The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[DGM]

"it fell apart like a chinese motorcycle"

I've never heard that racial slur before.

[mjd1982]

I will say that 911 was in fact a catalyzing event such as Pearl Harbor was,as far as it made America want to kick someone in the balls.
One million men (as I remember) volunteered to fight after the PH attack.

I can understand how you could (through theory) say they wanted to do this to get oil or whatever you want to say, but I do not understand how you can view the document as evidence that they wanted it done in the manner to which you imply. The document does not seem to support your claim.

What I understand from you is this....

They set a plan and draw it up. They then create 9/11 to get public support, and then support to go to war to get oil and all that, right?

And your only evidence is the PNAC document?
I can understand how you're drawing your conclusion, but I hope you understand it is false.
Because you're reading your personal opinion into what the document is saying by looking for motive for another event you believe to be a conspiracy.
If you were to view the document without an agenda in mind, you would see the document does not support your theory.
No.

The PNAC doc is the 1st stage in the illustration of how there is sufficient evidence of complicity to warrant an investigation into such. For ifit can be shown that the US deemed 9/11 to be an event that would be propitious to policy, we can look at actions e.g. their 40 failures to act on PDBs warning of the threat of an OBL attack on the US, and come to some rigorous conclusions as to the need for investigation.

[mjd1982]

They still pay for it, so I don't see how you could say that.
read:

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html#fn56

[mjd1982]

Except that your post #95 is astonishingly wrong.


Lol, you just dont wanna show me how, right? Its a secret!


Correction, wrongly illustrated by you.


More air


Hey, you actually got something right. Since 9/11 was not the catalyzing event that let up to the invasion, the point is irrelevant.


No? So there was no link made by the admn between 911 and Saddam?
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/093003C.shtml
And Iraq wasnt part of the WOT?


False statement. It is not being pursued more radically. The systems were designed long before 9/11 as part of the SDI.


They were designed, but since we are in a war environment, it cn safely be assumed that military radicalistions that are germane to the war will be pursued more readily than in peace. By adults, that is.


Again, the WOT and 9/11 are two different things. 9/11 was used to get public support the WOT. Since the new PH that the RAD refers to has nothing to do with war or public support, 9/11 and the PNAC's new PH are not one in the same.


Oh boy... this is like swatting flies, I think i could reply to these posts in my sleep now.

Show me where the PH in RAD has nothing to do with public/political support, refer to the 2nd half of p4


So, where is your "sensible" response to my WTC7 arguments?


If you and your friends are honest, we should have no need to even discuss it by the time this section is over

[mjd1982]

Their plan will happen regardless making your whole argument pointless. It provides zero evidence to point to a new investigation.
What the hell are you talking about? "Their" is the PNAC in question. "Their" plan happening is precisely what is being debated here. Please keep up.

[Pardalis]

we should have no need to even discuss it by the time this section is over

And when will that be btw?

[DGM]

What the hell are you talking about? "Their" is the PNAC in question. "Their" plan happening is precisely what is being debated here. Please keep up.
provides zero evidence to point to a new investigation

At the rate your going you'll get you investigation in 2101.

Try to make a point!

[BillyRayValentine]

Interestingly I have just spent an evening with Scott Forbes (and Willie Rodriguez), and so I am well aware of how implicit intimidation and repression campaigns can work, and are well in place in this situation.

You spent an evening with Willy Rodriguez and Scott Forbes? And you admit this publicly?

Though Scott Forbes is by far my favorite character in this entire charade. His "power-down" claim is such an absurd whopper, it can't help but make me chuckle. Though my amusement is partially offset by the knowledge that some among us are dimwitted enough to attach even a shred of credibility to such shear and utter nonsense.

Oh well, as the saying goes, better them (you?) than me. I'll just focus on the humorous aspect of his tale and leave it at that.

[lapman]

Lol, again, a substanceless post. I will ask you again- tell me where RAD states that the catalysing does not have to be done in relation to public opinion.The second reference to PH shows this. Read it again and the brown ooze will clear



*Sigh*, for the 100th time...

You missed one important part of your RAD quote:
While
the unresolved
conflict with Iraq
provides the
immediate
justification, the
need for a
substantial
American force
presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of
the regime of Saddam Hussein.

So, Iraq, in and of itself, has nothing to do with the RAD.

see post 1983

Your post 1983 shows your complete ignorance in how the military works. War, in and of itself does not make it easier to make radical changes if there is no need. The Gulf war did not result in any radical change in the military. The Korean war did not result in any radical change in the military. Vietnam actually reversed several radical changes that were made due to the cold war. Rapid radical change only occurs when the need is there, war or peace time. Understand this and you'll understand why your posts 1983 and 95 are complete wrong.
http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsControl/Space.asp#USSeeksMilitarizationofSpace
This illustrates what I said above:
But because space-based weapons have been on the agenda long before September 11, and the War on Terror, the fight against terrorism is not the sole justification, though it may now add to the reasons.
The whole doc refers to the military. This doesnt mean that every analigy in the doc is homogeneous, that's a slightly dull assertion.It may be dull, but it's the 100% correct assertion. Only someone with an agenda would say otherwise.

Not english. I know i've written here in french and german, but just hitting the keyboard randomly is not a language I understand
Sorry about that. I got interrupted before I was able to edit that. What I meant to say is that saying that your post #95 is wrong is a response, by definition. You originally said that only one person had the courage to respond to your post #95. You then moved the goal post by claiming "sensibly" respond.

[nicepants]

I said in this context, quicker means easier. You will notice in the PH para, it goes on to talk about why it would take a long time. There are programmes in place which should(absent a new PH) take ages to shift, etc. In order to get the shift in gear, grease the wheels, a new PH would have to happen,

That's where you're wrong. The PNAC discusses transformations that will happen happen over a long time, the only difference being that "a new PH" might cause it to happen sooner.

These hindrances can be got rid of, hence the transformation will be easier, and quicker for it.
Quicker does not mean easier

"Absent a debilitating injury, my retirement is at least 20 years away"

A debilitating injury would cause me to retire sooner...that in no way means that's what I want. Though this situation would cause it to happen sooner, there is no inference that it would be any easier.

I'm sorry, are you completely blind??
Actually, no, are you completely, doubly blind?

What's the difference between completely blind and "doubly" blind?

Kind of like the difference between a glass being "completely" empty and "doubly" empty?

[lapman]

They were designed, but since we are in a war environment, it cn safely be assumed that military radicalistions that are germane to the war will be pursued more readily than in peace. By adults, that is.correction, by adults with and agenda. Any adult that knows anything about the military would know that radicalizations are not germane to war. Radicalizations are germane to need, which may be necessary in war, but could also happen in peace. There were huge radical changes made in peace time during the "cold war." We were not at war, but there was a need for radical change. Radical programs like the SR-71, Stealth, SDI and others were created during peace time with many done in a very short period of time. Research this and you will finally understand what we are saying.
Show me where the PH in RAD has nothing to do with public/political support, refer to the 2nd half of p4Again, the second reference to PH in the RAD. Read this again and you will understand.

[mjd1982]

You spent an evening with Willy Rodriguez and Scott Forbes? And you admit this publicly?

Though Scott Forbes is by far my favorite character in this entire charade. His "power-down" claim is such an absurd whopper, it can't help but make me chuckle. Though my amusement is partially offset by the knowledge that some among us are dimwitted enough to attach even a shred of credibility to such shear and utter nonsense.

Oh well, as the saying goes, better them (you?) than me. I'll just focus on the humorous aspect of his tale and leave it at that.
Hmmm... How interesting.

I dont want to get too diverted, but since I am interested in the psychology of OTers (http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/bernprop.html), please tell me why you think he is telling a "whopper"?

[BillyRayValentine]

Hmmm... How interesting.

I dont want to get too diverted, but since I am interested in this, please tell me why you think he is telling a "whopper"?

Sorry, not trying to derail the thread, but I didn't expect you to defend this clown.

Now, why do I think he's telling a whopper?

To my knowledge, the first time anyone heard from Scott Forbes was when he wrote this letter in April of 2004: http://www.serendipity.li/wot/forbes01.htm

What an absolute joke. His claims (at least the significant ones) are laughable. Rather than my taking the time to address them individually, take a look here: http://www.911review.com/errors/wtc/forbes.html

It's another truther site, ironically enough. But even they poke enough holes in his story to realize it's a complete fairy tale.

Of course, the most damning piece of evidence is that not a single person who worked in the towers has corroborated his story. In an office building of that size, particularly one that houses a number of investment firms, hundreds, possibly thousands of people would have gone into the office at some point over the weekend. You'd think at least one other person would've noticed the lack of power; the elevators not working; the security locks not working, etc., etc., etc.

If this crapola comes even close to passing the sniff test with you, it's time to have your nose examined.

[MIKILLINI]

Read all the post b4 you reply to it. It will take decades- you cannot militarise space in a week- this does not mean that it is not happening quicker than it woudl have done absent a new PH. As I have stated, the creation of a war environment makes it easier for military changes to be pushed through, hence a war environment is propitious for a policy of military change, and hence a new PH, a catalys for a war, is propitious to the policy of military radicalisation.

Then why don't you reread all of the posts Darth Rotor has put out there. He
knows the logistics of what it takes for transformation, and he tells you, from experience, what that entails. I understood everything he described and there wasn't anything propitious for your case.

But you missed that one, didn't you? While you were "terrorized" from Darth's "vile jingoist" comment, you closed your mind to his astute evaluation.
The obvious thing your doing here is using the PNAC doc as a written conspiracy, while using the 2001 QDR as a deadline for the catastrophic and catalyzing event to ascribe PNAC as a written conspiracy. The reason? To make transformation more propitious, easier in a wartime environment. Yeah, thats it. So, to ask the question again that many have asked before Me, what happens next (Since you believe this catastrophic and catalyzing event has to happen before the 2001 QDR comes out)?

[WildCat]

68 pages, zero "conspiracy facts". Just sayin'.

[lapman]

No? So there was no link made by the admn between 911 and Saddam?
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/093003C.shtml
And Iraq wasnt part of the WOT? Nice try, but again you fail. Now try to keep up. The decision to invade Iraq was because it was thought that Saddam had possession of or equipment to produce WMD's. The 9/11 link and WOT excuses were added later after the WMD argument lost steam. So, instead of just trying to nit-pick and over analyze every little sentence, try looking at the overall picture. When you do, you'll finally see the light and the error in your statement. Of course, you won't, but I thought I might suggest it anyway.

[MIKILLINI]

68 pages, zero "conspiracy facts". Just sayin'.

Same theory, different day. Just agreein'. :cool:

[Garb]

Mjd, what was the PNAC paper written for? Long change over many decades, or short change after a catalyzing event?

[Dave Rogers]

How pathetic. Deeming "it fell apart like a chinese motorcycle", a widely used simile, to be racist, much less comparing it to calling Muslims "rag heads", is symptomatic of the self deception and lack of honesty that is present in spades on this forum

It's not a simile I've ever heard used before, nor is it one that I'd ever stoop to using. It is by definition racist, in that it attributes mechanical incompetence to the Chinese, a specifically definable racial group. It's significantly more insulting than the racist term "rag heads", which is a relatively non-judgemental comment on a particular style of headgear. I find your use of the term only mildly offensive, but your inability to understand that you too are capable of misbehaviour is symptomatic of the "self-deception and lack of honesty" that has pervaded all your writings on this forum.

MJD1982, you need to take a long, hard look at yourself and your approach to debate. Everyone here is extremely antagonistic to your approach, and you seem unable to understand that the common factor in all these interactions is you.

Dave

[twinstead]

MJD1982, you need to take a long, hard look at yourself and your approach to debate. Everyone here is extremely antagonistic to your approach, and you seem unable to understand that the common factor in all these interactions is you.


hmmmm. Arrogance, condescension, and a refusal to give in on any point, no matter if shown to be totally wrong.

Nope. I don't know what you mean. Nothing to be antagonistic to there...

[mjd1982]

It's not a simile I've ever heard used before, nor is it one that I'd ever stoop to using. It is by definition racist, in that it attributes mechanical incompetence to the Chinese, a specifically definable racial group. It's significantly more insulting than the racist term "rag heads", which is a relatively non-judgemental comment on a particular style of headgear. I find your use of the term only mildly offensive, but your inability to understand that you too are capable of misbehaviour is symptomatic of the "self-deception and lack of honesty" that has pervaded all your writings on this forum.

MJD1982, you need to take a long, hard look at yourself and your approach to debate. Everyone here is extremely antagonistic to your approach, and you seem unable to understand that the common factor in all these interactions is you.

Dave
I dont want to be antagonistic, but I have to say that the comment "the racist term "rag heads", which is a relatively non-judgemental comment on a particular style of headgear." is mind blowing.

So if I call a black person "******" that's not an issue since the word is just a derivate of the colour of their skin? Or a Jew "yid" is just a derivate of one of their languages? Just an astonishing comment!

[mjd1982]

Mjd, what was the PNAC paper written for? Long change over many decades, or short change after a catalyzing event?
An urgent change that needs to happen as soon as possible, hence needing to be crystallised in the minds of decison makers by Oct 2001, and forming the core of neo con policy for the next administration. This policy is one that will have long term consequences (which is where your getting confused), and of which some elements will unavoidable last a long time (e.g. the militarisation of space), but it needs to get going as soon as possible, needs to be given significant impetus by the incoming administration, and should proceed with minimal hindrance, due to its crucial importance.

[Revolutionary91]

MJD, have you seen the archive footage of CNN from the evening of 911? There is some very suspicious stuff related to PNAC. One very shifty guy comes on and says that this pearl harbour event will help transform the military after years of neglect. He even specifically mentions fighter planes etc.

[mjd1982]

Nice try, but again you fail. Now try to keep up. The decision to invade Iraq was because it was thought that Saddam had possession of or equipment to produce WMD's. The 9/11 link and WOT excuses were added later after the WMD argument lost steam. So, instead of just trying to nit-pick and over analyze every little sentence, try looking at the overall picture. When you do, you'll finally see the light and the error in your statement. Of course, you won't, but I thought I might suggest it anyway.
You are a liar, and you have zero regard for the truth. Read the article.


On Dec. 9, 2001, Cheney said on "Meet The Press" that "it's been pretty well confirmed that he (Atta) did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack."


This is ~18mths before the invasion!!! So Iraq was linked to 911, since its invasion was a part of RAD, the plan which was to be catalysed by 911, regardless of its disconnects, to repeat myself.

[mjd1982]

Sorry, not trying to derail the thread, but I didn't expect you to defend this clown.

Now, why do I think he's telling a whopper?

To my knowledge, the first time anyone heard from Scott Forbes was when he wrote this letter in April of 2004: http://www.serendipity.li/wot/forbes01.htm

What an absolute joke. His claims (at least the significant ones) are laughable. Rather than my taking the time to address them individually, take a look here: http://www.911review.com/errors/wtc/forbes.html

It's another truther site, ironically enough. But even they poke enough holes in his story to realize it's a complete fairy tale.

Of course, the most damning piece of evidence is that not a single person who worked in the towers has corroborated his story. In an office building of that size, particularly one that houses a number of investment firms, hundreds, possibly thousands of people would have gone into the office at some point over the weekend. You'd think at least one other person would've noticed the lack of power; the elevators not working; the security locks not working, etc., etc., etc.

If this crapola comes even close to passing the sniff test with you, it's time to have your nose examined.
Ok, so your main point is that no one corroborates his story. I'm sorry, but this is a standard OTer tactic, or indeed of anyone who has no interest in debating honestly- muddy the issue. If you do that, then you maynot win, but neither will the other guy. The answer, my truth seeking friend, is right in from of your own nose. There is a reason why Forbes didnt come out for moths afterwards to speak his mind- when something like that happens, it is not the immediate propensity to come out and suggest something that might cause an earthquake in terms of its ramifications. Even the fact that he has only whispered it has caused him a measure of problems in terms of job security, slander from the likes of yourself, nudge nudge calls from HR telling him to keep quiet, etc. And it is this dynamic that means that other people are reluctant to speak out as well. This is the structure that allows such to happen. No company wants its employees intimating that the US government killed 3000 of its own people. And so, it is much easier to do what the majority of people at FT are doing- just forget about it, or tell themselves that it wasnt anything serious- just another power down. Note, that even in Scott's mind, it is not the power down that makes him think 911 was an inside job; it is the reaction to it, the cover up, the intimidation, and now, the denial of it ever happening, in many official corners, including the 911 Commission report who he corresponded with, that has made him a Truther. Ditto Wille Rodriguez, incidentally.

OTer psychology is astonishing. Another link for you, read it! (http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext04/pbpnn10.txt). This is a guy who has no pretence to fame or notoriety, not even keen to stand up in front of a hall of people, and yet when he simply relates his experience which may lead to an unpalatable truth for some, that some jump on him like hounds. Its a pretty tragic indictment.

[mjd1982]

MJD, have you seen the archive footage of CNN from the evening of 911? There is some very suspicious stuff related to PNAC. One very shifty guy comes on and says that this pearl harbour event will help transform the military after years of neglect. He even specifically mentions fighter planes etc.
Well I believe it was said pretty widespread post 911, in political and media circles, that this was a new PH. This is, to all with an above average intelligence, because it was.

[Revolutionary91]

Well I believe it was said pretty widespread post 911, in political and media circles, that this was a new PH. This is, to all with an above average intelligence, because it was.

Yes, and they kept referring to it as an opportunity. This guy on CNN was really precise and he looked excited, and spoke of the opportunity it gave. He may aswell have been reading RAD on air.

[mjd1982]

The second reference to PH shows this. Read it again and the brown ooze will clear


A piece of common sense for you buddy- 2 analogies, dozens of pages apart, do not necessarily have the same import. Think (about your levels of honesty)before you post


You missed one important part of your RAD quote:

So, Iraq, in and of itself, has nothing to do with the RAD.


ROFL....

One of the best quotes yet. I know you guys have your "Stundies", I think I may start a similar one for your guys, you have just made a good pitch for them to be called "The Lapmans", tho "The Belz" probably still leads.


While
the unresolved
conflict with Iraq
provides the
immediate
justification, the
need for a
substantial
American force
presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of
the regime of Saddam Hussein.


Hence even when Saddam is gone, US interests in the Gulf (oil) are such that a substantial US force will still be needed there. Duh!


Your post 1983 shows your complete ignorance in how the military works. War, in and of itself does not make it easier to make radical changes if there is no need. The Gulf war did not result in any radical change in the military. The Korean war did not result in any radical change in the military. Vietnam actually reversed several radical changes that were made due to the cold war. Rapid radical change only occurs when the need is there, war or peace time. Understand this and you'll understand why your posts 1983 and 95 are complete wrong.


So because war happened and military advancement did not ensue, that means that war is not propitious to military advancement. Duh!


It may be dull, but it's the 100% correct assertion. Only someone with an agenda would say otherwise.


Another substanceless post


Sorry about that. I got interrupted before I was able to edit that. What I meant to say is that saying that your post #95 is wrong is a response, by definition. You originally said that only one person had the courage to respond to your post #95. You then moved the goal post by claiming "sensibly" respond.

Oh, damn, how presumptious of me. How audacious indeed to hope that someone on this hilarious forum would respond to my post "sensibly". Dont worry, I hold out little hope for that any more.

[mjd1982]

That's where you're wrong. The PNAC discusses transformations that will happen happen over a long time, the only difference being that "a new PH" might cause it to happen sooner.


As I have said already, the changes will in any situation, take many years. They will last many decades. This is where you are getting confused. The need to start implementing them with urgency and haste, is manifest in the document, since they are what will preserve peace and democracy for the world, and that is why the next admin needs to start putting the measures in place by Oct 2001.


Quicker does not mean easier

"Absent a debilitating injury, my retirement is at least 20 years away"

A debilitating injury would cause me to retire sooner...that in no way means that's what I want. Though this situation would cause it to happen sooner, there is no inference that it would be any easier.


Read the post before you respond to it. In this context, quicker means easier. This is because the delay would be casued by programmes which woul otherwise cause mass upheaval to change, by structures that represenet deep set hindrances etc. Read the rest of the PH para. These are the factors that will delay the plan, factors which wil be obviated by the ocurrence of a new PH. Elementary.

[calebprime]

Hmmm... How interesting.

Ipsychology of OTers (http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/bernprop.html),

Yes, it would be more interesting if you got diverted more often.

quote from your link:

"...it remains a fact that in almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons—a trifling fraction of our hundred and twenty million—who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses."

end quote

This kind of statement is common in conspiracy thinking. It just ain't so.
There is amazing, unsummarizable diversity of activity and thinking going on everywhere, all the time.


Rather than respond to the "structural bias" thread, I'll give my 2 cents.

-Conversation is more interesting than debate. What happens here is not really debate, nor should it be. It's an exchange of views. It's persuasion.
It's lots of things. But it's not a debate.

-Write each post as if your readers were coming to it alone and the subject for the first time: Make positive assertions with enough background info.

-Avoid jargon. Don't say POTUS. Don't say 'propitious' more than twice.

-Don't respond to the other posts except by making relevant positive assertions: don't call the other posters stupid, or tell them to keep up.

-Make the same point no more than 4 or 5 times. Then move on.

-Don't be so concerned about what the subject of the thread is. Somewhat concerned, yes.

-eta: Don't ever accuse someone of racism unless that's his/her agenda. Don't report someone's post unless they are really spamming. Let them be uncivil.

Last time I looked, the post count was above 2,000, and the subject remains whether a new 'PH' (no, not acidity) was 'propitious' to policy as described in a 'PNAC' document.

[mjd1982]

Then why don't you reread all of the posts Darth Rotor has put out there. He
knows the logistics of what it takes for transformation, and he tells you, from experience, what that entails. I understood everything he described and there wasn't anything propitious for your case.
But you missed that one, didn't you? While you were "terrorized" from Darth's "vile jingoist" comment, you closed your mind to his astute evaluation.



I have replied to all his comments, until he showed himself to be a reprehensible human being. Hence I will not respond to him any more. Jingoism in the military is an ugly sterotype, particularly US (see front page of yesterdays Independent), and so to see it face to face, is pretty repellent.


The obvious thing your doing here is using the PNAC doc as a written conspiracy, while using the 2001 QDR as a deadline for the catastrophic and catalyzing event to ascribe PNAC as a written conspiracy. The reason? To make transformation more propitious, easier in a wartime environment. Yeah, thats it. So, to ask the question again that many have asked before Me, what happens next (Since you believe this catastrophic and catalyzing event has to happen before the 2001 QDR comes out)?

Simply put, criminal negligence occurs to ensure that despite a mass of warnings, nothing happens to stop the attacks, since they are propitious to policy.

[mjd1982]

Yes, it would be more interesting if you got diverted more often.

quote from your link:

"...it remains a fact that in almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons—a trifling fraction of our hundred and twenty million—who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses."

end quote

This kind of statement is common in conspiracy thinking. It just ain't so.
There is amazing, unsummarizable diversity of activity and thinking going on everywhere, all the time.


I'm afraid that, firstly, the person you are quoting is the father of the PR industry, political and business, and he knows precisely how public opinion is manipulated. His opinions were echoed by the legendary Walter Lippmann in 1921, in the other article I have linked to, and agai today by Chomsky and Herman in the seminal "Manufacturing Consent" (a quote from Lippmann). If you read any of these texts, esp Lippmann, you will see how public opinion can only be formed by the few, if a democracy is to function smoothly (in the eyes of the few).

Of course, the failure to understand this dynamic, by the majority of people esp on this board, is a major barrier to understanding; not helped by the labelling of it as conspiratorial which is just parrotted evasion.

[mjd1982]

Yes, and they kept referring to it as an opportunity. This guy on CNN was really precise and he looked excited, and spoke of the opportunity it gave. He may aswell have been reading RAD on air.
And I think Bush said the same when he spoke of ~"an opportunity we must not let pass" post 911.

[Belz...]

1) You misunderstand the use of the term "design". It does not mean the strategy for doing something, it means the intent of doing something

2) You misunderstand the use of the term "execution". This applies to everything from the war at the start, to the way ot has been carried out post mission accomplished, both in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Oh, like in the following conversation:

Person 1: "I am going to kill you, person 2"
Person 2: "Did you just say you were going to KILL ME ??"
Person 1: "No, no. Er.... you misunderstand the use of the term "kill"... I meant, loan. Yeah. Loan some money! No interest!!!"

[Belz...]

evidence is the pnac doc. It is evidence regarding the belief of the propitiousnes of a new PH to policy. Inference is admissible to sensible debate. Hence, if you want a sensible debate, you can debate the inference.

Amazing. After all these posts you have learned NOTHING. You bathe in your own ignorance, oblivious to the world around your little pond.

Substanceless.

Indeed.

If you are serious about having a debate and finding out the truth about this matter, then you will go and read #95, and reply to it.

Childish. You have nothing to offer to any debate.

[WildCat]

mjd1982, are you ever going to present some "conspiracy facts"? or is conjecture, speculation, misinterpretation of documents that have nothing to do with 9/11, etc etc all you have?

Do you know what facts are? Do you know what evidence is? Don't even bother answering, it's obvious to all here that you do not.

[Revolutionary91]

mjd1982, are you ever going to present some "conspiracy facts"? or is conjecture, speculation, misinterpretation of documents that have nothing to do with 9/11, etc etc all you have?

Do you know what facts are? Do you know what evidence is? Don't even bother answering, it's obvious to all here that you do not.

When are you guys going to present the hard evidence against OBL? Oh I forgot, you don't have any. You just stick to your conjecture and speculation.

[volatile]

Of course he's not going to present facts. He's had ample opportunity to do so, but has failed.

When given numbers (on military spending, for example), he dismisses them as irrelevant. The facts are inconvenient to his speculation.

[T.A.M.]

When are you guys going to present the hard evidence against OBL? Oh I forgot, you don't have any. You just stick to your conjecture and speculation.

Last I checked, the AUTHORITIES are the ones who find and keep evidence for crimes...has this changed? Why do you expect us to have the EVIDENCE?

As for why OBL doesnt have the 9/11 crimes up on the FBI wanted poster, blah blah blah blah...

How many Mobster leaders get convicted of actually pulling the trigger on mob hits??? OBL is the equivelent of a MOB LEADER, he is responsible, but it is EXTREMELY difficult to show enough evidence to connect them directly to the trigger pulling. But you knew that, you just like to throw this shaite out there.

TAM:)

[Dave Rogers]

I dont want to be antagonistic, but I have to say that the comment "the racist term "rag heads", which is a relatively non-judgemental comment on a particular style of headgear." is mind blowing.

So if I call a black person "******" that's not an issue since the word is just a derivate of the colour of their skin? Or a Jew "yid" is just a derivate of one of their languages? Just an astonishing comment!

You really, really need to work on your reading comprehension. You're confusing the concepts "judgemental" and "offensive". Of course the term "rag heads" is offensive. Your "Chinese motorcycle" comment is judgemental, but possibly less offensive to the people you've insulted because it's got less history to it; not being Chinese, I can't be certain of that.

In any case, you're avoiding the point. You have used a racist insult to make a point, while berating others for using racist insults to make a point. Everything you say to attempt to excuse yourself simply makes your own hypocrisy more evident.

Dave

[Devil's Advocate]

mjd1982,

Ok, for the sake of understanding your position, let me see if I have your theory correct.

The NWO folks write up documents explaining what they want to do and make them public. (Would it make more sense to keep it a secret so no one would be able to figure out their plans and make the connections *IF* what you think the documents are saying were true?) After they set the plan, they stage 9/11 to fit with the document, that what they wanted would be too slow a process unless a '9/11 event' were to take place. (Speaking on how you're reading it, obviously))
And they go to war with Iraq more for the RAD document than the PNAC, but the PNAC stuff comes later.
Am I about right in all that?

But I have another question. Now, do you think it is possible that you are reading into the documents what you want to see rather than what is really there?
If you already have made up your mind, then could it be possible that you want to read the document a certain way so it will fit with what you already believe?

[lapman]

Evidence would be, for one example, the testimony of the middle man between the US and the Taliban.
You mean the unconfirmed middle man that was only reported in the far less than credible sources? Nope, not evidence.
Inference is not being presented as evidence, you should be able to understand this if you have the capacity to type. It is being presented as the tool to analyse evidence which is admissible in a court of law as well as in a debate.No, you are using it as evidence. You would understand this if you had the capacity to think. However, since you have the mental capacity of a zygote, I understand why you haven't been able to get this.

[aggle-rithm]

I dont want to be antagonistic,

Do we need any more proof that we're dealing with a liar here?

[Belz...]

An urgent change that needs to happen as soon as possible

Debunked.

hence needing to be crystallised in the minds of decison makers by Oct 2001

Non sequitur.

This is ~18mths before the invasion!!! So Iraq was linked to 911

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

since its invasion was a part of RAD, the plan which was to be catalysed by 911

Speculation.

regardless of its disconnects

Close-mindedness.

[aggle-rithm]

Would it make more sense to keep it a secret so no one would be able to figure out their plans and make the connections *IF* what you think the documents are saying were true

If I could play devil's advocate for a moment, the argument used by troofers here is that Adolph Hitler did something similar when he announced his intentions to annex Eastern Europe in Mein Kampf.

The difference is, Hitler didn't have to keep the conquest of Eastern Europe secret once he had actually done it. All he had to do is convince people that he was just kidding, that he REALLY wanted peace, until it was too late for them to do anything about it.

[Belz...]

Ok, so your main point is that no one corroborates his story. I'm sorry, but this is a standard OTer tactic

Yes, asking for evidence and corroboration is a standard 'tactic' in a debate.

The answer, my truth seeking friend, is right in from of your own nose.

Preaching.

This is, to all with an above average intelligence, because it was.

I see it's no longer "basic". Now you need ABOVE average intelligence.

You're well on your way to declaring your own genius.

How audacious indeed to hope that someone on this hilarious forum would respond to my post "sensibly".

What's "sensibly" ? How do you define it ? Better yet, answer this: do you believe that it is possible that some disagrees with you and is still honest and sensible about his opinions ?

[Belz...]

The NWO folks write up documents explaining what they want to do and make them public.

As meaningless as that sounds, that's EXACTLY what he's saying.

But I have another question. Now, do you think it is possible that you are reading into the documents what you want to see rather than what is really there?

Golly gosh, no!! It's basic-level inference, Devil's. Nothing more!! :rolleyes:

[Belz...]

When are you guys going to present the hard evidence against OBL? Oh I forgot, you don't have any. You just stick to your conjecture and speculation.

"Something's suspicious" isn't evidence, Rev.

[Unsecured Coins]

and this is the reason I post Salma Hayek pictures. They're about as informative of mjd's responses

[JonnyFive]

Double post.

[JonnyFive]

(snip)

-Avoid jargon. Don't say POTUS. Don't say 'propitious' more than twice.

(snip)

Blashpemer!

[lapman]

Duplicate again due to lack of response from the site.

[lapman]

You are a liar


So Iraq was linked to 911, since its invasion was a part of RAD, the plan which was to be catalysed by 911, regardless of its disconnects, to repeat myself.
Talk about a liar. This statement:the
need for a
substantial
American force
presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of
the regime of Saddam Hussein.
goes completely against what you claim. This statement shows that any link you claim between the RAD and Iraq is completely false and you know this. Yet you continue to repeat the blatantly false claim. This shows that you completely lack the honest you require of us. Another example:
Read #95, the one that only 1 person has had the courage to respond to, and all will be clear to you.
When I pointed out that others had respond, your answer was:note I said sensible responsesWhich is of course, a lie. Again. These are just 2 examples of your dishonesty and extreme hypocrisy. The responses to #95 start at #96 and continue sporadically throughout the rest of the thread. So it's not the "secret" that you claim which is another dishonest statement that you have posted. And now you don't even have the courage to respond "sensibly" to my WTC7 argument. Instead, you rely on infantile digs and insults in order to regain control of the "debate."

[BillyRayValentine]

Ok, so your main point is that no one corroborates his story. I'm sorry, but this is a standard OTer tactic, or indeed of anyone who has no interest in debating honestly- muddy the issue.

Wow. You are waaaaay far gone.

A power disruption of the sort alleged by Scott Forbes is completely impossible for quite a few reasons. YOU CAN'T JUST SHUT DOWN THE POWER IN HIGH-RISE OFFICE TOWERS IN NYC. PERIOD. It's a practical impossibility. First, under no circumstances would it ever be necessary. Second, the tenants would sue the **** out of the building owner if it ever did happen. If Forbes' fairy tale were true, the uproar would have been huge. People in New York, and particularly people in finance, work long hours and frequently on weekends. Given the dozens of tenants and thousands of workers who would have been directly impacted by such a "power down", it's inconceivable that nobody else would have mentioned it.

His claim is completely and utterly absurd, as is any argument defending it. Particularly an argument that points to intimidation and fear of retribution to explain the resounding silence from the many others who must have known about the power down. This seems to be a truther catchall. Any lack of witnesses and/or witnesses that refute your drivel can be explained away as compliance through either intimidation, greed or just good 'ole fashioned callousness. Of course the real beauty of such an argument, for you, is that it ends the debate. Obtuse as it is, the only real proof against it is just a wee bit of common sense.

You choose not to use any, as is your right, and that's your business. Be as irrational as you like. Just expect your arguments to be mocked.

P.S. You and your brethren are so very casual about accusing many, many people of either direct complicity in the plot or of looking the other way (for whatever reason). The great irony is that you recklessly slander so many, yet the inescapable implication is that truthers are on some higher moral plane than the rest us. It would appear the reverse is true.

[Belz...]

and this is the reason I post Salma Hayek pictures. They're about as informative of mjd's responses

Perhaps, but they are off-topic.

[lapman]

You are a liar, and you have zero regard for the truth. Read the article.I decided to take your advice and re-read the article. It turns out that the liar with zero regard for the truth is you.
Cheney described Iraq as "the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on 9/11." Neither the CIA nor the congressional joint inquiry that investigated the assault on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon found any evidence linking Iraq to the hijackers or the attacks. President Bush corrected Cheney's statement several days later.
So Bush didn't give it any credence either. There's more.
As war loomed closer, the Atta allegation generally began to disappear from the administration's public case against Iraq. Bush did not mention Atta or the Prague meeting in his Jan. 28 State of the Union address, when he sought to show Iraq's links to terrorism.

Remember, Cheney's Dec. 9, 2001 comments were based on:That November, Stanislav Gross, the Czech Republic's interior minister, said publicly that al-Ani and Atta had met in Prague. A short while later, Czech Prime Minister Milos Zeman told Powell that the two had discussed targeting the Radio Free Europe building, not the Sept. 11 targets.
Either way, the real reason for Cheney's Atta-Iraq connection was to show Iraq's link to terrorism, not 9/11.
Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, pressed Powell's speechwriters to include the Atta claim and other suspected links between Iraq and terrorism, according to senior and mid-level administration officials involved in crafting the speech.
Next time, pay attention to the time line. The Iraq-terrorism link was always a minor reason for the invasion. The WMD's issue was the main reason which had nothing to do with the WOT. The 9/11 link had started to be pushed after the fact that no WMD's were found in Iraq.

[Unsecured Coins]

Perhaps, but they are off-topic.

And blood pressure raising. If you think he's on a roll now, just wait until he gets on WTC 7. That should eventually get started on.. page 1805, if you can wait that long.

[nicepants]

As I have said already, the changes will in any situation, take many years. They will last many decades. This is where you are getting confused. The need to start implementing them with urgency and haste, is manifest in the document, since they are what will preserve peace and democracy for the world, and that is why the next admin needs to start putting the measures in place by Oct 2001.


Well, it is the plan for a new CENTURY

Read the post before you respond to it.

Spell-check your posts before you submit them.

(Yeah, I read it)

In this context, quicker means easier. This is because the delay would be casued by programmes which woul otherwise cause mass upheaval to change, by structures that represenet deep set hindrances etc. Read the rest of the PH para. These are the factors that will delay the plan, factors which wil be obviated by the ocurrence of a new PH.

Absent a debilitating injury, my retirement is 20 years away.

Becoming injured would make my retirement sooner, doesn't make it any easier. You're reading words into it that aren't there.

The PNAC isn't a short-term plan, it's a long-term one. You're spending so much time trying to read between the lines, you're missing the title page.

[nicepants]

And blood pressure raising. If you think he's on a roll now, just wait until he gets on WTC 7. That should eventually get started on.. page 1805, if you can wait that long.

Somebody page me when he gets to his "explode = implode" theory.

[HeyLeroy]

Okay, lets pull the nail from our collective foot.

Seven World Trade Center collapsed due to structural damage caused by impacting pieces of the collapsing North Tower and the subsequent uncontrollable fires. There were no repeat no preplanted explosive devices.

Go!

[Revolutionary91]

Okay, lets pull the nail from our collective foot.

Seven World Trade Center collapsed due to structural damage caused by impacting pieces of the collapsing North Tower and the subsequent uncontrollable fires. There were no repeat no preplanted explosive devices.

Go!

Souldn't you wait until the report is released?

[twinstead]

Oh great. NOW you've done it!

[lapman]

Somebody page me when he gets to his "explode = implode" theory.
You mean his explosion=high explosives used in CD=implosion theory? Or is floor plan=well versed theory? Or maybe it's his high-explosives used in CD can only be heard if your close to them theory.

[lapman]

Souldn't you wait until the report is released?
Would be nice, but mjd brought it up on his OP.

[HeyLeroy]

lapman has it correct. And as it appears that everyone here (except Ms. Hayek) is only running in circles (2000+ posts and no consensus between mjd1982 and, well, everyone else), I humbly suggest that we move on.

[nicepants]

Souldn't you wait until the report is released?

There isn't a single explosives expert in the world who thinks that building came down with explosives. (unless you count Jowenko...then you have ONE)

[Belz...]

And blood pressure raising. If you think he's on a roll now, just wait until he gets on WTC 7. That should eventually get started on.. page 1805, if you can wait that long.

I can.

But when I get sick of this thread, I'll just leave. Although I don't mind Selma, I just don't believe in spamming. Of course, replacing words with pictures can be a good thing. But cats ? Nah.

[Belz...]

lapman has it correct. And as it appears that everyone here (except Ms. Hayek) is only running in circles

Of course. Someone's been chasing his tail since the OP.

[Revolutionary91]

There isn't a single explosives expert in the world who thinks that building came down with explosives. (unless you count Jowenko...then you have ONE)


Have you asked them all? There is Bachmann and Schneider too.

[nicepants]

Have you asked them all? There is Bachmann and Schneider too.

Bachmann and Schneider both make claims along the lines of "it's possible that explosives were used", but neither one says for sure.

If it's only POSSIBLE that explosives were used, what's the other possibility? By only saying it's "possible" or "probable", they are admitting that the collapse we saw must have been possible without the aid of explosives.

So that's all you have? 3? 1 who says it was explosives, and 2 who think it "might have been"? And ZERO who were actually there during the collapse.

[Revolutionary91]

Bachmann and Schneider both make claims along the lines of "it's possible that explosives were used", but neither one says for sure.

If it's only POSSIBLE that explosives were used, what's the other possibility? By only saying it's "possible" or "probable", they are admitting that the collapse we saw must have been possible without the aid of explosives.

So that's all you have? 3? 1 who says it was explosives, and 2 who think it "might have been"? And ZERO who were actually there during the collapse.


Bachmann and Schneider did say "upmost probability". The fact is that very few explosives experts have given their opinion either way. It's wrong to claim that only 3 believe in demolition because they haven't all been asked.

[DGM]

Have you asked them all? There is Bachmann and Schneider too.
Save an old guy the trouble and please post with the links.

[nicepants]

Bachmann and Schneider did say "upmost probability".


The weatherman today said "with upmost probability" it will rain this afternoon, yet it was sunny and no rain.
"With upmost probability" means there was also the possibility that no explosives were involved.

The fact is that very few explosives experts have given their opinion either way.

Why would a CD expert who believes the OT feel the need to make a public statement?


It's wrong to claim that only 3 believe in demolition because they haven't all been asked.

Let me rephrase: Only 3 CD experts in the world have made public claims that they believe a CD of WTC7 was either definite or likely. (And only 1 is 100% certain)

How many of those 3 were on the scene during the collapse?

[twinstead]

Bachmann and Schneider did say "upmost probability". The fact is that very few explosives experts have given their opinion either way. It's wrong to claim that only 3 believe in demolition because they haven't all been asked.

But, if it was so obvious a CD, as most truthers claim, that anybody can see it one would think that just about any demolitions expert one asked would agree. Heck, if it was so obvious a CD, you'd think that experts would be coming out of the woodwork to ask for some answers.

If we were to ask every CD expert on Earth who has actually studied the collapses if they thought they were CD, how many do you think would reply 'yes'? And, just how many would need to reply 'no' before you would start to at least suspect that it is not as obvious as you might think it is?

[BillyRayValentine]

Bachmann and Schneider did say "upmost probability". The fact is that very few explosives experts have given their opinion either way. It's wrong to claim that only 3 believe in demolition because they haven't all been asked.

Patently ridiculous, junior. A number of demolition experts (a group which does not include Bachmann and Schneider, btw) have given their opinion.

The idea that there are others out there who believe it was a controlled demolition but are keeping quiet is preposterous.

Your logic is not improving.

[nicepants]

But, if it was so obvious a CD, as most truthers claim, that anybody can see it one would think that just about any demolitions expert one asked would agree. Heck, if it was so obvious a CD, you'd think that experts would be coming out of the woodwork to ask for some answers.

Caveat: Rosie O'Donnell is not a CD expert

[twinstead]

Caveat: Rosie O'Donnell is not a CD expert

Yes, it appears the only folks coming out of the woodwork to ask for answers are the ones least able to understand them.

[lapman]

Of course. Someone's been chasing his tail since the OP.
I would gladly chase (and catch) Ms. Hayeks tail!

[BillyRayValentine]

Why would a CD expert who believes the OT feel the need to make a public statement?

99.9% wouldn't. But still, a few addressed it. The paper below has been up on the ImplosionWorld website for some time.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.implosionworld.com%2FArticle-WTC%2520STUDY%25208-06%2520w%2520clarif%2520as%2520of%25209-8-06%2520.pdf&ei=rNWXRprLMYvYeZqOqagK&usg=AFQjCNFFfgFVm_7mMB-mGLS4OM6lRft0_A&sig2=A5QZE4U1LBymdi8tlhaslg

Gee, who to trust. A kid with a propensity for inane, unanswerable questions, or a demolition industry source that, to my knowledge, hasn't been disputed by a single expert. :rolleyes:

[lapman]

The weatherman today said "with upmost probability" it will rain this afternoon, yet it was sunny and no rain.
"With upmost probability" means there was also the possibility that no explosives were involved. Well, I can tell your with absolute certainty that it's 5 o'clock somewhere. So lets get a drink! :dc_tongue:

[nicepants]

99.9% wouldn't. But still, a few addressed it. The paper below has been up on the ImplosionWorld website for some time.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.implosionworld.com%2FArticle-WTC%2520STUDY%25208-06%2520w%2520clarif%2520as%2520of%25209-8-06%2520.pdf&ei=rNWXRprLMYvYeZqOqagK&usg=AFQjCNFFfgFVm_7mMB-mGLS4OM6lRft0_A&sig2=A5QZE4U1LBymdi8tlhaslg


Thanks, I was thinking of that paper but couldn't remember where I'd seen it.

My point to Rev was that if CD experts agree with the OT, there's not going to be any expectation for them to "come forward" about it...because it's the norm. Kind of like straight kids don't usually need to sit down with their parents and say "mom, dad....I'm heterosexual".

[MIKILLINI]

Well, I can tell your with absolute certainty that it's 5 o'clock somewhere. So lets get a drink! :dc_tongue:

Should be happy hour. :cool:

[MIKILLINI]

Bachmann and Schneider did say "upmost probability". The fact is that very few explosives experts have given their opinion either way. It's wrong to claim that only 3 believe in demolition because they haven't all been asked.

Hugo Bachmann and Jörg Schneider, both of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, believe that building 7 was intentionally demolished based on video footage. Whether they say upmost probability or looks like it, doesn't make it so.
Chemistry has proven here that WTC's 1 & 2 were not controlled demolition. But, we'll wait and see what the report says about WTC 7.

[volatile]

Pedantic interjection - it's 'utmost', not 'upmost'.

'Upmost' isn't even a word!

[twinstead]

Pedantic interjection - it's 'utmost', not 'upmost'.

'Upmost' isn't even a word!

I can state with the upmost confidence that upmost isn't a real word

[MIKILLINI]

I can say with the utmost probability I won't use upmost again.

[Revolutionary91]

I can state with the upmost confidence that upmost isn't a real word

Oh yes it is.

upmost

One entry found for upmost.
Main Entry: up·most http://forums.randi.org/images/audio.gif (javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?upmost01.wav=upmost'))
Pronunciation: '&p-"mOst
Function: adjective
: UPPERMOST (http://forums.randi.org/dictionary/uppermost)


http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Upmost

[Devil's Advocate]

Thanks, I was thinking of that paper but couldn't remember where I'd seen it.

My point to Rev was that if CD experts agree with the OT, there's not going to be any expectation for them to "come forward" about it...because it's the norm. Kind of like straight kids don't usually need to sit down with their parents and say "mom, dad....I'm heterosexual".

Great analogy.
:)

[volatile]

Oh yes it is.



http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Upmost

Fair enough - I concede, but it still doesn't mean what you think it means! ;)

As a grammar pedant I'd certainly use "uppermost" instead of "upmost" when talking about the highest point of something (and I note my spellchecker is still underlining "upmost" as wrong!).

When talking about degree, it is always "utmost", with a t.

[HeyLeroy]

Save an old guy the trouble and please post with the links.

Brackets and bolding mine:

"In my opinion the building WTC 7 [610 feet tall, 47 stories, and not hit by an airplane] was, with great probability, professionally demolished," says Hugo Bachmann, Emeritus ETH [Swiss Federal Institute of Technology] - Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction. And also Jörg Schneider, likewise emeritus ETH - Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction, interprets the few available video recordings as evidence that "the building WTC 7 was with great probability demolished."
http://patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html

As nicepants noted on another forum, by using the phrase (idiom? Inside joke) "with great probability" they leave the door wide open to other possibilities.

Thanks, I was thinking of that paper but couldn't remember where I'd seen it.

My point to Rev was that if CD experts agree with the OT, there's not going to be any expectation for them to "come forward" about it...because it's the norm. Kind of like straight kids don't usually need to sit down with their parents and say "mom, dad....I'm heterosexual".

:D I found myself in that situation years ago when my dad overheard me telling a friend on the phone how the previous night I'd stumbled (figuratively) into a lesbian bar and what a great time I had.

Next thing I knew I found myself having that very same conversation with my parents.

[BillyRayValentine]

Thanks, I was thinking of that paper but couldn't remember where I'd seen it.

My point to Rev was that if CD experts agree with the OT, there's not going to be any expectation for them to "come forward" about it...

Agree completely. His question is beyond obtuse.

[Belz...]

I would gladly chase (and catch) Ms. Hayeks tail!

Selma has a tail ?

Forget it. I'll stick with Ms. Alba.

[mjd1982]

mjd1982, are you ever going to present some "conspiracy facts"? or is conjecture, speculation, misinterpretation of documents that have nothing to do with 9/11, etc etc all you have?

Do you know what facts are? Do you know what evidence is? Don't even bother answering, it's obvious to all here that you do not.
So for the moment, you are deeming that the PNAC doc is not a fact. This is fine, it is what is to be expected of your ilk.

Further, you are implying that inference is inadmissible to debate. Since this is not something that any serious adult would ever state, we can all conclude that you, and anyone who agrees with you, is not a serious adult.

[mjd1982]

Of course he's not going to present facts. He's had ample opportunity to do so, but has failed.

When given numbers (on military spending, for example), he dismisses them as irrelevant. The facts are inconvenient to his speculation.
As above, for the 1st line.

For the 2nd, if you wish to debate why such are relevant, which has been illustrated conclusively why not by me, then you can go ahead.

If you cant you will obviously state ~"You're wrong", which is a tendency shared by all of your colleagues in your pathetic attempts at challenge.

[mjd1982]

You really, really need to work on your reading comprehension. You're confusing the concepts "judgemental" and "offensive". Of course the term "rag heads" is offensive. Your "Chinese motorcycle" comment is judgemental, but possibly less offensive to the people you've insulted because it's got less history to it; not being Chinese, I can't be certain of that.

In any case, you're avoiding the point. You have used a racist insult to make a point, while berating others for using racist insults to make a point. Everything you say to attempt to excuse yourself simply makes your own hypocrisy more evident.

Dave
Oh boy...

Normally I tell people to read my posts before they respond to them. In your case, read your own posts before you post them. You state that I have said something that is an "insult", yet you cannot be "certain" that it was "offensive".

Of course, anyone who would even dream of comparing "rag heads" with a comment on "chinese motorcycles", is someone who has no inclination to serious dialogue, nor indeed much respect for his own comments. I note quite interestingly that I am alone in denouncing DR's unquestionable, disgusting bigotry.

What an honest bunch of fellas you guys appear to be.

[mjd1982]

mjd1982,

Ok, for the sake of understanding your position, let me see if I have your theory correct.


ok


The NWO folks write up documents explaining what they want to do and make them public.


Who the f*** are the NWO?


(Would it make more sense to keep it a secret so no one would be able to figure out their plans and make the connections *IF* what you think the documents are saying were true?)


Woah woah woah.

This is a policy document from a think tank. These get made public. It is of little use if such a document does not get published.

2ndly, for you to make the assertion that if my points are true, then they wouldnt have published it, is, I'm afraid. as absurd as it sounds. To state that they wouldnt have said what they said, therefore they didnt say it, is pretty ludicrous, I'm afraid.

Moreover, as I have said many times here, 911 was as bungled and blatant an inside job as could conceivably be achieved. The public statement that a new PH would be propitous to policy, 12 mths b4hand, is a prime example of such.


After they set the plan,


which isnt proved by the document...


they stage 9/11 to fit with the document, that what they wanted would be too slow a process unless a '9/11 event' were to take place. (Speaking on how you're reading it, obviously))
And they go to war with Iraq more for the RAD document than the PNAC, but the PNAC stuff comes later.
Am I about right in all that?


Not quite.

The PNAC doc illustrates that a 911 style event would be propitious to policy, their openly stated centre point of policy- agressive military radicalisation aimed at entrenching US hegemony throughout the 21st century, involving control of strategic resources, militarisaton of space etc.

Now, since there are plenty of people who wish to inflct a new PH on the US, there was no shortage of suitors. 1st, 2nd and 3rd on the list was AQ. Thus, when Bush comes to power, having been warned of the "urgent and deadly threat" he will face from AQ throughout the next 4 yrs by Clarke and Berger, upon getting handed a doc from Clarke entitled "How to eliminate the threat of AQ", he demotes him, ensuring that the Principals never have to hear from him for the next 4 mths. This is because an AQ attack has been deemed propitious to policy. He also gets reports, 1 in every 4 PDB's, warning him of the threat that OBL is posing to the US. 40 times (every time) he does nothing, since he knows that an AQ attack is propitious to policy. Moreover, he gets offers from the Taliban for the disposal of OBL, but he refuses, for the reasons mentioned above. And moreover, the warnings came in thick and fast to the inte community, on an "unprecedented level", according to Tenet, but nothing was executed by the WH, since such an attack was deemed propitous to policy. And I could go on.


But I have another question. Now, do you think it is possible that you are reading into the documents what you want to see rather than what is really there?
If you already have made up your mind, then could it be possible that you want to read the document a certain way so it will fit with what you already believe?

A simple answer would be no.

A longer answer would be that if this is something you actually believe, you can debate it with me, maybe with refernece to #493, and the notion of in this context faster=easier, as I have stated before.

Or finally, the answer that I have no need nor inclination to need to read such into the document, since the idea that the US government is not complict in killing 3000 people is not an unpalatable truth for me. I would be quite happy for this not to be the case. However, that such could be the case is an unpalatable truth; so if you are going to argue based on that propensity, you will have to realise that the boot is very much on the other foot.

[mjd1982]

You mean the unconfirmed middle man that was only reported in the far less than credible sources? Nope, not evidence.


Ok good. So you state that the testimony of the middle man tasked with dealing with the disposal of OBL between the US and the Taliban, is "not evidence" when investigating the dealings with the disposal of OBL between the US and the Taliban.

You clesrly have zero inclination for honest debate, as we have already ascertained.

[mjd1982]

Talk about a liar. This statement:goes completely against what you claim. This statement shows that any link you claim between the RAD and Iraq is completely false and you know this. Yet you continue to repeat the blatantly false claim.
[quote]

Hilarious. The statement is that the importance of Iraq transcends the issue of Saddam. Hence US interests there are not limited to the threat posed to the US, or to US interests, by Saddam. Hence when he is gone, US interests still persist. This will explain a lot of contemporary events for you.

[QUOTE=lapman;2764957]
When I pointed out that others had respond, your answer was:Which is of course, a lie. Again. These are just 2 examples of your dishonesty and extreme hypocrisy. The responses to #95 start at #96 and continue sporadically throughout the rest of the thread. So it's not the "secret" that you claim which is another dishonest statement that you have posted. And now you don't even have the courage to respond "sensibly" to my WTC7 argument. Instead, you rely on infantile digs and insults in order to regain control of the "debate."

You getting a tad hysterical now; dont worry- you are not alone in being miles out of your depth here. When I state that no one has responded to the post, it should be implied, to serious people, that this means sensible responses. Of course, someone could reply to the post "blablabla"- this would not constitute, to serious people, a response. Hence my point, about the lack of responses, and about your lack of seriousness in response.

[mjd1982]

Wow. You are waaaaay far gone.

A power disruption of the sort alleged by Scott Forbes is completely impossible for quite a few reasons. YOU CAN'T JUST SHUT DOWN THE POWER IN HIGH-RISE OFFICE TOWERS IN NYC. PERIOD. It's a practical impossibility.


Well no, since as Rodriguez says, it happened every year.

Abd before you get hysterical about Rodriguez, he could have stated that such never happened, if he really wanted to lie to exacerbate the story. He went against it, and so what he says has credence.


First, under no circumstances would it ever be necessary. Second, the tenants would sue the **** out of the building owner if it ever did happen. If Forbes' fairy tale were true, the uproar would have been huge.


as above


People in New York, and particularly people in finance, work long hours and frequently on weekends. Given the dozens of tenants and thousands of workers who would have been directly impacted by such a "power down", it's inconceivable that nobody else would have mentioned it.


The reason why Forbes didnt die on 911 was because he had to stay working on Monday on a project which would have otherwise have been finished on the weekend, hence he had a day off.

The reasons why few people have been inclined to talk about it, have been related in my prior post to you. Slanderous attacks are one such facet. I will tell you again- I have met the man, spent 1/2 hour chatting to him, he is incredibly self effacing, modest and quiet- hence why he hasnt been going round making a huge deal about it. The notion that he is lying, is inconceivable, in addition due to the fact that he would have been fired by his firm if he had been lying, You should maybe consider that.


His claim is completely and utterly absurd, as is any argument defending it. Particularly an argument that points to intimidation and fear of retribution to explain the resounding silence from the many others who must have known about the power down. This seems to be a truther catchall. Any lack of witnesses and/or witnesses that refute your drivel can be explained away as compliance through either intimidation, greed or just good 'ole fashioned callousness. Of course the real beauty of such an argument, for you, is that it ends the debate. Obtuse as it is, the only real proof against it is just a wee bit of common sense.


No, I'm afraid that such an argument is a perfectly accurate statement of what the status quo would be following such an instance. And we have many examples- Rodriguez (which I am going to come onto next) has many witnesses who corroborate his testimony, but surely he should have hundreds- people are disinclined to come forward for the reasons I have mentioned. Ditto Ben Fountain. Ditto Craig Bartmer. Ditto Indira Singh. Ditto Kevin Mcpadden. etc etc. Either all these people are all liars (i.e. everyone who disagrees with you), or people are worried that if they intimate that the US government killed 3000 of its own people, they might get into problems. I think the choice is a simple one, for honest people.

[mjd1982]

I decided to take your advice and re-read the article. It turns out that the liar with zero regard for the truth is you.
So Bush didn't give it any credence either. There's more.

Remember, Cheney's Dec. 9, 2001 comments were based on: Either way, the real reason for Cheney's Atta-Iraq connection was to show Iraq's link to terrorism, not 9/11.
Next time, pay attention to the time line. The Iraq-terrorism link was always a minor reason for the invasion. The WMD's issue was the main reason which had nothing to do with the WOT. The 9/11 link had started to be pushed after the fact that no WMD's were found in Iraq.
Cheney came out and said that Iraq was linked to 911. Hence he made the link between Iraq and 911. End of story.

[mjd1982]

Well, it is the plan for a new CENTURY



Spell-check your posts before you submit them.

(Yeah, I read it)



Absent a debilitating injury, my retirement is 20 years away.

Becoming injured would make my retirement sooner, doesn't make it any easier. You're reading words into it that aren't there.

The PNAC isn't a short-term plan, it's a long-term one. You're spending so much time trying to read between the lines, you're missing the title page.
Yes, and US control of Iraqi oil, Caspian gas, militarisation of space, cyberspace as a defense tool, global posture review etc will ensure US hegenmony throughout this century, in the eyes of PNAC at least. This is the founding premise of the document, you do know at least that, right??

Re your quicker=easier comment, I have told you that it applies in this context. I have given you an example of such. You have chosen to parrot your prior evasion. So, being polite, I will ask you again. Address the context that I have kindly outlined for you.

[Garb]

The question is, which of these many characteristics are pertinent to the analogy between 9/11 and PH. The answer is very simple, since it is given in the doc: #1 catastrophic, #2 catalysing(militarily).

Once. It is talked about one time, where it didn't even need to be mentioned to begin with if they knew it was going to happen, and shouldn't have been mentioned if they didn't want any evidence against them. It is simply saying that what they are trying to do would have to drastically be changed should another country try a Pearl Harbor like event. Their plan was not based on that, seeing as it was the alternative (unless...) so then it was not propitious.

Indeed, strictly speaking, to say that what they were talking about was a new PH, is not completely accurate, since the term "new PH" is used in a comparative clause. The direct clause is "a catastrophic and catalysing event".

Hence the analogy between 911 and PH is valid, and to dispute such would be brainless.

I think this is quite simple.

Unfortunately it is not. See above.

**********

And the latter:

the aim of this section is, as has been stated many times, simply to show that a new PH was propitious to policy for PNAC/The Bush Admin. One person has admitted so, but that is all so far.

It wasn't, since you can see where they have ended up since then. Stuck in a country that is full of suicide bombers with every other country hating us, sick of us "policing the world" and attacking whoever whenever.

a) The aim of PNAC is to militraily create a platform that will project US hegemony and make the 21st Century the American Century. Thus, it is logical that they would want this platform to be created soon, so they could actively project US hegemony and create an American 21st Century, rather than wait, have it potentially jeopardised by other elements.

It is called laying a foundation. Just because the foundation is made very quickly does not mean it was made correctly. As you can see by today the foundation doesn't seem to be holding up very well.

b) The fact that the QDR was in Oct 2001, and the elements upon which it was to be based would have to be crystalised in decision makers minds by then; i.e. early, rather than late.

QDR?

c) A revolutionary change in the geo-political landscape, creating, in the eyes of the authors,
stability No,
peace No,
security No and
democracy Alright 1 for 4 even though that is one country so far
for the world, is preferable, certainly to power hungry politicians, sooner, rather than later. If anyone is going to argue why this is not the case, I will be very interested to read it.

Well since I doubt Iraq will be stable any time soon, that hurts your argument to begin with. So like just about everyone says, this is all inference, that really doesn't prove anything.

Its like saying that when my wife dies I will be able to get all of her money. Lets just say it is a lot. She will be dying in a few years most likely, but if she somehow died soon then I would get it sooner rather than later.

My wife dies the next month.

So it was propitious for me to kill her, correct? It is only an inference.

[Unsecured Coins]

So for the moment, you are deeming that the PNAC doc is not a fact. This is fine, it is what is to be expected of your ilk.
Ok, Dylan...

Quick question though, do you think using big words and calling people who think alike an "ilk" makes you somewhat better than us?


Further, you are implying that inference is inadmissible to debate. Since this is not something that any serious adult would ever state, we can all conclude that you, and anyone who agrees with you, is not a serious adult.
Iference on a debate of FACTS is not admissible. "This is how I take this (whatever) even though it does not state such" will fly like a lead balloon.

[T.A.M.]

Ok, Dylan...

Quick question though, do you think using big words and calling people who think alike an "ilk" makes you somewhat better than us?



Iference on a debate of FACTS is not admissible. "This is how I take this (whatever) even though it does not state such" will fly like a lead balloon.

This thread is 53 pages long. I think it is safe to say that mjd1682 thinks he is superior to everyone here. Let him think it, it makes him feel better about himself.

TAM:)

[WildCat]

So, being polite, I will ask you again. Address the context that I have kindly outlined for you.
And by this you really mean "address the strawman I have set up for you".

Sorry, fish ain't bitin'.

Will you ever get to the "conspiracy facts" you promised?

[Revolutionary91]

This thread is 53 pages long. I think it is safe to say that mjd1682 thinks he is superior to everyone here. Let him think it, it makes him feel better about himself.

TAM:)

You mean your group intimidation tactics haven't worked on him so you are giving up. Chalk that up as a win MJD.

[Revolutionary91]

Brackets and bolding mine:



As nicepants noted on another forum, by using the phrase (idiom? Inside joke) "with great probability" they leave the door wide open to other possibilities.



:D I found myself in that situation years ago when my dad overheard me telling a friend on the phone how the previous night I'd stumbled (figuratively) into a lesbian bar and what a great time I had.

Next thing I knew I found myself having that very same conversation with my parents.


Heres the original quote, I assume its German

"Nach meiner Meinung ist das Gebäude WTC 7 mit grosser Wahrscheinlichkeit fachgerecht gesprengt worden», sagt Hugo Bachmann, emeritierter ETH-Professor für Baustatik und Konstruktion. Und auch Jörg Schneider, ebenfalls emeritierter ETH-Professor für Baustatik und Konstruktion, deutet die wenigen vorhandenen Videoaufnahmen als Hinweise, dass «das Gebäude WTC 7 mit grosser Wahrscheinlichkeit gesprengt wurde. "

[T.A.M.]

You mean your group intimidation tactics haven't worked on him so you are giving up. Chalk that up as a win MJD.

No Rev, I just find trying to convert the clinically insane to rational thought an exercise in futility.

Do not worry, as long as you remain sane, and don't start referring to yourself in the third person, we'll keep after you.

TAM;)

[T.A.M.]

This Forum misbehaves from time to time, doesnt it....damn double posts!!!

TAM;)

[DGM]

Do not worry, as long as you remain sane, and don't start referring to yourself in the third person, we'll keep after you.

Besides it makes them feel important.

[Revolutionary91]

No Rev, I just find trying to convert the clinically insane to rational thought an exercise in futility.

Do not worry, as long as you remain sane, and don't start referring to yourself in the third person, we'll keep after you.

TAM;)

There is further proof of MJDs victory. You have to resort to petty insults like calling him insane.

[T.A.M.]

There is further proof of MJDs victory. You have to resort to petty insults like calling him insane.

If you will notice, and go through the thread, I have barely posted here, and have not argued with Mr. Photon, nor discussed with him any of his points. Given I am not part of the argument, anything I say has little to do with his victory or defeat, but if it makes you feel better Rev, you can get out of your armchair, do a high five with your truther buddies and declare a victory...nobody here really cares...honestly.

TAM:)

[DGM]

You mean your group intimidation tactics haven't worked on him so you are giving up. Chalk that up as a win MJD.
A win? What did he accomplish with said win?

[MIKILLINI]

There is further proof of MJDs victory. You have to resort to petty insults like calling him insane.

It proves only mjd's stubborness.

[twinstead]

Only a true ideologue would declare MJD the 'winner' in this debate.

[mjd1982]

Once. It is talked about one time, where it didn't even need to be mentioned to begin with if they knew it was going to happen, and shouldn't have been mentioned if they didn't want any evidence against them.


when did I say they didnt know it was going to happen? When did i say that this was the plan?


It is simply saying that what they are trying to do would have to drastically be changed should another country try a Pearl Harbor like event. Their plan was not based on that, seeing as it was the alternative (unless...) so then it was not propitious.


It is stating, as I have argued, that a new PH would make the transformation quicker, since hindrances and mass overhauls would able to be swept to the side. To argue the contrary is to argue that no, they wanted a long, drawn out, tortuous process of transformation. Please tell me why they would want this.


It wasn't, since you can see where they have ended up since then. Stuck in a country that is full of suicide bombers with every other country hating us, sick of us "policing the world" and attacking whoever whenever.


That is a question of their execution of the policy, not their design of that policy itself. This, as well as the point about propitiousness, is one taht I have been at pains to demonstrate to you guys since #1, but since it is not standard CT rhetoric, you guys seem incapable of getting your head round it. Please stop, think, and understand my 2 points here, please.


It is called laying a foundation. Just because the foundation is made very quickly does not mean it was made correctly. As you can see by today the foundation doesn't seem to be holding up very well.


Another perfect illustration of design vs execuction.


QDR?


I'm sorry Garb; I do appreciate your attempts to address #493; you are far more gallant and honest than your peers if you debate this thru to an honest conclusion. However, I must say that if you do not know what a QDR is, you should not be debating the PNAC doc, since it is one of its founding premises.


Well since I doubt Iraq will be stable any time soon, that hurts your argument to begin with. So like just about everyone says, this is all inference, that really doesn't prove anything.


Again, design vs execution. This is the most important thing for you guys to understand, and luckily it is not hard.


Its like saying that when my wife dies I will be able to get all of her money. Lets just say it is a lot. She will be dying in a few years most likely, but if she somehow died soon then I would get it sooner rather than later.

My wife dies the next month.

So it was propitious for me to kill her, correct? It is only an inference.

Ok, let's make this a bit more accurate. If the death of your wife will give you money that will ensure the stability and persistance, and prsoperousness of all else that you hold dear; and if you are more, far more wedded to these things than you are to your wife going on living, and if you state publicy that the death of your wife would cause the rest of your life to be a million times better, than it can be deemed that you state the death of your wife would be propitious. This woudl then give the investigators a good framework to analyse the rest of your behaviours surrounding your wife's death. Nothing else; and nothing else am I calling for.

[mjd1982]

Ok, Dylan...

Quick question though, do you think using big words and calling people who think alike an "ilk" makes you somewhat better than us?



Iference on a debate of FACTS is not admissible. "This is how I take this (whatever) even though it does not state such" will fly like a lead balloon.
Good. So we have one person who states that inference is inadmissible to debate, and hence is not prepared to debate like an adult. Anyone else care to join his rank?

[mjd1982]

If you will notice, and go through the thread, I have barely posted here, and have not argued with Mr. Photon, nor discussed with him any of his points. Given I am not part of the argument, anything I say has little to do with his victory or defeat, but if it makes you feel better Rev, you can get out of your armchair, do a high five with your truther buddies and declare a victory...nobody here really cares...honestly.

TAM:)
You mean you havent posted here since you stopped posting implying that people shouldnt post on this thread (which you started on p1).

And you question the psychological stability of others?

[Unsecured Coins]

Good. So we have one person who states that inference is inadmissible to debate, and hence is not prepared to debate like an adult. Anyone else care to join his rank?


Oh wow... look at him go. This is akin to me looking at your 50 some odd page long thread still going on about what PNAC meant and making a educated guess on your genitalia size.

The fact is, junio, you're trying to argue your opinion more than you are actual facts. Even us old grown up adult people can see that.

[mjd1982]

Only a true ideologue would declare MJD the 'winner' in this debate.
Lol, well that would depend on the ideology of course, wouldnt it?

[T.A.M.]

You mean you havent posted here since you stopped posting implying that people shouldnt post on this thread (which you started on p1).

And you question the psychological stability of others?

Please explain to me oh master of psychology, how my telling people they shouldn't feed into your "trolling", followed by myself listening to said advice, until now, implies psychological instability, as you are insinuating with the above comment.

Thanks in advance.

Edit: and I am qualified, legally in my country, to not only comment on the mental stability or lack there of, of an individual, but to confine them against their will if I feel appropriate...how about you?

TAM

[twinstead]

Lol, well that would depend on the ideology of course, wouldnt it?

Let's put it this way: your world view for some odd reason prohibits you from admitting you are wrong or mistaken about any point whatsoever, no matter how small.

That is pretty much my definition of an ideologue.

[lapman]

Talk about a liar. This statement:goes completely against what you claim. This statement shows that any link you claim between the RAD and Iraq is completely false and you know this. Yet you continue to repeat the blatantly false claim.

Hilarious. The statement is that the importance of Iraq transcends the issue of Saddam. Hence US interests there are not limited to the threat posed to the US, or to US interests, by Saddam. Hence when he is gone, US interests still persist. This will explain a lot of contemporary events for you.
That is false, as usual. They were talking about the gulf region in general, not Iraq specifically.
You getting a tad hysterical now; dont worry- you are not alone in being miles out of your depth here.Wow, you're arrogance is astounding. Of course, my "ilk" and I would rather not step into the humongous pile of BS that spews forth from your fingers.
When I state that no one has responded to the post, it should be implied, to serious people, that this means sensible responses. Of course, someone could reply to the post "blablabla"- this would not constitute, to serious people, a response. Hence my point, about the lack of responses, and about your lack of seriousness in response.Though you are correct about "blah blah blah," that response is in the overwhelmingly minority of the responses. Who said that it's up to you to decide what is sensible or not? So now you've given yourself the role of a god in this decision making it yours and yours alone. Ok, we got ya. :boggled:
Cheney came out and said that Iraq was linked to 911. Hence he made the link between Iraq and 911. End of story.Nope, not even close. In order for this to be the "end of story," Bush and the rest of his admin would have had to buy into it. The article says that didn't happen. So Cheney's comments are immaterial since Bush did not use it as a reason to go into Iraq until after they couldn't find any WMD's. End of story.
Ok good. So you state that the testimony of the middle man tasked with dealing with the disposal of OBL between the US and the Taliban, is "not evidence" when investigating the dealings with the disposal of OBL between the US and the Taliban. I guess you and your ilk have a problem with what evidence is. His testimony would be evidence if it was backed up with documentation, photo's, recordings, etc. Since none of that was produced, we only have his word and that's not good enough for any reasonable adult to consider evidence just like somebody saying they heard explosions is not evidence of explosives when such a sound was never recorded by the many audio recording devices that were close enough to be able to record the very loud sound that explosives make and the people who are doing the investigation specifically state that there was no evidence of explosives found in the debris.

[BillyRayValentine]

Well no, since as Rodriguez says, it happened every year...Abd before you get hysterical about Rodriguez, he could have stated that such never happened, if he really wanted to lie to exacerbate the story. He went against it, and so what he says has credence.


Every year, eh? Though this claim is absurd on its face, let's see if Scott Forbes concurs. How about a few snippets from his Killtown interview:

KT: Was it unusual for you to be working on the weekend?

Scott Forbes: ... I guess what was odd about this weekend was that as all power was going down then all of our systems were being shutdown. This was extreme and unprecedented.

--------

KT: How long did you work in the WTC 2 before 9/11?

Scott Forbes: I started in the company as a consultant in June 1998 and I joined full time in December 1998.

KT: During all this time, how many times did the WTC have a "power down"?

Scott Forbes: None in Tower 2 that I was aware of. We had a backup Generator for our Data Center on floor 97 in the event of an unplanned power outage but it had not been used during my time in the company. You have to understand how unprecedented the power down was.


----------

KT: Had you or any of your colleagues ever heard or experienced a power down before?

Scott Forbes: No, except when the bomb went off in the car park in '93.

'Nuff said.

The fact is, William Rodriguez is a fraud. Why, it seems like just yesterday he was in front of NIST, saying:

"The fire, the ball of fire, for example, I was in the basement when the first plane hit the building. And at that moment, I thought it was an electrical generator that blew up at that moment. A person comes running into the office saying 'explosion, explosion, explosion.' When I look at this guy; has all his skin pulled off of his body. Hanging from the top of his fingertips like it was a glove. And I said, what happened? He said the elevators. What happened was the ball of fire went down with such a force down the elevator shaft on the 58th (50A) – freight elevator, the biggest freight elevator that we have in the North Tower, it went out with such a force that it broke the cables. It went down, I think seven flights. The person survived because he was pulled from the B3 level. But this person, being in front of the doors waiting for the elevator, practically got his skin vaporized."

Or on CNN saying:

“And at that terrible day when I took people out of the office, one of them totally burned because he was standing in front of the freight elevator and the ball of fire came down the duct of the elevator itself, I put him on the ambulance.”

When you compare these quotes to his later claims regarding what transpired, the contradictions are almost comical. There is no rational way to bridge the gap.

Yet there he is, taking his side-show to places like Venezuela, spreading his poison and fomenting hatred for the U.S. He is a sick piece of garbage who has capitalized on this crap to turn himself into a regular cottage industry. The world's a big place, so it's no surprise he's found so many sycophants, both here and abroad, to adore him. He preaches to the choir and they love him for it. It's perfectly symbiotic. They get someone to validate their delusions (hopes, really), and he gets to continuously self-aggrandize and play the role of the hero to a nauseating extereme.

It's best viewed from afar.

[BillyRayValentine]

The reasons why few people have been inclined to talk about it, have been related in my prior post to you. Slanderous attacks are one such facet. I will tell you again- I have met the man, spent 1/2 hour chatting to him, he is incredibly self effacing, modest and quiet- hence why he hasnt been going round making a huge deal about it.

Whether he wanted to make a big deal out of it or not (and I'd guess he has regrets now), as soon as he penned that first ridiculous letter, his fairy tale spread among the fruitcake community like wildfire. It became a "big deal" almost immediately.

And yet, not a single person has come forward to corroborate his version of events. NOT ONE.

There is no imaginable scenario in which a NYC office tower would be "powered down", outside of a natural disaster or some other catasrtrophic event. And under no circumstances would they ever do so without alerting each and every person who worked in the affected area. That would be 10,000+ people in the area Forbes describes. As I've said before, and you've ignored, people often work during the weekend in NYC. EVERYONE would have had to have been informed of the (totally implausible) power down beforehand, in case they were planning on heading into the office. Hell, Forbes himself seems to imply it was no great secret.

And so again, I ask you. Why hasn't a single other person corroborated his story?

Either all these people are all liars (i.e. everyone who disagrees with you), or people are worried that if they intimate that the US government killed 3000 of its own people, they might get into problems. I think the choice is a simple one, for honest people.

Yes. One brave soul out of 10,000, give or take. The rest, without exception, refuse to acknowledge the event, lest they "get into problems"? Patently ridiculous. With an equally ridiculous corollary, namely the implicit assumption that each and every person who knew about the power down considered it potential evidence that "intimate(s) that the US government killed 3000 of its own people". Not one of them considered it an unrelated event, or an unremarkable annual event (as alleged by freakshow Willy). Else why would they be afraid to mention it? And so, each and every person who was aware of the event immediately saw its connection to the murder of 3,000 of their friends, colleagues, etc., and then decided to just let it go out of self-interest.

What is it about truthers that allows them to assume that everyone outside of standard roster of truther "heroes" is a self-absorbed, soul-less, subhuman scumbag who would ever ignore (legitimate) potential evidence of such a crime and just keep quiet?

Mental illness is the only reason that comes to mind.

[Dave Rogers]

Normally I tell people to read my posts before they respond to them. In your case, read your own posts before you post them. You state that I have said something that is an "insult", yet you cannot be "certain" that it was "offensive".

Poor reading comprehension again. I said I couldn't be certain it was "less offensive". That's a relative statement, not an absolute one.

Of course, anyone who would even dream of comparing "rag heads" with a comment on "chinese motorcycles", is someone who has no inclination to serious dialogue, nor indeed much respect for his own comments.

Carry on defending your own racist comments. I'm sure it will increase people's respect for you. Of course it's OK for you to make racist comments because they're, well, less racist. Or was it that it was a common expression? Because everyone knows racist comments are less offensive if they're made more often.

And we're back to the old "anyone who disagrees with me is not taking things seriously" bit. It won't wash. You've been caught being hypocritical, and the more you deny it, the more petty you look.

I note quite interestingly that I am alone in denouncing DR's unquestionable, disgusting bigotry.

Darth Rotor, I didn't like your use of the term "rag heads". I felt it was inappropriate and lowered the tone of your remarks. From your own disapproval of the Stundies, I'd have thought you would be more careful about preserving the dignity of the forum by avoiding slurs like this.

Happy now, MJD1982?

Dave

[Belz...]

You mean your group intimidation tactics haven't worked on him so you are giving up. Chalk that up as a win MJD.

Asking for evidence is intimidation ?

Truther logic.

There is further proof of MJDs victory. You have to resort to petty insults like calling him insane.

Sorry, but you don't know what "proof" means.

[nicepants]

Heres the original quote, I assume its German

"Nach meiner Meinung ist das Gebäude WTC 7 mit grosser Wahrscheinlichkeit fachgerecht gesprengt worden», sagt Hugo Bachmann, emeritierter ETH-Professor für Baustatik und Konstruktion. Und auch Jörg Schneider, ebenfalls emeritierter ETH-Professor für Baustatik und Konstruktion, deutet die wenigen vorhandenen Videoaufnahmen als Hinweise, dass «das Gebäude WTC 7 mit grosser Wahrscheinlichkeit gesprengt wurde. "

To english (via babelfish):

"According to my opinion the building WTC 7 with large probability was blown up professionally ", says Hugo brook man, emeritierter ETH professor for structural design and construction. And also Joerg cutter, likewise emeritierter ETH professor for structural design and construction, interprets the few existing video photographs than references that "the building WTC 7 with large probability was blown up."

Guess it wasn't "utmost probability" after all.

[lapman]

There is further proof of MJDs victory. You have to resort to petty insults like calling him insane.
In that case, we won long ago. mjd has been using petty insults for dozens of posts now. So I guess we can declare victory based on rev's definition. :dc_biggrin:

[Darth Rotor]

QDR?

Qadrennial Defense Review

http://www.defenselink.mil/qdr/

IIRC, the first one was mandated under Secretary of Defense Perry. This was about four years after Les Aspin asked for and got the Bottom's Up Review (a mere year or so after the great Post 1991 Kuwait War Roles and Missions wrangle) and CJCS Powell presented the Base Force (12 Divisions, etc). This got Aspin fired by President Clinton, as the cuts were not deep enough, fast enough. Then came the "official" commission on Roles and Missions, which was the prelude to Paneta's butcher knife caming out (budget wise) in the DoD meat shop.

By the time Dr Perry was looking at the end of the first Clinton Term, the QDR came about as a basis for defense posture, end strength, and funding. Part of the need for a comprehensive review was five years of significant change to the geo strategic picture, and other demands were simply fiscal: getting more bang per buck was the alleged aim.

http://www.fas.org/man/docs/qdr/quad_leg.html
The Legislation
The legislation mandating the Quadrennial Defense Review is the National Defense Authorization Act of 1996, Public Law 104-201. The relevant sections fall under "Subtitle B-Force Structure Review," sections 921-926. Here is the text.

DR

[T.A.M.]

like I said, you show anyone, engineer, the pope, jesus, whoever, the collapse of WTC7, without any context, simply show them the video, and they will all say that there is a high probability it was blown up. Why?

1. It fell relatively straight down. It fell quickly.
2. There is no precident of a building falling this way by other means for them to mentally reference for comparison, except via CD.

It really proves nothing.

Now, you tell them that it was adjacent to the Twin Towers, had a 20 storey gash put into it from debris, and had fires raging multiple floors for 7 hours unchecked, as well as have then READ the NIST WTC7 interim report, and then see what they say.

TAM:)

[JonnyFive]

You mean your group intimidation tactics haven't worked on him so you are giving up. Chalk that up as a win MJD.

I thought mjd1982 came here to convince us all of the facts of 9/11, as he sees them. That's what his OP seemed to be about.

After all this, I don't think he's convinced one person to change their mind on this issue.

Ah, but apparently it isn't about convincing someone you're right or supporting your beliefs with evidence - no, it's about "winning" by holding out long enough.

Good show, then. Mjd is an ace at this - he doesn't change his argument or present new evidence, or even just agree to disagree and move to the next point. He hammers home the same point until everyone gives up.

You honestly believe that we use "group intimidation" because no one here agrees with mjd? That's a funny way of interpreting things.

[HeyLeroy]

Heres the original quote, I assume its German

"Nach meiner Meinung ist das Gebäude WTC 7 mit grosser Wahrscheinlichkeit fachgerecht gesprengt worden», sagt Hugo Bachmann, emeritierter ETH-Professor für Baustatik und Konstruktion. Und auch Jörg Schneider, ebenfalls emeritierter ETH-Professor für Baustatik und Konstruktion, deutet die wenigen vorhandenen Videoaufnahmen als Hinweise, dass «das Gebäude WTC 7 mit grosser Wahrscheinlichkeit gesprengt wurde. "

To english (via babelfish):

"According to my opinion the building WTC 7 with large probability was blown up professionally ", says Hugo brook man, emeritierter ETH professor for structural design and construction. And also Joerg cutter, likewise emeritierter ETH professor for structural design and construction, interprets the few existing video photographs than references that "the building WTC 7 with large probability was blown up."

Guess it wasn't "utmost probability" after all.

Beat me to it again, nicepants.

I was just gonna pipe in and say that that says what my earlier post says, only in zee Cherman, but providing the Babelfish translation is good, too.

Now are the truthers gonna dispute that since the last names were translated literally, and that Babelfish had a problem with the Latin words, that somehow invalidates the translation?

[mjd1982]

Please explain to me oh master of psychology, how my telling people they shouldn't feed into your "trolling", followed by myself listening to said advice, until now, implies psychological instability, as you are insinuating with the above comment.

Thanks in advance.

Edit: and I am qualified, legally in my country, to not only comment on the mental stability or lack there of, of an individual, but to confine them against their will if I feel appropriate...how about you?

TAM
a) How Orwellian and worrying
b) I dont know what trolling is

[Unsecured Coins]

oh no, not another Orwell reference!!

[mjd1982]

Let's put it this way: your world view for some odd reason prohibits you from admitting you are wrong or mistaken about any point whatsoever, no matter how small.

That is pretty much my definition of an ideologue.
Errr... ("http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=84473&page=62)


Excuse me, that was an error on my part


Just 1 example. Now. Your turn.

[mjd1982]

That is false, as usual. They were talking about the gulf region in general, not Iraq specifically.


Yes, thats why they said "interests in Iraq".


Nope, not even close. In order for this to be the "end of story," Bush and the rest of his admin would have had to buy into it. The article says that didn't happen. So Cheney's comments are immaterial since Bush did not use it as a reason to go into Iraq until after they couldn't find any WMD's. End of story.


Oh dear... (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/13/1513209)


Urging War Support, Bush Repeats 9/11 Link to Iraq
The House vote came hours after President Bush released an interim progress report that says the Iraqi government has failed to meet most key benchmarks set by Congress. These include the passage of a U.S.-backed oil law heavily criticized by Iraqi unions. Speaking at the White House, Bush dismissed recent polls showing seventy-percent of Americans back a withdrawal and called on Congress to continue funding the war. The president also repeated his erroneous linkage of the Iraq war to 9/11. President Bush: “The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th, and that's why what happens in Iraq matters to the security here at home.”


(from yesterday)


I guess you and your ilk have a problem with what evidence is. His testimony would be evidence if it was backed up with documentation, photo's, recordings, etc. Since none of that was produced, we only have his word and that's not good enough for any reasonable adult to consider evidence just like somebody saying they heard explosions is not evidence of explosives when such a sound was never recorded by the many audio recording devices that were close enough to be able to record the very loud sound that explosives make and the people who are doing the investigation specifically state that there was no evidence of explosives found in the debris.

Hmmm, something of a pattern here... (http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11012004.html)


From the documents he's supplied us and from his detailed account we regard Kabir Mohabbat's story as credible and are glad to make public his story of the truly incredible failure of the Bush administration to accept the Taliban's offer to eliminate Bin Laden.

[Unsecured Coins]

linky no worky.

[mjd1982]

Whether he wanted to make a big deal out of it or not (and I'd guess he has regrets now), as soon as he penned that first ridiculous letter, his fairy tale spread among the fruitcake community like wildfire. It became a "big deal" almost immediately.

And yet, not a single person has come forward to corroborate his version of events. NOT ONE.

There is no imaginable scenario in which a NYC office tower would be "powered down", outside of a natural disaster or some other catasrtrophic event. And under no circumstances would they ever do so without alerting each and every person who worked in the affected area. That would be 10,000+ people in the area Forbes describes. As I've said before, and you've ignored, people often work during the weekend in NYC. EVERYONE would have had to have been informed of the (totally implausible) power down beforehand, in case they were planning on heading into the office. Hell, Forbes himself seems to imply it was no great secret.

And so again, I ask you. Why hasn't a single other person corroborated his story?



Yes. One brave soul out of 10,000, give or take. The rest, without exception, refuse to acknowledge the event, lest they "get into problems"? Patently ridiculous. With an equally ridiculous corollary, namely the implicit assumption that each and every person who knew about the power down considered it potential evidence that "intimate(s) that the US government killed 3000 of its own people". Not one of them considered it an unrelated event, or an unremarkable annual event (as alleged by freakshow Willy). Else why would they be afraid to mention it? And so, each and every person who was aware of the event immediately saw its connection to the murder of 3,000 of their friends, colleagues, etc., and then decided to just let it go out of self-interest.

What is it about truthers that allows them to assume that everyone outside of standard roster of truther "heroes" is a self-absorbed, soul-less, subhuman scumbag who would ever ignore (legitimate) potential evidence of such a crime and just keep quiet?

Mental illness is the only reason that comes to mind.
I can argue this on 2 levels. 1 is a base level, whereby I tell you that I am not a charlatan, nor a fraud, nor do I have any great interest in convincing you of my views on 911. I am also a very good judge of character. You do not have to believe this if you do not want, but I will tell you as someone who has met Scott and chatted with him for a good length of time, that he is not lying- this is something I can say as conclusively as couldd realistically be expected.

Now of course you dont have to believe the former part of my assertions, and thus not the latter part, so I will argue on a second level- there is a very good reason why the main pillar of your counter arguments is completely unsound- that is that there is plenty of reason for the people in the towers not to have come forward so far. You must remember that the power down is not a de facto implication of the government in killing its own people. Its an oddity, which will have little gravitas on the one side of the coin- making people believe the CT- but which willl have sever implications for the person who comes out with it, as he or she will be lumped as a CTer, will most likely be fired, and will be vilified and slandered by you and you kind. The risk is not worth it. Need I remind you that Scott did not, and does not think that the power down is proof of anything. It is the subsequent backlash against his account that has made him a truther- the extent to which official and authoritarian bdies are going to whitewash his story, whitewash the record, and silence him. This is the implicating element, and the same goes for Rodriguez et al

[mjd1982]

Poor reading comprehension again. I said I couldn't be certain it was "less offensive". That's a relative statement, not an absolute one.



Carry on defending your own racist comments. I'm sure it will increase people's respect for you. Of course it's OK for you to make racist comments because they're, well, less racist. Or was it that it was a common expression? Because everyone knows racist comments are less offensive if they're made more often.

And we're back to the old "anyone who disagrees with me is not taking things seriously" bit. It won't wash. You've been caught being hypocritical, and the more you deny it, the more petty you look.



Darth Rotor, I didn't like your use of the term "rag heads". I felt it was inappropriate and lowered the tone of your remarks. From your own disapproval of the Stundies, I'd have thought you would be more careful about preserving the dignity of the forum by avoiding slurs like this.

Happy now, MJD1982?

Dave
The facile and puerile nature of your pursuit of this reflects pretty badly on any attempts that you are wishing to make at serious debate on 911, I'm afraid.

You are attempting to deem all racial stereotyping as racist. Thus if I were to state that Sri Lankans are bad swimmers, that would be racist. Now of course, on one level this is true; yet if anyone were to seriously accuse someone of being a racist for saying that, or actually calling that a racist comment, then that person would be dismissed, by adults, as being puerile and facile.

Similarly, your attempt at lumping my comment together with DR's, is puerile and facile; as is, fittingly, your attempt at rebuking him.

[mjd1982]

To english (via babelfish):

"According to my opinion the building WTC 7 with large probability was blown up professionally ", says Hugo brook man, emeritierter ETH professor for structural design and construction. And also Joerg cutter, likewise emeritierter ETH professor for structural design and construction, interprets the few existing video photographs than references that "the building WTC 7 with large probability was blown up."

Guess it wasn't "utmost probability" after all.
with great probability is the more accurate translation

[mjd1982]

Competition people, please...

[Unsecured Coins]

At your level of ignorance? No contest.

[twinstead]

Competition people, please...

I take that back. My definition of ideologue is not only very seldom admitting you're wrong, but being arrogant to boot.

Now even the most casual of reader of this forum knows that you certainly don't stand out as some kind of intellectual powerhouse compared to others on this board, and it really doesn't help your case to pretend like you do.

[HeyLeroy]

Apparently mjd1982, by his lack of defense of his former opinions regarding Seven World Trade Center, now concedes that it collapsed solely due to impact damage and the resultant fires and was not aided in any way by pre-planted explosives.

Glad to see you're finally turning the page, mjd1982. Now I can sleep well at night.

[lapman]

Yes, thats why they said "interests in Iraq".
It says:
While
the unresolved
conflict with Iraq
provides the
immediate
justification, the
need for a
substantial
American force
presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of
the regime of Saddam Hussein. Emphasis, mine. Funny, it doesn't say that anywhere in the document. Nice try though.

Oh dear... (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/13/1513209)
Ahh, bending time and space again. Go back and read my post again and you'll see how foolish you were to post that article from Friday.


(from yesterday)
Hmmm, something of a pattern here... (http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11012004.html)Wow, and those documents are where? Please provide the link to those documents. I can't wait to see them.

[nicepants]

You are attempting to deem all racial stereotyping as racist. Thus if I were to state that Sri Lankans are bad swimmers, that would be racist. Now of course, on one level this is true; yet if anyone were to seriously accuse someone of being a racist for saying that, or actually calling that a racist comment, then that person would be dismissed, by adults, as being puerile and facile.

So if:

"Sri Lankans are bad swimmers" is not racist....would it be racist if someone said:

"Black people are bad swimmers"

?

[BillyRayValentine]

I can argue this on 2 levels. 1 is a base level, whereby I tell you that I am not a charlatan, nor a fraud, nor do I have any great interest in convincing you of my views on 911. I am also a very good judge of character. You do not have to believe this if you do not want, but I will tell you as someone who has met Scott and chatted with him for a good length of time, that he is not lying- this is something I can say as conclusively as couldd realistically be expected.

Ok, you got me. If you're really, really sure, that's proof enough. I'll just ignore the fact that 10,000+ other folks would have known about such an event, and not a single one has corroborated it. I'll also ignore every other previously mentioned reason why his story is ludicrous.

You say you aren't a charlatan or fraud, yet you defend an impossible, laughable tale. You clearly don't have the relevant knowledge to consider the plausibility of his claim, and yet defend it as if you do. Charlatan, eh? If the shoe fits...



Now of course you dont have to believe the former part of my assertions, and thus not the latter part, so I will argue on a second level- there is a very good reason why the main pillar of your counter arguments is completely unsound- that is that there is plenty of reason for the people in the towers not to have come forward so far.

You are saying that my argument is unsound, because I haven't assumed that some combination of cowardice, fear, moral vacancy, self-absorption or greed would keep every single person out of a pool of thousands quiet.

Yikes...somebody's train has jumped the rails.

You must remember that the power down is not a de facto implication of the government in killing its own people. Its an oddity, which will have little gravitas on the one side of the coin- making people believe the CT- but which willl have sever implications for the person who comes out with it...

That first sentence is one of the first correct observations you've made. Of course, you leave the rails again almost immediately when you return to your "severe implications" bunk. Since there isn't a plausible explanation as to why a power down would be "evidence" against the government, that's all the more reason to expect corroboration.

...as he or she will be lumped as a CTer, will most likely be fired, and will be vilified and slandered by you and you kind.

See, as soon as you suggest that anybody would ever "most likely be fired" for mentioning something that actually happened, your profile becomes quite clear. You are an ideologue, but a young one who's still ignorant as to the ways of the world. You're all too happy to make arguments, but have little life experience and accumulated wisdom to inform them.

Need I remind you that Scott did not, and does not think that the power down is proof of anything. It is the subsequent backlash against his account that has made him a truther- the extent to which official and authoritarian bdies are going to whitewash his story, whitewash the record, and silence him. This is the implicating element, and the same goes for Rodriguez et al

(Bolding mine)

Really? Perhaps you should reread Scott's first public comments, in letter form, regarding this matter. Here's the link: http://www.serendipity.li/wot/forbes01.htm

His own words contradict, rather precisely, what you say above.

How about this quote:

I was at home on the morning of 9/11 on the
shore of Jersey City, right opposite the Towers, and watching events unfold
I was convinced immediately that something was happening related to the
weekend work ...

(bolding mine)

Would you be willing to reconcile this with your claim that "Scott did not, and does not think that the power down is proof of anything"? I'll hold my breath.

While I'm waiting, I'd be interested in knowing if you are quoting his own words, as per your conversation with him. Did honest, self-effacing Scott just get caught lying through his teeth?

[Dave Rogers]

The facile and puerile nature of your pursuit of this reflects pretty badly on any attempts that you are wishing to make at serious debate on 911, I'm afraid.

Given that your definition of "puerile and facile" is "any person or statement that disagrees with mjd1982", and your definition of "serious debate on 911" is "accepting everything mjd1982 says as indisputable fact", I can't argue with that statement.

You are attempting to deem all racial stereotyping as racist.

That's a Stundie. Consider yourself nominated. It probably won't get through because of the lack of CT link, but it's such a monumentally idiotic statement that it needs highlighting.

Dave

[Belz...]

a) How Orwellian and worrying

Yeah. Orwellian just as much as a policeman.

Sheesh.

[WildCat]

Need I remind you that Scott did not, and does not think that the power down is proof of anything.
Need I remind you, Forbe's account is absolute nonsense. No way power is shut down for several days in a building occupied 24/7/365 that plays such an important role in finances worldwide.

Scott Forbes, if he is not a fraud, is at the very least a liar. No one else remembers this alleged "power down". I would think such a thing would be memorable.

[nicepants]

Need I remind you, Forbe's account is absolute nonsense. No way power is shut down for several days in a building occupied 24/7/365 that plays such an important role in finances worldwide.


To add to your point:

I work in a large office building, though not nearly as large as the WTC towers. If any portion of the building is to be "powered down", there is a very strict and detailed process that must be followed.

First, the reason for the power-down must be clearly stated and submitted to the different businesses and business areas. This usually has to happen at least 30 days in advance so that proper preparations can be made. In addition, the groups affected by the outage all have to "approve" or "sign off" on the event before it happens.

There is always a LARGE paper trail, and power is NEVER EVER cut off to any area of the building without going through this process. (The only exception would be an emergency outage)

With such strict procedures at even a small office building, I can almost guarantee that there were even MORE strict procedures in effect in the WTC towers. With all of those clients, someone needs to be communicating to them if they're not going to have power for x number of hours.

There is no way a complete building power outage would have taken place without SIGNIFICANT notification of those involved, and a rather large paper trail.......and yet somehow no one has come forward. How convenient.

Perhaps someone with more free time than me knows someone who leased space in the WTC who would be aware of the procedure for something like this.

[Belz...]

Nicepants, what you say is irrelevant: the NWO can and DOES power down entire buildings without anyone noticing, ever.

How do they do it ?

Magician's secret! ;)

[BillyRayValentine]

There is no way a complete building power outage would have taken place without SIGNIFICANT notification of those involved, and a rather large paper trail.......and yet somehow no one has come forward. How convenient.


Yep. But frankly, you could have stopped after saying "There is no way a complete building power outage would have taken place", and left it at that. The notion that a NYC office tower could be "unplugged" for 36 hours, short of a catastrophic event or major emergency, is laughable.

It's amusing to see Mjd82 defend the indefensible, then crow about his intellectual prowess. I guess he does have some entertainment value, anyway...

[lapman]

Yep. But frankly, you could have stopped after saying "There is no way a complete building power outage would have taken place", and left it at that. The notion that a NYC office tower could be "unplugged" for 36 hours, short of a catastrophic event or major emergency, is laughable.

It's amusing to see Mjd82 defend the indefensible, then crow about his intellectual prowess. I guess he does have some entertainment value, anyway...
Here's the fun part. According to Scott, it was down for only 26 hours (http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/11/interview-with-scott-forbes.html).SF: All systems were shutdown on Saturday morning and the power down condition was in effect from approximately 12 noon on Saturday September 8, 2001.

GW: When did it end?

SF: Approximately 2PM on Sunday 9/9.
He worked on the 97th floor and could not confirm that the 37 floors below him were actually powered down.GW: How do you know that there was no electricity from floor 50 up, if Fiduciary Trust was on much higher floors -- starting at the 90th floor?

SF: I can't absolutely verify that there was no power on lower floors ... all I can validate is that we were informed of the power down condition, that we had to take down all systems and then the following day had to bring back up all systems ...
Yep, a real reliable source. :rolleyes:

[Unsecured Coins]

and when he comes to realize this, he will deem it irrelevant and go on about like nothing happened.

[BillyRayValentine]

You are attempting to deem all racial stereotyping as racist.

No, the comment in question (yours) is a negative racial stereotype, one that is perpetuated by ignoramuses like yourself who don't have the sense to realize it's offensive. The raghead comment and yours might be racist for qualitatively different reasons, but make no mistake - they're both racist.

One of the drawbacks of the internet as a means of communication is that the human capacity for shame gets stifled. I'm guessing that you'd be far less obtuse in person. It's much more difficult to spout nonsense while looking someone in the eye.

[aggle-rithm]

SF: When the South Tower collapsed, like a pillar of sand, it seemed unreal and inconceivable and I immediately thought something weird was going on.


Nah! The collapse of a 110-story building is the most natural thing in the world!

[Dave Rogers]

No, the comment in question (yours) is a negative racial stereotype, one that is perpetuated by ignoramuses like yourself who don't have the sense to realize it's offensive. The raghead comment and yours might be racist for qualitatively different reasons, but make no mistake - they're both racist.

Actually, I'm having a hard time seeing how any racial stereotyping, even ostensibly positive, can be seen as anything other than racist. Are there any African-Americans[1] who feel complimented by the suggestion that they have natural rhythm and are athletically gifted? Any Jewish people who like to hear others praise their financial acumen?

Dave

[1] Apologies if this isn't an appropriate term, no offence was meant - I'm unsure what terminology to use in a discussion of racism.

[BillyRayValentine]

SF: I can't absolutely verify that there was no power on lower floors ... all I can validate is that we were informed of the power down condition, that we had to take down all systems and then the following day had to bring back up all systems ...

Hysterical. See Scott lie. See Scott run (back-pedal).

First time around, he said this:

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. I am aware of this situation since I work in IT and had to work with many others that weekend to ensure that all systems were cleanly shutdown beforehand ... and then brough back up afterwards. The reason given by the WTC for the power down was that cabling in the tower was being upgraded ... Of course without power there were no security cameras, no security locks on doors and many, many 'engineers' coming in and out of the tower.

The bolded part is my favorite. Breathtaking in its ignorance.

[Belz...]

Are there any African-Americans[1] who feel complimented by the suggestion that they have natural rhythm and are athletically gifted?

Red-haired people are sensitive to light. I should know.

Any Jewish people who like to hear others praise their financial acumen?

Depends if it's true. This, I wouldn't know.

[BillyRayValentine]

Actually, I'm having a hard time seeing how any racial stereotyping, even ostensibly positive, can be seen as anything other than racist.

I don't disagree. To clarify, I just presumed that mjd82's "racial stereotyping" comment was referring to observations based on race in general, not stereotyping, per se. I interpreted his comment as "You are attempting to deem any acknowledgement of racial differences as racist" in an attempt to paint you as intellectually dishonest.

I probably gave him too much credit. I bet he did mean it literally.

[lapman]

I don't disagree. To clarify, I just presumed that mjd82's "racial stereotyping" comment was referring to observations based on race in general, not stereotyping, per se. I interpreted his comment as "You are attempting to deem any acknowledgement of racial differences as racist" in an attempt to paint you as intellectually dishonest.

I probably gave him too much credit. I bet he did mean it literally.
You know that he is not going to say that he meant it as you just said since that would make him look innocent. The same ol' "forget what I said before because what I say now is what's important" argument.

[mjd1982]

Ok, you got me. If you're really, really sure, that's proof enough. I'll just ignore the fact that 10,000+ other folks would have known about such an event, and not a single one has corroborated it. I'll also ignore every other previously mentioned reason why his story is ludicrous.


Let's be more accurate. Of the 10,000 no one has come out and stated that this happened. Not one of them has come out and said that it didnt. We will come onto this in a sec...


You say you aren't a charlatan or fraud, yet you defend an impossible, laughable tale. You clearly don't have the relevant knowledge to consider the plausibility of his claim, and yet defend it as if you do. Charlatan, eh? If the shoe fits...


Errr... My knowledge of it is probably better than yours since i know someone who wokred in the top half of the S Tower that weekend. You dont?


You are saying that my argument is unsound, because I haven't assumed that some combination of cowardice, fear, moral vacancy, self-absorption or greed would keep every single person out of a pool of thousands quiet.


Ok. Here's your first problem. I have not said that such people are cowardly. Not at all. The fact is that the power down is an oddity. It would not prove anything. It would not even be illustrative of a personal belief. Yet it would put you firmly in one camp, i.e. one where you are implying that the gov blew up the TTs. This would get you fired from your firm, most surely,and land you in a world of acrimony from the likes of yourself. It would turn the persons life upside down. And all for uttering the occurence of an oddity. This is why people will not come out and talk about it; not cowardice or greed.


That first sentence is one of the first correct observations you've made. Of course, you leave the rails again almost immediately when you return to your "severe implications" bunk. Since there isn't a plausible explanation as to why a power down would be "evidence" against the government, that's all the more reason to expect corroboration.


It becomes evidence when it gets whitewashed by the authorities from history


See, as soon as you suggest that anybody would ever "most likely be fired" for mentioning something that actually happened, your profile becomes quite clear. You are an ideologue, but a young one who's still ignorant as to the ways of the world. You're all too happy to make arguments, but have little life experience and accumulated wisdom to inform them.


Errr... since that post contains little or no substance, there is nothing I can say to that


Really? Perhaps you should reread Scott's first public comments, in letter form, regarding this matter. Here's the link: http://www.serendipity.li/wot/forbes01.htm

His own words contradict, rather precisely, what you say above.

How about this quote:

Would you be willing to reconcile this with your claim that "Scott did not, and does not think that the power down is proof of anything"? I'll hold my breath.


Yes- show me where he says he feels this to have been proof.


While I'm waiting, I'd be interested in knowing if you are quoting his own words, as per your conversation with him. Did honest, self-effacing Scott just get caught lying through his teeth?

Er.... no

[mjd1982]

Given that your definition of "puerile and facile" is "any person or statement that disagrees with mjd1982", and your definition of "serious debate on 911" is "accepting everything mjd1982 says as indisputable fact", I can't argue with that statement.


Where have I said this?


That's a Stundie. Consider yourself nominated. It probably won't get through because of the lack of CT link, but it's such a monumentally idiotic statement that it needs highlighting.

Dave

Lol, well yes it is when you omit the second half of the sentence:


You are attempting to deem all racial stereotyping as racist...Now of course, on one level this is true


Oh dear. Of course I gone onto state how anyone who would call someone who deemed sri lankans to be bad swimmers as a racist would be facile and puerile; I can add to the list someone who would grossly distort a quote in order to suggest it might be a "Stundie". Pretty pitiful, but this is now becoming par for the course for you I'm afraid Dave, along with many of your ilk.

[mjd1982]

Need I remind you, Forbe's account is absolute nonsense. No way power is shut down for several days in a building occupied 24/7/365 that plays such an important role in finances worldwide.

Scott Forbes, if he is not a fraud, is at the very least a liar. No one else remembers this alleged "power down". I would think such a thing would be memorable.
Oh whoops, WC doesnt think it could have happened, therefore it didnt happen. I'll tell that to Scott when I next see him.

D'uh!

[mjd1982]

To add to your point:

I work in a large office building, though not nearly as large as the WTC towers. If any portion of the building is to be "powered down", there is a very strict and detailed process that must be followed.

First, the reason for the power-down must be clearly stated and submitted to the different businesses and business areas. This usually has to happen at least 30 days in advance so that proper preparations can be made. In addition, the groups affected by the outage all have to "approve" or "sign off" on the event before it happens.

There is always a LARGE paper trail, and power is NEVER EVER cut off to any area of the building without going through this process. (The only exception would be an emergency outage)

With such strict procedures at even a small office building, I can almost guarantee that there were even MORE strict procedures in effect in the WTC towers. With all of those clients, someone needs to be communicating to them if they're not going to have power for x number of hours.

There is no way a complete building power outage would have taken place without SIGNIFICANT notification of those involved, and a rather large paper trail.......and yet somehow no one has come forward. How convenient.

Perhaps someone with more free time than me knows someone who leased space in the WTC who would be aware of the procedure for something like this.
They were informed by the PA ~3 weeks in advance.

The potential reasons for no others coming forward have been explained by me already to BRV

[mjd1982]

Yep. But frankly, you could have stopped after saying "There is no way a complete building power outage would have taken place", and left it at that. The notion that a NYC office tower could be "unplugged" for 36 hours, short of a catastrophic event or major emergency, is laughable.

It's amusing to see Mjd82 defend the indefensible, then crow about his intellectual prowess. I guess he does have some entertainment value, anyway...

26 hours

Oh, and yes, it was something unusual, hence why Scott brought it to our attention. To those who have ears to hear, in any case.

Where have I crowed about my intellectual prowess? I think you have imagined this, tho I ask myself why...

[mjd1982]

No, the comment in question (yours) is a negative racial stereotype, one that is perpetuated by ignoramuses like yourself who don't have the sense to realize it's offensive. The raghead comment and yours might be racist for qualitatively different reasons, but make no mistake - they're both racist.

One of the drawbacks of the internet as a means of communication is that the human capacity for shame gets stifled. I'm guessing that you'd be far less obtuse in person. It's much more difficult to spout nonsense while looking someone in the eye.
Ok good, so if someone were to state that "All Sri Lankans are bad swimmers", you would call that person a "racist"?

If this is true, then you are a quite ridiculous human being, I'm sorry to say. Puerile and facile, to be more accurate. Think about why this is so, and then get back to me.

[mjd1982]

Hysterical. See Scott lie. See Scott run (back-pedal).

First time around, he said this:



The bolded part is my favorite. Breathtaking in its ignorance.
why?

[mjd1982]

I don't disagree. To clarify, I just presumed that mjd82's "racial stereotyping" comment was referring to observations based on race in general, not stereotyping, per se. I interpreted his comment as "You are attempting to deem any acknowledgement of racial differences as racist" in an attempt to paint you as intellectually dishonest.

I probably gave him too much credit. I bet he did mean it literally.
You interpret his comment correctly, hence why he goes on to say that he cannot see how any racial stereotyping is not racist. As I have said before, such is true on a literal level, but since we are all adults, we can debate this in an adult fashion. For a comment to be "racist", with the meaning that it connotes, is to state that it is not only a negative comment, but one that has sensitive overtones. Hence why Borat can make a film caricaturing Kazakhs (ie people from a perceived backward ex communist state), and it not be condemned around the world, by serious people anyway, as being a racist film. Had he made a film sterotyping Jews, Blacks, or Muslims in a similar way, that would be racist as the term is sensibly defined- negative stereortyping in a manner that burns sensitivities.

This is something that we should all be aware of; however i am willing to allow that coming onto this forum switches a lot of people's reasoning capacities off.

[DGM]

The "Chinese motorcycle" comment was not racist?:confused:

[David Wong]

http://pointlesswasteoftime.com/mjignore.jpg


Ah, that's better.

[WildCat]

Oh whoops, WC doesnt think it could have happened, therefore it didnt happen. I'll tell that to Scott when I next see him.
Better yet, why don't you ask him to post here? This is something he should be singing from the rooftops if it was indeed true. He should welcome the chance to make his case. But I suspect he won't for some reason... :rolleyes:

[T.A.M.]

http://pointlesswasteoftime.com/mjignore.jpg


Ah, that's better.

lol...nice

TAM:)

[HeyLeroy]

All males of Irish/Scots descent have immensely huge wieners.

There, start that stereotype making the rounds and I'll die happy.

[Hokulele]

The bolded part is my favorite. Breathtaking in its ignorance.


That was my favorite part as well. In all secure areas I have worked in, a power outage meant the security system locked down all of the secure areas, not unlocked them.

[BillyRayValentine]

That was my favorite part as well. In all secure areas I have worked in, a power outage meant the security system locked down all of the secure areas, not unlocked them.

Precisely. And security cameras are not affected by a power interruption. They have multiple back-up power sources, both generator and battery driven.

Mjd82 - consider that your answer to post # 2170.

And yet honest, objective Scott has no qualms including such bunk in his letter. Which ties in with the moronic claim that Scott "didn't, and doesn't see the power-down as proof of a government conspiracy".

Yes- show me where he says he feels this to have been proof.

Why else would you include such blatantly false allegations, if not for their ominous implications (doors were left open, security cameras were disabled, mysterious men were coming and going, woo, woo...)?

Yes- show me where he says he feels this to have been proof.

Don't get too cute with the semantics; you're not that clever. His position was quite clear. He made his ridiculous claims about non-existent security, open doors, strange men coming and going from the tower, etc., then said "watching events unfold, I was convinced immediately that something was happening related to the weekend work...".

His message was unambiguous. He was convinced - convinced that very morning - that the attacks were related to the non-existent security, open doors, strange men coming and going from the tower, etc. That was his evidence. How else would he be convinced if he didn't view said evidence as proof???

You should let this one go. Pretending to be so obtuse is undignified.

[BillyRayValentine]

Let's be more accurate. Of the 10,000 no one has come out and stated that this happened. Not one of them has come out and said that it didnt. We will come onto this in a sec...

It's a safe bet that you truthers have searched high and low for corroboration.

No one has come out, because why would they? To announce that something didn't happen? Truthers and those of us who bother to refute their (your) nonsense know who Scott Forbes is. But why would anyone else? His story received almost no attention because it was so laughable. It was dismissed immediately by all but the hardest core and/or most ignorant truthers. Fortunately, that's a fairly small universe.

You're telling me that Scott can't convince one friend or colleague from the towers to defend his character and back him up? Sucks for him.

Errr... My knowledge of it is probably better than yours since i know someone who wokred in the top half of the S Tower that weekend. You dont?

Brilliant. You're saying that the knowledge that informs your assessment of Scott and his story comes from...wait for it... Scott and his story! I'm relatively new here, and not even sure what a stundie is. But I'm nominating you on the presumption that this qualifies.

As for me, I've worked in I-banking and private equity in multiple office towers in both midtown and downtown. I have been to dozens of meetings in the wtc, as well as just about every other office tower that houses one or more major financial insitutions. Based on my experience and knowledge, I can state with absolute certainty that the scenario described by Forbes is preposterous. Firms of many different stripe - and without question every law firm and investment house - would never, ever allow their power to be interrupted more than momentarily for any non-emergency related reason, let alone one as preposterous as for cable upgrades.

Ok. Here's your first problem. I have not said that such people are cowardly.

I said it. The actions you ascribe to people (or lack thereof, more precisely) are cowardly. That's not the same as saying the people are actually cowards. They're not because his story is untrue.

You, however, imply that Forbes has spoken to others in the know about what happened, including friends, but they're afraid to get involved. Even as he is ridiculed and branded a liar. Now why would be this so when, as you say...

The fact is that the power down is an oddity. It would not prove anything. It would not even be illustrative of a personal belief.

People could verify his story and explicitly state what you said above. If a few people got together, did this aand established the power-down as fact, it's completely implausible that they would be subjected to the delusional reprisals you list. Especially one as utterly ridiculous as...

This would get you fired from your firm, most surely...

This is the nonsense I was referring to in the quote that preceded...

Errr... since that post contains little or no substance, there is nothing I can say to that

I just didn't feel like explaining it. Apparently I need to.

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".

Listen, you should do Scott a favor. If his story is true, and his company is threatening to fire him if he doesn't keep it down, tell him to do whatever it takes so that they do fire him. He'll be able to expose the truth in court and be a hero (or more of a hero, anyway) amongst the fruitcakes, plus he'll be able to take his multi-million dollar settlement and head to the beach. What's holding him back?

This would...land you in a world of acrimony from the likes of yourself. It would turn the persons life upside down.

Baseless assumption. If other sources verified his story, the truth would be established. People would point out what you correctly acknowledge, that it was an oddity and nothing more, and move on. Your expectations of acrimony are absurd - so long as there's corroboration.

-----

Sorry, but you show no signs of making progress with any of this. The only thing you've established beyond a shadow of a doubt is that you are completely ignorant as to how the real world works, pun intended.

I think that about covers the Forbes topic for me.

[BillyRayValentine]

Where have I crowed about my intellectual prowess? I think you have imagined this, tho I ask myself why...

Hmm...can you see the post below, or is it just my imagination?

Competition people, please...

Hopeless.

[Corsair 115]

Of course without power there were no security cameras, no security locks on doors and many, many 'engineers' coming in and out of the tower.



The bolded part is my favorite. Breathtaking in its ignorance.No it isn't! I mean, it's exactly how things work in Hollywood movies, so it must also be how things work in the real world too!

[BillyRayValentine]

Ok good, so if someone were to state that "All Sri Lankans are bad swimmers", you would call that person a "racist"?


You clearly didn't understand my posts with respect to this topic. Try reading them again slowly.

More importantly, your sri lankan swimmer analogy is moronic. Saying something is made like a chinese motorcycle is an ethnic pejorative. It's a reference to the stereotype of Chinese incompetence. It's a value judgement, one that is perpetuated by dolts who a) don't have the sense to realize it's offensive and b) would most likely have no first-hand basis for commenting on Chinese motorcycles. They're (you're) just ignorantly repeating a stereotype.

If someone said "all Sri Lankans are bad swimmers", on the other hand, the only thing I'd find offensive is his stupidity - I bet there are a few Sri Lankans who are comfortable in the water. If he said "most Sri Lankans are bad swimmers", that might be more reasonable.

Regardless, no reasonable person would construe either comment as a pejorative. It's an observation. Probably false, sort of interesting if it's true, but nothing more than an observation either way.

Being called a bad swimmer is not demeaning.

[Dave Rogers]

You are attempting to deem all racial stereotyping as racist. Thus if I were to state that Sri Lankans are bad swimmers, that would be racist.

Lol, well yes it is when you omit the second half of the sentence:

As you can see from the original quote, I took the sentence in its entirety. Therefore, your implication that I "omit the second half of the sentence" is incorrect, as I quoted the complete sentence. In effect, you're lying by saying I've distorted your quote - which is more or less what I've come to expect from you.

Oh, and if you said of someone else "You swim like a Sri Lankan", and you meant by this that Sri Lankans were bad swimmers - yes, it would be racist, because it would be defining an inferior characteristic of a racial group, just like your "Chinese motorcycle" comment. But by all means keep on defending your racism, because it really helps put your arguments in context.

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

Ok. Here's your first problem. I have not said that such people are cowardly. Not at all. The fact is that the power down is an oddity. It would not prove anything. It would not even be illustrative of a personal belief. Yet it would put you firmly in one camp, i.e. one where you are implying that the gov blew up the TTs. This would get you fired from your firm, most surely,and land you in a world of acrimony from the likes of yourself. It would turn the persons life upside down. And all for uttering the occurence of an oddity. This is why people will not come out and talk about it; not cowardice or greed.

Pure speculation. I thought you wanted a thread about facts.

Dave

[gumboot]

That was my favorite part as well. In all secure areas I have worked in, a power outage meant the security system locked down all of the secure areas, not unlocked them.


To be fair, I'd be very surprised if this was the case in the WTC. It's pretty standard in office buildings etc. that when there's a power cut all security doors are unlocked. The reason is because otherwise people are trapped in the building. Imagine if there was a fire that cut power to the building?

I know that in New Zealand, at least, it's a legal requirement that security doors in office buildings unlock when without power. It's kind of like how elevators automatically return to the nearest floor and the doors open.

-Gumboot

[Dave Rogers]

You interpret his comment correctly, hence why he goes on to say that he cannot see how any racial stereotyping is not racist. As I have said before, such is true on a literal level, but since we are all adults, we can debate this in an adult fashion. For a comment to be "racist", with the meaning that it connotes, is to state that it is not only a negative comment, but one that has sensitive overtones.

I see. So you're now claiming, in effect, that not only are the Chinese incompetent at engineering, but that they are happy to be characterised as incompetent at engineering.

I was in a meeting yesterday where a Chinese colleague of mine was getting extremely unhappy about a situation where he was inferring a slur on the manufacturing ability of a Chinese company that he is dealing with very closely. There was no such slur intended, but he felt so sensitive on the issue that he found it very difficult to keep calm and discuss the problem dispassionately. I considered (not seriously) telling him that his arguments were falling apart like a Chinese motorbike, but I suspect he'd have stormed out of the room and then initiated a disciplinary complaint against me for racial harrassment. And if I'd said it, and he'd raised the complaint, I'd have had no defence, because he'd have been right.

So yes, your comment was not only a negative stereotype, but an offensive one, and one that, in a specific instance I can cite, would have caused serious offence. What is incredible is that you not only defend your behaviour, but that you accuse those who draw it to your attention as childish and irresponsible for doing so. But that seems to be your main technique for dismissing arguments you can't counter; claim that the arguers aren't serious.

I've been putting this off for a while, but I think it's time to give up on you, and on this thread. You stated in your OP that you believed that everyone who disagreed with you was either ignorant or a liar, so it should have been clear that you were simply planning to spread abuse under the guise of serious debate. I'm just disappointed with myself, now, that it took me so long to realise that you're no more than a long-winded Malcolm Kirkman clone.

Dave

[Brainache]

A friend of mine bought a Lambretta that was made in India. It fell apart pretty quickly.
On second thought, he wasn't much of a rider so that might have had something to do with it.

Does that help?

[funk de fino]

Is he saying that all the power from the 50th floor up was isolated?

Does this mean that the lift had no power? Or does the lift power come from below?

Does this mean there was no power at all at the observation deck that weekend during this 26/36 hr power down?

That may surprise my friends who went up the Twin Towers that very saturday using their Citypass ticket?

There would also be security cameras and locks below the 50 floor level so these engineers could not enter the buidding unoticed or not recorded (or even enter without being searched by security as I was)

I went up the tower in the July before the attacks and often wonder what happened to the lazy security guy who sat on his chair as we went up to the roof, the loud voiced woman who was shouting out the souveneir photo numbers at the top deck, the camera guy who took the photos and the lift operator people who herded you in like cattle for your trip to the top.

This tower was open 365, 9 till late for tourists and i think they would have noticed if they could not get to the top, or there was no power when they got there, or were refused entry to the top deck due to "ongoing work"

Scott is at the least mistaken about the extent of the power isolation and more probably a liar.

My friends would have no fear verifying his story, if indeed true, as they are not US citizens

Also none of this ascertains why the same was not carried out in the other tower?

before posting on this site (i was shown to it by stundie no less) i read through this thread from start to finish and to start with thought that mjd1982 was a quite bright chap and slightly different than your average fable guy, how wrong was i?

the fact that initially he seems intelligent and lucid makes it all the more scary that he believes stories like the power down and that they prove anything

two scenarios for me here:-

1. real fable guy with same MO as all the rest just using finer language skills

2. total windup merchant

[Brainache]

Fable Guy! I like that one.

Welcome Funk De Fino! Do you have a sister called Bugga?

[Revolutionary91]

http://pointlesswasteoftime.com/mjignore.jpg


Ah, that's better.

Yes it is easier to cover your ears than listen to painful truths sometimes.

[Brainache]

Yes it is easier to cover your ears than listen to painful truths sometimes.

Have you ever heard the word "irony"? If so, do you know what it means?
BTW R91, how many on your ignore list now?

[twinstead]

The only painful truth here is that the claim of a mysterious power down in the WTC is completely ludicrous.

When shown the light of day, most claims by 911 CTs suffer the same fate.

[T.A.M.]

Welcome to the forum Funk.

TAM:)

[HeyLeroy]

A friend of mine bought a Lambretta that was made in India. It fell apart pretty quickly.
On second thought, he wasn't much of a rider so that might have had something to do with it.

Does that help?

Years ago a former neighbour bought a Russian Lada. His first car wash turned his 'whitewalls' into blackwalls.

[nicepants]

They were informed by the PA ~3 weeks in advance.

Source please. I'll assume they were informed in writing?

The potential reasons for no others coming forward have been explained by me already to BRV

If one person has already "come forward" then the story is already public. What would stop another witness from coming forward?

[lapman]

Let's be more accurate. Of the 10,000 no one has come out and stated that this happened. Not one of them has come out and said that it didnt. We will come onto this in a sec...Hey, I just read the headlines in the paper that said that Joe Schmo didn't rob or kill anyone today! Let Scott go on national TV and call his co-workers shills for not exposing the "truth." See what happens. Yet, we have at least one person on here that was in the building on on a supposed powered down floor. Yet it wasn't powered down. Hmm.
Ok. Here's your first problem. I have not said that such people are cowardly. Not at all. The fact is that the power down is an oddity. It would not prove anything. It would not even be illustrative of a personal belief. Yet it would put you firmly in one camp, i.e. one where you are implying that the gov blew up the TTs. This would get you fired from your firm, most surely,and land you in a world of acrimony from the likes of yourself. It would turn the persons life upside down. And all for uttering the occurence of an oddity. This is why people will not come out and talk about it; not cowardice or greed. Yet only Scott is the only one out of ~10,000 that has been brave enough to risk being fired or even killed. Ok. :rolleyes:
It becomes evidence when it gets whitewashed by the authorities from historyOr that it is irrelevant. Which the power down is. Remember, this power down went from only a few floors to the top 50 floors as reported by Scott to both towers (http://la.indymedia.org/news/2004/04/108539.php)as reported by the "Truth Movement." This shows how the "Truth Movement" has made a mountain out of an ant hill.

[JonnyFive]

All males of Irish/Scots descent have immensely huge wieners.

There, start that stereotype making the rounds and I'll die happy.

It's not a stereotype, 'tis true! :D

[BillyRayValentine]

It's pretty standard in office buildings etc. that when there's a power cut all security doors are unlocked. The reason is because otherwise people are trapped in the building. Imagine if there was a fire that cut power to the building?

That's incorrect. Doors (at least in the U.S.) most definitely don't just unlock, because a power outage could never trap people inside a building. For two reasons. First, security doors accessing individual floors can always be opened manually from the inside. Second, and more importantly, fire stairwell doors and building exits must allow for free egress at all times, by law. Emergency exits (fire stairwells) with unlocked doors must be accessible on each floor, no exceptions.

[Cuddles]

To be fair, I'd be very surprised if this was the case in the WTC. It's pretty standard in office buildings etc. that when there's a power cut all security doors are unlocked. The reason is because otherwise people are trapped in the building. Imagine if there was a fire that cut power to the building?

I know that in New Zealand, at least, it's a legal requirement that security doors in office buildings unlock when without power. It's kind of like how elevators automatically return to the nearest floor and the doors open.

-Gumboot

That's what I was going to say. Somewhere really concerned about security, like a bank vault, might work differently, but an office building will always put health and safety before security. My office building definately opens everything if power is lost, and I'm fairly sure that is a legal requirement here in the UK as well.

[mjd1982]

Better yet, why don't you ask him to post here? This is something he should be singing from the rooftops if it was indeed true. He should welcome the chance to make his case. But I suspect he won't for some reason... :rolleyes:
He is a very humble seemign individual, who has no desire to scream this event from the rooftops. It was burning a hole in him, and so he had to come out and say something. He has no inclination to travel the world and spread his story. Were he doing such, you would be stating that he was profiteering off his "lies", so this just illustrates that yu have no regard for the truth iether way.

[twinstead]

He is a very humble seemign individual, who has no desire to scream this event from the rooftops. It was burning a hole in him, and so he had to come out and say something. He has no inclination to travel the world and spread his story. Were he doing such, you would be stating that he was profiteering off his "lies", so this just illustrates that yu have no regard for the truth iether way.

But, unless you haven't read a word of this thread, his story is highly suspect. Doesn't it at least make you want to corroborate his story just a little bit?

[Billdave2]

To be fair, I'd be very surprised if this was the case in the WTC. It's pretty standard in office buildings etc. that when there's a power cut all security doors are unlocked. The reason is because otherwise people are trapped in the building. Imagine if there was a fire that cut power to the building?

I know that in New Zealand, at least, it's a legal requirement that security doors in office buildings unlock when without power. It's kind of like how elevators automatically return to the nearest floor and the doors open.

-Gumboot

I Think the requirement is that there be access to emergency exits. Most places with security locks will only open one way (out).

[mjd1982]

Precisely. And security cameras are not affected by a power interruption. They have multiple back-up power sources, both generator and battery driven.

Mjd82 - consider that your answer to post # 2170.

And yet honest, objective Scott has no qualms including such bunk in his letter. Which ties in with the moronic claim that Scott "didn't, and doesn't see the power-down as proof of a government conspiracy".


He sees it as evidence that might lead to such, which is different to proof. This should not be hard to understand.

Incidentally, why do you think he would lie about this? What has he gained from doing so, other than your slander?


Why else would you include such blatantly false allegations, if not for their ominous implications (doors were left open, security cameras were disabled, mysterious men were coming and going, woo, woo...)?


As above


Don't get too cute with the semantics; you're not that clever. His position was quite clear. He made his ridiculous claims about non-existent security, open doors, strange men coming and going from the tower, etc., then said "watching events unfold, I was convinced immediately that something was happening related to the weekend work...".


They are non existent in your eyes, the eyes of someone who wasnt there.

So, let's look at those who were there. Now there is something very simple that would determine whether he is lying or not- were he to have been lying, and thus implying that the US gov blew up the TTs and killed 3000 people, he would have been fired immediately. Or, at the very least, he would have been publicly dressed down by FT. Why hasnt he?

[Brainache]

He is a very humble seemign individual, who has no desire to scream this event from the rooftops. It was burning a hole in him, and so he had to come out and say something. He has no inclination to travel the world and spread his story. Were he doing such, you would be stating that he was profiteering off his "lies", so this just illustrates that yu have no regard for the truth iether way.

Umm maybe I'm confused, but where did you meet him MJD? And do I have to travel all over the world to post on the JREF? I'd better find my passport.

[mjd1982]

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".

Listen, you should do Scott a favor. If his story is true, and his company is threatening to fire him if he doesn't keep it down, tell him to do whatever it takes so that they do fire him. He'll be able to expose the truth in court and be a hero (or more of a hero, anyway) amongst the fruitcakes, plus he'll be able to take his multi-million dollar settlement and head to the beach. What's holding him back?


Good. So you base your assertion on the fact that were it true, Scott would merely need to take on a multi billion dollar corporation in court, in an effort to illustrate that the government was probably behind 911. I think you must be living on the moon. If he has made such suggestions and they are false, he would be fired by FT in a shot for bringing the firm into serious disrepute. So tell me why he hasnt.

[mjd1982]

Hmm...can you see the post below, or is it just my imagination?



Hopeless.
Where in that post have I crowed about my intellectual prowess. Need I remind you, there is zero intellectual merit in conclusively illustrating the CT case. It is simple to all those who have eyes to see, yet the defense of it does evince a gross stupidity.

[mjd1982]

You clearly didn't understand my posts with respect to this topic. Try reading them again slowly.

More importantly, your sri lankan swimmer analogy is moronic. Saying something is made like a chinese motorcycle is an ethnic pejorative. It's a reference to the stereotype of Chinese incompetence. It's a value judgement, one that is perpetuated by dolts who a) don't have the sense to realize it's offensive and b) would most likely have no first-hand basis for commenting on Chinese motorcycles. They're (you're) just ignorantly repeating a stereotype.

If someone said "all Sri Lankans are bad swimmers", on the other hand, the only thing I'd find offensive is his stupidity - I bet there are a few Sri Lankans who are comfortable in the water. If he said "most Sri Lankans are bad swimmers", that might be more reasonable.

Regardless, no reasonable person would construe either comment as a pejorative. It's an observation. Probably false, sort of interesting if it's true, but nothing more than an observation either way.

Being called a bad swimmer is not demeaning.
Since when has there been a stereotype of Chinese incompetence?

I could equallu say that the Sri Lankan comment illustrates a stereotype of physical ineptness amongst Sri Lankans. It is hence perjorative. So it would be, in your eyes, a racist comment.

[mjd1982]

As you can see from the original quote, I took the sentence in its entirety. Therefore, your implication that I "omit the second half of the sentence" is incorrect, as I quoted the complete sentence. In effect, you're lying by saying I've distorted your quote - which is more or less what I've come to expect from you.


Oh please, the entire contextual phrase, how facile and how utterly puerile!!!
Astonishing!


Oh, and if you said of someone else "You swim like a Sri Lankan", and you meant by this that Sri Lankans were bad swimmers - yes, it would be racist, because it would be defining an inferior characteristic of a racial group, just like your "Chinese motorcycle" comment. But by all means keep on defending your racism, because it really helps put your arguments in context.

Dave

Ok good, So, for the 5th time, you confirm your puerility and facile nature for all to see. How tragic.

[Brainache]

Since when has there been a stereotype of Chinese incompetence?

I could equallu say that the Sri Lankan comment illustrates a stereotype of physical ineptness amongst Sri Lankans. It is hence perjorative. So it would be, in your eyes, a racist comment.

Weren't you the bloke who claimed that "fell apart faster than a Chinese motorbike" was a common expression?

[mjd1982]

I see. So you're now claiming, in effect, that not only are the Chinese incompetent at engineering, but that they are happy to be characterised as incompetent at engineering.

I was in a meeting yesterday where a Chinese colleague of mine was getting extremely unhappy about a situation where he was inferring a slur on the manufacturing ability of a Chinese company that he is dealing with very closely. There was no such slur intended, but he felt so sensitive on the issue that he found it very difficult to keep calm and discuss the problem dispassionately. I considered (not seriously) telling him that his arguments were falling apart like a Chinese motorbike, but I suspect he'd have stormed out of the room and then initiated a disciplinary complaint against me for racial harrassment. And if I'd said it, and he'd raised the complaint, I'd have had no defence, because he'd have been right.

So yes, your comment was not only a negative stereotype, but an offensive one, and one that, in a specific instance I can cite, would have caused serious offence. What is incredible is that you not only defend your behaviour, but that you accuse those who draw it to your attention as childish and irresponsible for doing so. But that seems to be your main technique for dismissing arguments you can't counter; claim that the arguers aren't serious.

I've been putting this off for a while, but I think it's time to give up on you, and on this thread. You stated in your OP that you believed that everyone who disagreed with you was either ignorant or a liar, so it should have been clear that you were simply planning to spread abuse under the guise of serious debate. I'm just disappointed with myself, now, that it took me so long to realise that you're no more than a long-winded Malcolm Kirkman clone.

Dave
Oh dear, where did I say that in my OP, what utter garbage.

The thread will be better off without you, adieu.

[mjd1982]

Source please. I'll assume they were informed in writing?



If one person has already "come forward" then the story is already public. What would stop another witness from coming forward?
1. Why would he still have (or ever have had) this letter from the PA?
2. For the reasons I have explained at length.

As I have asked to others, please explain why, if he was lying so egregiously and harmfuly, he hasnt been fired, or even reprimanded by FT

[mjd1982]

Umm maybe I'm confused, but where did you meet him MJD? And do I have to travel all over the world to post on the JREF? I'd better find my passport.
Lol, he hasnt even heard of the JREF. He has been to 2 London 911 meetings, at one of which (the Rodriguez talk) I met him.

[Unsecured Coins]

good call... respond to a 4 paragraph repsonse with a 2 sentence statement.

I am in awe of you.

[mjd1982]

Weren't you the bloke who claimed that "fell apart faster than a Chinese motorbike" was a common expression?
I dont know what your comment has to do with anything, but have you ever seen the Simpsons episode with Larry Burns, Mr Burns's son? There, at least you will see the phrase being mentioned, possibly the first time in history that a "racist" comment on a family show has elicited zero uproar.

[Brainache]

Lol, he hasnt even heard of the JREF. He has been to 2 London 911 meetings, at one of which (the Rodriguez talk) I met him.

So he doesn't travel the world telling his story, but you met him in London where he told his story? Am I missing something? Does he live there now?

And on your point about him not having any problems for telling his story, I would suggest that kind of ruins your arguments about why nobody else has mentioned it.

[Brainache]

I dont know what your comment has to do with anything, but have you ever seen the Simpsons episode with Larry Burns, Mr Burns's son? There, at least you will see the phrase being mentioned, possibly the first time in history that a "racist" comment on a family show has elicited zero uproar.

So it was a Simpsons quote and not a common turn of phrase. No doubt a Monty Burns line. One of the most evil fictional characters ever and you think that he wouldn't say anything racist?

You also appear to be ignorant of the work of Archie Bunker, Alf Garnett and Eddie Booth.

[BillyRayValentine]

You interpret his comment correctly, hence why he goes on to say that he cannot see how any racial stereotyping is not racist.

I was interpreting your comment. You missed the point entirely.

As I have said before, such is true on a literal level, but since we are all adults, we can debate this in an adult fashion. For a comment to be "racist", with the meaning that it connotes, is to state that it is not only a negative comment, but one that has sensitive overtones.

I've never stated I disagree with this. To the contrary, that was a secondary point I was making. You just missed it. An objective observation (eg., "Blacks males have a high rate of incarceration") is quite different from a pejorative, insulting, stereotypical crack (eg., "The odds are about 50-50. About the same as a black man spending time in prison.")

Or to return to your inane Sri Lankan analogy, stating that Sri Lankans are bad swimmers, if true, is very different from yelling out "Hey, you swim like a Sri Lankan" to someone flailing about and struggling to stay afloat.

This point is not incredibly nuanced. Please tell me you get it by now.

Hence why Borat can make a film caricaturing Kazakhs (ie people from a perceived backward ex communist state), and it not be condemned around the world, by serious people anyway, as being a racist film. Had he made a film sterotyping Jews, Blacks, or Muslims in a similar way, that would be racist as the term is sensibly defined- negative stereortyping in a manner that burns sensitivities.

Sascha Baron Cohen is a satirist. And he does skits where he plays Jews, blacks and over-the-top homosexuals as well.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

[nicepants]

1. Why would he still have (or ever have had) this letter from the PA?

Because:

They were informed by the PA ~3 weeks in advance.

How were they informed?

As I have asked to others, please explain why, if he was lying so egregiously and harmfuly, he hasnt been fired, or even reprimanded by FT

Only FT can answer that. The fact that someone is not fired for making claims does not prove their claims to be true. And as you've said...he's not exactly "shouting from the rooftops".

ETA:

So,

He has no inclination to travel the world and spread his story.

and yet

He has been to 2 London 911 meetings, at one of which (the Rodriguez talk) I met him.

[Unsecured Coins]

what's better that watching someone stomp on his own genitalia?

Not much, apparently.

[funk de fino]

is he not english so is maybe a resident back in the uk?

if this is the case, is he still working for the same company?

if not why not?

as for an earlier comment about reasons for the claims, he is now famous on the internet, before he was not

i wonder if he has applied for reality tv programs back in blighty?

[BillyRayValentine]

He is a very humble seemign individual, who has no desire to scream this event from the rooftops. It was burning a hole in him, and so he had to come out and say something. He has no inclination to travel the world and spread his story. Were he doing such, you would be stating that he was profiteering off his "lies", so this just illustrates that yu have no regard for the truth iether way.

Here's the more likely story.

He became a truther, drank too much of the kool-aid and decided he'd further the cause by by spinning his little yarn. There probably was some kind of planned systems disruption on his floor, so why not goose it a bit and call it full-scale "power-down" (sounds catchy). And what the hell, why not say it applied to 50 floors for 36 hours. (As quoted from his first public comment, by the way. The 26 hour time-frame came from a later "version".) And hell, why not mention unlocked doors (wrong), disabled security cameras (wrong) and ominous "engineers" coming and going (oooooh, scaaaarrry).

Problem was, he failed to anticipate the crap storm that followed. In his zeal to support the cause, he didn't consider that his claims would be put under the microscope to such an extent. Now he's left to suffer in silence (unless among delusional truther friends) and take his medicine. There is no viable defense for his claims, so he flies below the radar as best he can.

I have no doubt he rues the day that he ever opened his mouth. I also have no doubt that this experience has made him a very humble man - I would certainly hope so.

[nicepants]

1 - Who are "the most reputable journalists in the US", and how is this determined?
1. By repute

So who made this determination....you?

[Belz...]

Of course without power there were no security cameras, no security locks on doors and many, many 'engineers' coming in and out of the tower.

No it isn't! I mean, it's exactly how things work in Hollywood movies, so it must also be how things work in the real world too!

Indeed. And we all know, if you shoot the electronic locking device with a gun or laser, the door magically opens.

[Belz...]

I was in a meeting yesterday where a Chinese colleague of mine was getting extremely unhappy about a situation where he was inferring a slur on the manufacturing ability of a Chinese company that he is dealing with very closely. There was no such slur intended, but he felt so sensitive on the issue that he found it very difficult to keep calm and discuss the problem dispassionately. I considered (not seriously) telling him that his arguments were falling apart like a Chinese motorbike, but I suspect he'd have stormed out of the room and then initiated a disciplinary complaint against me for racial harrassment. And if I'd said it, and he'd raised the complaint, I'd have had no defence, because he'd have been right.

He wouldn't have been right. Tell him to toughen up.

[Belz...]

Let's be more accurate. Of the 10,000 no one has come out and stated that this happened. Not one of them has come out and said that it didnt.

It's a good thing, then, that the burden's on the claimant.

The fact is that the power down is an oddity.

In the sense that it didn't happen ?

Errr... since that post contains little or no substance, there is nothing I can say to that

And since you answer that to about one in every two posts, you're quite safe.

He is a very humble seemign individual, who has no desire to scream this event from the rooftops.

How do you know ?

They are non existent in your eyes, the eyes of someone who wasnt there.

So, let's look at those who were there.

Yes, amongst who only HE claims this.

Oh dear, where did I say that in my OP, what utter garbage.

The thread will be better off without you, adieu.

"Waaahhh! WAaaaahh!"

[BillyRayValentine]

He sees it as evidence that might lead to such, which is different to proof. This should not be hard to understand.

He didn't say "might" anything. He said he was "immediately convinced".

You are irrational.

[BillyRayValentine]

Since when has there been a stereotype of Chinese incompetence?

Stop embarrassing yourself.

I could equallu say that the Sri Lankan comment illustrates a stereotype of physical ineptness amongst Sri Lankans.

Sri Lankans could tend to be poor swimmers because of a culteral aversion to swimming, because of an ethnic predisposal to allergic reactions from water-borne bacteria, or for any number of reasons. The notion that the statement "Sri lankans are bad swimmers" necessarily implies physical ineptness is a product of inept thinking.

[BillyRayValentine]

I dont know what your comment has to do with anything, but have you ever seen the Simpsons episode with Larry Burns, Mr Burns's son? There, at least you will see the phrase being mentioned, possibly the first time in history that a "racist" comment on a family show has elicited zero uproar.

You don't have a very keen eye for satire. Do you even know what it is?

[nicepants]

You don't have a very keen eye for satire. Do you even know what it is?

BRV - Truthers have a hard time with satire, similes, idioms or any type of figurative language or allegory. This effect is most pronounced when the correct interpretation of same would render the truther's pre-conceived ideas or claims incorrect.

[Belz...]

Which is why they seem to not realise that movies are not reality.

[lapman]

He sees it as evidence that might lead to such, which is different to proof. This should not be hard to understand.
Just because he sees it at evidence doesn't make it so.
Incidentally, why do you think he would lie about this? What has he gained from doing so, other than your slander?I'd say a trip to London is a pretty good gain. Ask him how much he is paid to speak at these functions.
So, let's look at those who were there. Now there is something very simple that would determine whether he is lying or not- were he to have been lying, and thus implying that the US gov blew up the TTs and killed 3000 people, he would have been fired immediately. Or, at the very least, he would have been publicly dressed down by FT. Why hasnt he?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.

[JonnyFive]

good call... respond to a 4 paragraph repsonse with a 2 sentence statement.

I am in awe of you.

That's nothing. Mjd1982 can respond to the longest and most well-composed posts with two simple words that magically refute everything anyone says:

"As above."

Bow before the master, b**ches!

[Unsecured Coins]

I was actually applauding mjd for his awesome 2 sentence rebuff!! It takes god-like skills to destroy a statement like that in 10 seconds or less. I do find it applause worthy that he can go down a line of repsonses and post well thought out replies to them in less time than it took to read them collectively

[tsig]

Ok good, so if someone were to state that "All Sri Lankans are bad swimmers", you would call that person a "racist"?

If this is true, then you are a quite ridiculous human being, I'm sorry to say. Puerile and facile, to be more accurate. Think about why this is so, and then get back to me.

Hey I may be young but I ain't easy.

[tsig]

Is he saying that all the power from the 50th floor up was isolated?

Does this mean that the lift had no power? Or does the lift power come from below?

Does this mean there was no power at all at the observation deck that weekend during this 26/36 hr power down?

That may surprise my friends who went up the Twin Towers that very saturday using their Citypass ticket?

There would also be security cameras and locks below the 50 floor level so these engineers could not enter the buidding unoticed or not recorded (or even enter without being searched by security as I was)

I went up the tower in the July before the attacks and often wonder what happened to the lazy security guy who sat on his chair as we went up to the roof, the loud voiced woman who was shouting out the souveneir photo numbers at the top deck, the camera guy who took the photos and the lift operator people who herded you in like cattle for your trip to the top.

This tower was open 365, 9 till late for tourists and i think they would have noticed if they could not get to the top, or there was no power when they got there, or were refused entry to the top deck due to "ongoing work"

Scott is at the least mistaken about the extent of the power isolation and more probably a liar.

My friends would have no fear verifying his story, if indeed true, as they are not US citizens

Also none of this ascertains why the same was not carried out in the other tower?

before posting on this site (i was shown to it by stundie no less) i read through this thread from start to finish and to start with thought that mjd1982 was a quite bright chap and slightly different than your average fable guy, how wrong was i?

the fact that initially he seems intelligent and lucid makes it all the more scary that he believes stories like the power down and that they prove anything

two scenarios for me here:-

1. real fable guy with same MO as all the rest just using finer language skills

2. total windup merchant

Welcome to JREF.

Love "windup merchant"

I will put i next to "concern troll"

I too have been coming to the conclusion that many of the trolls just like to poke sticks.

[tsig]

Yes it is easier to cover your ears than listen to painful truths sometimes.

I hear the sound of wind whispering thru an empty mind.

[tsig]

Good. So you base your assertion on the fact that were it true, Scott would merely need to take on a multi billion dollar corporation in court, in an effort to illustrate that the government was probably behind 911. I think you must be living on the moon. If he has made such suggestions and they are false, he would be fired by FT in a shot for bringing the firm into serious disrepute. So tell me why he hasnt.

has scott been fired?

[nicepants]

If he has made such suggestions and they are false, he would be fired by FT in a shot for bringing the firm into serious disrepute. So tell me why he hasnt.

So he would be fired if the statements were false? .....kind of like Kevin Ryan? :rolleyes:

[mjd1982]

So he doesn't travel the world telling his story, but you met him in London where he told his story? Am I missing something? Does he live there now?

And on your point about him not having any problems for telling his story, I would suggest that kind of ruins your arguments about why nobody else has mentioned it.
He does live here now.

He does get problems for mentioning his story,as I have stated lots of times, He just hasnt been fired.

[mjd1982]

So it was a Simpsons quote and not a common turn of phrase. No doubt a Monty Burns line. One of the most evil fictional characters ever and you think that he wouldn't say anything racist?

You also appear to be ignorant of the work of Archie Bunker, Alf Garnett and Eddie Booth.
Dont assume my friend, it was Larry Burns, his lovable son. Tell me why that comment didnt elicit a furore please.

[mjd1982]

I was interpreting your comment. You missed the point entirely.



I've never stated I disagree with this. To the contrary, that was a secondary point I was making. You just missed it. An objective observation (eg., "Blacks males have a high rate of incarceration") is quite different from a pejorative, insulting, stereotypical crack (eg., "The odds are about 50-50. About the same as a black man spending time in prison.")

Or to return to your inane Sri Lankan analogy, stating that Sri Lankans are bad swimmers, if true, is very different from yelling out "Hey, you swim like a Sri Lankan" to someone flailing about and struggling to stay afloat.

This point is not incredibly nuanced. Please tell me you get it by now.



Sascha Baron Cohen is a satirist. And he does skits where he plays Jews, blacks and over-the-top homosexuals as well.

You have no idea what you're talking about.
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.

As for your second point, 1stly he does not do black or jewish skits; 2ndly the fact that he is a satirist would not excuse him from claims of racism; why doyou think it would? 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, Kazakhs, or indeed fashionistas. If he was portraying a black guy going round committing crimes, then that would be deemed racist, for all the reasons I have pointed out these last 3 pages.

[mjd1982]

Because:



How were they informed?



Only FT can answer that. The fact that someone is not fired for making claims does not prove their claims to be true. And as you've said...he's not exactly "shouting from the rooftops".

ETA:

So,



and yet
???

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

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.

Lastly, he has attended these meetings. He was the speaker at neither.

The answers are out there if you have the mind for them my friend.

[mjd1982]

is he not english so is maybe a resident back in the uk?

if this is the case, is he still working for the same company?

if not why not?

as for an earlier comment about reasons for the claims, he is now famous on the internet, before he was not

i wonder if he has applied for reality tv programs back in blighty?
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.

[mjd1982]

Here's the more likely story.

He became a truther, drank too much of the kool-aid and decided he'd further the cause by by spinning his little yarn. There probably was some kind of planned systems disruption on his floor, so why not goose it a bit and call it full-scale "power-down" (sounds catchy). And what the hell, why not say it applied to 50 floors for 36 hours. (As quoted from his first public comment, by the way. The 26 hour time-frame came from a later "version".) And hell, why not mention unlocked doors (wrong), disabled security cameras (wrong) and ominous "engineers" coming and going (oooooh, scaaaarrry).

Problem was, he failed to anticipate the crap storm that followed. In his zeal to support the cause, he didn't consider that his claims would be put under the microscope to such an extent. Now he's left to suffer in silence (unless among delusional truther friends) and take his medicine. There is no viable defense for his claims, so he flies below the radar as best he can.

I have no doubt he rues the day that he ever opened his mouth. I also have no doubt that this experience has made him a very humble man - I would certainly hope so.
Were that the case, he would, as I have stated to you already, have been fired by FT. Plus, he would be making a huge deal of himself. He knows very little of the Truth movement.

[mjd1982]

Stop embarrassing yourself.



Sri Lankans could tend to be poor swimmers because of a culteral aversion to swimming, because of an ethnic predisposal to allergic reactions from water-borne bacteria, or for any number of reasons. The notion that the statement "Sri lankans are bad swimmers" necessarily implies physical ineptness is a product of inept thinking.
D'uh!

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

What a silly point...

[Augustine]

Dont assume my friend, it was Larry Burns, his lovable son. Tell me why that comment didnt elicit a furore please.

If you are referring to the episode "Burns, Baby Burns", I believe Larry Burns is actually depicted as, and I quote, "a coarse, boorish ignoramus". Glad to see he is a source for you. Ranks right up there with Counterpunch and the India Globe.

[mjd1982]

You don't have a very keen eye for satire. Do you even know what it is?
lol. humour for a moral purpose. Your point?

[mjd1982]

Just because he sees it at evidence doesn't make it so.
I'd say a trip to London is a pretty good gain. Ask him how much he is paid to speak at these functions.
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.
He lives here, He has never spoken at a 911 function. He would be fired or severely reprimanded for bringing the firm into disrepute. Very simple.

[mjd1982]

has scott been fired?
lol, no

[mjd1982]

If you are referring to the episode "Burns, Baby Burns", I believe Larry Burns is actually depicted as, and I quote, "a coarse, boorish ignoramus". Glad to see he is a source for you. Ranks right up there with Counterpunch and the India Globe.
As quoted by Mr Burns, yes. You and him are on a level?