suffer universal collapse, but WTC 7, the FARTHEST away, that had minimal damage and minimal fires collapsed not only universally, but in perfect symmetry???

3. On videos just prior to WTC 7's collapse, you can hear policemen say "This building is coming down soon"----HOW WOULD THEY KNOW THAT IF A BUILDING HAD NEVER BEFORE IN HISTORY COLLAPSED DUE TO FIRE/DAMAGE?

4. can you explain the plethora of buildings SINCE 9-11 that were fully ablaze where fire consumed the ENTIRE building and burned MUCH longer, even as long as an entire DAY and yet they did NOT collapse? Can you explain that??????

5. Why all the cover-ups about 9-11? Why wasnt an investigation conducted IMMEDIATELY instead of 441 days later?

6. So, I ask you Turd, SHOULD ALEX JONES HAVE DELETED THE COMMENTS ON PP THAT LED POPLAWSKI TO KILL?

the_last_name_left said...

Funny thing is, you reject a conspiracy with 9-11, but you FULLY accept a conspiracy involving Willis Carto, Alex Jones and Jim Tucker---yet you have ZERO proof.

Jim Tucker has worked with Willis Carto for decades - they worked together at The Spotlight, and founded AFP together when The Spotlight was closed down following a court case.

Those are FACTS.

Your opinion about 911 is just that - an opinion.

I am content to disagree with your opinion on 911 - but whether Alex Jones has made extensive use of Willis Carto's employees and associates is NOT a matter of opinion. It is a matter of fact whether he has, or not.

You can't tell the difference between fact and opinion.

Larry said...

I can sure tell a LIE when I see one. You said youd answer mine when I answered yours. I still see no answers to my questions. I will post AGAIN:

1. WHAT CAUSED THE PERFECT SYMMETRICAL COLLAPSE? Hmmmmm?????????????????????????????????????????????????????

2. Why did buildings that were RIGHT NEXT to the twin towers, in which debris fell RIGHT ON TOP ON, not suffer universal collapse, but WTC 7, the FARTHEST away, that had minimal damage and minimal fires collapsed not only universally, but in perfect symmetry???

3. On videos just prior to WTC 7's collapse, you can hear policemen say "This building is coming down soon"----HOW WOULD THEY KNOW THAT IF A BUILDING HAD NEVER BEFORE IN HISTORY COLLAPSED DUE TO FIRE/DAMAGE?

4. can you explain the plethora of buildings SINCE 9-11 that were fully ablaze where fire consumed the ENTIRE building and burned MUCH longer, even as long as an entire DAY and yet they did NOT collapse? Can you explain that??????

5. Why all the cover-ups about 9-11? Why wasnt an investigation conducted IMMEDIATELY instead of 441 days later?

6. So, I ask you Turd, SHOULD ALEX JONES HAVE DELETED THE COMMENTS ON PP THAT LED POPLAWSKI TO KILL?

Larry said...

"Jim Tucker has worked with Willis Carto for decades - they worked together at The Spotlight, and founded AFP together when The Spotlight was closed down following a court case."

Again, No links, no videos, no documented evidence----just you SAYING IT. So, I was right, you believe theres a Carto/Tucker/Jones conspiracy, right? Its a yes/no question---simple to answer. Yes or no?

Answer these first:

1. WHAT CAUSED THE PERFECT SYMMETRICAL COLLAPSE? Hmmmmm?????????????????????????????????????????????????????

2. Why did buildings that were RIGHT NEXT to the twin towers, in which debris fell RIGHT ON TOP ON, not suffer universal collapse, but WTC 7, the FARTHEST away, that had minimal damage and minimal fires collapsed not only universally, but in perfect symmetry???

3. On videos just prior to WTC 7's collapse, you can hear policemen say "This building is coming down soon"----HOW WOULD THEY KNOW THAT IF A BUILDING HAD NEVER BEFORE IN HISTORY COLLAPSED DUE TO FIRE/DAMAGE?

4. can you explain the plethora of buildings SINCE 9-11 that were fully ablaze where fire consumed the ENTIRE building and burned MUCH longer, even as long as an entire DAY and yet they did NOT collapse? Can you explain that??????

5. Why all the cover-ups about 9-11? Why wasnt an investigation conducted IMMEDIATELY instead of 441 days later?

6. So, I ask you Turd, SHOULD ALEX JONES HAVE DELETED THE COMMENTS ON PP THAT LED POPLAWSKI TO KILL?

the_last_name_left said...

All those are answered Larry - in the thread I dedicated to answering them.

Now - how about you addressing something for a change?

You link to AmericanFreePress, yes? FACT.

Why?