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: 22
59
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2015 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Crowdpsychology


Here we go again with the derailing questions.


How can a question that pertains directly to the title of a thread be an attempt at derailment, yet a lengthy post about psychology, paired with insinuations about the motives of other members be considered "on topic?" Please do not reply; this is an entirely rhetorical question, not an attempt to further derail the thread.
edit on 25-1-2015 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 01:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: spy66

If he was shoot in the head or not is not really relevant to the case at all.

I have never said that the reporters or the media have stated that the cop was shoot in the head. Those are Your assumptions based on what i have said.


If it is not relevant why lying about it?


originally posted by: spy66
Is this AK47 round tied to the seen where the cop is pressumed shot in the head?


You can't even remember why you assumed he was shot in the head while no one ever mentioned this anywhere.

It's just one additional assumption you are making to support your theory. One that is also false. Like the rest of your assumptions about this case.

edit on 26-1-2015 by JUhrman because: (no reason given)
extra DIV



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 02:17 AM
link   
a reply to: JUhrman




pre·sume
(prĭ-zo͞om′)
v. pre·sumed, pre·sum·ing, pre·sumes

v.tr.
1. To take for granted as being true in the absence of proof to the contrary: "I presume you're tired after the long ride" (Edith Wharton).

2. To constitute reasonable evidence for assuming; appear to prove:


The only thing i have been guilty of is spelling presumed wrong.




It's just one additional assumption you are making to support your theory. One that is also false. Like the rest of your assumptions about this case.


Well prove me wrong i dare you?


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



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 03:23 AM
link   
a reply to: spy66

Once again a thread is completely derailed - quite successfully - by a shill.
I watch the videos - open minded - and I see a problem. Policeman is 'shot' in the head only it was a blank fired at the footpath. No blood, no head movement or jerking - mediocre acting at best. A reported clearly states blood was later put there, although he does not need verbalise it - it HAD to have been put there. No words needed.
So we ask the question - why was blood put there? Why was the 'terrorist' firing blanks?
There are many other questions but those are the immediate ones that need to be raised and answered. Once we have the answers we may have more questions.
But I bet that like 9/11, Sandy hook etc there will be no questions allowed.
A mate said wouldn't it be great if all cops had video cameras to record what they do. Ha! i said.
We the people are being shown simple videos of a story with a narrative that is not consistent, all manner of protocol and SOP ignored and we appear to believe it??? Use your eyes and open your mind - crappy 2nd grade actors are whats on the screen.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 04:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: hmmmbeer
crappy 2nd grade actors are whats on the screen.



lol

even Alex "nutjob" Jones thinks people who say this are crazy.


The Charlie Hebdo Conspiracy Too Crazy Even for Alex Jones
www.thedailybeast.com...


Ahmed Merabet, one of two police officers brutally murdered while patrolling the street outside the offices of Charlie Hebdo on Jan. 7, was buried Tuesday in Bobigny. That is, if you are to believe the totality of evidence, including his family’s heartbroken statements, the official government response to his death, and actual video of his murder. However, some conspiracy theorists, believe it or not, are finding all that rather unconvincing.

In fact, it’s the video documentation of the event that leads them to deny its legitimacy—something too nuts for even radio host and Infowars founder Alex Jones, himself the sort of person who speaks about the Illuminati with a straight face.

“It’s become a whole faux, fake controversy. It becomes one of these conspiracy theories,” Jones told me by phone Tuesday evening. “They love whodunnit ‘Clue’ games, so everyone can now debate it. It’s not an issue—and the police officer is dead.”



When tragedies of colossal proportions occur, the public struggles to make sense of why it happened. But the gravity of violence is apparently too much for some to deal with to the extent that they shun reality altogether in favor of easier-to-swallow complicated conspiracies involving government play actors and staged terror plots wherein no one really dies.

Unsurprisingly, searches for “Columbine shooting hoax” and “Sandy Hook shooting hoax” return similar results to that of Charlie Hebdo.

These types of conspiracies seem to irk Jones and company, who believe it hurts their brand (which they see as being all about healthy skepticism.)

“That discredits really questioning stuff,” Jones told me. “There are some people who believe everything the government says on one hand. On the other hand, [there are some] who don’t believe anything. I try to be in the middle. Of course, I get criticized a lot. ... We get called conspiracy theorists just because we engage in a thought process and don’t just trust the narrative.”
[



Paul Joseph Watson, an editor at Infowars, told me via email that the shooting-deniers have been going after him.

“I have been bombarded with messages from people calling me a ‘shill’ for not agreeing that the entire sequence of events was staged by crisis actors. ... I was also attacked by these same people for asserting that the NYPD murders last month did in fact really happen.”

“I’m happy to draw the ire of these people because I firmly believe that legitimate cover-ups are being obscured by the ‘everything is a hoax’ crowd. Genuine skepticism about government malfeasance is being discredited by these people.”

Watson himself posted a video to YouTube which discussed the shooting denialism. His video, he says, was inexplicably and repeatedly removed from the video-sharing platform.

edit on 26-1-2015 by JUhrman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 04:55 AM
link   
a reply to: hmmmbeer

I have been looking into the case With them using Blanks, Rubber and plastic bullets. Our military and police use all Three of them.
I know that the shooter who shoot at the police laying on the ground did not use a Blank. Because a Blank would not create a dust cloud from the cement tiels on the grond, the gass is not powerfull enough to do that. But a rubber bullet or a plastic bullet hitting the cement tiels would have the force to create a dust cloud. "To make the impression that real ammonition was used".

A rubber bullet or a Plastic bullet will also hurt a lot if you get hit With them. The cop was presumed hit on the upper part of he's leg/thigh. You can also see him touching the part of he's leg With he's right hand. You can also see him hold up he's right hand as the shooter comes towards him. And there is no blood.

There is a lot of blood that passes through the thigh muscles, so there should have been blood if there was penetration.

A rubber bullet have the energy to penetrate skin if used at a short distance to target. The cop was hit at a fairly short distance, so i dont think the shooter(s) used a rubber bullet. Because then there would have been penetration and blood.

I think they used a pastic bullet. A plastic bullet is something the publick would not be able to ID if laying Close to the crime seen. So if a plactic bullet is laying around the crime seen. No one would know what it is or pay much attention to it. It would just be a small Peace of plastic. But a rubber bullet is a bullet if found that could be ID by the public.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 05:05 AM
link   
a reply to: spy66

That all sounds good. Where is the official explanation of it? Why rubber/plastic bullets. Why PUT blood there? To me these are the obvious questions to ask. As is the original intention of this thread - was this a false flag? Another divide & conquer wedge between 'us' and 'them'. Funny how the shills never actually even attempt to answer these questions.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 05:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: hmmmbeer
a reply to: spy66

That all sounds good. Where is the official explanation of it? Why rubber/plastic bullets. Why PUT blood there? To me these are the obvious questions to ask. As is the original intention of this thread - was this a false flag? Another divide & conquer wedge between 'us' and 'them'. Funny how the shills never actually even attempt to answer these questions.


The "shills" are examining the claims made in this thread to determine if this is indeed a false flag or not.


To ask the question "Why" without even knowing it's a false flag is a "Begging the question" fallacy

en.wikipedia.org...


Begging the question means "assuming the conclusion (of an argument)", a type of circular reasoning. This is an informal fallacy where the conclusion that one is attempting to prove is included in the initial premise of an argument, often in an indirect way that conceals this fact.



Using logical fallacies like "begging the question" is a classic shill tactic






We are not asking "why" such a false flag because there's not enough indication it's a false flag, so asking why is nothing but entertaining a delusion.
edit on 26-1-2015 by JUhrman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 05:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: hmmmbeer
a reply to: spy66

That all sounds good. Where is the official explanation of it? Why rubber/plastic bullets. Why PUT blood there? To me these are the obvious questions to ask. As is the original intention of this thread - was this a false flag? Another divide & conquer wedge between 'us' and 'them'. Funny how the shills never actually even attempt to answer these questions.


What you have to know is that each event in it self are real. All these events that we saw did happened. They did take Place. We have them on video.

What you have to do now is divide the events into stages in the order they took Place. The Whole thing was staged, but the event was staged differently at different location. At one location we know that 10/11 People were really killed. Then you have events that take Place after that.

The aganda was to kill the People at Charlie Hebo. The rest is just a show for the Public to make this seem credible. This is what you have to find. You have to find and ID the show that was put on after the killings at Charlie Hebo.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 05:29 AM
link   
a reply to: JUhrman

No one is asking for Your opinion or for Your help. So why do you bother to comment?



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 05:31 AM
link   
a reply to: JUhrman

Do you believe the police officer was shot in the head? Was blood 'put there'? For show. as in false flag. yes or no?



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 05:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: hmmmbeer
a reply to: JUhrman

Do you believe the police officer was shot in the head? Was blood 'put there'? For show. as in false flag. yes or no?


No, i dont believe the cop was shoot in the head. And i dont believe he is dead. I know that the blood was put there. I have alredy proven that.

I dont even think that the two who shoot at the cop are the same shooters who shot the People at Charlie Hebo.
I have even argued for that as well. at the page before this one.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 05:48 AM
link   
a reply to: hmmmbeer

I'm not interested in beliefs. Beliefs can be wrong. I'm interested in facts.

-The media never claimed he was shot in the head so I see no reason to believe so. There is only one video of the shot and I can't draw any conclusion from it alone. But since no one is claiming he was shot in the head it doesn't matter to me where he was shot.

-I do think the officer is dead as everything is pointing to. From his devastated family to the shooters yelling after he was shot "It's OK, he wasn't Algerian anyway". I don't need to see his dead body to consider the fact he is dead. Everything points in that direction. If someone claims he isn't dead, he can still bring proof of this.


-I do think the blood looks normal and where it was expected to be. I know real life isn't like Hollywood movies. I'm not expecting gushes of blood suddenly appearing everywhere. In fact I expect blood to stain the uniform first, then when the uniform gets completely soaked in blood, the remaining blood starts spilling on the pavement. I also expect that as it rains on the blood, it gets diluted and start covering an increasing area. You can see that in the snow where a few drops of blood can color a very large surface.

The blood is where I expect it to be, I see no reason to doubt the fact that it's Merabet's blood.




I hope this answers your questions.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 05:56 AM
link   
a reply to: JUhrman

See no blood: www.youtube.com...


You are debunked.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 05:58 AM
link   
a reply to: spy66

Lol you haven't even read what I posted:

-I do think the blood looks normal and where it was expected to be. I know real life isn't like Hollywood movies. I'm not expecting gushes of blood suddenly appearing everywhere. In fact I expect blood to stain the uniform first, then when the uniform gets completely soaked in blood, the remaining blood starts spilling on the pavement. I also expect that as it rains on the blood, it gets diluted and start covering an increasing area. You can see that in the snow where a few drops of blood can color a very large surface.

edit on 26-1-2015 by JUhrman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 06:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: JUhrman
a reply to: spy66

Lol you haven't even read what I posted:

-I do think the blood looks normal and where it was expected to be. I know real life isn't like Hollywood movies. I'm not expecting gushes of blood suddenly appearing everywhere. In fact I expect blood to stain the uniform first, then when the uniform gets completely soaked in blood, the remaining blood starts spilling on the pavement. I also expect that as it rains on the blood, it gets diluted and start covering an increasing area. You can see that in the snow where a few drops of blood can color a very large surface.


You are debunked. That is all that matters.

I have read Your story. But you are debunked. Get over it and Accept it. Move along there is nothing more for you to see here.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 06:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: JUhrman

See no blood: www.youtube.com...


You are debunked.





Wouldn't cloth tend to absorb blood> Perhaps no blood came oozing out around the edges of the body because it was sticking to his clothes. It would only be after he was moved that the blood on the ground would be visible. What you need is a video of the body being moved to test this hypothesis.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 07:19 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

It's exactly what I explained but spy can't even read. He debunked nothing. Actually he brought nothing new to the thread. He only cuts and pastes video link from conspiracy sites and say we have to believe them blindly despite many obviously lying.

The blood was most likely soaking his uniform. The firemen said they cleaned the blood later with water and sand to avoid people slipping on it, also it rained on it. That's the reason the blood stain is so large on the video, it's all diluted. A few days later and nothing remains of it.


For those who really want to investigate, here are some pics spy could have posted but he did not because he's too lazy and too busy parroting conspiracies to think on his own.


Rubber bullets lol:




Look at all these actors! They are all very bad actors indeed!
Police actors

Nurse actors

More actors




Spy could have posted all this to support his "no blood" theory, but he did not because he's not searching for anything, he just browse conspiracy sites and cut and paste what he founds here.




You see Spy, the problem with you now is that maybe at first you kept an open mind, thinking "maybe it's a false flag, maybe it's real", and would honestly look for the truth.

But now you are too emotionally invested. You supported the false flag scenario so much you cannot change opinion anymore. It's a common cognitive bias called "consistency". Your brain tells you it must be a false flag, otherwise everything you posted before would be wrong and you would like an idiot.

Some people can be above that bias, and honestly admit when they are wrong. But you and Crowd both showed you don't have that level of self control. You've been proven wrong numerous times and each time either ignore it or react violently. You even start reacting like a kid lately, saying I've been "debunked", that I should leave, that I have no place here. Because what I post contradicts your story, so your brain is revolted by my posts. You are slave to confirmation bias, you are a victim of your own beliefs and you can't even see it anymore.

Even on your deathbed, when all this story shall be investigated and it will only confirm it's sadly a terror shooting with many casualties, your brain will keep ignoring it and you will live in your own fantasy where all the people involved in this; police officers, medics, reporters, shooters, they all are part of a giant conspiracy.


I pity you, I pity those who have lost the ability to think by themselves and become slave to their believes because they don't know how the brain works and how consistency is one of the main ways of mind manipulation used to this day, and that you inflicted that on yourself with your commitment on the false flag scenario. Now that you are committed, you cannot turn back.

en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 26-1-2015 by JUhrman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 07:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: JUhrman

See no blood: www.youtube.com...


You are debunked.





Wouldn't cloth tend to absorb blood> Perhaps no blood came oozing out around the edges of the body because it was sticking to his clothes. It would only be after he was moved that the blood on the ground would be visible. What you need is a video of the body being moved to test this hypothesis.


Cloth would never absorbe all the blood. At least not from the gunshoot wound to the thigh. A person can bleed to Death by being hit in thigh.


Much earlier i also explained that a crime seen where there is blood. The firedepartmens always hose Down the crime seen after it has been swaped. Got any images of that???



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 07:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: spy66
Got any images of that???


Well, do you have any image of people putting fake blood there?




top topics



 
59
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join