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: 12
18
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ImAPepper
 


Video of the impact or approach (that actually shows an airplane) since the plane should have been flying (according to the official story) across plenty of videotaped space.

OR

A photo of a plane crash other than Shanksville or the Pentagon that a person would not know it was a plane crash if no one told them.

I have never seen any evidence of a plane crash that did not obviously have plane parts.

On 9/11 there were two plane crashes that a person looking at the photo evidence would not know a plane was involved if they were not told...




posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus
reply to post by ImAPepper
 


Video of the impact or approach (that actually shows an airplane) since the plane should have been flying (according to the official story) across plenty of videotaped space.

OR

A photo of a plane crash other than Shanksville or the Pentagon that a person would not know it was a plane crash if no one told them.

I have never seen any evidence of a plane crash that did not obviously have plane parts.

On 9/11 there were two plane crashes that a person looking at the photo evidence would not know a plane was involved if they were not told...


So, you are saying, for there to be a crash, you need to see either a video of it or enough plane parts to please you? Because you are an experienced air crash investigator?

There were MANY witnesses to both crashes. DNA, FDR.. etc. Really, this has been discussed for years now.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 07:23 PM
link   
From the amount of cameras on or around the Pentagon you would think we would have a lot of photos and videos of what hit the Pentagon.

Cameras,

i114.photobucket.com...
i114.photobucket.com...
i114.photobucket.com...
i114.photobucket.com...
i114.photobucket.com...
i114.photobucket.com...

Why were some camers removed and sme replaced with new cameras in different places


i114.photobucket.com...
i114.photobucket.com...


i114.photobucket.com...
i114.photobucket.com...



[edit on 17-10-2009 by PHIXER2]



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImAPepper

Originally posted by PHIXER2

Originally posted by jthomas

Not that one again. You're so gullible.


No you are gullible to still beleive the officai story with no actual evidence and official reports.



Hello Roger,

You have been gone for a couple months. You have now picked up exactly where you left off.

There ARE official reports.

First of all PENTTBOM (Pentagon/Twin Towers Bombing Investigation) is the codename for the Federal Bureau of Investigation's probe into the 911 terrorist attacks. You can do a simple Google search to find all the official reports from them.

Can you do us ALL a favor and read them? You will find all the evidence that the FBI uncovered during their investigation. After you are done reading the countless pages they have released, we will then direct you to the NTSB investigation and information they provided.

Thank you sir!

Dr. P


You think the FBI has suddenly change color?
They were complicit in the first Tower bombing.
tweet


Combined report by Paul DeRienzo, Frank Morales and Chris Flash
From newspaper _The_Shadow_ Oct. 1994/Jan. 1995 Issue

Two cassette tape recordings, obtained by SHADOW reporter Paul DiRienzo
of telephone conversations between FBI informant Emad Salem and his
Bureau contacts reveal secret U.S. Government complicity in the February
26, 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City in which six
people were killed and more than a thousand were injured.

After careful deliberation, the SHADOW believes the question regarding
the bombing boils down to the following: Did the FBI do the bombing,
utilizing informant Salem as an "agent provocateur" or did it fail to
prevent an independent Salem and his associates from doing it? The
taped conversations obtained by the SHADOW seem to indicate the former:

FBI Informant Edam Salem: "...we was start already building the bomb
which is went off in the World Trade Center. It was built by
supervising supervision from the Bureau and the DA and we was all
informed about it and we know that the bomb start to be built. By who?
By your confidential informant. What a wonderful great case!"

Who is Emad Salem? FBI bomber, Arab double-agent or just greedy?
Possibly a combination of all three. Salem is a former Egyptian Army
officer who is currently the U.S. government's star witness against
Egyptian cleric Dr. Omar Abdel Rahman, whom the FBI says was the
ringleader in several bombing plots, including the World Trade Center.
Shortly after the bombing at the Twin Towers (World Trade Center) the
U.S. government moved to take Salem into the Witness Protection program.

According to the FBI, Salem was aware of the plot ostensibly because he
had infiltrated Sheik Rahman and his associates. He was recruited as a
government informant shortly after the 1991 assassination of of right-
wing militant Rabbi Meir Kahane. As an associate of Rahman, Salem
traveled in the cleric's inner circle, surreptitiously recording
conversations, and selling his information to the Bureau. But unknown
to his FBI handlers, Salem was also secretly recording his conversations
with them, most likely to protect himself.

According to attorney Ron Kuby, after Salem was taken into the Witness
Protection program on June 24, 1993, he told the feds about the more
than 1,000 conversations he had recorded sometime between December, 1991
and June, 1993. Kuby says that while some of these tapes are not
significant, others contain substantive dealings with Salem and his FBI
handlers. Salem was actually bugging the FBI. END

I will gladly post more on the FBI just ask me amigo.
All this FBI crap matters not when it comes to the will of the VOTER/TAXPAYER
Do you pay taxes in America tweets?



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 07:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 


Donny 4 million I enjoy going down the 911 rabbit hole with you it is always a wonderful learning experience, thanks



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 08:05 PM
link   
same in Ireland lisbon voting rigged people even walked away with closed box. Stole. see freemanireland.ning.com for full story. The judge did not think stealing it was a matter for the courts!



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 08:27 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"



SO you're advocating zero standards for getting issues on ballots?

It doesn't matter to the TM if it's legal or not?

If someone wanted a blatantly discriminatory issue on the ballot, it should be allowed, cuz those proposing it are voters?

Sorry, but not in the rational world. There are standards to be met in all areas of life if you wish to exercise your rights and/or privileges. Some are commonly known to most people, some aren't.

Wanna drive? Pass a test and get auto insurance.

Wanna CCW? Take the class, pass the test, get a gun.

Wanna put something on a ballot? Then follow those directions for getting it on.

Clearly NYCCAN't didn't do that. Read through some blogs here and there that discuss the issue. Clearly, MANY involved blame the organizers. That means that they recognize that their rights to be heard weren't snubbed. They recognize that the dolts and dunderheads at NYCCAN't screwed the pooch.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli

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.


Holy moly Joeseph, welcome to the MOVEMENT.
oh, second line "The 911 Truth MOVEMENT"

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



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1011001
same in Ireland lisbon voting rigged people even walked away with closed box. Stole. see freemanireland.ning.com for full story. The judge did not think stealing it was a matter for the courts!


All voters under attack
Lisbon Treaty dual Irish vote (forced)?



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by Donny 4 million
 


Donny 4 million I enjoy going down the 911 rabbit hole with you it is always a wonderful learning experience, thanks


Yes but thank your spiritual advisor that you are not relegated to remain here forever as those that embrace the official lie of 911.
The American voter is lazy but far from ignorant.
Viva America!!!



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



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 08:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by jthomas
 



Jthomas I am still waiting for you to answer my question.

Why do you believe in the OS and nothing else?


Jthomas still refuses to answers my question. Jthomas you spout off to everyone in here how they “avoid answering your questions”. I have asked you repeatedly to please answer just one question and you flat out refuse to answer it.

If the OS is all-true then you must have the smoking gun evidences and I would like to see it.


Why do you believe in the OS and nothing else?



I have no idea why you have consistently refused to listen to the answer I have given you and everyone else repeatedly.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by PHIXER2

Originally posted by jthomas

Not that one again. You're so gullible.


No you are gullible to still beleive the officai story with no actual evidence and official reports.



Do you really think you can sell that claim to the American public? Just how do you think that would get you yet another investigation?



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus
reply to post by ImAPepper
 


There is a difference between stating evidence exists and actually providing it...

I have no intention of trying to prove some alternate theory of what happened because I admit that I don't know what happened.

Where is the video evidence?


What "video evidence?"


There is absolutely no logical reason for the absence of concrete video and photo evidence,


There were 85 videos. They were examined:

www.flight77.info...



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 08:56 AM
link   

No, I never made any such claim. You know full well that I don't beleive in your canard of an "OS." Why lie? I demonstrated why your so-called "OS" is a 9/11 "Truth" Movement canard and why.


Well JT, we have to go by the story released by the government via the media. When people say OS thats what they are referring to. You can call it anything you want and complain about it all you want but it exists. How one deals with it is up to the individual. Denial is quite possibly your most used word good sir, I suggest you research it.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

No, I never made any such claim. You know full well that I don't beleive in your canard of an "OS." Why lie? I demonstrated why your so-called "OS" is a 9/11 "Truth" Movement canard and why.


Well JT, we have to go by the story released by the government via the media. When people say OS thats what they are referring to.


I never had to. Non-"Truthers" never had to.


You can call it anything you want and complain about it all you want but it exists. How one deals with it is up to the individual. Denial is quite possibly your most used word good sir, I suggest you research it.


The fact is quite clear as repeatedly demonstrated for the last 8 years and multiple times on this very thread that 9/11 "Truthers" must deny the very existence of the multiple lines of evidence from hundreds of sources and thousands of people that actually informs us rationally of exactly what happened. Instead, they have to claim there is NO evidence and that it ALL comes down to an "official story" told by the government. End of story.

"Truthers" have had to deny that the majority of the evidence never came from nor was controlled by the government, nor the media, nor anybody else from the very beginning.

The "official story" canard is the number one delusion "Truthers" bought into from the beginning. The "official story" canard first surfaced online on Sept. 12, 2001 and the 9/11 Truth Movement has clung to it like a piece of wreckage from a ship wreck drifting out to sea ever since. And that's precisely where you've been going with it for the last 8 years.

Until you understand the true nature of that propaganda of the "OS" you bought into you will continue to deny the existence of the massive evidence the 9/11 "Truth" Movement cannot refute - and why the need the excuse of the "OS" to hide that fact.

The Emperor wears no clothes and we keep reminding you of that fact. Open your eyes.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


You didn't comprehend what I typed or you chose to ignore it, either one is fine. The media and the government both presented an account of events starting when the first plane hit up until now. The government used the media as their outlet. You can call it whatever you want but thats what people are referring to. You can use all the college level words and logical fallacies that you wish, but you can never change or alter this fact, only put your spin on it or deny it completely. The choice is yours to make and no one else's.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by jthomas
 


You didn't comprehend what I typed or you chose to ignore it, either one is fine. The media and the government both presented an account of events starting when the first plane hit up until now.


You missed the part where you have to refute the evidence.

It doesn't work any other way.

When do you plan to start?



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

The media and the government both presented an account of events starting when the first plane hit up until now.



You've just admitted that every troofer that asks for evidence of what we say is an uninformed ignoramus. It's out there for all to see.

I wish that troofers would remember this the next time they ask for evidence of whatever particular point they're railing against.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joey Canoli
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.


In other words, What, Me Worry?



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


That link doesn't include the actual videos...



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join