The 9/11 Conspiracy Facts

[BillyRayValentine]

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.

Ok, last try at clearing this up for you.

Kevin Ryan worked at Underwriter's Laboratories (as a water tester). He publicly made false claims about UL, namely that they had certified all the steel in the world trade center. He both stated and implied that UL had done this work, and that the firm was lying when it said otherwise. He was shown the door.

Scott Forbes worked (works?) at Fiduciary Trust. He publicly made false claims about the Port Authority powering-down half of WTC2, the building in which he worked. He neither stated nor implied anything about FT's behavior (except maybe to you).

Maybe these situations mirror each other in fantasy land, but here on earth they're not remotely comparable.

He probably was spoken to, and warned not to connect FT with his absurd claims in any way (since they're false). This would explain quite neatly his reticence to subsequently defend either the claims or his character. In fact, in the only other comments I've seen from him, his story has changed noticeably since that initial letter. Unambiguous claims suddenly morphed into qualified drivel ("Well, I can't say with certainty that other floors didn't have power", etc.).

The red flags are everywhere, if only you'd choose to open your eyes.

 

[funk de fino]

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.



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.



as above



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



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.



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.



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.

alternative source of power?, now that changes everything then, this means he is lying when he says there was a complete power down from floor 50 up, glad you have cleared that up for us

if this is a rational explanation then surely Scott could have thought of this?

this is what is commonly known as moving the goalposts, stick to his claims not your speculation

the rest of your post is a travesty for someone so bright as yourself

HR are impinging his freedoms to attend events yet he attends them?

If I travelled to the US with my job, as I do, and I protested that 911 is an inside job with some truthers at the location I was at then HR from my company found out, would I be fired?

If they have also been googling then they would know he has been attending 911 meetings and going onto post on messageboards and he will be getting his P45 soon?

He is not using any position as a FT employee to accuse anyone of anything, all he is saying is that there was a complete power down in that tower that weekend, how could this be construed as gross disrepute if he makes no claims about FT? Unless you are saying he thinks FT were in on as well, which i see no evidence of? If they were in on it then he needs to spill the beans? Why would you want to continue to work for a company you suspect of being involved in these murders? If it were me, I would grass them and get another job elsewhere

What would you do?

This is the UK he comes under UK employment laws, if they sacked him for this they would have to to to an Industrial tribunal and say why they sacked him. They would lose if they sacked him for this.

You never answered about Tower 1, why did it not have the same power down?

In really am astonished at the level of rubbish in that last post, you have dissappointed me, I thought you were better than that

 

[funk de fino]

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.

Part in bold is even more ludicrous than your previous posting I replied to

You managed to beat it, I am amazed

Industrial Tribunals are not protracted, expensive lawsuits, this is not the USA

Last time I looked we have the right to free speech as long as it is not racist, bigotted, inciting violence or slanderous, under what circumstance would your friend be fired in the UK for talking about 911?

Are your friends employers googling him too?, are google in on it?

At the start of this thread I had high hopes for you, as I had said, you seemed different than the other truthers you normally get. As this thread has moved on you have just reverted to type and this really dissappoints me

 

[mjd1982]

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.

No, it is his employment at FT that serves as the platform for him to make his claims. He is making his claims based on a "false" experience he had at work, in order to intimate the gov blew up the TTs. This is so damn easy to understand, why can you not? I have already shown to you that if you lied about an experience you had at work to implicate the gov in the murder of US citizens, you would be out on your ass. Why can you not see/admit to this?

 

[mjd1982]

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.

Err... trust me on this one my friend, being high handed with me aint gonna get you very far.

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.

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.

Hence why I said they werent mutually exclusive. 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.

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.

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?

In general, you seem to be confused by the real intent of most of his work.

Oh please...

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.

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

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.

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!

 

[mjd1982]

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).

Absolulte horseplop. If he lies about an experience about an experience he had at work to implicate the US gov in killing thousands of US citizens, he will be out on his ass. Do you know what bringing a company into disrepute means? Transpose that situation to one of yours at work- you make up an event in order to show that the gov was behind 911, and think what would happen to you

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.

Oh please. If he is making up experiences he had at FT, and communications he had from them, also implying that they are covering it up, and thus that they have a role in 911, he will be out on his ass for bringing the company into disrepute .

Tell me why this is so hard for you to comprehend, aside from intransigence

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.

Not threatened, just nudged and winked, which is very different. He cannot sue for that.

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.

Hence why FT will not fire him for it, since he is telling the truth, It is a very simple experiment. Were he lying, he would be out of there in a flash. But he's not, so he isnt, as you illustrate why.

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.

If he wanted to go down that route.

Anyway, this has become tiresome as well. I had no idea that you'd go to such lengths to defend this lying moron,

Astonishing. Who is the lying moron again? I think you have some serious thinking to do my friend...

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.

???

This is self deception at the highest level!

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

What the hell does this have to do with anything? Are you feeling ok?

 

[funk de fino]

If you spoof the behaviour of a boring person, are you being satirical?

was Spitting Image satirical comedy?

or spoof?

that chinese remark is racist mate, like it or not

 

[mjd1982]

Ok, last try at clearing this up for you.

Kevin Ryan worked at Underwriter's Laboratories (as a water tester). He publicly made false claims about UL, namely that they had certified all the steel in the world trade center. He both stated and implied that UL had done this work, and that the firm was lying when it said otherwise. He was shown the door.

Scott Forbes worked (works?) at Fiduciary Trust. He publicly made false claims about the Port Authority powering-down half of WTC2, the building in which he worked. He neither stated nor implied anything about FT's behavior (except maybe to you).

Other than that they told him about the power down, something in which they would have to be fully involved, both in the implementation and the subsequent cover up.

Moreover, he is, you claim, fabricating a work experience to implicate the gov in 911, and possibly FT as well.. Tell me you can understand this, this is 5 year old basic.

Maybe these situations mirror each other in fantasy land, but here on earth they're not remotely comparable.

Dude, please...

He probably was spoken to, and warned not to connect FT with his absurd claims in any way (since they're false). This would explain quite neatly his reticence to subsequently defend either the claims or his character. In fact, in the only other comments I've seen from him, his story has changed noticeably since that initial letter. Unambiguous claims suddenly morphed into qualified drivel ("Well, I can't say with certainty that other floors didn't have power", etc.).

Please read before you post. He has been nudged and winked, which, as I have told you an astonishing number of times, is very different from being warned- this is precisely the opposite of what has happened. He has not been warned to stop lying, just nudged to stop talking about it.

Again, to repeat a now common refrain with you, understand this simple premise, and you wil understand a lot more.

 

[mjd1982]

was Spitting Image satirical comedy?

or spoof?

that chinese remark is racist mate, like it or not

Come on dude, I dont ask a lot. Just please read my posts before you reply to them.

Spoof can be satirical when it comes under the banner of humour for a moral purpose.

But not all satire is spoof (have I got news for you, the daily show e.g)

When Borat goes to the rodeo and shouts "We support your war of terror" and everyone applauds, there isa moral purpose there- exposing the idiocy of those people who suport the WOT. When he sings the Kazakh national anthem boasting about potassium production, there is no satire there, just spoof of our preconceptions of what someone from that part of the world might be like.

Oh, and re the chinese remark, tell me whether you find Borat racist.

 

[mjd1982]

alternative source of power?, now that changes everything then, this means he is lying when he says there was a complete power down from floor 50 up, glad you have cleared that up for us

My explanation deals with an alternative source of power, one that would power, say the observation deck et al, but not the main parts of the building,which would have been the relevant parts for what Scott is implying

if this is a rational explanation then surely Scott could have thought of this?

this is what is commonly known as moving the goalposts, stick to his claims not your speculation

For the moment, I will have to speculate, since he was not asked about this, and so I am illustrating to you how there are sensible explanations for this minor anomaly which would prevent you from having to explain a major one,i.e. how he could be implicating his employer in a 911 cover up and not get fired.

the rest of your post is a travesty for someone so bright as yourself

HR are impinging his freedoms to attend events yet he attends them?

He would not be able to do a la Wille Rodriguez. He is not tagged, so he is able to attend the odd event- 2 in the last ~9 mths. Please tell me this is not unreasonable.

If I travelled to the US with my job, as I do, and I protested that 911 is an inside job with some truthers at the location I was at then HR from my company found out, would I be fired?

But ive told you this before. YOu would not be using your platform as an emplyee to make false claims about 911 tha would implicate your companu in the cover up. If you did, you would be fired like that.

If they have also been googling then they would know he has been attending 911 meetings and going onto post on messageboards and he will be getting his P45 soon?

How so? Google my name you wont find anything on 911, yet I am pretty active (bullhorned Parliament last 11th)

He is not using any position as a FT employee to accuse anyone of anything, all he is saying is that there was a complete power down in that tower that weekend, how could this be construed as gross disrepute if he makes no claims about FT? Unless you are saying he thinks FT were in on as well, which i see no evidence of? If they were in on it then he needs to spill the beans? Why would you want to continue to work for a company you suspect of being involved in these murders? If it were me, I would grass them and get another job elsewhere

That is what you would do; well done you. He is implicating, as you have correctly inferred, that they are to some degree in on the cover up. Hence if he were making this claim based on a lie, he woudl be fired in a second, as would you or anyone else.

What would you do?

This is the UK he comes under UK employment laws, if they sacked him for this they would have to to to an Industrial tribunal and say why they sacked him. They would lose if they sacked him for this.

Errr... for stating that your employer is behind a 911 cover up? Covering up klling 3000 people? Think through that one again, i think

You never answered about Tower 1, why did it not have the same power down?

I dont know, nor is it relevant to whether Scott's story is true.

 

[funk de fino]

Oh please. If he is making up experiences he had at FT, and communications he had from them, also implying that they are covering it up, and thus that they have a role in 911, he will be out on his ass for bringing the company into disrepute .

Not threatened, just nudged and winked, which is very different. He cannot sue for that.

Hence why FT will not fire him for it, since he is telling the truth, It is a very simple experiment. Were he lying, he would be out of there in a flash. But he's not, so he isnt, as you illustrate why.

Do they know that he is claiming that he got this communication from them about the power down? I have only heard you claim this

Where has he implied that they are covering up anything? He never accused them of being behind the power down or 911, if they were involved then surely he must report his suspicions?

You said he has been hassled by HR to keep quiet, not a nudge nidge wink wink

You have already given many "rational" explanations for all the inconsistencies in his story when they have been pointed out

Isn't the most rational one that he exagerrated the extent of the power down? A mistake that has been magnified by the truthers?

Above that floor were there any other companies who would have been affected by a lack of security doors or cameras? banking or financial?

 

[Unsecured Coins]

First I want your proof that HR is harassing people to stay quiet.

 

[mjd1982]

Part in bold is even more ludicrous than your previous posting I replied to

You managed to beat it, I am amazed

Industrial Tribunals are not protracted, expensive lawsuits, this is not the USA

Last time I looked we have the right to free speech as long as it is not racist, bigotted, inciting violence or slanderous, under what circumstance would your friend be fired in the UK for talking about 911?

Are your friends employers googling him too?, are google in on it?

At the start of this thread I had high hopes for you, as I had said, you seemed different than the other truthers you normally get. As this thread has moved on you have just reverted to type and this really dissappoints me

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.

And why would they google his name anyway? Just to check if he was a 911 truther?

 

[funk de fino]

Come on dude, I dont ask a lot. Just please read my posts before you reply to them.

Spoof can be satirical when it comes under the banner of humour for a moral purpose.

But not all satire is spoof (have I got news for you, the daily show e.g)

When Borat goes to the rodeo and shouts "We support your war of terror" and everyone applauds, there isa moral purpose there- exposing the idiocy of those people who suport the WOT. When he sings the Kazakh national anthem boasting about potassium production, there is no satire there, just spoof of our preconceptions of what someone from that part of the world might be like.

Oh, and re the chinese remark, tell me whether you find Borat racist.

listen pal, i read your post and i asked you a question that required you to say whether you thought it was a satirical comedy or spoof comedy

which is it?

if any other answer is given i just want to know your reasons

is the following racist?

"it went down faster than a thai hooker"

"more chins that the chinese phone book"

I happen to think Borat is racist and so do the Kazak techs i work with

 

[volatile]

My explanation deals with an alternative source of power, one that would power, say the observation deck et al, but not the main parts of the building,which would have been the relevant parts for what Scott is implying

This is why your opinions are called "conspiracy theory", and why no-one with an ounce of logic takes you seriously. Your opinions are utterly unfalsifiable - when it's shown, and conclusively so, that you are utterly, utterly wrong in your assertions, you invent, from thin air, a speculative, convoluted method whereby, in your mind, it could still be true.

We can point out any flaws with your arguments, and with CT arguments in general, and the weasling always continue. "The photos are fakes!" "The media are in on in!". "Black ops!". "Secret technology!".

There is nothing we can say, and no evidence we could provide, to show you the error of your ways if you persist in maintaining this mindset. It is utterly pointless debating with you, or providing rational discourse or material evidence, because there is always a sci-fi-esque deus ex machina, or convoluted plot you could construct to ensure your version of events might, just might have happened the way you maintain it did.

 

[DGM]

Err... trust me on this one my friend, being high handed with me aint gonna get you very far.

This coming from a man that hasn't made a single point in 58 pages. Too funny!

 

[funk de fino]

My explanation deals with an alternative source of power, one that would power, say the observation deck et al, but not the main parts of the building,which would have been the relevant parts for what Scott is implying

For the moment, I will have to speculate, since he was not asked about this, and so I am illustrating to you how there are sensible explanations for this minor anomaly which would prevent you from having to explain a major one,i.e. how he could be implicating his employer in a 911 cover up and not get fired.

He would not be able to do a la Wille Rodriguez. He is not tagged, so he is able to attend the odd event- 2 in the last ~9 mths. Please tell me this is not unreasonable.



But ive told you this before. YOu would not be using your platform as an emplyee to make false claims about 911 tha would implicate your companu in the cover up. If you did, you would be fired like that.

How so? Google my name you wont find anything on 911, yet I am pretty active (bullhorned Parliament last 11th)

That is what you would do; well done you. He is implicating, as you have correctly inferred, that they are to some degree in on the cover up. Hence if he were making this claim based on a lie, he woudl be fired in a second, as would you or anyone else.

Errr... for stating that your employer is behind a 911 cover up? Covering up klling 3000 people? Think through that one again, i think

I dont know, nor is it relevant to whether Scott's story is true.

You have made an excuse for Scotts inadequacies in the story that have been exposed, there is a difference. He has not made the same rational explanations.

And it is not a minor anomaly in his story, it is a major one it has proved that he was mistaken in his assertion that there was a complete power down for 26/36 hours in that tower from the 50th floor up. This is his main claim and this shows it to be untrue or at the least he is mistaken.

I have seen nowhere that he is implying at any point that FT were resposible for any cover up

You have made that implication

If he is sure then he must report it, if he goes to tribunal and proves his case then he is home free

If not he has to look for another job with a company without blood on there hands

How simple and ethical is that choice?

Does FT know that he is implicating them in 911?

I would not be using my company anymore than Scott was, so no I would not be fired

They have specifically told him not to attend 911 meetings then have they?

If he accused them of being implicated in it then they sacked him it would go to tribunal and he could prove his case by brining other employees in to confirm his story about the 50 floor up power down? They have to prove he is lying remember.

If he was immediately convinced that the power down had something to do with it then surely other employees did as well? They would back him up if he was sacked for NOT lying

They google his name and this post comes up and they see that you are claiming that he has attended meetings then he gets fired? As ridiculous as it sounds it was you that first claimed they monitor the net for him? If they are doing this what is to stop them getting a PI to fully investigate him?

tower 1 is just as irrelevant as his real name remark was earlier

 

[mjd1982]

listen pal, i read your post and i asked you a question that required you to say whether you thought it was a satirical comedy or spoof comedy

which is it?

if any other answer is given i just want to know your reasons

is the following racist?

"it went down faster than a thai hooker"

"more chins that the chinese phone book"

I happen to think Borat is racist and so do the Kazak techs i work with

Ok, good, you think he is racist. Thats fine.

I thought the answer for SI was clear- it is a spoof, and is also (was) satirical.

 

[mjd1982]

This is why your opinions are called "conspiracy theory", and why no-one with an ounce of logic takes you seriously. Your opinions are utterly unfalsifiable - when it's shown, and conclusively so, that you are utterly, utterly wrong in your assertions, you invent, from thin air, a speculative, convoluted method whereby, in your mind, it could still be true.

We can point out any flaws with your arguments, and with CT arguments in general, and the weasling always continue. "The photos are fakes!" "The media are in on in!". "Black ops!". "Secret technology!".

There is nothing we can say, and no evidence we could provide, to show you the error of your ways if you persist in maintaining this mindset. It is utterly pointless debating with you, or providing rational discourse or material evidence, because there is always a sci-fi-esque deus ex machina, or convoluted plot you could construct to ensure your version of events might, just might have happened the way you maintain it did.

What a ridiculous post...

1) Where have I ever said any of that garbage?

2) The point i was making was intentionally speculative, and was done to illustrate a point. If you and your fellow fantasists took the time to read my posts before responding to them, you would not be languishing in the mire you currently are.

 

[mjd1982]

This coming from a man that hasn't made a single point in 58 pages. Too funny!

No, thats just your capacitiesof comprehension I'm afraid...