Once Again, The Will of the Voters Is Denied

Originally posted by jthomas

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?

Why do I have to refute evidence for the government and media to have presented an account of events? That doesn't make any sense.

reply to post by jthomas

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.

I am terribly sorry; I must have missed it somewhere, could you please post your answer just right here under my post, that would be helpful, thank you.

reply to post by ImAPepper[/url]




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

A real human would name JUST FREAKIN ONE that was cross-examined in a court of Freakin American law.
tweets Got one .
No ---yeah don't answer birdy. the voters see you messing your pin feathers every time you do do do do.

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
A real human would name JUST FREAKIN ONE that was cross-examined in a court of Freakin American law.
tweets Got one .
No ---yeah don't answer birdy. the voters see you messing your pin feathers every time you do do do do.

Is there a reason why you have to keep on making goofy bird comments regarding my avatar? Really, Donny, I am being quite civil answering your questions and you in turn try to be a comedian. Please refrain from these poor attempts at humor, or I will not be responding to you.

Being human, I would like to assist you with what you are looking for. In the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the defense was able to put together a case to attempt to acquit him for the many charges he faced. Have you read this yet? This was done in an American court of law. Have you looked at the exhibits the defense presented? Have you looked what the prosecution presented? There were over a thousand exhibits. How many have you researched?

You can start with this 74 page stipulation that was entered and AGREED upon during the Moussaoui trial.
www.vaed.uscourts.gov...

In regards to witnesses, many were called and questioned at the Moussaoui trial. If you are interested, I am posting the contact information to obtain the transcripts from the trial that will show you what questions were asked and what if any objections were made.

Albert V. Bryan
United States Courthouse
401 Courthouse Square
Alexandria, VA.

or you can call the court reporter:

Anneliese Thompson
703-299-8596

their website is:

exemplaris.com

I hope you found this information useful in your search for the "truth". Please let me know how you make out.

Sincerely,

Dr. P


[edit on 19-10-2009 by ImAPepper]

reply to post by ImAPepper


Z. Moussaoui was not involved in the violence of the 911 Tragedies.
He perpetrated no crime that day.
Your bunk fools no one. he may have been a voter though.
nice try. tweet your bird crap all you want.

Originally posted by Donny 4 million

A real human would name JUST FREAKIN ONE that was cross-examined in a court of Freakin American law.

Amazing. So now every witness to very event has to go to court.

Maybe you should read the Constitution, Donny.

Originally posted by jprophet420

Why do I have to refute evidence for the government and media to have presented an account of events? That doesn't make any sense.

Gosh, where do you think the evidence came from?

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by jthomas

 

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.

I am terribly sorry; I must have missed it somewhere, could you please post your answer just right here under my post, that would be helpful, thank you.

Sorry, if you can't understand it after all my posts and replies, I don't think re-posting it will change it.

Go back and re-read my posts carefully. Do your homework.

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by jprophet420

Why do I have to refute evidence for the government and media to have presented an account of events? That doesn't make any sense.

Gosh, where do you think the evidence came from?

You didn't answer my question as usual. You just say whatever you want. The source of the evidence has nothing to do with it. No matter what the source was it exists. You can deny it all you want but it won't go away no matter how hard you try. That being said, since you don't believe that the government has a story it would behoove you to spend your time elsewhere. You are defending something that you deny exists daily.

glitch in the matrix move along.

[edit on 19-10-2009 by jprophet420]

Originally posted by jprophet420

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by jprophet420

Why do I have to refute evidence for the government and media to have presented an account of events? That doesn't make any sense.

Gosh, where do you think the evidence came from?

You didn't answer my question as usual. You just say whatever you want. The source of the evidence has nothing to do with it. No matter what the source was it exists. You can deny it all you want but it won't go away no matter how hard you try. That being said, since you don't believe that the government has a story it would behoove you to spend your time elsewhere. You are defending something that you deny exists daily.

Sorry, you lose, jprophet420.

The evidence is factual, vetted, and always there.

Your 9/11 Twoof Movements' "Official Story" canard is whatever Twoofers claim it to be, whatever Twoofers want it to be. What one Twoofer claims it to be, another claims the opposite.

You Twoofers are afraid of the evidence and have to deny its existence. You can't refute it. ALL you have is the silly canard of the "Official Story", the quicksand on which your 9/11 Denial Movement's house of cards is built on.

Sorry, we don't let you "Truthers" get away with it.

Originally posted by jthomas
The evidence is factual, vetted, and always there.

Like how your link concerning the videos doesn't actually include any videos...

Originally posted by jthomas

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?

There were 85 videos. They were examined:

www.flight77.info...

Originally posted by Donny 4 million
reply to post by ImAPepper

 

Z. Moussaoui was not involved in the violence of the 911 Tragedies.
He perpetrated no crime that day.
Your bunk fools no one. he may have been a voter though.
nice try. tweet your bird crap all you want.

This will be my last response to you. Your little grade school antics don't fly with me so I no longer wish to engage in any type of conversation.

Moussaoui, was in fact charged with conspiring to hijack planes and crash them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, yes he was in jail in Minnesota when the Sept. 11 attacks unfolded. In seeking a death sentence, prosecutors were required to prove that he "intentionally participated in an act... and the victim died as a direct result of the act." Moussaoui admitted he knew about the attacks and did nothing to stop them. Moussaoui's life was spared by one juror. ONE. Do some research son.

That being said, was he flying a plane? NO. This is not the issue. You, sir asked me to point out witnesses that you wanted questioned in a court of law. Access to those witness testimonies is available. Will you read the sworn testimonies from the witnesses of the attacks, or will you continue to defend the terrorist that did this?

Don't bother answering. The cowardice of the truth movement is so obvious.

reply to post by jthomas


I haven't lost anything, there is no argument. The government released its account of 911 via the media period. It happened and if you don't like it don't post about it. All I'm saying is if you deny it you should not bother posting here. Its bad enough we have no planes theories to deal with, let alone no theory theories.

reply to post by jthomas

Sorry, if you can't understand it after all my posts and replies, I don't think re-posting it will change it.

Go back and re-read my posts carefully. Do your homework.

What post would that be?

reply to post by jthomas


Ok jthomas I have shown you proof that the OS story is false a fantasy, impossible, unscientific. You will find all of my evidences of proof in hundreds of 911 threads that I have been posting in. “Sorry, if you can't understand it after all my posts and replies, I don't think re-posting it will change it”.

“Your 9/11 OS “DENIAL Movements” canard is whatever OS deniers claim it to be, whatever OS deniers want it to be. What one OS deniers claims it to be, another claims the opposite.”

You “OS deniers” are afraid of the evidence and have to deny its existence. You can't refute it. ALL you have is the silly canard of the "Official Story", the quicksand on which your OS Denial Movement's house of cards is built on.

Sorry, we don't let you "OS Deniers" get away with it.




[edit on 19-10-2009 by impressme]

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by Donny 4 million

A real human would name JUST FREAKIN ONE that was cross-examined in a court of Freakin American law.

Amazing. So now every witness to very event has to go to court.

Maybe you should read the Constitution, Donny.

Well, well jt that would depend on wether they were witness for the defense or the prosecution. Which ones are you talking about Jt. Can you quote with the Constitutional verbiage that applies. I know you can't
Bout all you can do is be annoying. If I call you tweets will you get all emotional?

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by jthomas

 

I haven't lost anything, there is no argument. The government released its account of 911 via the media period. It happened and if you don't like it don't post about it. All I'm saying is if you deny it you should not bother posting here. Its bad enough we have no planes theories to deal with, let alone no theory theories.

Sorry, jprophet420, you really have lost. You know full well that whatever the government says or does not say about 9/11 is irrelevant to what the evidence demonstrates. No matter how hard you try to spin it. It's silly.

Unless you can finally present evidence - after eight full years - that the government was complicit in any way with the 9/11 attacks you're blowing smoke. The government has had nothing to explain or justify other than the incompetence that has already been demonstrated.

Feel free to deal with the evidence. Your canard of the "official story" has never cut the mustard and never will. You should be highly embarrassed to even to use the term.

There is no "official story." There is just the evidence and what the evidence demonstrates, as much as you and your fellow 9/11 "Truthers" hate to admit it.

Originally posted by Donny 4 million

Originally posted by jthomas

A real human would name JUST FREAKIN ONE that was cross-examined in a court of Freakin American law.

Amazing. So now every witness to very event has to go to court.

Maybe you should read the Constitution, Donny.

Well, well jt that would depend on wether they were witness for the defense or the prosecution. Which ones are you talking about Jt.

Eyewitnesses are not required to defend or prosecute anything unless there is a court case.

Perhaps you can come up with a novel reason why any eyewitness should be required to go to court to report what they've seen in the absence of a court case.

I would imagine that might have a chilling effect with eyewitnesses to fender benders, wouldn't you agree?



[edit on 19-10-2009 by jthomas]