The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[mjd1982]

So he would be fired if the statements were false? .....kind of like Kevin Ryan? :rolleyes:
I have no opinion on Ryan, but you clearly do. So you agree that he woulda been fired had he been lying, hence he wasnt, hence he wasnt.

[Brainache]

I have no opinion on Ryan, but you clearly do. So you agree that he woulda been fired had he been lying, hence he wasnt, hence he wasnt.

And yet nobody corroborates his story for fear of being fired....:dig:

[BillyRayValentine]

1) If a person was yelling that, it would be deemed perjorative on the basis that it implied that all Sri Lankans were bad at swimming, or that Sri Lankans are inherently bad swimmers. which is precisely the same as the earlier comment. This is incredibly easy to understand.

No. If a person was yelling that, it would be deemed perjorative on the basis that it made fun of the fact that all Sri Lankans were bad at swimming. The difference in the intent of the two statements should be self-evident.

A linguist, you are not.

As I have said, the reason why his perjorative racial stereotyping is tolerated is because it is not a touchy subject, a white dude trying to be black

You seem to be ignoring that in the course of trying to be black, Ali G amplifies most every black stereotype. That's what I mean by playing a black character. This "pejorative racial stereotyping" is tolerated because of its satirical intent. Your point is invalid.

[BillyRayValentine]

I have no opinion on Ryan, but you clearly do. So you agree that he woulda been fired had he been lying, hence he wasnt, hence he wasnt.

Ryan was fired because he made specific misrepresentations about work his firm had (or more accurately, hadn't) done. If Forbes had done the same and falsely claimed, for example, that his firm was managing Bin Laden family money, your point would be valid. I'm sure he'd be fired immediately under such circumstances.

Alas, reality intrudes. His case is completely unlike Ryan's. Nothing Forbes said included any false claims about Fiduciary Trust, nor did they reference Fiduciary Trust in any way other than to say he worked there.

You repeat this "he'd be fired" tripe every other post. Exactly why it's so idiotic has been explained in detail (and promptly ignored) several times. Not much left to say. You are ignorant and unreachable - by conscious choice.

I find that amazing.

[BillyRayValentine]

He knows very little of the Truth movement.

I see...he attends truther meetings as an impartial observer. "Immediately convinced" the power-down was related to 9/11, but disinterested and impartial nonetheless. Got it.

[BillyRayValentine]

And chinese could be bad at making motorcycles because of a cultural orientation to cars, walking, or public transport!


Maybe on some other planet, but here on earth the accurate interpretation of the Chinese motorcycles comment is unambiguous and beyond debate.

What a silly point...

Well of course it is when you play obtuse with respect to my above comment.

You seem to filter things through a prism that creates your own alternate reality. I don't think that's healthy.

[funk de fino]

???
Next, FT are more than well aware of his comment, tho they havent been shouted from the rooftops. If an employee of such a company were to come out and imply that the gov were behind 911, they would be out on their ass, or at the least, in deep schtick, no question. He has never been either. Explain.
.

so every truther who has come out publicly has been fired from their job have they?

i could go out this weekend and say whatever i wanted about 911 and would not be fired? i could say my friends that were up the towers could not in fact get up the towers due to the power down and it must have been an inside job, i again would not be fired?

explain the difference?

also respond to points made in post #2188, one below would be a start

if there had been this big power down over that weekend my two friends and thousands of other tourists would not have been able to visit the observation deck or the roof?

[funk de fino]

He is living here, he is working for the same company, he has little idea of his "status" amongst circles such as these, he is applying, and will not apply, for any reality tv shows.

i think perhaps he does know his status, especially if he attends these meetings? how did he find out about these two meetings that he attended?

was he invited? did he find it on the net?

"he is applying" miss a word?

[tsig]

I have no opinion on Ryan, but you clearly do. So you agree that he woulda been fired had he been lying, hence he wasnt, hence he wasnt.

I agree fully.

The burning man must be fired.

[mjd1982]

And yet nobody corroborates his story for fear of being fired....:dig:
excuse me. I mean for fear of recriminations.

[mjd1982]

No. If a person was yelling that, it would be deemed perjorative on the basis that it made fun of the fact that all Sri Lankans were bad at swimming. The difference in the intent of the two statements should be self-evident.

A linguist, you are not.


Lol, dude, my linguistic qualifications are greater than yours, trust me this is true.

Ok, for a start, you are talking about "the fact that all Sri Lankans were bad at swimming";symptomaticof your confusion. It would be deemed perjorative because of the underlying imputation of a negative characteristic to all Sri Lankans. Yet it is something so trivial that it would never be called a racist comment by serious people.

A linguist, I am.


You seem to be ignoring that in the course of trying to be black, Ali G amplifies most every black stereotype. That's what I mean by playing a black character. This "pejorative racial stereotyping" is tolerated because of its satirical intent. Your point is invalid.

NO! The point of Ali G, as someone who has watched him more or less from day 1, is that he is a white kid from Staines who is trying to be black. He is not playing up black sterotypes, rather the white stereotype of a kid trying to act like he is black. This means that any potential offense is dfirected away from black people since it is not a black character who is the vehicle for it. Think before you post and this will become clear to you.

[mjd1982]

Ryan was fired because he made specific misrepresentations about work his firm had (or more accurately, hadn't) done. If Forbes had done the same and falsely claimed, for example, that his firm was managing Bin Laden family money, your point would be valid. I'm sure he'd be fired immediately under such circumstances.

Alas, reality intrudes. His case is completely unlike Ryan's. Nothing Forbes said included any false claims about Fiduciary Trust, nor did they reference Fiduciary Trust in any way other than to say he worked there.

You repeat this "he'd be fired" tripe every other post. Exactly why it's so idiotic has been explained in detail (and promptly ignored) several times. Not much left to say. You are ignorant and unreachable - by conscious choice.

I find that amazing.
Please show me where this has been "shown" to me, and I have ignored it. I have zero need to ignore any relatively serious OT post, nor have I.

There are differences between his stance and Ryan's as there are differences between PH and 911; but as in that case, the essence is the same. Forbes makes a comment about 911, implying that the government was behind it, and maybe even that FT are part of the cover up, and he does this from a standpoint of an FT employee- the testimony he relates is directly linked to his experience as an FT employee. Hence if he is using his position within FT to make misrepresentations about them in order to bring the firm into gross disrepute by suggestion the gov blew up the TT's, then he would be fired post haste.

[mjd1982]

I see...he attends truther meetings as an impartial observer. "Immediately convinced" the power-down was related to 9/11, but disinterested and impartial nonetheless. Got it.
I've told you this many times. Things only truly started to add up for him when he noticed the cover up. He went to his 1st meeting a few months back.

As I have said to your compadres, the answers are all there if you are of a mind to perceive them

[mjd1982]

so every truther who has come out publicly has been fired from their job have they?

i could go out this weekend and say whatever i wanted about 911 and would not be fired? i could say my friends that were up the towers could not in fact get up the towers due to the power down and it must have been an inside job, i again would not be fired?

explain the difference?

also respond to points made in post #2188, one below would be a start

if there had been this big power down over that weekend my two friends and thousands of other tourists would not have been able to visit the observation deck or the roof?
The difference has been explained many many times. THere is a difference between you independently commenting on 911 (tho this may even get you into trouble with your firm if they, and your stance are public enough), and you coming from the standpoitn of an employee at your firm, "making up" experiences there to implicate the gov in 911. That is the difference. If I was, say, working in big company, and lied that I had seen memos going to the CEO regarding the fact that the TTs would be hit by planes on the 4th sept, I would be fired. If Scott was lying, he would have been fired. He hasnt even been reprimanded for dishonesty. If you are honest, you will be able to see why.

[mjd1982]

so every truther who has come out publicly has been fired from their job have they?

i could go out this weekend and say whatever i wanted about 911 and would not be fired? i could say my friends that were up the towers could not in fact get up the towers due to the power down and it must have been an inside job, i again would not be fired?

explain the difference?

also respond to points made in post #2188, one below would be a start

if there had been this big power down over that weekend my two friends and thousands of other tourists would not have been able to visit the observation deck or the roof?
Regarding your other point, 1 lift was working- the service lift. This may have been the one your friends used. Ask them about it. There are perfectly reasonable answers if you just look. A perfect example was the allegation widely made that Scott didnt even exist- someone had checked with FT to see iif he worked there, and there was no one called Scott Forbes working there. This was because his full name is John Scott Forbes, yet this was used as de facto proof that hhe was a fraud. The answers are there, just dig a little. I will maybe ask him for you if I see him again.

[mjd1982]

i think perhaps he does know his status, especially if he attends these meetings? how did he find out about these two meetings that he attended?

was he invited? did he find it on the net?

"he is applying" miss a word?
yes, not applying.

And yes, he was invited, having posted once or twice on a UK 911 site.

[Brainache]

excuse me. I mean for fear of recriminations.

The recriminations that Scott suffered? Like having to live in England? Yeah I guess you have a point.

[Belz...]

Were that the case, he would, as I have stated to you already, have been fired by FT.

How do you know this ?

And chinese could be bad at making motorcycles because of a cultural orientation to cars, walking, or public transport!

:D

A linguist, I am.

Right.

[funk de fino]

yes, not applying.

And yes, he was invited, having posted once or twice on a UK 911 site.

if he was invited and has posted on 911 sites then he must be aware of his noteriety?

you said he was not?

[funk de fino]

Regarding your other point, 1 lift was working- the service lift. This may have been the one your friends used. Ask them about it. There are perfectly reasonable answers if you just look. A perfect example was the allegation widely made that Scott didnt even exist- someone had checked with FT to see iif he worked there, and there was no one called Scott Forbes working there. This was because his full name is John Scott Forbes, yet this was used as de facto proof that hhe was a fraud. The answers are there, just dig a little. I will maybe ask him for you if I see him again.

i will ignore the bluff and bluster about his real name, i have this problem to and it is irrelevant to this post

they went to the twin towers like any normal tourist did 365 days a year, they took there place in the line, they got searched, they got there photo taken, they took the lifts up with other tourists, they paid for tourist goods at the observation deck with cash and the assistant used the cash register

are you saying there was no power on the observation deck at all and thousands of tourists never noticed this?

they did not use the service elevator

where does the power from this lift come from, if they can keep power on for a lift why not the security cameras and locks?

also why would the security cameras and locks at all levels be taken down by the loss of power from floor fifty up? this would mean that these engineers could not come and go as initimated by scott?

your explanation for this is far from reasonable and the post is a nice try at avoidance by introducing irrelevant arguments

[mjd1982]

if he was invited and has posted on 911 sites then he must be aware of his noteriety?

you said he was not?
No, he is aware that there is some talk about him, but not to the extent that it happens. As I said, he posted a couple of times on nineeleven.co.uk. He stays away from 911 related stuff as much as he can due to pressure from FT. When I told him that he had been debated on SLC (or at least touched on), he was surprised. He has never heard of the jref, for instance.

[mjd1982]

i will ignore the bluff and bluster about his real name, i have this problem to and it is irrelevant to this post

they went to the twin towers like any normal tourist did 365 days a year, they took there place in the line, they got searched, they got there photo taken, they took the lifts up with other tourists, they paid for tourist goods at the observation deck with cash and the assistant used the cash register

are you saying there was no power on the observation deck at all and thousands of tourists never noticed this?

they did not use the service elevator

where does the power from this lift come from, if they can keep power on for a lift why not the security cameras and locks?

also why would the security cameras and locks at all levels be taken down by the loss of power from floor fifty up? this would mean that these engineers could not come and go as initimated by scott?

your explanation for this is far from reasonable and the post is a nice try at avoidance by introducing irrelevant arguments

No, it is completely relevant. It is an illustration of an anomaly which is minute in proportion to other facts, such as the fact that he has not been reprimanded in the slightest by FT for dishonesty. He has stated, I believe, that he is not sure whether all power was shut down in the tower, just the areas he has specified he was sure about. The loss of security cameras in any circumstance, would only be an issue for the areas they were working, as opposed to just seeing them coming in or out, which would not do much. This is an example of an explanation for this small matter, just as there was for the issue of his name. When/If I see him next, I will ask him for you, so as to give you a more specific answer, as I have told you already.

Now, to repeat my question- why has he not been fired?

[lapman]

He would be fired or severely reprimanded for bringing the firm into disrepute. Very simple.If he was a more important person in the company, then you would be correct about him getting reprimanded. However, he's a lowly IT tech. Anything he says that doesn't directly implicate the company in the conspiracy is meaningless to the company. The same would go for any of the others. Firing or reprimanding someone for exercising their first amendment rights is frowned upon here in the US. Committing slander against the company is another thing though. Scott's bogus claim that there was a 50 floor power down doesn't implicate FT in any way. So your claim that he or anybody else that corroborates his story would be fired or reprimanded is baseless.
He lives hereI sit corrected on that one. When did he move there and what about my second question about how much was he paid?

[funk de fino]

No, it is completely relevant. It is an illustration of an anomaly which is minute in proportion to other facts, such as the fact that he has not been reprimanded in the slightest by FT for dishonesty. He has stated, I believe, that he is not sure whether all power was shut down in the tower, just the areas he has specified he was sure about. The loss of security cameras in any circumstance, would only be an issue for the areas they were working, as opposed to just seeing them coming in or out, which would not do much. This is an example of an explanation for this small matter, just as there was for the issue of his name. When/If I see him next, I will ask him for you, so as to give you a more specific answer, as I have told you already.

Now, to repeat my question- why has he not been fired?

it is irrelevant to my questions and points, maybe less so to the bigger picture

i am only dealing with these specific points that he has claimed not the bigger picture

he is definite that the power was shut down from the 50th floor up

this cannot be true if my friends visited the observation deck using the normal lifts and bought items in the shop, and also now that i mention it, they must have used the elevators to get to the roof area from the observation deck area, like i did in july of that year

there must have been power at the observation deck and in the lifts

i have already said that he could be mistaken and that he may have had a power down in his area only, this could have lead him to make a mistake

he is pretty definite about it being from floor 50 upwards, can this be correct given my friends experience,yes or no?

if he has not been reprimanded in any way for his dishonesty then neither would any other employee of FT? why have they not confirmed it?

why has no tourist come forward and confirmed it?

if the security camera and locks is an issue only in his dept then why not say this and infer that it was a total loss of these items in the tower?

if he lied in any way about FT then he could be sacked he has not lied about them

if he lies about things that happened on that day he is not bringing FT into disrepute only himself, remember he says it was not FT who ordered the power down so he is not accusing them of anything, they would have no grounds to fire him

if he does not know of his noteriety then it means that FT would not know either? no grounds for knowing whether he had been lying either?

all the evidence points to him being mistaken and embellishing his story

if he stands exactly by what he originally said then he is not mistaken but a liar

this would still not cost him his job

[nicepants]

They were informed by the PA, hence he would be in possession of the letter? Behold the intrepid truth seeker!

If he was informed by the PA...HOW WAS HE INFORMED?
(Or is this just a claim he makes with zero supporting evidence?)

Next, FT are more than well aware of his comment, tho they havent been shouted from the rooftops.

How do you know that FT are "more than well aware" of this comment?

If an employee of such a company were to come out and imply that the gov were behind 911, they would be out on their ass, or at the least, in deep schtick, no question. He has never been either. Explain.

Then it's 1 of 2 things:

1 - His comment does not imply that the government was behind 911
OR
2 - your assertion (in bold above) is incorrect

[funk de fino]

He stays away from 911 related stuff as much as he can due to pressure from FT

i do not believe this for one moment, another example of embellishing a story

how many people are being leaned on in this world of ours, some of whom are not even american?

if i knew that my govt had conspired to murder 3,000 people, i would not take a threat from my employers that they would fire me as a reason not to report what i know

Uk industrial tribunals, i know you know all about them and i know you know how they work, do you think FT could possibly ever claim fair dismissal of scott or any other employee for claiming what he did?

a huge company like this would just pay up the miniscule amount it would take to admit they fired him unfairly and be done with it, they would not spend billions defending their actions

these claims in no way damage FT = no grounds for dismissal

[BillyRayValentine]

Ok, for a start, you are talking about "the fact that all Sri Lankans were bad at swimming";symptomaticof your confusion. It would be deemed perjorative because of the underlying imputation of a negative characteristic to all Sri Lankans. Yet it is something so trivial that it would never be called a racist comment by serious people.

The stark difference between the comments "Sri Lankans are bad swimmers" and "That thing fell apart like a Chinese motorbike..." has been explained ad nauseum. You choose to interpret the Sri Lankan comment as pejorative, ignoring the fact that that would completely depend on the context and intent of the speaker. That particular comment, in and of itself, tells you nothing about intent.

There is no such ambiguity surrounding the Chinese motorbike crack. The pejorative intent is clear and undeniable; no other reasonable interpretation exists.

And so, again, your analogy equating the slanderous intent of the two statements, ipso facto, was moronic. The distinction is obvious. And this is the last time I mention Sri Lankan swimmers.

P.S. The word is "pejorative". One "r". Surprising I'd have to point that out, you being a (cough, cough) linguist and all.

NO! The point of Ali G, as someone who has watched him more or less from day 1, is that he is a white kid from Staines who is trying to be black. He is not playing up black sterotypes, rather the white stereotype of a kid trying to act like he is black. This means that any potential offense is dfirected away from black people since it is not a black character who is the vehicle for it. Think before you post and this will become clear to you.

The satire in Ali G is multi-layered. That's why social critics actually hold his work in high regard. He lampoons everyone. Nothing and nobody is sacred. THAT is the "point" of Ali G. The "white kid from Staines who is trying to be black" is just a device. It's the vehicle he uses to get there.

The hyperbole inherent in his projection of black stereotypes is self-evident. Yes, they are evoked by a white wannabe who's a caricature himself, but they're evoked just the same. As I said, it's multi-layered.

Perhaps it's just an issue of you being too young and unsophisitcated to see it, but it's sure as hell there.

[Belz...]

Billy, isn't "pejorative" largely dependent upon whether the "target" of the comment SEES it as pejorative ?

Why are we still talking about this ?

[Belz...]

Behold the intrepid truth seeker!

Seeking the truth and accepting the truth are two different things.

[DGM]

Posted by MJ
Now, to repeat my question- why has he not been fired?

1- It's a personal statement not company related. He never says that he's representing FT.

2- Does FT even know about the statement? It would not surprise me in the least if they didn't. Unless he said something to them the truth movement is a small and fringe element so it's not unlikely that they simply never heard it.

Why doesn't he just make a clarification to his statement if he's aware that he's being misquoted?

[BillyRayValentine]

Please show me where this has been "shown" to me, and I have ignored it. I have zero need to ignore any relatively serious OT post, nor have I.

Here you go.


Let me tell you something. If someone told the truth and verified that an event actually occurred, and was fired because of it, they wouldn't have to worry about finding a new job. They'd be able take their lawsuit "winnings" and head to the beach, a la my good buddy Louis Winthorp and me. Even if they were lying, like Scott, only in very limited cases would this constitute a fireable offense. If he said he was speaking for the firm in any way, or if he was in a position as a public "face" of the firm, for example. The firm would have to prove their grounds, else, once again, it'd be payday time for the "victim".



If he still does his job effectively, there would be no reason to fire him. As a matter of fact, if they did fire him just because of what he is saying, that would be grounds for a lawsuit. So that whole line of reasoning is baseless.

There was also a post that addressed your claim about it being foolish to take on a multi-billion dollar corporation. It appears to have been deleted or moved for some reason. Here's a quick recap.

Contrary to your assertion, the fact that his employer is large and has deep pockets would be a huge positive with respect to a lawsuit, not a negative. Lawyers in NYC would line up around the block to take Forbes' case - on a contingency basis - because the potential payout would be astronomical. As part of their case, they would contact as many of the 10,000 other employees affected by the power-down as they could locate. If the systematic employer intimidation that you allege were true, the net result would be dozens of class action lawsuits filed in a matter of days.

Ultimately tens, probably hundreds of millions of dollars would change hands if these people's rights were trampled in the manner you allege. With absolute certainty.

[BillyRayValentine]

yikes, repeat.

[BillyRayValentine]

Duplicate.

[BillyRayValentine]

Billy, isn't "pejorative" largely dependent upon whether the "target" of the comment SEES it as pejorative ?


From the perspective of the aggrieved person, absolutely. And generally speaking, people should stop embracing victimhood so much and toughen up, IMO.

But from an outside persective, certain pejorative comments can't be construed any other way. A Chinese guy may not be offended by or care about the motorbike comment, but objectively speaking say it's definitely pejorative.

[BillyRayValentine]

I've told you this many times. Things only truly started to add up for him when he noticed the cover up. He went to his 1st meeting a few months back.

You really are all over the map with respect to what he implied, what he thought, what he thinks, etc.

And there's the also the minor problem of his own contradictory words ('immediately convinced", etc.)

But keep on spinning that wheel, as I trust you will.

[lapman]

There are differences between his stance and Ryan's as there are differences between PH and 911; but as in that case, the essence is the same. Forbes makes a comment about 911, implying that the government was behind it, and maybe even that FT are part of the cover up, and he does this from a standpoint of an FT employee- the testimony he relates is directly linked to his experience as an FT employee.
The problem with this is that Scott never implied that FT was a part of the "cover-up". The fact that he is commenting on something that happened while he was on the job is irrelevant unless he was divulging a trade secret or going against some sort of NDA he signed. I highly doubt that is the case or FT would be all over it. So again, your claim that people are not speaking out for fear of recriminations is baseless.
Hence if he is using his position within FT to make misrepresentations about them in order to bring the firm into gross disrepute by suggestion the gov blew up the TT's, then he would be fired post haste.Except that he is not using his position at FT to make misrepresentations about FT. He is using is experience within the TT to speak out as an individual. The fact that his story has been deemed irrelevant doesn't make it a cover-up. The fact that he never experience a power down in the 3 years he was at FT doesn't mean that the power down was an unusual event. I have yet to see any records that show a power down of floors had never happened prior to 9/8&9/2001.

[mjd1982]

If he was a more important person in the company, then you would be correct about him getting reprimanded. However, he's a lowly IT tech. Anything he says that doesn't directly implicate the company in the conspiracy is meaningless to the company. The same would go for any of the others. Firing or reprimanding someone for exercising their first amendment rights is frowned upon here in the US. Committing slander against the company is another thing though. Scott's bogus claim that there was a 50 floor power down doesn't implicate FT in any way. So your claim that he or anybody else that corroborates his story would be fired or reprimanded is baseless.
I sit corrected on that one. When did he move there and what about my second question about how much was he paid?
I never said anything about directly implicating FT. I said using his standpoint as an FT employee to imply the gov blew up the TTs is what would be unacceptable, and what would have him reprimanded in an instant, if he was full blown lying as you say. As I have explained before, if you were working for company X, and you stated that you saw senior management memos discussing the impending flight of planes into the buliding, you would be fired, if you were lying. If you werent, you would just be intimidated and hassled into keeping your mouth shut, which is what is happening exactly.

[Unsecured Coins]

who's doing the hassling and intimidation?

[mjd1982]

it is irrelevant to my questions and points, maybe less so to the bigger picture

i am only dealing with these specific points that he has claimed not the bigger picture

he is definite that the power was shut down from the 50th floor up

this cannot be true if my friends visited the observation deck using the normal lifts and bought items in the shop, and also now that i mention it, they must have used the elevators to get to the roof area from the observation deck area, like i did in july of that year

there must have been power at the observation deck and in the lifts

i have already said that he could be mistaken and that he may have had a power down in his area only, this could have lead him to make a mistake

he is pretty definite about it being from floor 50 upwards, can this be correct given my friends experience,yes or no?


There may have been an alternative source of power. I say that to illustrate the possibiltiy of rational explanations, rather than the situation you have envisaged, whereby he has suggested that the gov blew up the TTs from his position as an FT employee, and he hant even been punished for it, rather just hassled to keep quiet. This is a mirror of the situation with the name that I mentioned. There are simple explanations for things that will fit in with the broader facts.


if he has not been reprimanded in any way for his dishonesty then neither would any other employee of FT? why have they not confirmed it?


He has been hassled by HR to keep quiet, and has had his freedoms to attend 911 events, interviews etc, impinged. Not something a person might like.


why has no tourist come forward and confirmed it?


as above


if the security camera and locks is an issue only in his dept then why not say this and infer that it was a total loss of these items in the tower?


Because it was the case not just in his dept, as he has stated.


if he lied in any way about FT then he could be sacked he has not lied about them


Yes he has, according to you; he has said that they had a power down the w/e b4 911. According to you, he is using his position as an employee at FT to implicate the US gov in 911 by lying. This is bringing the company iknto gross disrepute, and he would be fired on the spot were he lying.


if he lies about things that happened on that day he is not bringing FT into disrepute only himself, remember he says it was not FT who ordered the power down so he is not accusing them of anything, they would have no grounds to fire him


As i said, it is not about accusong them of anything, it is about using his standpoint as an FT employee, deceitfully, to implicate the US gov in mass murder. This would not be tolerated, were it the case.


if he does not know of his noteriety then it means that FT would not know either? no grounds for knowing whether he had been lying either?


No, they , he says, check up on google etc and see his recent "activity", if any, and will give him a nudge, let him know theyve seen what they have, and tell him to keep it down, basically.

[lapman]

I never said anything about directly implicating FT. I said using his standpoint as an FT employee to imply the gov blew up the TTs is what would be unacceptable, and what would have him reprimanded in an instant, if he was full blown lying as you say.I stated this where? I only claimed that the 50 floors that he claims were powered down was an exaggeration. It is the Truth Movements claim that both towers were powered down that is the full blown lie. Scott was not using his standpoint as an FT employee when he made his comments. Did he write his letters on FT stationary? I see no indication in any of his interviews that he was wearing a FT uniform, badge or anything else that would show that he was representing FT in any way. He only mentions his FT employment as to why he was in the building.
As I have explained before, if you were working for company X, and you stated that you saw senior management memos discussing the impending flight of planes into the buliding, you would be fired, if you were lying. If you werent, you would just be intimidated and hassled into keeping your mouth shut, which is what is happening exactly.Very true. But that would be implicating company X in the conspiracy. But that has nothing to do with Scott's comments. Scott clearly states that the power down order came from the PA, not FT. Again, there is no way that FT would be affected by Scott's comments.

[mjd1982]

If he was informed by the PA...HOW WAS HE INFORMED?
(Or is this just a claim he makes with zero supporting evidence?)



How do you know that FT are "more than well aware" of this comment?



Then it's 1 of 2 things:

1 - His comment does not imply that the government was behind 911
OR
2 - your assertion (in bold above) is incorrect
1. ??? The info would go from the PA to FT, to him. I.e. an email. What is your point?

2. They know about it through things like google searches, where they can see what he has been doing recently

3. They do imply that, and you forget the 3rd option, which is that he is telling the truth. Of course, your inability to notice something so salient illustrates how intrepid a truth seeker you are, doesnt it?

[Unsecured Coins]

wait, you're stating that you can prove that HR is hassling everyone to stay quiet about this?

I can't wait for this. I CANNOT.

[mjd1982]

i do not believe this for one moment, another example of embellishing a story

how many people are being leaned on in this world of ours, some of whom are not even american?

if i knew that my govt had conspired to murder 3,000 people, i would not take a threat from my employers that they would fire me as a reason not to report what i know

Uk industrial tribunals, i know you know all about them and i know you know how they work, do you think FT could possibly ever claim fair dismissal of scott or any other employee for claiming what he did?

a huge company like this would just pay up the miniscule amount it would take to admit they fired him unfairly and be done with it, they would not spend billions defending their actions

these claims in no way damage FT = no grounds for dismissal
If he was lying about this, he would have been bringin his company into gross disrepute. That you will not even admit that he would have been reprimanded for this is pretty sad. My mate isnt even allowed to voice opinions on 911 outside of work publicly, else he will get fired. Doing so will look bad on his company- a charity- and the same can be said of FT. Much more so, since he is using his position as an FT employee, to make, what you claim to be, deceitful claims. He would be able to be fired in an instant for doing such; if he were not lying, that is when you would have protracted, expensive lawsuits.

[mjd1982]

The stark difference between the comments "Sri Lankans are bad swimmers" and "That thing fell apart like a Chinese motorbike..." has been explained ad nauseum. You choose to interpret the Sri Lankan comment as pejorative, ignoring the fact that that would completely depend on the context and intent of the speaker. That particular comment, in and of itself, tells you nothing about intent.

There is no such ambiguity surrounding the Chinese motorbike crack. The pejorative intent is clear and undeniable; no other reasonable interpretation exists.

And so, again, your analogy equating the slanderous intent of the two statements, ipso facto, was moronic. The distinction is obvious. And this is the last time I mention Sri Lankan swimmers.


Indeed, the discussion has been repeated ad nauseam, your inability to digest simple facts has been repeated ad nauseam, and your flailing efforts to defend the indefensible has been repeated ad nauseam.

The comment on Sri Lankan swimming ability is pejorative, with whatever slant
you put on it; it is a comment on sri lankan swimming ability. The same might be said of the motorcycle comment. Neither are racist in any serious sense of the word. End


P.S. The word is "pejorative". One "r". Surprising I'd have to point that out, you being a (cough, cough) linguist and all.


Well done, banana for you


The satire in Ali G is multi-layered. That's why social critics actually hold his work in high regard. He lampoons everyone. Nothing and nobody is sacred. THAT is the "point" of Ali G. The "white kid from Staines who is trying to be black" is just a device. It's the vehicle he uses to get there.

The hyperbole inherent in his projection of black stereotypes is self-evident. Yes, they are evoked by a white wannabe who's a caricature himself, but they're evoked just the same. As I said, it's multi-layered.

Perhaps it's just an issue of you being too young and unsophisitcated to see it, but it's sure as hell there.

Ahh, yes, it's too "multi-layered" to be analysed specifically, too "sophisticated" for me, hmmm, nice evasion, never seen that one before.

First, learn the difference betweem spoof and satire. Satire is humour for a moral purpose, and spoof is the send up of a type of character. They are not mutually exclusive, but the distinction is there. Cohen's characters are largely spoofs, and there is little satire there, esp in his US shows. They are spoofs of types, which could be called racist, but those types are not sensitive- sending up wiggahs or Kazakhs or fashionistas is not something that offends. This is the crux of the point- a comment is racist not due to being a pejorative racial stereotype, it also has to have a quality of sensitivity to it. Calling Muslims ragheads does; commenting on chinese motorcycles doesnt.

What a stupid tangent.

[mjd1982]

Here you go.


Reading problems? I said posts that i ignored
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=84473&page=56


There was also a post that addressed your claim about it being foolish to take on a multi-billion dollar corporation. It appears to have been deleted or moved for some reason. Here's a quick recap.

Contrary to your assertion, the fact that his employer is large and has deep pockets would be a huge positive with respect to a lawsuit, not a negative. Lawyers in NYC would line up around the block to take Forbes' case - on a contingency basis - because the potential payout would be astronomical. As part of their case, they would contact as many of the 10,000 other employees affected by the power-down as they could locate. If the systematic employer intimidation that you allege were true, the net result would be dozens of class action lawsuits filed in a matter of days.

Ultimately tens, probably hundreds of millions of dollars would change hands if these people's rights were trampled in the manner you allege. With absolute certainty.

What you have done here is illustrate precisely why FT are not firing him. If he was tellign the truth, he would be able to sue for a lot, and get publicity. If he was lying, he would not. Hence this would indicate he is telling the truth.

[mjd1982]

The problem with this is that Scott never implied that FT was a part of the "cover-up". The fact that he is commenting on something that happened while he was on the job is irrelevant unless he was divulging a trade secret or going against some sort of NDA he signed. I highly doubt that is the case or FT would be all over it. So again, your claim that people are not speaking out for fear of recriminations is baseless.
Except that he is not using his position at FT to make misrepresentations about FT. He is using is experience within the TT to speak out as an individual. The fact that his story has been deemed irrelevant doesn't make it a cover-up. The fact that he never experience a power down in the 3 years he was at FT doesn't mean that the power down was an unusual event. I have yet to see any records that show a power down of floors had never happened prior to 9/8&9/2001.
As I have mentioned many times now, it is not about him implicatin FT. It is about him using his position at FT as a platform for mendacious remarks.If this were the case he would be out on his ass, tell me you can comprehend this!

[lapman]

As I have mentioned many times now, it is not about him implicatin FT. It is about him using his position at FT as a platform for mendacious remarks.If this were the case he would be out on his ass, tell me you can comprehend this!
As I've stated before, yes, you would be correct if that were true. How many time do I have to remind you that he was never using his position at FT as a platform for anything. He only mentions his FT employment as to his reason for being in the tower that weekend. Nothing more. Please tell me you can comprehend that.

[BillyRayValentine]

First, learn the difference betweem spoof and satire. Satire is humour for a moral purpose...

Well, I see why this argument is going nowhere. You haven't a clue about the definition of satire. "Humor for a moral purpose" describes but one form, among many, many others. It's not even close to being "the" definition of the term. It's an example, that's it.

Your attempt at distinguishing between spoof and satire is equally inept, particularly as it relates to Sacha Baron Cohen's characters. Again, a spoof is another form of satire, albeit one that isn't mean-spirited.

Which defines Cohen's work. His satirical characters and their interactions with others (spoofs, if you prefer) rarely cause a stir (at least among reasonable people) because they don't caricature anyone - they caricature everyone. And they do so in a comedic, disarming way.

In general, you seem to be confused by the real intent of most of his work. Obviously, his goal first and foremost is to make people laugh. But in terms of his satire, his real target is rarely the group(s) his character stereotypes. His target is the stereotype itself. Which is why his work conjures up stereotypes pertaining to pretty much every group imaginable.

P.S. Since you refuse to acknowledge the racism in your motorbike comment and persist with that ridiculous analogy, how about you perform a little test. Next time you're in a large, ethnically diverse group, intentionally drop something small that will break. When it does, yell out "Man, that thing came apart like a Chinese motorbike". See how well it's received.

[BillyRayValentine]

As I've stated before, yes, you would be correct if that were true. How many time do I have to remind you that he was never using his position at FT as a platform for anything. He only mentions his FT employment as to his reason for being in the tower that weekend. Nothing more. Please tell me you can comprehend that.

We'll never know if he can comprehend this, but we can be certain he'll never acknowledge it. That much is clear.

[BillyRayValentine]

What you have done here is illustrate precisely why FT are not firing him. If he was tellign the truth, he would be able to sue for a lot, and get publicity. If he was lying, he would not. Hence this would indicate he is telling the truth.

You have stated (or at least strongly implied) that he has been threatened with termination if he doesn't pipe down. Whether he is telling the truth or not, such threats are highly illegal (and without question legally actionable). He'd already be in a position to "sue for a lot and get publicity". Firms can't go around coercing their employees with respect to things they say as private citizens, except in very limited (and rare) cases, as already explained. Since you appear incapable of understanding why and persist with your "he used FT as a platform" nonsense, let's move on to the scenario where he's telling the truth.

As I mentioned above, if he is telling the truth and has been threatened in some fashion by FT, he already has a slam-dunk case. You've implied that such threats have been widespread (hence the lack of corroboration), so the pool of potential witnesses to support his claims regarding both the event and the subsequent threats would be huge. Any and all of these witnesses would be able to corroborate his story with impunity, even if they were also previously threatened by their employers (FT or otherwise). There is no possible way they would be fired for testifying, particularly because they'd be telling the truth. And those who were threatened would get the added benefit of joining in on the fun. An avalanche of class action suits would follow, and a whole lot of people wouldn't have to worry about cash again any time soon.

Alternatively, he could keep saying what he was ordered not to, and hope they live up to their threats to fire him. In this scenario, the damages would be astronomical. And the case would be that much easier.

Anyway, this has become tiresome as well. I had no idea that you'd go to such lengths to defend this lying moron, else I never would have commented on your evening with him. The bottom line is that your worldview impels you to defend the indefensible, an asinine fairy tale that couldn't possibly be true. And the most compelling reason you've given, the only one that isn't fatally botched by your ignorance regarding office towers, employment law, etc., is that he's self-effacing, humble, soft-spoken and all that.

Have you ever considered the possibility that maybe he's just slow?

[BillyRayValentine]

I say that to illustrate the possibiltiy of rational explanations, rather than the situation you have envisaged, whereby he has suggested that the gov blew up the TTs from his position as an FT employee, and he hant even been punished for it, rather just hassled to keep quiet. This is a mirror of the situation with the name that I mentioned.

Ok, last try at clearing this up for you.

Kevin Ryan worked at Underwriter's Laboratories (as a water tester). He publicly made false claims about UL, namely that they had certified all the steel in the world trade center. He both stated and implied that UL had done this work, and that the firm was lying when it said otherwise. He was shown the door.

Scott Forbes worked (works?) at Fiduciary Trust. He publicly made false claims about the Port Authority powering-down half of WTC2, the building in which he worked. He neither stated nor implied anything about FT's behavior (except maybe to you).

Maybe these situations mirror each other in fantasy land, but here on earth they're not remotely comparable.

He probably was spoken to, and warned not to connect FT with his absurd claims in any way (since they're false). This would explain quite neatly his reticence to subsequently defend either the claims or his character. In fact, in the only other comments I've seen from him, his story has changed noticeably since that initial letter. Unambiguous claims suddenly morphed into qualified drivel ("Well, I can't say with certainty that other floors didn't have power", etc.).

The red flags are everywhere, if only you'd choose to open your eyes.

[funk de fino]

There may have been an alternative source of power. I say that to illustrate the possibiltiy of rational explanations, rather than the situation you have envisaged, whereby he has suggested that the gov blew up the TTs from his position as an FT employee, and he hant even been punished for it, rather just hassled to keep quiet. This is a mirror of the situation with the name that I mentioned. There are simple explanations for things that will fit in with the broader facts.



He has been hassled by HR to keep quiet, and has had his freedoms to attend 911 events, interviews etc, impinged. Not something a person might like.



as above



Because it was the case not just in his dept, as he has stated.



Yes he has, according to you; he has said that they had a power down the w/e b4 911. According to you, he is using his position as an employee at FT to implicate the US gov in 911 by lying. This is bringing the company iknto gross disrepute, and he would be fired on the spot were he lying.



As i said, it is not about accusong them of anything, it is about using his standpoint as an FT employee, deceitfully, to implicate the US gov in mass murder. This would not be tolerated, were it the case.



No, they , he says, check up on google etc and see his recent "activity", if any, and will give him a nudge, let him know theyve seen what they have, and tell him to keep it down, basically.

alternative source of power?, now that changes everything then, this means he is lying when he says there was a complete power down from floor 50 up, glad you have cleared that up for us

if this is a rational explanation then surely Scott could have thought of this?

this is what is commonly known as moving the goalposts, stick to his claims not your speculation

the rest of your post is a travesty for someone so bright as yourself

HR are impinging his freedoms to attend events yet he attends them?

If I travelled to the US with my job, as I do, and I protested that 911 is an inside job with some truthers at the location I was at then HR from my company found out, would I be fired?

If they have also been googling then they would know he has been attending 911 meetings and going onto post on messageboards and he will be getting his P45 soon?

He is not using any position as a FT employee to accuse anyone of anything, all he is saying is that there was a complete power down in that tower that weekend, how could this be construed as gross disrepute if he makes no claims about FT? Unless you are saying he thinks FT were in on as well, which i see no evidence of? If they were in on it then he needs to spill the beans? Why would you want to continue to work for a company you suspect of being involved in these murders? If it were me, I would grass them and get another job elsewhere

What would you do?

This is the UK he comes under UK employment laws, if they sacked him for this they would have to to to an Industrial tribunal and say why they sacked him. They would lose if they sacked him for this.

You never answered about Tower 1, why did it not have the same power down?

In really am astonished at the level of rubbish in that last post, you have dissappointed me, I thought you were better than that

[funk de fino]

If he was lying about this, he would have been bringin his company into gross disrepute. That you will not even admit that he would have been reprimanded for this is pretty sad. My mate isnt even allowed to voice opinions on 911 outside of work publicly, else he will get fired. Doing so will look bad on his company- a charity- and the same can be said of FT. Much more so, since he is using his position as an FT employee, to make, what you claim to be, deceitful claims. He would be able to be fired in an instant for doing such; if he were not lying, that is when you would have protracted, expensive lawsuits.

Part in bold is even more ludicrous than your previous posting I replied to

You managed to beat it, I am amazed

Industrial Tribunals are not protracted, expensive lawsuits, this is not the USA

Last time I looked we have the right to free speech as long as it is not racist, bigotted, inciting violence or slanderous, under what circumstance would your friend be fired in the UK for talking about 911?

Are your friends employers googling him too?, are google in on it?

At the start of this thread I had high hopes for you, as I had said, you seemed different than the other truthers you normally get. As this thread has moved on you have just reverted to type and this really dissappoints me

[mjd1982]

As I've stated before, yes, you would be correct if that were true. How many time do I have to remind you that he was never using his position at FT as a platform for anything. He only mentions his FT employment as to his reason for being in the tower that weekend. Nothing more. Please tell me you can comprehend that.
No, it is his employment at FT that serves as the platform for him to make his claims. He is making his claims based on a "false" experience he had at work, in order to intimate the gov blew up the TTs. This is so damn easy to understand, why can you not? I have already shown to you that if you lied about an experience you had at work to implicate the gov in the murder of US citizens, you would be out on your ass. Why can you not see/admit to this?

[mjd1982]

Well, I see why this argument is going nowhere. You haven't a clue about the definition of satire. "Humor for a moral purpose" describes but one form, among many, many others. It's not even close to being "the" definition of the term. It's an example, that's it.


Err... trust me on this one my friend, being high handed with me aint gonna get you very far.

If you want to state that there are other definitions, then go ahead and provide them. Since you are way out of your depth here, you resort to a standard tactic, muddy the issue. "Oh his satire is multi layered, its hard to pinpointm really", "Your definition is just one of many, but I'm not going to provide any others". Put up or shut up please.


Your attempt at distinguishing between spoof and satire is equally inept, particularly as it relates to Sacha Baron Cohen's characters. Again, a spoof is another form of satire, albeit one that isn't mean-spirited.


Hence why I said they werent mutually exclusive. Read b4 u post. Spoof is not a form of satire, unless it has a moral purpose. If you spoof the behaviour of a boring person, are you being satirical? No, unless there is a moral purpose to it.



Which defines Cohen's work. His satirical characters and their interactions with others (spoofs, if you prefer) rarely cause a stir (at least among reasonable people) because they don't caricature anyone - they caricature everyone. And they do so in a comedic, disarming way.


For the last time, his characters are only satirical in certain instances. When he interviews foxhunters, then he is being satirical. When he is going on a police training course, and gets excited about having a gun, that is not satire. Understand?


In general, you seem to be confused by the real intent of most of his work.


Oh please...


Obviously, his goal first and foremost is to make people laugh. But in terms of his satire, his real target is rarely the group(s) his character stereotypes. His target is the stereotype itself. Which is why his work conjures up stereotypes pertaining to pretty much every group imaginable.


That is his satire. Learn to distinguish between his satire and his spoof, as I have taught you, and you will be less confused.


P.S. Since you refuse to acknowledge the racism in your motorbike comment and persist with that ridiculous analogy, how about you perform a little test. Next time you're in a large, ethnically diverse group, intentionally drop something small that will break. When it does, yell out "Man, that thing came apart like a Chinese motorbike". See how well it's received.


Oh, so now you are stating that that comment is racist? Do you have reading comprehension problems? I have just explained to you that if that is "racist", then so would be Borat. But it is not. Think before you post!

[mjd1982]

You have stated (or at least strongly implied) that he has been threatened with termination if he doesn't pipe down. Whether he is telling the truth or not, such threats are highly illegal (and without question legally actionable).


Absolulte horseplop. If he lies about an experience about an experience he had at work to implicate the US gov in killing thousands of US citizens, he will be out on his ass. Do you know what bringing a company into disrepute means? Transpose that situation to one of yours at work- you make up an event in order to show that the gov was behind 911, and think what would happen to you


He'd already be in a position to "sue for a lot and get publicity". Firms can't go around coercing their employees with respect to things they say as private citizens, except in very limited (and rare) cases, as already explained. Since you appear incapable of understanding why and persist with your "he used FT as a platform" nonsense, let's move on to the scenario where he's telling the truth.


Oh please. If he is making up experiences he had at FT, and communications he had from them, also implying that they are covering it up, and thus that they have a role in 911, he will be out on his ass for bringing the company into disrepute .

Tell me why this is so hard for you to comprehend, aside from intransigence


As I mentioned above, if he is telling the truth and has been threatened in some fashion by FT, he already has a slam-dunk case. You've implied that such threats have been widespread (hence the lack of corroboration), so the pool of potential witnesses to support his claims regarding both the event and the subsequent threats would be huge.


Not threatened, just nudged and winked, which is very different. He cannot sue for that.


Any and all of these witnesses would be able to corroborate his story with impunity, even if they were also previously threatened by their employers (FT or otherwise). There is no possible way they would be fired for testifying, particularly because they'd be telling the truth. And those who were threatened would get the added benefit of joining in on the fun. An avalanche of class action suits would follow, and a whole lot of people wouldn't have to worry about cash again any time soon.


Hence why FT will not fire him for it, since he is telling the truth, It is a very simple experiment. Were he lying, he would be out of there in a flash. But he's not, so he isnt, as you illustrate why.


Alternatively, he could keep saying what he was ordered not to, and hope they live up to their threats to fire him. In this scenario, the damages would be astronomical. And the case would be that much easier.


If he wanted to go down that route.


Anyway, this has become tiresome as well. I had no idea that you'd go to such lengths to defend this lying moron,


Astonishing. Who is the lying moron again? I think you have some serious thinking to do my friend...


else I never would have commented on your evening with him. The bottom line is that your worldview impels you to defend the indefensible, an asinine fairy tale that couldn't possibly be true. And the most compelling reason you've given, the only one that isn't fatally botched by your ignorance regarding office towers, employment law, etc., is that he's self-effacing, humble, soft-spoken and all that.


???

This is self deception at the highest level!


Have you ever considered the possibility that maybe he's just slow?

What the hell does this have to do with anything? Are you feeling ok?

[funk de fino]

If you spoof the behaviour of a boring person, are you being satirical?

was Spitting Image satirical comedy?

or spoof?

that chinese remark is racist mate, like it or not

[mjd1982]

Ok, last try at clearing this up for you.


:jaw-dropp


Kevin Ryan worked at Underwriter's Laboratories (as a water tester). He publicly made false claims about UL, namely that they had certified all the steel in the world trade center. He both stated and implied that UL had done this work, and that the firm was lying when it said otherwise. He was shown the door.

Scott Forbes worked (works?) at Fiduciary Trust. He publicly made false claims about the Port Authority powering-down half of WTC2, the building in which he worked. He neither stated nor implied anything about FT's behavior (except maybe to you).


Other than that they told him about the power down, something in which they would have to be fully involved, both in the implementation and the subsequent cover up.

Moreover, he is, you claim, fabricating a work experience to implicate the gov in 911, and possibly FT as well.. Tell me you can understand this, this is 5 year old basic.


Maybe these situations mirror each other in fantasy land, but here on earth they're not remotely comparable.


Dude, please...


He probably was spoken to, and warned not to connect FT with his absurd claims in any way (since they're false). This would explain quite neatly his reticence to subsequently defend either the claims or his character. In fact, in the only other comments I've seen from him, his story has changed noticeably since that initial letter. Unambiguous claims suddenly morphed into qualified drivel ("Well, I can't say with certainty that other floors didn't have power", etc.).


Please read before you post. He has been nudged and winked, which, as I have told you an astonishing number of times, is very different from being warned- this is precisely the opposite of what has happened. He has not been warned to stop lying, just nudged to stop talking about it.

Again, to repeat a now common refrain with you, understand this simple premise, and you wil understand a lot more.

[mjd1982]

was Spitting Image satirical comedy?

or spoof?

that chinese remark is racist mate, like it or not
Come on dude, I dont ask a lot. Just please read my posts before you reply to them.

Spoof can be satirical when it comes under the banner of humour for a moral purpose.

But not all satire is spoof (have I got news for you, the daily show e.g)

When Borat goes to the rodeo and shouts "We support your war of terror" and everyone applauds, there isa moral purpose there- exposing the idiocy of those people who suport the WOT. When he sings the Kazakh national anthem boasting about potassium production, there is no satire there, just spoof of our preconceptions of what someone from that part of the world might be like.

Oh, and re the chinese remark, tell me whether you find Borat racist.

[mjd1982]

alternative source of power?, now that changes everything then, this means he is lying when he says there was a complete power down from floor 50 up, glad you have cleared that up for us


My explanation deals with an alternative source of power, one that would power, say the observation deck et al, but not the main parts of the building,which would have been the relevant parts for what Scott is implying


if this is a rational explanation then surely Scott could have thought of this?

this is what is commonly known as moving the goalposts, stick to his claims not your speculation


For the moment, I will have to speculate, since he was not asked about this, and so I am illustrating to you how there are sensible explanations for this minor anomaly which would prevent you from having to explain a major one,i.e. how he could be implicating his employer in a 911 cover up and not get fired.


the rest of your post is a travesty for someone so bright as yourself

HR are impinging his freedoms to attend events yet he attends them?


He would not be able to do a la Wille Rodriguez. He is not tagged, so he is able to attend the odd event- 2 in the last ~9 mths. Please tell me this is not unreasonable.


If I travelled to the US with my job, as I do, and I protested that 911 is an inside job with some truthers at the location I was at then HR from my company found out, would I be fired?


But ive told you this before. YOu would not be using your platform as an emplyee to make false claims about 911 tha would implicate your companu in the cover up. If you did, you would be fired like that.


If they have also been googling then they would know he has been attending 911 meetings and going onto post on messageboards and he will be getting his P45 soon?


How so? Google my name you wont find anything on 911, yet I am pretty active (bullhorned Parliament last 11th)


He is not using any position as a FT employee to accuse anyone of anything, all he is saying is that there was a complete power down in that tower that weekend, how could this be construed as gross disrepute if he makes no claims about FT? Unless you are saying he thinks FT were in on as well, which i see no evidence of? If they were in on it then he needs to spill the beans? Why would you want to continue to work for a company you suspect of being involved in these murders? If it were me, I would grass them and get another job elsewhere


That is what you would do; well done you. He is implicating, as you have correctly inferred, that they are to some degree in on the cover up. Hence if he were making this claim based on a lie, he woudl be fired in a second, as would you or anyone else.


What would you do?

This is the UK he comes under UK employment laws, if they sacked him for this they would have to to to an Industrial tribunal and say why they sacked him. They would lose if they sacked him for this.


Errr... for stating that your employer is behind a 911 cover up? Covering up klling 3000 people? Think through that one again, i think


You never answered about Tower 1, why did it not have the same power down?


I dont know, nor is it relevant to whether Scott's story is true.

[funk de fino]

Oh please. If he is making up experiences he had at FT, and communications he had from them, also implying that they are covering it up, and thus that they have a role in 911, he will be out on his ass for bringing the company into disrepute .

Not threatened, just nudged and winked, which is very different. He cannot sue for that.

Hence why FT will not fire him for it, since he is telling the truth, It is a very simple experiment. Were he lying, he would be out of there in a flash. But he's not, so he isnt, as you illustrate why.


Do they know that he is claiming that he got this communication from them about the power down? I have only heard you claim this

Where has he implied that they are covering up anything? He never accused them of being behind the power down or 911, if they were involved then surely he must report his suspicions?

You said he has been hassled by HR to keep quiet, not a nudge nidge wink wink

You have already given many "rational" explanations for all the inconsistencies in his story when they have been pointed out

Isn't the most rational one that he exagerrated the extent of the power down? A mistake that has been magnified by the truthers?

Above that floor were there any other companies who would have been affected by a lack of security doors or cameras? banking or financial?

[Unsecured Coins]

First I want your proof that HR is harassing people to stay quiet.

[mjd1982]

Part in bold is even more ludicrous than your previous posting I replied to

You managed to beat it, I am amazed

Industrial Tribunals are not protracted, expensive lawsuits, this is not the USA

Last time I looked we have the right to free speech as long as it is not racist, bigotted, inciting violence or slanderous, under what circumstance would your friend be fired in the UK for talking about 911?

Are your friends employers googling him too?, are google in on it?

At the start of this thread I had high hopes for you, as I had said, you seemed different than the other truthers you normally get. As this thread has moved on you have just reverted to type and this really dissappoints me
No, it states in his contract that he is not allowed to make comments or support causes that reflect badly on the company. This is the contract he has signed, and he has to abide by it. I think this woud be the same for most companies.

And why would they google his name anyway? Just to check if he was a 911 truther?

[funk de fino]

Come on dude, I dont ask a lot. Just please read my posts before you reply to them.

Spoof can be satirical when it comes under the banner of humour for a moral purpose.

But not all satire is spoof (have I got news for you, the daily show e.g)

When Borat goes to the rodeo and shouts "We support your war of terror" and everyone applauds, there isa moral purpose there- exposing the idiocy of those people who suport the WOT. When he sings the Kazakh national anthem boasting about potassium production, there is no satire there, just spoof of our preconceptions of what someone from that part of the world might be like.

Oh, and re the chinese remark, tell me whether you find Borat racist.

listen pal, i read your post and i asked you a question that required you to say whether you thought it was a satirical comedy or spoof comedy

which is it?

if any other answer is given i just want to know your reasons

is the following racist?

"it went down faster than a thai hooker"

"more chins that the chinese phone book"

I happen to think Borat is racist and so do the Kazak techs i work with

[volatile]

My explanation deals with an alternative source of power, one that would power, say the observation deck et al, but not the main parts of the building,which would have been the relevant parts for what Scott is implying

This is why your opinions are called "conspiracy theory", and why no-one with an ounce of logic takes you seriously. Your opinions are utterly unfalsifiable - when it's shown, and conclusively so, that you are utterly, utterly wrong in your assertions, you invent, from thin air, a speculative, convoluted method whereby, in your mind, it could still be true.

We can point out any flaws with your arguments, and with CT arguments in general, and the weasling always continue. "The photos are fakes!" "The media are in on in!". "Black ops!". "Secret technology!".

There is nothing we can say, and no evidence we could provide, to show you the error of your ways if you persist in maintaining this mindset. It is utterly pointless debating with you, or providing rational discourse or material evidence, because there is always a sci-fi-esque deus ex machina, or convoluted plot you could construct to ensure your version of events might, just might have happened the way you maintain it did.

[DGM]

Err... trust me on this one my friend, being high handed with me aint gonna get you very far.

This coming from a man that hasn't made a single point in 58 pages. Too funny!

[funk de fino]

My explanation deals with an alternative source of power, one that would power, say the observation deck et al, but not the main parts of the building,which would have been the relevant parts for what Scott is implying

For the moment, I will have to speculate, since he was not asked about this, and so I am illustrating to you how there are sensible explanations for this minor anomaly which would prevent you from having to explain a major one,i.e. how he could be implicating his employer in a 911 cover up and not get fired.

He would not be able to do a la Wille Rodriguez. He is not tagged, so he is able to attend the odd event- 2 in the last ~9 mths. Please tell me this is not unreasonable.



But ive told you this before. YOu would not be using your platform as an emplyee to make false claims about 911 tha would implicate your companu in the cover up. If you did, you would be fired like that.

How so? Google my name you wont find anything on 911, yet I am pretty active (bullhorned Parliament last 11th)

That is what you would do; well done you. He is implicating, as you have correctly inferred, that they are to some degree in on the cover up. Hence if he were making this claim based on a lie, he woudl be fired in a second, as would you or anyone else.

Errr... for stating that your employer is behind a 911 cover up? Covering up klling 3000 people? Think through that one again, i think

I dont know, nor is it relevant to whether Scott's story is true.

You have made an excuse for Scotts inadequacies in the story that have been exposed, there is a difference. He has not made the same rational explanations.

And it is not a minor anomaly in his story, it is a major one it has proved that he was mistaken in his assertion that there was a complete power down for 26/36 hours in that tower from the 50th floor up. This is his main claim and this shows it to be untrue or at the least he is mistaken.

I have seen nowhere that he is implying at any point that FT were resposible for any cover up

You have made that implication

If he is sure then he must report it, if he goes to tribunal and proves his case then he is home free

If not he has to look for another job with a company without blood on there hands

How simple and ethical is that choice?

Does FT know that he is implicating them in 911?

I would not be using my company anymore than Scott was, so no I would not be fired

They have specifically told him not to attend 911 meetings then have they?

If he accused them of being implicated in it then they sacked him it would go to tribunal and he could prove his case by brining other employees in to confirm his story about the 50 floor up power down? They have to prove he is lying remember.

If he was immediately convinced that the power down had something to do with it then surely other employees did as well? They would back him up if he was sacked for NOT lying

They google his name and this post comes up and they see that you are claiming that he has attended meetings then he gets fired? As ridiculous as it sounds it was you that first claimed they monitor the net for him? If they are doing this what is to stop them getting a PI to fully investigate him?

tower 1 is just as irrelevant as his real name remark was earlier

[mjd1982]

listen pal, i read your post and i asked you a question that required you to say whether you thought it was a satirical comedy or spoof comedy

which is it?

if any other answer is given i just want to know your reasons

is the following racist?

"it went down faster than a thai hooker"

"more chins that the chinese phone book"

I happen to think Borat is racist and so do the Kazak techs i work with
Ok, good, you think he is racist. Thats fine.

I thought the answer for SI was clear- it is a spoof, and is also (was) satirical.

[mjd1982]

This is why your opinions are called "conspiracy theory", and why no-one with an ounce of logic takes you seriously. Your opinions are utterly unfalsifiable - when it's shown, and conclusively so, that you are utterly, utterly wrong in your assertions, you invent, from thin air, a speculative, convoluted method whereby, in your mind, it could still be true.

We can point out any flaws with your arguments, and with CT arguments in general, and the weasling always continue. "The photos are fakes!" "The media are in on in!". "Black ops!". "Secret technology!".

There is nothing we can say, and no evidence we could provide, to show you the error of your ways if you persist in maintaining this mindset. It is utterly pointless debating with you, or providing rational discourse or material evidence, because there is always a sci-fi-esque deus ex machina, or convoluted plot you could construct to ensure your version of events might, just might have happened the way you maintain it did.
What a ridiculous post...

1) Where have I ever said any of that garbage?

2) The point i was making was intentionally speculative, and was done to illustrate a point. If you and your fellow fantasists took the time to read my posts before responding to them, you would not be languishing in the mire you currently are.

[mjd1982]

This coming from a man that hasn't made a single point in 58 pages. Too funny!
No, thats just your capacitiesof comprehension I'm afraid...

[funk de fino]

No, it states in his contract that he is not allowed to make comments or support causes that reflect badly on the company. This is the contract he has signed, and he has to abide by it. I think this woud be the same for most companies.

And why would they google his name anyway? Just to check if he was a 911 truther?

How is commenting on 911 outside work reflecting badly on his work?

Supporting the cause of 911 Truth reflects badly on his company?

Maybe if it was the NF or pro IRA or Ulster Loyalists stuff etc

balderdash again

[mjd1982]

You have made an excuse for Scotts inadequacies in the story that have been exposed, there is a difference. He has not made the same rational explanations.

And it is not a minor anomaly in his story, it is a major one it has proved that he was mistaken in his assertion that there was a complete power down for 26/36 hours in that tower from the 50th floor up. This is his main claim and this shows it to be untrue or at the least he is mistaken.


It is a minor one relative to the major one that you cannot explain. Mine has a simple explanation out, yours does not.


I have seen nowhere that he is implying at any point that FT were resposible for any cover up


Other than the fact that he is implyng they are covering it up


If he is sure then he must report it, if he goes to tribunal and proves his case then he is home free


why must he?


If not he has to look for another job with a company without blood on there hands


Why does he have to?


How simple and ethical is that choice?


maybe so for you; not for him


Does FT know that he is implicating them in 911?


They know of his comments. I have told you this


I would not be using my company anymore than Scott was, so no I would not be fired


What? I have shown you how such comments are implicating of FT. Can you show me, rationally, how they are not?


They have specifically told him not to attend 911 meetings then have they?


I have told you, nudges and winks


If he accused them of being implicated in it then they sacked him it would go to tribunal and he could prove his case by brining other employees in to confirm his story about the 50 floor up power down? They have to prove he is lying remember.
[/quote

Precisely! And how easy would that be to do if he was lying. How many witnesses could they call on? Hundreds. But since he is not lying, they cannot sack him.

The answer is in front of your eyes if you have eyes to see.

[QUOTE=funk de fino;2784837]
If he was immediately convinced that the power down had something to do with it then surely other employees did as well? They would back him up if he was sacked for NOT lying


But he wont be sacked, as I have told you, unless heis lying, in which case he will be out in a flash for implicating FT in the 911 cover up. Again, explain, sensibly,. why this would not be so.


They google his name and this post comes up and they see that you are claiming that he has attended meetings then he gets fired? As ridiculous as it sounds it was you that first claimed they monitor the net for him? If they are doing this what is to stop them getting a PI to fully investigate him?


They dont need a PI, since their aim is to ensure that he is not making his claims to loudly. By definition they would not need a PI to find that out

[mjd1982]

How is commenting on 911 outside work reflecting badly on his work?

Supporting the cause of 911 Truth reflects badly on his company?

Maybe if it was the NF or pro IRA or Ulster Loyalists stuff etc

balderdash again
Well, 1stly its a social taboo. 2ndly, it is implicating his employers in the cover up. Tell me you can understand thi; if not, tell me why not.

[DGM]

No, thats just your capacitiesof comprehension I'm afraid...
OK, Show me an uncontested point you made that concerns 9/11?

[funk de fino]

Ok, good, you think he is racist. Thats fine.

I thought the answer for SI was clear- it is a spoof, and is also (was) satirical.


Well thats strange because me and nearly every other source I can find thinks the exact opposite from you

It was classed a satirical comedy, perhaps using spoof elements

I can find nowhere that it is described as spoof comedy

but hey I'll let you roll with your opinion however wrong it may be

and you never answered whether those statements were racist or not?

[funk de fino]

It is a minor one relative to the major one that you cannot explain. Mine has a simple explanation out, yours does not.

Other than the fact that he is implyng they are covering it up

why must he?

why does he have to?

maybe so for you; not for him

They know of his comments. I have told you this

What? I have shown you how such comments are implicating of FT. Can you show me, rationally, how they are not?

I have told you, nudges and winks

Precisely! And how easy would that be to do if he was lying. How many witnesses could they call on? Hundreds. But since he is not lying, they cannot sack him.

The answer is in front of your eyes if you have eyes to see.

But he wont be sacked, as I have told you, unless heis lying, in which case he will be out in a flash for implicating FT in the 911 cover up. Again, explain, sensibly,. why this would not be so.

They dont need a PI, since their aim is to ensure that he is not making his claims to loudly. By definition they would not need a PI to find that out

Mine is simpler, he was mistaken about the extent of the power down

Where has Scott implied that FT is covering up anything? Show me this, I have only seen you post this

Why is it not a simple and ethical choice to choose to report your company for the cover up in the deaths of three thousand people? surely doing the rightthing is the ethical choice to be made over worrying if you will lose your job? He can get another job, those people have got no justice if he is correct and the perps have got away Scott free

You have not shown me how FT are implicated in this in any way by Scott or anyone else to that matter. He is insinuating someone is covering up but does not anywhere i have seen imply it is FT.

Did he have work colleagues killed that day?

They know that he has said there was a power down and how extensive it was? Or that he is accusing them of a cover up?

So is going to 911 meetings not making your position and claims known? Do they know he was at these meetings? can they find out? all they need to do is google his name?

If I emailed them and told them i knew he was attending these meetings would he get sacked?

you addressed the PI remark but missed the other point in that paragragh?

[funk de fino]

Well, 1stly its a social taboo. 2ndly, it is implicating his employers in the cover up. Tell me you can understand thi; if not, tell me why not.

1stly - this was regards your mate in the charity who is banned from speaking about 911, not Scott??

2ndly - Please try to reply to the question in the correct context this time please

3rdly - It is social taboo but there are numerous 911 documentaries about these cover ups being made, have been made, have been aired and are available freely on the internet?

[volatile]

What a ridiculous post...

1) Where have I ever said any of that garbage?

Is someone else posting with your account or something? Did you not see the direct quote?

Let's try again, but simpler: You are having your ass handed to you on a plate, MjD. It has been shown to you that a power down did not happen as you or Scott stated it did. Instead of contrition, an apology, and an attempt at learning, you said, and I quote directly:

My explanation deals with an alternative source of power, one that would power, say the observation deck et al, but not the main parts of the building,which would have been the relevant parts for what Scott is implying

Rather than contrition, you contrive an explanation which allows you to maintain your paranoid "garbage", as you so rightly call it.

Your argument, such that it is, is utterly unfalsifiable. Every time an error is pointed out, you can make similar dodges "just for speculation". Do you base your entire life on speculation? Did you pass your degree from Oxford on speculation? Or, instead, when evidence was shown to you that showed you the truth of something you previously doubted, or were ignorant of, did you learn?

2) The point i was making was intentionally speculative, and was done to illustrate a point. If you and your fellow fantasists took the time to read my posts before responding to them, you would not be languishing in the mire you currently are.

Fellow fantasists? Which of us just created an imaginary alternate power source? Was that me, or you?

[aggle-rithm]

http://pointlesswasteoftime.com/mjignore.jpg


Ah, that's better.

Here are the highlights:



Errr...

Errr...

Er.... no



Lol,

Oh dear.





Oh whoops,

D'uh!

[aggle-rithm]

Well, 1stly its a social taboo. 2ndly, it is implicating his employers in the cover up. Tell me you can understand thi; if not, tell me why not.

Delusion springs eternal.

[lapman]

No, it is his employment at FT that serves as the platform for him to make his claims. He is making his claims based on a "false" experience he had at work, in order to intimate the gov blew up the TTs. This is so damn easy to understand, why can you not? Because I live in the real world. Not in a cloud of "Truth Movement" haze. If I lied an said that I got sick from the food I purchased from the lunch truck on my lunch break, I would not get fired because I did not implicate that the company got me sick.
I have already shown to you that if you lied about an experience you had at work to implicate the gov in the murder of US citizens, you would be out on your ass. Why can you not see/admit to this?Because that is a completely false claim that I and others have shown you. If Scott worked for the PA, your whole scenario would be closer to reality.

A more plausible explanation is that Scott felt that he had a legitimate claim. He told the commission and others about it and was upset that it did not get the attention that he thought was due. The "Truth Movement" got a hold of his story and ran with it. He was probably happy that somebody took his story seriously and really liked the attention he was getting. Can't blame him for that. However, the "Truth Movement" blew his story way out of proportion and turned it into a complete lie. If I were him, I would be embarrassed as hell. However, this poses a dilemma. Correct the story and risk losing the attention, or claim oppression by his company to distance himself from the lie. It looks like he chose the latter. Again, can we really blame him?

This whole line of debate is senseless anyway. On SLC, you implied that you did not think that the towers were brought down by CD. So the power down is irrelevant.

[nicepants]

1. ??? The info would go from the PA to FT, to him. I.e. an email. What is your point?

Great! Let's see this e-mail.

3. They do imply that, and you forget the 3rd option, which is that he is telling the truth. Of course, your inability to notice something so salient illustrates how intrepid a truth seeker you are, doesnt it?

Read again for comprehension:
My conclusion made no claims or implications of whether his statement was truthful or not.

As you apparently do not recall, you claimed:

If an employee of such a company were to come out and imply that the gov were behind 911, they would be out on their ass, or at the least, in deep schtick, no question. He has never been either. Explain.


If your claim (bolded above) is true, it would not matter whether his statements are true or false, only that they "implied that the gov was behind 911".

This leads us to only 2 possible conclusions:


1 - His comment does not imply that the government was behind 911
OR
2 - your assertion (in bold above) is incorrect

You have already denied conclusion #1, therefore we must conclude that your (bolded above) claim is WRONG. Even if he is telling the truth, your claim states that "he would be out on his ass".

[twinstead]

Wow. ...'cloud of "Truth Movement" haze'. I like that, lapman ;)

[Matthew Best]

I'm confused - mjd keeps saying that Scott can't be fired because he is telling the truth, so what can the "nudges and winks" possibly threaten him with?

[Belz...]

If he was lying about this, he would have been bringin his company into gross disrepute.

How so ?

Would he have brought shame to his family name, too ?

What a stupid tangent.

Yes. They're both pejorative in some sense. Can we move on ?

What you have done here is illustrate precisely why FT are not firing him. If he was tellign the truth, he would be able to sue for a lot, and get publicity. If he was lying, he would not. Hence this would indicate he is telling the truth.

A -> B does not necessarily equal B -> A.

Absolulte horseplop

Think before you post!

[nicepants]

I'm confused - mjd keeps saying that Scott can't be fired because he is telling the truth, so what can the "nudges and winks" possibly threaten him with?

Perhaps someone told him that speaking up would not be propitious to keeping his job ;-)

[Belz...]

If he is making up experiences he had at FT, and communications he had from them, also implying that they are covering it up, and thus that they have a role in 911, he will be out on his ass for bringing the company into disrepute .

His comments aren't even connected with that company. Why would he bring them any "disrepute" ? You're just making stuff up, now.

Tell me you can understand this, this is 5 year old basic.

We've already seen that your "basic" understandings are usually flawed. Maybe you should say they're basic, and avoid yourself some ridicule.

He has not been warned to stop lying, just nudged to stop talking about it.

Semantics.

deus ex machina

And how I hate these things.

[mjd1982]

Well thats strange because me and nearly every other source I can find thinks the exact opposite from you

It was classed a satirical comedy, perhaps using spoof elements

I can find nowhere that it is described as spoof comedy

but hey I'll let you roll with your opinion however wrong it may be

and you never answered whether those statements were racist or not?
???

You have just repeated what I said- it has elements of spoof and satire- and then disagreed with what i said.

Dont thnk that spoof and satire are mutually exclusive, nor that an entire TV series is exclusively one and not the other.

As for your other comments, I dont know whether they are racist or not. I would venture that they they are not racist in any serious way, since thai hookers is not a controversial or touchy issue.

[mjd1982]

Mine is simpler, he was mistaken about the extent of the power down


well i'm sorry, but that changes everything, since the premise of your coleagues is taht he is a liar and a fraud (though without mitive for being such).

So there was a power down of some sort, just not maybe as large as he claimed? Thiis then begs my question once more- why is it being covered up, and why he being nudged and winked by his company to shut up?


Where has Scott implied that FT is covering up anything? Show me this, I have only seen you post this


Since they are telling him politely to shut up, and havent corroborated his story, nor refuted the now official denial of it


Why is it not a simple and ethical choice to choose to report your company for the cover up in the deaths of three thousand people? surely doing the rightthing is the ethical choice to be made over worrying if you will lose your job? He can get another job, those people have got no justice if he is correct and the perps have got away Scott free


That is what you (think you) would do, as I have said before. Realise that people are different


You have not shown me how FT are implicated in this in any way by Scott or anyone else to that matter. He is insinuating someone is covering up but does not anywhere i have seen imply it is FT.


Because if what he is saying is true, then they are also covering up the fact, since they should be coming out and saying "Hey, there was a mysterious power down the w/e b4 911". But they dont.

Btw, you do know that Thom Kean was on the board of FT shortl b4 911? (I think maybe even CEO...)


Did he have work colleagues killed that day?


yes


They know that he has said there was a power down and how extensive it was? Or that he is accusing them of a cover up?


They know what you and i know


So is going to 911 meetings not making your position and claims known? Do they know he was at these meetings? can they find out? all they need to do is google his name?


How would that let them find out?

He is keeping a low profile, since he doesnt want to run any unnecessary risks. Its that simple


If I emailed them and told them i knew he was attending these meetings would he get sacked?


Unlikely, though he may get into trouble. Dont do that please


you addressed the PI remark but missed the other point in that paragragh?

Which was?

[mjd1982]

1stly - this was regards your mate in the charity who is banned from speaking about 911, not Scott??

2ndly - Please try to reply to the question in the correct context this time please

3rdly - It is social taboo but there are numerous 911 documentaries about these cover ups being made, have been made, have been aired and are available freely on the internet?
Ok, sorry. It would look bad on the company since it would be stating an inflammatory and unsuitable pov. YOu must realise that the CT movement is such. This is, incidentally, one of the social mechanisms that will inhibits such truths coming out. So when you next read pomeroo's latest tripe about the "Impossible Vast Conspiracy", you should remind yourself that due to this social mechanism, people dont have to be "in on it" to aid and abet it; you will thus be better informed than he.

[mjd1982]

Is someone else posting with your account or something? Did you not see the direct quote?

Let's try again, but simpler: You are having your ass handed to you on a plate, MjD. It has been shown to you that a power down did not happen as you or Scott stated it did. Instead of contrition, an apology, and an attempt at learning, you said, and I quote directly:



Rather than contrition, you contrive an explanation which allows you to maintain your paranoid "garbage", as you so rightly call it.

Your argument, such that it is, is utterly unfalsifiable. Every time an error is pointed out, you can make similar dodges "just for speculation". Do you base your entire life on speculation? Did you pass your degree from Oxford on speculation? Or, instead, when evidence was shown to you that showed you the truth of something you previously doubted, or were ignorant of, did you learn?



Fellow fantasists? Which of us just created an imaginary alternate power source? Was that me, or you?
The point about the other source was intentional speculation, as has been explained to you before. It illustrates the case of a minor anomaly that can be explained away quite simply, when there is a major contradicting anomaly that cannot.

Understand this before you post again- it will be important in later posts.

[mjd1982]

Because I live in the real world. Not in a cloud of "Truth Movement" haze. If I lied an said that I got sick from the food I purchased from the lunch truck on my lunch break, I would not get fired because I did not implicate that the company got me sick.


The lunch would have been supplied by an outside contractor, which would be different.

Also, the fact that you would compare getting ill from lunch with killing/covering up the murder of 3000 people, says a lot for your perspective.


Because that is a completely false claim that I and others have shown you. If Scott worked for the PA, your whole scenario would be closer to reality.


no, since FT are implicit in his claim- they would be covering up the power down too


A more plausible explanation is that Scott felt that he had a legitimate claim. He told the commission and others about it and was upset that it did not get the attention that he thought was due. The "Truth Movement" got a hold of his story and ran with it. He was probably happy that somebody took his story seriously and really liked the attention he was getting. Can't blame him for that. However, the "Truth Movement" blew his story way out of proportion and turned it into a complete lie. If I were him, I would be embarrassed as hell. However, this poses a dilemma. Correct the story and risk losing the attention, or claim oppression by his company to distance himself from the lie. It looks like he chose the latter. Again, can we really blame him?


No, because his story has not been exaggerated at all. It is there in black and white, you have read it. Stop talking tripe.


This whole line of debate is senseless anyway. On SLC, you implied that you did not think that the towers were brought down by CD. So the power down is irrelevant.

The point is why has it been covered up, as I have said a million times.

[mjd1982]

Great! Let's see this e-mail.


Are you crazy? How the hell would he still have the email? All you want to do is set up the goalposts so you cant be beaten, its very tiresome.


If your claim (bolded above) is true, it would not matter whether his statements are true or false, only that they "implied that the gov was behind 911".

This leads us to only 2 possible conclusions:



You have already denied conclusion #1, therefore we must conclude that your (bolded above) claim is WRONG. Even if he is telling the truth, your claim states that "he would be out on his ass".

No, since you have chosen to ignire the 3rd pt, that he was telloing the truth, and hence his company cant fire him for doing so, so they just nudge and wink. Simple for those with eyes to see.

[mjd1982]

I'm confused - mjd keeps saying that Scott can't be fired because he is telling the truth, so what can the "nudges and winks" possibly threaten him with?
THey don't threaten him with anything in particular- they are simply nudges and winks. That is what nudges and winks are

[mjd1982]

His comments aren't even connected with that company. Why would he bring them any "disrepute" ? You're just making stuff up, now.



We've already seen that your "basic" understandings are usually flawed. Maybe you should say they're basic, and avoid yourself some ridicule.



Semantics.



And how I hate these things.
We are seeing here a standard fantasist pattern. I make an assertion that debunks his assertion, the fantasist repeats his own assertion, even though this has been debunked, and it goes round and round.

For the last time- the comment brings FT into disrepute since it implicates them in covering up facts about the murder of 3000 people, falsely under your claim.

Now either show how this is not the case, or dont post.

[Unsecured Coins]

don't let this be the 3rd time you ignore me for proof that he is being hassled, mjd

[BillyRayValentine]

If you want to state that there are other definitions, then go ahead and provide them. Since you are way out of your depth here, you resort to a standard tactic, muddy the issue. "Oh his satire is multi layered, its hard to pinpointm really", "Your definition is just one of many, but I'm not going to provide any others". Put up or shut up please.

You obviously have internet access - would it be too much trouble for you to look it up yourself? Satire necessarily involves neither humor nor morality. Your "definition" is moronic.

Read b4 u post. Spoof is not a form of satire, unless it has a moral purpose. If you spoof the behaviour of a boring person, are you being satirical? No, unless there is a moral purpose to it.

Wrong, wrong and wrong. First off, I thought it was pretty clear we were talking about spoofing in the context of Ali G. Second, will you stop with the "moral purpose" drivel already? Let me help you. Satire is essentially a means of highlighting and exposing stupid human behavior, through devices such as irony, sarcasm, hyperbole and wit. Sure, many stupid behaviors have moral implications. But many, many more do not. And many satires are funny, but many are not. NEITHER MORALITY NOR HUMOR IS A NECESSARY COMPONENT OF SATIRE.

Anything? Is the fog lifting just a bit?

For the last time, his characters are only satirical in certain instances. When he interviews foxhunters, then he is being satirical. When he is going on a police training course, and gets excited about having a gun, that is not satire. Understand?

No, since I elect not to "understand" a facile, simplistic and wholly incorrect definition of the term.

That is his satire. Learn to distinguish between his satire and his spoof, as I have taught you, and you will be less confused.

Already covered. Stop embarrassing yourself.

Oh, so now you are stating that that comment is racist? Do you have reading comprehension problems? I have just explained to you that if that is "racist", then so would be Borat. But it is not. Think before you post!

You have tried to explain something, but all you've done is draw attention to your ignorance.

[BillyRayValentine]

The lunch would have been supplied by an outside contractor, which would be different.

Oh, so it was FT who powered down the building? :rolleyes:

[BillyRayValentine]

2ndly, it is implicating his employers in the cover up. Tell me you can understand thi; if not, tell me why not.

Did he ever come out and say "The wtc was powered down, and my employer is covering it up", or anything even remotely approaching that?

No, he hasn't. He has implicated FT in no way whatsoever, at least not publicly. That's just your own delusional inference.

[Belz...]

The point about the other source was intentional speculation, as has been explained to you before. It illustrates the case of a minor anomaly that can be explained away quite simply, when there is a major contradicting anomaly that cannot.

It doesn't "explain it away" simply at all, since you have to INVENT REALITY in order to explain it.

We are seeing here a standard fantasist pattern. I make an assertion that debunks his assertion, the fantasist repeats his own assertion, even though this has been debunked, and it goes round and round.

What assertion have I repeated that was debunked, exactly ? I would be a whole lot easier to find out if you started to use the quote function properly.

the comment brings FT into disrepute since it implicates them in covering up facts about the murder of 3000 people

OBVIOUSLY NOT, because there is NOTHING that implicates the company in the cover up.

Now either show how this is not the case, or dont post.

I'll post as much as I want, buddy.

[funk de fino]

???

You have just repeated what I said- it has elements of spoof and satire- and then disagreed with what i said.

Dont thnk that spoof and satire are mutually exclusive, nor that an entire TV series is exclusively one and not the other.

As for your other comments, I dont know whether they are racist or not. I would venture that they they are not racist in any serious way, since thai hookers is not a controversial or touchy issue.

so is chocolate sauce with ice cream the same as ice cream with chocolate sauce?

you said it was a spoof, it is not it is a satire, i never repeated what you said or i would have said - "I thought the answer for SI was clear- it is a spoof, and is also (was) satirical. "

not the same as what i said, i never claimed it was exclusive but it is called a satirical comedy not spoof comedy

[lapman]

Did he ever come out and say "The wtc was powered down, and my employer is covering it up", or anything even remotely approaching that?

No, he hasn't. He has implicated FT in no way whatsoever, at least not publicly. That's just your own delusional inference.
I think what mjd is saying that by the mere fact the people know that Scott works for FT is implicating FT. This is, of course, extremely faulty logic or Oxford would now be busting down mjd's door for the implication that the school was a part of the conspiracy since mjd supposedly graduated from there.

[BillyRayValentine]

No, it states in his contract that he is not allowed to make comments or support causes that reflect badly on the company. This is the contract he has signed, and he has to abide by it. I think this woud be the same for most companies.


:jaw-dropp The employment contract of a back-office techie specified that "he is not allowed to make comments or support causes that reflect badly on the company"?????:jaw-dropp

What is that, the standard anti-conspiracy theorist clause so prevalent in the business world today?:boggled:

Very convenient for your argument were it true, but alas this is one of the silliest, most inane, most utterly ridiculous claims I have ever read. But there is an upside. The absolutely unbridled stupidity of your above comment convinces me that you are beyond help, and saves me the trouble of responding to your drivel any more. And so, I say to you...

Wrong, sir! Wrong! Under section 37B of the contract signed by him, it states quite clearly that all offers shall become null and void if -- and you can read it for yourself in this photostatic copy -- "I, the undersigned, shall forfeit all rights, privileges, and licenses herein and herein contained," et cetera, et cetera... "Fax mentis incendium gloria cultum," et cetera, et cetera... "Memo bis punitor delicatum"!

It's all there, black and white, clear as crystal! You stole fizzy lifting drinks! You bumped into the ceiling which now has to be washed and sterilized, so you get nothing!

You lose!

Good day sir!

[lapman]

The lunch would have been supplied by an outside contractor, which would be different.PA was the "outside contractor" in Scott's story. So it applies.
Also, the fact that you would compare getting ill from lunch with killing/covering up the murder of 3000 people, says a lot for your perspective.That was a substanceless post.
no, since FT are implicit in his claim- they would be covering up the power down tooWrong. FT is not implicit in any way in his claim. Please post where Scott says, "the PA and FT worked together in this power down." He didn't. He says that FT needed IT to shut down it's servers in preparation for the power down. There is no implication there at all.
No, because his story has not been exaggerated at all. It is there in black and white, you have read it. Stop talking tripe.Oh. So because it's in black and white makes it true? Let's see. He goes from stating (http://www.serendipity.li/wot/forbes01.htm):On the weekend of 9/8,9/9 there was a 'power down' condition in WTC tower 2,
the south tower. This power down condition meant there was no electrical
supply for approx 36hrs from floor 50 up. to stating (http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/11/interview-with-scott-forbes.html) I can't absolutely verify that there was no power on lower floors All this is in "black and white." So, what are we supposed to believe? That there was a 36 hour power down that spanned 50 floors or that there was a 26 hour power down that could possibly have spanned 50 floors. The "Truth Movement" turned that into (http://69.28.73.17/thornarticles/powerdown.html) Did the World Trade Center towers undergo a deliberate “power-down” on the weekend prior to the 9-11 terrorist attacks? According to Scott Forbes, a senior database administrator for Fiduciary Trust, Inc. – a high-net investment bank which was later acquired by Franklin Templeton – this is precisely what took place. Which is a complete lie.

The point is why has it been covered up, as I have said a million times.You have yet to provide any evidence of said cover-up.

[funk de fino]

well i'm sorry, but that changes everything, since the premise of your coleagues is taht he is a liar and a fraud (though without mitive for being such).

So there was a power down of some sort, just not maybe as large as he claimed? Thiis then begs my question once more- why is it being covered up, and why he being nudged and winked by his company to shut up?

Since they are telling him politely to shut up, and havent corroborated his story, nor refuted the now official denial of it

That is what you (think you) would do, as I have said before. Realise that people are different

Because if what he is saying is true, then they are also covering up the fact, since they should be coming out and saying "Hey, there was a mysterious power down the w/e b4 911". But they dont.

Btw, you do know that Thom Kean was on the board of FT shortl b4 911? (I think maybe even CEO...)

yes

They know what you and i know

How would that let them find out?

He is keeping a low profile, since he doesnt want to run any unnecessary risks. Its that simple

Unlikely, though he may get into trouble. Dont do that please

Which was?


no, people on here have said that he may have been mistaken, I have for definite and it was poo poo'd, if he still claims that it was a total power down on all floors from the 50th up, when he knows it cannot have been, then he is a fraud

he has told the truth and is still being nudged to hush up? does not work in above scenario

who has officially denied it and exactly what have they denied?

i know for definite that the deaths of 3000 people are more important to me than working for a company that i think covered up, especially when you now say some of his work collegues were killed

this is utterly ludicrous that he would not come out with what he knew just in case he lost his job, if this is the reason he is not coming out then he is the biggest coward i have ever had the misfortune to hear about, if he is a attender at the 911 uk meetings then he will not mind me telling him this at the next one if i attend, i am even more sure i will now by the way

why should FT back up anything if they do not think it was a mysterious power down and just routine

i do not know he is implying that FT covered it up cause i have not seen him say that, inferring PA did yes, but FT no

if they google his name then they could find this forum and see your posts??

that is like asking me to turn a blind eye to evidence that i knew could be a clue in a mass murder as to who committed it, surely it is my duty to tell FT that they are being accused of this so they can then fight these allegations, if he is telling the truth then the british justice system can decide this?

thom kean = goalpost moving, slight of hand, switching focus

look yourself i am not your PA

[funk de fino]

Ok, sorry. It would look bad on the company since it would be stating an inflammatory and unsuitable pov. YOu must realise that the CT movement is such. .

no, people over here can speak about this and not bring any bad publicity on their company, why is it inflammatory? unsuitable to who?

the company cannot ban him from speaking the truth unless it breaks the law, if they fired him we would be back to the industrial tribunal

in america they can say even more then us and get away with it without repercussions

you have spilled the ball with this one mate

[funk de fino]

Are you crazy? How the hell would he still have the email? .

if someone asks me to do something at work and i am not quite sure about it, i always get them to back it up with email and then keep it

this is my comfort blanket, in case i am queried why i did it?

if he knew the next day that there was a problem and was convinced that the cover up was due to the power down then he would have backed up said email? especially if he thought it was supicious

or are we saying his email server was destroyed in the tower collapse?

that is the only reason i can see that he has not saved it?

[funk de fino]

???
I would venture that they they are not racist in any serious way, since thai hookers is not a controversial or touchy issue.

are you serious? not racist in any serioust way, sorry pal but all racism is serious in my book

it is totally unacceptable to come out with phrases like that

when is racism ever non serious?

when bernard manning was being racist?

this conveniently allows you to assert that your comment was not racist when in fact it was, get a grip

[lapman]

I think that the company's problem is not in what Scott is saying, it's how the "Truth Movements" twists what he says into something else.

[Matthew Best]

THey don't threaten him with anything in particular- they are simply nudges and winks. That is what nudges and winks are

Well what does he think he's being threatened with?

Bearing in mind that you've already pointed out that he can't possibly be sacked for telling the truth?

[mjd1982]

:jaw-dropp The employment contract of a back-office techie specified that "he is not allowed to make comments or support causes that reflect badly on the company"?????:jaw-dropp

What is that, the standard anti-conspiracy theorist clause so prevalent in the business world today?:boggled:

Very convenient for your argument were it true, but alas this is one of the silliest, most inane, most utterly ridiculous claims I have ever read. But there is an upside. The absolutely unbridled stupidity of your above comment convinces me that you are beyond help, and saves me the trouble of responding to your drivel any more. And so, I say to you...

Wrong, sir! Wrong! Under section 37B of the contract signed by him, it states quite clearly that all offers shall become null and void if -- and you can read it for yourself in this photostatic copy -- "I, the undersigned, shall forfeit all rights, privileges, and licenses herein and herein contained," et cetera, et cetera... "Fax mentis incendium gloria cultum," et cetera, et cetera... "Memo bis punitor delicatum"!

It's all there, black and white, clear as crystal! You stole fizzy lifting drinks! You bumped into the ceiling which now has to be washed and sterilized, so you get nothing!

You lose!

Good day sir!
That is because that statement was referring to my friend at the charity, not Scott Forbes. D'uh!

You do have the selective reading skills of a fantasist, and the discussion will be richer without you. Ta ta

[mjd1982]

don't let this be the 3rd time you ignore me for proof that he is being hassled, mjd
What a vacuous thing to say. How the hell am I supposed to provide proof of that. Tell me what precisely you would expect me to proffer.`

[mjd1982]

You obviously have internet access - would it be too much trouble for you to look it up yourself? Satire necessarily involves neither humor nor morality. Your "definition" is moronic.


Well, I have studied it at a pretty good uni, but we;ll see how u do...


Wrong, wrong and wrong. First off, I thought it was pretty clear we were talking about spoofing in the context of Ali G. Second, will you stop with the "moral purpose" drivel already? Let me help you. Satire is essentially a means of highlighting and exposing stupid human behavior, through devices such as irony, sarcasm, hyperbole and wit.


so humour for a moral purpose then...


Sure, many stupid behaviors have moral implications. But many, many more do not.


That would be spoof.


And many satires are funny, but many are not.


An example, Einstein?

Hint- learn to distinguish between different types of humour...


NEITHER MORALITY NOR HUMOR IS A NECESSARY COMPONENT OF SATIRE.


d'uh!

I repeat my plea for intelligent posters on this thread please.

[Gravy]

I see mjd is still kooking with all burners. Anyone with functioning ocular implementi needs must perforce acknowledgeate that he's converticized a multiplicitation of personages with his impeccable logicalizations and factualities.

[mjd1982]

Did he ever come out and say "The wtc was powered down, and my employer is covering it up", or anything even remotely approaching that?

No, he hasn't. He has implicated FT in no way whatsoever, at least not publicly. That's just your own delusional inference.
So his implication is that the building was powered down, but no one at FT knows about it, except him?!

I would say "d'uh", but, well, you get the picture. I think you make my point nicely yourself.

[mjd1982]

I think what mjd is saying that by the mere fact the people know that Scott works for FT is implicating FT. This is, of course, extremely faulty logic or Oxford would now be busting down mjd's door for the implication that the school was a part of the conspiracy since mjd supposedly graduated from there.
What the hell are you talking about???

[mjd1982]

I see mjd is still kooking with all burners. Anyone with functioning ocular implementi needs must perforce acknowledgeate that he's converticized a multiplicitation of personages with his impeccable logicalizations and factualities.
Ahah, we have the fantasist in chief back again. I take it you have revised your nonsense LC Guide in the ways I suggested?

[mjd1982]

PA was the "outside contractor" in Scott's story. So it applies.
That was a substanceless post.
Wrong. FT is not implicit in any way in his claim. Please post where Scott says, "the PA and FT worked together in this power down." He didn't. He says that FT needed IT to shut down it's servers in preparation for the power down. There is no implication there at all.
Oh. So because it's in black and white makes it true? Let's see. He goes from stating (http://www.serendipity.li/wot/forbes01.htm): to stating (http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/11/interview-with-scott-forbes.html) All this is in "black and white." So, what are we supposed to believe? That there was a 36 hour power down that spanned 50 floors or that there was a 26 hour power down that could possibly have spanned 50 floors. The "Truth Movement" turned that into (http://69.28.73.17/thornarticles/powerdown.html) Which is a complete lie.
You have yet to provide any evidence of said cover-up.
1. FT are implicated since they are, by definition, involved in the cover up, since this is a story that has been covered up, and they would be aware of it.

2. The evidence of the cover up is in the fact that it has been covered up- hence why Scott is the only one talking about it. Unless of course, he is lying, in which case, as has been shown, he would be fired in a second.

[mjd1982]

no, people on here have said that he may have been mistaken, I have for definite and it was poo poo'd, if he still claims that it was a total power down on all floors from the 50th up, when he knows it cannot have been, then he is a fraud


Excuse me, people have been callng him ~ clown, fraud, liar etc


he has told the truth and is still being nudged to hush up? does not work in above scenario


lol, unless he is sauing stuff they dont want him to say


who has officially denied it and exactly what have they denied?


Hmmm... well it has been excluded from all official accounts, as you are well aware, and it has also been explicitly denied, Scott told me... cant remember where/whom exactly, hold my hands up


i know for definite that the deaths of 3000 people are more important to me than working for a company that i think covered up, especially when you now say some of his work collegues were killed


ok...


this is utterly ludicrous that he would not come out with what he knew just in case he lost his job, if this is the reason he is not coming out then he is the biggest coward i have ever had the misfortune to hear about, if he is a attender at the 911 uk meetings then he will not mind me telling him this at the next one if i attend, i am even more sure i will now by the way


Will look forward to seeing you. You forget the point that this is not de facto proof of anything, just a hint. Nonetheless, the point remains that you and him are different people then


why should FT back up anything if they do not think it was a mysterious power down and just routine


Then why would they be telling him to shut up


i do not know he is implying that FT covered it up cause i have not seen him say that, inferring PA did yes, but FT no


have FT come out and corroborated his story? do you think he is lying when he says that he is being nudged?


if they google his name then they could find this forum and see your posts??


maybe so. Maybe we should stop


that is like asking me to turn a blind eye to evidence that i knew could be a clue in a mass murder as to who committed it, surely it is my duty to tell FT that they are being accused of this so they can then fight these allegations, if he is telling the truth then the british justice system can decide this?


They are well aware of the "allegations", as i have said a million times. I would rather you didnt try and get him in trouble, I should say.

[mjd1982]

if someone asks me to do something at work and i am not quite sure about it, i always get them to back it up with email and then keep it

this is my comfort blanket, in case i am queried why i did it?

if he knew the next day that there was a problem and was convinced that the cover up was due to the power down then he would have backed up said email? especially if he thought it was supicious

or are we saying his email server was destroyed in the tower collapse?

that is the only reason i can see that he has not saved it?
Your latter assertion may be right; for your former, I will repeat that you and him are different people. Come to the next London 911 Truth meeting, and you can ask people who know him much better than I.

[mjd1982]

are you serious? not racist in any serioust way, sorry pal but all racism is serious in my book

it is totally unacceptable to come out with phrases like that

when is racism ever non serious?

when bernard manning was being racist?

this conveniently allows you to assert that your comment was not racist when in fact it was, get a grip

I presume you equate Bernard Manning with Sacha Baron Cohen? If this is true, I will tell you that you are very much on ur own in ur interpretation of racism.

[mjd1982]

I think that the company's problem is not in what Scott is saying, it's how the "Truth Movements" twists what he says into something else.
Lol, and how has this been done?

[Unsecured Coins]

What a vacuous thing to say. How the hell am I supposed to provide proof of that. Tell me what precisely you would expect me to proffer.`


well, you know, written threats, video tapes of men in black suits engaging him in a spirited bout of fisticuffs. Anything to back up your claims, sport. You say he's being hassled. We say -

PROVE IT.

[mjd1982]

Well what does he think he's being threatened with?

Bearing in mind that you've already pointed out that he can't possibly be sacked for telling the truth?
No- I think he can get sacked, just if he were, he would possibly have a winnable case against his employers. It would be a long, drawn out, and expensive and possibly life ruining one, but he would have a case.

As for what he thinks, possibly getting fired, having his life made hard etc. Note that even if the threat was explicit that he was going to be fired, it doesnt mean that he would want to jump at this opportunity. Any case of 1 man implicating the government and a multi billion dollar corporation in the murder of 3,000 people is not going to be an easy one to win.

[mjd1982]

well, you know, written threats, video tapes of men in black suits engaging him in a spirited bout of fisticuffs. Anything to back up your claims, sport. You say he's being hassled. We say -

PROVE IT.
No, you say it. I have asked you what you expect. I will await a serious answer. Well, not really actually...

[WildCat]

2. The evidence of the cover up is in the fact that it has been covered up- hence why Scott is the only one talking about it. Unless of course, he is lying, in which case, as has been shown, he would be fired in a second.
So the tens of thousands of people who worked there have all been silenced? That is just ridiculous. Once again, you fail mjd1982.

Would you like to move on to your claim of the FDNY being involved in the coverup?

[WildCat]

Any case of 1 man implicating the government and a multi billion dollar corporation in the murder of 3,000 people is not going to be an easy one to win.
Oh for the love of the FSM, what would the motivation be for the company to be involved in this? Or the government for involving them in this? This is just stupid.

[DGM]

So his implication is that the building was powered down, but no one at FT knows about it, except him?!

Yuo've got this almost right. It should be:

So his implication is that the building was powered down, but no one on earth knows about it, except him!

[Unsecured Coins]

You make a claim that he's beeing hassled, I ask for proof, you then ask me what I want for proof, I make a few suggestions, and then you...

run. Got it.

Show me ANYTHING. A paper this guy has written detailing his harrassment. Pictures of the cow's tongue nailed to his door. A close up of his squealer's scar.

You made the claim, you back it up by ANY WAY YOU CAN.

[twinstead]

You made the claim, you back it up by ANY WAY YOU CAN.

Dude. This whole 'put up or shut up' thing is SOOO pre-911.

[lapman]

Wow, 2 stundie's in one post!
1. FT are implicated since they are, by definition, involved in the cover up, since this is a story that has been covered up, and they would be aware of it. I guess you don't know the difference between a cover-up and something so irrelevant that there is no need to even comment on it. The fact that only Scott found the power-down unusual actually means that the power-down was not unusual or there would be more people speaking out about it and the "Truth Movement" would have found documentation to back Scott's claim by now. Yet there is nothing, other than Scott's word. That shows the power down was not unusual. Why would a company as large as FT go through the expense of writing a response, having the lawyers go over it and take time to organize a press conference or solicit the news to run their response just because one, and only one, lowly IT peon found it unusual? How many times did Oxford rush out a press release because some TA makes makes a complaint in some offbeat newsletter? You have to prove that there is a cover-up first. You have yet to do that, hence your "by definition, involved in the cover-up" comment is ludicrous at best.

2. The evidence of the cover up is in the fact that it has been covered up- hence why Scott is the only one talking about it. Unless of course, he is lying, in which case, as has been shown, he would be fired in a second.You haven't shown squat. Do you work? Does anyone at your work know about what you talk about on here? Can you provide a copy of a memo stating that anybody publicly speaking out about 9/11 conspiracies will be sacked? Your arguments are completely baseless. So when are you going to actually post some facts to back your claims?
Lol, and how has this been done?Um, see the bottom of post #2354. Try and catch up.

[nicepants]

Are you crazy? How the hell would he still have the email? All you want to do is set up the goalposts so you cant be beaten, its very tiresome.

Yes, backing up baseless claims can be tiresome. That's why you shouldn't make claims you're not prepared to back up with evidence.

You claim that he was notified via e-mail. Why wouldn't he save this e-mail since it is the ONLY piece of evidence that would corroborate his story.

And FYI, most companies now require e-mail to be archived in case of lawsuits, etc. So even if he doesn't have personal access it, it's highly likely that it has been archived. I still have e-mails dating back to 2000-2001. I sure as hell wouldn't delete an e-mail that was my ONLY piece of evidence to back up my claim about those powerdowns. Especially if I realized on 9/11 that something was fishy!

No, since you have chosen to ignire the 3rd pt, that he was telloing the truth, and hence his company cant fire him for doing so, so they just nudge and wink. Simple for those with eyes to see.

That statement contradicts this claim:
If an employee of such a company were to come out and imply that the gov were behind 911, they would be out on their ass, or at the least, in deep schtick, no question. He has never been either. Explain.

As before: According to your own claim, he would be fired even if the statements were true

This has all also been addressed before in post #2332 (http://forums.randi.org/3rd%20pt%20was%20addresed%20here)

[nicepants]

2. The evidence of the cover up is in the fact that it has been covered up- hence why Scott is the only one talking about it.

Circular logic:

It's a cover up because he's the only one talking about it? Then how would we know if it was NOT a cover up? How could we find out if Scott's story was wrong?

[nicepants]

As for what he thinks, possibly getting fired,

I thought you said he couldn't be fired if he was telling the truth. Get your story straight, mjd.

[BillyRayValentine]

Oh. So because it's in black and white makes it true? Let's see. He goes from stating (http://www.serendipity.li/wot/forbes01.htm):... to stating (http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/11/interview-with-scott-forbes.html)

Note the following Forbes quote in the 2nd link you provided:

"Many, many people worked on the power down, both from the IT department and from the business, revalidating systems when they were available again. Other people can validate my information. Some people do not remember the circumstances, some people will not revisit that time ... but others acknowledge the power down freely and can validate my information."

It's 18 months later, and guess how many others have acknowledged the power-down in any fashion? Hint: The number rhymes with hero.

Though any additional analysis of his claims is entirely unneccessary, here's one final point. NYC is extremely left-leaning. 80-90% are democrats, and quite a large percentage of these (I would guess a majority, based on my experience) are RABID in their hatred for George Bush. They absolutely despise him, are convinced he is an incarnation of Satan and darn-near foam at the mouth when his name is mentioned.

It is inconceivable that all of the thousands of potential corroborators in WTC2, many of whom undoubtedly fit this profile, would choose to keep quiet under any circumstances.

[aggle-rithm]

Here is the basic problem with mjd's approach (and I feel free to refer to him in the third person, since he apparently only reads posts that are a direct response to his):

It is the laziest sort of fallacious reasoning to simply claim that one's viewpoint is obvious, as mjd implies with his sniping rhetoric ("err", "duh", "oh, dear", etc.). That is because his claims fail the acid test of obviousness, which is falsifiability.

A claim such as "the sun will always rise in the morning" is obvious not because "everybody knows it", but because if there were ever a time that the sun DIDN'T rise, we would know it. All it takes is a single instance of the sun failing to rise, in all recorded history, to prove the statement wrong, and it hasn't happened (except in the polar regions, of course. Don't overthink this! ;))

If a claim is falsifiable, then a world in which it is true looks very different from a world in which it is false. This is not true of conspiracy theories, or any of the arguments put forth by mjd. He is careful to choose topics of discussion that lead to endless speculation, because there is no clear way to prove them false. This doesn't, as he appears to believe, mean that they are true. It simply means that thinking people prefer not to waste time speculating on them.

I have called mjd a coward several times, and I stand by that assertion. He is a coward because he never has to take responsibility for his statements, which are unfalsifiable, and he never has to actually DO anything himself, just complain that others aren't stepping up and doing it for him. His behavior is classically passive aggressive.

I think mjd should stop wasting his time trying to convince people that aren't easily swayed by shallow rhetoric, and take his struggle to a more gullible crowd. There, he can be a god among trolls, instead of...well, you get the idea.

[BillyRayValentine]

Originally Posted by BillyRayValentine
And many satires are funny, but many are not.


An example, Einstein?


Sure. One of my favorite flicks of all time, A Clockwork Orange.

If you already went to a "uni" as you say, consider suing for your tuition back. You are completly incompetent, intellectually speaking.

Just thought I'd point that out. Back on ignore you go.

[simakperrce]

It is the laziest sort of fallacious reasoning to simply claim that one's viewpoint is obvious, as mjd implies with his sniping rhetoric ("err", "duh", "oh, dear", etc.). That is because his claims fail the acid test of obviousness, which is falsifiability.

You need to let go. I have pointed to the fact that his arguments are not falsifiable, hence worthless, in the whole PNAC discussion, but all you get in return are snide comments, condescending attitude and patronizing answers, of someone who has obviously an axt to grind with the whole world, which leads to the assumption that he is deeply unhappy, possibly because of former rejection or failure (been there myself, so I speak out of experience).

The only worry I have is that he teaches his understanding of logics, facts and evidence to children. On the upside, there is a chance that his heavy overuse of fancy terms such as "propitious" will make the adolescents abandon them once and for all out of their future vocabulary.

[funk de fino]

Excuse me, people have been callng him ~ clown, fraud, liar etc
lol, unless he is sauing stuff they dont want him to say

Hmmm... well it has been excluded from all official accounts, as you are well aware, and it has also been explicitly denied, Scott told me... cant remember where/whom exactly, hold my hands up

ok...

Will look forward to seeing you. You forget the point that this is not de facto proof of anything, just a hint. Nonetheless, the point remains that you and him are different people then

Then why would they be telling him to shut up

have FT come out and corroborated his story? do you think he is lying when he says that he is being nudged?

maybe so. Maybe we should stop

They are well aware of the "allegations", as i have said a million times. I would rather you didnt try and get him in trouble, I should say.

not everybody and in some cases only if he continues to claim the total power down when it has bee shown he is incorrect

he thinks he has evidence that his company are covering up the murders of 3000 poeople soem of whom he worked with, why should ant law abiding citizen not say anything to the authorities? one good reason will do me? i'm sure others will come forward if so?

what official accounts has it been excluded from, you pull a rabbit out of the hat again, who has denied it officially? you brought this up

as for saying ok to that stament about the 3000 deaths that just shows what a disgusting human being you really are, what would you do if it were you and what do you think Scott should do? potentially lose your joob or avenge the death of your colleagues? the choice is easy, you brush it off with an ok, him and I are indeed different as he would be different from the huge majority of people who would give up a job to avenge the deaths of so many, i would never want to be as low a human being as it seems he is

if it is evidence or a hint or fact it matters little, he thinks it was definite, he should say something, this was another attempt to wriggle out

i have no idea if they are telling him to shut up he could be lying, why should i believe him when he has changed his story a few times and is definately mistaken about what he originally claimed

why should they corroborate anything if it is meaningless? he is the one making something of it, not FT, as far as i am aware it has not been shown that he has blamed them or that they even know that he suspects them

it would be most ironic if he got fired because of you using his claims on this board, especially when you are adding to his claims

from start to finish you have made a complete and utter balls of this thread, you contradict yourself constantly, you are snide and rude, you add and change things to try to suit your agenda when it is not going your way, you post stuff with absolutely zero proof and expect us to agree with you and say Ok you are right and we are all wrong, your debating skills are sadly lacking however much fancy words and bluff and bluster you use, you treat the deaths of 3000 people with contempt, your ignorance is astounding for someone that, on first impressions, seems so intelligent

spitting image = satirical comedy program

[Gravy]

Ahah, we have the fantasist in chief back again. I take it you have revised your nonsense LC Guide in the ways I suggested?Yes! I have renamed it "Teh Burning Crazy Guide."

[WildCat]

he thinks he has evidence that his company are covering up the murders of 3000 poeople soem of whom he worked with, why should ant law abiding citizen not say anything to the authorities? one good reason will do me? i'm sure others will come forward if so?
Well put. If Scott Forbes is telling the truth, he is a despicable scum of a human being who is putting his job ahead of the lives of thousands of people.

[BillyRayValentine]

You need to let go. I have pointed to the fact that his arguments are not falsifiable, hence worthless, in the whole PNAC discussion, but all you get in return are snide comments, condescending attitude and patronizing answers, of someone who has obviously an axt to grind with the whole world, which leads to the assumption that he is deeply unhappy, possibly because of former rejection or failure (been there myself, so I speak out of experience).

The only worry I have is that he teaches his understanding of logics, facts and evidence to children. On the upside, there is a chance that his heavy overuse of fancy terms such as "propitious" will make the adolescents abandon them once and for all out of their future vocabulary.

Good post. I need to let go as well, and intend to from here on out. It's tough, though. It's difficult not responding to such breathtaking ignorance and deeply flawed logic.

Funny, but as a parent of little ones your second paragraph echoes exactly what I've been thinking: "Good God, please let this ninny NEVER be in a position to influence children".

Hopefully he'll grow out of it - for his sake.

[HeyLeroy]

1. FT are implicated since they are, by definition, involved in the cover up, since this is a story that has been covered up, and they would be aware of it.
(snip)
I guess you don't know the difference between a cover-up and something so irrelevant that there is no need to even comment on it. The fact that only Scott found the power-down unusual actually means that the power-down was not unusual or there would be more people speaking out about it and the "Truth Movement" would have found documentation to back Scott's claim by now. Yet there is nothing, other than Scott's word. That shows the power down was not unusual. Why would a company as large as FT go through the expense of writing a response, having the lawyers go over it and take time to organize a press conference or solicit the news to run their response just because one, and only one, lowly IT peon found it unusual? How many times did Oxford rush out a press release because some TA makes makes a complaint in some offbeat newsletter? You have to prove that there is a cover-up first. You have yet to do that, hence your "by definition, involved in the cover-up" comment is ludicrous at best.

Oh, but you don't understand! On the ScrewLooseChange forum he's argued that the conspirators who brought about the destruction of the World Trade Center complex knew exactly where pieces of the falling Tower would hit Seven World Trade, and exactly where the fires would and wouldn't burn, and could therefore plant their explosives... not there. Even though no explosives were planted in the North or South Towers!

Using that kind of logic it's not much of a stretch for the conspirators to know exactly who knew about the power-downs and arrange for them to be trapped in the towers. Guess Forbes was just lucky.

So, have we gotten to Seven World Trade yet?

[Unsecured Coins]

So, have we gotten to Seven World Trade yet?


nope, 1400 more pages before we get to that

[DGM]

MJ:
Thanks for the new quote in my signature.:cool:

[lapman]

Oh, but you don't understand! On the ScrewLooseChange forum he's argued that the conspirators who brought about the destruction of the World Trade Center complex knew exactly where pieces of the falling Tower would hit Seven World Trade, and exactly where the fires would and wouldn't burn, and could therefore plant their explosives... not there. Even though no explosives were planted in the North or South Towers!I guess I missed that post.
So, have we gotten to Seven World Trade yet?Nope, but I tried. I really tried. I guess mj hasn't the courage to move on to that. So he uses the Scott Forbes issue to try to distract from that fact. :whistling

[mjd1982]

So the tens of thousands of people who worked there have all been silenced? That is just ridiculous. Once again, you fail mjd1982.

Would you like to move on to your claim of the FDNY being involved in the coverup?
when did i say they were silenced?

[mjd1982]

Wow, 2 stundie's in one post!
I guess you don't know the difference between a cover-up and something so irrelevant that there is no need to even comment on it. The fact that only Scott found the power-down unusual actually means that the power-down was not unusual or there would be more people speaking out about it and the "Truth Movement" would have found documentation to back Scott's claim by now. Yet there is nothing, other than Scott's word. That shows the power down was not unusual. Why would a company as large as FT go through the expense of writing a response, having the lawyers go over it and take time to organize a press conference or solicit the news to run their response just because one, and only one, lowly IT peon found it unusual? How many times did Oxford rush out a press release because some TA makes makes a complaint in some offbeat newsletter? You have to prove that there is a cover-up first. You have yet to do that, hence your "by definition, involved in the cover-up" comment is ludicrous at best.
You haven't shown squat. Do you work? Does anyone at your work know about what you talk about on here? Can you provide a copy of a memo stating that anybody publicly speaking out about 9/11 conspiracies will be sacked? Your arguments are completely baseless. So when are you going to actually post some facts to back your claims?
Um, see the bottom of post #2354. Try and catch up.
1) There are now millions of people all over the world who believe that FT have a role in the 911 cover up. This is not good pr

2) I am self employed

[mjd1982]

Yes, backing up baseless claims can be tiresome. That's why you shouldn't make claims you're not prepared to back up with evidence.

You claim that he was notified via e-mail. Why wouldn't he save this e-mail since it is the ONLY piece of evidence that would corroborate his story.

And FYI, most companies now require e-mail to be archived in case of lawsuits, etc. So even if he doesn't have personal access it, it's highly likely that it has been archived. I still have e-mails dating back to 2000-2001. I sure as hell wouldn't delete an e-mail that was my ONLY piece of evidence to back up my claim about those powerdowns. Especially if I realized on 9/11 that something was fishy!



That statement contradicts this claim:


As before: According to your own claim, he would be fired even if the statements were true

This has all also been addressed before in post #2332 (http://forums.randi.org/3rd%20pt%20was%20addresed%20here)
Oh boy... except my 2nd statement was made with the contingency that he was lying.

Since you have chosen to be trivial, I will ask you again to try and succeed where your friends flounder- Why has he not been fired for implicatin his employer in a 911 cover up?

[MIKILLINI]

So, have we gotten to Seven World Trade yet?

Nope, when you keep moving half the distance to the goal line, as mjd is, you'll never get there.

[mjd1982]

Circular logic:

It's a cover up because he's the only one talking about it? Then how would we know if it was NOT a cover up? How could we find out if Scott's story was wrong?
You asked what evidence there was for a cover up. I stated that along with the evident fact of Scott's statement, which is now known around the world, there has not been one public action/comment on it, affirmative denial or other by FT, which is astonishing. That is evidence for a cover up, as you will know if you can distinguish between evidence and proof.

[mjd1982]

Note the following Forbes quote in the 2nd link you provided:



It's 18 months later, and guess how many others have acknowledged the power-down in any fashion? Hint: The number rhymes with hero.

Though any additional analysis of his claims is entirely unneccessary, here's one final point. NYC is extremely left-leaning. 80-90% are democrats, and quite a large percentage of these (I would guess a majority, based on my experience) are RABID in their hatred for George Bush. They absolutely despise him, are convinced he is an incarnation of Satan and darn-near foam at the mouth when his name is mentioned.

It is inconceivable that all of the thousands of potential corroborators in WTC2, many of whom undoubtedly fit this profile, would choose to keep quiet under any circumstances.
Except they would be indicting themselves with their employers, who is not Bush.

Pretty simple, no?

[aggle-rithm]

You need to let go. I have pointed to the fact that his arguments are not falsifiable, hence worthless, in the whole PNAC discussion,

Sorry, I didn't realize this point had already been made. I haven't responded to mjd directly for some time and mainly check back into this thread only out of morbid curiosity.

The purpose of my post was mainly to crystalize in my own mind exactly how the rhetoric employed by our friend worked, to lay it bare and expose it for what it really was. I thought my conclusions might be of interest to others, but I was apparently just being redundant.

I'll stay out of this thread from now on.

[DGM]

1) There are now millions of people all over the world who believe that FT have a role in the 911 cover up. This is not good pr

Really? I can't say I've ever heard that one. Is it a truther claim? Could you link it? I like a good laugh.

[mjd1982]

Here is the basic problem with mjd's approach (and I feel free to refer to him in the third person, since he apparently only reads posts that are a direct response to his):

It is the laziest sort of fallacious reasoning to simply claim that one's viewpoint is obvious, as mjd implies with his sniping rhetoric ("err", "duh", "oh, dear", etc.). That is because his claims fail the acid test of obviousness, which is falsifiability.

A claim such as "the sun will always rise in the morning" is obvious not because "everybody knows it", but because if there were ever a time that the sun DIDN'T rise, we would know it. All it takes is a single instance of the sun failing to rise, in all recorded history, to prove the statement wrong, and it hasn't happened (except in the polar regions, of course. Don't overthink this! ;))

If a claim is falsifiable, then a world in which it is true looks very different from a world in which it is false. This is not true of conspiracy theories, or any of the arguments put forth by mjd. He is careful to choose topics of discussion that lead to endless speculation, because there is no clear way to prove them false. This doesn't, as he appears to believe, mean that they are true. It simply means that thinking people prefer not to waste time speculating on them.

I have called mjd a coward several times, and I stand by that assertion. He is a coward because he never has to take responsibility for his statements, which are unfalsifiable, and he never has to actually DO anything himself, just complain that others aren't stepping up and doing it for him. His behavior is classically passive aggressive.

I think mjd should stop wasting his time trying to convince people that aren't easily swayed by shallow rhetoric, and take his struggle to a more gullible crowd. There, he can be a god among trolls, instead of...well, you get the idea.
How confused you are.

We will look at 2 scenarios- one that offers the possiblilty of falsifiabliltiy, and one which doesnt.

#1- A document illustrates the propitiousness of a new PH to policy, This can be falsified by pointing to the content of the document, the tone and environs of any PH comment, and coming to defendable conclusions. That is something that is falsifiable.

#2- The government was not criminally negligent in failing to prevent 911. This is something that is unfalsifiable, since anyone with a particular axe to grind, inclination towards triviality, and disregard for common sense, will always be able to fish for one more straw.

Both instances have plenty of resonance on this thread; both instances should make your comment look peculiar.

[mjd1982]

Sure. One of my favorite flicks of all time, A Clockwork Orange.

If you already went to a "uni" as you say, consider suing for your tuition back. You are completly incompetent, intellectually speaking.

Just thought I'd point that out. Back on ignore you go.
A perfect example of satirical humour that it not "laugh out loud" humour, as I explained to you before. Maybe your best contribution yet, well done!

[mjd1982]

You need to let go. I have pointed to the fact that his arguments are not falsifiable, hence worthless, in the whole PNAC discussion, but all you get in return are snide comments, condescending attitude and patronizing answers, of someone who has obviously an axt to grind with the whole world, which leads to the assumption that he is deeply unhappy, possibly because of former rejection or failure (been there myself, so I speak out of experience).

The only worry I have is that he teaches his understanding of logics, facts and evidence to children. On the upside, there is a chance that his heavy overuse of fancy terms such as "propitious" will make the adolescents abandon them once and for all out of their future vocabulary.
How disappointing. I explained to you your problem with "falsifiability" at great length, and dealt with all your issues. You stay silent, and then choose to come back with some below the belt tripe, for which you are attempting to criticise me. With your your hypocrisy, disregard for common sense and facts, you are a good addition to the fantasist menagerie.

[mjd1982]

not everybody and in some cases only if he continues to claim the total power down when it has bee shown he is incorrect


the overall tenor has been pretty homogeneous, please dont waste time on that


he thinks he has evidence that his company are covering up the murders of 3000 poeople soem of whom he worked with, why should ant law abiding citizen not say anything to the authorities? one good reason will do me? i'm sure others will come forward if so?


1. To take a case to court implicating a multi billion corp and the gov in the cover up of 911 is not something many people would be willing to do
2. YOu may, but people are different.

again, pelase dont make me have to tell u this again


what official accounts has it been excluded from, you pull a rabbit out of the hat again, who has denied it officially? you brought this up


I know I did, as I said, he told me, and I cant remember. This is just my word, and you may treat it is you wish. Come to the next 911 London event, and you can maybe find out more from people who know him better than i


as for saying ok to that stament about the 3000 deaths that just shows what a disgusting human being you really are,


what an odd thing to say. what an odd person you must be. Where have I condoned covering up 3000 deaths?


what would you do if it were you and what do you think Scott should do? potentially lose your joob or avenge the death of your colleagues? the choice is easy, you brush it off with an ok, him and I are indeed different as he would be different from the huge majority of people who would give up a job to avenge the deaths of so many, i would never want to be as low a human being as it seems he is


I have never intimated as to what i would do; I am simply saying that people are different, not controversial outside fascist circles


if it is evidence or a hint or fact it matters little, he thinks it was definite, he should say something, this was another attempt to wriggle out


as above


i have no idea if they are telling him to shut up he could be lying, why should i believe him when he has changed his story a few times and is definately mistaken about what he originally claimed


Oh please, changed his story,.... show me where please


why should they corroborate anything if it is meaningless? he is the one making something of it, not FT, as far as i am aware it has not been shown that he has blamed them or that they even know that he suspects them


He has implied that they were involved, at least passively and in the cover up. This is pretty huge. They have taken no steps to deny, or even reprimand him. I dont believe you, or anyone else got round to offering a sensible explanation of this


from start to finish you have made a complete and utter balls of this thread, you contradict yourself constantly,


example?


you are snide and rude,


acceptable behaviour for an OTer to a CTer tho?


you add and change things to try to suit your agenda when it is not going your way,


what the hell are you talking about? Give me one example?


you post stuff with absolutely zero proof and expect us to agree with you and say Ok you are right and we are all wrong,


again, another example


your debating skills are sadly lacking however much fancy words and bluff and bluster you use, you treat the deaths of 3000 people with contempt,


What an odd person you are! What the hell are you talking about? I go onto the streets protesting at the deaths of these people, what the hell do you do, other than be complicit in your stupidity? Show me where I have been contemptuous of their deaths

[mjd1982]

I guess I missed that post.
Nope, but I tried. I really tried. I guess mj hasn't the courage to move on to that. So he uses the Scott Forbes issue to try to distract from that fact. :whistling
Lol, ridiculous. He was mentioned tangentially, and since I had happened to have met him and spoken at length about his experience, I thought it would be a good opportunity on this board to see how far the fantasist rabbit hole went. I do not use this as part of my argument in defending the Truth Movement, as it does to a large degree on this board anyway, rely on my word; nonetheless there are plenty of facts that even a menagerie of fantasists cannot answer sensibly. It has been pretty astonishing; I am happy to move back to the original topic whenever anyone chooses, or as you like.

[mjd1982]

Sorry, I didn't realize this point had already been made. I haven't responded to mjd directly for some time and mainly check back into this thread only out of morbid curiosity.

The purpose of my post was mainly to crystalize in my own mind exactly how the rhetoric employed by our friend worked, to lay it bare and expose it for what it really was. I thought my conclusions might be of interest to others, but I was apparently just being redundant.

I'll stay out of this thread from now on.
That's alright Sherlock, you were indeed just being redundant. Never mind.

[mjd1982]

Really? I can't say I've ever heard that one. Is it a truther claim? Could you link it? I like a good laugh.
Most people could work it out for themselves, but dont worry, I'll help you. His story is a fairly well known one in the Truth movement; and the movement is known to 10's of millions of people worldwide. Can you take it from here?

[DGM]

Most people could work it out for themselves, but dont worry, I'll help you. His story is a fairly well known one in the Truth movement; and the movement is known to 10's of millions of people worldwide. Can you take it from here?
Yes I can. But that still doesn't explain how FT fits into it.

Are his parents suspect too. After all they raised him. He never implicated FT, only you do.

[A W Smith]

it would not be necessary to power down for a cable upgrade. Parallel cabling is run and then switched over hot. The old cabling is cut off from the circuit and either abandoned in place or stripped out. It is done all the time in the construction industry.

[nicepants]

Oh boy... except my 2nd statement was made with the contingency that he was lying.

Wrong again:
If an employee of such a company were to come out and imply that the gov were behind 911, they would be out on their ass, or at the least, in deep schtick, no question. He has never been either. Explain.

Your statement makes no requirement of the implication being truth or fiction. Perhaps you should revise it.

Why has he not been fired for implicatin his employer in a 911 cover up?

Quite simple:
If he would be fired for implicating his employer, and he has not been fired, then he has not implicated his employer.

You asked what evidence there was for a cover up. I stated that along with the evident fact of Scott's statement, which is now known around the world, there has not been one public action/comment on it, affirmative denial or other by FT, which is astonishing. That is evidence for a cover up, as you will know if you can distinguish between evidence and proof.

Lack of public action/comment is also evidence that Scott's statements are false or incorrect, which leads us to the following question:

How can we tell the difference between
a) Scotts statements being incorrect, and
b) a cover up taking place?
How would they look different?

[lapman]

1) There are now millions of people all over the world who believe that FT have a role in the 911 cover up. This is not good prWrong. So far, only 1 person has been shown to believe this. You. Please provide evidence of the so-called "millions."

2) I am self employedGood thing or you'd be sacked for your statements about 9/11.

Most people could work it out for themselves, but dont worry, I'll help you. His story is a fairly well known one in the Truth movement; and the movement is known to 10's of millions of people worldwide. Can you take it from here?No, most people, even most truthers, require some type of evidence. We require real evidence. You have yet to provide any. Show me one site that list FT as a co-conspirator. Remember, the "Truth Movement" believes that both towers were completely powered down for 36 hours. So, FT doesn't figure into any part of the conspiracy, even from the "Truth Movement" pov. So far, you're FT cover-up and link to the conspiracy has been shown to be a fantasy. Which makes you the fantasist.
nonetheless there are plenty of facts that even a menagerie of fantasists cannot answer sensiblyI guess this applies to you then.
I am happy to move back to the original topic whenever anyone chooses, or as you like.I'm game if you are.

[lapman]

it would not be necessary to power down for a cable upgrade. Parallel cabling is run and then switched over hot. The old cabling is cut off from the circuit and either abandoned in place or stripped out. It is done all the time in the construction industry.
True in most cases. There is a point in time where too many cables have been run and abandoned. Then the power down would be justified. In the company I work for, we switched from dumb terminals to networked PCs 8 years ago. We are just now removing some of the old serial cables because it's become next to impossible to run new network cable. So it will all come down to what was on the contract.

ETA: If the conduits are clogged with cables or inaccessible, they could use the original cable to pull the new cable through. I'm sure you've done that as well.

[lapman]

Except they would be indicting themselves with their employers, who is not Bush.

Pretty simple, no?Simple, yes, true, not even close. All of the surviving employees of FT would know by now that Scott has not been sacked for making his comments. Therefore, there is no reason that they would be afraid of being sacked. What about the employees that no longer work for FT and are not employed by anybody else that has any connection to the WTC? There would be no implication of complicity of their employer there. So, your claim that 100% of everyone else, besides Scott, have not come out to talk about the power down for fear of recriminations is totally baseless. Now I'm starting to wonder if you actually met Scott at all. Why don't you ask him to post on here so he can tell us himself what you don't remember. You did get his email since you had dinner with him and got to know him? That would clear this whole thing up.

Now can we finally move on to WTC 7?

[BillyRayValentine]

A perfect example of satirical humour that it not "laugh out loud" humour, as I explained to you before. Maybe your best contribution yet, well done!

There are humorous moments in Clockwork, just as there are humorous moments in The Deer Hunter.

Only 15 year olds with a predilection for torturing puppies would regard either film as a humorous undertaking.

You are apparently quite sick.

[mjd1982]

Yes I can. But that still doesn't explain how FT fits into it.

Are his parents suspect too. After all they raised him. He never implicated FT, only you do.
???

I know I have said this many times before, but I'll say it again- I dont expect to have to say this again (*sigh*)

The fact that implicit in his comment is the fact that FT are covering up details of a gov plot to kill 3000 US is indicting of FT.

Either contest why you think this to be wrong, instead of indulging in the standard kook pattern of parotting your previous comments, or you may wanna take a break for ur tired little head

[mjd1982]

it would not be necessary to power down for a cable upgrade. Parallel cabling is run and then switched over hot. The old cabling is cut off from the circuit and either abandoned in place or stripped out. It is done all the time in the construction industry.
Lol, right, execpt that in Scotts story, he is not implying that these guys were necessarily "cabling". If that were the story, it wouldnt be much of a story, woud it now?

[mjd1982]

Wrong again:


Your statement makes no requirement of the implication being truth or fiction. Perhaps you should revise it.



Quite simple:
If he would be fired for implicating his employer, and he has not been fired, then he has not implicated his employer.



Lack of public action/comment is also evidence that Scott's statements are false or incorrect, which leads us to the following question:

How can we tell the difference between
a) Scotts statements being incorrect, and
b) a cover up taking place?
How would they look different?
1) Your penultimate para would be my nomination for OT idiocy of the month. YOu seem to forget the option that he hasnt been fired since if he did, he would start a lawsuit which would drag up many uncomfortable truths for FT, and the likes of yourself as well btw
2) If he had lied, he would have been fired, for implicatin FT. And dont go saying that he hasnt implicated them, please...

[mjd1982]

Wrong. So far, only 1 person has been shown to believe this. You. Please provide evidence of the so-called "millions."
Good thing or you'd be sacked for your statements about 9/11.

No, most people, even most truthers, require some type of evidence. We require real evidence. You have yet to provide any. Show me one site that list FT as a co-conspirator. Remember, the "Truth Movement" believes that both towers were completely powered down for 36 hours. So, FT doesn't figure into any part of the conspiracy, even from the "Truth Movement" pov. So far, you're FT cover-up and link to the conspiracy has been shown to be a fantasy. Which makes you the fantasist.
I guess this applies to you then.
I'm game if you are.
errr...

[mjd1982]

Simple, yes, true, not even close. All of the surviving employees of FT would know by now that Scott has not been sacked for making his comments. Therefore, there is no reason that they would be afraid of being sacked. What about the employees that no longer work for FT and are not employed by anybody else that has any connection to the WTC? There would be no implication of complicity of their employer there. So, your claim that 100% of everyone else, besides Scott, have not come out to talk about the power down for fear of recriminations is totally baseless. Now I'm starting to wonder if you actually met Scott at all. Why don't you ask him to post on here so he can tell us himself what you don't remember. You did get his email since you had dinner with him and got to know him? That would clear this whole thing up.

Now can we finally move on to WTC 7?
He is taking a lot of crap. People will be aware of this, and will not want to go through it as well. This is a pefectlty understandable sequence of behaviour. And as I have said, were he lying, he would be out on his ass. Of course, none of your fantasist m8s, nor, Gor forbid, you, have been able to explain why not. I will give you and your kind a few more chances, and then back to making you all look stupid on PNAC again.

[mjd1982]

There are humorous moments in Clockwork, just as there are humorous moments in The Deer Hunter.

Only 15 year olds with a predilection for torturing puppies would regard either film as a humorous undertaking.

You are apparently quite sick.
You have no understanding of what "humour" is. You apparently think that it is just belly laughs. This may well be because you are simple. I am willing to excuse this; you maybe can do little about it. I will not, however, excuse the fact that you are lazy
http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0051.html
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/clockwork_orange/about.php

[DGM]

???

I know I have said this many times before, but I'll say it again- I dont expect to have to say this again (*sigh*)

The fact that implicit in his comment is the fact that FT are covering up details of a gov plot to kill 3000 US is indicting of FT.

Either contest why you think this to be wrong, instead of indulging in the standard kook pattern of parotting your previous comments, or you may wanna take a break for ur tired little head
This is where your wrong. The government is not covering up anything. This is only in your mind, a delusional fantasy. If you could somehow prove that they were then it would be. GET IT, Wake up. Why is this so hard for you to understand.

[mjd1982]

This is where your wrong. The government is not covering up anything. This is only in your mind, a delusional fantasy. If you could somehow prove that they were then it would be. GET IT, Wake up. Why is this so hard for you to understand.
Lucky that this post can be next to yours so readers can notice its dullness- the post was about Forbes implying that FT were covering up, nothing else.

Dont worry- I dont expect you to be able to offer much in the way of coherence, but just for a larf, I will ask again to tell me why, if he is lying, he hasnt been fired, given that he is implicating his company in the plot.

Dont get nervous- I dont expect any sort of sensible answer from you or your ilk.

[Unsecured Coins]

errr...


I can believe you wasted a post just to say this. I guess anything's better than saying "i can't answer this"

[mjd1982]

Yes! I have renamed it "Teh Burning Crazy Guide."
Oh-just so people are aware, I have eviscerated this chap's LC commentary, PNAC section on p3 of this thread. He has been asked to rebut sensibly since then, but has found it beyond him do so. I would like to know, if he cannot, then what hope do any of you have of doing so?

[Unsecured Coins]

Oh-just so people are aware, I have eviscerated this chap's LC commentary, PNAC section on p3 of this thread.

he he.. hehehe.. HAW HAW HAW.

[DGM]

Lucky that this post can be next to yours so readers can notice its dullness- the post was about Forbes implying that FT were covering up, nothing else.

Dont worry- I dont expect you to be able to offer much in the way of coherence, but just for a larf, I will ask again to tell me why, if he is lying, he hasnt been fired, given that he is implicating his company in the plot.

Dont get nervous- I dont expect any sort of sensible answer from you or your ilk.
ERRRRRR............

[A W Smith]

Lol, right, execpt that in Scotts story, he is not implying that these guys were necessarily "cabling". If that were the story, it wouldnt be much of a story, woud it now?

you completely miss the point. Power downs of that scope DO NOT HAPPEN.
http://911review.com/errors/wtc/forbes.html

he is lying that he was informed of a planned power down. in six years no other person conforms there was a power down or even a notice of one. Out of twenty thousand people who worked at WTC no other person comes forward. Are you implying all those twenty thousand were "nudged"
Sorry your bull(rule 8) wont fly here.

[lapman]

He is taking a lot of crap. People will be aware of this, and will not want to go through it as well. That would only be people that know Scott or work with Scott. You have yet to provide any proof that he is "taking a lot of crap." Besides, the people that are no longer working for FT would not fall into this category.
This is a pefectlty understandable sequence of behaviour. And as I have said, were he lying, he would be out on his ass.You have yet to provide proof of this concept either.
Of course, none of your fantasist m8s, nor, Gor forbid, you, have been able to explain why not.Errr, we've explained this many times. It would be nice if you would stop moving the goal posts. First you say he would be sacked if he were lying, then you say he would be sacked if were implicating the gov in 9/11, then you go back to the lying claim whenever we explain to you that in any case, Scott would have a huge lawsuit. Then you go and claim that he is implying some sort of complicity of FT in 9/11 and have yet to provide proof of such. You have continuously ignored proof to the opposite. So when are you going to stick to one story so we can stick to one explanation?
I will give you and your kind a few more chances, and then back to making you all look stupid on PNAC again.You mean that you are going to use the same lack of any logic that is tied to reality to explain what you know nothing about? Of course, you are a foreigner attempting to explain American politics. Your explaining PNAC's new PH being propitious to policy is like a toddler explaining nuclear physics. Nowhere close to reality. So if you want to spew forth your total ignorance of us, fine. Please continue.

[twinstead]

Your explaining PNAC's new PH being propitious to policy is like a toddler explaining nuclear physics.

Now, let's be kind. He's smarter than a toddler; it is more like my 7 year old daughter explaining nuclear physics.

[Unsecured Coins]

ERRRRRR............

stop, dude... my coffee runs 8 bucks a pound and it all went in the direction of my monitor :D

[funk de fino]

the overall tenor has been pretty homogeneous, please dont waste time on that

1. To take a case to court implicating a multi billion corp and the gov in the cover up of 911 is not something many people would be willing to do
2. YOu may, but people are different.

again, pelase dont make me have to tell u this again

I know I did, as I said, he told me, and I cant remember. This is just my word, and you may treat it is you wish. Come to the next 911 London event, and you can maybe find out more from people who know him better than i

what an odd thing to say. what an odd person you must be. Where have I condoned covering up 3000 deaths?

I have never intimated as to what i would do; I am simply saying that people are different, not controversial outside fascist circles

as above

Oh please, changed his story,.... show me where please

He has implied that they were involved, at least passively and in the cover up. This is pretty huge. They have taken no steps to deny, or even reprimand him. I dont believe you, or anyone else got round to offering a sensible explanation of this

example?

acceptable behaviour for an OTer to a CTer tho?

what the hell are you talking about? Give me one example?

again, another example

What an odd person you are! What the hell are you talking about? I go onto the streets protesting at the deaths of these people, what the hell do you do, other than be complicit in your stupidity? Show me where I have been contemptuous of their deaths

thats because that is normal reaction to people who provide theories without proof is everything else points to the claims being false, everything points to him being a liar

1. he wouldnt take the case to court, he would inform the police, they would investigate his claims, if there was evidence then it would be taken to court by the prosecution, he would only be a bit part player, if there was no evidence then he loses his job at worst,. it would be pretty unrealistic to think he would be the only one to stand by these claims to the police if they were true, others would follow surely?
2. sorry, but in most cases the majority would do something about their dead colleagues, you obviously have not answered whether you would or not, why is this?

you have zero proof that there has ever been a denial by FT or even an official account of this story, this answers some of your later statments

i ask you a question about these deaths and you handwave it with a "ok"

are you calling me a facist? or intimating it? if so you are very far from the truth

read the links already supplied to his claims, they have changed?

show us where he has ever implied that FT were involved in the cover up, if not this again answers some of your later statements

it has been pointed out by others about your contradictory claims

do i use snideness in my replies to you, or rudeness?

you added in the claims about his real name, deflection tactic

as you would say, see above answers about proof

rudeness and snideness again, and you have done nothing because you are doing exactly nothing with your smoking guns, you handwave my question or staments about these deaths with a wave of the hand and an "OK"

i like the claims in the other posts about the 10's of millions who know about the claims, every truther i know makes grandoise claims about the millions that are on the good guys side, yet how many do they get at ground zero on the anniversary?

if you look at members numbers for all the sites involved in the truth or debunking movements, how many members does each have? millions? think again

how many attend the uk meetings out of interest?

[Belz...]

1. FT are implicated since they are, by definition, involved in the cover up, since this is a story that has been covered up, and they would be aware of it.

So they KNOW there was a power-down but are participating in its cover up because....... ?

2. The evidence of the cover up is in the fact that it has been covered up-

What a fine example of circular reasoning. What's this "fact" you're talking about ?

hence why Scott is the only one talking about it. Unless of course, he is lying, in which case, as has been shown, he would be fired in a second.

As has been CLAIMED, mjd, not shown.

Any case of 1 man implicating the government and a multi billion dollar corporation in the murder of 3,000 people is not going to be an easy one to win.

And therefore he is unlikely to sue them, so they could fire him anyway.

when did i say they were silenced?

Oh, so they're just going along with it.

Tell me, mjd, according to you, what's the percentage of the Earth's population that's evil like this ?

There are now millions of people all over the world who believe that FT have a role in the 911 cover up.

Evidence, please.

I stated that along with the evident fact of Scott's statement

Which is in and of itself proof of nothing.

which is now known around the world, there has not been one public action/comment on it, affirmative denial or other by FT, which is astonishing.

Unless there's no reason to comment on it, right ?

[Belz...]

#1- A document illustrates the propitiousness of a new PH to policy, This can be falsified by pointing to the content of the document, the tone and environs of any PH comment, and coming to defendable conclusions. That is something that is falsifiable.

"Interpretations" do not "falsify" anything.

Most people could work it out for themselves, but dont worry, I'll help you. His story is a fairly well known one in the Truth movement; and the movement is known to 10's of millions of people worldwide.

Laughable. You don't know how many people there are in the truth movement, you don't know how many of them know of this "fact". So how can you claim this ?

He is taking a lot of crap. People will be aware of this, and will not want to go through it as well.

Aren't you getting tired of speculating as to what happens in other people's minds ?

[jab712]

Oh-just so people are aware, I have eviscerated this chap's LC commentary, PNAC section on p3 of this thread. He has been asked to rebut sensibly since then, but has found it beyond him do so. I would like to know, if he cannot, then what hope do any of you have of doing so?

Mjd is clearly a legend in his own mind.

[nicepants]

2) If he had lied, he would have been fired, for implicatin FT. And dont go saying that he hasnt implicated them, please...

So he would be fired for which of the following:

1) Implicating FT
2) Implicating FT AND lying
3) Lying

You're claiming that he HAS implicated them, and you're also reporting that he has not been fired. This disproves your claim below:

If an employee of such a company were to come out and imply that the gov were behind 911, they would be out on their ass


Also please address the following question:


How can we tell the difference between
a) Scotts statements being incorrect, and
b) a cover up taking place?
How would they look different?

[lapman]

So they KNOW there was a power-down but are participating in its cover up because....... ?I can give you mjd's extremely predictable answer. It will be because FT isn't shouting from the rooftops that there was or wasn't a power down. Mjd seems to think that the "Truth Movement" carries a lot more weight than it really does. He seems to think that Scott's statements on a few websites and a single public interview means that FT must answer Scott's claims. Mjd will also say that FT's alleged intimidation of Scott is further proof. Yet there is no proof of said intimidation other than mjd's word, which we all know isn't exactly reliable. Mjd will also throw in a bunch of big words in an attempt to make himself look intelligent.

[mjd1982]

you completely miss the point. Power downs of that scope DO NOT HAPPEN.
http://911review.com/errors/wtc/forbes.html

he is lying that he was informed of a planned power down. in six years no other person conforms there was a power down or even a notice of one. Out of twenty thousand people who worked at WTC no other person comes forward. Are you implying all those twenty thousand were "nudged"
Sorry your bull(rule 8) wont fly here.
1. Well you see, this is why it is a notable event. If things like that happened all the time, it wouldnt be a noteworthy event, would it!?

2. This is what is being debated. You may wanna track back and see how your point has been dealt with, many times.

[mjd1982]

ERRRRRR............
*sigh* fine, I'll answer your idiotic post...

[mjd1982]

...

[mjd1982]

...

[nicepants]

Well you see, this is why it is a notable event. If things like that happened all the time, it wouldnt be a noteworthy event, would it!?

Interesting that such a "noteworthy" event is only mentioned by one person, even though said event would have affected thousands of people. And claims of said "noteworthy" event have not been corroborated by any evidence or any other person.

[mjd1982]

Wrong. So far, only 1 person has been shown to believe this. You. Please provide evidence of the so-called "millions."


? Right, well, err, the people in the Truth Movement? Or are you saying that the TM thinks he is a liar?


Good thing or you'd be sacked for your statements about 9/11.


phew!


No, most people, even most truthers, require some type of evidence. We require real evidence. You have yet to provide any. Show me one site that list FT as a co-conspirator.


what the hell does a "site" have to do with anything? are you too simple to understand that if he says that FT had a part in the power down, and they evidently havent come public about this, and they are hassling him to keep quiet, that he is therefore implicating them? Tell me honestky, are you that simple?


Remember, the "Truth Movement" believes that both towers were completely powered down for 36 hours. So, FT doesn't figure into any part of the conspiracy, even from the "Truth Movement" pov. So far, you're FT cover-up and link to the conspiracy has been shown to be a fantasy. Which makes you the fantasist.


Other than the fact that the power down was done on their offices! F***ing Hell!!!

[mjd1982]

thats because that is normal reaction to people who provide theories without proof is everything else points to the claims being false, everything points to him being a liar


Other than the main one, which is his continued employment by them, which you refuse to confront honestly


1. he wouldnt take the case to court, he would inform the police, they would investigate his claims, if there was evidence then it would be taken to court by the prosecution, he would only be a bit part player, if there was no evidence then he loses his job at worst,. it would be pretty unrealistic to think he would be the only one to stand by these claims to the police if they were true, others would follow surely?


Good thinking Baldrick. And he takes his claims about 911 to the authorities who were so good in their investigation into 911 already, that would be a great idea! And moreover, the case would be brouhgt against him, not vice versa


2. sorry, but in most cases the majority would do something about their dead colleagues, you obviously have not answered whether you would or not, why is this?


I would, but this is completely irrelevant.


you have zero proof that there has ever been a denial by FT or even an official account of this story, this answers some of your later statments


There is no denial to be found anyway, by the millions of people looking into this on either side. So we can say that there is no known rebuttal, which is my point


i ask you a question about these deaths and you handwave it with a "ok"


i dont even remember that, but you would almost certainly have misunderstood


are you calling me a facist? or intimating it? if so you are very far from the truth


no, just that your comments smack of it, which again is something very differnt


read the links already supplied to his claims, they have changed?


Substantially, no


show us where he has ever implied that FT were involved in the cover up, if not this again answers some of your later statements


Lol, the power down happened to them. They have not come out and refuted any allegations that have been made against them which imply that they were thus party to anything nefarious happening that weekend. Millions of peple are aware of this, but tFT choose not to comment, and try to hush up Forbes


it has been pointed out by others about your contradictory claims
#

such as?


you added in the claims about his real name, deflection tactic


oh please, how the hell is this deflection it was used to show a point


i like the claims in the other posts about the 10's of millions who know about the claims, every truther i know makes grandoise claims about the millions that are on the good guys side, yet how many do they get at ground zero on the anniversary?


a lot from what I have seen


if you look at members numbers for all the sites involved in the truth or debunking movements, how many members does each have? millions? think again


What? what do the surveys tell you? Is this hard to understand?


how many attend the uk meetings out of interest?

There are 70-100 who come, which isnt bad for minimal publicity

[mjd1982]

So he would be fired for which of the following:

1) Implicating FT
2) Implicating FT AND lying
3) Lying

You're claiming that he HAS implicated them, and you're also reporting that he has not been fired. This disproves your claim below:




Also please address the following question:
1. 2)

2. He would be fired

Waste of time to say it, but dont make me say this again please

[mjd1982]

Interesting that such a "noteworthy" event is only mentioned by one person, even though said event would have affected thousands of people. And claims of said "noteworthy" event have not been corroborated by any evidence or any other person.
Please dont try and start this all over again, answer my points as I have yours, and we will make progress.

If you are honest that is

[nicepants]

1. 2) [implicate and lie]

Above you say to be fired, he must implicate AND lie, but below you say he must only implicate. Do you wish to modify your claim quoted below?

If an employee of such a company were to come out and imply that the gov were behind 911, they would be out on their ass

Please dont try and start this all over again, answer my points as I have yours, and we will make progress.
If you are honest that is

You have failed 2x to respond to the question below:


How can we tell the difference between
a) Scotts statements being incorrect, and
b) a cover up taking place?
How would they look different?

[lapman]

You asked what evidence there was for a cover up. I stated that along with the evident fact of Scott's statement, which is now known around the world, there has not been one public action/comment on it, affirmative denial or other by FT, which is astonishing. That is evidence for a cover up, as you will know if you can distinguish between evidence and proof.Darn, I missed this one. Again, I say that the "Truth Movement" is not anywhere close to as important as you make it out to be. As I stated in my last post, Scott's statements on a few web sites and one public interview that was not a headliner would not make FT respond. So it's not astonishing that FT has made no statement whatsoever. This shows how insignificant Scott's statement and the "Truth Movement" really is. Now if Scott's statements were headline news and was broadcast on any major news station, then FT would have to respond. So, in reality, only one person believes in the FT cover up, and that's you.

[lapman]

? Right, well, err, the people in the Truth Movement? Or are you saying that the TM thinks he is a liar?No, but the TM doesn't believe in the significance of it or they would not have turned the story from a few floors in one tower to both towers being powered down.
what the hell does a "site" have to do with anything? are you too simple to understand that if he says that FT had a part in the power down, and they evidently havent come public about this, and they are hassling him to keep quiet, that he is therefore implicating them? Tell me honestky, are you that simple?No, but you obviously are too simple to understand the difference between taking part in the power down and preparing for the power down that was ordered by somebody else. Since when do companies broadcast what maintenance is done in their offices? The PA ordered the power down and FT prepared for the power down. That is the only thing that he has stated. Understand that and you will see how ridiculous your cover up theory is. Since he has spoke at 2 9/11 conferences, it sure looks like the harassment isn't that severe if it exists at all. So where is the proof of the harassment? Correct me if I'm wrong, but does the UK have laws against harassment?
Other than the fact that the power down was done on their offices! F***ing Hell!!!The power down - FT cover up is the fantasy that only you believe in. You have yet to provide any evidence to show that the TM, or even Scott believes this as well.

[funk de fino]

Other than the main one, which is his continued employment by them, which you refuse to confront honestly

Good thinking Baldrick. And he takes his claims about 911 to the authorities who were so good in their investigation into 911 already, that would be a great idea! And moreover, the case would be brouhgt against him, not vice versa

I would, but this is completely irrelevant.

There is no denial to be found anyway, by the millions of people looking into this on either side. So we can say that there is no known rebuttal, which is my point

i dont even remember that, but you would almost certainly have misunderstood

no, just that your comments smack of it, which again is something very differnt

Substantially, no

Lol, the power down happened to them. They have not come out and refuted any allegations that have been made against them which imply that they were thus party to anything nefarious happening that weekend. Millions of peple are aware of this, but tFT choose not to comment, and try to hush up Forbes
#
such as?

oh please, how the hell is this deflection it was used to show a point

a lot from what I have seen

What? what do the surveys tell you? Is this hard to understand?

There are 70-100 who come, which isnt bad for minimal publicity

maybe they do not know about his claims, it is only your word for it that they do, how honest is that? should i email them and ask them if they are aware of his claims, not his apparent implications that you read into his statements but his initial claims? if i do and they are aware of them then he has nothing to fear?

snideness and rudeness again, the fact that he is in the uk would mean that he would be going to the uk authorities not the us ones, not the people who had already investigated it, and a lawsuit against them if they sacked him would not happen because it would be a uk industrial tribunal, you know very well this is different than the us system, how could they bring a case against him if he is telling the truth, he just needs to tell the police he has proof that FT are covering something up

as irrelevant as his real name remark you made, you are a coward for not answering about your actions if it was you

there is no denial by FT but you have said there was?

so from my comments you are inferring i am facist or have facist beliefs? back this up? do you know the leanings of the political parties in the UK? try and guess which one i vote for?

waffle, they have changed and you said they had not, the amount of time, the fact that he does not know for certain that it was all floors after claiming he did, these are changes whether you like it or not

has his story changed, yes it has, he has made conflicting statements regarding this weekend, some of which we now know are false

no, the power down apparently happened to all floors from the 50th up, this did not only affect FT, so they quite conceviably not be the only ones implicated? were they the only business on these floors?

he has never at any point implicated FT, if you continue to say he has show it or stop claiming it, see previous posts regarding proof

if you want to read between the lines like you seem to like to do you would see that it seems more like he is implicating the PA

a point that was irrelevant to what we were discussing, it adds nothing or detracts zero from his story

a lot, is that hundreds or thousands or millions?

surveys? millions of people worldwide believe bush and his administration carried out these murders to go to war in afghanistan do they?

more than believe it was 19 hijackers?

70 to 100 out of a population of what? are you saying internet is little or poor advertising for these meetings?

[Belz...]

I can give you mjd's extremely predictable answer. It will be because FT isn't shouting from the rooftops that there was or wasn't a power down. Mjd seems to think that the "Truth Movement" carries a lot more weight than it really does. He seems to think that Scott's statements on a few websites and a single public interview means that FT must answer Scott's claims. Mjd will also say that FT's alleged intimidation of Scott is further proof. Yet there is no proof of said intimidation other than mjd's word, which we all know isn't exactly reliable. Mjd will also throw in a bunch of big words in an attempt to make himself look intelligent.

Much like the creationist, EVERYTHING and its opposite is proof of his theory.

[Belz...]

are you too simple to understand that if he says that FT had a part in the power down, and they evidently havent come public about this, and they are hassling him to keep quiet, that he is therefore implicating them? Tell me honestky, are you that simple?

Please cite the part where he says that "FT had a part in the power down".

What do you mean by "had a part" ?

[twinstead]

I must admit that I'm confused about what FT and Scott have anything to do with anything at all, ever.

[Alt+F4]

I must admit that I'm confused about what FT and Scott have anything to do with anything at all, ever.

Me too. Let's assume, for argument's sake, that WTC 1 & 2 were "powered down" for the entire week before 9/11. So what? How is PROOF of a controlled demolition or anything suspicious?

We're New Yorkers, it's not another terrorist attack I'm worried about, it's another attack by Con Edison.

[Unsecured Coins]

Because FT powered down the building, so the demo team could wire the whole thing for destruction in 36 hours... and Scott was the ONLY one who got the memo concerning said power down. Scott, it would appear, is the TRUE secret behind the 9-11 CT. What he knows goes far beyond The Great Owl, the Illuminati, and Barry Bonds.

[jab712]

For arguments sake, let's pretend that Scott is telling the truth or not mistaken and 40+ floors were powered down for 26 hours. What happened in the building during those 26 hours, if not cabling? MJD, what do you think happened in those 26 hours?

[jab712]

Ok, I am confused, is it 26 or 36 hours?

[nicepants]

Scott was the ONLY one who got the memo concerning said power down.

And even though he knew something was up....he didn't keep the memo.

[stateofgrace]

Me too. Let's assume, for argument's sake, that WTC 1 & 2 were "powered down" for the entire week before 9/11. So what? How is PROOF of a controlled demolition or anything suspicious?

We're New Yorkers, it's not another terrorist attack I'm worried about, it's another attack by Con Edison.

That's the thing isn't it? If there was a power down it is obviously when the explosives were planted, so obvious in fact it makes you wonder why the perps never thought about it at the time. It kind begs the question why guys who are hell bend on blowing up the towers would do such an obvious thing like powering the towers down. It' must have gone some thing like this

Perp 1 " Ok swtich off the powers and in we go in to plant all the explosives. Nobody will notice because the power is down"

Perp 2 " Ehhhh, won't anybody notice that the towers were powered down before hand after we blow them? "

Perp 1 " No chance, nobody will notice such an obvious clue"

Enter the twoofers

[Unsecured Coins]

Ok, I am confused, is it 26 or 36 hours?

both, man... didn't YOU get the memo?

[jab712]

both, man... didn't YOU get the memo?

Well yeah, but I didn't actually read it.

[Alt+F4]

For arguments sake, let's pretend that Scott is telling the truth or not mistaken and 40+ floors were powered down for 26 hours. What happened in the building during those 26 hours, if not cabling? MJD, what do you think happened in those 26 hours?

How much detonation cord would be needed? How many workers to do it in 26 hours? Why would the building even need to be powered down to rig it with detonation cord?

[HeyLeroy]

I guess I missed that post.

Highlighting will be mine:
If that was a practical joke to get me to read your OP again, it worked. However, I can't find the answers to those questions. Why don't you just come out and admit that you can't answer them?

Errrr... no, they are answered, both in my OP, and in the post which you quoted, then stated that you couldnt find the answer!

But never mind. I will answer your question once more. Read it carefully.

The conclusion is beyond question that the building was imploded. This conclusion is based on the propositions that:
a) First responders are seen, before the collapse, and interviewed after the collapse stating that the building was (about to be) blown up, exploded, brought down etc.
cool.gif That such terms are synonymous with "imploded"
c) That these witnesses have no motive to lie.

These lead us to the indisputable conclusion that 7 was imploded. Of course, if you want to dispute it, as you can see, you would have to do so either by refuting the propositions, or the link to the propositions and the conclusion.

Now, once such a conclusion is established as valid, necessarily, all other explanations must bend to that conclusion which, due to its clearly illustrated coherence, becomes a proposition in itself (i.e. in the same way that the 3 propositions above are each coherent and indisputable). Conseuqences of that conclusion that may sound a bit "funny", are worthless tools for disproving the conclusion.

So, we then apply the same system to answer your questions, should one wish to do so. So:

q1) Who planted the explosives?

Given that we have established the propostions that:
a) 7 was imploded

and we can go on to say that
cool.gif Nobody has come forth yet to state publicy that they saw the explosives that led to the implosion being planted

the answer is that we do not know who planted the explosives, since they were either not seen, or were seen and the witnesses have not come forth yet. Clearly, this does not invalidate the proposition.


q2)when were these mystery explosives planted and wired together

Once again, using the same 2 propositions:
a) 7 was imploded
cool.gif No one was seen planting the explosives,

the answer to your question is equally simple- they were planted and wired when nobody of the inclination to have come forth by now, was looking. All conclusions must bend to the propositions.


q3) what types of explosives could've survived the fires?

Given that
a) 7 was taken down by explosives
and
cool.gif there were fires in parts of the building

This brings us to the conclusion that the explosives were either planted away from the fires, or that the fires were not strong enough to hinder the explosives (either due to qualitie of the fires/qualities of the explosives)..

****

Now, as I hope you have learnt, if you are to dispute a conclusion, you must do so in one of 2 ways:
1- Dispute the propositions on which the conclusion is based
2- Dispute the linkage betwene the conclusion and the propositions.

Anything else is worthless. If you cannot do that, then the conclusion is valid, and the answer to any of your qualms is whatever bends to that valid conclusion.
link (http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?act=findpost&pid=18904)

Apparently now mjd1982 is arguing for the 'demolition of the Twin Towers using pre-planted explosives' fantasy, even after stating this:


SO DUMB!!!

I'm have never argued for the implosion of the TT's... oh maaaaan....

Listen, I suggest you leave the debating to the adults. There must be a kiddies room in this place...
link (http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?act=findpost&pid=20060)

[twinstead]

mjd how do you expect to successfully use the technique that most of your peers use--refuse to be tied down to any opinion so you don't have to defend any position, simply find real and perceived anomalies in the competing theory--when your words make it very clear what your actual position is?

[lapman]

Thank you. Don't you love how he creates definitions out of thin air?

[HeyLeroy]

Thank you. Don't you love how he creates definitions out of thin air?

Yup:

This is true, if one accepts "with great probability" as being (more or less) synonymous with "certainly"
link (http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/index.php?act=findpost&hl=synonym&pid=19150)

[Belz...]

This is true, if one accepts "with great probability" as being (more or less) synonymous with "certainly"

Why not ?

After all, for many people, "maybe" means "yes".

(Hell, for some people, "no" means "yes".)

[tsig]

Seeking the truth and accepting the truth are two different things.

Truth seekers seem most happy off the track.

[mjd1982]

Above you say to be fired, he must implicate AND lie, but below you say he must only implicate. Do you wish to modify your claim quoted below?





You have failed 2x to respond to the question below:
#2448

[mjd1982]

Darn, I missed this one. Again, I say that the "Truth Movement" is not anywhere close to as important as you make it out to be. As I stated in my last post, Scott's statements on a few web sites and one public interview that was not a headliner would not make FT respond. So it's not astonishing that FT has made no statement whatsoever. This shows how insignificant Scott's statement and the "Truth Movement" really is. Now if Scott's statements were headline news and was broadcast on any major news station, then FT would have to respond. So, in reality, only one person believes in the FT cover up, and that's you.
Only one person in the world believes in Forbes, me. Riiiight...

If the TM werent a factor, then what the hell are you and your kook brigade doing on this forum?

[twinstead]

If the TM werent a factor, then what the hell are you and your kook brigade doing on this forum?

Oh, I don't know. Maybe it's that we don't like arrogant, raving ideologues accusing innocent people of mass murder on the slimmest of evidence.

No matter though--it's probably just some silly pet peeve.

[mjd1982]

maybe they do not know about his claims, it is only your word for it that they do, how honest is that? should i email them and ask them if they are aware of his claims, not his apparent implications that you read into his statements but his initial claims? if i do and they are aware of them then he has nothing to fear?


#1- If you and I are aware of them, you think his employers of at least 6 years will not be?
#2- He has stated that he is being hassled by them to keep quiet.


snideness and rudeness again,


I'm sorry, but with posts like the above, what else do you expect? You know what the facts are, you know that FT will be aware of what he has said (if you are not stupid), and you must know that he is being hassled, hence why he isnt coming out and telling everyone his story as he otherwise might. I have met him, I have relayed all this to you. So why do you continue playing silly buggers if you are interested in the facts? Leave that to the other clowns on this thread


the fact that he is in the uk would mean that he would be going to the uk authorities not the us ones, not the people who had already investigated it, and a lawsuit against them if they sacked him would not happen because it would be a uk industrial tribunal, you know very well this is different than the us system, how could they bring a case against him if he is telling the truth, he just needs to tell the police he has proof that FT are covering something up


Right. So the Met are going to go to the US and uncover the 911 plot. What planet do you live on? How could such an occurrence ever be possible?


as irrelevant as his real name remark you made, you are a coward for not answering about your actions if it was you


???

I just gave you the answer, worthless though it is. What the hell are you talking about?


there is no denial by FT but you have said there was?


No, I said it has been scrubbed from the official record, according to Scott. I cannot recall the record he was talking about; my statement may be taken at face value then.


so from my comments you are inferring i am facist or have facist beliefs?
back this up? do you know the leanings of the political parties in the UK? try and guess which one i vote for?


(sigh) I dont give a s***!


waffle, they have changed and you said they had not, the amount of time, the fact that he does not know for certain that it was all floors after claiming he did, these are changes whether you like it or not


I said substantial


has his story changed, yes it has, he has made conflicting statements regarding this weekend, some of which we now know are false


as above. enough of the barrister tactics please, we are intereste din the truth, not winning or losing


no, the power down apparently happened to all floors from the 50th up, this did not only affect FT, so they quite conceviably not be the only ones implicated? were they the only business on these floors?


If that is the case, then so be it


he has never at any point implicated FT, if you continue to say he has show it or stop claiming it, see previous posts regarding proof

if you want to read between the lines like you seem to like to do you would see that it seems more like he is implicating the PA


Listen. As with the rest of the gang, you allow yourself to be deliberately obtuse when you dont want to understand something. Realise that to implicate FT, he does not have to say the words "I hereby impicate FT". No. He simply has to relate a story that implicates FT by simple inference- something which you guys are not fond of when it doesnt suit your ends. In stating that they participated in the power down, and in that they havent come clean about it, informed the authorities to look into it etc, they are part of the cover up by implication, in his eyes.

I have asked you guys to address this point for many pages now, and nothing. Not even an admission, as I have willingly done, that it is an "anomaly". Astonishing dishonesty on all of your parts.

I'm gonna give you all another day, and then its back to PNAC.


a point that was irrelevant to what we were discussing, it adds nothing or detracts zero from his story


It was relevant to the point I was making. Re read


a lot, is that hundreds or thousands or millions?


a lot of what?


surveys? millions of people worldwide believe bush and his administration carried out these murders to go to war in afghanistan do they?


have you ever seen a 911 CT survey? Google it


more than believe it was 19 hijackers?


???


70 to 100 out of a population of what? are you saying internet is little or poor advertising for these meetings?

Where have you seen this advertised?

[DGM]

Only one person in the world believes in Forbes, me. Riiiight...

If the TM werent a factor, then what the hell are you and your kook brigade doing on this forum?
It's a hobby for me. I enjoy conspiracy theories.
The TM is a insignificant money making scam. This fact is crystallized by the fact that UFOs and Paris Hilton get more attention, and they would rather make a video than seek justice.

[mjd1982]

Me too. Let's assume, for argument's sake, that WTC 1 & 2 were "powered down" for the entire week before 9/11. So what? How is PROOF of a controlled demolition or anything suspicious?

We're New Yorkers, it's not another terrorist attack I'm worried about, it's another attack by Con Edison.
where have I said it is? Its evidence of a power down in the TTs to do "cabling" the w/e b4 911 that was subsequently covered up. That should be investigated.

[mjd1982]

mjd how do you expect to successfully use the technique that most of your peers use--refuse to be tied down to any opinion so you don't have to defend any position, simply find real and perceived anomalies in the competing theory--when your words make it very clear what your actual position is?
I have stated my position openly many many times, starting with #1 of this thread.

My opinion on Forbes is very clear- there was a power down, an unprecedented and bizarre event, that has since been covered up. This needs investigating. It is not an argument for the CD of the TTs

[mjd1982]

It's a hobby for me. I enjoy conspiracy theories.
The TM is a insignificant money making scam. This fact is crystallized by the fact that UFOs and Paris Hilton get more attention, and they would rather make a video than seek justice.
I have made no money off this. So what is your point?

[Unsecured Coins]

I have stated my position openly many many times, starting with #1 of this thread.

My opinion on Forbes is very clear- there was a power down, an unprecedented and bizarre event, that has since been covered up. This needs investigating. It is not an argument for the CD of the TTs


I'd watch that word slinging. The last time you called something "unprecedented" you got your face slammed in a car door.

[Gravy]

Lol, the power down happened to them. They have not come out and refuted any allegations that have been made against them which imply that they were thus party to anything nefarious happening that weekend.In the main reading room of the New York Public Library, a woman stood up, approached me where I was sitting, and shouted that I was responsible for the Holocaust. I did not refute her allegation. Therefore I am party to the nefarious Nazi persecution, imprisonment, torture, and murder of millions of people.

Or is your logic stupendously flawed?

[DGM]

I have made no money off this. So what is your point?
I know this is a concept that is strange to you but I was answering a question. No where do you ask why you do it.

If the TM werent a factor, then what the hell are you and your kook brigade doing on this forum?

Please try to read for comprehension.

[funk de fino]

#1- If you and I are aware of them, you think his employers of at least 6 years will not be?
#2- He has stated that he is being hassled by them to keep quiet.

I'm sorry, but with posts like the above, what else do you expect? You know what the facts are, you know that FT will be aware of what he has said (if you are not stupid), and you must know that he is being hassled, hence why he isnt coming out and telling everyone his story as he otherwise might. I have met him, I have relayed all this to you. So why do you continue playing silly buggers if you are interested in the facts? Leave that to the other clowns on this thread

Right. So the Met are going to go to the US and uncover the 911 plot. What planet do you live on? How could such an occurrence ever be possible?

???
I just gave you the answer, worthless though it is. What the hell are you talking about?

No, I said it has been scrubbed from the official record, according to Scott. I cannot recall the record he was talking about; my statement may be taken at face value then.

(sigh) I dont give a s***!

I said substantial

as above. enough of the barrister tactics please, we are intereste din the truth, not winning or losing

If that is the case, then so be it

Listen. As with the rest of the gang, you allow yourself to be deliberately obtuse when you dont want to understand something. Realise that to implicate FT, he does not have to say the words "I hereby impicate FT". No. He simply has to relate a story that implicates FT by simple inference- something which you guys are not fond of when it doesnt suit your ends. In stating that they participated in the power down, and in that they havent come clean about it, informed the authorities to look into it etc, they are part of the cover up by implication, in his eyes.

I have asked you guys to address this point for many pages now, and nothing. Not even an admission, as I have willingly done, that it is an "anomaly". Astonishing dishonesty on all of your parts.

I'm gonna give you all another day, and then its back to PNAC.

It was relevant to the point I was making. Re read

a lot of what?

have you ever seen a 911 CT survey? Google it

???

Where have you seen this advertised?

you tell me? or better still i will email them

you have no proof he is being "hassled"

snide and rude again

same reason they were able to investigate the litvenenko case? this investigation did not only take place on british soil, they went abroad to investigate

if people like avery and jones can uncover smoking guns then i'm sure the METs finest could if there were any

simple, would you go to the authorities if you were in scotts position

of course it has, very handy, you have no proof so we ignore the claim

rudeness again, you infer i make facist remarks or am indeed a facist, please retract

not your initial claim and again well avoided, you said his claims did not change, they did, that is the truth

again well avoided, these other companies have no scott forbes type of whistle blower working for them? or the imaginary official records that they would have to purge, how many other companies would have been involved in a complete power down of all floors from 50 up?

very strange that there has been nothing about any of them reported?

again this is your reading of what he has claimed, same as the PNAC, no-one else seems to agree that he is implicating FT, also rudeness again

it was irrelevant to the points we were discussing at the time, it was a sidetrack, if you are allowed them the so am i, and you said i was not?

protesters at ground zero on 911, you said a lot, how much is a lot?

next two posts you make

1. you show me any proof that 10's of millions of people think that bush and the administration deliberatly planned and executed a plan that would murder 3000 people so they could go to war, this is what you are claiming?
2.another avoidance, see above

you tell me mate, is it online advertising through truther sites and forums?

[Brainache]

I have made no money off this. So what is your point?

Well golly mjd, time to make a video! You don't want to be just another credulous consumer of this Truth Movement rubbish do you? Get out there and start making bucks off the tragedy, all the cool kids are doing it.

[nicepants]

#2448

I asked:


How can we tell the difference between
a) Scotts statements being incorrect, and
b) a cover up taking place?
How would they look different?

Your response is "he would be fired"? I believe you are trying to insinuate that he would be fired if his statements were false. Are you also trying to claim that he would NOT be fired if his statements were true? Please explain what you are basing this assumption on. Also, note that it contradicts your earlier claim:


If an employee of such a company were to come out and imply that the gov were behind 911, they would be out on their ass

As, even if his statements are TRUE, he's implicating them, as you claim, therefore he should be fired regardless of whether his statements are true. Perhaps you need to revise your claim above, since you are now preaching something different.

you must know that he is being hassled, hence why he isnt coming out and telling everyone his story as he otherwise might.

The fact that he "isn't coming out and telling everyone his story" does not prove that he is being hassled. There is more than one reason he could be behaving this way.

Where is the proof that he is being hassled to keep quiet?

[Unsecured Coins]

Where is the proof that he is being hassled to keep quiet?

Duh... the proof that he's being hassled is the fact that he's being hassled, Pants!

[lapman]

Only one person in the world believes in Forbes, me. Riiiight...Again, you prove that you have the comprehension level of a zygote. So let me say this again, in all caps. Maybe you might finally get it. YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE THAT BELIEVES IN THE FT COVER-UP. If that weren't true, it would be all over the TM sites. It's not. If you were interested in an honest debate, you'd admit that you may be wrong and move on.
If the TM werent a factor, then what the hell are you and your kook brigade doing on this forum?To insure that it never happens. Besides, some of these debates are intellectually stimulating. They force me to think and research. Others are just great entertainment. I've learned more about 9/11 in these past few months than I did the prior 5 years. If I keep just one person from believing in the fantasist garbage you and the other TM sheeple:sheep: spew forth, it's all worth it.

[lapman]

#1- If you and I are aware of them, you think his employers of at least 6 years will not be?
#2- He has stated that he is being hassled by them to keep quiet.#1- only if they go on the TM sites. His statements are not widely known. You claim "millions" know, but cannot provide proof of this, which several of us have asked for, which is incredibly dishonest.
#2-Yet he's spoken at 2 or more 9/11 functions and has given 2 interviews. You lose credibility there.
You know what the facts are, you know that FT will be aware of what he has said (if you are not stupid), and you must know that he is being hassled, hence why he isnt coming out and telling everyone his story as he otherwise might.See #2 above. I have met him, I have relayed all this to you. So why do you continue playing silly buggers if you are interested in the facts? Leave that to the other clowns on this threadPlease provide a link to the group that hosted the talks that list Scott's name. Do you have any pics of you and Scott? You're lack of honesty and your anonymity would keep us, or any sane person, from just taking your word for it. Either that, or send Scott the link to here so he can verify your claims.
No, I said it has been scrubbed from the official record, according to Scott.Again, that's only according to Scott.
I cannot recall the record he was talking about; my statement may be taken at face value then.see above
I said substantialGoing from top fifty floors with all security cameras and locks out of commission for 36 hours to not sure how many floors and could be wrong about the security locks and it was only 26 hours is significant. The TM taking it from there to both towers being completely powered down for the weekend is major.
as above. enough of the barrister tactics please, we are intereste din the truth, not winning or losingIt would be nice if that were true about you.
Realise that to implicate FT, he does not have to say the words "I hereby impicate FT". No. He simply has to relate a story that implicates FT by simple inference- something which you guys are not fond of when it doesnt suit your ends. In stating that they participated in the power down, and in that they havent come clean about it, informed the authorities to look into it etc, they are part of the cover up by implication, in his eyes. Again, the comprehension level of a zygote comes through. Preparing for the power down that PA said was going to happen is not participating in it on the level that they know why the power down was going to occur. There is nothing to alert the authorities about or come clean about. So there is no implication of FT's complicity in 9/11 or any illegal activity.

I have asked you guys to address this point for many pages now, and nothing. Not even an admission, as I have willingly done, that it is an "anomaly". Astonishing dishonesty on all of your parts. Err. This has been addressed. You contention that this was an anomaly is only based on Scott's say so, not documentation. We have asked you to provide such evidence and you have failed to do so time and time again and you still claim that we have not addressed this which is incredibly dishonest of you.

I'm gonna give you all another day, and then its back to PNAC.
Thank you, oh great god of propitiousness.

[Unsecured Coins]

because 40 some odd days of mjd bantering about his interpretation wasn't enough, the Good Lord came and blessed me with MORE.

Thank you, baby Jebus!!

[Belz...]

I cannot recall the record he was talking about; my statement may be taken at face value then.

Only in the truther mind is LACK of evidence actually considered more significant than the PRESENCE of evidence.

[lapman]

Lol, the power down happened to them. They have not come out and refuted any allegations that have been made against them which imply that they were thus party to anything nefarious happening that weekend. Millions of peple are aware of this, but tFT choose not to comment, and try to hush up ForbesYou make this so easy. In order for them to refute any allegations, they need to be made. Neither Scott or the "TM" make any public allegations against FT. There is nothing stated or implied on any site or any document that implies FT had any part in the decision to power down the floors it resides on. So there is nothing for FT to answer for. Now if you can post documentation showing PA informing FT that the power down is in preparation for aircraft hitting the building or FT creating a fictitious situation that would require PA to power down the floors, then you would have something. Since none of that has been shown or talked about by Scott, your whole argument is baseless. So "Millions" of people are not aware of this. FT hasn't tried that hard to "hush" Scott or he would not have had the 2+ speaking engagements and 2 interviews. So there is no evidence of a cover up.

[HeyLeroy]

Objection, mjd1982; relevance?

You've stated elsewhere that you don't believe that One and Two World Trade Center were collapsed with pre-planted explosive devices, only Seven World Trade.

Why then does it matter if there was or wans't a power-down? Your contradictions are starting to sound like Stundie (the poster for whom the award is named, not the award).

[MIKILLINI]

So, in summary...
1.) A PNAC document was written......True. There is evidence of this.

2.) Transformations described in this same document will take decades. True.
The evidence of the existence of the documents and statements therein confirm this.

3.) Is there a short term plan of transformation outlined within the document?
False. There are no described short term time conditions of policy.

4.) Are there any conditions that would alter transformations? True. The consensus of the group involved with the planning of document determined these changes be done to prevent attacks and rebuild military infrastructure and maintain American democratic ideals globaly. A catastrophic and catalyzing event is stated as to what would alter these plans.

5.) Would a catastrophic and catalyzing event benefit America in regards to transformations, described in PNAC, as happening sooner? False. The evidence shows this was not beneficial to America.

6.) Is there evidence to connect the PNAC document to the Bush Administration in the form of conspiring to allow attacks to happen on American soil in order for transformations to take place sooner?
No.

[lapman]

"See post #95" response coming in 3...2...1

[Unsecured Coins]

"See post #95" response coming in 3...2...1


no, it's #493, stooopid!! :D

[mjd1982]

In the main reading room of the New York Public Library, a woman stood up, approached me where I was sitting, and shouted that I was responsible for the Holocaust. I did not refute her allegation. Therefore I am party to the nefarious Nazi persecution, imprisonment, torture, and murder of millions of people.

Or is your logic stupendously flawed?
#1:


Oh-just so people are aware, I have eviscerated this chap's LC commentary, PNAC section on p3 of this thread. He has been asked to rebut sensibly since then, but has found it beyond him do so. I would like to know, if he cannot, then what hope do any of you have of doing so?


Just so you know, arguing from incredulity is "stupendous flawed" logic.

#2 Suitably, so is your analogy. From the one side, the woman's accusation has zero basis since, for one reason, she has no apparent connection with you. So aside from other problems, she would have no way of knowing such. This is the opposite of Scott's case. From the other side, your scope for refutation is different from that of FT. They can refute his accusaton quite simply, by firing him. Had the lady accused her employers of being involved in the Holocaust, they could have refuted her accustion by firing her for false accusation. FT have not done this to Scott.

That no one can/will answer why is obvious, and so now we shall move back to PNAC

[mjd1982]

I know this is a concept that is strange to you but I was answering a question. No where do you ask why you do it.



Please try to read for comprehension.
You implied that the reason the TM has support/impetus is due to financial gain. i am saying I support it and give it a degree of impetus for zero gain

[mjd1982]

you tell me? or better still i will email them

you have no proof he is being "hassled"

snide and rude again

same reason they were able to investigate the litvenenko case? this investigation did not only take place on british soil, they went abroad to investigate

if people like avery and jones can uncover smoking guns then i'm sure the METs finest could if there were any

simple, would you go to the authorities if you were in scotts position

of course it has, very handy, you have no proof so we ignore the claim

rudeness again, you infer i make facist remarks or am indeed a facist, please retract

not your initial claim and again well avoided, you said his claims did not change, they did, that is the truth

again well avoided, these other companies have no scott forbes type of whistle blower working for them? or the imaginary official records that they would have to purge, how many other companies would have been involved in a complete power down of all floors from 50 up?

very strange that there has been nothing about any of them reported?

again this is your reading of what he has claimed, same as the PNAC, no-one else seems to agree that he is implicating FT, also rudeness again

it was irrelevant to the points we were discussing at the time, it was a sidetrack, if you are allowed them the so am i, and you said i was not?

protesters at ground zero on 911, you said a lot, how much is a lot?

next two posts you make

1. you show me any proof that 10's of millions of people think that bush and the administration deliberatly planned and executed a plan that would murder 3000 people so they could go to war, this is what you are claiming?
2.another avoidance, see above

you tell me mate, is it online advertising through truther sites and forums?
I'm sorry, but this is taking too much time if you cant use the quote function. Type at the top ofthe section you are replying to, and at the end of it. Repeat.

The meat of your post is concerned with SF- I cannot give you "proof" that he is being hassled, other than the "evidence" that he supports th movement, since he goes to meetings, and has said so, yet that he doesnt make a big show of his remarkable and important testimony, because he is gettng hassled.

Please dont ask me for proof that he comes to meetings.

ETA- Oh God, our local Einstein has asked for "proof" that I have indeed met Scott...

[lapman]

no, it's #493, stooopid!! :D
http://www.glavina.com/gfx/portfolio/animation/animation_ren-stimpy2.gif
It's the OP, ju eeeeeediot

[mjd1982]

See #493. Oh... Ok, I will address your post anyway!

So, in summary...
1.) A PNAC document was written......True. There is evidence of this.


good


2.) Transformations described in this same document will take decades. True.
The evidence of the existence of the documents and statements therein confirm this.



3.) Is there a short term plan of transformation outlined within the document?
False. There are no described short term time conditions of policy.


Here you get confused. The policy as a whole will take a long time to implement whatever the scenario. As I have said before, you cannot militarise space (to take one example of the WOT/RAD) overnight, It takes a long time. This is what you are conceiving when you talk about the "long time". Also the fact that the platform which RAD/WOT aims at creating is intended to last a long time.

However, to think that such would not want to be implemented sooner rather than later is not the point of the "long time".


4.) Are there any conditions that would alter transformations? True. The consensus of the group involved with the planning of document determined these changes be done to prevent attacks and rebuild military infrastructure and maintain American democratic ideals globaly. A catastrophic and catalyzing event is stated as to what would alter these plans.


Errr... I'm afraid that this is only true via a catastrophically slack reading of the document. Such an event would not alter those plan (in the pejorative sense which you imply), rather it would remove the barriers and quicken the upheavals to allow such transformations to happen quicker. This would, consequently,allow the rebuilding of military infrastructure and the preservation of US interests to happen more quickly.


5.) Would a catastrophic and catalyzing event benefit America in regards to transformations, described in PNAC, as happening sooner? False. The evidence shows this was not beneficial to America.


Again, the intention of such an event was precisely to catalyse the most favourable conditions for the military transformation detailed in the doc to occur. As is common sense, a war environment is more favourable to military transformation than a peace environment. Hence, as the doc had advocated decades of military transformation, within days of 911 the US gov had created the political paradigm that would allow for a decades long war, which will, in theory allow for such transformations to occur in the most seamless way possble.


6.) Is there evidence to connect the PNAC document to the Bush Administration in the form of conspiring to allow attacks to happen on American soil in order for transformations to take place sooner?
No.

Lol, well, unless you can explain the 4 points listed in #750, which none of your ilk have even dared try, then you will see the facts about such evidence a little clearer, I daresay.