Paddock. the conspiracy ideas have Begun. Assange says FBI did it! what,s your take?!

a reply to: Reverbs

Like I was saying I don't have any evidence either way, and unlike the Batman shooting and Sandy hook I wasn't listening live..

This time the timeline changed.. well Sandy hook had that happen too, to the point dead people were interviewed.. It's those odd details that mess up the official story. Of course they deleted the interviews but ATS got a hold of them..

nobody retracted anything or said sorry that we interviewed a dead person.. just bam the story is gone and one formatted exactly the same with same pictures was put up at the same spot..


It's ok go back to your comfy place

Here.

Don't worry be happy.



Zombie Zombie pew pew

Tune in next week to CIA news.. The only place to get your news from the 5 corporations who own all media.. including as your internet service provider..

Cut it out cut outs, but if you can't cut out then infiltrate. Next?

Seriously though I think this video is ABSOLUTELY required viewing material.

It may make you uncomfortable, and good.. you've had your fill of bread and circuses already.

How would Assange know? He's stuck in a tiny room and bathes with baby wipes. He doesn't know sht.

a reply to: Flesh699

There is a difference between aiding terrorists and entrapping them with sting operations.

originally posted by: GusMcDangerthing
How would Assange know? He's stuck in a tiny room and bathes with baby wipes. He doesn't know sht.

That was my point as well..

What somebody sent him evidence or told him??

You can't just say things without backing it up.

a reply to: freestonew

Could be a FBI sting that went very very wrong

a reply to: Reverbs

Timelines change because no one person has access to all the information instantaneously. It takes time to sort things out, which is why speculations by Infowars and other web gurus is very premature and probably counterproductive.

If it quacks like a duck...

When timelines change it shows that there is no sanctioned quality investigation. When that happens, it means what is told to the public is going to contain big fabrications for the purpose of manipulating public opinion. Exactly what has been an ongoing syndrome of corruption within the FBI and historical facts prove it from past cases. The pattern keeps repeating. Sadly, most of the target audience will continue to deny they are being played as fools.

a reply to: freestonew

I want more than the FBI did it.

Leaked info on the following is what id like to hear. From Assange.

What did the FBI do in Vegas?

Who is John that warned on 4chan..was it John Bielman, if not, who?

Who was the lady who warned 45 min. prior to the shooting?

Who was the security guard who escorted her out if the venue?

Where is Paddock?

If he's dead was he murdered? Did he kill himself?

Did John Bielman kill himself?

Wtf is going on?

originally posted by: ReadingOne

originally posted by: Painterz
Yeah, at this point we have to conclude that Assange is just a crazy publicity seeker, and everything he says should just be ignored.

Unless, you know, he actually comes up with some evidence for any of his claims.

Actually, "we" do not have to conclude anything of the sort, since YOU are just one single person and need to speak for yourself and yourself ONLY. You sure as hell do not speak for me.

The fact is that Wikileaks have a 10 year long perfect record of never having published anything that has been proven false or fabricated so I think it is wise to take everything that comes from Wikileaks/Assange very seriously indeed.

I'm with you on this one, but you also have to acknowledge the fact that they were originally funded by Israel and have never leaked about Israel ever.

a reply to: watchitburn

The reason why they didn't set up a muslim because they don't want to spread fear with their open borders world government agenda. People would be nativist if a muslim patsy did it. So now they rather have a white patsy so you can't blame the open borders world government agenda. You have to blame America as evil breeders and open your doors wide open for the World Government agenda. It's pretty easy to analyze this situation when you know the agenda.

originally posted by: freestonew if this is true though, we all might be doomed.

it is and we probably are.

a reply to: freestonew

I suppose that most people will just consider him to be insane.

however!
what does it mean to be insane?! is this only a culture definition?
I recall hearing part of an interview of the mother of the young man who was part of the Boston marathon bombing.
she coming just now from Checkna, she told the interviewer that the son was Honorable, good, .....[repeating like of the boy scout oath].

ugh.
what might these words mean to a warrior family where they were devastated by their enemies and the most honorable thing to do might be to do Revenge! in her mind, he was pure and good! it is WE that are insane....

we might never know what was in his head. he seemed to leave not a trace.
I wonder how many people keep secrets so profound and they tell no one?!

freestone

originally posted by: WhyDidIJoin

originally posted by: ReadingOne

originally posted by: Painterz
Yeah, at this point we have to conclude that Assange is just a crazy publicity seeker, and everything he says should just be ignored.

Unless, you know, he actually comes up with some evidence for any of his claims.

Actually, "we" do not have to conclude anything of the sort, since YOU are just one single person and need to speak for yourself and yourself ONLY. You sure as hell do not speak for me.

The fact is that Wikileaks have a 10 year long perfect record of never having published anything that has been proven false or fabricated so I think it is wise to take everything that comes from Wikileaks/Assange very seriously indeed.

I'm with you on this one, but you also have to acknowledge the fact that they were originally funded by Israel and have never leaked about Israel ever.

Back up your claim about Wikileaks being funded by Israel, thanks in advance.

Also, since ATS will not let me link directly to Wikileaks (nice censorship going on there), I suggest you go to the Wikileaks site, click the "Leaks" button and type "Israel" as search word.

You're welcome.

originally posted by: bgerbger
a reply to: freestonew

Assange is pretty much full of sh!t on this one.

Good thing the shooter wasn't a Muslim, there would be no such speculation, none at all.

Specifically Assange works for Moscow and has for the last few years.

Literally. He has a contract with RT, Putins Propaganda outlet.

Russians pay him and he wants a Snowden shelter package if he can ever escape the embassy in London.

See if RT begins pushing the FBI False Flag angle.

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: freestonew

While it's documented fact the FBI sets up "terrorist" patsies to keep the fear going. I'm failing to see what this has to do with the Vegas shooter.

There are no "terrorist" links to this besides Isis' obligatory claiming of the event.

And if the Govt could blame it on isis or NK or anyone, they would do so in a heartbeat.

I'm just not seeing it.

You realize that if it's the FBI, or anyone creating terror, then they are by definition 'terrorists', right?

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: bgerbger
a reply to: freestonew

Assange is pretty much full of sh!t on this one.

Good thing the shooter wasn't a Muslim, there would be no such speculation, none at all.

Specifically Assange works for Moscow and has for the last few years.

Literally. He has a contract with RT, Putins Propaganda outlet.

Russians pay him and he wants a Snowden shelter package if he can ever escape the embassy in London.

See if RT begins pushing the FBI False Flag angle.

Extraordinary claims. I am eagerly waiting for you to back them up them with something a lot more substantial than your own imagination. Just remember, ShareBlue is not really a trustworthy source, hahaha.

Best of luck!

There are so many problems with the FBI and media narrative, that I have to assume the FBI has some level of culpability, perhaps starting with incompetence.

First a gun expert and a scientist has done a nice ballistic forensic analysis that shows there were 2 shooters and has determined the approximate range of the 2nd shooter.


Second the police and FBI's timeline blew apart when it was shown that Paddock was in the hotel 3 days before the official check in time and that he was entertaining other guests.
www.thegatewaypundit.com...

We then learn that the security guard (Jesus Campos) who is actually not registered in Nevada as a security guard, encountered the gunman 6 minutes before the actual shooting, but the police arrival on the scene nearly half an hour after the security guard was shot. How could they be this incompetent? Apparently Campos reported the shooting but the police still had no precise idea where it was coming from.

Police claim there is no known motive for Paddock's shooting. Well except that he was seen at an anti-Trump pro-antifa rally in Las Vegas earlier in the year. Some supposed FBI leaker said there was Antifa and ISIS literature in his room.
www.1src.com...

Both ISIS and Antifa have claimed responsibility since in part his target victims were likely Trump supporters. The Melbourne Antifa branch said that Paddock was a member of their Las Vegas branch.
fellowshipoftheminds.com...

None of this of course fits the official narrative. Moreover given Paddock's two planes, mysterious wealth and likelihood of money laundering through gambling, it may well be that he was involved in gun running and possibly already working for the FBI or other intelligence services as an informant. If that's true he probably was just a patsy and the FBI operation went very wrong.

All of these could serve as motives for the FBI to cover this up and promote the lone gunman theory.

a reply to: Sillyolme

He is free to have his opinion. Just like what you say is opinion. He makes his money by releasing documents given to him, or hacked. These documents usually make entire governments look bad, or singular people like Hillary.

a reply to: NotTheCIA

Where exactly, do you get the notion that Assange is earning any money from this? He doesn't need to be controversial to sell books anyways, his name is enough, and as far as I can tell that is the main source of income. DOn't get me wrong I'm not a supporter of his either. I think he is the equivalent of youtube "clickbait" titles.