The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[mjd1982]

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

A linguist, you are not.

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

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

A linguist, I am.

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

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

 

[mjd1982]

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

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

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

I find that amazing.

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

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

 

[mjd1982]

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

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

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

 

[mjd1982]

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

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

explain the difference?

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

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

The difference has been explained many many times. THere is a difference between you independently commenting on 911 (tho this may even get you into trouble with your firm if they, and your stance are public enough), and you coming from the standpoitn of an employee at your firm, "making up" experiences there to implicate the gov in 911. That is the difference. If I was, say, working in big company, and lied that I had seen memos going to the CEO regarding the fact that the TTs would be hit by planes on the 4th sept, I would be fired. If Scott was lying, he would have been fired. He hasnt even been reprimanded for dishonesty. If you are honest, you will be able to see why.

 

[mjd1982]

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

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

explain the difference?

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

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

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

 

[mjd1982]

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

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

"he is applying" miss a word?

yes, not applying.

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

 

[Brainache]

excuse me. I mean for fear of recriminations.

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

 

[Belz...]

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

How do you know this ?

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

A linguist, I am.

Right.

 

[funk de fino]

yes, not applying.

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

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

you said he was not?

 

[funk de fino]

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

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

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

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

they did not use the service elevator

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

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

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

 

[mjd1982]

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

you said he was not?

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

 

[mjd1982]

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

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

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

they did not use the service elevator

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

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

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

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

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

 

[lapman]

He would be fired or severely reprimanded for bringing the firm into disrepute. Very simple.

If he was a more important person in the company, then you would be correct about him getting reprimanded. However, he's a lowly IT tech. Anything he says that doesn't directly implicate the company in the conspiracy is meaningless to the company. The same would go for any of the others. Firing or reprimanding someone for exercising their first amendment rights is frowned upon here in the US. Committing slander against the company is another thing though. Scott's bogus claim that there was a 50 floor power down doesn't implicate FT in any way. So your claim that he or anybody else that corroborates his story would be fired or reprimanded is baseless.

He lives here

I sit corrected on that one. When did he move there and what about my second question about how much was he paid?

 

[funk de fino]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

why has no tourist come forward and confirmed it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

this would still not cost him his job

 

[nicepants]

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

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

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

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

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

Then it's 1 of 2 things:

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

 

[funk de fino]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[BillyRayValentine]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Belz...]

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

Why are we still talking about this ?

 

[Belz...]

Behold the intrepid truth seeker!

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

 

[DGM]

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

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

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

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