posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 12:33 PM
I am skeptical of many of the theories thrown about around here, but there are times I do agree the official story is not an accurate account of what
happened or why. Here's the problem. I state what I believe as far as, for example, 9/11 is concerned. Well, my theory of what I believe has been
covered up and why is not good enough and I'm bashed as just being blind to the truth.
So, I do question many things, but I also wait for all of the information before spouting out nonsense. When people talk about conspiracies such as
JFK, 9/11, etc, those topics have plenty of information to work from and you can find many logical posts on both sides of the conspiracy there. That
isn't the case with Boston, Sandy Hook, or Aurora. There is very little verified, factual information as these cases are ongoing, yet there are
plenty of us willing to declare complete knowledge of the conspiracy. So, yeah, on those threads I am not willing to entertain craziness and I will
call out people making grand conspiracies out of an event they have absolutely no real facts on.
Doesn't mean I'm not skeptical of the situation, I just prefer to wait until the full facts are made available before I jump to conspiratorial
conclusions. And when something like Boston first breaks, I'm skeptical of everything that is reported. Not because I think it is an intentional lie,
but because I've seen how the media's new approach to reporting is to throw out any and every tidbit of theory they can and then apologize later if
it's wrong rather than verifying facts before reporting them.