Once Again, The Will of the Voters Is Denied

page: 17
18
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
So the only "valid" new investigation, according to you, is only the you do yourself.


The only "valid" investigation is anyone that explains all the anomalies and contradictions of the official story.


Originally posted by jthomas
That begs, the question. Why would you put your trust in your 9/11 "Truth" Movement peers? Ah, yes, the epidemic of cognitive dissonance rampant in the 9/11 "Truth" Movement prevents you from understanding.


en.wikipedia.org...

Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. The "ideas" or "cognitions" in question may include attitudes and beliefs, the awareness of one's behavior, and facts. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, or by justifying or rationalizing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors.[1] Cognitive dissonance theory is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology.

Dissonance normally occurs when a person perceives a logical inconsistency among his or her cognitions. This happens when one idea implies the opposite of another. For example, a belief in animal rights could be interpreted as inconsistent with eating meat or wearing fur. Noticing the contradiction would lead to dissonance, which could be experienced as anxiety, guilt, shame, anger, embarrassment, stress, and other negative emotional states. When people's ideas are consistent with each other, they are in a state of harmony, or consonance. If cognitions are unrelated, they are categorized as irrelevant to each other and do not lead to dissonance.




posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


The citizens of the united states are the truth movements peers, along with the rest of the 1st world. Peers don't have to hold the same beliefs.



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by jthomas
 


The citizens of the united states are the truth movements peers, along with the rest of the 1st world. Peers don't have to hold the same beliefs.


The citizens of the United States do not go around claiming "9/11 was an inside job." Only "Truthers" do that, and without a stitch of evidence.

So no, the citizens of the U.S. would never consider themselves your "peers."



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by jthomas
So the only "valid" new investigation, according to you, is only the you do yourself.


The only "valid" investigation is anyone that explains all the anomalies and contradictions of the official story.


The evidence does not have any contradictions. That's just another reason why hiding behind your canard of an "OS" gets you nowhere.



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by jthomas
 


The citizens of the united states are the truth movements peers, along with the rest of the 1st world. Peers don't have to hold the same beliefs.


The citizens of the United States do not go around claiming "9/11 was an inside job." Only "Truthers" do that, and without a stitch of evidence.

So no, the citizens of the U.S. would never consider themselves your "peers."

Your reply is ignorant beyond anything acceptable. Of course they are my peers. I am a registered voter and therefore am able to represent myself as their peers in a court of law.

And also, I do not go around claiming that 911 was an inside job. That refutes your post 100%. If you don't have anything nice to say, at the very very least be able to back it up.



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
The evidence does not have any contradictions. That's just another reason why hiding behind your canard of an "OS" gets you nowhere.


Maybe someone should start jthomas off with showing him that the government couldn't even get their times straight for when the planes impacted the buildings. Not just off by a couple seconds from differing sources, but at least a whopping 17 seconds.


Original seismic and Commission times.
Table 1
AA Flt 11
2001 LDEO 8:46:26 Original seismic
2004 Commission 8:46:40 (14 seconds difference)
UA Flt 175
2001 LDEO 9:02:54 Original seismic
2004 Commission 9:03:11 (17 seconds difference)


www.journalof911studies.com...


Yes, that's a contradiction. A pretty damned bizarre one. Until you realize that there were bombs going off in the basement levels at around the same time the planes struck, as per so many witness testimonies of them being totally separate events. Police reporting vans exploding, etc.



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by jthomas
So the only "valid" new investigation, according to you, is only the you do yourself.


The only "valid" investigation is anyone that explains all the anomalies and contradictions of the official story.


The evidence does not have any contradictions. That's just another reason why hiding behind your canard of an "OS" gets you nowhere.




Of course it does. For starters the serial numbers on parts found at the pentagon did not match the serial numbers of flight 77.
George Tenant was accused of not making certain testimonies prior to 911 in the commission report, and he was able to prove the testimonies had been made.
The FEMA report contradicts the NIST report.
Heres one of my favorites:

You said:

As you well know, we accept the multiple lines of evidence from hundreds of sources and thousands of people that converge on the conclusion that Osama bin Laden was indeed responsible for 4 hijackings by Arabs.

I refuted it in my own thread but you failed to reply there...

Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI responded, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Osama bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.” Asked to explain the process, Tomb responded, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice then decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.”


Hiding indeed. More like exposing good sir.



posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Maybe someone should start jthomas off with showing him that the government couldn't even get their times straight for when the planes impacted the buildings. Not just off by a couple seconds from differing sources, but at least a whopping 17 seconds.



You will never get Jthomas to understand these or admit to these types of things. He is busy trolling threads where he thinks double speak and complete BS make other people somehow stupid. Whenever the thread hits some solid fact he cannot even pretend to deny.....crickets...crickets...crickets.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale

Originally posted by bsbray11
Maybe someone should start jthomas off with showing him that the government couldn't even get their times straight for when the planes impacted the buildings. Not just off by a couple seconds from differing sources, but at least a whopping 17 seconds.



You will never get Jthomas to understand these or admit to these types of things. He is busy trolling threads where he thinks double speak and complete BS make other people somehow stupid. Whenever the thread hits some solid fact he cannot even pretend to deny.....crickets...crickets...crickets.


It has been quite easy to demonstrate that neither of you can back up your claims.

It's also telling that no "Truther" can yet tell us what they think they are accomplishing after going around in circles, waving their hands, for the last 8 years. It still hasn't dawned on that the burden of proof rests entirely on your shoulders and why.



posted on Oct, 30 2009 @ 02:06 PM
link   
I already posted the times once, above, but I'll do it again for the sake of insanity since I'm already being accused of being unable to produce them (
):


Original seismic and Commission times.
Table 1
AA Flt 11
2001 LDEO 8:46:26 Original seismic
2004 Commission 8:46:40 (14 seconds difference)
UA Flt 175
2001 LDEO 9:02:54 Original seismic
2004 Commission 9:03:11 (17 seconds difference)


Again, it's posted above, and it's not like a simple Google search wouldn't corroborate the same thing.

When are you going to actually start reading the posts you respond to, jthomas..?



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by jthomas
The evidence does not have any contradictions. That's just another reason why hiding behind your canard of an "OS" gets you nowhere.


Maybe someone should start jthomas off with showing him that the government couldn't even get their times straight for when the planes impacted the buildings.


Yes, the government is so incompetent.


Yes, that's a contradiction. A pretty damned bizarre one. Until you realize that there were bombs going off in the basement levels at around the same time the planes struck, as per so many witness testimonies of them being totally separate events. Police reporting vans exploding, etc.


There were neither reports of "bombs" nor any evidence of bombs or any type of "explosives." You're just showing that the 9/11 "Truth" Movement is even more incompetent than the government.



posted on Oct, 31 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


Yes, so incompetent that they can't put a single investigative report together that makes any damned sense.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by jthomas
 


Yes, so incompetent that they can't put a single investigative report together that makes any damned sense.


There are only a relatively few of you 9/11 "Deniers" in the world today, deniers that don't like evidence inconvenient to your cause. We have over 65 years of documented history of Holocaust Denial that taught the rational world the psychology, tactics, and methodology of "denial." Along with moon-landing denial and round-earth denial. As we say, denial is denial is denial.

Right now, the only competition you have is with Creationism. Maybe your two groups will merge one day.



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


Nice rant but you even just admitted yourself that it was government incompetence preventing them from even getting the aircraft impact times right amongst themselves.

We all saw live on TV, yet they were still 17 seconds off....

[edit on 1-11-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
There are only a relatively few of you 9/11 "Deniers" in the world today, deniers that don't like evidence inconvenient to your cause. We have over 65 years of documented history of Holocaust Denial that taught the rational world the psychology, tactics, and methodology of "denial." Along with moon-landing denial and round-earth denial. As we say, denial is denial is denial.

Right now, the only competition you have is with Creationism. Maybe your two groups will merge one day.



Denial denial denial...

It would be ironic if it wasn't so transparent...



posted on Nov, 1 2009 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by jthomas
 


Nice rant.


No rant, just the truth.



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


Of course, that's why you keep posting 1-liners and off-topic raving about everything but the fact that they couldn't even get the impact time straight. Off by 17 seconds between two different government sources. No, that makes total sense.



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by jthomas
 


Of course, that's why you keep posting 1-liners and off-topic raving about everything but the fact that they couldn't even get the impact time straight. Off by 17 seconds between two different government sources. No, that makes total sense.


You can deny anything your little heart desires. The fact remains that you cannot refute the evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

Too bad for you.


"The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking (as well as creationism, Holocaust denial and the various crank theories of physics). All the "evidence" for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy. Such notions are easily refuted by noting that scientific theories are not built on single facts alone but on a convergence of evidence assembled from multiple lines of inquiry."

www.scientificamerican.com...



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by jthomas
 


Of course, that's why you keep posting 1-liners and off-topic raving about everything but the fact that they couldn't even get the impact time straight. Off by 17 seconds between two different government sources. No, that makes total sense.


You can deny anything your little heart desires. The fact remains that you cannot refute the evidence that AA77 hit the Pentagon.

Too bad for you.


"The mistaken belief that a handful of unexplained anomalies can undermine a well-established theory lies at the heart of all conspiratorial thinking (as well as creationism, Holocaust denial and the various crank theories of physics). All the "evidence" for a 9/11 conspiracy falls under the rubric of this fallacy. Such notions are easily refuted by noting that scientific theories are not built on single facts alone but on a convergence of evidence assembled from multiple lines of inquiry."

www.scientificamerican.com...




Now you admit there are some unexplained anomalies?



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jezus

Now you admit there are some unexplained anomalies?


No, we explained 9/11 "Truthers" many years ago.





new topics
top topics
 
18
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join