The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[mjd1982]

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:



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?



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

The point about the other source was intentional speculation, as has been explained to you before. It illustrates the case of a minor anomaly that can be explained away quite simply, when there is a major contradicting anomaly that cannot.

Understand this before you post again- it will be important in later posts.

 

[mjd1982]

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.

The lunch would have been supplied by an outside contractor, which would be different.

Also, the fact that you would compare getting ill from lunch with killing/covering up the murder of 3000 people, says a lot for your perspective.

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.

no, since FT are implicit in his claim- they would be covering up the power down too

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?

No, because his story has not been exaggerated at all. It is there in black and white, you have read it. Stop talking tripe.

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.

The point is why has it been covered up, as I have said a million times.

 

[mjd1982]

Great! Let's see this e-mail.

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.

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:



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".

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.

 

[mjd1982]

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?

THey don't threaten him with anything in particular- they are simply nudges and winks. That is what nudges and winks are

 

[mjd1982]

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



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



Semantics.



And how I hate these things.

We are seeing here a standard fantasist pattern. I make an assertion that debunks his assertion, the fantasist repeats his own assertion, even though this has been debunked, and it goes round and round.

For the last time- the comment brings FT into disrepute since it implicates them in covering up facts about the murder of 3000 people, falsely under your claim.

Now either show how this is not the case, or dont post.

 

[Unsecured Coins]

don't let this be the 3rd time you ignore me for proof that he is being hassled, mjd

 

[BillyRayValentine]

If you want to state that there are other definitions, then go ahead and provide them. Since you are way out of your depth here, you resort to a standard tactic, muddy the issue. "Oh his satire is multi layered, its hard to pinpointm really", "Your definition is just one of many, but I'm not going to provide any others". Put up or shut up please.

You obviously have internet access - would it be too much trouble for you to look it up yourself? Satire necessarily involves neither humor nor morality. Your "definition" is moronic.

Read b4 u post. Spoof is not a form of satire, unless it has a moral purpose. If you spoof the behaviour of a boring person, are you being satirical? No, unless there is a moral purpose to it.

Wrong, wrong and wrong. First off, I thought it was pretty clear we were talking about spoofing in the context of Ali G. Second, will you stop with the "moral purpose" drivel already? Let me help you. Satire is essentially a means of highlighting and exposing stupid human behavior, through devices such as irony, sarcasm, hyperbole and wit. Sure, many stupid behaviors have moral implications. But many, many more do not. And many satires are funny, but many are not. NEITHER MORALITY NOR HUMOR IS A NECESSARY COMPONENT OF SATIRE.

Anything? Is the fog lifting just a bit?

For the last time, his characters are only satirical in certain instances. When he interviews foxhunters, then he is being satirical. When he is going on a police training course, and gets excited about having a gun, that is not satire. Understand?

No, since I elect not to "understand" a facile, simplistic and wholly incorrect definition of the term.

That is his satire. Learn to distinguish between his satire and his spoof, as I have taught you, and you will be less confused.

Already covered. Stop embarrassing yourself.

Oh, so now you are stating that that comment is racist? Do you have reading comprehension problems? I have just explained to you that if that is "racist", then so would be Borat. But it is not. Think before you post!

You have tried to explain something, but all you've done is draw attention to your ignorance.

 

[BillyRayValentine]

The lunch would have been supplied by an outside contractor, which would be different.

Oh, so it was FT who powered down the building?

 

[BillyRayValentine]

2ndly, it is implicating his employers in the cover up. Tell me you can understand thi; if not, tell me why not.

Did he ever come out and say "The wtc was powered down, and my employer is covering it up", or anything even remotely approaching that?

No, he hasn't. He has implicated FT in no way whatsoever, at least not publicly. That's just your own delusional inference.

 

[Belz...]

The point about the other source was intentional speculation, as has been explained to you before. It illustrates the case of a minor anomaly that can be explained away quite simply, when there is a major contradicting anomaly that cannot.

It doesn't "explain it away" simply at all, since you have to INVENT REALITY in order to explain it.

We are seeing here a standard fantasist pattern. I make an assertion that debunks his assertion, the fantasist repeats his own assertion, even though this has been debunked, and it goes round and round.

What assertion have I repeated that was debunked, exactly ? I would be a whole lot easier to find out if you started to use the quote function properly.

the comment brings FT into disrepute since it implicates them in covering up facts about the murder of 3000 people

OBVIOUSLY NOT, because there is NOTHING that implicates the company in the cover up.

Now either show how this is not the case, or dont post.

I'll post as much as I want, buddy.

 

[funk de fino]

???

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.

so is chocolate sauce with ice cream the same as ice cream with chocolate sauce?

you said it was a spoof, it is not it is a satire, i never repeated what you said or i would have said - "I thought the answer for SI was clear- it is a spoof, and is also (was) satirical. "

not the same as what i said, i never claimed it was exclusive but it is called a satirical comedy not spoof comedy

 

[lapman]

Did he ever come out and say "The wtc was powered down, and my employer is covering it up", or anything even remotely approaching that?

No, he hasn't. He has implicated FT in no way whatsoever, at least not publicly. That's just your own delusional inference.

I think what mjd is saying that by the mere fact the people know that Scott works for FT is implicating FT. This is, of course, extremely faulty logic or Oxford would now be busting down mjd's door for the implication that the school was a part of the conspiracy since mjd supposedly graduated from there.

 

[BillyRayValentine]

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.

The employment contract of a back-office techie specified that "he is not allowed to make comments or support causes that reflect badly on the company"?????

What is that, the standard anti-conspiracy theorist clause so prevalent in the business world today?

Very convenient for your argument were it true, but alas this is one of the silliest, most inane, most utterly ridiculous claims I have ever read. But there is an upside. The absolutely unbridled stupidity of your above comment convinces me that you are beyond help, and saves me the trouble of responding to your drivel any more. And so, I say to you...

Wrong, sir! Wrong! Under section 37B of the contract signed by him, it states quite clearly that all offers shall become null and void if -- and you can read it for yourself in this photostatic copy -- "I, the undersigned, shall forfeit all rights, privileges, and licenses herein and herein contained," et cetera, et cetera... "Fax mentis incendium gloria cultum," et cetera, et cetera... "Memo bis punitor delicatum"!

It's all there, black and white, clear as crystal! You stole fizzy lifting drinks! You bumped into the ceiling which now has to be washed and sterilized, so you get nothing!

You lose!

Good day sir!

 

[lapman]

The lunch would have been supplied by an outside contractor, which would be different.

PA was the "outside contractor" in Scott's story. So it applies.

Also, the fact that you would compare getting ill from lunch with killing/covering up the murder of 3000 people, says a lot for your perspective.

That was a substanceless post.

no, since FT are implicit in his claim- they would be covering up the power down too

Wrong. FT is not implicit in any way in his claim. Please post where Scott says, "the PA and FT worked together in this power down." He didn't. He says that FT needed IT to shut down it's servers in preparation for the power down. There is no implication there at all.

No, because his story has not been exaggerated at all. It is there in black and white, you have read it. Stop talking tripe.

Oh. So because it's in black and white makes it true? Let's see. He goes from stating:

On the weekend of 9/8,9/9 there was a 'power down' condition in WTC tower 2,
the south tower. This power down condition meant there was no electrical
supply for approx 36hrs from floor 50 up.

to stating

I can't absolutely verify that there was no power on lower floors

All this is in "black and white." So, what are we supposed to believe? That there was a 36 hour power down that spanned 50 floors or that there was a 26 hour power down that could possibly have spanned 50 floors. The "Truth Movement" turned that into

Did the World Trade Center towers undergo a deliberate “power-down” on the weekend prior to the 9-11 terrorist attacks? According to Scott Forbes, a senior database administrator for Fiduciary Trust, Inc. – a high-net investment bank which was later acquired by Franklin Templeton – this is precisely what took place.

Which is a complete lie.

The point is why has it been covered up, as I have said a million times.

You have yet to provide any evidence of said cover-up.

 

[funk de fino]

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?

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

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

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...)

yes

They know what you and i know

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

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

Which was?

no, people on here have said that he may have been mistaken, I have for definite and it was poo poo'd, if he still claims that it was a total power down on all floors from the 50th up, when he knows it cannot have been, then he is a fraud

he has told the truth and is still being nudged to hush up? does not work in above scenario

who has officially denied it and exactly what have they denied?

i know for definite that the deaths of 3000 people are more important to me than working for a company that i think covered up, especially when you now say some of his work collegues were killed

this is utterly ludicrous that he would not come out with what he knew just in case he lost his job, if this is the reason he is not coming out then he is the biggest coward i have ever had the misfortune to hear about, if he is a attender at the 911 uk meetings then he will not mind me telling him this at the next one if i attend, i am even more sure i will now by the way

why should FT back up anything if they do not think it was a mysterious power down and just routine

i do not know he is implying that FT covered it up cause i have not seen him say that, inferring PA did yes, but FT no

if they google his name then they could find this forum and see your posts??

that is like asking me to turn a blind eye to evidence that i knew could be a clue in a mass murder as to who committed it, surely it is my duty to tell FT that they are being accused of this so they can then fight these allegations, if he is telling the truth then the british justice system can decide this?

thom kean = goalpost moving, slight of hand, switching focus

look yourself i am not your PA

 

[funk de fino]

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. .

no, people over here can speak about this and not bring any bad publicity on their company, why is it inflammatory? unsuitable to who?

the company cannot ban him from speaking the truth unless it breaks the law, if they fired him we would be back to the industrial tribunal

in america they can say even more then us and get away with it without repercussions

you have spilled the ball with this one mate

 

[funk de fino]

Are you crazy? How the hell would he still have the email? .

if someone asks me to do something at work and i am not quite sure about it, i always get them to back it up with email and then keep it

this is my comfort blanket, in case i am queried why i did it?

if he knew the next day that there was a problem and was convinced that the cover up was due to the power down then he would have backed up said email? especially if he thought it was supicious

or are we saying his email server was destroyed in the tower collapse?

that is the only reason i can see that he has not saved it?

 

[funk de fino]

???
I would venture that they they are not racist in any serious way, since thai hookers is not a controversial or touchy issue.

are you serious? not racist in any serioust way, sorry pal but all racism is serious in my book

it is totally unacceptable to come out with phrases like that

when is racism ever non serious?

when bernard manning was being racist?

this conveniently allows you to assert that your comment was not racist when in fact it was, get a grip

 

[lapman]

I think that the company's problem is not in what Scott is saying, it's how the "Truth Movements" twists what he says into something else.

 

[Matthew Best]

THey don't threaten him with anything in particular- they are simply nudges and winks. That is what nudges and winks are

Well what does he think he's being threatened with?

Bearing in mind that you've already pointed out that he can't possibly be sacked for telling the truth?