The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[Belz...]

Are there any African-Americans[1] who feel complimented by the suggestion that they have natural rhythm and are athletically gifted?

Red-haired people are sensitive to light. I should know.

Any Jewish people who like to hear others praise their financial acumen?

Depends if it's true. This, I wouldn't know.

 

[BillyRayValentine]

Actually, I'm having a hard time seeing how any racial stereotyping, even ostensibly positive, can be seen as anything other than racist.

I don't disagree. To clarify, I just presumed that mjd82's "racial stereotyping" comment was referring to observations based on race in general, not stereotyping, per se. I interpreted his comment as "You are attempting to deem any acknowledgement of racial differences as racist" in an attempt to paint you as intellectually dishonest.

I probably gave him too much credit. I bet he did mean it literally.

 

[lapman]

I don't disagree. To clarify, I just presumed that mjd82's "racial stereotyping" comment was referring to observations based on race in general, not stereotyping, per se. I interpreted his comment as "You are attempting to deem any acknowledgement of racial differences as racist" in an attempt to paint you as intellectually dishonest.

I probably gave him too much credit. I bet he did mean it literally.

You know that he is not going to say that he meant it as you just said since that would make him look innocent. The same ol' "forget what I said before because what I say now is what's important" argument.

 

[mjd1982]

Ok, you got me. If you're really, really sure, that's proof enough. I'll just ignore the fact that 10,000+ other folks would have known about such an event, and not a single one has corroborated it. I'll also ignore every other previously mentioned reason why his story is ludicrous.

Let's be more accurate. Of the 10,000 no one has come out and stated that this happened. Not one of them has come out and said that it didnt. We will come onto this in a sec...

You say you aren't a charlatan or fraud, yet you defend an impossible, laughable tale. You clearly don't have the relevant knowledge to consider the plausibility of his claim, and yet defend it as if you do. Charlatan, eh? If the shoe fits...

Errr... My knowledge of it is probably better than yours since i know someone who wokred in the top half of the S Tower that weekend. You dont?

You are saying that my argument is unsound, because I haven't assumed that some combination of cowardice, fear, moral vacancy, self-absorption or greed would keep every single person out of a pool of thousands quiet.

Ok. Here's your first problem. I have not said that such people are cowardly. Not at all. The fact is that the power down is an oddity. It would not prove anything. It would not even be illustrative of a personal belief. Yet it would put you firmly in one camp, i.e. one where you are implying that the gov blew up the TTs. This would get you fired from your firm, most surely,and land you in a world of acrimony from the likes of yourself. It would turn the persons life upside down. And all for uttering the occurence of an oddity. This is why people will not come out and talk about it; not cowardice or greed.

That first sentence is one of the first correct observations you've made. Of course, you leave the rails again almost immediately when you return to your "severe implications" bunk. Since there isn't a plausible explanation as to why a power down would be "evidence" against the government, that's all the more reason to expect corroboration.

It becomes evidence when it gets whitewashed by the authorities from history

See, as soon as you suggest that anybody would ever "most likely be fired" for mentioning something that actually happened, your profile becomes quite clear. You are an ideologue, but a young one who's still ignorant as to the ways of the world. You're all too happy to make arguments, but have little life experience and accumulated wisdom to inform them.

Errr... since that post contains little or no substance, there is nothing I can say to that

Really? Perhaps you should reread Scott's first public comments, in letter form, regarding this matter. Here's the link: http://www.serendipity.li/wot/forbes01.htm

His own words contradict, rather precisely, what you say above.

How about this quote:

Would you be willing to reconcile this with your claim that "Scott did not, and does not think that the power down is proof of anything"? I'll hold my breath.

Yes- show me where he says he feels this to have been proof.

While I'm waiting, I'd be interested in knowing if you are quoting his own words, as per your conversation with him. Did honest, self-effacing Scott just get caught lying through his teeth?

Er.... no

 

[mjd1982]

Given that your definition of "puerile and facile" is "any person or statement that disagrees with mjd1982", and your definition of "serious debate on 911" is "accepting everything mjd1982 says as indisputable fact", I can't argue with that statement.

Where have I said this?

That's a Stundie. Consider yourself nominated. It probably won't get through because of the lack of CT link, but it's such a monumentally idiotic statement that it needs highlighting.

Dave

Lol, well yes it is when you omit the second half of the sentence:

You are attempting to deem all racial stereotyping as racist...Now of course, on one level this is true

Oh dear. Of course I gone onto state how anyone who would call someone who deemed sri lankans to be bad swimmers as a racist would be facile and puerile; I can add to the list someone who would grossly distort a quote in order to suggest it might be a "Stundie". Pretty pitiful, but this is now becoming par for the course for you I'm afraid Dave, along with many of your ilk.

 

[mjd1982]

Need I remind you, Forbe's account is absolute nonsense. No way power is shut down for several days in a building occupied 24/7/365 that plays such an important role in finances worldwide.

Scott Forbes, if he is not a fraud, is at the very least a liar. No one else remembers this alleged "power down". I would think such a thing would be memorable.

Oh whoops, WC doesnt think it could have happened, therefore it didnt happen. I'll tell that to Scott when I next see him.

D'uh!

 

[mjd1982]

To add to your point:

I work in a large office building, though not nearly as large as the WTC towers. If any portion of the building is to be "powered down", there is a very strict and detailed process that must be followed.

First, the reason for the power-down must be clearly stated and submitted to the different businesses and business areas. This usually has to happen at least 30 days in advance so that proper preparations can be made. In addition, the groups affected by the outage all have to "approve" or "sign off" on the event before it happens.

There is always a LARGE paper trail, and power is NEVER EVER cut off to any area of the building without going through this process. (The only exception would be an emergency outage)

With such strict procedures at even a small office building, I can almost guarantee that there were even MORE strict procedures in effect in the WTC towers. With all of those clients, someone needs to be communicating to them if they're not going to have power for x number of hours.

There is no way a complete building power outage would have taken place without SIGNIFICANT notification of those involved, and a rather large paper trail.......and yet somehow no one has come forward. How convenient.

Perhaps someone with more free time than me knows someone who leased space in the WTC who would be aware of the procedure for something like this.

They were informed by the PA ~3 weeks in advance.

The potential reasons for no others coming forward have been explained by me already to BRV

 

[mjd1982]

Yep. But frankly, you could have stopped after saying "There is no way a complete building power outage would have taken place", and left it at that. The notion that a NYC office tower could be "unplugged" for 36 hours, short of a catastrophic event or major emergency, is laughable.

It's amusing to see Mjd82 defend the indefensible, then crow about his intellectual prowess. I guess he does have some entertainment value, anyway...

26 hours

Oh, and yes, it was something unusual, hence why Scott brought it to our attention. To those who have ears to hear, in any case.

Where have I crowed about my intellectual prowess? I think you have imagined this, tho I ask myself why...

 

[mjd1982]

No, the comment in question (yours) is a negative racial stereotype, one that is perpetuated by ignoramuses like yourself who don't have the sense to realize it's offensive. The raghead comment and yours might be racist for qualitatively different reasons, but make no mistake - they're both racist.

One of the drawbacks of the internet as a means of communication is that the human capacity for shame gets stifled. I'm guessing that you'd be far less obtuse in person. It's much more difficult to spout nonsense while looking someone in the eye.

Ok good, so if someone were to state that "All Sri Lankans are bad swimmers", you would call that person a "racist"?

If this is true, then you are a quite ridiculous human being, I'm sorry to say. Puerile and facile, to be more accurate. Think about why this is so, and then get back to me.

 

[mjd1982]

Hysterical. See Scott lie. See Scott run (back-pedal).

First time around, he said this:



The bolded part is my favorite. Breathtaking in its ignorance.

why?

 

[mjd1982]

I don't disagree. To clarify, I just presumed that mjd82's "racial stereotyping" comment was referring to observations based on race in general, not stereotyping, per se. I interpreted his comment as "You are attempting to deem any acknowledgement of racial differences as racist" in an attempt to paint you as intellectually dishonest.

I probably gave him too much credit. I bet he did mean it literally.

You interpret his comment correctly, hence why he goes on to say that he cannot see how any racial stereotyping is not racist. As I have said before, such is true on a literal level, but since we are all adults, we can debate this in an adult fashion. For a comment to be "racist", with the meaning that it connotes, is to state that it is not only a negative comment, but one that has sensitive overtones. Hence why Borat can make a film caricaturing Kazakhs (ie people from a perceived backward ex communist state), and it not be condemned around the world, by serious people anyway, as being a racist film. Had he made a film sterotyping Jews, Blacks, or Muslims in a similar way, that would be racist as the term is sensibly defined- negative stereortyping in a manner that burns sensitivities.

This is something that we should all be aware of; however i am willing to allow that coming onto this forum switches a lot of people's reasoning capacities off.

 

[DGM]

The "Chinese motorcycle" comment was not racist?

 

[David Wong]

Ah, that's better.

 

[WildCat]

Oh whoops, WC doesnt think it could have happened, therefore it didnt happen. I'll tell that to Scott when I next see him.

Better yet, why don't you ask him to post here? This is something he should be singing from the rooftops if it was indeed true. He should welcome the chance to make his case. But I suspect he won't for some reason...

 

[T.A.M.]

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


Ah, that's better.

lol...nice

TAM

 

[HeyLeroy]

All males of Irish/Scots descent have immensely huge wieners.

There, start that stereotype making the rounds and I'll die happy.

 

[Hokulele]

The bolded part is my favorite. Breathtaking in its ignorance.

That was my favorite part as well. In all secure areas I have worked in, a power outage meant the security system locked down all of the secure areas, not unlocked them.

 

[BillyRayValentine]

That was my favorite part as well. In all secure areas I have worked in, a power outage meant the security system locked down all of the secure areas, not unlocked them.

Precisely. And security cameras are not affected by a power interruption. They have multiple back-up power sources, both generator and battery driven.

Mjd82 - consider that your answer to post # 2170.

And yet honest, objective Scott has no qualms including such bunk in his letter. Which ties in with the moronic claim that Scott "didn't, and doesn't see the power-down as proof of a government conspiracy".

Yes- show me where he says he feels this to have been proof.

Why else would you include such blatantly false allegations, if not for their ominous implications (doors were left open, security cameras were disabled, mysterious men were coming and going, woo, woo...)?

Yes- show me where he says he feels this to have been proof.

Don't get too cute with the semantics; you're not that clever. His position was quite clear. He made his ridiculous claims about non-existent security, open doors, strange men coming and going from the tower, etc., then said "watching events unfold, I was convinced immediately that something was happening related to the weekend work...".

His message was unambiguous. He was convinced - convinced that very morning - that the attacks were related to the non-existent security, open doors, strange men coming and going from the tower, etc. That was his evidence. How else would he be convinced if he didn't view said evidence as proof???

You should let this one go. Pretending to be so obtuse is undignified.

 

[BillyRayValentine]

Let's be more accurate. Of the 10,000 no one has come out and stated that this happened. Not one of them has come out and said that it didnt. We will come onto this in a sec...

It's a safe bet that you truthers have searched high and low for corroboration.

No one has come out, because why would they? To announce that something didn't happen? Truthers and those of us who bother to refute their (your) nonsense know who Scott Forbes is. But why would anyone else? His story received almost no attention because it was so laughable. It was dismissed immediately by all but the hardest core and/or most ignorant truthers. Fortunately, that's a fairly small universe.

You're telling me that Scott can't convince one friend or colleague from the towers to defend his character and back him up? Sucks for him.

Errr... My knowledge of it is probably better than yours since i know someone who wokred in the top half of the S Tower that weekend. You dont?

Brilliant. You're saying that the knowledge that informs your assessment of Scott and his story comes from...wait for it... Scott and his story! I'm relatively new here, and not even sure what a stundie is. But I'm nominating you on the presumption that this qualifies.

As for me, I've worked in I-banking and private equity in multiple office towers in both midtown and downtown. I have been to dozens of meetings in the wtc, as well as just about every other office tower that houses one or more major financial insitutions. Based on my experience and knowledge, I can state with absolute certainty that the scenario described by Forbes is preposterous. Firms of many different stripe - and without question every law firm and investment house - would never, ever allow their power to be interrupted more than momentarily for any non-emergency related reason, let alone one as preposterous as for cable upgrades.

Ok. Here's your first problem. I have not said that such people are cowardly.

I said it. The actions you ascribe to people (or lack thereof, more precisely) are cowardly. That's not the same as saying the people are actually cowards. They're not because his story is untrue.

You, however, imply that Forbes has spoken to others in the know about what happened, including friends, but they're afraid to get involved. Even as he is ridiculed and branded a liar. Now why would be this so when, as you say...

The fact is that the power down is an oddity. It would not prove anything. It would not even be illustrative of a personal belief.

People could verify his story and explicitly state what you said above. If a few people got together, did this aand established the power-down as fact, it's completely implausible that they would be subjected to the delusional reprisals you list. Especially one as utterly ridiculous as...

This would get you fired from your firm, most surely...

This is the nonsense I was referring to in the quote that preceded...

Errr... since that post contains little or no substance, there is nothing I can say to that

I just didn't feel like explaining it. Apparently I need to.

Let me tell you something. If someone told the truth and verified that an event actually occurred, and was fired because of it, they wouldn't have to worry about finding a new job. They'd be able take their lawsuit "winnings" and head to the beach, a la my good buddy Louis Winthorp and me. Even if they were lying, like Scott, only in very limited cases would this constitute a fireable offense. If he said he was speaking for the firm in any way, or if he was in a position as a public "face" of the firm, for example. The firm would have to prove their grounds, else, once again, it'd be payday time for the "victim".

Listen, you should do Scott a favor. If his story is true, and his company is threatening to fire him if he doesn't keep it down, tell him to do whatever it takes so that they do fire him. He'll be able to expose the truth in court and be a hero (or more of a hero, anyway) amongst the fruitcakes, plus he'll be able to take his multi-million dollar settlement and head to the beach. What's holding him back?

This would...land you in a world of acrimony from the likes of yourself. It would turn the persons life upside down.

Baseless assumption. If other sources verified his story, the truth would be established. People would point out what you correctly acknowledge, that it was an oddity and nothing more, and move on. Your expectations of acrimony are absurd - so long as there's corroboration.

-----

Sorry, but you show no signs of making progress with any of this. The only thing you've established beyond a shadow of a doubt is that you are completely ignorant as to how the real world works, pun intended.

I think that about covers the Forbes topic for me.

 

[BillyRayValentine]

Where have I crowed about my intellectual prowess? I think you have imagined this, tho I ask myself why...

Hmm...can you see the post below, or is it just my imagination?

Competition people, please...

Hopeless.