It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NYCCAN Petition drive.. Epic FAIL!

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 06:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by jthomas
 


Par for the course how? that would mean it happens more often than not. What is par for the course? I have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you don't know spit from shinola.


LOL. And you were the one trying to slither away from your claim that the legal confiscation of videos was a "cover-up."

Amazing.





posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by jthomas
 


Par for the course how? that would mean it happens more often than not. What is par for the course? I have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you don't know spit from shinola.


LOL. And you were the one trying to slither away from your claim that the legal confiscation of videos was a "cover-up."

Amazing.


Please explain to your fans out there how it being legal makes it not a cover up? I defined cover up and it fit the definition to a T.

I posted facts and you posted opinion, as usual.



posted on Aug, 11 2009 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Uhh... "Epic Fail"? Just how old are you, Cameron?

The petition failed because of technicalities and bureaucratic BS, not because it lacked merit or support. Because many of the names on the petition were not registered voters, the petition was discarded. However, one has to wonder if this petition was subjected to more scrutiny than other petitions in the past. I've seen in other places where petitions are only superficially looked at, alot of times passing with little difficulty.

I would hardly consider this as a setback for those people who still doubt much of 9/11 as officially presented to us. They tried through this route and it didn't work. There are still roads open for those folks to pursue, and I am quite certain this is the last we will hear about this matter.

There were a respectable number of people who had some direct experience with 9/11, such as family members and first responders. I'm sure many more would have given the petition some consideration had knowledge of the petition been more widespread. Perhaps furture efforts should be made to get the word out more.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by jthomas
 


Par for the course how? that would mean it happens more often than not. What is par for the course? I have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you don't know spit from shinola.


LOL. And you were the one trying to slither away from your claim that the legal confiscation of videos was a "cover-up."

Amazing.


Please explain to your fans out there how it being legal makes it not a cover up? I defined cover up and it fit the definition to a T.

I posted facts and you posted opinion, as usual.



A cover-up is an attempt, whether successful or not, to conceal evidence of wrong-doing, error, incompetence or other embarrassing information. The expression is usually applied to people in authority who abuse their power to avoid or silence criticism. Those who cover up may be those responsible for a misdeed or their allies, or simply people with an interest in silencing criticism.

en.wikipedia.org...


You see? You failed again, jprophet You can't fool anyone with your nonsense.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 02:01 PM
link   
What on gods green earth are you talking about? If you're saying what happed doesn't fit the definition you just posted then you don't understand the words.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
What on gods green earth are you talking about? If you're saying what happed doesn't fit the definition you just posted then you don't understand the words.


It didn't happen. And contrary to your earlier statement that you "are NOT making any claims", you certainly are making claims.

I caught you claiming that a legal act was a "cover-up." You couldn't find a bloody thing about legally confiscating videos to fit the definition of cover-up - no matter which definition you use.

And I further showed you explicitly why no one needs any videos to know that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

Your weaseling is fully transparent. I think the time has come for you to admit it and retract your claims.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 03:50 PM
link   

I caught you claiming that a legal act was a "cover-up." You couldn't find a bloody thing about legally confiscating videos to fit the definition of cover-up - no matter which definition you use.


I did claim that and it is true. A cover up does not have to be illegal, that is not part of the definitions that either I or you have posted. It only has to conceal information, information has been concealed without question in this scenario.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

I did claim that and it is true. A cover up does not have to be illegal, that is not part of the definitions that either I or you have posted. It only has to conceal information, information has been concealed without question in this scenario.



So then you're saying that withholding information from an investigation is legal?

Clinton and Nixon would be surprised at this little legal gem.....



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 06:33 PM
link   
again comprehension of the words you type is a prerequisite.


A cover-up is an attempt, whether successful or not, to conceal evidence of wrong-doing, error, incompetence or other embarrassing information. The expression is usually applied to people in authority who abuse their power to avoid or silence criticism. Those who cover up may be those responsible for a misdeed or their allies, or simply people with an interest in silencing criticism.

en.wikipedia.org...


So then you're saying that withholding information from an investigation is legal?


The with holding does not have to be from an investigation according to your chosen source of definition.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

The with holding does not have to be from an investigation according to your chosen source of definition.


But there was an investigation by Congress.

Withholding info would be illegal under this circumstance.

Just cuz YOU haven't seen them doesn't mean that THEY didn't.



posted on Aug, 13 2009 @ 08:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


there was? and what did it determine? the reason the videos are with held from freedom of information act requests is cited as ongoing law enforcement. This was changed immediately after the trial, where the justification for not releasing the information had been ongoing trial. And I am the one accused of "weaseling" around here. how deliciously convenient.

[edit on 13-8-2009 by jprophet420]



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


there was? and what did it determine? the reason the videos are with held from freedom of information act requests is cited as ongoing law enforcement. This was changed immediately after the trial, where the justification for not releasing the information had been ongoing trial. And I am the one accused of "weaseling" around here. how deliciously convenient.

[edit on 13-8-2009 by jprophet420]


You are weaseling. You won't admit that you cannot demonstrate that legal confiscation of the videos was ...an attempt, whether successful or not, to conceal evidence of wrong-doing, error, incompetence or other embarrassing information."

Sorry, jprophet42, you have not presented anything to support that claim.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


It certainly is embarrassing to let a high jacked plane hit a military installation in broad daylight with advance notice. Thats what happened in the accounts you subscribe to.



posted on Aug, 14 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   
I did not hear that about the NYCCAN signatures... too bad for them.

On another off-topic topic, CameronFox what is the video of Gage in your Avatar supposed to mean?

I am sincerely curious-is it making fun of him, or a quick blurb that gets his point across in a .gif or whatever image?



edit to add: Nevermind, investigated your other posts more clearly.

I guess you should probably watch his video again if you think he was making a moot point, or else take a basic physics class. He was illustrating how, with nothing underneath, the top floors fell at freefall speed, which is what happened that day. As opposed to the other cardboard tower that showed what should have happened on 911, as there was still 47 steel columns intact from the ground up to the point the plane hit, and then at least half of those still intact through the whole length of the tower.

I don't like your blatant 'Vatican' attitude. Yes I compared your usage of the term 'truther' to 'heretic'.

Sorry for the rant.



[edit on 14-8-2009 by beebs]



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by jthomas
 


It certainly is embarrassing to let a high jacked plane hit a military installation in broad daylight with advance notice. Thats what happened in the accounts you subscribe to.


Now you are getting really desperate! "Letting" a hijacked plane hit the Pentagon


And these from the "accounts" you are whining are hidden from you.

Gosh.

Why is it that you want to weasel so badly, jprophet420?



[edit on 15-8-2009 by jthomas]



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 12:08 PM
link   

And these from the "accounts" you are whining are hidden from you.

Again you cant even assemble a sentence. Please take the smiles out and make a coherent statement or question and i will be happy to address it.



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
....., the top floors fell at freefall speed, which is what happened that day. ...



After you learn the facts about the collapse of the Twin Towers, come back and post again. You are more far of that Box Boy Gage is.


I don't like your blatant 'Vatican' attitude. Yes I compared your usage of the term 'truther' to 'heretic'.


I would call Box boy the "heresiarch" of AE4911"truth." Other than that, with your lack of reading comprehension and knowledge surrounding 911, I really could care less what you like and don't like.





Sorry for the rant.



[edit on 14-8-2009 by beebs]



posted on Aug, 15 2009 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

And these from the "accounts" you are whining are hidden from you.

Again you cant even assemble a sentence. Please take the smiles out and make a coherent statement or question and i will be happy to address it.


I've given you more than enough opportunities to support your claims and you weasel out of ever doing so.

I repeat: you have failed to demonstrate your claim that the legal confiscation of videos is a "coverup."

It's just another failure of a 9/11 "Truther" to get any facts right.



posted on Aug, 17 2009 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by CameronFox
 


...What?

O.K. maybe the physics will never get to you about 911, how about the finances?


Google Video Link


You say your a NWO Truth Agent... does that mean you are here to argue, muddy the waters, and present disinfo?

Or are you an open-minded individual seeking the truth?

I belong to the latter.




posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 01:42 PM
link   
Well, the NYCCAN affair is over.

The drop-dead deadline of Aug 21 has come and gone.

It truly was an epic fail by those who knew nothing about what they were doing, a complete failure on NYCCAN organizers' part.

Now, the demands for refunds will start, I'm sure.


[edit on 24-8-2009 by jthomas]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join