Guevarista wrote:
That's sick!

Gilly wrote:
But, in his own way, he raises a valid point. Who can recall the name of any of the victims? The MSM make the people that (allegedly) carry out these acts overnight 'celebrities' for want of a better word.

oioioi wrote:
I'm aware of that, and the likelihood of 'copycat' attacks - especially where such an act has been seen to cause the President to stop in his tracks - is even acknowledged by those campaigning in favour of the 2nd amendment being upheld.

It's 'his own way' - ie. the flippancy implied by the choice of wording - that I object to.

I just object to jumped up little cunts

i-baster wrote:
Eh?

The guy came out grinning from ear to ear asking if he should read from a card and then deliberately put on the waterworks.
Totally staged tbh but thats the least of it.

Care to explain how a kid shoots a pile of people with a .223 machine gun thats meant to be in the boot of a car and when we see later a cop opening a gun case in the boot of a car only for it to be a shotgun and he's there ejecting cartridges from it with no gloves on....

You do know the difference between an ar15 and a shotgun right?

oioioi wrote: By victims do you mean the "actors"?

Guevarista wrote: Not one single person has implied that they were all actors. You either know that and are being deliberately obtuse, or it’s further evidence of your failure to even bother reading this thread. Either that, or it’s just a failure on your part to comprehend what you’re reading.

Besides which, the 'actors' weren't shot were they - their camera performances after the event would have been a flaming good trick if they had have been.

I expect you’d like your trolling to earn you ‘banned’ status. I hope you fail, then maybe, if you really don’t want to be on the forum, you could just grow the fuck up and not keep logging in — as opposed to wallowing in this Kevin the Teenager type attention seeking, which is incredibly dull.

It's often thought that there were 10 'planks' in the Communist Manifesto.

Having wasted my entire life researching every last word that Marx and Engels wrote, including; Santa's wish lists, Milkman requests for bottles of Corona, letters to the local rag highlighting the overgrown footpath behind the old quarry, faked get out of PE notes and numerous love letters to goats, i can now reveal to the World the existence of an 11th plank.

The 11th Plank of the Communist Manifesto is.......Guevarista

That's bullshit you've probably never spent half an hour reading Marx or Engels.

Utter tosh!!! I used to be very naive and it took me 37 and a half minutes reading to realise Marx and Engels wrote a manifesto for absolute authoritarianism.

I believe this was your internal monologue as you were conducting said study:

Close but no cigar...

Twas this one:


Btw "believe"?

Just some points -

* It's well understood people can behave in seemingly odd ways when confronted with grief and the situation in question was particularly out there. That guy wouldn't know if he was coming or going. One minute he's living his life and the next his kid's dead and he's the centre of a media extravanganza. I think when going on about that guy in the video they should remember his kid got killed - now if it's being suggested he's some kind of actor because of that laughing thing I think people should remember that looking at some guy on a youtube clip and deciding how he should behave means exactly jack shit. Like people actually involved with the whole thing wouldn't notice if he wasn't one of the actual parents.
It doesn't even make any sense - if the children are really gone - and nobody here seems to be suggesting they aren't - why in God's name would you have some actor to appear on telly when there's all these parents anyway??

*When big, hectic events happen, the media are falling each over each other trying to get whatever they can to fill their reports. The media cannot be treated as if everything it says it gospel and it's automatically deeply suspicious if the story changes or if there are inconsistencies in what's reported. A bunch of reporters will have been running round finding whatever they can to report and copying what each other reported. Expect a degree of confusion. Personally, I'd find it far more odd if the details were 100% established from the outset.

*Since when is the profile of somebody who snaps and goes on the rampage contingent on how they behave in the hairdressers? Is there any reason to believe somebody who goes on to snap and go on a murderous rampage can't be a quiet, subdued person prior to whatever catalyst? It's a bit like like saying Dennis Nilsen must have been innocent because everybody thought he was such an inoffensive person.

Well that would implicate everybody who handled the bodies in a big conspiracy, starting with Connecticut's chief medical examiner and fanning down to every single person who was in a position where they'd have seen or handled the bodies in whatever capacity. That is a very significant claim that would require compelling evidence.

I'm not trying to start an argument and don't want a big debate about it - I'm just trying to point out that when hectic shit goes down there can be a habit of people scrutinising the internet looking for 'anomalies' and deciding it all means something - but I don't think any genuine cover-up has ever been busted by people looking at online media and drawing conclusions from it.

dogsmilk wrote:
I find it strange the barber said his mom had to give him commands to get out the chair after every haircut...

That is really bizarre...

.......... wrote:
Yes it does sound really strange.
Would have been interesting to hear what mum had to say about it all if she was still alive.

dogsmilk wrote:
That might just be the reason she is not alive...

dogsmilk wrote: Generally, I would agree with you, except that in the case of 9/11, almost anything useful with regards to a critique of the event has come from precisely this source. Obviously, I know you will disagree with this because you completely accept the NIST / 9/11 Commission version of events, which is fair enough.

I haven't looked at this much, as it's going to be impossible to prove anything. But I think it's valid to look at what occurred especially as a lot of political capital is being made out of it.

.......... wrote: What do you mean RA?

wake_up_bomb wrote: That imo is sound reasoning. It's a hugely sensitive subject of course and any research into it should be conducted with at least one eye on the distinct possibility that it really is a simple case of a young man flipping out and murdering 27 people in some kind of personal frenzy. However, given the wider background, previous events and as you say the political gain that is already evident from the event, it's almost a duty to have a very close look at what we are being told.

Damn right. That is how the video showing police tampering with evidence was aired.


Cover-ups have been busted open by the use of video.

Are you suggesting that people should not look at video and draw conclusions or raise questions?

Here in the U.S. a person's demeanor is admissable evidence in the courtroom. The jury, made up of regular citizens, can weigh demeanor into their decisionmaking.

Did you view the video of the medical examiner? Any thoughts as to why he was unable to answer basic questions?

Speaking of demeanor, I found his odd to say the least. Jolly, indeed, and yet not to fussed about any details.