It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Was the French Attack a False Flag???

page: 19
59
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 07:57 AM
link   
a reply to: spy66


Moped up all the blood??? Did you see any blood from the victim at all?


How long was the victim lying there before he was removed?


The reporter told you that blood was put there.


The "reporter" says a lot of things. Does that make them true?




posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 08:04 AM
link   
a reply to: JUhrman




The agent was shot there, but then they put another puddle of blood just a few cm further to confuse us.


- Well the location of this blood is not concistant With where the cops was shoot. If you cant see that it is not my problem. That is all on you.

- The blood was put there to confuse us? No, the blood was put there as evidence to the public that the cop was killed there. Not to cunfuse us. You are the one who is confused, dont blame the Public.





Also almost all Parisians are in the know. That's why they don't come to crime scene to look at it. They all know it was fake. All the 2.2 millions Parisians know it. And all the tourists know it too.


These are not my Words, they are Yours. I dont speak on behalf of the Parisans. I said it was odd.





Everyone knows it was fake, that's why no one is coming to see the place.


Wrong, People beleive the terror attack is real. All these Things did take Place.





Thanks for showing me the light! I'm a believer too now.

Thank you so much!


I am glad to help "Jesse's Christ"



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 08:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
The "reporter" says a lot of things. Does that make them true?



My favorite thing is that all along the thread, the supporters of the false flag scenario were saying media are lying all the time and anyone believing them is a fool.

Then a reporter has a slip of the tongue and suddenly he's saying the truth


Priceless.



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 08:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: spy66
If you cant see that it is not my problem. That is all on you.


If your mind can't process the pictures I posted with the outlines, I'm sorry for you cognitive dissonance.



originally posted by: spy66
No, the blood was put there as evidence to the public that the cop was killed there. Not to cunfuse us. You are the one who is confused, dont blame the Public.


You are the confused one:


originally posted by: spy66
I never said he didnt die.


If the cop was indeed dead, why would we need proof of it by putting even more blood than necessary? What the video claimed is that the cop wasn't dead.

You're loosing tracks of all these conflicting conspiracy theories.
edit on 21-1-2015 by JUhrman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 08:28 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001





The "reporter" says a lot of things. Does that make them true?


You tell me. What is the truth?

1. That the reporter said that the blood was put there?

2. That the reporter said he had made a mistake by saing that the blood was put there. He ment to say that sand was put there to soak up the blood?

Which one is the truth?


Why didnt he correct himself on air if he knew he had made a mistake?

The two explanations are not even related to another. (Put blood there? Put sand to soak up blood)?

That is not a small mistake.



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 08:35 AM
link   
a reply to: spy66

How would be in the know that blood was put there?

Why would he know and none of the other reporters?

I'm baffled that you don't find that even stranger than a slip of the tongue.



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 08:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: JUhrman
a reply to: spy66

How would be in the know that blood was put there?

Why would he know and none of the other reporters?

I'm baffled that you don't find that even stranger than a slip of the tongue.



- Have you seen or heard any other reportres Reporting from that seen? Telling us that there was put sand there to soak up the blood?

-How would he be in the know that blood was put there? Good question. Why did he say it if he wasnt in the know? He shouldnt have been able to have this thought without been introduced to the idea. Right?



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Short summery of the official story:

Two brothers that was surveilled by the western intelligence complex because of their connections to Al-Qaeda, IS and ISIS networks as well as friends with known affiliates within the networks succeeds to plan (telephone contacts, emails face/face meetings) this attack, get two AK47 rifles among other weapons, and finally manage to execute their plan whiteout any intervention along the way by the great and vast intel-network that has been built up solely to counteract and stop these kind of incidents from ever happening.

In other words, these brothers must have been very skillful in this kind of work to conceive and deceive the western intelligence complex, but after all this great planning and after the completion of their task they crash their escape car and forgets their ID’s in the car (which everyone knows terrorists bring to their attacks)

Then the police magically loses sight of these brothers even though protocol says that recon helicopters should be observing the attacked area right after the incident. From the incident in the office to the crash of the car the police and military had five ours to locate these terrorists (But I guess the pilots were free this day like they usually are)

These brothers also uses balaclavas during their terrorist attack even though their network had planned to release a video stating the cause behind the attack and the names of all the terrorists involved. (They probably used them to reduce frostbite or something)

Then after this video has been release (with their names) to the public these brothers still uses their balaclavas when robbing a gas station. (Yet again, probably to reduce the risk of frostbite)

A couple of hours before the incident at the gas station another terrorist allegedly kills a police woman, and after that this terrorist goes home drinks some coffee and starts to record the final piece of the video that is released hours later.

When he is done with this recording this terrorist goes on a killing spree in a kosher supermarket and holds the customers hostage and kills four of them. Then when the SWAT team arrives a single officer goes inside, which isn’t standard protocol and all of a sudden the hostage-taker comes running towards 10+ officers shooting at him, while he covers his face/body while not shooting back. (Classic behavior of a terrorist who just killed 4 people)

Then when the police catches up with the brothers they end up in a alleged firefight with them. But sadly all these officers is missing both the terrorists and the tires of their car so they once again can flee.

Seems very plausible, don't it!?

____________________________________________________________________________________

If you are a critical thinker who base your evaluations on logic facts you would know that both the official story and contradictory stories are just theories regarding what happened. A well informed person knows that this is the case with many proven conspiracies in the past, the media gives their story based on intel from police, companies, military or government and this story is later proven to be false and fabricated.

Here are some incidents regarding this:

- Operation Mockingbird
- Operation Northwoods
- Operation Gladio
- MK-ULTRA
- Watergate
- 1990 Testimony of Nayirah - Which sparked the Gulf War
- CIA drug trafficking
- Gulf of Tonkin Incident
- Operation Ajax
- Operation Paperclip
- The Illegal Spying of US Citizens

So now I ask all you playing the disinformation game, prove to me that the official story is correct and not just another falsified story to keep us in the dark from the real truth. People who speak for contradictory theories can also make this claim because remember, based on history and facts the official story isn’t always right.

It is also pretty clear that you are trying to use the aspect of paranoia to prove that everything we are talking about is wrong so people will believe the official story. This strategy is only a a laughable and sad attempt to discredit people who is talking about a serious matter. Sure it would maybe work on a person with low IQ/intellect, weak mind and someone who is driven by fear but sadly you are barking up the wrong tree.

This is how disinformation tactics work:

- They ask for evidence they know doesn’t exist.
- They ridicule the whole aspect of the conspiracy based on the point above.
- They call everybody who research these theories paranoid and delusional to enhance the collective idea of ”conspiracies" and "conspiracy theorists" and to infuse fear in people pursuing these theories.
- They use MSM as their own proof even though they lie, is controlled by private interests as well as infiltrated by disinformation agents.
- They never give a straight answer to a good and logic question, instead they derail it to something more convenient to them.

www.youtube.com...
dprogram.net...

So like I said before, instead of telling us to prove that this incident is a false flag (which you know we can’t do based on hard facts) Prove to us that the official story is right based on hard facts!

These are some of the things you need to show us so that we can make a objective evaluation of the incident:

1) Show us the body and autopsy of the dead brothers who conveniently has been buried at a secret location.
2) Give us full statements from friends and family of all the terrorists.
3) Give us full statements from family members of all the victims involved.
4) Give us full statements from all the witnesses involved in this attack.
5) Show us the body and autopsy of the killed police officer.
6) Show us all the crime scene photos taken after the officer was shot.
7) Show us the bodies and autopsies of the victims from Charlie Hebdo office.
8) Show us all crime scene photos with bodies in the Charlie Hebdo office.
9) Show us all crime scene photos of the the brothers ID’s in their original position in the car.
10) Give us the name and full statement of the person who recorded the killing of the police officer.
11) Give us the name and full statement of the worker who was spared by the brothers before they got killed at the industrial complex.
12) Give us full statements from the co-workers of the deputy who killed himself.
13) Give us full statements from the family/friends of the deputy who killed himself
14) Show us the body and autopsy of the killed hostage-taker.
15) Show us all the crime scene photos taken after the hostage-taker got killed.

I don't see conspiracies in everything because I’m a logic thinker with a critical mind and the most important thing of all, I’m not driven by a religion, political view, company, government or any other thing that can cloud my critical thinking. I look for the real truth, not a truth that will make me feel safe, right or satisfied.

I rest my case!



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 01:48 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66

Spy66, don't bother with these guys any more. They are driven by a different power and they have been brainwashed for far to long for us to enlighten them with different ways of thinking. They will one day wake up and realize that the path they have chosen in life was the wrong one, and that sad journey is for them, and them alone.

Cheers!



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 02:15 PM
link   
In other words, indulge any fantasy you want without proof. Brilliant.a reply to: Crowdpsychology



posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 02:26 PM
link   
I personally like the "false flags happened before, hence this must be a false flag too" logical fallacy.



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 03:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Crowdpsychology
I look for the real truth, not a truth that will make me feel safe


Actually...


The main thing that I learned about conspiracy theory is that conspiracy theorists actually believe in a conspiracy because that is more comforting. The truth of the world is that it is chaotic. The truth is, that it is not the Jewish banking conspiracy or the grey aliens or the 12 foot reptiloids from another dimension that are in control. The truth is more frightening, nobody is in control. The world is rudderless. -Alan Moore



Conspiracies make people feel like someone is in control. It does make them feel safe.

To accept that no one is in control actually takes some courage.



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 06:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Crowdpsychology
Short summery of the official story:

Two brothers that was surveilled by the western intelligence complex because of their connections to Al-Qaeda, IS and ISIS networks as well as friends with known affiliates within the networks succeeds to plan (telephone contacts, emails face/face meetings) this attack, get two AK47 rifles among other weapons, and finally manage to execute their plan whiteout any intervention along the way by the great and vast intel-network that has been built up solely to counteract and stop these kind of incidents from ever happening.

In other words, these brothers must have been very skillful in this kind of work to conceive and deceive the western intelligence complex, but after all this great planning and after the completion of their task they crash their escape car and forgets their ID’s in the car (which everyone knows terrorists bring to their attacks)

Then the police magically loses sight of these brothers even though protocol says that recon helicopters should be observing the attacked area right after the incident. From the incident in the office to the crash of the car the police and military had five ours to locate these terrorists (But I guess the pilots were free this day like they usually are)

These brothers also uses balaclavas during their terrorist attack even though their network had planned to release a video stating the cause behind the attack and the names of all the terrorists involved. (They probably used them to reduce frostbite or something)

Then after this video has been release (with their names) to the public these brothers still uses their balaclavas when robbing a gas station. (Yet again, probably to reduce the risk of frostbite)

A couple of hours before the incident at the gas station another terrorist allegedly kills a police woman, and after that this terrorist goes home drinks some coffee and starts to record the final piece of the video that is released hours later.

When he is done with this recording this terrorist goes on a killing spree in a kosher supermarket and holds the customers hostage and kills four of them. Then when the SWAT team arrives a single officer goes inside, which isn’t standard protocol and all of a sudden the hostage-taker comes running towards 10+ officers shooting at him, while he covers his face/body while not shooting back. (Classic behavior of a terrorist who just killed 4 people)

Then when the police catches up with the brothers they end up in a alleged firefight with them. But sadly all these officers is missing both the terrorists and the tires of their car so they once again can flee.

Seems very plausible, don't it!?

____________________________________________________________________________________

If you are a critical thinker who base your evaluations on logic facts you would know that both the official story and contradictory stories are just theories regarding what happened. A well informed person knows that this is the case with many proven conspiracies in the past, the media gives their story based on intel from police, companies, military or government and this story is later proven to be false and fabricated.

Here are some incidents regarding this:

- Operation Mockingbird
- Operation Northwoods
- Operation Gladio
- MK-ULTRA
- Watergate
- 1990 Testimony of Nayirah - Which sparked the Gulf War
- CIA drug trafficking
- Gulf of Tonkin Incident
- Operation Ajax
- Operation Paperclip
- The Illegal Spying of US Citizens

So now I ask all you playing the disinformation game, prove to me that the official story is correct and not just another falsified story to keep us in the dark from the real truth. People who speak for contradictory theories can also make this claim because remember, based on history and facts the official story isn’t always right.

It is also pretty clear that you are trying to use the aspect of paranoia to prove that everything we are talking about is wrong so people will believe the official story. This strategy is only a a laughable and sad attempt to discredit people who is talking about a serious matter. Sure it would maybe work on a person with low IQ/intellect, weak mind and someone who is driven by fear but sadly you are barking up the wrong tree.

This is how disinformation tactics work:

- They ask for evidence they know doesn’t exist.
- They ridicule the whole aspect of the conspiracy based on the point above.
- They call everybody who research these theories paranoid and delusional to enhance the collective idea of ”conspiracies" and "conspiracy theorists" and to infuse fear in people pursuing these theories.
- They use MSM as their own proof even though they lie, is controlled by private interests as well as infiltrated by disinformation agents.
- They never give a straight answer to a good and logic question, instead they derail it to something more convenient to them.

www.youtube.com...
dprogram.net...

So like I said before, instead of telling us to prove that this incident is a false flag (which you know we can’t do based on hard facts) Prove to us that the official story is right based on hard facts!

These are some of the things you need to show us so that we can make a objective evaluation of the incident:

1) Show us the body and autopsy of the dead brothers who conveniently has been buried at a secret location.
2) Give us full statements from friends and family of all the terrorists.
3) Give us full statements from family members of all the victims involved.
4) Give us full statements from all the witnesses involved in this attack.
5) Show us the body and autopsy of the killed police officer.
6) Show us all the crime scene photos taken after the officer was shot.
7) Show us the bodies and autopsies of the victims from Charlie Hebdo office.
8) Show us all crime scene photos with bodies in the Charlie Hebdo office.
9) Show us all crime scene photos of the the brothers ID’s in their original position in the car.
10) Give us the name and full statement of the person who recorded the killing of the police officer.
11) Give us the name and full statement of the worker who was spared by the brothers before they got killed at the industrial complex.
12) Give us full statements from the co-workers of the deputy who killed himself.
13) Give us full statements from the family/friends of the deputy who killed himself
14) Show us the body and autopsy of the killed hostage-taker.
15) Show us all the crime scene photos taken after the hostage-taker got killed.

I don't see conspiracies in everything because I’m a logic thinker with a critical mind and the most important thing of all, I’m not driven by a religion, political view, company, government or any other thing that can cloud my critical thinking. I look for the real truth, not a truth that will make me feel safe, right or satisfied.

I rest my case!


Since no-one has risen to take your bait, there must not be any "disinformation agents" here. Why don't you re-post this as the first post on a new thread on the "Disinformation" forum. I would be happy to expose engage you there.



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 06:48 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Personally i dont think you have the skills to Challenge that many, and first of all not him.

You have already shown us your capable hand.



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 06:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: DJW001

Personally i dont think you have the skills to Challenge that many, and first of all not him.

You have already shown us your capable hand.



Well, then, he has nothing to fear. See you on the "Deconstructing Disinformation" forum. If he dares.



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 07:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: DJW001

Personally i dont think you have the skills to Challenge that many, and first of all not him.

You have already shown us your capable hand.



Well, then, he has nothing to fear. See you on the "Deconstructing Disinformation" forum. If he dares.


He dosent fear you. He has no reason to. The problem With you and you other friend, is that you two are not challenging this topic,,, your killing it. People are loosing intrest in this topic because you and Your friend dont know how to challenge a topic like this.



edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 07:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: spy66
The problem With you and you other friend, is that you two are not challenging this topic


If it wasn't for people like him asking for more proofs of a false flag operation, NO ONE would be challenging the topic.


What you don't seem to get is that two main approaches are possibles:

- You assume this is a false flag and ask for others to prove it isn't (your approach)
- You assume this is not a false flag and ask for others to prove it is (the other approach)


Pages after pages, you stick to your approach thinking it's the only rational one.


Now let's see what reason has to say about all this:


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.



Your approach is the one making the most assumptions, as we can see you do pages after pages (the blood was put there, the media are lying, etc, etc)


Hence your approach should not be preferred if you are using reason and logic, and the false flag hypothesis must be proven to be accepted.


And yet you keep reversing the burden of proof, asking for others to prove this is NOT a false flag. This is exactly the type of manipulation and disinfo described in Crowdpsychology post, at work in your and his posts.



So honestly, you can claim "he's not afraid to debate" and that "we aren't challenging this topic", and blah blah let the reason be lost under a pile of nonsense.

The truth is that we are the ones challenging you, and we do so simply because the correct approach is to take the hypothesis with the fewer assumptions as a starting point, and you are doing just the opposite.

In that regards, yes, anyone debating supporting the false flag hypothesis as a given and claiming different opinions are disinfo should be afraid, because they are doing the opposite of what logic and reason dictates.

In short, they are reasoning irrationally, and this can be proven. That's actually why I kept mentioning mental illness in the thread, not as personal attacks, but because it's a common cause of such irrational reasoning.
edit on 22-1-2015 by JUhrman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 08:08 AM
link   
a reply to: JUhrman





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.


My question is: Can there be any competing hypotheses With what reporters report?

Your answer is: NO. That is it, that is all you give along With this: 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.

In other Words we can not compete With what the media is Reporting to us based on what they oberve, film and are being told by Our government offisials.
If this is the argument you support than we really dont have to look into anything about what the media is telleing us. All we have to do is listen and observe all the facts they are showing us and tellng us. So dont bother to try and question it. This is Your attitude, but it is not mine.

So you can take Your definition and show it some where else. Becasue it is not a usefull definition that is in the publics favour if they want to question what the media is reporting. Or to highlight what Our governments are up to.

Your so stuck up using Your own definition it prevents You from challenging the topic.


If you havent noticed, we are trying challenging the topic. We have not reached a conclution.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 08:18 AM
link   
a reply to: spy66

You completely misread my post (unsurprisingly).


What I'm saying doesn't deny competing hypothesis (it says AMONG them).

What I'm saying is that the starting point is the one with the fewer assumptions (not the one reported by the media).



The competing hypothesis can be discussed too, but proofs must be brought to the table and none of you ever brought a single proof that this is a false flag.

On the contrary, you asked US to PROVE this is not a false flag, which is against what any reasonable person would do. It's like asking someone to prove that unicorns do not exist, otherwise they must exist. Can you see now the ridicule of such a claim.


So again, competing hypothesis are welcome.

And you are welcome to post proofs to support them. Otherwise we are free to call them baseless assumptions.


Challenge the media all you want, I will be pleased. And do bring proofs to support your ideas. And don't forget opinions are not proofs.
edit on 22-1-2015 by JUhrman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 08:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: JUhrman
a reply to: spy66

You completely misread my post (unsurprisingly).


What I'm saying doesn't deny competing hypothesis (it says AMONG them).

What I'm saying is that the starting point is the one with the fewer assumptions (not the one reported by the media).



The competing hypothesis can be discussed too, but proofs must be brought to the table and none of you ever brought a single proof that this is a false flag.

On the contrary, you asked US to PROVE this is not a false flag, which is against what any reasonable person would do. It's like asking someone to prove that unicorns do not exist, otherwise they must exist. Can you see now the ridicule of such a claim.


So again, competing hypothesis are welcome.

And you are welcome to post proofs to support them. Otherwise we are free to call them baseless assumptions.


Challenge the media all you want, I will be pleased. And do bring proofs to support your ideas. And don't forget opinions are not proofs.


Man are you slow.

We have not reached a damn conclution yet. We are trying to Challenge the topic still. Let us Challenge the topic before you bring in Your stupidity.

And by the way: Who made you the judge over the truth?

Who has the authority to claim that someones opinion cant be based on the truth?


edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
59
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join