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.

 

Once Again, The Will of the Voters Is Denied

page: 10
18
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 12:03 PM
link   
well this thread transformed from a voter was denied to now the evidences that needs to be looked at... again!

it always will come back down to the unanswered questions, and the coincidences following 9/11.

Ill bring it back on topic. the will of the voters were denied. a petition was signed, and it was refused to be placed on ballot so VOTERS can have a say.

no they were stone walled once again.

regardless if the legal team fudged up, a basic question should of been allowed at the poll...

Should their be a new 9/11 investigation that is run independently, and with subpoena power to get some DAMN questions answered!

whats so hard to understand that?




posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ugie1028
Should their be a new 9/11 investigation that is run independently, and with subpoena power to get some DAMN questions answered!


I believe there should since the firefighters and first responders should have it.

Also when the people on the 9/11 commission state that they did no have eough time or money to do a proper investigation then i think it should be tme to have a real one.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ugie1028
well this thread transformed from a voter was denied


No voters were denied. The petitioners were.


it always will come back down to the unanswered questions, and the coincidences following 9/11.


No. Getting any new investigation will rely on the TM coming up with an explanation that is more likely to have happened than what the vast collection of the currently accepted evidence gives.


a petition was signed, and it was refused to be placed on ballot so VOTERS can have a say.


Whose fault is that? Certainly NOT the election lawyer that they hired that told them in no uncertain terms that they had no chance of getting it on the ballot. The fault lies with the organizers of the petition.


regardless if the legal team fudged up


They didn't. NYCCAN't did.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by PHIXER2
 


they should have money for it.

i mean look at the money they spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet they cant manage to fund a real investigation?

does anyone know how much a new investigation may cost?

i mean were spending money on foolish things such as the stimulus packages, and the bail outs... yet... not enough to find funding for a new investigation where 3000+ American citizens died?

they have the money for it, the resources, etc... but they don't want to do it. they think it will ruin everything.... at least everything to them.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImAPepper

Originally posted by Lillydale
reply to post by jthomas
 


What evidence??????

You keep mentioning it but you have yet to share it with us.

Are you going to show us the evidence or keep harping on something I have already taken back?

Say evidence about 40 more times without showing us what it is.

p.s. yes, you do need serial numbers because that is standard operating procedure in every plane crash. Most of the time, they already know exactly what plane it is but they still have to check the parts to make sure there was no alterations to the plane or something anomalous. They did not do that this one time. It is important because there is no good reason not to do it. Do not tell me it is because they knew what plane it was. They usually know what plane it is.


Hi Lilly,

The serial numbers are not there. Period.

Flight 93 was tracked on radar from deperture to impact. There were eyewitnesses to this plane crash. DNA for ALL passengers were found and identified. Personal belongings were found at the scene. This is evidence. Aircraft remains were found. This is evidence. CVR was discovered and victims families listened to it. This is evidence. Phone calls were made to loved ones for extended amounts of time. This is evidence.

Flight 77 FDR was found and data was recovered. On the FDR, Including flight data on the doomed flight, data was recovered that showed the previous flight. This is evidence.

DNA was matched from remains found at the Pentagon from all but I believe one passenger. This is evidence.

Personal belongings were found and returned. This is evidence.

Eyewitnesses stating that they saw "AMERICAN AIRLINES" on the plane. This is evidence.

I mean, this list goes on and on. What JT is asking is for you to refute what is there.

You have to prove the FDR was faked / planted
You have to prove that the CVR was faked/ planted
You have to prove that the phone calls were faked
You have to prove that the eyewitnesses lied or were mistaken.
You have to prove that the DNA was faked or planted.
Until you can PROVE something sinister took place, you have nothing. This is why the TM has been stalled since 2006.



pepper

You and your partners in bull crap have Zero here.

Nothing-- Nada---ZIp. NOT one CROSS EXAMINED WITNESS
Your bull crap is just that--- Bring it to an American court of law
Or forever live the life of cowards. Bring it on!!
We need more fertilizer.



[edit on 17-10-2009 by Donny 4 million]



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Joey Canoli
 


joke c actually says and believes this

"No voters were denied. The petitioners were."

I have read lots of his dumb arse bull crap but this takes the cake.
What did you do jokey strip them of their voting rights too!



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Donny 4 million



pepper

You and your partners in bull crap have Zero here.

Nothing-- Nada---ZIp. NOT one CROSS EXAMINED WITNESS
Your bull crap is just that--- Bring it to an American court of law
Or forever live the life of cowards. Bring it on!!
We need more fertilizer.




Hi Donny,

I am not "partnering" with anyone in here. This has been brought to a court. Zacarias Moussaoui was tried and convicted. Most if not all the evidence that I posted was used in this trial. Can you please point out what his defense objected to during his trial?

Thank you,

Dr. P



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Donny 4 million


"No voters were denied. The petitioners were."



That's a correct assessmant.

If no one voted on it, they were NOT denied to voice their opinion about it. IF... they had voted on it, and was overturned in court, then you can say that the voters were denied.

Only the petitioners were denied. The important thing to rememebr is.... they CAN try again. Nothing is preventing them from doing that.

I suggest that this time, you get yourself involved and make sure that legal procedure is observed from the get go.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

That's a correct assessmant.

If no one voted on it, they were NOT denied to voice their opinion about it. IF... they had voted on it, and was overturned in court, then you can say that the voters were denied.


actually they were because it wasn't allowed on the ballot... meaning the voters didn't have a chance to say"yes" or "no"



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Let's see what they themselves are saying:

www.truthmove.org...

Truthmover - Administrator

Bottom line: The ballot initiative was an intentional distraction, drain on resources and morale, and way to prevent others from trying to do it right. Lots of honest, hard working, activists got honestly sucked in and that was the point.

Few will recognize the extent to which Les Jamieson was largely responsible for this outcome.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by ugie1028
actually they were because it wasn't allowed on the ballot... meaning the voters didn't have a chance to say"yes" or "no"


Semantics. Bottom line NYCCAN did not follow the law. The judge pointed out exactly where. Coincidentally, it was the same areas where NYCCAN's original attorney said it would fail.

So, Ugie, truthers are above the law now? Because they think Ed Esner deserves subpoena power... he should? The petition was flawed before they got their first signature. You want to blame someone? Start with Ted Walter who KNEW it was flawed. Then talk to Frank Morales. See why he collected all that money knowing they would fail.

I know you wont.

Dr. P



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImAPepper
DNA for ALL passengers were found and identified.


That is pretty amazing...



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 01:23 PM
link   

No voters were denied. The petitioners were.


The petitioners were registered voters.

Why don't you lose the attitude and come back when you're ready to be serious about this? Then perhaps you wont open posts with blatant misinformation.


reply to post by jprophet420
 

Still waiting on that one if anyones interested.



[edit on 17-10-2009 by jprophet420]



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ImAPepper
 


Then you were off topic and the mods should remove your post.
You were most likely more a part of 911 than that guy was.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

BACK UP YOUR CLAIM OR ADMIT YOU CANNOT. LIVE UP TO YOUR OWN STANDARDS OR BE A COWARD, LIAR, AND HYPOCRITE. It is up to you. I say you have nothing to back up your claims so you want to concentrate on my claim that I have already retracted. Give it up, John.


I have no claims. I have no burden of proof. It is, it always has been, and it will always remain on your shoulders to refute the massive evidence you pretend does not exist.

You all are still stalling after 8 years.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson
reply to post by jthomas
 


OK J, I am not Lilly. I have made no claims. You have nothing on me.

You have made some rather outragous sounding claims. You insist that people back up their claims. When are you going to back up yours? Do not try to argue about Lilly with me either. We already saw that trick. I am asking you for your proof.


I have nothing to prove. Pretending that no evidence exists and that those Truthers who make claims don't have to refute it will never get your silly "Truth" Movement anywhere.

Stop the evasions.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 04:22 PM
link   
There is also a problem with the Pentagon witness statements due to the fact that one witness stated "they did not know what hit the Pentagon they were told later it was a 757"

So the queston is how many other witnesses were TOLD LATER IT WAS A 757?



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Donny 4 million


Then you were off topic and the mods should remove your post.
You were most likely more a part of 911 than that guy was.


Hi Donny,

I was responding to your post sir. So, technically, we were both off topic. In regards to your unfounded accusation to be being more of a perp to 911 than Zacarias Moussaoui; I will refrain from responding. It just shows your lack of knowledge surrounding the facts of 911.

Thank you,

Dr. P



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
I have no claims. I have no burden of proof.


So you admit there is a lack of concrete evidence for the Official Story?

Photos...Videos...


Originally posted by jthomas It is, it always has been, and it will always remain on your shoulders to refute the massive evidence you pretend does not exist.


Repeatedly saying their is massive evidence is not the same thing as providing it.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas


I have no claims. I have no burden of proof. It is, it always has been, and it will always remain on your shoulders to refute the massive evidence you pretend does not exist.

You all are still stalling after 8 years.


Um...you claimed that AA77 crashed into the Pentagon.
You claimed there were passenger bodies still strapped into seats.

You claimed that the OS is true!!!!!!!!

You most certainly did make claims and you do need to back them up.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join