The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

BillyRayValentine said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
nicepants said:
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
Click to expand...
???

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.
 
funk de fino said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
BillyRayValentine said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
BillyRayValentine said:
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.
Click to expand...
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...
 
mjd1982 said:
Dont assume my friend, it was Larry Burns, his lovable son. Tell me why that comment didnt elicit a furore please.
Click to expand...

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.
 
lapman said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Augustine said:
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.
Click to expand...
As quoted by Mr Burns, yes. You and him are on a level?
 
nicepants said:
So he would be fired if the statements were false? .....kind of like Kevin Ryan? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I have no opinion on Ryan, but you clearly do. So you agree that he woulda been fired had he been lying, hence he wasnt, hence he wasnt.
 
mjd1982 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

A linguist, you are not.

mjd1982 said:
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
Click to expand...

You seem to be ignoring that in the course of trying to be black, Ali G amplifies most every black stereotype. That's what I mean by playing a black character. This "pejorative racial stereotyping" is tolerated because of its satirical intent. Your point is invalid.
 
mjd1982 said:
I have no opinion on Ryan, but you clearly do. So you agree that he woulda been fired had he been lying, hence he wasnt, hence he wasnt.
Click to expand...

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

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

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

I find that amazing.
 
mjd1982 said:
And chinese could be bad at making motorcycles because of a cultural orientation to cars, walking, or public transport!
Click to expand...

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

mjd1982 said:
What a silly point...
Click to expand...

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

You seem to filter things through a prism that creates your own alternate reality. I don't think that's healthy.
 
mjd1982 said:
???
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.
.
Click to expand...

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

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

explain the difference?

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

if there had been this big power down over that weekend my two friends and thousands of other tourists would not have been able to visit the observation deck or the roof?
 
mjd1982 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

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

"he is applying" miss a word?
 
mjd1982 said:
I have no opinion on Ryan, but you clearly do. So you agree that he woulda been fired had he been lying, hence he wasnt, hence he wasnt.
Click to expand...

I agree fully.

The burning man must be fired.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom