Once Again, The Will of the Voters Is Denied

page: 18
18
<< 15  16  17   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


Do you really think we all just missed you blatantly ignoring an equally blatant contradiction in the "official story"? You didn't explain a damned thing.




posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by Jezus

Now you admit there are some unexplained anomalies?


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



25 Tactics for Truth Suppression

...

10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can usually them be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.

Example: "Flight 553's crash was pilot error, according to the NTSB findings. Digging up new witnesses who say the CIA brought it down at a selected spot and were waiting for it with 50 agents won't revive that old dead horse buried by NTSB more than twenty years ago."

Proper response: You are avoiding the issue with disinformation tactics. Your ignore the issues and imply they are old charges as if new information is irrelevant. Why do you refuse to address the issues by use of such disinformation tactics (rule 10 - associate charges with old news)?


benfrank.net...



Btw, Jezus, yes, I think this is jthomas' backhanded way of admitting there are unexplained anomalies regarding 9/11. Notice how he totally ignored what you were posting about and took the opportunity to post a one-liner about "truthers" instead.

Yep, he sees it. He just has no business here with facts, only propaganda. That's the issue.

[edit on 2-11-2009 by bsbray11]



posted on Nov, 2 2009 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by jthomas
 


Do you really think we all just missed you blatantly ignoring an equally blatant contradiction in the "official story"? You didn't explain a damned thing.


"Official story" blah...blah..


You know full well I don't have to explain anything.



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by jthomas
 


Why would you think that just because it is the "official story" it doesn't have to be explained with concrete evidence?



posted on Nov, 3 2009 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
"Official story" blah...blah..


You know full well I don't have to explain anything.



No, you're right. If you can't explain something, you certainly aren't required to try anyway.

Thank you for being so candid with us, though.



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by jthomas
"Official story" blah...blah..


You know full well I don't have to explain anything.


No, you're right.


BTW, what was the name of that person you convinced we needed a new invetigation?



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
BTW, what was the name of that person you convinced we needed a new invetigation?


I think it was the same person you were showing all of your "evidence" to, you know, ranting and then not backing any of it up?



posted on Nov, 4 2009 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by jthomas
BTW, what was the name of that person you convinced we needed a new invetigation?


I think it was the same person you were showing all of your "evidence" to, you know, ranting and then not backing any of it up?


Sorry, not me, I'm not a "Truther." I think it was Craig Ranke you convinced.



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by jthomas
 


Do you really think we all just missed you blatantly ignoring an equally blatant contradiction in the "official story"? You didn't explain a damned thing.


"Official story" blah...blah..


You know full well I don't have to explain anything.




And you exercise that right daily.
Thank you, you have convinced more people that the OS is a lie than any "truther" I know.

That is not directed as sarcasm, I am serious.



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

And you exercise that right daily.
Thank you, you have convinced more people that the OS is a lie than any "truther" I know.


Good! The more the merrier. There's BIG money to be made off of "Truthers."


That is not directed as sarcasm, I am serious.


Sorry, you're still not getting a cut of the action.



posted on Nov, 9 2009 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas
There's BIG money to be made off of "Truthers."


Nothing compared to the money Halliburton and Blackwater makes off Official Story believers...



posted on Nov, 10 2009 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by bsbray11
reply to post by jthomas
 


Do you really think we all just missed you blatantly ignoring an equally blatant contradiction in the "official story"? You didn't explain a damned thing.


"Official story" blah...blah..


You know full well I don't have to explain anything.





...because I can't. In fact I hardly understand the cut and paste jobs I have been using as arguments all along.





new topics
 
18
<< 15  16  17   >>

log in

join