The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[funk de fino]

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

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

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

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

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

balderdash again

 

[mjd1982]

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

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

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

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

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

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

why must he?

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

Why does he have to?

How simple and ethical is that choice?

maybe so for you; not for him

Does FT know that he is implicating them in 911?

They know of his comments. I have told you this

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

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

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

I have told you, nudges and winks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[mjd1982]

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

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

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

balderdash again

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

 

[DGM]

No, thats just your capacitiesof comprehension I'm afraid...

OK, Show me an uncontested point you made that concerns 9/11?

 

[funk de fino]

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

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

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

It was classed a satirical comedy, perhaps using spoof elements

I can find nowhere that it is described as spoof comedy

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

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

 

[funk de fino]

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

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

why must he?

why does he have to?

maybe so for you; not for him

They know of his comments. I have told you this

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

I have told you, nudges and winks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did he have work colleagues killed that day?

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

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

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

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

 

[funk de fino]

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

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

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

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

 

[volatile]

What a ridiculous post...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[aggle-rithm]

[qimg]http://pointlesswasteoftime.com/mjignore.jpg[/qimg]


Ah, that's better.

Here are the highlights:

Errr...

Errr...

Er.... no

Lol,

Oh dear.

Oh whoops,

D'uh!

 

[aggle-rithm]

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

Delusion springs eternal.

 

[lapman]

No, it is his employment at FT that serves as the platform for him to make his claims. He is making his claims based on a "false" experience he had at work, in order to intimate the gov blew up the TTs. This is so damn easy to understand, why can you not?

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

I have already shown to you that if you lied about an experience you had at work to implicate the gov in the murder of US citizens, you would be out on your ass. Why can you not see/admit to this?

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

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

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

 

[nicepants]

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

Great! Let's see this e-mail.

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

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

As you apparently do not recall, you claimed:

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

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

This leads us to only 2 possible conclusions:

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

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

 

[twinstead]

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

 

[Matthew Best]

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

 

[Belz...]

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

How so ?

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

What a stupid tangent.

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

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

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

Absolulte horseplop

Think before you post!

 

[nicepants]

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

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

 

[Belz...]

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

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

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

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

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

Semantics.

deus ex machina

And how I hate these things.

 

[mjd1982]

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

It was classed a satirical comedy, perhaps using spoof elements

I can find nowhere that it is described as spoof comedy

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

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

???

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

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

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

 

[mjd1982]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did he have work colleagues killed that day?

yes

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

They know what you and i know

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

How would that let them find out?

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

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

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

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

Which was?

 

[mjd1982]

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

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

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

Ok, sorry. It would look bad on the company since it would be stating an inflammatory and unsuitable pov. YOu must realise that the CT movement is such. This is, incidentally, one of the social mechanisms that will inhibits such truths coming out. So when you next read pomeroo's latest tripe about the "Impossible Vast Conspiracy", you should remind yourself that due to this social mechanism, people dont have to be "in on it" to aid and abet it; you will thus be better informed than he.