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: 23
59
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 07:49 AM
link   
a reply to: JUhrman

There is not blood in any of Your images.

The gunnshoot holes in the front windshield can be explained. Very easily. With them also shooting plastic bullets. All they have to do is change MAGs.

THis also might explaine why there is also a live fullmetall jacket laying on the ground. After they change from real bullets to plastic. They would have to re-Cock their gun to get the live round out of the Chamber.

But i havent goten this far yet. I am still working on it.




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




posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 07:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: JUhrman

There is not blood in any of Your images.



That's exactly why I said you could have posted them to support your claims, but you are simply too lazy to do any research by yourself.


These pictures only proof there were almost a dozen people around the body, trying to re-animate it. So if your false flag scenario is true, they are ALL actors. All these people.


The blood is under the body as it was confirmed by testimonies of these medics who responded to claims like yours.

The blood was then washed with water and sand, forming the big stain we see later.


Everything is consistent, I see nothing strange that could only be explained by a false flag. But you sure do want it was the case.



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



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 08:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: JUhrman

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: JUhrman

There is not blood in any of Your images.



That's exactly why I said you could have posted them to support your claims, but you are simply too lazy to do any research by yourself.


These pictures only proof there were almost a dozen people around the body, trying to re-animate it. So if your false flag scenario is true, they are ALL actors. All these people.


The blood is under the body as it was confirmed by testimonies of these medics who responded to claims like yours.

The blood was then washed with water and sand, forming the big stain we see later.


Everything is consistent, I see nothing strange that could only be explained by a false flag. But you sure do want it was the case.




Everything seems consistent that is the Whole point.

It would be quite dumb if it wasnt. That would mean the immediate end of the Police force and everyone else involved.

That would be pretty emberrassing if you tell me.

What if these People are playing along??



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 08:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: spy66

Everything seems consistent that is the Whole point.



So basically you admit it doesn't look like a false flag even after a critical analysis. Thanks!

I really want someone to prove me wrong and post a smoking gun showing this is a false flag, but you are all failing so bad at this.


Probably because of this; Alex Jones is actually claiming the nutters who support the false flag theory are ridiculing the whole conspiracy crowd!. That Alex Jones calls you guys too crazy even for him! Boy that must hurt.


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 @ 09:44 AM
link   
a reply to: JUhrman

This whole thread is so confusing: it is solipsism masquerading as "critical thinking."



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: JUhrman




So basically you admit it doesn't look like a false flag even after a critical analysis. Thanks!


No, it dosent look like a false flag. And i am saying that. That is also the Whole point. If it looked like a false flag there wouldnt be much to look into. People would have seen it.

As i have said before i am still working on this. I have not reached a conclution. I will stop when i feel that there is no more to look into. If you are happy you can stop right now and leave us alone.


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



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66

Why? I want the truth as much as you and I posted pictures none of you posted before.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: JUhrman
a reply to: spy66

Why? I want the truth as much as you and I posted pictures none of you posted before.


I thank you for the images. They will come in handy.

IF you want to help me out. I need some other views on a matter.

IF the shooters made a left turn from Allee Verte onto Boulavard Richard-Lenoir How did they manage to end up comming from the North on the other side of Boulavard Richard-Lenoir ?

Turning left would give the shooter quite a detour to manage comming from the North on the other side of Boulavard Richard-Lenoir, to re-engage the cops. That dosent make any sense?

Why would they do that? You have seen the video and know that they turned left.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: JUhrman

I also asked if you believe the officer was shot in the head. Drop the blood question. Yes or no? As a bonus, state the evidence you used to make that judgement.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: hmmmbeer

And I answered you. I don't have the necessary info to tell you. I'm the first to say there are too many assumptions in this thread so I'm not going to do one more.

It doesn't matter to me where he was shot. What matters is that he is dead now.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 05:17 PM
link   
a reply to: JUhrman

What was his cause of death then? Who is to be punished if this was a murder?

I Do NOT believe he was shot in the head, based on clear video evidence. The shot missed, his head did not jerk at all.



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: hmmmbeer

Why couldn't he have been shot somewhere else? From the video it looks more like below the neck.

Anyway there have been numerous firemen, police officers and nurses around him.

It's almost impossible to predict all the people who would be around him, so either half of Paris town services are part of the conspiracy, which honestly sound completely impossible, either he was indeed shot and is now dead.

I don't mind discussing inconsistencies in this thread, but the claim that this guy isn't dead has to be one of the craziest ever made. It doesn't even make sense from a false flag point of view.

I mean if I was planning a false flag operation in the first place, I would have zero problem killing one or two cops on top of 12 satiric reporters. This is way easier than involving dozens of actors you can't really control.

Really, who came up with this idea that the cop isn't dead? That would be the stupidest thing to do for a false flag. Just kill the guy already. Problem solved.



It really sounds like what that alex jones interview is saying. Some people just can't accept people get killed in real life and come up with crazy scenarios with actors to avoid processing this idea.

In past proven false flag scenarios, PEOPLE GOT KILLED. That's the point of a false flag.

Seriously don't you understand why even alex jones calls this theory crazy? Because it is!


But eh, there will always be funny people to claim elvis or michael jackson aren't dead so whatever.
edit on 26-1-2015 by JUhrman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 06:27 PM
link   
a reply to: JUhrman

I ask again... what was the official cause of the police officers death?

If this a CT, it could be with multiple purposes... eg kill some people who need to be killed (for example they are anti-nuclear energy) and create some more anti-Muslim sentiment (plunge that wedge into society a bit deeper - divide & conquer, us & them.

I am really truly curious as to the cause of death of the officer in question.



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 01:21 AM
link   
a reply to: hmmmbeer

The official cause is he died from gunshot wounds.

If you want more details you will have to help the thread and look for them.


Now a question from me.

What would be the point of sparing the life of the cop if this is is a false flag?
edit on 27-1-2015 by JUhrman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 01:22 AM
link   
Double post
edit on 27-1-2015 by JUhrman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 03:14 AM
link   
a reply to: JUhrman

Hmmmm wikipedia says: "Ahmed Merabet, 42, a Muslim police officer of Algerian descent,[75][76] shot in the head as he lay wounded on the ground outside". Do you see an error/problem with that? Do you agree that the video clearly shows that officer NOT being shot in the head?

Like I said earlier - the people killed were killed for a reason, and the others - where all the stories and questions arise - were to make extra sure to drum up anti-muslim sentiment. But the whole thing was an 'inside job' - state sponsored - not an act of independent terrorism.

There is some great info here

Extensive Googling finds no trace of an autopsy for the shot officer. The above link describes why.

Cheers



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 03:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: hmmmbeer

Like I said earlier - the people killed were killed for a reason, and the others - where all the stories and questions arise - were to make extra sure to drum up anti-muslim sentiment. But the whole thing was an 'inside job' - state sponsored - not an act of independent terrorism.




I don't think you read my question right. I'm going to ask one more time since you keep explaining why killing people when I asked the opposite:


If the point is to stage a Muslim terror attack; why NOT killing the cop?

I think it was you who suggested rubber bullets and the cop not being actually shot. Again; WHY NOT SIMPLY KILLING THE COP? You really think people doing false flags attacks care about a cop's life?



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 03:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: hmmmbeer
a reply to: JUhrman

Hmmmm wikipedia says: "Ahmed Merabet, 42, a Muslim police officer of Algerian descent,[75][76] shot in the head as he lay wounded on the ground outside". Do you see an error/problem with that?


You know you have to cross check your sources when claiming things like that right?

Wikipedia is always full of errors and spreading rumors like fire.

This is your "quote":

Ahmed Merabet, 42, a Muslim police officer of Algerian descent,[75][76] shot in the head as he lay wounded on the ground outside.[77]

This is the source:

77. Polly Mosendz. "Police Officer Ahmed Merabet Shot During Charlie Hebdo Massacre". Newsweek. www.newsweek.com...


This is the article in question

One of the police officers killed in the terrorist attack today in Paris has been identified as 42-year-old Ahmed Merabet.

The attack began around 11:30 a.m. local time when three men entered the offices of satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. The men claimed that they were members of an Al-Qaeda faction in Yemen and were avenging the Prophet Muhammad. The magazine once ran an image of Muhammad and was condemned by some Muslims, as depictions of the Prophet are prohibited by Islamic law.

Two officers were shot during the attack, one of them at a distance as the gunmen fled. A masked man then approached the officer while he was lying on the ground and shot him at extremely close range. A video of the incident circulated online.




This is from the French wiki, probably more reliable than the English one:


Ahmed Merabet[modifier | modifier le code]
Ahmed Merabet est né à Livry-Gargan (Seine-Saint-Denis)4. Il est brigadier à VTT du commissariat du 11e arrondissement2.

Il a été touché alors qu'il affrontait les auteurs de l'attentat boulevard Richard-Lenoir6, avant d'être abattu au sol, blessé et désarmé. Il avait 42 ans.

Ahmed Merabet est fait le 13 janvier, à titre posthume, chevalier de la Légion d'honneur avec citation à l'ordre de la Nation4. Il est inhumé au cimetière musulman de Bobigny.


"shot on the ground"


There was never any official declaration he was shot on the head. Only assumptions from reporters, and such assumptions get then repeated and repeated and no one is even capable of thinking for himself to check for an official declaration.

It's an error from the press like you have every day.
edit on 27-1-2015 by JUhrman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 03:56 AM
link   
a reply to: JUhrman




- What would be the point of sparing the life of the cop if this is is a false flag?

- If the point is to stage a Muslim terror attack; why NOT killing the cop?


The only target was the People at Charlie Hebdo.

And you have not answered my question. So i will ask again.

- How did the shooters end up comming from the North on the other side of Boulavard Richard-Lenoir, when they made a left turn from Allee Verte?

This is a very easy question and very easy to see by taking a look at Google Map.



posted on Jan, 27 2015 @ 04:24 AM
link   
a reply to: JUhrman

Congratulations! You pass the test. You keep your job for another week. Well done!
now go get some sleep - you've been up posting for 36 hours straight.




top topics



 
59
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join