Was the French Attack a False Flag???

a reply to: Phatdamage

Thank you
All credit to you

I think they maybe knew something was going to happen. They maybe did not enough effort to stop it happening. The ID card is strange, the fact that they knew the attackers is strange ... I find it very strange that Hollande just after the attacks did send an aircraft-carrier to the region. No one would have dared to have critics on that decision.
www.evawaseerst.be...

a reply to: Chadwickus

For working 80 hours a week and not having any time to answer replies, you sure make a lot of post here on ATS with time you evidently don't have. If I’m not mistaken and based on you comments on ATS the last week, you only work 09:00 to 17:00. Which makes your weekly work-hours to about 40, but anyway thats non of my business.

Well, you sure are a grateful member when saying that my answer to you was "unnecessarily long” when in fact I only answered your ignorant and long statements regarding the theory. If you don't like long replies, don't put together a long reply yourself, quite easy.

When it comes to you using a iPad, I only have one word for you; ”Notes” Instead of complaining about your choice of device, find a solution to your problem, and in this case that solution is ”Notes” Copy the ATS comment you want to reply and past it in ”Notes” then write your own reply in the same app and when you are done, paste that reply in ATS.

"you're way down on the priorities list buddy, don't feel bad as I've dealt with plenty like you before. Those that love the sound of their own voice, or in this instance love the look of their text”

Well I wouldn’t expect anything else from you based on your behavior in this thread. But for me, a person with self respect I take time to reply someone if they have taken time to reply me. Because I would like the same treatment from someone else, but I guess that notion have flown pass you a long time ago. And btw, thank you for praising the way I write replies, I’m glad you like it.

Why lose your temper and become angry over a post on ATS? That doesn't
seem healthy at all, but I’m glad you have changed your emotional approach regarding this.

I dont have any preconceptions regarding incidents or situations, I look at the situation in whole, and all the available information before making any statements. The only thing that is laughable here is that you and others like you think that a person who express doubts regarding official stories have to believe in ALL false flags and conspiracies. This conclusion is extremely ignorant and rather pathetic.

I have addressed the clip with the reporter, and based on how the incident looks in whole, what the reporter said/behaved, them putting sand over the blood (that wasn’t there) and the twitter response it sure looks odd. And No, just because he fumbled over his words doesn’t mean it has to be part of the conspiracy, but their way of handling the situation surrounding the killed officer doesn’t give much credibility to the official story.

"No news reporter ever fumbles over their words do they?”

Is that a serious question? Im not sure with you anymore so I’m just going to answer it. Yes, it happens.

Do you have any other insignificant questions you want to contribute with?

Cheers!

a reply to: Crowdpsychology

I think Your posts are very good. More infomative than most People. That might also be the case why some have a problem dealing With you. You are very hard to Counter because you have a well prepared reply.

I also agree With you on the reporter case. I have never seen a reporter just jump on to a seen and start a story. Not at a crime seen like this. What i have experianced is that they observe and learn the crime seen than they start the cameras. Even if it is live they will always prepare before they go live.

I personaly dont think he messed up what he initially said. He messed up because he shouldnt have told the truth.

EDIT: If you know the truth it is often that the cover story gets messed up, because you have the truth on Your mind as well.

a reply to: spy66

I also agree With you on the reporter case. I have never seen a reporter just jump on to a seen and start a story. Not at a crime seen like this. What i have experianced is that they observe and learn the crime seen than they start the cameras. Even if it is live they will always prepare before they go live.

What universe do you live in where "reporters" still do this?

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: spy66

I also agree With you on the reporter case. I have never seen a reporter just jump on to a seen and start a story. Not at a crime seen like this. What i have experianced is that they observe and learn the crime seen than they start the cameras. Even if it is live they will always prepare before they go live.

What universe do you live in where "reporters" still do this?

A universe where all these recent and sad events are part of a judeo-masonic masterplan to introduce a new world order overseen by reptilian overlords with merovingian blood.

The objective of that NWO is first the disarming of the French population (hopefully they have no guns), then the culling of 90% of the workforce (makes sense, which country needs workers?), and finally, the enslaving of the remaining 10%

If you can't see that WWIII is preparing and that the media are brainwashing you into believing salafi terrorists did this, you are just a sheep and you will be treated as such, unlike the bright minds in this thread who can see through the lies and will have their bunker ready for when the # finally hits the fan.


(this is of course sarcasm, redacted to elicit a smile in a thread where some take themselves far too seriously, probably because when you are entrenched so deep in the conspiracy world, false flags are not laughing matter Now this is addressed to these people who are very serious about their conspiracy; if you can't roll with sarcasm, don't bother answering this post as you will be promptly ignored just like you ignore those who try to bring common sense back in this thread)

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: spy66

I also agree With you on the reporter case. I have never seen a reporter just jump on to a seen and start a story. Not at a crime seen like this. What i have experianced is that they observe and learn the crime seen than they start the cameras. Even if it is live they will always prepare before they go live.

What universe do you live in where "reporters" still do this?

Jesses christ. Is this topic dead or what.

a reply to: JUhrman

JUhrman, stop with your spamming and flooding in this thread!

The only thing you write is the same thing over and over and it doesn’t even concern the topic. We are not talking about how people think or why people are interested in alternative theories rather than the official story. We are talking about the aspect of Charlie Hebdo attack being a false flag.

Both you and other members in this treat, especially after page 12 are posting irrelevant comments, falsified information, and preconceptions of members who is trying to discuss this subject. You and other members in this thread are based on this behavior systematically trying to disrupt the thread by posting your single-purpose standpoints.

All these activities are violations of ATS’s terms and conditions, and if you don't stop your spamming and disruptive approach and start to contribute with relevant content regarding the subject you can be subjected to a immediate banning.

Your standpoints and views regarding conspiracies and the people/members who are trying to analyze these situations can be discussed in other threads on this site. If this topic was about ”how does a conspiracy theorist think?” or ”Is conspiracies fake all together?” you and your friends would be entitled to make these kind of comments, but this thread isn’t about that.

I am hoping the Mods will realize this fact and take proper actions based on your and other members behavior in this thread

_________________________________________

15f.) Relevant Content: You will not Post messages that are clearly outside of the stated topic of any forums or disrupt a forum by deliberately posting repeated irrelevant messages or copies of identical messages (also known as "flooding").

15h.) Spamming: You will not Post identical content, or snippets of identical content, to multiple threads in the discussion forums. You will also not create more than one thread for your topic, or create multiple "slightly different" threads for a single topic.

16d.) Forum Gangs And Topic Control: You will not engage in an organized collaboration with other members to disrupt thread topics or interrupt the flow of normal collaborative discussion. You will not attempt to control or otherwise shutdown valid conversation on a topic through the use of prolific posting of an unpopular viewpoint or other single-purpose standpoint. Doing so will result in removal of your Post(s) and immediate termination of your account.

23) Violation: Violation of any aspect of these Terms and Conditions of Use and the Terms and Conditions of Membership are subject to our Actions for general abuse and violations, or in extreme cases, immediate banning of your username/IP from the domains and/or the removal of your email/password from the database. You agree that, all disputes, of any type, regarding any transgression or disagreement with the policies of TAN, or the decisions of one of TAN or

a reply to: Crowdpsychology

These allegations are false. I did not spam nor posted false info. On the other you did and I called you out on it.

You also insulted me multiple times and made various ad hominem based on mypost history, and got your response deleted for it.

The fact that you react so violently to what is nothing but a bit of fun in a dead thread shows how you take this too seriously and personally, while accusing others of doing so.

If for you me posting once after days is considered spamming, I advice you to take a deep breath and take some time off the net. I'm starting to think you have an agenda for reacting like that and posting only in this thread and nowhere else.

Have a good evening and chill out a bit.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: spy66

I also agree With you on the reporter case. I have never seen a reporter just jump on to a seen and start a story. Not at a crime seen like this. What i have experianced is that they observe and learn the crime seen than they start the cameras. Even if it is live they will always prepare before they go live.

What universe do you live in where "reporters" still do this?

Now if we can get back on topic, can someone answer this excellent question or will it be ignored like the others?

a reply to: spy66

Normally I’m a very humble person and I am far from arrogant.
But when people doesn’t show me the same respect I give them my approach will change, and thats what we have seen regarding some of my comments in this thread. I will not tolerate any personal insults or ignorant preconceptions of me as a person, and If someone choose this road I will not be as pleasant as I would like to be.

I’m glad you like my posts. The only thing I search for is the answer, no matter how far this answer might be from the collective idea of how the world works I will still pursue it. As long as the red line can be traced and the agenda behind the situation seems logic and reasonable based on the available information. Like many people on ATS knows, the "real truth" can many times be more offensive than the truth that has been told to us by our government and media. And we have to remember that the truth comes in more shades than one, white, grey and black.

I understand what you mean with the standard approach of reporters, and sure sometimes they have no time to rehearse their story before a live airing but usually they have a clear direction of how the story is going to be addressed (everybody wants to do a good job, and not make a fool out of themselves in front of millions of people) And like you said, when it comes to cases of this proportion, they certainly do.

You could be right about the reported knowing the truth and thats the reason behind him messing up. But according to me, it would be better for the people behind to only tell the reporter a specific composed sentence which he has to say while on the air. Why tell the truth to a reporter when he can achieve the same goal by just saying a specific sentence? The less people who knows the real story (situation) the easier it is to keep the lid on.

The reporter might feel that the prepared statement given to him seems illogical but he knows he has to mention it on live television. The psychological aspect of this can make a person mess up, when he (like you said) have his own truth on his mind.

Cheers!

originally posted by: Crowdpsychology
a reply to: spy66

Normally I’m a very humble person and I am far from arrogant.
But when people doesn’t show me the same respect I give them my approach will change, and thats what we have seen regarding some of my comments in this thread. I will not tolerate any personal insults or ignorant preconceptions of me as a person, and If someone choose this road I will not be as pleasant as I would like to be.

You are the one who called me a lamebrain an idiot and a liar, while at the same time posting incorrect info about events happening in my town and calling it a "typo".

I never personally insulted you in the thread and anyone can check this.

Now get over it and get back on topic instead of attacking me and others just because we have a different opinion.

You claim this is a false flag, many disagreed and asked for more facts and less speculation. And yet all they got wa ridicule, attacks and insults for daring to to say that none of you have anything more than feelings to support your claims.

This is not how debate work. If you can't back your claims you have to accept they are mere opinions and can be treated as such.

And please don't take this thread too seriously There are plenty of other threads on ATS with tons of people claiming that this is not a false flag and that they are tired of people jumping on the conspiracy bandwagon without thinking for themselves.

a reply to: JUhrman

I’m not going to discuss this any further with you based on the kind of person you are and the intentions you have.
I'll just post this here for the mods to get a clear view of your behavior in this thread:

___________________________________________________________

JUhrman - Jan, 12 2015 @ 18:25
"I thought this place was about looking for the truth, but it seems that for many it's just a place for them to let their paranoia go wild”

"I'm not saying you have to ignore things which are supicious, but in this case, people are literally inventing things to be considered suspicious, it's not serious, not critical, and actually a symptom of paranoia or delusion"

JUhrman - Jan, 12 2015 @ 18:58
"If you want to blame a culprit, blame Saudi Arabia and not Israel, the CIA, the "PTB" or whatever your paranoid minds suggests you, because when you do so, you do nothing else than perpetuating the exact same lies the Salafists are spreading to turn the youth against western democracies"

JUhrman - Jan, 13 2015 @ 16:59
"I don't know why for most of you it's almost impossible to even imagine sometimes there are no conspiracy behind some terrible events. Wait, yes I do know why, because you live in a delusion"

JUhrman - Jan, 13 2015 @ 17:14
"Well in that case I'm implying that you should consult someone. I'm not saying this in a condescending manner, but out of a genuine concern for your mental health"

JUhrman - Jan, 13 2015 @ 17:20
"If the truth doesn't confirm your belief, you should have the courage to accept it. Most here can't even do that it seems and prefer to keep deluding themselves into believing their fairy tales”

JUhrman - Jan, 13 2015 @ 17:46
"I sincerely hope one day you'll wake up and realize that sometimes too much conspiracy theory can push you into full blown paranoia”

JUhrman - Jan, 13 2015 @ 17:59
"It's not my fault if this thread is nothing but an echo chamber for paranoid assumptions”

JUhrman - Jan, 13 2015 @ 18:25
"If someone can't or refuse to accept this, it means you have a mental problem called paranoia, like almost 4% of the population. I'm not saying this to insult anyone. Paranoia is a genuine problem and it would be stupid to imagine the people on ATS are free from this problem. Quite the opposite, people with PPD tend to gather around conspiracy sites"

"I must admit in this case that to keep believing this is a false flag despite all signs pointing otherwise is a sign of paranoid personality disorder. I'm sorry for anyone suffering from it, it's not fun to live without the ability to trust anyone again. I will certainly not mock anyone regarding this, but I will call a cat a cat and paranoid BS; well; paranoid BS”

JUhrman - Jan, 13 2015 @ 18:26
"Or you might just be paranoid. Not saying you are. It's just, you know, a possibility”

JUhrman - Jan, 13 2015 @ 20:57
"Only paranoid people claim it's because it's a false flag operation that he committed suicide (in a police office, with his own gun nonetheless)”

JUhrman - Jan, 14 2015 @ 02:18
"I'm not trying to prove anything, just noticing that this thread has become nothing but an echo chamber for paranoid thoughts"

______________________________________________________

My intentions with this post is not to harass, harm or abuse anyone. I'm merely trying to show the Mods that this members behavior in this thread can be considered as harassment among other violations.

Cheers!

after reviewing all these posts its a mazing that most if you believe that the paris attacks was a false flag attack

a reply to: Crowdpsychology

Why tell the truth to a reporter when he can achieve the same goal by just saying a specific sentence? The less people who knows the real story (situation) the easier it is to keep the lid on.

How do i know he is telling the truth that the blood was put there?

Well, take a look at where the blood is. And compare it to where he was laying when he was shoot in the head. The blood at the seen when the reporter is doing he's story, is in line With the commersial sign. The cop was laying practically right between the the green El.junction Box and the sign when he was shot. But now the blood is way over by the sign and even past the sign. The cops body was never even near the sign.

The other is that the pavment is not Level, the pavment leans towards the road. How did the blood Reach the fence above he's head?

The cops head is practically smak in the middle of the pavement walkway when he is shot. There is probably 1m++ from the cops head up to the fence. How did the blood get up there by it self?

This guy was not bleeding badly if any at all. So, if he was bleeding but not badly the blood would have to be around and Close to hes body. So the questions is: why is the blood so Close to the commersial sign when he was never laying Close to the commerisal sign?



They sure didnt Waste much sand to soak up the blood, Because i can hardly see any sand.




EDIT : I also find it odd that all the cars, the exact same cars are parked in exactly the same order as the day of the shooting. When this reporter is making the story. The shooting took Place on a working day. The reporter is at the seen a good day after the shooting.

My Guess is that this reporter and he's crew are the same People who filmed the cop being shoot from the building across the street. And i think the reporter fimed he's story the same night after the cop was taken away, not the day after.

a reply to: Crowdpsychology

As I said before, none of this is a personal insult, most wasn't even in reply to you. It's just facts and debating. Unlike you who called me a lame brain and an idiot.

You just can't stand being told you are wrong, now get over it and stop spamming this thread with posts about me. There is nothing insulting discussing about paranoia. It's a tragic condition affecting 1 person over 20. To believe the people here are immune is naive. It's part of the context and it explains a lot. If for you mental ilness is a taboo, maybe you shouldn't come here with all the lunatics.

originally posted by: JUhrman
a reply to: Crowdpsychology



You just can't stand being told you are wrong, now get over it and stop spamming this thread with posts about me. There is nothing insulting discussing about paranoia. It's a tragic condition affecting 1 person over 20. To believe the people here are immune is naive. It's part of the context and it explains a lot. If for you mental ilness is a taboo, maybe you shouldn't come here with all the lunatics.

How can you come up With this stuff: 1 out of 20 bla bla bla. You must know the absolute truth if you are going to explain numbers of who have got this right and wrong. And you have done nothing but complain these last pages. As far as i know you, You want us to tell you how this happened because you dont want to take a leap of even trying to explain this Yourself. Because you know you will be challenged. How can you come here and tell us that we are wrong, but you dont contribute With a solid explanation to why we are wrong.

You cant because you are among the 20.

a reply to: spy66

EDIT : I also find it odd that all the cars, the exact same cars are parked in exactly the same order as the day of the shooting. When this reporter is making the story. The shooting took Place on a working day. The reporter is at the seen a good day after the shooting.

If you lived in Paris, you would know that you do not move your car unless it is absolutely necessary. The car is for trips to the country on weekends. The Metro will get you to work and spare you having to hunt for parking spaces all day.

a reply to: Crowdpsychology

Funny... your attacks on JUhrman violate the very T&C that you have quoted.

originally posted by: spy66
How can you come here and tell us that we are wrong, but you dont contribute With a solid explanation to why we are wrong.

Plenty of people including me did explain why you are wrong and were simply ignored, or called sheeps, shills, or idiots gobbling up everything the media are saying...


But if you want a reminder, here it is:

I claim this isn't a false flag until someone can provide any proof that it is. Logic and the principle of parsimony dictates that I must favor the hypothesis with the fewer assumptions.

The principle states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better.

Supporters of the false flag theory make tons of assumptions, and therefore their choice is not logical (also why I claim they might have an issue since they do not use logic). Since everything points to it being a terror attack, and nothing points to it being a false flag, in light of the current event, I claim you are wrong.

Now you are more than welcome to prove me wrong. But sharing your feelings about this doesn't mean you will convince me of anything. I work with facts only. And not facts about other events. Facts about this. Proof that false flags exist aren't proof that this is one. There are rules to follow to prove a point, and if you don't, you commit a logical fallacy.