a reply to: Chadwickus
Well well well, Chadwickus seems to back in the discussion. Welcome back!
First of all you haven’t answered any part of the 5000 letter reply I made to you, and frankly the only thing you have contributed with in this
thread is your deceptive comments. Sure, for a uninformed person the questions you asked me are acceptable, and thats why I took my time to write a
reply. But sadly I got nothing in return for this contribution.
Your actions are understandably justified, I mean not many people like the psychological aspect of being refuted and especially not after going out as
strong as you did. In all honesty, your comment in whole, and the contexture of it was pretty comical. You answered a selected part of the points in
my theory and most of your contentions while debunking the theory was personal insults and preconceptions of me as a person. In other words, not very
But now you’re back in business and like I said before welcome back, henceforth I really hope you will contribute with logic and knowledgeable
contributions to this discussion. But before I can analyze that lets look at your newly posted comments.
The first thing you contribute with is by saying:
"He meant to say sand, as in sand had been put there to soak up the blood.”
Then instead of posting the twitter post straight away you waited seven and a half hours to get a contradictory response from other members so you
later could prove their comments wrong based on the twitter picture. Im I right!?
I find the twitter post rather odd, and if anything it will fuel suspicion regarding the official story. Why even address the subject? Conspiracies
are according to mass media and society based on delusional people. Aren't they?
I like the fresh air coming from the facts spy66 posted regarding this:
"But they dont use sand to soake up blood. Ususally the firedepartement Wash the street With ordinary water”
This statement is absolutely correct. The measure spy66 wrote is the standard approach after a incident like this. But if you (Chadwickus) have any
concrete facts that say’s otherwise, feel free to post them.
Then you accuse OnlySinnersHere for derailing the thread, when you obviously is one of the people who is doing that particular job. Don’t forget,
the thread is about: "Was the French Attack a False Flag???” And for us to evaluate that we need to look at the situation in whole (if you
understand what that means) not just the parts mass media influences us with.
Bottom line, the reporter from sky news wasn’t involved in the incident (false flag) His only job was to say a specific (and probably rehearsed)
sentence when making the report but under the pressure of live airing and the situation in whole, he failed. The twitter post was ordered by someone
else and the decision was based on; the things the reported said and how he behaved, the fast growing searches of ”false flag charlie hebdo” and
the widely discussed conspiracy aspect of this incident.