The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[twinstead]

He is a very humble seemign individual, who has no desire to scream this event from the rooftops. It was burning a hole in him, and so he had to come out and say something. He has no inclination to travel the world and spread his story. Were he doing such, you would be stating that he was profiteering off his "lies", so this just illustrates that yu have no regard for the truth iether way.

But, unless you haven't read a word of this thread, his story is highly suspect. Doesn't it at least make you want to corroborate his story just a little bit?

 

[Billdave2]

To be fair, I'd be very surprised if this was the case in the WTC. It's pretty standard in office buildings etc. that when there's a power cut all security doors are unlocked. The reason is because otherwise people are trapped in the building. Imagine if there was a fire that cut power to the building?

I know that in New Zealand, at least, it's a legal requirement that security doors in office buildings unlock when without power. It's kind of like how elevators automatically return to the nearest floor and the doors open.

-Gumboot

I Think the requirement is that there be access to emergency exits. Most places with security locks will only open one way (out).

 

[mjd1982]

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".

He sees it as evidence that might lead to such, which is different to proof. This should not be hard to understand.

Incidentally, why do you think he would lie about this? What has he gained from doing so, other than your slander?

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...)?

As above

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...".

They are non existent in your eyes, the eyes of someone who wasnt there.

So, let's look at those who were there. Now there is something very simple that would determine whether he is lying or not- were he to have been lying, and thus implying that the US gov blew up the TTs and killed 3000 people, he would have been fired immediately. Or, at the very least, he would have been publicly dressed down by FT. Why hasnt he?

 

[Brainache]

He is a very humble seemign individual, who has no desire to scream this event from the rooftops. It was burning a hole in him, and so he had to come out and say something. He has no inclination to travel the world and spread his story. Were he doing such, you would be stating that he was profiteering off his "lies", so this just illustrates that yu have no regard for the truth iether way.

Umm maybe I'm confused, but where did you meet him MJD? And do I have to travel all over the world to post on the JREF? I'd better find my passport.

 

[mjd1982]

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?

Good. So you base your assertion on the fact that were it true, Scott would merely need to take on a multi billion dollar corporation in court, in an effort to illustrate that the government was probably behind 911. I think you must be living on the moon. If he has made such suggestions and they are false, he would be fired by FT in a shot for bringing the firm into serious disrepute. So tell me why he hasnt.

 

[mjd1982]

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



Hopeless.

Where in that post have I crowed about my intellectual prowess. Need I remind you, there is zero intellectual merit in conclusively illustrating the CT case. It is simple to all those who have eyes to see, yet the defense of it does evince a gross stupidity.

 

[mjd1982]

You clearly didn't understand my posts with respect to this topic. Try reading them again slowly.

More importantly, your sri lankan swimmer analogy is moronic. Saying something is made like a chinese motorcycle is an ethnic pejorative. It's a reference to the stereotype of Chinese incompetence. It's a value judgement, one that is perpetuated by dolts who a) don't have the sense to realize it's offensive and b) would most likely have no first-hand basis for commenting on Chinese motorcycles. They're (you're) just ignorantly repeating a stereotype.

If someone said "all Sri Lankans are bad swimmers", on the other hand, the only thing I'd find offensive is his stupidity - I bet there are a few Sri Lankans who are comfortable in the water. If he said "most Sri Lankans are bad swimmers", that might be more reasonable.

Regardless, no reasonable person would construe either comment as a pejorative. It's an observation. Probably false, sort of interesting if it's true, but nothing more than an observation either way.

Being called a bad swimmer is not demeaning.

Since when has there been a stereotype of Chinese incompetence?

I could equallu say that the Sri Lankan comment illustrates a stereotype of physical ineptness amongst Sri Lankans. It is hence perjorative. So it would be, in your eyes, a racist comment.

 

[mjd1982]

As you can see from the original quote, I took the sentence in its entirety. Therefore, your implication that I "omit the second half of the sentence" is incorrect, as I quoted the complete sentence. In effect, you're lying by saying I've distorted your quote - which is more or less what I've come to expect from you.

Oh please, the entire contextual phrase, how facile and how utterly puerile!!!
Astonishing!

Oh, and if you said of someone else "You swim like a Sri Lankan", and you meant by this that Sri Lankans were bad swimmers - yes, it would be racist, because it would be defining an inferior characteristic of a racial group, just like your "Chinese motorcycle" comment. But by all means keep on defending your racism, because it really helps put your arguments in context.

Dave

Ok good, So, for the 5th time, you confirm your puerility and facile nature for all to see. How tragic.

 

[Brainache]

Since when has there been a stereotype of Chinese incompetence?

I could equallu say that the Sri Lankan comment illustrates a stereotype of physical ineptness amongst Sri Lankans. It is hence perjorative. So it would be, in your eyes, a racist comment.

Weren't you the bloke who claimed that "fell apart faster than a Chinese motorbike" was a common expression?

 

[mjd1982]

I see. So you're now claiming, in effect, that not only are the Chinese incompetent at engineering, but that they are happy to be characterised as incompetent at engineering.

I was in a meeting yesterday where a Chinese colleague of mine was getting extremely unhappy about a situation where he was inferring a slur on the manufacturing ability of a Chinese company that he is dealing with very closely. There was no such slur intended, but he felt so sensitive on the issue that he found it very difficult to keep calm and discuss the problem dispassionately. I considered (not seriously) telling him that his arguments were falling apart like a Chinese motorbike, but I suspect he'd have stormed out of the room and then initiated a disciplinary complaint against me for racial harrassment. And if I'd said it, and he'd raised the complaint, I'd have had no defence, because he'd have been right.

So yes, your comment was not only a negative stereotype, but an offensive one, and one that, in a specific instance I can cite, would have caused serious offence. What is incredible is that you not only defend your behaviour, but that you accuse those who draw it to your attention as childish and irresponsible for doing so. But that seems to be your main technique for dismissing arguments you can't counter; claim that the arguers aren't serious.

I've been putting this off for a while, but I think it's time to give up on you, and on this thread. You stated in your OP that you believed that everyone who disagreed with you was either ignorant or a liar, so it should have been clear that you were simply planning to spread abuse under the guise of serious debate. I'm just disappointed with myself, now, that it took me so long to realise that you're no more than a long-winded Malcolm Kirkman clone.

Dave

Oh dear, where did I say that in my OP, what utter garbage.

The thread will be better off without you, adieu.

 

[mjd1982]

Source please. I'll assume they were informed in writing?



If one person has already "come forward" then the story is already public. What would stop another witness from coming forward?

1. Why would he still have (or ever have had) this letter from the PA?
2. For the reasons I have explained at length.

As I have asked to others, please explain why, if he was lying so egregiously and harmfuly, he hasnt been fired, or even reprimanded by FT

 

[mjd1982]

Umm maybe I'm confused, but where did you meet him MJD? And do I have to travel all over the world to post on the JREF? I'd better find my passport.

Lol, he hasnt even heard of the JREF. He has been to 2 London 911 meetings, at one of which (the Rodriguez talk) I met him.

 

[Unsecured Coins]

good call... respond to a 4 paragraph repsonse with a 2 sentence statement.

I am in awe of you.

 

[mjd1982]

Weren't you the bloke who claimed that "fell apart faster than a Chinese motorbike" was a common expression?

I dont know what your comment has to do with anything, but have you ever seen the Simpsons episode with Larry Burns, Mr Burns's son? There, at least you will see the phrase being mentioned, possibly the first time in history that a "racist" comment on a family show has elicited zero uproar.

 

[Brainache]

Lol, he hasnt even heard of the JREF. He has been to 2 London 911 meetings, at one of which (the Rodriguez talk) I met him.

So he doesn't travel the world telling his story, but you met him in London where he told his story? Am I missing something? Does he live there now?

And on your point about him not having any problems for telling his story, I would suggest that kind of ruins your arguments about why nobody else has mentioned it.

 

[Brainache]

I dont know what your comment has to do with anything, but have you ever seen the Simpsons episode with Larry Burns, Mr Burns's son? There, at least you will see the phrase being mentioned, possibly the first time in history that a "racist" comment on a family show has elicited zero uproar.

So it was a Simpsons quote and not a common turn of phrase. No doubt a Monty Burns line. One of the most evil fictional characters ever and you think that he wouldn't say anything racist?

You also appear to be ignorant of the work of Archie Bunker, Alf Garnett and Eddie Booth.

 

[BillyRayValentine]

You interpret his comment correctly, hence why he goes on to say that he cannot see how any racial stereotyping is not racist.

I was interpreting your comment. You missed the point entirely.

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.

I've never stated I disagree with this. To the contrary, that was a secondary point I was making. You just missed it. An objective observation (eg., "Blacks males have a high rate of incarceration") is quite different from a pejorative, insulting, stereotypical crack (eg., "The odds are about 50-50. About the same as a black man spending time in prison.")

Or to return to your inane Sri Lankan analogy, stating that Sri Lankans are bad swimmers, if true, is very different from yelling out "Hey, you swim like a Sri Lankan" to someone flailing about and struggling to stay afloat.

This point is not incredibly nuanced. Please tell me you get it by now.

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.

Sascha Baron Cohen is a satirist. And he does skits where he plays Jews, blacks and over-the-top homosexuals as well.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[nicepants]

1. Why would he still have (or ever have had) this letter from the PA?

Because:

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

How were they informed?

As I have asked to others, please explain why, if he was lying so egregiously and harmfuly, he hasnt been fired, or even reprimanded by FT

Only FT can answer that. The fact that someone is not fired for making claims does not prove their claims to be true. And as you've said...he's not exactly "shouting from the rooftops".

ETA:

So,

He has no inclination to travel the world and spread his story.

and yet

He has been to 2 London 911 meetings, at one of which (the Rodriguez talk) I met him.

 

[Unsecured Coins]

what's better that watching someone stomp on his own genitalia?

Not much, apparently.

 

[funk de fino]

is he not english so is maybe a resident back in the uk?

if this is the case, is he still working for the same company?

if not why not?

as for an earlier comment about reasons for the claims, he is now famous on the internet, before he was not

i wonder if he has applied for reality tv programs back in blighty?