There is a world of difference between thinking it is likely that the government had some sort of involvement and thinking that it was directly responsible. There is also a world of difference between thinking it is likely that it has some involvement and thinking that it is enough to convict anyone in a court of law.
Yeah, because “government had some sort of involvement” can be a spectrum of involvement from virtually none to virtually all. People’s contentions here are that it was staged by them and the FB page and rumors of a drill being conducted are proof. Don’t try to water down the wrongness of JJ and others.
But, the FB page timestamp is or is not evidence of some kind of conspiracy? Where is the proof of a drill? Twitter? Is there somthing we can look at as in the case of the drills on 9/11?
Ok. Thanks for clarifying.
Of course there are other possibilites. It was one example.
I know. I’ve read everything. I’m the one that gave an alternate explanation for FB Timestamp conspiracy.
Btw, I’m still waiting for JJ explain were in this thread I’ve jumped through hoops.
Awesome.
I don’t think most people in this thread care much one way or the other about the FB stamp. That seems to be mostly you and JJ.
So, what about the rumor of a drill? Is that any more rational than the FB timestamp?
There were eyewitness accounts of a drill, and the Boston police are denying it. I have no idea what sort of mechanisms are in place to prevent police officers from contradicting the official story. It could be that they aren’t contradicting it because they feel loyal or don’t want to be ostracized/lose their jobs, or it could be that there is nothing to contradict. We have no way of knowing. The only people that know for sure are the people that were there or were involved. So it comes down to who you think is more credible, eyewitnesses or the Boston police.
Short answer: Yes, I think it is more rational than the FB timestamp, but that doesn’t make it true.
eyewitnesses are known to be unreliable. Cops are known to be liars. That’s a tough one.
I thought the rumor came from the boston Globe Twitter. but, i’d still say that there cannot be departmental involvement (the police). There can certainly be elements within it, but not officially. The “drill,” I still hold, until other more credible evidence is put forth, is something that is used for unspecified threats and the public is told “it’s a drill” in order that they do not panic.
Right on.
Have you guys seen this?
Media starting to blame random people for “looking suspicious”…
U.S citizens want someone to be blamed anyways. Gotta feed em.
I heard on the radio that the feds are asking for help from the public to identify some people in a photo.
W-T-F!!! was the purpose of those billions of dollars spent to build databases and implement facial recognition software???
Oh, sorry.
Here’s the thing on the facebook…as far as I know there’s at least two different pages about the bombing that show “joined facebook” dates prior to the bombing events, and I believe at least three such pages for the Sandy Hook events. The first thing I did was simply post the videos and a link to the Sandy Hook thread simply saying “here we go again” and “does this sound familiar”. Then you said “You’d figure that they’s be smart enough to create the FB page after they carry out the bombing.”
I responded with a tongue-in-cheek reply saying “You’re obviously not familiar with terrorist tragedies in the 2010s…”, and links to videos of some of the various Sandy Hook pages (one of which not showing a pre-event time page, but a different oddity: a same-date page soliciting money for the Emily Parker Fund, the alleged daughter of this guy, who’s name was attached to at least one comment on the page as the administrator. This would suggest that either he was being impersonated (but as far as I know hasn’t issued any such denial), or that on the same day his elementary-school daughter was murdered, he or someone close to him was, as the man in the video says, “thinking about soliciting money from strangers on facebook”)
I never said anywhere that any of this proved anything. And up till that point all I did was post the videos.
You responded with your suggestion that “It’s possible that the page was created for a different topic–but no content actually published–and then changed to be about the person killed (because the admin of the FB page felt like doing so).”
My response was that that actually was the explanation given on one of the Sandy Hook pages, but that with multiple ones like that, it just seems to be more of a stretch explanation. I suggested that your explanation is not the simplest one, that “Occam’s razor would seem to slice your theory away”.
Your reply was that “My theory is possibly. Whether it’s likely or not, Occam has nothing to do with it.”
And as I said, that makes absolutely no sense. In philosophy, a “razor” is “a principle or premise that allows one to eliminate unlikely explanations for a phenomenon”. Occam’s razor more or less dictates that a simpler explanation (i.e. one that makes the least assumptions) is going to tend to be the correct one, or that it’s at least the one that should be leaned on/look at more until something changes.
So in reality, Occam’s razor has everything to do with it. That’s the whole point of a razor. (Which is why I said it seems like you don’t even know (and evidently didn’t bother to look up) the definition of that term.)
Of course it’s not a law…it doesn’t state that your theory is universally impossible and therefore wrong. Of course anything’s possible. But simply because something is possible, that doesn’t make the theory automatically a good one, or even a better one than anything anyone else comes up with. (Which by the way, up to that point I hadn’t even suggested one.) Again, ALL I did was suggest that your theory was simply not the simplest, and that therefore “Occam’s razor would seem to slice your theory away.”
This is what I meant by you having to “jump through more hoops”. Your stated theory makes more and/or greater assumptions than some theories that I (and I’m sure others) could come up with.
But it seems you and people like Phany wish to bend over backward to make anyone who doesn’t automatically buy a government approved explanation out to be a nutcase.
This seems odd to me, particularly around here where there is no lack of a realistic distrust of government. Perhaps you are afraid of your image, and don’t like the idea of people who subscribe to (or at least claim to) the same philosophy or same school of economic thought being called kooks, and then you being lumped in with them and therefore not taken seriously, or possibly being dismissed or even made fun of. This, even when you’ll freely admit to government lies and murders and coverups that the general public would call you a kook for anyway.
It seems Phany wants to have that “in-the-know” spy guy cake and eat it too…wishing to make naysayers of “official” stories out to be morons, while still not coming off as a naive government-believing sheep himself. It seems his currently elected strategy is to simply focus on non-existent straw men, and allege that the Internet is a sorry source for information…except if it’s coming from the douchebags on youtube that he subscribes to. Then it’s upper level, inside Matrix stuff. (I can’t be sure if this is all it takes, but it seems like bashing Alex Jones is a pretty good start to being on the road to a legit secret world cool guy…and not one of those lame-o poser conspiracy theorists. So if you want to be taken seriously by the totally cool guys who call even the fringe guys who try to be non-conformist sheep “conformist sheep”, you should probably start making a few youtube videos. Just be sure to bash anyone the public knows to label as a “conspircy theorist”. If anyone’s ever heard of 'em, they’re total posers. And they probably use the Internet as an information source, like a bunch of morons.)
Eh, I highly doubt it.
Not every single thing that goes wrong is a secret government plot. I believe we, especially those who proclaim to be libertarians or in the liberty movement, need to be extremely cautious and careful of how we handle reactions to things like this. We need to use a heavy dose of skepticism and objectivism and stay away from jumping to wild irrational conclusions about things… Just the same as those who jump to immediate conclusions that “All guns must be banned since [mass shooting xyz] happened!” … To me, both are equally irrational and need people of reason to come in and balance things out.
@JJ
haha, yeah, put words in my mouth.
I castrated you in this thread, you know. Search: "1 AND 0 AND JJ’s balls."
Story sure as hell seems fake now. They were in a car chase with police, one somehow died, and the other somehow got away. All conveniently whil you were sleeping. This is bullshit. How in the fuck could one guy get away if they were being pursued?
They were in a shootout witht eh 2 suspects, yet 1 somehow got away..
Okay, I’ve been doing some more thinking about this. At this point, I find it harder to believe that there just happened to be a drill going on coincident with the Boston Marathon than to believe that the claim of there being a drill was an excuse for the added (and obvious) police presence. While I think that’s a poor excuse, given how many people reflexively believe whatever police tell them, it seems quite likely to me to work nonetheless.
That being said, I’d still like Aristophanes to provide his source(s) for his claims of knowledge (as opposed to statements of belief) in this context.
Is that not the basis for your entire attack? Again, the fourth post in this entire thread was me essentially saying don’t be hasty.
By putting “bro” at the end of a nonsense question and pasting it a bunch of times? Or by a bunch of personal insults and name calling? That sure seems all you’re capable of.
Oh that and watching douchebags on youtube tell you what to think and just regurgitating it. While you insult people for using the Internet to source information. Can’t forget that. That one’s extra impressive.
Oh wouldn’t we all. Too bad he doesn’t have any. Unless you count douchebags on youtube telling him so. But wait…they’re totally legit. One of them gave a speech at one point. JUST LIKE RON PAUL!!
I would not say that it was “the government” but rather the security industry itself. Which includes DHS/TSA/other government alphabet groups/local anti-terror groups and other local police and so on.
The motive is to further interest in the security industry and everything that includes. Every few years they let off a bomb or two to increase the requirement for additional security. Of course the solution is always to give the security industry more money and more power to take away our liberties.
Instead of the media saying that the security failed and even though they spend $100 billions per year on security and apparently monitor all our communications with the justification of stopping terrorist attacks. People still manage to get past this massive anti-terror infrasturcture and blow up some bombs. That seems far less likely than the security industry itself being behind the bombs.
Some people struggle to accept this line of thought and think that the people in these organisations are angels. They also can not comprehend how such a thing could occur. It is not like the DHS has a massive conference where they all get together and talk about killing people with bombs to further interest in the security industry. It is far more subtle than that, it just a small rogue group that gets some patsies or similar to do, often pretending it is a drill or similar, hiding the operation behind a clock of a lies and trickery. Then then investigate it themselves and obviously the FBI does not even consider this possibilty they just look for a cliche terrorist that fits the criteria that will further their interests.
The only thing more cliche than the terrorist is the terrorist attacks. Bombs at the boston marathon, on please, which PR giant thought of that one. Underpants bomber, oh please, i wonder which top psy op PR firm thought of that one…
I also think it’s likely that he doesn’t have any actual sources for his alleged knowledge. If that’s indeed the case, then I think it’s inaccurate for him to claim knowledge there, as opposed to making statements of belief (like I have).