| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009
|
 Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 11:18 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| wobbler wrote: | Since the thrust of the argument presented so far seems to base itself on the use of the word 'holiday' as opposed to 'vacation', I wonder what would be made of this -
| Quote: | Executive Order 11582--Observance of holidays by Government agencies
Source: The provisions of Executive Order 11582 of Feb. 11, 1971, appear at 36 FR 2957, 3 CFR, 1971-1975 Comp., p. 539, unless otherwise noted.
By virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Except as provided in section 7, this order shall apply to all executive departments, independent agencies, and Government corporations, including their field services.
Sec. 2. As used in this order:
(a) Holiday means the first day of January, the third Monday of February, the last Monday of May, the fourth day of July, the first Monday of September, the second Monday of October, the fourth Monday of October,1 the fourth Thursday of November, the twenty-fifth day of December, or any other calendar day designated as a holiday by Federal statute or Executive order.2
(b) Workday means those hours which comprise in sequence the employee's regular daily toor of duty within any 24-hour period, whether falling entirely within one calendar day or not.
Sec. 3. (a) Any employee whose basic workweek does not include Sunday and who would ordinarily be excused from work on a holiday falling within his basic workweek shall be excused from work on the next workday of his basic workweek whenever a holiday falls on Sunday.
(b) Any employee whose basic workweek includes Sunday and who would ordinarily be excused from work on a holiday falling within his basic workweek shall be excused from work on the next workday of his basic workweek whenever a holiday falls on a day that has been administratively scheduled as his regular weekly nonworkday in lieu of Sunday.
Sec. 4. The holiday for a full-time employee for whom the head of a department has established the first 40 hours of duty performed within a period of not more than six days of the administrative workweek as his basic workweek because of the impracticability of prescribing a regular schedule of definite hours of duty for each workday, shall be determined as follows:
(a) If a holiday occurs on Sunday, the head of the department shall designate in advance either Sunday or Monday as the employee's holiday and the employee's basic 40-hour tour of duty shall be deemed to include eight hours on the day designated as the employee's holiday.
(b) If a holiday occurs on Saturday, the head of the department shall designate in advance either the Saturday or the preceding Friday as the employee's holiday and the employee's basic 40-hour tour of duty shall be deemed to include eight hours on the day designated as the employee's holiday.
(c) If a holiday occurs on any other day of the week, that day shall be the employee's holiday, and the employee's basic 40-hour tour of duty shall be deemed to include eight hours on that day.
(d) When a holiday is less than a full day, proportionate credit will be given under paragraph (a), (b), or (c) of this section.
Sec. 5. Any employee whose workday covers portions of two calendar days and who would, except for this section, ordinarily be excused from work scheduled for the hours of any calendar day on which a holiday falls, shall instead be excused from work on his entire workday which commences on any such calendar day.
Sec. 6. In administering the provisions of law relating to pay and leave of absence, the workdays referred to in sections 3, 4, and 5 shall be treated as holidays in lieu of the corresponding calendar holidays.
Sec. 7. The provisions of this order shall apply to officers and employees of the Post Office Department and the United States Postal Service (except that sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 shall not apply to the Postal Field Service) until changed by the Postal Service in accordance with the Postal Reorganization Act.
Sec. 8. Executive Order No. 10358 of June 9, 1952, entitled Observance of Holidays by Government Agencies, and amendatory Executive Orders No. 11226 of May 27, 1965, and No. 11272 of February 23, 1966, are revoked.
Sec. 9. This order is effective as of January 1, 1971.
1 Editorial note: The observance of Veterans Day was changed to November 11 by Pub. L. 94-97 (89 Stat. 479, 5 U.S.C. 6103), effective Jan. 1, 1978.
2 Editorial note: The birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr., was made a legal public holiday by Pub. L. 98-144 (97 Stat. 917, 5 U.S.C. 6103 nt.) and is observed on the third Monday in January. |
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/ 11582.html
Or what about the language here -
http://www.opm.gov/fedhol/2007.asp
Getting all suspicious about a document because it uses a word which is firmly within the language of the country in question seems odd to me. |
Your missing the point - in the USA a holiday is time off work whilst a trip abroad is a vacation
However in the UK - holiday covers both time off work and trips abroad |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 12:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
But, given the word is common parlance, to asume that a government document is fake largely on the basis that a single work is used in a slight variation of the strict usage you claim is soimething of an extraordinary leap (and in American usage, a vacation does not necessitate a trip abroad. Someone from San Francisco may take their vacation in Las Vegas. - given a significant number of Americans don't own a passport (how many? http://www.gyford.com/phil/writing/2003/01/31/how_many_america.php), let alone use them, there may not be a terrific number of 'vacations' going on under that definition.
The usual method of establishing the veracity of a document is to check the reference number fits, check the author and their signature, check the department that issued it etc.
Have you researched L L Lemnitzer? Do you have any actual evidence he didn't produce the document?
And again - how on earth could it possibly be any use whatsoever in precipitating a 'one world government?(SG summed it up nicely anyway. In case you hadn't noticed, large corporations already own pretty much everything).
Outside of history, political history and 'conspiracy theory', what actual impact has it had?
How could the actions of a government decades ago have any possible bearing on the Bush administration? It's like saying an explosive document about a false flag during Suez would bring down Blair.
Can you demonstrate how it is/will be used?
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
THETRUTHWILLSETU3
9/11 Truth critic
Joined: 23 Jan 2006
Posts: 1009
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 1:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| wobbler wrote: | But, given the word is common parlance, to asume that a government document is fake largely on the basis that a single work is used in a slight variation of the strict usage you claim is soimething of an extraordinary leap (and in American usage, a vacation does not necessitate a trip abroad. Someone from San Francisco may take their vacation in Las Vegas. - given a significant number of Americans don't own a passport (how many? http://www.gyford.com/phil/writing/2003/01/31/how_many_america.php), let alone use them, there may not be a terrific number of 'vacations' going on under that definition.
The usual method of establishing the veracity of a document is to check the reference number fits, check the author and their signature, check the department that issued it etc.
Have you researched L L Lemnitzer? Do you have any actual evidence he didn't produce the document?
And again - how on earth could it possibly be any use whatsoever in precipitating a 'one world government?(SG summed it up nicely anyway. In case you hadn't noticed, large corporations already own pretty much everything).
Outside of history, political history and 'conspiracy theory', what actual impact has it had?
How could the actions of a government decades ago have any possible bearing on the Bush administration? It's like saying an explosive document about a false flag during Suez would bring down Blair.
Can you demonstrate how it is/will be used? |
The Americans do not use the word holiday to describe the activity of having time off work in a place other than where they normally live for rest relaxation and recreation - they call this a vacation - period |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 1:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Why has this gone to critics corner?
Which is -
| Quote: | | For critics of the 9/11 Truth Campaign |
How does a dispute about whether the Northwoods document is fake or not fit into this definition?
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 1:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I do think it odd that a US Army document should use the word "holiday" in a context where an American would naturally write "vacation" and I noticed it the first time I read the document, but then that is rather the point, it certainly jumped out at me, and surely anyone faking such a document, an extremely difficult undertaking, would not make a crass error like that? I think it merely suggests that the author, whoever he was, had an vocabulary that was slightly idiosyncratic for an American. Perhaps Lemnitzer's staff offficer had recently spent some time seconded to the British Army, there could be many reasons, I do not think it proves anything.
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 1:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | The Americans do not use the word holiday to describe the activity of having time off work in a place other than where they normally live for rest relaxation and recreation - they call this a vacation - period |
This could go on all day. Suffice to say that to assert that millions of Americans use a set word in a specific manner with zero deviation and to extrapolate from this conviction that a government document that deviates in such a manner is therefore fake is, in my book, unconvincing and a bit of a leap.
Since this is now inexplicably in critics corner, lets see what our American patrons have to say.
And regarding my other questions...?
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 5:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| wobbler wrote: | Why has this gone to critics corner?
Which is -
| Quote: | | For critics of the 9/11 Truth Campaign |
How does a dispute about whether the Northwoods document is fake or not fit into this definition? |
Critics' Corner seems to be be also a "sin bin" for heresy amongst the faithful, and the wildly out of control (Ally currently, but the no-planers are heading that way!), as well as established critics. The Northwoods document is holy writ for conspiracists, so questioning its authenticity is blatant heresy.
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dogsmilk
Mighty Poster
Joined: 06 Oct 2006
Posts: 1616
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 6:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, if you're right Bushwacker, I would disagree.
Much as I fail to be convinced by TTWSU3, I don't see why he/she shouldn't question the document if he/she believes it to be a fake. It's not critical of 'trutherism'.
And vice-versa.
_________________
It's a man's life in MOSSAD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TimmyG
Validated Poster
Joined: 04 Apr 2006
Posts: 489
Location: Manchester
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 27, 2006 10:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
.
_________________
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Abandoned Ego
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Sep 2005
Posts: 288
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 11:03 am Post subject: Northwoods fakes. |
|
|
The Northwoods fakes comedy issues first appeared courtesy of a certain Carol Valentine, who just conveniently happens to spout holocaust denial amidst her list of notable historical opinions.
Anyone looking for spooks on the internet, would do well to list her amidst ones favourites.
And any genuine 9/11 truthseekers, as especially the critics in this particular region of the board, should surely understand that one of the fundamental targets of intel is to sow confusion amidst the masses in order to protect the interests of the few.
Cue Carol Valentine.
As to my friends in this corner of the board meanwhile, did any of you manage to get past point one of this ?
http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2004/08/coincidence-theorists-gu ide-to-911.html
Last time I saw, you were floundering on point one, and seemed to abandon the effort in favour of talking about the nist report and "non sequiteurs"
Have another look at that link, and then go and have a long look at yourself in the mirror. Theres only one person you cannot lie to ultimately. And that person will be looking back at you in the mirror. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 11:39 am Post subject: Re: Northwoods fakes. |
|
|
| Abandoned Ego wrote: | The Northwoods fakes comedy issues first appeared courtesy of a certain Carol Valentine, who just conveniently happens to spout holocaust denial amidst her list of notable historical opinions.
Anyone looking for spooks on the internet, would do well to list her amidst ones favourites.
And any genuine 9/11 truthseekers, as especially the critics in this particular region of the board, should surely understand that one of the fundamental targets of intel is to sow confusion amidst the masses in order to protect the interests of the few.
Cue Carol Valentine.
As to my friends in this corner of the board meanwhile, did any of you manage to get past point one of this ?
http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2004/08/coincidence-theorists-gu ide-to-911.html
Last time I saw, you were floundering on point one, and seemed to abandon the effort in favour of talking about the nist report and "non sequiteurs"
Have another look at that link, and then go and have a long look at yourself in the mirror. Theres only one person you cannot lie to ultimately. And that person will be looking back at you in the mirror. |
Once you get into the habit of seeing conspiracies everywhere, it becomes ingrained. That is what Carol Valentine is doing with the Northwoods document, and that is just what you are doing with Carol Valentine herself.
I do not know what you want us to do with the document you posted, or whether indeed it is meant to be taken seriously in any way. Point one is merely a vague assertion, and most of the rest is liable to produce the response "and what exactly is the point you are making?" eg Marvin Bush being on the board of the security company, indeed he was, as a non-executive, but left the year before 9/11. Is the assumption that he was therefore able to tell the security guards to look the other way while teams of men carrying explosives came into the towers to set them up for demolition? If so, it is very unconvincing.
This seems to be simply an attempt to make something out of nothing, no real evidence being in existence some sort of case is attempted by stringing together stuff like this, but you could make a case for absolutely anything at all in the same fashion.
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Abandoned Ego
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Sep 2005
Posts: 288
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 3:33 pm Post subject: Re: Northwoods fakes. |
|
|
| Quote: | | This seems to be simply an attempt to make something out of nothing, no real evidence being in existence some sort of case is attempted by stringing together stuff like this, but you could make a case for absolutely anything at all in the same fashion |
Have a good read that the above quote from your own hand. Then go back and have another look at that article. Have a look at the wealth of evidence contained therein, and compare that with your spurious microexamination of the "failings of Loose Change 2", and then go and have a look in the mirror.
Oh, and perhaps you can have a look at this before you go to the mirror too;
Dr Franics A. Boyle literally helped write the law with regards to terrorism, as he was responsible for drafting the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 that was passed unanimously by both Houses of Congress and signed into law by President Bush Snr.
Professor Boyle teaches international law at the University of Illinois, Champaign. He holds a Doctor of Law Magna Cum Laude as well as a Ph.D. in Political Science, both from Harvard University. He has also served on the Board of Directors of Amnesty International (1988-1992), and represented Bosnia- Herzegovina at the World Court.
The professor started off by explaining the motivation behind the October 2001 anthrax attacks:
"After the September 11th 2001 Terrorist attacks, the Bush administration tried to ram the USA PATRIOT Act through Congress, that would have, if already had not, set up a police state. And we know for a fact that the PATRIOT Act had already been drafted and was sitting on Ashcroft's desk as of September 10th.
Senators Daschle and Leahy were holding it up because they realised what this would lead to, indeed the first draft of the Patriot Act, they would have suspended the writ of habeas corpus. And all of a sudden out of nowhere come these anthrax attacks. And at the time I myself did not know precisely what was going on, either with respect to September 11th or the anthrax attacks, but then the New York Times revealed that the technology behind the letter to Senator Daschle. A trillion spores per gram, special electro-static treatment.
This is super-weapons grade Anthrax that even the United States government, in its openly proclaimed programs, and we had one before Nixon, had never developed before. So it was obvious to me that this was from a US Government lab, there is no where else you could have gotten that."
Dr Boyle proceeded to call a very high level official in the FBI who deals with terrorism and counter-terrorism, Spike Bowman, whom he had met at a terrorism conference at the University of Michigan Law School.
He told Bowman that the only people that would have the capability to carry out the attacks were people working on US government programs on Anthrax and with access to high level a bio-safety lab. Dr Boyle went through all the names, the contractors and the labs for Anthrax work with the FBI's Bowman.
Bowman then informed Dr Boyle that the FBI was working with Fort Detrick on the matter, to which he responded that Fort Detrick could really be the main problem.
It was documented at the time that the anthrax strain used was military grade. This was widely reported in 2002 in publications such as the New Scientist.
"Soon after I had informed Bowman of this information, the FBI authorised the destruction of the AMES cultural Anthrax database." The Professor continued.
The destruction of the anthrax culture collection at Ames, IA., from which the Ft. Detrick lab got its pathogens, was blatant destruction of evidence as it meant that there was no way of finding out which strain was sent to who to develop the larger breed of anthrax used in the attacks. The trail of genetic evidence would have led directly back to a secret but officially-sponsored US government biowarfare program that was illegal and criminal.
Link http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewtopic.php?t=10037
Perhaps you might get the JRandi team to set about microexamining the odd comma out of place in this article too, instead of the obvious lie that more islamic terrorists sent the Anthrax, and rather like the passport in the rubble, we have a note to prove it.
There really is nowhere for your conscience to hide. I wish you well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 28, 2006 5:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If you are going to post great chunks of Alex Jones's website you might at least acknowledge him! Francis Boyle is a very controversial figure, not simply a law professor. His views on the anthrax attacks are interesting, but very much his own idiosyncratic point of view. It is not now thought that the anthrax used was weaponised. It has certainly not been established that the trail leads back to the US government, in fact Israel is more often suggested. Boyle says the Patriot Act was drafted before 9/11, but as far as I know has not proved it. I certainly would not defend it, or of course Bush, perhaps the worst president in American history.
I have not done a "microexamination of the "failings of Loose Change 2", spurious or otherwise. It does of course have many failings.
My conscience is completely clear, I wonder if those who regularly lie about evidence of an inside job, yet claim to be truth-seekers, can say the same. Some people in your movement are genuinely looking for the truth, but it seems most are all too willing to fake the evidence to fit their beliefs.
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MadgeB
Moderate Poster
Joined: 14 Nov 2006
Posts: 164
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
