thats an epistemological shortcut that results in considerably more work on the rhetorical front. everyone is innocent until proven guilty, even agents of the state.
Or you just have no point, and would rather play games than actually present one.
Want to clarify what you’re talking about, bro?
I’ve finally learned that if a post in this thread has the letters b, r, and o together, one can skip it without any loss.
BLArrrgg!!
[Citation(s) needed]
**_
Watch that fucking video in the post with the timestamp i posted. God, it turned into a riddle after I wanted to troll you for a few posts (which was successful), but I figured you’d “get it” at some point. Watch the ry dawson video. READ BETWEEN THE LINES. The LINES were posted above and below the video…you’re a pretty clever thinker, I see. It started as a joke because I figured you were using the FB video as “evidence” for conspiracy which is a fucking retarded thing to say and will only serve to discredit people when there is a real staged event “drill.”
@Auto
you know that is what they do. Besides, where am I gonna find a site that will volunteer that kind of info. Save for finding an SOP manual for the FBI unspecified hazard scenarios… If they have an unconfirmed threat they will investigate and tell people to stay calm, “it is just a drill.” But, “drill” as in “war game” or “military exercise” is very different and I think that is where most people are coming from, but don’t know the difference.
If I knew that, I wouldn’t have implicitly asked you for one or more source citations for that information.
Well how do you know that? Or are you masquerading assumption as knowledge?
That could be, but if so, then it seems the line between the two is getting blurrier all the time.
The difference is stark. One is where the military or intelligence agencies are using war games/military exercises as a cover for moving real-time real-world military assets around sometimes resulting in covert operations covers.
The other is when some random police officer gets a report that there is a tip of a bomb, but it is unverified and that someone needs to investigate without raising a panic. Why do you think that is controversial?
It is only blurry because of the dumbasses that think that the CIA or w/e are going to bend over and blow up tin can bombs and make fake FB pages. Real false flags are geopolitical events. They are staged to further a serious military, international, or nefarious agenda (not that it cannot be all three or some combination of them) not for gun control or “to take your rights away.”
Yeah I skimmed through it, and from what I gather it’s some random douchebag pulling some more-clever-than-thou stuff about how anyone who suspects conspiracy basically wears a tinfoil hat, blahblah blah. I did happen to catch a nice little few seconds there though where he shat on his whole video by admitting it is basically undeniable that the FBI engages in false flag activity and could have aided in it or even committed it themselves.
So basically, you’re an idiot if you suspect government ties, but you’re naive if you don’t.
I’d say that’s about right on par with what I’d expect from you.
Wait…Was that you in the video bro?
ryan dawson has made the most credible 9/11 video out there. I figured you’d know who he was…
In other words, don’t be a fucking retard and start claiming things before anything is known about a subject. (or using a god damn FB page TIMESTAMP as proof in tow.)
The point…was to notice where he doesn’t deny that
but he also says that a FB page isn’t proof of anything. Something you seem to gloss over and over and over and over.
Did you see that timestamp, bro?
You’re just not smart. You think in universals only. You cannot make rational inferences based on particular circumstances where information is limited. Everything is static with you. I feel sorry for you. Really.
and yes, that was me very seriously disregarding your intelligence and creative potential. You are nothing but a thread-search bot working in 1 and 0s.
9/11 video? What does he make up some kind of conspiracy theory about how the gubberment was somehow involved? What a dumbass. Clayton already said it: They could never kill people and keep it a secret - we know this because they never have. And besides, they don’t have the means to stage fake attacks, and they don’t even stand to benefit from general panic and calls for clamp downs.
Seems like my initial assessment was only somewhat off: some random conspiracy kook douchebag.
Still pretty close though.
Doesn’t that make him a conspiracy kook nut with a tinfoil hat? Wasn’t that his point? Isn’t he giving sane people a bad name?
Neither is anything else anyone has said about this (and I’m pretty sure no one has alleged otherwise.) Or any other conspiracy, I suppose for that matter. Obviously this guy didn’t prove anything with his 9/11 youtube video, or even my dead grandmother would have heard about it, no? I mean, 9/11, not going how the United States Federal Government said it went down…that’s kind of big deal, isn’t it?
I’m gonna ask you again because I don’t want to be accused to glossing over anything: Which timestamp?
Wow. Aristaphanes resorting to insults.
Gee, ya know, coming from a video game playing, anime watching, dank room dwelling nobody like yourself, that’s really saying something. You’d think something like that would hurt my feelings.
Oh wait…
Yeah, Dawson uses “books” and things. you know, when I tried to get you to look at the CIA’s guerilla manual? Oh, that shit doesn’t matter; it is not a FB timestamp that you desperately cling to so as to not “look wrong.” You worry about this because you are insecure and want approval of others, strangers I might add.
It is the “research” that is “verifiable” that matters. the video is a conduit. The kid actually gives speeches, much like Ron Paul, at “Universities” where people “learn.” but, you can find threads on a forum for new users just like the “search” bar!
As for Clayton, with his “theorizing” he has admitted is all “a priori axiomatic deduction” (doing shame to Mises a great intellectual and researcher) and that he doesn’t bother to verify any of his past assertions. And if he doesn’t do that then how can he progress in his theorizing? how can he “know” the Vatican is involved in this or that if he cannot or does not verify what he claims? he can’t. He is useless and, much like you, a waste of time. he is an old man, past his prime, that talks to college kids about his paranoia…
No, his point was to differentiate, not universalize*.* it is either that “the government stages all attacks” or “the government never does and can’t and has no motive to do so”; two UNIVERSALS that act as a *false dichotomy. (*Tell me more about ad hominem). No one has denied the government has done things like this. there is no reason to think that every terror attack is staged. Especially when no information is available on the particular case… Something you are consciously ignoring in every post; ignoring, so that you can refer observers to my ad hominems (an appeal to emotion in itself) and to, yourself, attack ad hominem I might add.
you see why you are an emotional child? You are a classic case of an egomaniac that made a claim that a FB timestamp is indicative of government conspiracy and now will not own up to a “non universal” (particular) claim that someone makes about it.
It did hit you hard because your post was nothing but ad hominems and now false associations__*__. If I didn’t upset you, you’d have stayed calm instead of explode. Good cover with the emoticons 
you also do not know me very well.
*you are getting really desperate is what that tells me. This is a handle. Say whatever you want about me. These posts to you are for your benefit.
you used the FB timestamp to claim conspiracy, you didn’t get a riddle after I gave you several hints, and now you explode when I attempt to tell you that you have a “mindset” that dictates your thinking and prevents certain perspectives from leaking in. Some people call it cognitive dissonance. Some call it selective perception. Some refer to it as a lack of intelligence.
So, I’m done here. Have fun searching, bot.
Oh “books”! Yeah words on paper are so superior to words on a screen. And video evidence…what rubbish that shit is. I wish I had known everything anyone ever needed to know about 9/11 was all in a book. I totally get it now.
Oh you mean that piece of shit you found on the Internetz? Yeah, you’re not going to fool me with that nonsense. I know what sort of crap comes from the Internet.
A conduit? To more bullshit on the Internetz? What a waste of time. Nice to know you get all your info from douchebags on youtube though. I guess I should have assumed that’s what totally cool spy guys like you mean by “I STUDY THIS”. I guess I’m not hip to all your cool spy code language.
SPEECHES?! Like RON PAUL??!! ZOMG WHY DIDN’T YOU SAY SO BEFORE??
So there are military/intelligence exercises and there are police exercises. Sometimes those are used to cover up events or efforts that aren’t exercises. Am I missing anything here?
Since police forces are becoming less and less distinguishable from military forces, I say the line between military exercises and police exercises is getting blurrier all the time.
The point of all military strategy and tactics is to minimize (if not wholly eliminate) resistance. All other things being equal, disarming a population severely hampers its ability to resist.
I see that you’ve once again decided to respond only to part of my post. I consider this to be disingenuous. I repeat my request: how do you know that anything a police force calls a “drill” is always and necessarily “what the public is told when police units have suspicion of an event and need to search, but cannot blend in”? I demand that you either provide your source(s) of this alleged knowledge, or admit that you have none. I will not let up on this.
The question now is could the West, TX fertilizer plant explosion have been actually caused by anti-government people intended to distract from the government Boston Marathon attack? Seeing we’re being all cui bonoiy and all.
I know I’m a bit late to the party but my first suspicion was it was an inside job. As has been outlined by Kakugo especially we need to take seriously what the point of “terrorist” attacks are and in whose interest are they. It would seem that terrorist organisations have a goal whatever it may be and they achieve it by creating a climate of fear such that the will of the population is swayed into accepting the groups end.
As such these organisations will likely claim responsibility for the actions to raise awareness of their cause and to make the population weary enough to accept a deal. This is precisely what happened in Northern Ireland with the Marxist IRA.
So we ought to consider any “terrorist” event which a group hasn’t claimed responsibilty for as not a true “terrorist” event until a bona fide claim has been filed.
Cui Bono is of paramount importance in these events.
Did it cause terror? If so, who benefits? Not much else to it.
Already tried that, chief.
uh oh, Phany…
Pretty much.