I then states that the reason that belief in pink unicorns is irrational is because there is no evidence that pink unicorns exist.
I'm using pink unicorns as an example,
PUs are a poor example.
No-one gains or loses significantly from their existence. What was the last big mammal discovery? The okapi? Little impact.
On the other hand, that big business and/or gummint conspire against Teh people is a daily, proven occurrence. In some cases it's overt - corporations as people - in some it is opaque but quickly discovered - that bridge closure in NY, Monsanto etc - and in some it is enshrined institutionally that you won't find out - redacting, 30/70 year non disclosure laws and so on.
So whereas belief in PU flies in the face of possible motive and context, belief in the pervasiveness of conspiracy does not.
In fact, it is the rational response.
Now where's the Lawyer Twins tag team to demolish this.
To the question of: How could anyone think these were hoaxes?
Let me get this straight. You are so curious that you haven't even tried Google?
If I can get an answer from someone who is in the know, I prefer that as my first option. But since your answers to the repeated questions of asking for any evidence as to why you believe what you believe has been QUIT BEING A DICK, I'M OUTTA HERE, I guess I'll try google.
There's that damned word again.
Well again, here's all the "evidence" I have right here: _______________________________.
You really think I'm personally sitting on unseen footage and unused vials of fake blood?
Seriously, formulate a conversation rather than an inquisition (granted Rockwell, you've been better than most in here which is why I even bothered to respond to you at all) and maybe I'll play along more than I am now. Maybe.
And for the record, I have no interest in trying to sway people who should already know how blatantly evil their government is that it's so. Y'all should already be there and if you aren't I actually see you as at least somewhat complicit.
I fail to understand how "what makes you believe these events were staged?" is an inquisition. I have no idea if you're sitting on unseen footage or not, I was genuinely curious as to what articles/evidence/correlations/discussions/whatever led you to believe that Sandy Hook and the Boston Marathon were not random acts of violence.
If your only support is a long held belief that our government does fucked up shit - a belief I think most of us share here - then that's pretty dubious in my opinion. I try not to make leaps of faith like that without something more than a hunch to back it up.
I then states that the reason that belief in pink unicorns is irrational is because there is no evidence that pink unicorns exist.
I'm using pink unicorns as an example,
PUs are a poor example.
No-one gains or loses significantly from their existence. What was the last big mammal discovery? The okapi? Little impact.
On the other hand, that big business and/or gummint conspire against Teh people is a daily, proven occurrence. In some cases it's overt - corporations as people - in some it is opaque but quickly discovered - that bridge closure in NY, Monsanto etc - and in some it is enshrined institutionally that you won't find out - redacting, 30/70 year non disclosure laws and so on.
So whereas belief in PU flies in the face of possible motive and context, belief in the pervasiveness of conspiracy does not.
In fact, it is the rational response.
Now where's the Lawyer Twins tag team to demolish this.
That's all good and dandy, but none of the evidence that exposed your particular examples is indicative that the government or NRA was behind Sandy Hook and the Boston Marathon. It's indicative that those particular events happened. I'm asking specifically about Sandy Hook and Boston because those two events were cited specifically by Harvey. Saying that the bridge closures in NY/NJ is evidence that Sandy Hook was staged is really really bad logic.
Rule #1 in proving theories or hypothesis is correlation does not equal causation, and you don't even have correlation here in regards to Sandy Hook and Boston.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
prof_rockwell said:
HarveyCanal said:
prof_rockwell said:
HarveyCanal said:
To the question of: How could anyone think these were hoaxes?
Let me get this straight. You are so curious that you haven't even tried Google?
If I can get an answer from someone who is in the know, I prefer that as my first option. But since your answers to the repeated questions of asking for any evidence as to why you believe what you believe has been QUIT BEING A DICK, I'M OUTTA HERE, I guess I'll try google.
There's that damned word again.
Well again, here's all the "evidence" I have right here: _______________________________.
You really think I'm personally sitting on unseen footage and unused vials of fake blood?
Seriously, formulate a conversation rather than an inquisition (granted Rockwell, you've been better than most in here which is why I even bothered to respond to you at all) and maybe I'll play along more than I am now. Maybe.
And for the record, I have no interest in trying to sway people who should already know how blatantly evil their government is that it's so. Y'all should already be there and if you aren't I actually see you as at least somewhat complicit.
I fail to understand how "what makes you believe these events were staged?" is an inquisition. I have no idea if you're sitting on unseen footage or not, I was genuinely curious as to what articles/evidence/correlations/discussions/whatever led you to believe that Sandy Hook and the Boston Marathon were not random acts of violence.
If your only support is a long held belief that our government does fucked up shit - a belief I think most of us share here - then that's pretty dubious in my opinion. I try not to make leaps of faith like that without something more than a hunch to back it up.
That's the thing. Y'all want articles and evidence when those aren't what initially made me think the event was staged (staged meaning either pretend killings or actually killings, but the key being that in either scenario it was orchestrated from above). Basically, I've thought most every event like this (9/11, Columbine, Sandy Hook, Aurora, Boston) has been staged since Oklahoma City when I watched live on CNN as they reported and showed the bomb squad going in and removing 3 undetonated bombs from the building before any life safety operations could even begin, then within an hour from then they started pretending that the additional bombs thing never happened.
Call them false flag operations or ritual killings or whatever, but this shit is planned. I also don't believe that normal people have the capacity to waltz into crowded public places and started gunning down people ala a video game. That takes both drugs and mind control to happen. And low and behold, most cited assassins or patsies or whatever have indeed had ties to US military mind control operations...pinch, poke, they're Manchurian Candidates.
I mean, I have at times visited the "conspiracy theory" websites y'all are talking about to see the specifics on how shady things went down. But I didn't need a website to know instantly that 9/11 was some fake shit. As soon as I saw those building fall in on themselves from obvious controlled demolitions, I knew.
Anyway, Sandy Hook was planned and there is a ton of corroboration on that. Just look into it. It's out there. And Boston was as well. That the patsy was a CIA asset gives it away, let alone the character actors ish and all the anomalies surrounding the bomb itself.
The only fragment of what could be called reasoning is the collapsing towers looking like a controlled demolition. Don't you think that it would have been much easier to demolish the towers in a more un-controlled looking manner? Like place all charges on one side so they collapse more irregularly?
Common sense would tell me that if there's something fishy then there has to be somebody profiting. Looking at the state of the US pre- and post-9/11 I'm having a hard time figuring out who could have gained anything from the events.
What I truly find unsettling about these conspiracy "theories" ( "hunches" would be more accurate since a theory needs some sort of foundation which clearly is completely absent here) is the staggering amount of paranoia and the ability to completely ignore all common sense needed to buy into this shit in the first place. The sole tangible effect this nonsense is ever going to have is that it feeds some minds with theories that are too absurd for any person to even reasonably explain to their own self, let alone argue them in public. Leaving them as intellectually impotent and deeply paranoid individuals caught up inside of their own poisoned minds with no way out.
That's why nobody really gave much of a shit about that American helicopter shooting up Reuters journalists and civilians. The 9/11 conspiracy, the staged Sandy Hook and Boston Marathon events are just so much more outrageous.
How do you know it isn't the evil government itself that spreads these conspiracy theories? If you think about it this would actually be a pretty smart thing for them to do.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Yes, I'm a completely illogical, dysfunctional person who merely slops around in his own drool each pathetic, unintelligent day.
Of course, all I would need to do to change all of this is start believing everything the New York Times throws at me.
Common sense would tell me that if there's something fishy then there has to be somebody profiting.
IÔÇÖm trying to wrap my head around this Nevada Ranch ordeal. HereÔÇÖs what I understand thus far. We have this deadbeat rancher who owes the government money (anywhere from $200K to a million bucks depending on who you ask) and he refuses to pay. Instead of putting a lien on his assets which is typically how the government deals with citizens who owe money, they send out armed troops, at a cost higher than the debt owed, to somehow settle this issue. I donÔÇÖt believe our government is stupid so they had to know even before they took these somewhat unusual actions that supporters of this rancher would show up to protest. Sure enough the protestors show up, are labeled as ÔÇ£domestic terroristsÔÇØ and the troops were called off accomplishing nothing.
I see lots of problems here.
First off this rancher is wrong for not paying his fees regardless of how he rationalizes not doing so. As they say in Goodfellas ÔÇ£F U, pay meÔÇØ.
Secondly I have a problem sending armed troops to collect a debt. If just owing the government millions of dollars is such a crime why have people who have owed millions in tax dollars not only not been visited by armed troops, but many have been guests of the White House over the last 30 years.
And finally calling peaceful protestors domestic terrorists is wrong no matter who says it. Until a protestor breaks a law they are well within their rights to do so. It would have been equally wrong to call the ÔÇ£OccupyÔÇØ protestors domestic terrorists even when some of them did break the law and destroy both public and private property. There is REAL terrorism going on in our inner cities on a daily basis with literally hundreds of Americans being murdered yet we donÔÇÖt send in troops to solve this much greater problem.
It seems to me there is something else going on in Nevada that I either donÔÇÖt see or understand. If you want to put me in the loony conspiracy theory box because I do, have at it. Like most issues the answer is probably ÔÇ£follow the moneyÔÇØ and in this case that would be money beyond what is owed by the rancher and what we spent to unsuccessfully collect it. Something here seems fishy to me and I have to wonder who might be profitting.
Common sense would tell me that if there's something fishy then there has to be somebody profiting.
IÔÇÖm trying to wrap my head around this Nevada Ranch ordeal. HereÔÇÖs what I understand thus far. We have this deadbeat rancher who owes the government money (anywhere from $200K to a million bucks depending on who you ask) and he refuses to pay. Instead of putting a lien on his assets which is typically how the government deals with citizens who owe money, they send out armed troops, at a cost higher than the debt owed, to somehow settle this issue. I donÔÇÖt believe our government is stupid so they had to know even before they took these somewhat unusual actions that supporters of this rancher would show up to protest. Sure enough the protestors show up, are labeled as ÔÇ£domestic terroristsÔÇØ and the troops were called off accomplishing nothing.
I see lots of problems here.
First off this rancher is wrong for not paying his fees regardless of how he rationalizes not doing so. As they say in Goodfellas ÔÇ£F U, pay meÔÇØ.
Secondly I have a problem sending armed troops to collect a debt. If just owing the government millions of dollars is such a crime why have people who have owed millions in tax dollars not only not been visited by armed troops, but many have been guests of the White House over the last 30 years.
And finally calling peaceful protestors domestic terrorists is wrong no matter who says it. Until a protestor breaks a law they are well within their rights to do so. It would have been equally wrong to call the ÔÇ£OccupyÔÇØ protestors domestic terrorists even when some of them did break the law and destroy both public and private property. There is REAL terrorism going on in our inner cities on a daily basis with literally hundreds of Americans being murdered yet we donÔÇÖt send in troops to solve this much greater problem.
It seems to me there is something else going on in Nevada that I either donÔÇÖt see or understand. If you want to put me in the loony conspiracy theory box because I do, have at it. Like most issues the answer is probably ÔÇ£follow the moneyÔÇØ and in this case that would be money beyond what is owed by the rancher and what we spent to unsuccessfully collect it. Something here seems fishy to me and I have to wonder who might be profitting.
I'll read up on this case some time later but what I stumbled across at first was a picture of a pair of those "peaceful protestors" who so wrongfully were labeled as terrorists:
Jennifer Scalzo, left, and her husband Anthony Scalzo stand by the Virgin River during a rally in support of Cliven Bundy near Bunkerville, Nev., Friday, April 18, 2014.
WTF?
Peaceful protestors in full military gear carrying assault rifles?
Really?
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Frank said:
HarveyCanal said:
...Of course, all I would need to do to change all of this is start believing everything the New York Times throws at me...
Yeah, the New York Times is for wimps. Real men get their news from infowars.com
Common sense would tell me that if there's something fishy then there has to be somebody profiting.
IÔÇÖm trying to wrap my head around this Nevada Ranch ordeal. HereÔÇÖs what I understand thus far. We have this deadbeat rancher who owes the government money (anywhere from $200K to a million bucks depending on who you ask) and he refuses to pay. Instead of putting a lien on his assets which is typically how the government deals with citizens who owe money, they send out armed troops, at a cost higher than the debt owed, to somehow settle this issue. I donÔÇÖt believe our government is stupid so they had to know even before they took these somewhat unusual actions that supporters of this rancher would show up to protest. Sure enough the protestors show up, are labeled as ÔÇ£domestic terroristsÔÇØ and the troops were called off accomplishing nothing.
I see lots of problems here.
First off this rancher is wrong for not paying his fees regardless of how he rationalizes not doing so. As they say in Goodfellas ÔÇ£F U, pay meÔÇØ.
Secondly I have a problem sending armed troops to collect a debt. If just owing the government millions of dollars is such a crime why have people who have owed millions in tax dollars not only not been visited by armed troops, but many have been guests of the White House over the last 30 years.
And finally calling peaceful protestors domestic terrorists is wrong no matter who says it. Until a protestor breaks a law they are well within their rights to do so. It would have been equally wrong to call the ÔÇ£OccupyÔÇØ protestors domestic terrorists even when some of them did break the law and destroy both public and private property. There is REAL terrorism going on in our inner cities on a daily basis with literally hundreds of Americans being murdered yet we donÔÇÖt send in troops to solve this much greater problem.
It seems to me there is something else going on in Nevada that I either donÔÇÖt see or understand. If you want to put me in the loony conspiracy theory box because I do, have at it. Like most issues the answer is probably ÔÇ£follow the moneyÔÇØ and in this case that would be money beyond what is owed by the rancher and what we spent to unsuccessfully collect it. Something here seems fishy to me and I have to wonder who might be profitting.
I'll read up on this case some time later but what I stumbled across at first was a picture of a pair of those "peaceful protestors" who so wrongfully were labeled as terrorists:
Jennifer Scalzo, left, and her husband Anthony Scalzo stand by the Virgin River during a rally in support of Cliven Bundy near Bunkerville, Nev., Friday, April 18, 2014.
WTF?
Peaceful protestors in full military gear carrying assault rifles?
Really?
If it were illegal to carry them they could/would/should be arrested. Until they use them, yeah, they are peaceful. That's not opinion, that's fact.
Common sense would tell me that if there's something fishy then there has to be somebody profiting.
IÔÇÖm trying to wrap my head around this Nevada Ranch ordeal. HereÔÇÖs what I understand thus far. We have this deadbeat rancher who owes the government money (anywhere from $200K to a million bucks depending on who you ask) and he refuses to pay. Instead of putting a lien on his assets which is typically how the government deals with citizens who owe money, they send out armed troops, at a cost higher than the debt owed, to somehow settle this issue. I donÔÇÖt believe our government is stupid so they had to know even before they took these somewhat unusual actions that supporters of this rancher would show up to protest. Sure enough the protestors show up, are labeled as ÔÇ£domestic terroristsÔÇØ and the troops were called off accomplishing nothing.
I see lots of problems here.
First off this rancher is wrong for not paying his fees regardless of how he rationalizes not doing so. As they say in Goodfellas ÔÇ£F U, pay meÔÇØ.
Secondly I have a problem sending armed troops to collect a debt. If just owing the government millions of dollars is such a crime why have people who have owed millions in tax dollars not only not been visited by armed troops, but many have been guests of the White House over the last 30 years.
And finally calling peaceful protestors domestic terrorists is wrong no matter who says it. Until a protestor breaks a law they are well within their rights to do so. It would have been equally wrong to call the ÔÇ£OccupyÔÇØ protestors domestic terrorists even when some of them did break the law and destroy both public and private property. There is REAL terrorism going on in our inner cities on a daily basis with literally hundreds of Americans being murdered yet we donÔÇÖt send in troops to solve this much greater problem.
It seems to me there is something else going on in Nevada that I either donÔÇÖt see or understand. If you want to put me in the loony conspiracy theory box because I do, have at it. Like most issues the answer is probably ÔÇ£follow the moneyÔÇØ and in this case that would be money beyond what is owed by the rancher and what we spent to unsuccessfully collect it. Something here seems fishy to me and I have to wonder who might be profitting.
I'll read up on this case some time later but what I stumbled across at first was a picture of a pair of those "peaceful protestors" who so wrongfully were labeled as terrorists:
Jennifer Scalzo, left, and her husband Anthony Scalzo stand by the Virgin River during a rally in support of Cliven Bundy near Bunkerville, Nev., Friday, April 18, 2014.
WTF?
Peaceful protestors in full military gear carrying assault rifles?
Really?
If it were illegal to carry them they could/would/should be arrested. Until they use them, yeah, they are peaceful. That's not opinion, that's fact.
ok, thanks for clearing that up, to me they look like potentially dangerous nutcases
...but what do I know, my mind is too screwed up by the Zionist controlled mass media.
Secondly I have a problem sending armed troops to collect a debt.
The guy has a heavily armed militia coming to his aid no wonder they send in armed troops to collect a bill of "$200K to a million bucks depending on who you ask".
Obviously they did their homework on the guy and knew about his connections beforehand.
I don't see a problem, the troops were armed (which I assume also is legal) and remained perfectly peaceful. Call it a troops meet militia lovefest.
And someone tell Jennifer Scalzo that it is an American tradition for peaceful, female demonstrators to not wear a top. Body paint, maybe. Ok, camo of you must.
Secondly I have a problem sending armed troops to collect a debt.
The guy has a heavily armed militia coming to his aid no wonder they send in armed troops to collect a bill of "$200K to a million bucks depending on who you ask".
Obviously they did their homework on the guy and knew about his connections beforehand.
I don't see a problem, the troops were armed (which I assume also is legal) and remained perfectly peaceful. Call it a troops meet militia lovefest.
And someone tell Jennifer Scalzo that it is an American tradition for peaceful, female demonstrators to not wear a top. Body paint, maybe. Ok, camo of you must.
Yet they backed off......if they knew what they were going to do and what to expect, and went prepared to do it, friggin' do it.
Like I said earlier....I'm not defending anyone in this scenario, something just seems fishy.
Common sense would tell me that if there's something fishy then there has to be somebody profiting. Looking at the state of the US pre- and post-9/11 I'm having a hard time figuring out who could have gained anything from the events.
TSA, NSA, Homeland Security, Patriot act, war...
well, at least the terrorism and WMD's were put to rest!
Secondly I have a problem sending armed troops to collect a debt.
The guy has a heavily armed militia coming to his aid no wonder they send in armed troops to collect a bill of "$200K to a million bucks depending on who you ask".
Obviously they did their homework on the guy and knew about his connections beforehand.
I don't see a problem, the troops were armed (which I assume also is legal) and remained perfectly peaceful. Call it a troops meet militia lovefest.
And someone tell Jennifer Scalzo that it is an American tradition for peaceful, female demonstrators to not wear a top. Body paint, maybe. Ok, camo of you must.
Chicken and the egg, these militia nuts were not there until a few days after the troops arrived. There is a legal process in our country to collect debts owed to the government and this is not it.
Common sense would tell me that if there's something fishy then there has to be somebody profiting. Looking at the state of the US pre- and post-9/11 I'm having a hard time figuring out who could have gained anything from the events.
TSA, NSA, Homeland Security, Patriot act, war...
well, at least the terrorism and WMD's were put to rest!
Ok. so let's say the weapons industry gained and the NSA gained by having an excuse to commit economically motivated espionage under the false pretense of collecting anti-terrorist intelligence. And this was worth the cost of two wars? And you think that this was the motivation for the US government to somehow execute the 9/11 attacks?
Secondly I have a problem sending armed troops to collect a debt.
The guy has a heavily armed militia coming to his aid no wonder they send in armed troops to collect a bill of "$200K to a million bucks depending on who you ask".
Obviously they did their homework on the guy and knew about his connections beforehand.
I don't see a problem, the troops were armed (which I assume also is legal) and remained perfectly peaceful. Call it a troops meet militia lovefest.
And someone tell Jennifer Scalzo that it is an American tradition for peaceful, female demonstrators to not wear a top. Body paint, maybe. Ok, camo of you must.
Yet they backed off......if they knew what they were going to do and what to expect, and went prepared to do it, friggin' do it.
Like I said earlier....I'm not defending anyone in this scenario, something just seems fishy.
Both sides got to show their force and went home peacefully.
Next time the troops will know how much militia will be there in approximately what number and in what time frame. They will know who they are and where they come from and the militia will be easy to stop or easy to engage depending the troop's strategy. This time around they probably just tested the militia's response time.
When armed groups oppose each other, all that matters to me is to be far enough away, I don't have any sympathy or interest for either side.
Common sense would tell me that if there's something fishy then there has to be somebody profiting. Looking at the state of the US pre- and post-9/11 I'm having a hard time figuring out who could have gained anything from the events.
TSA, NSA, Homeland Security, Patriot act, war...
well, at least the terrorism and WMD's were put to rest!
Ok. so let's say the weapons industry gained and the NSA gained by having an excuse to commit economically motivated espionage under the false pretense of collecting anti-terrorist intelligence. And this was worth the cost of two wars? And you think that this was the motivation for the US government to somehow execute the 9/11 attacks?
I have no theory about who was behind the attacks, specifically.
I'm just not buying those buildings went down the way they supposedly did, and the way the investigation into it (9/11 Commission Report)was a complete joke. It doesn't take any sort of leap of faith to question that.
First responders' testimonies of explosions inside lead you to believe something else was going on as well.
Common sense would tell me that if there's something fishy then there has to be somebody profiting. Looking at the state of the US pre- and post-9/11 I'm having a hard time figuring out who could have gained anything from the events.
TSA, NSA, Homeland Security, Patriot act, war...
well, at least the terrorism and WMD's were put to rest!
Ok. so let's say the weapons industry gained and the NSA gained by having an excuse to commit economically motivated espionage under the false pretense of collecting anti-terrorist intelligence. And this was worth the cost of two wars? And you think that this was the motivation for the US government to somehow execute the 9/11 attacks?
I have no theory about who was behind the attacks, specifically.
I'm just not buying those buildings went down the way they supposedly did, and the way the investigation into it (9/11 Commission Report)was a complete joke. It doesn't take any sort of leap of faith to question that.
First responders' testimonies of explosions inside lead you to believe something else was going on as well.
With that amount of heat the steel structure expanded and twisted. Concrete doesn't expand, at least not nearly at the same rate as metal so columns and floors would explode under the strain. With enough heat, metal water pipes explode like pipe bombs. Ever seen/heard a large house on fire? Plus like I said, it's easier to demolish a building in an un-controlled manner than to have it collapse into itself. Why should "they" have gone out of their way to make things look "suspicious".
Secondly I have a problem sending armed troops to collect a debt.
The guy has a heavily armed militia coming to his aid no wonder they send in armed troops to collect a bill of "$200K to a million bucks depending on who you ask".
Obviously they did their homework on the guy and knew about his connections beforehand.
I don't see a problem, the troops were armed (which I assume also is legal) and remained perfectly peaceful. Call it a troops meet militia lovefest.
And someone tell Jennifer Scalzo that it is an American tradition for peaceful, female demonstrators to not wear a top. Body paint, maybe. Ok, camo of you must.
Yet they backed off......if they knew what they were going to do and what to expect, and went prepared to do it, friggin' do it.
Like I said earlier....I'm not defending anyone in this scenario, something just seems fishy.
Both sides got to show their force and went home peacefully.
Next time the troops will know how much militia will be there in approximately what number and in what time frame. They will know who they are and where they come from and the militia will be easy to stop or easy to engage depending the troop's strategy. This time around they probably just tested the militia's response time.
When armed groups oppose each other, all that matters to me is to be far enough away, I don't have any sympathy or interest for either side.
I may be wrong, but I think what's fishy and what you're glossing over is we don't send armed troops to collect debts from citizens...ever.
Common sense would tell me that if there's something fishy then there has to be somebody profiting. Looking at the state of the US pre- and post-9/11 I'm having a hard time figuring out who could have gained anything from the events.
TSA, NSA, Homeland Security, Patriot act, war...
well, at least the terrorism and WMD's were put to rest!
Ok. so let's say the weapons industry gained and the NSA gained by having an excuse to commit economically motivated espionage under the false pretense of collecting anti-terrorist intelligence. And this was worth the cost of two wars? And you think that this was the motivation for the US government to somehow execute the 9/11 attacks?
I have no theory about who was behind the attacks, specifically.
I'm just not buying those buildings went down the way they supposedly did, and the way the investigation into it (9/11 Commission Report)was a complete joke. It doesn't take any sort of leap of faith to question that.
First responders' testimonies of explosions inside lead you to believe something else was going on as well.
With that amount of heat the steel structure expanded and twisted. Concrete doesn't expand, at least not nearly at the same rate as metal so columns and floors would explode under the strain. With enough heat, metal water pipes explode like pipe bombs. Ever seen/heard a large house on fire? Plus like I said, it's easier to demolish a building in an un-controlled manner than to have it collapse into itself. Why should "they" have gone out of their way to make things look "suspicious".
In addition, rigging the WTC in a controlled demo would have taken a crew weeks to set up and would be absolutely impossible to do undetected.
A conspiracy like that would involve hundreds of people - it defies belief that nobody has had second thoughts or talked by now.
Common sense would tell me that if there's something fishy then there has to be somebody profiting. Looking at the state of the US pre- and post-9/11 I'm having a hard time figuring out who could have gained anything from the events.
TSA, NSA, Homeland Security, Patriot act, war...
well, at least the terrorism and WMD's were put to rest!
Ok. so let's say the weapons industry gained and the NSA gained by having an excuse to commit economically motivated espionage under the false pretense of collecting anti-terrorist intelligence. And this was worth the cost of two wars? And you think that this was the motivation for the US government to somehow execute the 9/11 attacks?
I have no theory about who was behind the attacks, specifically.
I'm just not buying those buildings went down the way they supposedly did, and the way the investigation into it (9/11 Commission Report)was a complete joke. It doesn't take any sort of leap of faith to question that.
First responders' testimonies of explosions inside lead you to believe something else was going on as well.
With that amount of heat the steel structure expanded and twisted. Concrete doesn't expand, at least not nearly at the same rate as metal so columns and floors would explode under the strain. With enough heat, metal water pipes explode like pipe bombs. Ever seen/heard a large house on fire? Plus like I said, it's easier to demolish a building in an un-controlled manner than to have it collapse into itself. Why should "they" have gone out of their way to make things look "suspicious".
In addition, rigging the WTC in a controlled demo would have taken a crew weeks to set up and would be absolutely impossible to do undetected.
A conspiracy like that would involve hundreds of people - it defies belief that nobody has had second thoughts or talked by now.
This is indeed why the great majority of conspiracy theories are bullshit....you would need to have 100's if not 1,000's of people all in on it and keeping this grand secret.....that goes against human nature and is just not possible. If more than a handful of people would need to be involved in order to pull off any of these conspiracies I automatically discount them due to common sense.
I may be wrong, but I think what's fishy and what you're glossing over is we don't send armed troops to collect debts from citizens...ever.
Well, apparently you do, at least when the debtor is connected to an armed militia.
Personally I don't find this fishy, to me this seems adequate.
So let's say you owe $600.000 (let's take the median) to the government and you refuse to pay. What happens next? I guess at some point they will arrest you and throw your ass in jail, right? So you have an army-like group that enjoys to play dress-up like they'd go to war and who carry assault rifles and who are perfectly willing to come and put themselves in authority's way. Who would you send then? An un-armed tax collector to be intimidated?
I'm not into this wild west mentality bullshit. I'm a strong supporter of the state monopoly on the use of force and I find it ridiculous to allow citizens to own assault weapons and parade around with them. Before Harv mentions the AK47 photo, yes, when we lived in Guinea we had several guns in the house and we paid someone to stand in front of our house at night to let off a few rounds into the air if he heard someone on the other side of the wall. It was a necessity. We had chosen to live outside of the diplomat's and business districts in the inner city and instead had moved to a mixed neighborhood with everything, from shacks to single floor cabin-like structures all the way up to 3-storey villas all on our "block". Everybody who wasn't living in a tin roof shack had armed guards. Directly next to us was a small orphanage which also had an armed guard. One night they got robbed and their guard was shot in the head. If you wanted the police to come you'd have to pay them money first so they could fuel their car. Living in a basically non-governed non-policed country wasn't the most comfortable feeling.
I may be wrong, but I think what's fishy and what you're glossing over is we don't send armed troops to collect debts from citizens...ever.
Well, apparently you do, at least when the debtor is connected to an armed militia.
Personally I don't find this fishy, to me this seems adequate.
So let's say you owe $600.000 (let's take the median) to the government and you refuse to pay. What happens next? I guess at some point they will arrest you and throw your ass in jail, right? So you have an army-like group that enjoys to play dress-up like they'd go to war and who carry assault rifles and who are perfectly willing to come and put themselves in authority's way. Who would you send then? An un-armed tax collector to be intimidated?
I'm not into this wild west mentality bullshit. I'm a strong supporter of the state monopoly on the use of force and I find it ridiculous to allow citizens to own assault weapons and parade around with them. Before Harv mentions the AK47 photo, yes, when we lived in Guinea we had to pay someone to stand in front of our house at night to let off a few rounds into the air if he heard someone on the other side of the wall. It was a necessity. We had chosen to live outside of the city in a mixed neighborhood with everything, from shacks to single floor cabin-like structures all the way up to 3-storey villas all on our "block". Everybody who wasn't living in a tin roof shack had armed guards. Directly next to us was a small orphanage which also had an armed guard. One night they got robbed and their guard was shot in the head. If you wanted the police to come you'd have to pay them money first so they could fuel their car. Living in a basically non-governed non-policed country wasn't the most comfortable feeling.
Well obviously they did in this case, but it's certainly not the norm.
I believe if I owed $600,000 to the government they would put a lien on my home and assets, possibly evict me from my home and if I objected by breaking the law, put me in jail.
Comments
PUs are a poor example.
No-one gains or loses significantly from their existence. What was the last big mammal discovery? The okapi? Little impact.
On the other hand, that big business and/or gummint conspire against Teh people is a daily, proven occurrence. In some cases it's overt - corporations as people - in some it is opaque but quickly discovered - that bridge closure in NY, Monsanto etc - and in some it is enshrined institutionally that you won't find out - redacting, 30/70 year non disclosure laws and so on.
So whereas belief in PU flies in the face of possible motive and context, belief in the pervasiveness of conspiracy does not.
In fact, it is the rational response.
Now where's the Lawyer Twins tag team to demolish this.
I fail to understand how "what makes you believe these events were staged?" is an inquisition. I have no idea if you're sitting on unseen footage or not, I was genuinely curious as to what articles/evidence/correlations/discussions/whatever led you to believe that Sandy Hook and the Boston Marathon were not random acts of violence.
If your only support is a long held belief that our government does fucked up shit - a belief I think most of us share here - then that's pretty dubious in my opinion. I try not to make leaps of faith like that without something more than a hunch to back it up.
That's all good and dandy, but none of the evidence that exposed your particular examples is indicative that the government or NRA was behind Sandy Hook and the Boston Marathon. It's indicative that those particular events happened. I'm asking specifically about Sandy Hook and Boston because those two events were cited specifically by Harvey. Saying that the bridge closures in NY/NJ is evidence that Sandy Hook was staged is really really bad logic.
Rule #1 in proving theories or hypothesis is correlation does not equal causation, and you don't even have correlation here in regards to Sandy Hook and Boston.
That's the thing. Y'all want articles and evidence when those aren't what initially made me think the event was staged (staged meaning either pretend killings or actually killings, but the key being that in either scenario it was orchestrated from above). Basically, I've thought most every event like this (9/11, Columbine, Sandy Hook, Aurora, Boston) has been staged since Oklahoma City when I watched live on CNN as they reported and showed the bomb squad going in and removing 3 undetonated bombs from the building before any life safety operations could even begin, then within an hour from then they started pretending that the additional bombs thing never happened.
Call them false flag operations or ritual killings or whatever, but this shit is planned. I also don't believe that normal people have the capacity to waltz into crowded public places and started gunning down people ala a video game. That takes both drugs and mind control to happen. And low and behold, most cited assassins or patsies or whatever have indeed had ties to US military mind control operations...pinch, poke, they're Manchurian Candidates.
I mean, I have at times visited the "conspiracy theory" websites y'all are talking about to see the specifics on how shady things went down. But I didn't need a website to know instantly that 9/11 was some fake shit. As soon as I saw those building fall in on themselves from obvious controlled demolitions, I knew.
Anyway, Sandy Hook was planned and there is a ton of corroboration on that. Just look into it. It's out there. And Boston was as well. That the patsy was a CIA asset gives it away, let alone the character actors ish and all the anomalies surrounding the bomb itself.
Okay there, I answered your question.
Common sense would tell me that if there's something fishy then there has to be somebody profiting. Looking at the state of the US pre- and post-9/11 I'm having a hard time figuring out who could have gained anything from the events.
What I truly find unsettling about these conspiracy "theories" ( "hunches" would be more accurate since a theory needs some sort of foundation which clearly is completely absent here) is the staggering amount of paranoia and the ability to completely ignore all common sense needed to buy into this shit in the first place. The sole tangible effect this nonsense is ever going to have is that it feeds some minds with theories that are too absurd for any person to even reasonably explain to their own self, let alone argue them in public. Leaving them as intellectually impotent and deeply paranoid individuals caught up inside of their own poisoned minds with no way out.
That's why nobody really gave much of a shit about that American helicopter shooting up Reuters journalists and civilians. The 9/11 conspiracy, the staged Sandy Hook and Boston Marathon events are just so much more outrageous.
How do you know it isn't the evil government itself that spreads these conspiracy theories? If you think about it this would actually be a pretty smart thing for them to do.
Of course, all I would need to do to change all of this is start believing everything the New York Times throws at me.
Thank you for saving my life, Soul Strut.
IÔÇÖm trying to wrap my head around this Nevada Ranch ordeal. HereÔÇÖs what I understand thus far. We have this deadbeat rancher who owes the government money (anywhere from $200K to a million bucks depending on who you ask) and he refuses to pay. Instead of putting a lien on his assets which is typically how the government deals with citizens who owe money, they send out armed troops, at a cost higher than the debt owed, to somehow settle this issue. I donÔÇÖt believe our government is stupid so they had to know even before they took these somewhat unusual actions that supporters of this rancher would show up to protest. Sure enough the protestors show up, are labeled as ÔÇ£domestic terroristsÔÇØ and the troops were called off accomplishing nothing.
I see lots of problems here.
First off this rancher is wrong for not paying his fees regardless of how he rationalizes not doing so. As they say in Goodfellas ÔÇ£F U, pay meÔÇØ.
Secondly I have a problem sending armed troops to collect a debt. If just owing the government millions of dollars is such a crime why have people who have owed millions in tax dollars not only not been visited by armed troops, but many have been guests of the White House over the last 30 years.
And finally calling peaceful protestors domestic terrorists is wrong no matter who says it. Until a protestor breaks a law they are well within their rights to do so. It would have been equally wrong to call the ÔÇ£OccupyÔÇØ protestors domestic terrorists even when some of them did break the law and destroy both public and private property. There is REAL terrorism going on in our inner cities on a daily basis with literally hundreds of Americans being murdered yet we donÔÇÖt send in troops to solve this much greater problem.
It seems to me there is something else going on in Nevada that I either donÔÇÖt see or understand. If you want to put me in the loony conspiracy theory box because I do, have at it. Like most issues the answer is probably ÔÇ£follow the moneyÔÇØ and in this case that would be money beyond what is owed by the rancher and what we spent to unsuccessfully collect it. Something here seems fishy to me and I have to wonder who might be profitting.
Yeah, the New York Times is for wimps. Real men get their news from infowars.com
I'll read up on this case some time later but what I stumbled across at first was a picture of a pair of those "peaceful protestors" who so wrongfully were labeled as terrorists:
Jennifer Scalzo, left, and her husband Anthony Scalzo stand by the Virgin River during a rally in support of Cliven Bundy near Bunkerville, Nev., Friday, April 18, 2014.
WTF?
Peaceful protestors in full military gear carrying assault rifles?
Really?
would.
Yeah, I couldn't help but think the same thing... first though you'd have to go through Anthony Scalzo and his assault rifle...
Plus, the angle of the picture doesn't reveal her elbows which could be severely callused from all that sniper training.
I'd definitely prefer a coffee table book with militia chicks in camo swimwear and heavy weaponry over a book on record collectros though!
If it were illegal to carry them they could/would/should be arrested. Until they use them, yeah, they are peaceful. That's not opinion, that's fact.
ok, thanks for clearing that up, to me they look like potentially dangerous nutcases
...but what do I know, my mind is too screwed up by the Zionist controlled mass media.
The guy has a heavily armed militia coming to his aid no wonder they send in armed troops to collect a bill of "$200K to a million bucks depending on who you ask".
Obviously they did their homework on the guy and knew about his connections beforehand.
I don't see a problem, the troops were armed (which I assume also is legal) and remained perfectly peaceful. Call it a troops meet militia lovefest.
And someone tell Jennifer Scalzo that it is an American tradition for peaceful, female demonstrators to not wear a top. Body paint, maybe. Ok, camo of you must.
I agree.....but in this country you can't be indicted by how you look, only if you break a law. And I don't think they have, yet.
Yet they backed off......if they knew what they were going to do and what to expect, and went prepared to do it, friggin' do it.
Like I said earlier....I'm not defending anyone in this scenario, something just seems fishy.
TSA, NSA, Homeland Security, Patriot act, war...
well, at least the terrorism and WMD's were put to rest!
Chicken and the egg, these militia nuts were not there until a few days after the troops arrived. There is a legal process in our country to collect debts owed to the government and this is not it.
Ok. so let's say the weapons industry gained and the NSA gained by having an excuse to commit economically motivated espionage under the false pretense of collecting anti-terrorist intelligence. And this was worth the cost of two wars? And you think that this was the motivation for the US government to somehow execute the 9/11 attacks?
Both sides got to show their force and went home peacefully.
Next time the troops will know how much militia will be there in approximately what number and in what time frame. They will know who they are and where they come from and the militia will be easy to stop or easy to engage depending the troop's strategy. This time around they probably just tested the militia's response time.
When armed groups oppose each other, all that matters to me is to be far enough away, I don't have any sympathy or interest for either side.
I have no theory about who was behind the attacks, specifically.
I'm just not buying those buildings went down the way they supposedly did, and the way the investigation into it (9/11 Commission Report)was a complete joke. It doesn't take any sort of leap of faith to question that.
First responders' testimonies of explosions inside lead you to believe something else was going on as well.
With that amount of heat the steel structure expanded and twisted. Concrete doesn't expand, at least not nearly at the same rate as metal so columns and floors would explode under the strain. With enough heat, metal water pipes explode like pipe bombs. Ever seen/heard a large house on fire? Plus like I said, it's easier to demolish a building in an un-controlled manner than to have it collapse into itself. Why should "they" have gone out of their way to make things look "suspicious".
I may be wrong, but I think what's fishy and what you're glossing over is we don't send armed troops to collect debts from citizens...ever.
In addition, rigging the WTC in a controlled demo would have taken a crew weeks to set up and would be absolutely impossible to do undetected.
A conspiracy like that would involve hundreds of people - it defies belief that nobody has had second thoughts or talked by now.
This is indeed why the great majority of conspiracy theories are bullshit....you would need to have 100's if not 1,000's of people all in on it and keeping this grand secret.....that goes against human nature and is just not possible. If more than a handful of people would need to be involved in order to pull off any of these conspiracies I automatically discount them due to common sense.
Well, apparently you do, at least when the debtor is connected to an armed militia.
Personally I don't find this fishy, to me this seems adequate.
So let's say you owe $600.000 (let's take the median) to the government and you refuse to pay. What happens next? I guess at some point they will arrest you and throw your ass in jail, right? So you have an army-like group that enjoys to play dress-up like they'd go to war and who carry assault rifles and who are perfectly willing to come and put themselves in authority's way. Who would you send then? An un-armed tax collector to be intimidated?
I'm not into this wild west mentality bullshit. I'm a strong supporter of the state monopoly on the use of force and I find it ridiculous to allow citizens to own assault weapons and parade around with them. Before Harv mentions the AK47 photo, yes, when we lived in Guinea we had several guns in the house and we paid someone to stand in front of our house at night to let off a few rounds into the air if he heard someone on the other side of the wall. It was a necessity. We had chosen to live outside of the diplomat's and business districts in the inner city and instead had moved to a mixed neighborhood with everything, from shacks to single floor cabin-like structures all the way up to 3-storey villas all on our "block". Everybody who wasn't living in a tin roof shack had armed guards. Directly next to us was a small orphanage which also had an armed guard. One night they got robbed and their guard was shot in the head. If you wanted the police to come you'd have to pay them money first so they could fuel their car. Living in a basically non-governed non-policed country wasn't the most comfortable feeling.
Well obviously they did in this case, but it's certainly not the norm.
I believe if I owed $600,000 to the government they would put a lien on my home and assets, possibly evict me from my home and if I objected by breaking the law, put me in jail.