• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Was Parkland a false flag?

MP

You ask that I answer questions, then pose none. In this day and age it would not be surprising to know that somebody pays "an attorney" an hourly fee when that attorney requests somebody "answer questions" and then poses none.

I should not be surprised. A recent POTUS claimed to be a "constitutional law professor" and then spent 2 terms trashing the very same constitution he was supposedly expert on. Life is funny these days. The US proclaims its concern for human life and high moral principle, then by its actions it destroys countries and kills innocents and renders and tortures.

The self-proclaimed paragon of virtue and democracy is a crazed military aggressor, even as self-proclaimed attorneys have thought processes so impaired they claim to be asking questions when they are just venting.

:lamo

You even deliberately avoided quoting me so that I wouldn't get a notification. Pathetic.




Anyway, all: note how the truther continues to make cowardly excuses for why he won't explain himself. This is what they do when their stupid delusional idiocies are questioned.

They never answer because they never can answer.
 
:lamo

You even deliberately avoided quoting me so that I wouldn't get a notification. Pathetic.




Anyway, all: note how the truther continues to make cowardly excuses for why he won't explain himself. This is what they do when their stupid delusional idiocies are questioned.

They never answer because they never can answer.

I have explained myself MP, but in your dissonant state you refuse to understand. My skepticism of government stories derives from 2 things: common sense and many years of observing government behavior, much of it first-hand.

False Flags are an accepted part of human and military behavior, even from the time of the Trojan Horse. Got history MP? ;)

More modern, Gulf of Tonkin, Reichstag Fire, Operation Northwoods and so many under.

That you reject common sense, have no sense of history or human behavior contributes to your obtuseness in this Parkland affair. You are simply incapable of realizing that you have been fooled by some very skilled propagandists. I do not hold that against you because I have many friends and family in the same situation.

Those of us with curious and open minds, a bit of common sense and historical awareness, have a certain burden to bear, and I've grown accustomed to it. :peace
 
Note how the truther continues to dodge, deflect, and lie:

I have explained myself MP, but in your dissonant state you refuse to understand. My skepticism of government stories derives from 2 things: common sense and many years of observing government behavior, much of it first-hand.

False Flags are an accepted part of human and military behavior, even from the time of the Trojan Horse. Got history MP? ;)

More modern, Gulf of Tonkin, Reichstag Fire, Operation Northwoods and so many under.

That you reject common sense, have no sense of history or human behavior contributes to your obtuseness in this Parkland affair. You are simply incapable of realizing that you have been fooled by some very skilled propagandists. I do not hold that against you because I have many friends and family in the same situation.

Those of us with curious and open minds, a bit of common sense and historical awareness, have a certain burden to bear, and I've grown accustomed to it. :peace

I didn't ask you about how you feel about government. Stop lying and explain your theory in detail (I know you won't, but it's somewhat amusing to watch you keep struggling to generate explanations for why you're the one person on Earth who gets make allegations without backing them up with anything):


Here is the structure of your theory that Cruz was not the shooter despite all the evidence, and that it was a "false flag" (an invented term); in this structure "they" is whomever you are claiming carried out this conspiratorial false flag - funny how you never identified them:


They* need Cruz to think he did it. Then, They need all the other students - who knew Cruz by sight - to think it was Cruz that they witnessed shooting at them, when it was really someone else (They, or possibly Them). It's really a clever plot. You see, they get Cruz and the victims thinking Cruz is guilty, then said parties tell us that Cruz is guilty, and then....

....then....

...something something profit.

Well...who did this? Government? Why? What was gained? Why do we never find out? How can government otherwise be so utterly inept, but manage this? If not government, then who why and how? Nope, not ever gonna get an answer.
 
The entirety of your belief in the official story is, well, because you've been told what to believe a sufficient number of times. Contradictory statements by persons there do not count in your reckoning. You like to be told what to believe by authority figures. Carry on Ace.

Eyewitness accounts always differ because that’s how memory works. You will never understand the world without knowing this
 
^^
Notice how this kind of person never identifies the conspirators, never explains why they do what they supposedly do, never identifies what they supposedly gain from all this, never explains how unlike every other form of organized crime there are absolutely no snitches in conspiracies, not ever.

Notice how the schtick is always the same:

They are always stuck with the schtick of trying to bootstrap their insane theories into the realm of credibility by falsely claiming that X is the appropriate action to take, then saying that the fact that A action was taken is proof something is wrong with the picture. It's all about trying to create the illusion of a hole in the evidence to just ask questions about.

He claims that only one specific thing should legitimately be done with the video. But he only does that so he can say that the fact that something else is being done looks suspicious. Not so. This is pure bootstrapping.

He claims the media should only report on it in one specific way. But he only does that so that he can say that the fact that the media is doing something else looks suspicious. Not so. This is pure bootstrapping.


Notice the core of his theory, which he never touches on:


They* need Cruz to think he did it. Then, They need all the other students - who knew Cruz by sight - to think it was Cruz that they witnessed shooting at them, when it was really someone else (They, or possibly Them). It's really a clever plot. You see, they get Cruz and the victims thinking Cruz is guilty, then said parties tell us that Cruz is guilty, and then....

....then....

...something something profit.

Well...who did this? Government? Why? What was gained? Why do we never find out? How can government otherwise be so utterly inept, but manage this? If not government, then who why and how? Nope, not ever gonna get an answer.


Notice the behavior pattern:


Point out that their theory doesn't make any sense, and they either reply or they do not reply.

If they reply, they announce.....something. Doesn't matter, as long as the something involves a smug declaration of victory.

Or, they just ignore the people challenging them to explain themselves. They would prefer to talk to people who also want to "just ask questions" and then bootstrap their inability to answer their own question into positive evidence of a conspiracy's existence.

There are quite a few CTers out there, and they all follow the same model.


A FEW POINTS TO CONSIDER.
It is possible to recognize anomalies in the official account without knowing who's behind it (although in this case, many already know the likely culprit -- as well as their reasons, which are pretty well known).

There are certain modus operandi for false flags, many of which are present:
An apparent police stand down.
Building to be destroyed before independent investigators can determine what actually happened inside.

There are "snitches," depending on how it's defined. There are many witnesses contradicting the official account -- but not in the main stream media. There are people who openly acknowledge having been told what to say about the incident.

The information about what's happening is kept from participants, who are told not to look around during the incident and to turn off cell phones.

Also, you don't need snitches when the operation is so amateurishly done. David Hogg interviews shooting survivors 5 hours before the shooting began. In the same video as the interviews, he's the one who announces the time.

I could go on for a while, but let me point out that your characterization of alternative accounts as "insane" belies -- perhaps unbeknownst even to yourself -- that you have no argument here. I've seen it too many times.
 
Note how the truther continues to dodge, deflect, and lie:



I didn't ask you about how you feel about government. Stop lying and explain your theory in detail (I know you won't, but it's somewhat amusing to watch you keep struggling to generate explanations for why you're the one person on Earth who gets make allegations without backing them up with anything):


Here is the structure of your theory that Cruz was not the shooter despite all the evidence, and that it was a "false flag" (an invented term); in this structure "they" is whomever you are claiming carried out this conspiratorial false flag - funny how you never identified them:


They* need Cruz to think he did it. Then, They need all the other students - who knew Cruz by sight - to think it was Cruz that they witnessed shooting at them, when it was really someone else (They, or possibly Them). It's really a clever plot. You see, they get Cruz and the victims thinking Cruz is guilty, then said parties tell us that Cruz is guilty, and then....

....then....

...something something profit.

Well...who did this? Government? Why? What was gained? Why do we never find out? How can government otherwise be so utterly inept, but manage this? If not government, then who why and how? Nope, not ever gonna get an answer.

How about this counselor--you or anybody else provide proof that Cruz was the shooter. I know that is asking much in this day and age, but if your case were so solid you would be able to offer that proof.

There is no proof, so all you have is innuendo and the statements of known liars. That may be good enough for you, but it doesn't work for me.

You and others have claimed "ballistic evidence" but provided none. And of course you and they refuse to offer any video showing Cruz doing the shooting. Sorry Charlie, that's just how the Pentagon responded to proof regarding the presence of AA77 at the Pentagon that day. You and they have a consistent pattern of behavior--claims and charges with NO evidence, NO facts in support.
 
How about this counselor--you or anybody else provide proof that Cruz was the shooter. I know that is asking much in this day and age, but if your case were so solid you would be able to offer that proof.

There is no proof, so all you have is innuendo and the statements of known liars. That may be good enough for you, but it doesn't work for me.

You and others have claimed "ballistic evidence" but provided none. And of course you and they refuse to offer any video showing Cruz doing the shooting. Sorry Charlie, that's just how the Pentagon responded to proof regarding the presence of AA77 at the Pentagon that day. You and they have a consistent pattern of behavior--claims and charges with NO evidence, NO facts in support.

I see you still cannot explain your conspiracy theory and instead resort to attacks and excuses.



This may surprise you, but when someone is charged with a crime, the prosecutor has to actually put in solid evidence that that person committed the crime. They don't get to ask a bunch of questions and tell the jury that the defendant is guilty unless the jury can figure out for the prosecutor why he isn't. Yet that's the exact scummy, dishonest, and beyond-stupid game you are playing.

Just stop the idiocy. At least, stop it here. I'm sure there are plenty of truther forums where people can verbally masturbate each other with textual delusion.
 
I see you still cannot explain your conspiracy theory and instead resort to attacks and excuses.



This may surprise you, but when someone is charged with a crime, the prosecutor has to actually put in solid evidence that that person committed the crime. They don't get to ask a bunch of questions and tell the jury that the defendant is guilty unless the jury can figure out for the prosecutor why he isn't. Yet that's the exact scummy, dishonest, and beyond-stupid game you are playing.

Just stop the idiocy. At least, stop it here. I'm sure there are plenty of truther forums where people can verbally masturbate each other with textual delusion.

It's not a CT Mister Person. It is an observation that the official story is completely lacking in proof as to the guilt, or even involvement, of one N. Cruz. Are you really a lawyer?
 
It's not a CT Mister Person. It is an observation that the official story is completely lacking in proof as to the guilt, or even involvement, of one N. Cruz. Are you really a lawyer?

Yet you provide no alternative explanations with any specifics.

Care to provide an alternative explanation with proof.
 
Yet you provide no alternative explanations with any specifics.

Care to provide an alternative explanation with proof.

Such a narrow and unimaginative mind you have Mike.

Obviously, if Cruz did not do the shooting, somebody else did. Were they the same guys hired to do the shooting at San Bernardino? I don't know, I can't know. You don't know, you cannot know. You don't know who actually did the shooting, and the authorities (as is their way) refuse to show any footage from the many cameras to make their case. The only case they make is that they are concealing evidence. That is done when they have something to hide, in this case who the actual shooters were.

The authorities are covering something up, and that's why no video from the 26 cameras has been forthcoming. That fact is too subtle for you to grasp apparently. And you are also not quite able to grasp that covering things up and withholding facts, evidence, videos etc is what they do. Their pattern of deceptive behavior is, once again, confirmed, though for whatever reason, you are not able to perceive that pattern of behavior. Sherlock Holmes you are not.
 
Such a narrow and unimaginative mind you have Mike.

Obviously, if Cruz did not do the shooting, somebody else did. Were they the same guys hired to do the shooting at San Bernardino? I don't know, I can't know. You don't know, you cannot know. You don't know who actually did the shooting, and the authorities (as is their way) refuse to show any footage from the many cameras to make their case. The only case they make is that they are concealing evidence. That is done when they have something to hide, in this case who the actual shooters were.

The authorities are covering something up, and that's why no video from the 26 cameras has been forthcoming. That fact is too subtle for you to grasp apparently. And you are also not quite able to grasp that covering things up and withholding facts, evidence, videos etc is what they do. Their pattern of deceptive behavior is, once again, confirmed, though for whatever reason, you are not able to perceive that pattern of behavior. Sherlock Holmes you are not.

So you use your imagination to come up with your premises. Good to know.

You do realize you provide no evidence in your statement regarding Cruz did not do the shooting. You basically are saying the "authorities" are hiding something. Yet, you provide no alternative explanation. Pretty typical of your posting history.
 
What we do know TG, is that the government and certain controlling forces have carte blanche access to our information. They take babies blood after birth and store it in a secret facility. They have access to our social media and information showing people who are high-risk individuals or ideal targets. Since they have advance knowledge, they know what drugs can alter behavior, specifically.

Perhaps due to the weather or location, Miami/Broward/Fort Lauderdale is an ideal location for these type of experiments/plans. We saw it with the zombie man and airport shooting. These people are well trained in mowing down people.
You been sniffing paint thinner?
 
It's not a CT Mister Person. It is an observation that the official story is completely lacking in proof as to the guilt, or even involvement, of one N. Cruz. Are you really a lawyer?

:lamo

And there come the personal attacks.




If you ever feel like getting around to proving your claims, let me know. I gave you about a hundred chances but all you can manage is the same old boring truther routine.
 
So you use your imagination to come up with your premises. Good to know.

You do realize you provide no evidence in your statement regarding Cruz did not do the shooting. You basically are saying the "authorities" are hiding something. Yet, you provide no alternative explanation. Pretty typical of your posting history.

Yup. It's an old truther tactic.

1. Invent a requirement (a video of teens getting slaughtered should be publicly released within X days).

2. Use the invented requirement to try to bootstrap delusions into existence (because the video wasn't released by the time the truther made up, there must be a conspiracy).

They try to use the lack of evidence as proof that a conspiracy got rid of the evidence. But of course, there is no requirement that they give the videos to the truther. They'll have to give them to Cruz's attorney/attornies for use at trial. But the truther has no claim to them.




Of course, they never can explain the who/what/why/when/how of it. It's always some mysterious "They" who are doing these things for inscrutable purposes. Understandably, they will never be able to explain why "They" would shoot up a school, brainwash Cruz into thinking he did it, brainwash the victims into thinking it was Cruz shooting at them*, or what on Earth any of that would achieve.


*(or the more vile variant - claim that they're teenagers who decided to specialize in pretending to be mass shooting victims)







Such a narrow and unimaginative mind you have Mike.

There's such a thing as too much imagination.



Obviously, if Cruz did not do the shooting, somebody else did.

Why do you truthers always skip right past the obvious first step? You don't get to "somebody else did" until you prove your case.

All you have ever said is typical truther boot-strapping.
 
Last edited:
So you use your imagination to come up with your premises. Good to know.

You do realize you provide no evidence in your statement regarding Cruz did not do the shooting. You basically are saying the "authorities" are hiding something. Yet, you provide no alternative explanation. Pretty typical of your posting history.

There is no evidence that Cruz IS the shooter Mike. That is what your strange analysis fails to see. But you frequently believe stories with no proof. I don't.

No proof means no proof, and when the story is being told by persons with a reputation for deception, well....
 
There is no evidence that Cruz IS the shooter Mike. That is what your strange analysis fails to see. But you frequently believe stories with no proof. I don't.

No proof means no proof, and when the story is being told by persons with a reputation for deception, well....

You are avoiding the fact you are proving no alternative.

I am going to ask to see if you have an understanding of "evidence" and making it known to the public. Is all evidence for a trail made know to the public before the trail? Yes or No.

Do you understand the Grand Jury process? If Yes, give us a summary.

Please share what the "authorities" are hiding?

Better yet, lay out your evidence that it was a false flag.
 
Last edited:
You are avoiding the fact you are proving no alternative.

I am going to ask to see if you have an understanding of "evidence" and making it known to the public. Is all evidence for a trail made know to the public before the trail? Yes or No.

Do you understand the Grand Jury process? If Yes, give us a summary.

Please share what the "authorities" are hiding?

Better yet, lay out your evidence that it was a false flag.

I already have laid it out Mike, but you cannot conceive of your government deceiving you, and so I'm wasting my time trying to explain to you that you've likely been fooled. You believe what the authorities tell you, no questions asked ever, and we've both known that for as long as we've been posting back and forth. You are a perfect example of the case that it is easier to fool a man than it is to explain to him how he has been fooled.

With 26 cameras, we have been shown exactly 0 footage from inside where the killing took place. That means nothing to you, but it means something for me.

While the media has celebrated 17 Angels and other such crapola ad nauseam, it has not interviewed, for example, the individual who is hired by Parkland as the security consultant. Not one interview with him, and you have no questions.

Contradictory testimony has been dealt with here, but you are allergic to it because you don't want to consider the possibility that you've been deceived.

You're a cool Biker Bro Mike, but you are really poor at analysis and dot-connecting.
 
I already have laid it out Mike, but you cannot conceive of your government deceiving you, and so I'm wasting my time trying to explain to you that you've likely been fooled. You believe what the authorities tell you, no questions asked ever, and we've both known that for as long as we've been posting back and forth. You are a perfect example of the case that it is easier to fool a man than it is to explain to him how he has been fooled.

With 26 cameras, we have been shown exactly 0 footage from inside where the killing took place. That means nothing to you, but it means something for me.

While the media has celebrated 17 Angels and other such crapola ad nauseam, it has not interviewed, for example, the individual who is hired by Parkland as the security consultant. Not one interview with him, and you have no questions.

Contradictory testimony has been dealt with here, but you are allergic to it because you don't want to consider the possibility that you've been deceived.

You're a cool Biker Bro Mike, but you are really poor at analysis and dot-connecting.

Your assumption about me and the govt is wrong and has no basis.. Have you ever considered that you have been deceived by the sources you use? For a biker bro you seem to miss some of the dots.

I figured you would not answer the question asked. It seems you get uncomfortable when someone asks for specific. It seems you would prefer the case by held on the internet rather than the courts. Your response shows your lack of understanding the grand jury process and how criminal cases are investigated.

It is very telling that you have pretty much classified all the major shootings as the govt. did it.
 
Last edited:
Your assumption about me and the govt is wrong and has no basis.. Have you ever considered that you have been deceived by the sources you use? For a biker bro you seem to miss some of the dots.

I figured you would not answer the question asked. It seems you get uncomfortable when someone asks for specific. It seems you would prefer the case by held on the internet rather than the courts. Your response shows your lack of understanding the grand jury process and how criminal cases are investigated.

It is very telling that you have pretty much classified all the major shootings as the govt. did it.

I work on a case by case basis. So does Mike Adams, who did more forensic work in that case than the entire LVPD.

You and I just have different skills, that's all, and it's perfectly normal. Nobody ever hired you to be an analyst, would be my guess.

In this day and age of so many incidents being caught on cameras, because virtually everybody is carrying one these days, and the school has 26 more cameras that are permanently recording, we are told there are no useful video we could be shown, and that fails common sense. They are asking me to believe this case is so solid and they can't even provide a few frames from 26 cameras showing their perp in action? Sorry, it doesn't pass the common sense test.

If they have nothing to hide and such a solid case, why are they hiding so much?

That fact alone means something, and then piling on you have the contradictory testimony of persons present when it happened, including staff and students.

Yet you want me to pretend than none of that happened, and quietly accept the official story. Ain't gonna happen.
 
I work on a case by case basis. So does Mike Adams, who did more forensic work in that case than the entire LVPD.

You and I just have different skills, that's all, and it's perfectly normal. Nobody ever hired you to be an analyst, would be my guess.

In this day and age of so many incidents being caught on cameras, because virtually everybody is carrying one these days, and the school has 26 more cameras that are permanently recording, we are told there are no useful video we could be shown, and that fails common sense. They are asking me to believe this case is so solid and they can't even provide a few frames from 26 cameras showing their perp in action? Sorry, it doesn't pass the common sense test.

If they have nothing to hide and such a solid case, why are they hiding so much?

That fact alone means something, and then piling on you have the contradictory testimony of persons present when it happened, including staff and students.

Yet you want me to pretend than none of that happened, and quietly accept the official story. Ain't gonna happen.

Care to support your Adams statement with some facts? Your work on a case by case basis shows a bias in your remarks.

In all of your ramblings you still give no specifics on why parkland was a false flag. You also have not answered if you understand the grand jury process. The questions you present shows you really know little about investigations, witness statements, and the criminal process. One could ask you how you reconcile when witness statements do not agree? I know how I would do it.

As far as me doing analysis, depends what you are referring to. As stated many threads ago, I have done investigations on fires. It seems if you have ever done any you forgot what needs to be withheld from the public. Even the NTSB does not reveal everything till the investigation is done and court proceedings are completed.

As far as this thread. From what is known so far I do not accept that the event was a false flag.
 
Last edited:
You and I just have different skills, that's all, and it's perfectly normal. Nobody ever hired you to be an analyst, would be my guess.

Oh, you're an analyst who is more clever than the "sheeple"?

Then why haven't you bothered with the who/what/why/where/how of this?



All you've got is a 100% BS claim that the videos should have been provided to you. There is no such requirement. It'll be provided to the guy's defense attornies. (Or, y'know, provide proof that there IS a requirement and that it's regularly met in these criminal cases - like an analyst does in the analyst's report on whatever they are analyzing).

Then you've got a claim that inconsistent witness accounts prove there is something wrong. Except witness accounts are always inconsistent.




All you've got is: There is a "They" that would shoot up a school, brainwash Cruz into thinking he did it, brainwash the victims into thinking it was Cruz shooting at them, full stop. You can't even suggest who might want to do it, why they might want to do it, and how they could have achieved their goals.

And every time someone points this out, you just start attacking them. Then you make some smug declarations about yourself and run away.






Allright. What's the next dose of conspiracy swill?

I usually avoid this section because truthers do the exact thing you're doing. I'm curious. Can you actually act like the "analyst" you rag on mike for apparently not being?
 
Care to support your Adams statement with some facts? Your work on a case by case basis shows a bias in your remarks.

In all of your ramblings you still give no specifics on why parkland was a false flag. You also have not answered if you understand the grand jury process. The questions you present shows you really know little about investigations, witness statements, and the criminal process. One could ask you how you reconcile when witness statements do not agree? I know how I would do it.

As far as me doing analysis, depends what you are referring to. As stated many threads ago, I have done investigations on fires. It seems if you have ever done any you forgot what needs to be withheld from the public. Even the NTSB does not reveal everything till the investigation is done and court proceedings are completed.

As far as this thread. From what is known so far I do not accept that the event was a false flag.

Of course you don't accept that Mike. You accept and think what you are conditioned to think. You think it's perfectly natural that the government should confiscate, hide and keep secret video records, whether it is the Parkland School Authorities or the Pentagon in 2001.

We've discussed the Adams analysis several times in previous posts. I'm skeptical you even watched his work in the first place, but maybe you did. You are notorious for leaving common sense out of your analyses, assuming you even analyze facts and evidence "not approved" by the authorities. You and Scott Pelley are 2 peas in the same pod. Gimme some honesty Mike.

MP

Yeah, you never talk about conspiracies until you do. Got it. You avoid this section unless you don't. Right on counselor!
 
Of course you don't accept that Mike. You accept and think what you are conditioned to think. You think it's perfectly natural that the government should confiscate, hide and keep secret video records, whether it is the Parkland School Authorities or the Pentagon in 2001.

We've discussed the Adams analysis several times in previous posts. I'm skeptical you even watched his work in the first place, but maybe you did. You are notorious for leaving common sense out of your analyses, assuming you even analyze facts and evidence "not approved" by the authorities. You and Scott Pelley are 2 peas in the same pod. Gimme some honesty Mike.

MP

Yeah, you never talk about conspiracies until you do. Got it. You avoid this section unless you don't. Right on counselor!

You have yet to provide anything but opinion that it was a false flag.
You have yet to provide facts and sources that regarding Adams work is more than LEO's.
You have yet to provide anything that shows you understand the criminal process.

You would have the reader accept that you are the only source for correct interpretation of information. Yes, T, give me some honesty. Answer the questions.
 
Back
Top Bottom