Mass shootings aren't hoaxes/false flags. Prove me wrong.

[mike2810]

Over the years what one can glean from the CT section is that when someone disagrees with the official reports a CT responder will use:

- You are not accepting the facts (as they know them). Therefore no rational discussion can be accomplished.
- I cannot provide the evidence to show that official report is wrong. Research it yourself.
- The info comes from an unknown source.
- There is a common theme to the sources CT posters do provide links. It all comes from known conspiracy sites or authors.
- One shown that what they presented is wrong, CT posters will ignore those posts.


Through 20 pages , no one has shown that any of the mass shootings were false flags or hoaxes. If they want to believe Sandy Hook was a false flag. That is a choice they make.

 

[Quag]

Over the years what one can glean from the CT section is that when someone disagrees with the official reports a CT responder will use:

- You are not accepting the facts (as they know them). Therefore no rational discussion can be accomplished.
- I cannot provide the evidence to show that official report is wrong. Research it yourself.
- The info comes from an unknown source.
- There is a common theme to the sources CT posters do provide links. It all comes from known conspiracy sites or authors.
- One shown that what they presented is wrong, CT posters will ignore those posts.


Through 20 pages , no one has shown that any of the mass shootings were false flags or hoaxes. If they want to believe Sandy Hook was a false flag. That is a choice they make.

You forgot the ubiquitous: It was scrubbed form the internet

 

[mike2810]

You forgot the ubiquitous: It was scrubbed form the internet

Yep. should have added that one. Did not intend the list to be all inclusive.

Another one is when shown that their statement is wrong and they have no substantial comeback, some tend not to respond and move on to other posters. That is a sure sign that the CT posters is full of it.

 

[Lursa]

No ma'am, I did acknowledge it when I asked you why YOU are not pursuing your brilliant strategy. I acknowledged it and chose not to go back and forth with another dissonant person, that's all. Been there done that. One cannot have a rational conversation with a person in denial of facts. eace

You chose not to further investigate something that would have proven your belief wrong. And more than anything, you dont want that. Me? I'm not going to waste my time investigating something when I dont need that evidence.

Let me ask you, how many CT's have you ever changed your mind on, after believing they were CTs?

You SAID you thought of yourself as an investigator, but there's no evidence of you carrying out such a claim at all. You seem like more of a "CT Keyboard Cowboy", latching onto the discordant just because it is not cohesive with the main evidence...for that reason ONLY.

 

[Lursa]

You forgot the ubiquitous: It was scrubbed form the internet

Had that one right here in the thread..."the friend of a friend of a friend who had pics" inside the Pulse nightclub that proves it was a FF...but the FBI scrubbed it all from the Internet...and the phone owner never did anything else with the pics :doh

 

[Quag]

Had that one right here in the thread..."the friend of a friend of a friend who had pics" inside the Pulse nightclub that proves it was a FF...but the FBI scrubbed it all from the Internet...and the phone owner never did anything else with the pics :doh

Like I said ubiquitous

 

[Thoreau72]

You chose not to further investigate something that would have proven your belief wrong. And more than anything, you dont want that. Me? I'm not going to waste my time investigating something when I dont need that evidence.

Let me ask you, how many CT's have you ever changed your mind on, after believing they were CTs?

You SAID you thought of yourself as an investigator, but there's no evidence of you carrying out such a claim at all. You seem like more of a "CT Keyboard Cowboy", latching onto the discordant just because it is not cohesive with the main evidence...for that reason ONLY.

No, you don't need any evidence, and you refuse to discuss any of the many facts that make the official narrative invalid. C'est la vie.

 

[Quag]

No, you don't need any evidence, and you refuse to discuss any of the many facts that make the official narrative invalid. C'est la vie.

You refuse to actually show that your "facts" are anything more than fantasy

 

[Lursa]

No, you don't need any evidence, and you refuse to discuss any of the many facts that make the official narrative invalid. C'est la vie.

I gave you a foolproof way to prove the 'official narrative' isnt false.

All you gave was links to cherry-picked personal comments and other bits and pieces that dont fit the overall picture...and yet you choose to believe those.

 

[KevinKohler]

Maybe you and Lursa can go in together on that project Mr. Friday. I will wait patiently for your report. :lamo

It's fun to watch you double down on your appeal to emotion.

I don't need to, as I am in no need to prove my position. You are the one espousing a different theory. Burden of proof is on you.

 

[zyzygy]

I don't need to, as I am in no need to prove my position. You are the one espousing a different theory. Burden of proof is on you.

What would be the point? He'd only say that city hall was in on it. Try to get him to accept fact is like trying to nail a jellyfish to a wall.

 

[Thoreau72]

I gave you a foolproof way to prove the 'official narrative' isnt false.

All you gave was links to cherry-picked personal comments and other bits and pieces that dont fit the overall picture...and yet you choose to believe those.

You offer a fantasy Lursa, nothing more.

The facts and evidence provide ample proof that the official narrative cannot be true.

You may fool yourself, but I won't go along with your fantasy.

 

[Thoreau72]

I don't need to, as I am in no need to prove my position. You are the one espousing a different theory. Burden of proof is on you.

No sir, the burden of proof is on those making the claims put forth by the official narrative. It says Adam Lanza did all those things. Barack couldn't prove it, and neither can you prove your claim.

I am skeptical of any story that is contradicted by the facts. I don't believe your claims, and you are unable to prove them.

Halbig, Smallstorm and all the others have provided knowledge, but if you can't think, that is your problem, not mine. You choose to believe the statements of known liars, and that is not my problem.

 

[mike2810]

No sir, the burden of proof is on those making the claims put forth by the official narrative. It says Adam Lanza did all those things. Barack couldn't prove it, and neither can you prove your claim.

.

That is such a dodge. When you propose an alternative theory, it is up to you to prove it. Like your second gunman at Las Vegas. It is your job to show why it is more likely than the single gunman.

As far as Sandy Hook. If you say the children did not die, it is up to you to show that is true. You failed to do so.

Keep regurgitation the "known liars" phrase while ignoring the fact that sources you use have been shown the author lied.

One consistent theme is those with alternative explanations do not want to examine the explanation or reveal the sources that has the evidence that the explanation is valid.

Interesting how Basile's dust study for 9/11 seems to have never been completed even after receiving the requested funds. Makes one wonder if he got the results and it did not contain the answer he was expecting. Over 5 years to send a sample to an independent lab for analysis.

 

[SanderO]

Hey, good to see you back. Does that same burden apply to those who started the Official Theory in your world? Probably not. The authorities are always right, and would never deceive. :lol:

The official account lays out evidence... and uses that. The truthers only have disbelief and junk science... and incorrect observations. Go read the 911forums.... you can learn something.

 

[Maccabee]

No, you don't need any evidence, and you refuse to discuss any of the many facts that make the official narrative invalid. C'est la vie.

YOU refuse to contribute to the thread as requested. I asked that you to provide evidence and you didn't.

 

[Maccabee]

You offer a fantasy Lursa, nothing more.

The facts and evidence provide ample proof that the official narrative cannot be true.

You may fool yourself, but I won't go along with your fantasy.

Then do as OP asked and PROVIDE such ample evidence.

 

[Maccabee]

No sir, the burden of proof is on those making the claims put forth by the official narrative.

Not in this thread. The thread asks you to provide the evidence.

It says Adam Lanza did all those things. Barack couldn't prove it, and neither can you prove your claim.

I am skeptical of any story that is contradicted by the facts. I don't believe your claims, and you are unable to prove them.

Halbig, Smallstorm and all the others have provided knowledge, but if you can't think, that is your problem, not mine. You choose to believe the statements of known liars, and that is not my problem.

Halbig is a con salesman.

 

[KevinKohler]

No sir, the burden of proof is on those making the claims put forth by the official narrative. It says Adam Lanza did all those things. Barack couldn't prove it, and neither can you prove your claim.

I am skeptical of any story that is contradicted by the facts. I don't believe your claims, and you are unable to prove them.

Halbig, Smallstorm and all the others have provided knowledge, but if you can't think, that is your problem, not mine. You choose to believe the statements of known liars, and that is not my problem.

What facts? Like that the school was closed? It wasn't.

 

[Lursa]

You offer a fantasy Lursa, nothing more.

The facts and evidence provide ample proof that the official narrative cannot be true.

You may fool yourself, but I won't go along with your fantasy.

??? Except you wont bother checking out for yourself the simple inquiry that would prove it one way or another.

Your one-off inconsistencies dont prove anything. A real investigator knows how to correlate and connect the dots with a "preponderance of evidence."

 

[Lursa]

No sir, the burden of proof is on those making the claims put forth by the official narrative. It says Adam Lanza did all those things. Barack couldn't prove it, and neither can you prove your claim.

I am skeptical of any story that is contradicted by the facts. I don't believe your claims, and you are unable to prove them.

Halbig, Smallstorm and all the others have provided knowledge, but if you can't think, that is your problem, not mine. You choose to believe the statements of known liars, and that is not my problem.

And yet you swallow whole the story about a friend of a friend of a friend who has pics on her phone of the Pulse nightclub shooting but cant explain why she never made them public after "the FBI took them down from social media." :roll:

 

[Thoreau72]

That is such a dodge. When you propose an alternative theory, it is up to you to prove it. Like your second gunman at Las Vegas. It is your job to show why it is more likely than the single gunman.

As far as Sandy Hook. If you say the children did not die, it is up to you to show that is true. You failed to do so.

Keep regurgitation the "known liars" phrase while ignoring the fact that sources you use have been shown the author lied.

One consistent theme is those with alternative explanations do not want to examine the explanation or reveal the sources that has the evidence that the explanation is valid.

Interesting how Basile's dust study for 9/11 seems to have never been completed even after receiving the requested funds. Makes one wonder if he got the results and it did not contain the answer he was expecting. Over 5 years to send a sample to an independent lab for analysis.

I haven't proposed an alternative theory Mike. All I'm saying is the official narrative, again, is false. Let Occam apply. The reason so many of these events appear to be stages is simply because they ARE staged.

YOU sir, and yours, have not, cannot, prove the official story to be true. Too many facts work against you.

 

[Thoreau72]

And yet you swallow whole the story about a friend of a friend of a friend who has pics on her phone of the Pulse nightclub shooting but cant explain why she never made them public after "the FBI took them down from social media." :roll:

Yes I do. She is NOT a politician, nor does she work for any government agency.

She is an ordinary citizen, a young woman with no axe to grind who was actually there for the event.

I tend to believe ordinary citizens until he or she gives me a reason not to believe it.

YOU choose to believe known liars, and you ask no questions at all. How does that make you credible?

 

[Thoreau72]

The official account lays out evidence... and uses that. The truthers only have disbelief and junk science... and incorrect observations. Go read the 911forums.... you can learn something.

OK, what evidence is there that AA11 struck the north tower? What evidence is there that jetfuel and office fires and gravity did what happened at WTC?

Why did the government commission note more than 60 times that "we found no evidence" to support various elements of the official theory?

The official story is bankrupt Sander, and you know it.

 

[Thoreau72]

What facts? Like that the school was closed? It wasn't.

The several videos done by many, including Halbig and Smallstorm, already linked to here, disagree with you. The observable facts seen by any person disagree with you.

What have you proved? Nothing, except that you prefer to believe authorities and ask no questions.