cbcanada
Banned
I guess if it's not in cnn it's not real news,, and certainly can't be true
"If i was educated, I'd be a damn fool"
"If i was educated, I'd be a damn fool"
CBC news
- Thread starter cbcanada
- Start date
cbcanada
Banned
Here is the BBC reporting the 3rd building crashed 20 minutes before it crashed on live TV... But don't take my word on it look it up on YouTube and you will see the live feed. it's conclusive evidence there is no one that can deny it
yet no one says or does nothing about it.
No one questions it...
Because the general public is like you... They refuse to believe reality because it will just complicate your life
How does the British broadcasting agency report a building has fallen down in live TV. 20 minutes before it's falling down?
I guess they're just giving us the real news eh?
"If i was educated, I'd be a damn fool"
So let me get this straight. A government conspiracy to fly 4 planes into 4 targets and the government primitively tells the media of their plans to what? Just to add to the possible number of co-conspiritors? Seems logical its not like in the preceding news segments they had been reporting the collapse of multiple surrounding buildings and the fire dept had been warning that the entire 47 floor structure was engulfed and live new events like this are confusing as heck.
whats next Chemtrails?
cbcanada
Banned
You have no idea bro.. Your reality is what they tell you reality is...think real long about that...
"If i was educated, I'd be a damn fool"
cbcanada
Banned
250noob for one minute forget what makes sense to you forget the idea "are you telling me they would"
Don't think anything or assume anything g because most people are good human beings and their general goodness prevents them from seeing reality and the existence of evil.
Look at fact.
1) a building g collapsed
2) the building was reported as collapsed 20 minutes before it collapsed on live TV. The reporter who reported it was talking with the building still standing I the background.
So the possible conclusions are
1) she made an error in saying the building collapsed
2) some one messed up and forwarded a pre written news release to the bbc eay in error when the the twin towers fell
The problem.. Most of the world is good and they would not think about these kind of evil acts so they always take theimpossible can't believe won't happen no one would do that approach.
But if you take the human connection out of everything and just look at it you can see the fault in everything
You can go to the John F. Kennedy assassination to distillate they say he was struck by one bullet
It's been scientifically proven that is impossible for him to be hit by one bullet
Everyone there it says they heard multiple shots
But yet the Pentagon releases the news to the mainstream media repeats what they say and it becomes reality
Point is the media is not reporting the news they are in fact making the news they are making the reality
This has become such an accepted norm people will read this and say why are we even talking about this
"If i was educated, I'd be a damn fool"
Don't think anything or assume anything g because most people are good human beings and their general goodness prevents them from seeing reality and the existence of evil.
Look at fact.
1) a building g collapsed
2) the building was reported as collapsed 20 minutes before it collapsed on live TV. The reporter who reported it was talking with the building still standing I the background.
So the possible conclusions are
1) she made an error in saying the building collapsed
2) some one messed up and forwarded a pre written news release to the bbc eay in error when the the twin towers fell
The problem.. Most of the world is good and they would not think about these kind of evil acts so they always take theimpossible can't believe won't happen no one would do that approach.
But if you take the human connection out of everything and just look at it you can see the fault in everything
You can go to the John F. Kennedy assassination to distillate they say he was struck by one bullet
It's been scientifically proven that is impossible for him to be hit by one bullet
Everyone there it says they heard multiple shots
But yet the Pentagon releases the news to the mainstream media repeats what they say and it becomes reality
Point is the media is not reporting the news they are in fact making the news they are making the reality
This has become such an accepted norm people will read this and say why are we even talking about this
"If i was educated, I'd be a damn fool"
Im glad you know whats going on in my head!
Woa thats quite a Gish Galop of unrelated points so i will address the mains ones
So whats the most probable solution.
1) A news reporter made a mistake on a very confusion messy situation
2) A shadowy Cobal executed the whole thing that would require literally thousands of willing Partcipants including people in low level production staff in the bcc
Eye witness testimony is inherently unreliable even for pretty normal events. But its not surprising that they herd multiple shots as there was at least 3 fired. Three people were hit. JFK, The governor and a bystander.
So you just made a Claim that that its been scientifically proven its impossible for a him to be hit by only one bullet. So were are you getting this information because from what i know about the Carcano rifle that was used that has a fairly uncommon type of shell it acted exactly and ballistics would expect that shell to act. So want to share your scientific source.
cbcanada
Banned
Why is it so hard to believe that rich and powerful men will do anything to gain and keep world power.. They are only human beings.. Human beings shoot and kill people for $100 at a gas station, you think they won't for world domination? How do you think they got to where they are?
Everything you say is what main stream media tells you. You have no idea how much you are being fooled. They are all in the same racket.
Here is a good read on jfk. You will notice even the governor that was shot claims he was shot after. And there is also (a civilian that got hit)
All you debunkers that write off us "conspiracy theorist" .. Laugh at us cause we post pictures from Facebook .... as if no news picture from Facebook is true because CNBC does not repeat it?
To blindly believe the media is more ignorant then anything imaginable
Enjoy this read
http://22november1963.org.uk/single-bullet-theory-jfk-assassination
"If i was educated, I'd be a damn fool"
Everything you say is what main stream media tells you. You have no idea how much you are being fooled. They are all in the same racket.
Here is a good read on jfk. You will notice even the governor that was shot claims he was shot after. And there is also (a civilian that got hit)
All you debunkers that write off us "conspiracy theorist" .. Laugh at us cause we post pictures from Facebook .... as if no news picture from Facebook is true because CNBC does not repeat it?
To blindly believe the media is more ignorant then anything imaginable
Enjoy this read
http://22november1963.org.uk/single-bullet-theory-jfk-assassination
"If i was educated, I'd be a damn fool"
While all that may be true (I certainly believe it) it still doesn't add up to the conspiracies you are espousing.
Another thing I believe is that people are generally unable to live with uncertainty. So we seek answers to all the mysteries of the world, often making some up as we go along. Sometimes we tell ourselves big lies in order to resolve psychological tensions and make it easier for us to take action and move forward in life. I'm sure I've accepted many falsehoods into my mental model of reality, but I try at every turn to avoid them as much as possible. The single most effective way I can do that is to live with uncertainty. So I have a threshold for accepting views or explanations that is very, very high. It's very frustrating for people who know me who tell me to "just do 'x' already!" while I sit around and ponder whatever problem some more.
Do I know the explanation for 9-11? No. Nor do you. Possibly nobody will ever know how it all ended up going down exactly. I simply have an idea about it that I'm comfortable with. But I don't go around arguing it to whoever will listen, because I don't know. I listen to other's views, looking for new info that might contradict what I believe. Same with JFK, same with a dozen murdered and missing doctors. Hey, there's thousands of murdered and missing aboriginal women that the government refuses to investigate. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/11/canada-aboriginal-women-murder_n_5804550.html Maybe they discovered Harper's secret tunnel to Russia in northern Manitoba and had to be 'disappeared' before they told the truth? Or maybe not.
I know what I believe, and if anyone wants to hear it I'll tell them. But most people just want their (mostly shaky) views to be validated by the acceptance of others, to be reassured that there is some certainty in the world. So they spout their opinions like doctrine, unwilling to challenge their own beliefs. Yet all along, their 'definitive' views exists solely because of their inability to live with uncertainty.
Last edited:
The motivation part of it isn't the issue although no actual person with an actual motive is provided. When we have real examples of conspiracies we see small limited groups of people what you talking about now requires the involvement of 1000's of people depending on what variation of the conspiracy mythos you belive possibly more. Im not saying its impossible 9/11 was an inside job only that there isn't sufficient evidence to make the claim.
Ignoring that now we have to add even more people into the this conspiracy. I could level the same accusation your way. You blindly belive what ever comes across your what in a nicely packages internet meme.
These are the regular claims of the magic bullet claimants and they are pretty easy to answer.
To Summaries the objections:
1) Connallys wound: Connallys and his wife claims about what bullets hit them isn't a great objection there is no way they could know what bullet hit them human memory in this regard just isn't reliable enough especially around traumatic events to be useful. However the Film is a great peace of evidence. In frame 223/224 (right after it comes around the sign) is around when the shot hits Kennedy through his back and out of the throat begins to Yaw enters Connallys back at an angle out his chest through the wrist and into shallowly into the leg (later found on Connallys stretcher). at 224 we see the reaction from Connally.
2) The Hat! This should really just be lumped into point one its not really even a separate talking point. The main argument is that there is no blood on the cuff were the bullet would have exited and its not a great argument especially given the grainy old quality of the film we have we would not expect to see blood according to the site we should expect the see that at 268 (according to this site the bullet hasn't even hit Conally yet despite saying in the point above that happened in 238 and Connallys own viewing on the film in 1966 and put the moment he was shot at 236)
3) The wounds:
This resource is straight up dishonest in their description of wound placement on this one.
[h=2][/h]
cbcanada
Banned
250noob
You sound like Dana skully from the x files.
Always a "what if"
Let me know the next time some one shoots some one, the bullet goes through him and hits 2 more and all the witnesses in the crime scene report multiple shots.
The chances are as improbable as 2 buildings free falling to the ground after burning for 2 hours...
Hmm what a coincidence an improbable theory on two improbable events both from the same source.
Why don't you apply the same "what if" theory to the government explanation instead of blindly following the explanations you are given. It/they has a TONS of holes in it.
When you take a **** in the morning ,, do you look at it and think "what if some one else took this ****" before flushing?
"If i was educated, I'd be a damn fool"
You sound like Dana skully from the x files.
Always a "what if"
Let me know the next time some one shoots some one, the bullet goes through him and hits 2 more and all the witnesses in the crime scene report multiple shots.
The chances are as improbable as 2 buildings free falling to the ground after burning for 2 hours...
Hmm what a coincidence an improbable theory on two improbable events both from the same source.
Why don't you apply the same "what if" theory to the government explanation instead of blindly following the explanations you are given. It/they has a TONS of holes in it.
When you take a **** in the morning ,, do you look at it and think "what if some one else took this ****" before flushing?
"If i was educated, I'd be a damn fool"
This thread needz moar BLUE KAWI.
Venom01
Well-known member
Oh hell yes. I really kept my China IL love a secret because when you explain that show to people they just give you a blank stare.
This thread isn't over until someone names the woolly mammal
You obviously know nothing about tv camera work. That is a woman in London (or wherever they are for the BBC) standing in front of a recorded feed from NY. Does it say 'Live from NYC'? No, it just says LIVE, which she was.
cbcanada
Banned
Yes I know that genius! You obviously have not watched the whole live clip
"If i was educated, I'd be a damn fool"
Looks great !
Yea you know the x-files was a fictional TV Show and not real life?
