Once Again, The Will of the Voters Is Denied

page: 14
18
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
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.


You haven't been too convincing after 8 full years, have you?

When do you intend to go public with your evidence of an "Official Story?" Why are you so hesitant to present any evidence that is supposedly "false and a fantasy?"

We all keep waiting.... and waiting... and waiting.......


[edit on 19-10-2009 by jthomas]




posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


We invaded multiple sovereign nations on incompetence and you think its irrelevant? Again the question of why you post here comes up. I cant see what you are trying to accomplish. You don't agree that there is either an OS or conspiracy, and freely admit incompetence on a criminal level.

Irrelevant indeed.
thesaurus.reference.com...
dictionary.reference.com...
English can't be everybodies first language.

I got news for you but VOTERS didn't make the decision to got to war, but the officials they elected did. That means every voter has the right to know if their congressperson/representative made their decision based on the truth or not. They deserve to know the level of decit involved, it will effect their future votes.



[edit on 19-10-2009 by jprophet420]



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

Originally posted by jthomas

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.


We invaded multiple sovereign nations on incompetence and you think its irrelevant?


Post Hoc fallacy. Try again.


Again the question of why you post here comes up. I cant see what you are trying to accomplish.


Explained several posts back in this thread. Do your homework.


You don't agree that there is either an OS or conspiracy


You haven't demonstrated any conspiracy by our government. Don't pretend you have.


and freely admit incompetence on a criminal level.


I never said, "criminal level." Don't lie. I will always call you on lying. YOU are free to demonstrate anything criminal. You just are not allowed to do so without providing the evidence for it.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
You know full well that whatever the government says or does not say about 9/11 is irrelevant to what the evidence demonstrates...

There is no "official story." There is just the evidence and what the evidence demonstrates...


How come your link to the video evidence doesn't actually include any videos?


Originally posted by jthomas
There were 85 videos. They were examined:

www.flight77.info...



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Post hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "after this, therefore because (on account) of this", is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) which states, "Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one." It is often shortened to simply post hoc and is also sometimes referred to as false cause, coincidental correlation or correlation not causation. It is subtly different from the fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc, in which the chronological ordering of a correlation is insignificant.

It would be post hoc fallacy on my part if I was the one who came up with "we went to war because of..." However, the government came up with the reasons, put them on TV, and then later was unable to uphold them. George W. Bush got on tv and said we were invading Afghanistan to hunt the Taliban and Bin Laden. We later released a statement saying that we did not have enough evidence to press charges against him. That is incompetence, and it is criminal. It doesn't matter if you said it or not, it is a fact. You can give any reason you want for being here but actions speak louder than words.

I will even go as far as to say it may not have been incompetence on GW's part. He may just have had several sources who he thought were reliable. Either way it certainly is criminal to invade a country and hunt down a person who has not been charged with a crime.



[edit on 19-10-2009 by jprophet420]



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 08:58 PM
link   
post by ImAPepper

"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."


post by donny
Don't wimp on me when I was having such a good time with you.
Claiming there was ever one person cross examined in an American court of law--- directly involved in the TRAGEDIES of September 11 2001 is a lie. The voters want a trial.
Don't bother answering. The cowardice of the OS hacks is so obvious.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 



You haven't been too convincing after 8 full years, have you?


I have only been a member for a few months. So, where do you get 8 years?

When do you intend to go public with your evidence of an "Fairytale ?" Why are you so hesitant to present any evidence that is supposedly "false and a fantasy?"

We all keep waiting.... and waiting... and waiting.......

We are still waiting.



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 04:20 AM
link   
Second Polite Mod Request

Hi People,

Theres still a fair amount of the snarky sidejabs and comments targetting the Poster rather than the Post itself.

Can we please hold off on the personalised stuff and just stick to thrash the topic instead of eachother.


Cheers,
ALIEN



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas


Thank you for finally admitting that serial numbers are not needed to KNOW which aircraft crashed. We already know that AA77 was hijacked and deliberately crashed into the Pentagon. Tell your Twoofer buddies that.




...and just how is it that we know that?



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

Post hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "after this, therefore because (on account) of this", is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) which states, "Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one." It is often shortened to simply post hoc and is also sometimes referred to as false cause, coincidental correlation or correlation not causation. It is subtly different from the fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc, in which the chronological ordering of a correlation is insignificant.

It would be post hoc fallacy on my part if I was the one who came up with "we went to war because of..." However, the government came up with the reasons, put them on TV, and then later was unable to uphold them.


Please fill in the blank: "9/11 was an inside job because___________."


George W. Bush got on tv and said we were invading Afghanistan to hunt the Taliban and Bin Laden.


Which has nothing to do with the evidence of what happened on 9/11.


We later released a statement saying that we did not have enough evidence to press charges against him.


Source?


That is incompetence, and it is criminal. It doesn't matter if you said it or not, it is a fact.


Two fallacies. You haven't shown either incompetence or criminality.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 05:43 PM
link   
They didn't get enough signatures, which is honestly fair. It's unfair to anyone else who has successful passed a pettition this way



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by jthomas


Thank you for finally admitting that serial numbers are not needed to KNOW which aircraft crashed. We already know that AA77 was hijacked and deliberately crashed into the Pentagon. Tell your Twoofer buddies that.




...and just how is it that we know that?


You really need to stop asking these simple basic questions. It seems that everytime you do, it confuses them. It is hard to use doubletalk to weasel out when the question is so simple. I think you are really becoming a thorn in their side with your simplistic questions. Where did you go Lilly, come back to us.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by jprophet420

Post hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "after this, therefore because (on account) of this", is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) which states, "Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one." It is often shortened to simply post hoc and is also sometimes referred to as false cause, coincidental correlation or correlation not causation. It is subtly different from the fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc, in which the chronological ordering of a correlation is insignificant.

It would be post hoc fallacy on my part if I was the one who came up with "we went to war because of..." However, the government came up with the reasons, put them on TV, and then later was unable to uphold them.


Please fill in the blank: "9/11 was an inside job because___________."


George W. Bush got on tv and said we were invading Afghanistan to hunt the Taliban and Bin Laden.


Which has nothing to do with the evidence of what happened on 9/11.


We later released a statement saying that we did not have enough evidence to press charges against him.


Source?


That is incompetence, and it is criminal. It doesn't matter if you said it or not, it is a fact.


Two fallacies. You haven't shown either incompetence or criminality.

Learn how to read if you respond please. I said IF. I bolded it and italicized it. Then I posted the reason the President gave. It directly was related to 911 as it was stated at the time.

I find it simply pathetic that you respond to every post I make and then ask for the source again later.


"The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden's Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11." ~ Rex Tomb, FBI.


You admitted incompetence yourself in this very thread so go pound salt if you want anything deeper than that. Although, I can see the humor in the fact that I used YOUR OPINION for a source and you didn't find that sufficient. Nobody else here does either TBH.

It is a criminal act to kill, or conspire to kill someone who has not been charged with a capitol offense or whom you are not defending yourself against.

[edit on 21-10-2009 by jprophet420]



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 07:36 PM
link   
It truly amazes me that people who support the OS on ATS that have been a member for a long time tells me that person is NOT ignorant of the real facts. No, there is something else going on here and its NOT denial either. I have not seen people take such delight in seeing the truth suppressed.

The people in NYC are not going to give up they will try again and again and again. One thing the People of NYC have done, is “exposed” how our government will do everything in their power to stop the truth from coming out. Because, of the government action on this event, people are now waking up! The more the government resist in their suppression the more the people will want to throw them out.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by jthomas


Thank you for finally admitting that serial numbers are not needed to KNOW which aircraft crashed. We already know that AA77 was hijacked and deliberately crashed into the Pentagon. Tell your Twoofer buddies that.




...and just how is it that we know that?


You really need to stop asking these simple basic questions. It seems that everytime you do, it confuses them.


I find it amusing that when I repeatedly present you Twoofers evidence, you claim it doesn't exist.

Wanna see me do it again? Wanna see you all deny it?




posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by jprophet420

Post hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "after this, therefore because (on account) of this", is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) which states, "Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one." It is often shortened to simply post hoc and is also sometimes referred to as false cause, coincidental correlation or correlation not causation. It is subtly different from the fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc, in which the chronological ordering of a correlation is insignificant.

It would be post hoc fallacy on my part if I was the one who came up with "we went to war because of..." However, the government came up with the reasons, put them on TV, and then later was unable to uphold them.


Please fill in the blank: "9/11 was an inside job because___________."


George W. Bush got on tv and said we were invading Afghanistan to hunt the Taliban and Bin Laden.


Which has nothing to do with the evidence of what happened on 9/11.


We later released a statement saying that we did not have enough evidence to press charges against him.


Source?


That is incompetence, and it is criminal. It doesn't matter if you said it or not, it is a fact.


Two fallacies. You haven't shown either incompetence or criminality.

Learn how to read if you respond please. I said IF. I bolded it and italicized it. Then I posted the reason the President gave. It directly was related to 911 as it was stated at the time.


When you change the topic from what actually happened on 9/11 to policy decisions as a result of 9/11, expect to be reminded what your 9/11 "Truth" Movement claims.


I find it simply pathetic that you respond to every post I make and then ask for the source again later.


I expect solid evidence. You provide none and try to change the subject.


"The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden's Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11." ~ Rex Tomb, FBI.


Gosh. You might want to read a little more carefully:


"Rex Tomb, a former chief of the FBI's investigative publicity unit, says the list reflects the evolving nature of crime. The bureau added Osama bin Laden after the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Africa. "In the 1950s, it was bank robbery," Tomb says. "Now, you see bin Laden up there."
www.usatoday.com...



"There's no mystery here," said FBI spokesman Rex Tomb. "They could add 9/11 on there, but they have not because they don't need to at this point. . . . There is a logic to it."

David N. Kelley, the former U.S. attorney in New York who oversaw terrorism cases when bin Laden was indicted for the embassy bombings there in 1998, said he is not at all surprised by the lack of a reference to Sept. 11 on the official wanted poster. Kelley said the issue is a matter of legal restrictions and the need to be fair to any defendant.

"It might seem a little strange from the outside, but it makes sense from a legal point of view," said Kelley, now in private practice. "If I were in government, I'd be troubled if I were asked to put up a wanted picture where no formal charges had been filed, no matter who it was."
www.washingtonpost.com...


Please do your homework, jprohet420.


You admitted incompetence yourself in this very thread so go pound salt if you want anything deeper than that.


Sorry, don't weasel out of the fact that you changed the subject when you went from our discussion of the 9/11 attacks to all of a sudden making the claim: "We invaded multiple sovereign nations on incompetence and you think its irrelevant?" You are just demonstrating evasion and changing MY use of the term in a different subject matter to something I never claimed. I would appreciate it if you would stick to the topic at hand and stop resorting to such obvious ploys.


It is a criminal act to kill, or conspire to kill someone who has not been charged with a capitol offense or whom you are not defending yourself against.



CAUTION

USAMA BIN LADEN IS WANTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE AUGUST 7, 1998, BOMBINGS OF THE UNITED STATES EMBASSIES IN DAR ES SALAAM, TANZANIA, AND NAIROBI, KENYA. THESE ATTACKS KILLED OVER 200 PEOPLE. IN ADDITION, BIN LADEN IS A SUSPECT IN OTHER TERRORIST ATTACKS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD.

CONSIDERED ARMED AND EXTREMELY DANGEROUS

REWARD

The Rewards For Justice Program, United States Department of State, is offering a reward of up to $25 million for information leading directly to the apprehension or conviction of Usama Bin Laden. An additional $2 million is being offered through a program developed and funded by the Airline Pilots Association and the Air Transport Association.

www.fbi.gov...


We are looking for Osama bin Laden. We have a definitive reason to be.

Any questions?



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 




I find it amusing that when I repeatedly present you Twoofers evidence, you claim it doesn't exist.

Wanna see me do it again? Wanna see you all deny it?





So, name calling is the only weapon you have in your arsenal of disinformation that you keep spreading. You lost all creditability long time ago. “Twoofers evidence”?
What dose your comment have to do with the OP? Please elaborate?



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
It truly amazes me that people who support the OS on ATS that have been a member for a long time tells me that person is NOT ignorant of the real facts.


Since you have refused to bring any facts refuting the massive evidence that you are required to deny to keep your house of cards afloat, just WHO in this world do you propose to convince?

I have asked you all that question repeatedly without an answer.

And as long as you resort to the "official story" canard, you will not ever be taken seriously by anyone.


No, there is something else going on here and its NOT denial either. I have not seen people take such delight in seeing the truth suppressed.


It's pure denial. It has never been anything but denial. You don't have anything to go on, no evidence, no refutation of the massive evidence you pretend does not exist.


The people in NYC are not going to give up they will try again and again and again. One thing the People of NYC have done, is “exposed” how our government will do everything in their power to stop the truth from coming out.


How easily Truthers buy into that pure propaganda. When you completely fail to even follow the law you are SUPPOSED to respect, don't take responsibility, you create yet another foolish, irrational, conspiracy fantasy to, once again, justify your own epic fail.


Because, of the government action on this event, people are now waking up! The more the government resist in their suppression the more the people will want to throw them out.


So you all said in 2002, seven full years ago. It's amazing that you actually still fool yourselves so easily.

Let's state the facts clearly. The 9/11 "Truth" Movement is a monumental failure. It has achieved nothing.

Endless faith and hope is all it has.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by jthomas
 




I find it amusing that when I repeatedly present you Twoofers evidence, you claim it doesn't exist.

Wanna see me do it again? Wanna see you all deny it?





"So, name calling is the only weapon you have..."


It's not name calling. It's a fact. I present the evidence and you all pretend it's not evidence.

Review this thread more carefully.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 



"Rex Tomb, a former chief of the FBI's investigative publicity unit, says the list reflects the evolving nature of crime. The bureau added Osama bin Laden after the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Africa. "In the 1950s, it was bank robbery," Tomb says. "Now, you see bin Laden up there."
www.usatoday.com...


Yeah, he is up there BUT he hasn’t been charged for the crime of the century, 911?


"There's no mystery here," said FBI spokesman Rex Tomb. "They could add 9/11 on there, but they have not because they don't need to at this point. . . . There is a logic to it."


Perhaps, they have NO evidences to charge Ben Laden so they talk about other issues instead. The FBI says they don’t need to charged Bin Laden because they don't need to at this point. . . . There is a logic to it." What kind of idiot does he take Americans for. Does Rex Tomb think we American don’t care who gets charged for doing 911 and the said culprit that the government said who did 911 should just walk free? Because there is a logic to it. LOL That’s a load of BS!





top topics
 
18
<< 11  12  13    15  16  17 >>

log in

join