The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

Wow, 2 stundie's in one post!
mjd1982 said:
1. FT are implicated since they are, by definition, involved in the cover up, since this is a story that has been covered up, and they would be aware of it.
Click to expand...
I guess you don't know the difference between a cover-up and something so irrelevant that there is no need to even comment on it. The fact that only Scott found the power-down unusual actually means that the power-down was not unusual or there would be more people speaking out about it and the "Truth Movement" would have found documentation to back Scott's claim by now. Yet there is nothing, other than Scott's word. That shows the power down was not unusual. Why would a company as large as FT go through the expense of writing a response, having the lawyers go over it and take time to organize a press conference or solicit the news to run their response just because one, and only one, lowly IT peon found it unusual? How many times did Oxford rush out a press release because some TA makes makes a complaint in some offbeat newsletter? You have to prove that there is a cover-up first. You have yet to do that, hence your "by definition, involved in the cover-up" comment is ludicrous at best.
2. The evidence of the cover up is in the fact that it has been covered up- hence why Scott is the only one talking about it. Unless of course, he is lying, in which case, as has been shown, he would be fired in a second.
Click to expand...
You haven't shown squat. Do you work? Does anyone at your work know about what you talk about on here? Can you provide a copy of a memo stating that anybody publicly speaking out about 9/11 conspiracies will be sacked? Your arguments are completely baseless. So when are you going to actually post some facts to back your claims?
Lol, and how has this been done?
Click to expand...
Um, see the bottom of post #2354. Try and catch up.
 
mjd1982 said:
Are you crazy? How the hell would he still have the email? All you want to do is set up the goalposts so you cant be beaten, its very tiresome.
Click to expand...

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

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

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

mjd1982 said:
No, since you have chosen to ignire the 3rd pt, that he was telloing the truth, and hence his company cant fire him for doing so, so they just nudge and wink. Simple for those with eyes to see.
Click to expand...

That statement contradicts this claim:
mjd1982 said:
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...

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

This has all also been addressed before in post #2332
 
Last edited:
mjd1982 said:
2. The evidence of the cover up is in the fact that it has been covered up- hence why Scott is the only one talking about it.
Click to expand...

Circular logic:

It's a cover up because he's the only one talking about it? Then how would we know if it was NOT a cover up? How could we find out if Scott's story was wrong?
 
lapman said:
Oh. So because it's in black and white makes it true? Let's see. He goes from stating:... to stating
Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think mjd should stop wasting his time trying to convince people that aren't easily swayed by shallow rhetoric, and take his struggle to a more gullible crowd. There, he can be a god among trolls, instead of...well, you get the idea.
 
Originally Posted by BillyRayValentine
And many satires are funny, but many are not.
Click to expand...

mjd1982 said:
An example, Einstein?
Click to expand...

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

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

Just thought I'd point that out. Back on ignore you go.
 
aggle-rithm said:
It is the laziest sort of fallacious reasoning to simply claim that one's viewpoint is obvious, as mjd implies with his sniping rhetoric ("err", "duh", "oh, dear", etc.). That is because his claims fail the acid test of obviousness, which is falsifiability.
Click to expand...

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

The only worry I have is that he teaches his understanding of logics, facts and evidence to children. On the upside, there is a chance that his heavy overuse of fancy terms such as "propitious" will make the adolescents abandon them once and for all out of their future vocabulary.
 
mjd1982 said:
Excuse me, people have been callng him ~ clown, fraud, liar etc
lol, unless he is sauing stuff they dont want him to say

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

ok...

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

Then why would they be telling him to shut up

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

maybe so. Maybe we should stop

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

spitting image = satirical comedy program
 
funk de fino said:
he thinks he has evidence that his company are covering up the murders of 3000 poeople soem of whom he worked with, why should ant law abiding citizen not say anything to the authorities? one good reason will do me? i'm sure others will come forward if so?
Click to expand...
Well put. If Scott Forbes is telling the truth, he is a despicable scum of a human being who is putting his job ahead of the lives of thousands of people.
 
simakperrce said:
You need to let go. I have pointed to the fact that his arguments are not falsifiable, hence worthless, in the whole PNAC discussion, but all you get in return are snide comments, condescending attitude and patronizing answers, of someone who has obviously an axt to grind with the whole world, which leads to the assumption that he is deeply unhappy, possibly because of former rejection or failure (been there myself, so I speak out of experience).

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

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

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

Hopefully he'll grow out of it - for his sake.
 
lapman said:
mjd1982 said:
1. FT are implicated since they are, by definition, involved in the cover up, since this is a story that has been covered up, and they would be aware of it.
(snip)
Click to expand...
I guess you don't know the difference between a cover-up and something so irrelevant that there is no need to even comment on it. The fact that only Scott found the power-down unusual actually means that the power-down was not unusual or there would be more people speaking out about it and the "Truth Movement" would have found documentation to back Scott's claim by now. Yet there is nothing, other than Scott's word. That shows the power down was not unusual. Why would a company as large as FT go through the expense of writing a response, having the lawyers go over it and take time to organize a press conference or solicit the news to run their response just because one, and only one, lowly IT peon found it unusual? How many times did Oxford rush out a press release because some TA makes makes a complaint in some offbeat newsletter? You have to prove that there is a cover-up first. You have yet to do that, hence your "by definition, involved in the cover-up" comment is ludicrous at best.
Click to expand...

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

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

So, have we gotten to Seven World Trade yet?
 
HeyLeroy said:
Oh, but you don't understand! On the ScrewLooseChange forum he's argued that the conspirators who brought about the destruction of the World Trade Center complex knew exactly where pieces of the falling Tower would hit Seven World Trade, and exactly where the fires would and wouldn't burn, and could therefore plant their explosives... not there. Even though no explosives were planted in the North or South Towers!
Click to expand...
I guess I missed that post.
So, have we gotten to Seven World Trade yet?
Click to expand...
Nope, but I tried. I really tried. I guess mj hasn't the courage to move on to that. So he uses the Scott Forbes issue to try to distract from that fact. :whistling
 
WildCat said:
So the tens of thousands of people who worked there have all been silenced? That is just ridiculous. Once again, you fail mjd1982.

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

2) I am self employed
 
nicepants said:
Yes, backing up baseless claims can be tiresome. That's why you shouldn't make claims you're not prepared to back up with evidence.

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

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



That statement contradicts this claim:


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

This has all also been addressed before in post #2332
Click to expand...
Oh boy... except my 2nd statement was made with the contingency that he was lying.

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

Back
Top Bottom