The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[BillyRayValentine]

Please show me where this has been "shown" to me, and I have ignored it. I have zero need to ignore any relatively serious OT post, nor have I.

Here you go.

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".

If he still does his job effectively, there would be no reason to fire him. As a matter of fact, if they did fire him just because of what he is saying, that would be grounds for a lawsuit. So that whole line of reasoning is baseless.

There was also a post that addressed your claim about it being foolish to take on a multi-billion dollar corporation. It appears to have been deleted or moved for some reason. Here's a quick recap.

Contrary to your assertion, the fact that his employer is large and has deep pockets would be a huge positive with respect to a lawsuit, not a negative. Lawyers in NYC would line up around the block to take Forbes' case - on a contingency basis - because the potential payout would be astronomical. As part of their case, they would contact as many of the 10,000 other employees affected by the power-down as they could locate. If the systematic employer intimidation that you allege were true, the net result would be dozens of class action lawsuits filed in a matter of days.

Ultimately tens, probably hundreds of millions of dollars would change hands if these people's rights were trampled in the manner you allege. With absolute certainty.

 

[BillyRayValentine]

yikes, repeat.

 

[BillyRayValentine]

Duplicate.

 

[BillyRayValentine]

Billy, isn't "pejorative" largely dependent upon whether the "target" of the comment SEES it as pejorative ?

From the perspective of the aggrieved person, absolutely. And generally speaking, people should stop embracing victimhood so much and toughen up, IMO.

But from an outside persective, certain pejorative comments can't be construed any other way. A Chinese guy may not be offended by or care about the motorbike comment, but objectively speaking say it's definitely pejorative.

 

[BillyRayValentine]

I've told you this many times. Things only truly started to add up for him when he noticed the cover up. He went to his 1st meeting a few months back.

You really are all over the map with respect to what he implied, what he thought, what he thinks, etc.

And there's the also the minor problem of his own contradictory words ('immediately convinced", etc.)

But keep on spinning that wheel, as I trust you will.

 

[lapman]

There are differences between his stance and Ryan's as there are differences between PH and 911; but as in that case, the essence is the same. Forbes makes a comment about 911, implying that the government was behind it, and maybe even that FT are part of the cover up, and he does this from a standpoint of an FT employee- the testimony he relates is directly linked to his experience as an FT employee.

The problem with this is that Scott never implied that FT was a part of the "cover-up". The fact that he is commenting on something that happened while he was on the job is irrelevant unless he was divulging a trade secret or going against some sort of NDA he signed. I highly doubt that is the case or FT would be all over it. So again, your claim that people are not speaking out for fear of recriminations is baseless.

Hence if he is using his position within FT to make misrepresentations about them in order to bring the firm into gross disrepute by suggestion the gov blew up the TT's, then he would be fired post haste.

Except that he is not using his position at FT to make misrepresentations about FT. He is using is experience within the TT to speak out as an individual. The fact that his story has been deemed irrelevant doesn't make it a cover-up. The fact that he never experience a power down in the 3 years he was at FT doesn't mean that the power down was an unusual event. I have yet to see any records that show a power down of floors had never happened prior to 9/8&9/2001.

 

[mjd1982]

If he was a more important person in the company, then you would be correct about him getting reprimanded. However, he's a lowly IT tech. Anything he says that doesn't directly implicate the company in the conspiracy is meaningless to the company. The same would go for any of the others. Firing or reprimanding someone for exercising their first amendment rights is frowned upon here in the US. Committing slander against the company is another thing though. Scott's bogus claim that there was a 50 floor power down doesn't implicate FT in any way. So your claim that he or anybody else that corroborates his story would be fired or reprimanded is baseless.
I sit corrected on that one. When did he move there and what about my second question about how much was he paid?

I never said anything about directly implicating FT. I said using his standpoint as an FT employee to imply the gov blew up the TTs is what would be unacceptable, and what would have him reprimanded in an instant, if he was full blown lying as you say. As I have explained before, if you were working for company X, and you stated that you saw senior management memos discussing the impending flight of planes into the buliding, you would be fired, if you were lying. If you werent, you would just be intimidated and hassled into keeping your mouth shut, which is what is happening exactly.

 

[Unsecured Coins]

who's doing the hassling and intimidation?

 

[mjd1982]

it is irrelevant to my questions and points, maybe less so to the bigger picture

i am only dealing with these specific points that he has claimed not the bigger picture

he is definite that the power was shut down from the 50th floor up

this cannot be true if my friends visited the observation deck using the normal lifts and bought items in the shop, and also now that i mention it, they must have used the elevators to get to the roof area from the observation deck area, like i did in july of that year

there must have been power at the observation deck and in the lifts

i have already said that he could be mistaken and that he may have had a power down in his area only, this could have lead him to make a mistake

he is pretty definite about it being from floor 50 upwards, can this be correct given my friends experience,yes or no?

There may have been an alternative source of power. I say that to illustrate the possibiltiy of rational explanations, rather than the situation you have envisaged, whereby he has suggested that the gov blew up the TTs from his position as an FT employee, and he hant even been punished for it, rather just hassled to keep quiet. This is a mirror of the situation with the name that I mentioned. There are simple explanations for things that will fit in with the broader facts.

if he has not been reprimanded in any way for his dishonesty then neither would any other employee of FT? why have they not confirmed it?

He has been hassled by HR to keep quiet, and has had his freedoms to attend 911 events, interviews etc, impinged. Not something a person might like.

why has no tourist come forward and confirmed it?

as above

if the security camera and locks is an issue only in his dept then why not say this and infer that it was a total loss of these items in the tower?

Because it was the case not just in his dept, as he has stated.

if he lied in any way about FT then he could be sacked he has not lied about them

Yes he has, according to you; he has said that they had a power down the w/e b4 911. According to you, he is using his position as an employee at FT to implicate the US gov in 911 by lying. This is bringing the company iknto gross disrepute, and he would be fired on the spot were he lying.

if he lies about things that happened on that day he is not bringing FT into disrepute only himself, remember he says it was not FT who ordered the power down so he is not accusing them of anything, they would have no grounds to fire him

As i said, it is not about accusong them of anything, it is about using his standpoint as an FT employee, deceitfully, to implicate the US gov in mass murder. This would not be tolerated, were it the case.

if he does not know of his noteriety then it means that FT would not know either? no grounds for knowing whether he had been lying either?

No, they , he says, check up on google etc and see his recent "activity", if any, and will give him a nudge, let him know theyve seen what they have, and tell him to keep it down, basically.

 

[lapman]

I never said anything about directly implicating FT. I said using his standpoint as an FT employee to imply the gov blew up the TTs is what would be unacceptable, and what would have him reprimanded in an instant, if he was full blown lying as you say.

I stated this where? I only claimed that the 50 floors that he claims were powered down was an exaggeration. It is the Truth Movements claim that both towers were powered down that is the full blown lie. Scott was not using his standpoint as an FT employee when he made his comments. Did he write his letters on FT stationary? I see no indication in any of his interviews that he was wearing a FT uniform, badge or anything else that would show that he was representing FT in any way. He only mentions his FT employment as to why he was in the building.

As I have explained before, if you were working for company X, and you stated that you saw senior management memos discussing the impending flight of planes into the buliding, you would be fired, if you were lying. If you werent, you would just be intimidated and hassled into keeping your mouth shut, which is what is happening exactly.

Very true. But that would be implicating company X in the conspiracy. But that has nothing to do with Scott's comments. Scott clearly states that the power down order came from the PA, not FT. Again, there is no way that FT would be affected by Scott's comments.

 

[mjd1982]

If he was informed by the PA...HOW WAS HE INFORMED?
(Or is this just a claim he makes with zero supporting evidence?)



How do you know that FT are "more than well aware" of this comment?



Then it's 1 of 2 things:

1 - His comment does not imply that the government was behind 911
OR
2 - your assertion (in bold above) is incorrect

1. ??? The info would go from the PA to FT, to him. I.e. an email. What is your point?

2. They know about it through things like google searches, where they can see what he has been doing recently

3. They do imply that, and you forget the 3rd option, which is that he is telling the truth. Of course, your inability to notice something so salient illustrates how intrepid a truth seeker you are, doesnt it?

 

[Unsecured Coins]

wait, you're stating that you can prove that HR is hassling everyone to stay quiet about this?

I can't wait for this. I CANNOT.

 

[mjd1982]

i do not believe this for one moment, another example of embellishing a story

how many people are being leaned on in this world of ours, some of whom are not even american?

if i knew that my govt had conspired to murder 3,000 people, i would not take a threat from my employers that they would fire me as a reason not to report what i know

Uk industrial tribunals, i know you know all about them and i know you know how they work, do you think FT could possibly ever claim fair dismissal of scott or any other employee for claiming what he did?

a huge company like this would just pay up the miniscule amount it would take to admit they fired him unfairly and be done with it, they would not spend billions defending their actions

these claims in no way damage FT = no grounds for dismissal

If he was lying about this, he would have been bringin his company into gross disrepute. That you will not even admit that he would have been reprimanded for this is pretty sad. My mate isnt even allowed to voice opinions on 911 outside of work publicly, else he will get fired. Doing so will look bad on his company- a charity- and the same can be said of FT. Much more so, since he is using his position as an FT employee, to make, what you claim to be, deceitful claims. He would be able to be fired in an instant for doing such; if he were not lying, that is when you would have protracted, expensive lawsuits.

 

[mjd1982]

The stark difference between the comments "Sri Lankans are bad swimmers" and "That thing fell apart like a Chinese motorbike..." has been explained ad nauseum. You choose to interpret the Sri Lankan comment as pejorative, ignoring the fact that that would completely depend on the context and intent of the speaker. That particular comment, in and of itself, tells you nothing about intent.

There is no such ambiguity surrounding the Chinese motorbike crack. The pejorative intent is clear and undeniable; no other reasonable interpretation exists.

And so, again, your analogy equating the slanderous intent of the two statements, ipso facto, was moronic. The distinction is obvious. And this is the last time I mention Sri Lankan swimmers.

Indeed, the discussion has been repeated ad nauseam, your inability to digest simple facts has been repeated ad nauseam, and your flailing efforts to defend the indefensible has been repeated ad nauseam.

The comment on Sri Lankan swimming ability is pejorative, with whatever slant
you put on it; it is a comment on sri lankan swimming ability. The same might be said of the motorcycle comment. Neither are racist in any serious sense of the word. End

P.S. The word is "pejorative". One "r". Surprising I'd have to point that out, you being a (cough, cough) linguist and all.

Well done, banana for you

The satire in Ali G is multi-layered. That's why social critics actually hold his work in high regard. He lampoons everyone. Nothing and nobody is sacred. THAT is the "point" of Ali G. The "white kid from Staines who is trying to be black" is just a device. It's the vehicle he uses to get there.

The hyperbole inherent in his projection of black stereotypes is self-evident. Yes, they are evoked by a white wannabe who's a caricature himself, but they're evoked just the same. As I said, it's multi-layered.

Perhaps it's just an issue of you being too young and unsophisitcated to see it, but it's sure as hell there.

Ahh, yes, it's too "multi-layered" to be analysed specifically, too "sophisticated" for me, hmmm, nice evasion, never seen that one before.

First, learn the difference betweem spoof and satire. Satire is humour for a moral purpose, and spoof is the send up of a type of character. They are not mutually exclusive, but the distinction is there. Cohen's characters are largely spoofs, and there is little satire there, esp in his US shows. They are spoofs of types, which could be called racist, but those types are not sensitive- sending up wiggahs or Kazakhs or fashionistas is not something that offends. This is the crux of the point- a comment is racist not due to being a pejorative racial stereotype, it also has to have a quality of sensitivity to it. Calling Muslims ragheads does; commenting on chinese motorcycles doesnt.

What a stupid tangent.

 

[mjd1982]

Here you go.

Reading problems? I said posts that i ignored
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=84473&page=56

There was also a post that addressed your claim about it being foolish to take on a multi-billion dollar corporation. It appears to have been deleted or moved for some reason. Here's a quick recap.

Contrary to your assertion, the fact that his employer is large and has deep pockets would be a huge positive with respect to a lawsuit, not a negative. Lawyers in NYC would line up around the block to take Forbes' case - on a contingency basis - because the potential payout would be astronomical. As part of their case, they would contact as many of the 10,000 other employees affected by the power-down as they could locate. If the systematic employer intimidation that you allege were true, the net result would be dozens of class action lawsuits filed in a matter of days.

Ultimately tens, probably hundreds of millions of dollars would change hands if these people's rights were trampled in the manner you allege. With absolute certainty.

What you have done here is illustrate precisely why FT are not firing him. If he was tellign the truth, he would be able to sue for a lot, and get publicity. If he was lying, he would not. Hence this would indicate he is telling the truth.

 

[mjd1982]

The problem with this is that Scott never implied that FT was a part of the "cover-up". The fact that he is commenting on something that happened while he was on the job is irrelevant unless he was divulging a trade secret or going against some sort of NDA he signed. I highly doubt that is the case or FT would be all over it. So again, your claim that people are not speaking out for fear of recriminations is baseless.
Except that he is not using his position at FT to make misrepresentations about FT. He is using is experience within the TT to speak out as an individual. The fact that his story has been deemed irrelevant doesn't make it a cover-up. The fact that he never experience a power down in the 3 years he was at FT doesn't mean that the power down was an unusual event. I have yet to see any records that show a power down of floors had never happened prior to 9/8&9/2001.

As I have mentioned many times now, it is not about him implicatin FT. It is about him using his position at FT as a platform for mendacious remarks.If this were the case he would be out on his ass, tell me you can comprehend this!

 

[lapman]

As I have mentioned many times now, it is not about him implicatin FT. It is about him using his position at FT as a platform for mendacious remarks.If this were the case he would be out on his ass, tell me you can comprehend this!

As I've stated before, yes, you would be correct if that were true. How many time do I have to remind you that he was never using his position at FT as a platform for anything. He only mentions his FT employment as to his reason for being in the tower that weekend. Nothing more. Please tell me you can comprehend that.

 

[BillyRayValentine]

First, learn the difference betweem spoof and satire. Satire is humour for a moral purpose...

Well, I see why this argument is going nowhere. You haven't a clue about the definition of satire. "Humor for a moral purpose" describes but one form, among many, many others. It's not even close to being "the" definition of the term. It's an example, that's it.

Your attempt at distinguishing between spoof and satire is equally inept, particularly as it relates to Sacha Baron Cohen's characters. Again, a spoof is another form of satire, albeit one that isn't mean-spirited.

Which defines Cohen's work. His satirical characters and their interactions with others (spoofs, if you prefer) rarely cause a stir (at least among reasonable people) because they don't caricature anyone - they caricature everyone. And they do so in a comedic, disarming way.

In general, you seem to be confused by the real intent of most of his work. Obviously, his goal first and foremost is to make people laugh. But in terms of his satire, his real target is rarely the group(s) his character stereotypes. His target is the stereotype itself. Which is why his work conjures up stereotypes pertaining to pretty much every group imaginable.

P.S. Since you refuse to acknowledge the racism in your motorbike comment and persist with that ridiculous analogy, how about you perform a little test. Next time you're in a large, ethnically diverse group, intentionally drop something small that will break. When it does, yell out "Man, that thing came apart like a Chinese motorbike". See how well it's received.

 

[BillyRayValentine]

As I've stated before, yes, you would be correct if that were true. How many time do I have to remind you that he was never using his position at FT as a platform for anything. He only mentions his FT employment as to his reason for being in the tower that weekend. Nothing more. Please tell me you can comprehend that.

We'll never know if he can comprehend this, but we can be certain he'll never acknowledge it. That much is clear.

 

[BillyRayValentine]

What you have done here is illustrate precisely why FT are not firing him. If he was tellign the truth, he would be able to sue for a lot, and get publicity. If he was lying, he would not. Hence this would indicate he is telling the truth.

You have stated (or at least strongly implied) that he has been threatened with termination if he doesn't pipe down. Whether he is telling the truth or not, such threats are highly illegal (and without question legally actionable). He'd already be in a position to "sue for a lot and get publicity". Firms can't go around coercing their employees with respect to things they say as private citizens, except in very limited (and rare) cases, as already explained. Since you appear incapable of understanding why and persist with your "he used FT as a platform" nonsense, let's move on to the scenario where he's telling the truth.

As I mentioned above, if he is telling the truth and has been threatened in some fashion by FT, he already has a slam-dunk case. You've implied that such threats have been widespread (hence the lack of corroboration), so the pool of potential witnesses to support his claims regarding both the event and the subsequent threats would be huge. Any and all of these witnesses would be able to corroborate his story with impunity, even if they were also previously threatened by their employers (FT or otherwise). There is no possible way they would be fired for testifying, particularly because they'd be telling the truth. And those who were threatened would get the added benefit of joining in on the fun. An avalanche of class action suits would follow, and a whole lot of people wouldn't have to worry about cash again any time soon.

Alternatively, he could keep saying what he was ordered not to, and hope they live up to their threats to fire him. In this scenario, the damages would be astronomical. And the case would be that much easier.

Anyway, this has become tiresome as well. I had no idea that you'd go to such lengths to defend this lying moron, else I never would have commented on your evening with him. The bottom line is that your worldview impels you to defend the indefensible, an asinine fairy tale that couldn't possibly be true. And the most compelling reason you've given, the only one that isn't fatally botched by your ignorance regarding office towers, employment law, etc., is that he's self-effacing, humble, soft-spoken and all that.

Have you ever considered the possibility that maybe he's just slow?