You asked what evidence there was for a cover up. I stated that along with the evident fact of Scott's statement, which is now known around the world, there has not been one public action/comment on it, affirmative denial or other by FT, which is astonishing. That is evidence for a cover up, as you will know if you can distinguish between evidence and proof.
Except they would be indicting themselves with their employers, who is not Bush.
How confused you are.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.
A perfect example of satirical humour that it not "laugh out loud" humour, as I explained to you before. Maybe your best contribution yet, well done!
How disappointing. I explained to you your problem with "falsifiability" at great length, and dealt with all your issues. You stay silent, and then choose to come back with some below the belt tripe, for which you are attempting to criticise me. With your your hypocrisy, disregard for common sense and facts, you are a good addition to the fantasist menagerie.
Lol, ridiculous. He was mentioned tangentially, and since I had happened to have met him and spoken at length about his experience, I thought it would be a good opportunity on this board to see how far the fantasist rabbit hole went. I do not use this as part of my argument in defending the Truth Movement, as it does to a large degree on this board anyway, rely on my word; nonetheless there are plenty of facts that even a menagerie of fantasists cannot answer sensibly. It has been pretty astonishing; I am happy to move back to the original topic whenever anyone chooses, or as you like.I guess I missed that post.
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.
That's alright Sherlock, you were indeed just being redundant. Never mind.
Yes I can. But that still doesn't explain how FT fits into it.
Wrong. So far, only 1 person has been shown to believe this. You. Please provide evidence of the so-called "millions."
Good thing or you'd be sacked for your statements about 9/11.
No, most people, even most truthers, require some type of evidence. We require real evidence. You have yet to provide any. Show me one site that list FT as a co-conspirator. Remember, the "Truth Movement" believes that both towers were completely powered down for 36 hours. So, FT doesn't figure into any part of the conspiracy, even from the "Truth Movement" pov. So far, you're FT cover-up and link to the conspiracy has been shown to be a fantasy. Which makes you the fantasist.
I guess this applies to you then.
I'm game if you are.
True in most cases. There is a point in time where too many cables have been run and abandoned. Then the power down would be justified. In the company I work for, we switched from dumb terminals to networked PCs 8 years ago. We are just now removing some of the old serial cables because it's become next to impossible to run new network cable. So it will all come down to what was on the contract.
Simple, yes, true, not even close. All of the surviving employees of FT would know by now that Scott has not been sacked for making his comments. Therefore, there is no reason that they would be afraid of being sacked. What about the employees that no longer work for FT and are not employed by anybody else that has any connection to the WTC? There would be no implication of complicity of their employer there. So, your claim that 100% of everyone else, besides Scott, have not come out to talk about the power down for fear of recriminations is totally baseless. Now I'm starting to wonder if you actually met Scott at all. Why don't you ask him to post on here so he can tell us himself what you don't remember. You did get his email since you had dinner with him and got to know him? That would clear this whole thing up.
???
Lol, right, execpt that in Scotts story, he is not implying that these guys were necessarily "cabling". If that were the story, it wouldnt be much of a story, woud it now?