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.

 

I Regret I have Concerns - London Attacks

page: 2
58
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2017 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: LungFuMoShi

You're quite right! as was the earlier poster.
HE said the full name, then the acronym. SIOC



get a grip people




posted on Jun, 4 2017 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: SaturnFX

I know that was one thing that gave me pause but then again stranger things have happened in the world of false flags !



posted on Jun, 4 2017 @ 06:28 PM
link   
a reply to: spacedoubt

I have apologised
I have never heard of this SIOC and was merely touting the video for viewpoints



posted on Jun, 4 2017 @ 06:30 PM
link   
a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

It is too late for apologies, the damage has been done already!

Lives have been ruined here, tonight.



posted on Jun, 4 2017 @ 06:34 PM
link   
a reply to: LungFuMoShi

huh????
I putthe video out there so people could comment and that's what has happened and I've been corrected
Don't be ridiculous

Oh and I've mentioned to the video maker about SIOC just so you know



posted on Jun, 4 2017 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

I just think we would all be so incredibly stupid & reckless to rule out any suspect(s) with motive when those suspect(s) also control the official narrative and tell us someone else is guilty. Not just in this incident...there are many others.

S&Fs OP.



posted on Jun, 4 2017 @ 06:38 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I do still think it highly suspicious regarding the response time of all the units but hey ho nothing I can prove except they had to have been standing by to get there so quickly



posted on Jun, 4 2017 @ 06:40 PM
link   
a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

Lol, I'm sorry I was only joking.

I didn't mean to offend you, I was jokingly over-reacting for comical effect. But just because this one particular incident can be explained doesn't mean you're wrong to be suspicious.

I apologise.



posted on Jun, 4 2017 @ 06:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: LungFuMoShi
I created this account specifically to respond to this thread, I did my best.

Ha!! Now that you have an account ... get better at using it (immediately!!) ... and write a damned intro thread so I can properly comment.

Welcome to ATS!!



posted on Jun, 4 2017 @ 06:41 PM
link   
a reply to: LungFuMoShi

Ahhh I did wonder but there was no emoticon thingy so couldn't be sure



posted on Jun, 4 2017 @ 06:43 PM
link   
A healthy suspicion isnt such a bad thing.

You noted something, asked the question and it was duly debated on. Thats why bother with ATS in the first place.

However the twat who posted the YouTube video of some 'fake' girl, with the 'fake' status based on his opinion ona pic of another young girl who looked like a ......young girl? Was conspiracy gossip of the lowest kind.

If there was something dodgy going on, give it a few days and Ive no doubt someone will pick it apart for you.
edit on 4-6-2017 by ClydeBuilt because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2017 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

ahh, ok...
then I blame the guy that made the video.




posted on Jun, 4 2017 @ 06:50 PM
link   
Step one: create problem that fits narrative for solution in step three

Step two: make everyone aware of problem. Make it personal.

Step three: propose solution

Step four: Total control.



Nope, everything looks right to me.



posted on Jun, 4 2017 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: ClydeBuilt

That's what I'm hoping
there are some truly terrible vids on youtube atm total garbage not even worthy of comment mainly from (cough) Americans with no clue how our police and doctors/hospitals etc work...sooooo annoying!



posted on Jun, 4 2017 @ 06:53 PM
link   
Always keep an open mind . But not to the extent all common sense leaks out....



posted on Jun, 4 2017 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: PhyllidaDavenport

It's always motive that leaves me questioning 'official' stuff that has major political/governmental/economic/personal freedom implications.

By 'motive,' I mean the voting public always seems to be on the losing end of it all and the globally wealthy and powerful always seem to benefit.

I wish everyone understood how important that is and that physical/direct evidence isn't the end all-be-all.


Validity of circumstantial evidence[edit]
A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence[ambiguous].[2][3] This is only partly true: direct evidence is popularly, but mistakenly, considered more powerful[citation needed][by whom?]. Many successful criminal prosecutions rely largely or entirely on circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence. Much of the evidence against convicted American bomber Timothy McVeigh was circumstantial, for example. Speaking about McVeigh's trial, University of Michigan law professor Robert Precht said, "Circumstantial evidence can be, and often is much more powerful than direct evidence." [4] The 2004 murder trial of Scott Peterson was another high-profile conviction based heavily on circumstantial evidence.

Indeed, the common metaphor for the strongest possible evidence in any case—the "smoking gun"—is an example of proof based on circumstantial evidence[ambiguous]. Similarly, fingerprint evidence, videotapes, sound recordings, photographs, and many other examples of physical evidence that support the drawing of an inference, i.e., circumstantial evidence, are considered very strong possible evidence.

In practice, circumstantial evidence can have an advantage over direct evidence in that it can come from multiple sources that check and reinforce each other.[5] Eyewitness testimony can be inaccurate at times,[6] and many persons have been convicted on the basis of perjured or otherwise mistaken testimony.[7] Thus, strong circumstantial evidence can provide a more reliable basis for a verdict. Circumstantial evidence normally requires a witness, such as the police officer who found the evidence, or an expert who examined it, to lay the foundation for its admission. This witness, sometimes known as the sponsor or the authenticating witness, is giving direct (eye-witness) testimony, and could present credibility problems in the same way that any eye witness does.

However, there is often more than one logical conclusion inferable from the same set of circumstances. In cases where one conclusion implies a defendant's guilt and another his innocence, the "benefit of the doubt" principle would apply. Indeed, if the circumstantial evidence suggests a possibility of innocence, the prosecution has the burden of disproving that possibility.[8]

Link



Circumstantial evidence is most often employed in criminal trials. Many circumstances can create inferences about an accused's guilt in a criminal matter, including the accused's resistance to arrest; the presence of a motive or opportunity to commit the crime; the accused's presence at the time and place of the crime; any denials, evasions, or contradictions on the part of the accused; and the general conduct of the accused.

Link


We false flag believers are NOT with out cause to question things...even if every lead doesn't pan out, it doesn't mean we are wrong.


edit on 4-6-2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 4 2017 @ 06:55 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I agree
The chances of us little people on the ground getting to the truth or proof etc is remote to say the least
We can only go on what we're shown and told and that of course is censored
We have to take the circumstantial apply some thought and basically go with it see where it leads if anywhere, because we've nothing else to go on



posted on Jun, 4 2017 @ 07:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: PhyllidaDavenport
a reply to: MotherMayEye

I agree
The chances of us little people on the ground getting to the truth or proof etc is remote to say the least
We can only go on what we're shown and told and that of course is censored
We have to take the circumstantial apply some thought and basically go with it see where it leads if anywhere, because we've nothing else to go on


Exactly. We don't have investigative and subpoena powers.

But the circumstantial evidence we do have isn't anything to sneeze at. Motive has a lot of legal weight.



posted on Jun, 4 2017 @ 07:10 PM
link   
May I suggest this approach from a fellow glaswegian ?
youtu.be...

Im pretty sure some Sean Bean yorkie, or all comers arm wrestling champion from the black country would pretty much voice the same encouragement.

Mon the Brits!



posted on Jun, 4 2017 @ 07:13 PM
link   
I will just add that the mysterious explosions have now been lost in the narrative that's developing. Nothing further has been said about these controlled explosions. Why did they happen? What was being blown up? How did the Police know within 8 mins that the incident in Vauxhall was not terror related? How were the suspects identified? Its been very quiet on that front and yet they've managed to link them to 12 others who have been arrested

Not at lot of information really unlike the Manchester incident where we had much more, unless that policy has now changed because of the leaks there were



new topics

top topics



 
58
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join