The Truth Behind 9/11

[tameelf]

ans stop being a drama queen if i was stevie i would not repy

 

so bann him put uo or shut up ..........how long to go?

[The Old Git]

you are, in fact trying to stop free speech on the island with the oldest democracy in the world.

 

Parliament, not democracy - they're not necessarily the same thing.

[Dr_Dave]

The total dereliction of responsibility of the entire Bush regime - and their then use of this issue to persue an entirely unconnected issue - Iraq - is one of the biggest inditements of Bush imaginable - I basically agree he has been the worst US president in History. But the idea he used his Nazi and Big Business connections to deliberately plan or allow 911 to occur is a fantasy world - I have seen no evidence what so ever for it and the suppositions the Conspiracists use to make their allegations are just distorted ravings.

 

This is bang on the money, and highlights how dangerous stevie and his ilk actually are. See, the true irony about this whole thing is that there is a conspiracy here, a conspiracy of equal importance - if not scope - to the conspiracies raved about by the "truthers".

 

Look at the world since 11/9/2001. We have a catastrophic string of intelligence failures (at the very least, as Chinahand points out). We have an entire city of emergency workers who have been all but abandoned following their exposure to the dust of the WTC. We've got a government who stood before the UN and the world and lied about another country's military capability, and then staged a probably illegal invasion of that country. We have the mass murder of innocent Iraqis and Afghans by US forces. We've got the suspension of habeas corpus, a complete disregard for the Geneva Conventions, the embrace of torture as a valid means of interrogation and the documented large scale humiliation and abuse of prisoners. And we have an unprecedented loss of civil liberties in the country that most touts civil liberties as being paramount.

 

All of these things happened. All of these things are real. Yet somehow, staggeringly, this is not enough for stevie. This is not enough rope to hang Bush et al. with. So he looks for inconsistencies in established truths. He takes a single quote amidst a thousand and uses it to "prove" hypotheses that defy common sense and can never be taken seriously. Yet somehow, he's not alone. Somehow the movement he represents has become very vocal in its ravings. Somehow, his message is drowning out the true message that everyone should be agreeing with and acting upon.

 

I expect that the upper echelons of the Bush administration rub their hands together in glee every time a new badly designed website emerges with new theories about secret public demolitions, fighter planes disguised as missiles disguised as passenger planes or any of the countless other patently absurd notions that surround this movement. Because while people are spending time endlessly pointing out the stupidity of stevie's claims, they're not talking about the fact that a country demonstrably lied in order to invade another country. They're not talking about the fact that Americans (or anyone in the world for that matter) no longer have the right to a trial before being imprisoned. They're not talking about the fact that Bush's antics have actually made another WTC, or Bali, or July 7th far more likely than they ever were before 2001.

 

stevie, I don't agree with ans' threat to ban you. But I also don't think there's anything more to gain from you. I hope that you can see that in doing what you do - in asking the particular questions that you ask and then failing to listen to the answers - that you are acting as a stooge for the very administration you claim to oppose. I hope you'll continue to ask questions, but ask the right questions. Because at the moment, you are not a heroic seeker of the truth, you're just a dick.

 

Dave

[ans]

so bann him put uo or shut up ..........how long to go?

 

Are we adding the inability to tell the time to your dubious list of skills?

[stevie]

The total dereliction of responsibility of the entire Bush regime - and their then use of this issue to persue an entirely unconnected issue - Iraq - is one of the biggest inditements of Bush imaginable - I basically agree he has been the worst US president in History. But the idea he used his Nazi and Big Business connections to deliberately plan or allow 911 to occur is a fantasy world - I have seen no evidence what so ever for it and the suppositions the Conspiracists use to make their allegations are just distorted ravings.

 

This is bang on the money, and highlights how dangerous stevie and his ilk actually are. See, the true irony about this whole thing is that there is a conspiracy here, a conspiracy of equal importance - if not scope - to the conspiracies raved about by the "truthers".

 

Look at the world since 11/9/2001. We have a catastrophic string of intelligence failures (at the very least, as Chinahand points out). We have an entire city of emergency workers who have been all but abandoned following their exposure to the dust of the WTC. We've got a government who stood before the UN and the world and lied about another country's military capability, and then staged a probably illegal invasion of that country. We have the mass murder of innocent Iraqis and Afghans by US forces. We've got the suspension of habeas corpus, a complete disregard for the Geneva Conventions, the embrace of torture as a valid means of interrogation and the documented large scale humiliation and abuse of prisoners. And we have an unprecedented loss of civil liberties in the country that most touts civil liberties as being paramount.

 

All of these things happened. All of these things are real. Yet somehow, staggeringly, this is not enough for stevie. This is not enough rope to hang Bush et al. with. So he looks for inconsistencies in established truths. He takes a single quote amidst a thousand and uses it to "prove" hypotheses that defy common sense and can never be taken seriously. Yet somehow, he's not alone. Somehow the movement he represents has become very vocal in its ravings. Somehow, his message is drowning out the true message that everyone should be agreeing with and acting upon.

 

I expect that the upper echelons of the Bush administration rub their hands together in glee every time a new badly designed website emerges with new theories about secret public demolitions, fighter planes disguised as missiles disguised as passenger planes or any of the countless other patently absurd notions that surround this movement. Because while people are spending time endlessly pointing out the stupidity of stevie's claims, they're not talking about the fact that a country demonstrably lied in order to invade another country. They're not talking about the fact that Americans (or anyone in the world for that matter) no longer have the right to a trial before being imprisoned. They're not talking about the fact that Bush's antics have actually made another WTC, or Bali, or July 7th far more likely than they ever were before 2001.

 

stevie, I don't agree with ans' threat to ban you. But I also don't think there's anything more to gain from you. I hope that you can see that in doing what you do - in asking the particular questions that you ask and then failing to listen to the answers - that you are acting as a stooge for the very administration you claim to oppose. I hope you'll continue to ask questions, but ask the right questions. Because at the moment, you are not a heroic seeker of the truth, you're just a dick.

 

Dave

 

Dave the best is yet to come! well, depending on my immenent ban.

 

but i do agree with you 100% about the illegal war on Iraq, that should be Bush's downfall and the reason to impeach him. and then hopefully we will get a public inquiry into 9/11.

 

it is very encouraging to hear that you agree bush lied to the U.N about iraq's military capability, and then staged an illegal war. i agree this issue should be addressed first, if this was a thread about iraq then i'd be right with you dave. but unfortunately, as the titlew would suggest, this is about 9/11.

 

Dave i think you have some of my ideas about 9/11 mixed up with tameelf's, as too i think has china. it seems every post i make i have to remind you that i do not believe a missile hit the pentagon, it was the 'hijacked' plane. yet you keep trying to convince evrybody by your posts that i support the "no plane at the pentagon" theory. i dismiss it 100%.

[tameelf]

so bann him put uo or shut up ..........how long to go?

 

Are we adding the inability to tell the time to your dubious list of skills?

 

ty ans and we are seeing through your moderating skills

[Dr_Dave]

Dave i think you have some of my ideas about 9/11 mixed up with tameelf's, as too i think has china. it seems every post i make i have to remind you that i do not believe a missile hit the pentagon, it was the 'hijacked' plane. yet you keep trying to convince evrybody by your posts that i support the "no plane at the pentagon" theory. i dismiss it 100%.

 

No, we've already established, to some extent, the depth of your commitment to the various truther memes. I don't want to convince anybody of your beliefs on anything, you do a good job of doing that yourself.

 

In this case, however, I was talking about the wider movement of which both you and tameelf, and Rosie O'Donnell and Charlie Sheen, are members - regardless of how loosely you affiliate yourself. A movement of people who, for whatever reason, chose to disregard testimony in favour of hearsay, science in favour of pseudo-science, common sense in favour of the absurd and the probable in favour of the unlikely.

 

To my mind, your thoughts on the fate of WTC 7 are inexorably linked to the claim that a missile hit the Pentagon, precisely because of what you have abandoned in order to reach your conclusions. tameelf may have a significantly worse command of the English language, but he is your comrade in this, and if you can coherently dismiss his claims, then I really don't see how you can cling to yours.

 

Dave

[Albert Tatlock]

I think I am really questioning your method of thinking here, and your inherent trust of official information - whilst knocking those who believe that the governments of both the UK and the US have a demonstrably poor record - and all may not be as it seems - a theme proven time and time again throughout history.

 

1] The pre attack intelligence was unclear and only with hindsight was it possible to identify the attacks were been planned.

2] The pre attack intelligence gave vauge hints of the plot, which should have been picked up and identified, but bureaucratic failure allowed it to remain uncovered.

3] The pre attack intelligence gave indications that an attack was being planned, but not its large scale scope - rather than follow this up a deliberate decision was taken to under resource it to give the US a wake up slap in the face. My basic idea is that they thought it was another car bomb or similar at the WTC - 50/100 killed/hurt, but America wakes up to the reality of terrorism in a dangerous world.

4] The pre attack intelligence gave a clear indication of the nature and scope of the attack, but the investigators are told to back off to allow it to occur in all its bloody glory.

5] The pre attack intelligence is clear, but the conspiracy activel helps the plotters realize their plans, but without collusion - the plotters have no idea they are being helped.

6] The conspiracy actively colludes with its enemies to allow the attack to occur.

7] The conspiracy runs the plot - organizing the plotters in a false flag operation.

8] The conspiracy runs the plot - organizing the plotters - and decides to fake additional explosions, hijackings etc while also undertaking insurance fraud and stock market manipulation to profit from the attack.

I think your 'scale of conspiracy' is fundamentally flawed.

 

Once again, you demonstrate your inherent trust and reliance on official information. You infer that there are only two party's involved: the 'all knowing state' and it's 'noscale to wholescale' placement on this scale; and the terrorists and their 'noscale to wholescale' involvement with an 'all knowing state'.

 

The true scale contains many more options, with a variety of probabilities and motivations. There is no such thing as an 'all knowing state' and rogue elements can exist within a state, such as that which existed during the Iraq-Contra scandal and even Watergate etc. and could have clearly operated with or without the knowledge of the state. There are also rogue elements within terrorist groups, such as when the IRA and Al Quaeda etc. have previously split into separate organisations with different objectives, and certainly other rogue motivations which have led to Arab killing Arab in Iraq. There is also a great deal of readily available money involved in the equation, which can affect both sides, and many single elements within both sides. There is also a religious fervour on both sides, and Bush, Blair and Bin-Laden etc. have publicly announced their reliance on god throughout.

 

Looking back at what has actually occurred, including: 9/11, the invasion of Aghanistan and then Iraq; the removal and execution of Saddam Hussein (who could have been a key prosecution witness against many officials from previous administrations in the US); the failure to prosecute many high profile accounting frauds through the loss of information held at the WTC; the propping up of a military dictatorship in Pakistan, the continued armament of Israel and continued failure to agree a Palestinian solution; the diverting of attention from Saudi Arabia, and the securing of the Iraq oil fields etc. etc. - then there are clearly numerous other combinations of motivations and events that could have occurred, many without the full knowledge of the state, or even the US president himself (remember history shows that most presidents and politicians have never been convicted of an act, but of covering-up the act - so wouldn't it be easier therefore to simply not involve an obviously semi-skilled puppet president?). Additionally, many acts of terrorism have previously taken place without the initial knowledge of the leadership of terrorists groups such as Al Quaeda etc.

 

In other words, if you look at the 'winners and losers' during these events, it is/was certainly in the interests of terrorists and some within finance, government (perhaps a neocon faction), religion and the intelligence services to allow this course of events to develop. It was certainly in the interests of the leadership of certain countries, such as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, for these events to have occurred. We are in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet Saudi Arabia (where most of the terrorists involved in 911 came from) is rarely mentioned. There are other complications and combinations rarely mentioned, such as Israel, Iran etc.

 

The course of events highlights many motivations all with a variety of probabilities, and in conjunction with the poor level of official information that exists, does nothing other than fuel conspiracy theorists. Any investigator takes into account motive.

 

If you trust in an 'all knowing state' and base your opinions on that, then personally I believe that you have not even begun to work out the true possibilities and are thinking two-dimensionally - when these events, and other events before them, clearly prove that we live in a three-dimensional world. If this is the case, then it is you that is hiding from the truth and wearing the 'tin-hat', by hiding behind official information, oversimplifying the argument, and pretending that these factors do not exist and did not play a role in these events.

[Dr_Dave]

If you trust in an 'all knowing state' and base your opinions on that, then personally I believe that you have not even begun to work out the true possibilities and are thinking two-dimensionally - when these events, and other events before them, clearly prove that we live in a three-dimensional world. If this is the case, then it is you that is hiding from the truth and wearing the 'tin-hat', by hiding behind official information, oversimplifying the argument, and pretending that these factors do not exist and did not play a role in these events.

 

I think you've missed the point of what we're arguing here. We're not trying to convince stevie of the infallibility of the state, or even that the US government has no questions to answer about 11/9/2001. Is it possible that the US government had some part in the events of that day? Yes, certainly. I personally think you could make a reasonably strong case for a pre-warned administration that purposefully looked the other way in order allow the "new Pearl Harbour" that the PNAC talks about and that they subsequently used this as an excuse to stage incursions into oil rich countries. I think it's more likely of course that a lax, complacent intelligence community and government simply didn't see this coming.

 

However, even if you think that Bush is Satan incarnate and the official account of the attacks deeply suspicious, you must also admit that the accounts that stevie and his pals embrace are orders of magnitude more unlikely. Logistically you would need a cast of tens of thousands who were all involved and all keeping quiet. You'd need to violate the laws of physics in a number of areas. You'd need to violate the laws of causality in order to achieve many of the effects. You'd have to somehow explain away countless hundreds of eye-witness accounts. You'd have a plan that was so ridiculously complex and convoluted that the conspirators must be genius level intellects - yet you'd also have to accept that these genius level intellects would go onto television and give the whole game away.

 

In short, if you consider the truther accounts to be more likely than what we all saw on TV that day, then the faint whirring sound you can hear is probably the sound of William of Occam spinning in this grave.

 

Dave

[Albert Tatlock]

If you trust in an 'all knowing state' and base your opinions on that, then personally I believe that you have not even begun to work out the true possibilities and are thinking two-dimensionally - when these events, and other events before them, clearly prove that we live in a three-dimensional world. If this is the case, then it is you that is hiding from the truth and wearing the 'tin-hat', by hiding behind official information, oversimplifying the argument, and pretending that these factors do not exist and did not play a role in these events.

 

I think you've missed the point of what we're arguing here. We're not trying to convince stevie of the infallibility of the state, or even that the US government has no questions to answer about 11/9/2001. Is it possible that the US government had some part in the events of that day? Yes, certainly. I personally think you could make a reasonably strong case for a pre-warned administration that purposefully looked the other way in order allow the "new Pearl Harbour" that the PNAC talks about and that they subsequently used this as an excuse to stage incursions into oil rich countries. I think it's more likely of course that a lax, complacent intelligence community and government simply didn't see this coming.

 

However, even if you think that Bush is Satan incarnate and the official account of the attacks deeply suspicious, you must also admit that the accounts that stevie and his pals embrace are orders of magnitude more unlikely. Logistically you would need a cast of tens of thousands who were all involved and all keeping quiet. You'd need to violate the laws of physics in a number of areas. You'd need to violate the laws of causality in order to achieve many of the effects. You'd have to somehow explain away countless hundreds of eye-witness accounts. You'd have a plan that was so ridiculously complex and convoluted that the conspirators must be genius level intellects - yet you'd also have to accept that these genius level intellects would go onto television and give the whole game away.

 

In short, if you consider the truther accounts to be more likely than what we all saw on TV that day, then the faint whirring sound you can hear is probably the sound of William of Occam spinning in this grave.

 

Dave

My post was nothing to do with Stevie or his pals. It was in regard to Chinahand's reliance on official information, and the oversimplification of his 'conspiracy scale'.

 

This happens all too often in this thread, where people try to do their damnedest to associate all 'anti-official-view' replies with the lowest common denominator nutcase theory.

 

So I haven't missed the point - in fact, you did Dave.

[VinnieK]

My post was nothing to do with Stevie or his pals. It was in regard to Chinahand's reliance on official information,

 

Using information from unofficial sources (i.e. structural engineers, demolition experts) that happens to agree with the official account in one way or another is not the same as relying on official information. There's an obvious distinction between the two in that the former method verifies (or disproves) the latter source.

 

This happens all too often in this thread, where people try to do their damnedest to associate all 'anti-official-view' replies with the lowest common denominator nutcase theory.

 

Who really has to try that hard when it's tameelf and stevie? Also, anti-official views are just as bad as stringently "official views" - habitually petulant anti-establishment sentiments are just as stupid and worthless as the most slavish agreement with the official line

[Dr_Dave]

My post was nothing to do with Stevie or his pals. It was in regard to Chinahand's reliance on official information, and the oversimplification of his 'conspiracy scale'.

 

This happens all too often in this thread, where people try to do their damnedest to associate all 'anti-official-view' replies with the lowest common denominator nutcase theory.

 

So I haven't missed the point - in fact, you did Dave.

 

Well, it wouldn't be the first time.

 

Okay, I accept what you're saying. You're saying that taking Chinahand's scale of conspiracy as a definitive range of possibilities is unsafe, precisely because elements of it are based on "official accounts"? Kind of like drawing up a morality scale for the characters in Usual Suspects based on the version of events presented by Verbal Kint, without taking into account the twist...

 

Okay, so let's forget the official account and simplify it into that which is unquestionable. On September 11th, we had a number of events and two parties, the government and externals (meaning pretty much anyone who isn't affiliated with the government).

 

Using these elements, I believe that rather than oversimplifying it, he's overcomplicating it for precisely the reasons you cite. The very fallibility of the source means that you can't trust any detail beyond a simple hand waving scale, so a more honest version would be a simple four point:

 

1) Government knew nothing, events were caused by external elements;

2) Government was forewarned but intelligence failures/complacency let it through, events were caused by external elements;

3) Government was forewarned but did nothing by choice, events were caused by external elements;

4) Government planned and caused at least some events.

 

Of course, this comes with the proviso that each entry contains countless sub-entries and offers no detail about which elements of the government/externals were responsible, or the motivations therein. As such, this scale is only really useful to get a broad picture of responsibility.

 

In terms of which of these contains the "right" answer, I would say 2) more than likely, though I will admit that elements of this opinion come from what you would call the "official account", so it probably wouldn't be admissible.

 

However, even without falling back on the official account, I think it would be safe to say that 4) would not contain the "true" answer in the form that stevie and tameelf present it, precisely because those accounts are easily dismissed with only common sense and science. For completeness, I would say that a sub-scenario of 4) that would merit some thought would be that events occurred exactly according to the official account, except that the 19 hijackers were in the employ of the government (I hasten to add that this scenario comes with no evidence, but at least falls within the realm of the possible).

 

Dave

[Chinahand]

My post was nothing to do with Stevie or his pals. It was in regard to Chinahand's reliance on official information, and the oversimplification of his 'conspiracy scale'.

 

This happens all too often in this thread, where people try to do their damnedest to associate all 'anti-official-view' replies with the lowest common denominator nutcase theory.

 

So I haven't missed the point - in fact, you did Dave.

 

Albert, I fully admit my scale is very simplistic - I have a big problem with it myself - it assumes there is a conspiracy - So I have to divide the world between the conspiracists and the rest.

 

As you point out this is a gross simplification - I don't believe its a realistic thing to do, but I've had to do it to try to engage with people who most clearly do - and to try to engage with people at the most extreme end I've had to include their point of view in the scale beyond about level 2 or 3.

 

Obviously you can expand out level 2 - as I have started to do in various posts recently. You can discuss the motivations and failures of the CIA, the republican party, the democrat party, the neo-con think tanks, Halliburton, Saudi Arabia etc etc. As you post these interactions are extremely complicated - and the issue for this thread COULD THEY BE COORDINATED INTO A CONSPIRACY.

 

You seem to be saying its possible - Dr Dave sees William Occam spinning in his grave. I assume you can guess where I stand.

 

I'm more than a little uncertain about your postings about the all-knowing-state; where have I agreed with an all-knowing-state? My world view is that these issues are, as you say, multi-dependent and extremely complicated - there isn't an overaching authority directing any of this - but competing groups trying to portray their version of the events as the truth - these groups include the US government, the Republican Party, Karl Rove, The New York Times AND www.whatreallyhappened.com etc.

 

The FEMA and NIST reports aren't the product of a unitary all-knowing-state, they are the result of hundreds of independent engineers and scientists working in hundreds of academic and technical institutions in multiple countries - ie Sheffield University has produced world class work on the Fires within the Twin Towers etc. It is the non unitary, multi-disciplinary nature of this work that gives me the faith in it - Not that it was published by the US government.

 

Many of the links I've posted have nothing whatsoever to do with the US government or the official view, they're the work of independent academic researchers. What people miss is that the collapse of the Towers and WTC7 are of very great interest for building safety, civil engineering and architectual experts - they will investigate these issues in detail no matter what conspiracists or governments do.

 

I think there has been pretty good mainstream press investigations into the events ie Seymore Hersh, etc - I've posted how ironic it is that the conspiracist videos I've watched rage against the mainstream media for not reporting whatreallyhappened while the information they use comes entirely from the mainstream media. The idea that the general public isn't aware that they've been manipulated by a mendacious regime is another conspiracist myth.

 

These reports clearly show how intelligence reports were saying a very different message than what Bush et al claimed they were saying. 911 wasn't a bolt from the blue - it was a clear possibility - how and why it was missed is an important issue. Hence my concentration of level 2 in my scale.

 

I don't think Dr Dave's attempt to divide it between the Government and externals is particularly helpful - it suffers from the same problems you criticise me for. If he'd called it The Conspiracy and externals it would have been better - and in context with this thread.

 

My problem is once reality intervenes there isn't a single all embracing Conpsiracy - there are multiple actors acting at different time scales and locations - some of greater importance than others. Are any of them significant enough to be simplistically described as THE conspiracy - well that is what we are debating isn't it. Also did they act illegally is important - a coordinated group trying to get its way isn't a conspiracy its a political party or a lobby group. And I don't think going on about Iraq is worthwhile in this context - we are discussing a conspiracy around 911, not to invade Iraq - using Saudi Nationals to conspire to invade Iraq would be unusual.

 

The Neo-con revolution is the closest I can get - they viewed the world in a certain way distorted by a very strong ideology - and used the ideology not the actual facts on the ground to push through their agenda. But even defining who the Neo-cons are isn't easy - is Cheney a neo or a paleo-con etc?

 

But even if you could define "they" did they generate an illegal conspiracy to get their way?

 

Did they know about 911 in advance - I have seen ZERO useful evidence that they did.

Did they thwart the American intelligence community doing its job - I have seen ZERO useful evidence that they did.

Did they have any contacts with Bin Laden after say 1992 - I have seen ZERO useful evidence that they did.

Did they provide any support to allow Atta to build his 911 organisation - I have seen ZERO useful evidence that they did.

Did they try to manipluate the stock market in the days around the attacks - I have seen ZERO useful evidence that they did.

Did they worry that the planes might not be enough to make the towers collapse and so rigged them with explosives - I have seen ZERO useful evidence that they did.

Did they try to destroy WTC7 at the same time to cover an SEC investigation or whatever - I have seen ZERO useful evidence that they did.

 

Now I'd love to read anything anyone can post which provides factual information contradicting my opinions - I follow 911 myth making in reasonable detail, for similar reasons I follow creationist science - I'm fascinated why people believe wierd things - and am willing to spend a reasonable time looking in to it!

 

But beyond not seeing any reasonable evidence saying these things happened I've also seen an awful lot of evidence directly contradicting the majority of these points - which I think are the big issues in a 911 conspiracy thread. Have I missed any other biggies? As I keep asking where is the beef in this conspiracy - what did it actually do. If I've missed anything out enlighten me!

 

Anyone going to try - Oh and Tameelf and Stevie I'm asking for useful evidence - using a satan obsessed blogger who happens to have a pyschology degree isn't useful - nor is a media report dated September 15 when there is a follow up report 6 months later clarifying the mistakes in the initial reports - checking facts is an important part of building a water tight case.

 

And Albert - you seem to be a man who relies on his gut feeling more than any other piece of evidence or opinion - other than an ache in your gut - which I respect within limits (I think your a pretty good proxy for a skeptical cumodgen - along with Lonan3 ) - have you relly seen anything which would really add to this debate?

 

The only thing I've done is publish detailed refutations, written by other people, of the claims people like Stevie have made. Take them with a pinch of salt by all means - but in terms of quality of research, attention to detail, refutation of previous errors etc - I feel confident these versions are closer to the truth than nearly anything Stevie and his ilk have ever posted. Do you really disagree?

[mojomonkey]

Have you lot ever tried the International Folder on the GuardianUnlimited Takeboard Website?

[stevie]

Countdown to ban in twelve hours.

 

by my calculations it has been roughly 58 hours since your post ans, so am i banned then?