Butthurt Street

**TimTim** · 07-13-2016

Originally Posted by sumbich

I genuinely want to know how it is that whatever the authorities and news decides upon to be the "troof" is automatically accepted as such

People, myself included, don't always automatically accept news reports as 100% the truth.

Please stop evading the question. How are inaccurate news reports proof of a conspiracy?

**sumbich** · 07-13-2016

Originally Posted by TimTim

People, myself included, don't always automatically accept news reports as 100% the truth.

Please stop evading the question. How are inaccurate news reports proof of a conspiracy?

Pot meet kettle - you evade my questions, come up with one of your own, and then stubbornly ignore the questions I've asked you - while insisting I answer the question you've asked - where the case is if you have understood the context of what I have written, you'd have your answer - which leads me to believe you're naught but being rhetorical just to troll me. The way in which I've phrased my questions augments the question you're asking, and therein lies the answer you keep demanding from me, all the while refusing to address that which I've mentioned.

Why is it you assume that the inaccuracies are simple honest mistakes? Just someone "trying to get a story out" when it is plenty often the case that official statements are made and then nonsensically changed (with no supporting data,) as we saw with the number of alleged shooters in Dallas?

My observations are unfounded assumption, and your assumptions are simple given facts about a situation? Laughable.

This is like having the climate debate, where people are asserting the fraudulence of Hansen Mann Schmidt et al is just simply them believing in their models and the flow of government funding towards statistically "proving" certain ends is just a mere coincidence and not the government being intent on providing itself with a new revenue stream and subsidizing that end.

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by TimTim

People, myself included, don't always automatically accept news reports as 100% the truth.

One of the funniest things about the sheep is that when you ask them, they'll laugh at the idea that they believe everything the MSM feeds them .... but as soon as you offer an alternative theory, they cackle and say you're crazy. lol. Welcome to Idiocracy.

unfortunately too true. I point out glaring inaccuracies that stand starkly against what's presented on the news, and you're asking why I ASSUME every one of these stories is a conspiracy

are you seeing how fkn stupid you're sounding yet?

**TimTim** · 07-13-2016

Originally Posted by sumbich

Pot meet kettle - you evade my questions, come up with one of your own

I didn't evade your question(s). I considered your questions to be mostly rhetorical, meant to somehow satisfy your own argument while attacking me, and in any case, there's just no way for me to provide an accurate answer. My question isn't rhetorical, however, and it isn't intended to attack you in any way, so given your certainty on these news reports being false flags, you should be able to answer it.

I think you're blowing my simple question out of proportion. I'm not trolling you. I just want to know how inaccurate news reports imply some kind of false flag conspiracy. Can you please explain that to me?

**sumbich** · 07-13-2016

Its all in how the details come together, and a news report in and of itself is not proof of anything.

Its when the officially accepted story contains things directly contradicted by evidence, and then they stick with it anyway.

So when you believe that building 7 can magically perform a freefall demolition "without demolition,"

or when you believe that a bullet, even a FMJ, can produce sparks off of concrete,

or the officially accepted in the immediate aftermath (from police) that there were at least 4 shooters, some of which were on rooftops, becomes a lone nutter and the others all magically disappear from every writing,

or a "live on air shooting of a reporter" that is completely laughable as an officially accepted story when juxtaposed with the video of the shooting,

Ya might just be fallin for propaganda.

*shrugs* anyone with an open and critical mindset can see these things. but folks that have a certain worldview that their psyche dictates they MUST adhere to, will be willing to fall for any kind of stupid story, so long as their worldview is not shattered.

Osama's truth that there's a government within a government here is one of those things that a lot of people cant accept, because alief is so strong with them that it would hurt their worldview to accept it, regardless of the reality of that situation.

**TimTim** · 07-13-2016

Originally Posted by sumbich

Its when the officially accepted story contains things directly contradicted by evidence, and then they stick with it anyway.

Can you elaborate on this? I am still failing to make the connection to an underlying false flag conspiracy. To me, there are many possible reasons for this to occur. And yes, a false flag operation is certainly one of them, but I'm not yet convinced that it is the most likely scenario. Right now, the most likely scenario to me is a combination of human error + news outlets capitalizing on (exploiting) social media trends + underlying political agendas. I'm asking you to convince me that it's deeper than that and that some group of people is intentionally going to the effort of setting up all of these news reports to intentionally mislead the masses.

I'm not going to touch on each "or" point you've made... but again, there are many scenarios within the realm of possibility to explain each one. And yes, again, a false flag operation is one of those scenarios, but connecting each point to one another is best represented by the following diagram:

Originally Posted by sumbich

*shrugs* anyone with an open and critical mindset can see these things. but folks that have a certain worldview that their psyche dictates they MUST adhere to, will be willing to fall for any kind of stupid story, so long as their worldview is not shattered.

Please don't be offended by the following questions. Do you do or have you done a lot of drugs (marijuana included)? And does your family have any history of schizophrenia? For reference, I've done many drugs in my youth. And I have a mildly schizophrenic uncle. My years of drug use completely opened up my mind, and to be completely honest, for at least a few years I probably could have been admitted to a psyche ward. During that time, I was on a constant quest to determine the reality of the world and the universe. I'm still trying to determine what reality actually is (albeit not as fervently as before), and I remain open and welcoming to all kinds of possibilities. Almost 10 years ago I had independently come to the conclusion that our universe is just a simulation, one of many, where the constants we know to be responsible for our existence (time, space, gravity, matter) are completely arbitrary and only remain constant as a result of some rules within a parent system. Said parent system also likely has a parent system of its own, and so on, until we reach infinity. I'm as "red pilled" as they come. But when considering whole false flag conspiracy thing, I just don't have enough evidence (yet) to personally reach that conclusion.

**sumbich** · 07-13-2016

do you have a problem with discussing actual aspects of events, or is it simply safer to keep things ambiguous, talk only of theory and dont ever discuss or look at details?

the sparks are not from some mythical "sparky bullet." they arent from a real bullet either, because a real bullet is not going to do that. FMJ or not.

just like this is a perfectly executed controlled demolition

so shall we keep ignoring these aspects of events that go clearly against the established story and keep on talking about how you're so open minded that you cant tell shit from shinola?

I think that's a GREAT idea.

**TimTim** · 07-13-2016

Okay there are 2 things wrong with your assessment of the sparks in the Dallas shootout video.

First thing: FYI, cheap and/or steel bullets can cause sparks when impacting certain surfaces - e.g., a rock... or reinforced concrete which has wire mesh and/or steel embedded within it. I know this from both personal experience... and science. Due to their momentum, bullets carry a tremendous amount of energy for their size (mass). When they collide with something extremely solid like a rock or reinforced concrete, that energy doesn't just disappear (conservation of energy). Depending on the material the bullet is made of, especially in the case of steel bullets (or bullets with a steel core), the abrupt stop will cause it to separate into many fragments which continue to carry much of that energy, as it can't all be transferred into the rock/reinforced concrete. And what else do we know energy to be? Heat. When these fragments are small enough, this energy (heat) will be visible to the naked eye as it causes the fragments to glow for a short period of time while the heat dissipates.

Second thing: If the whole Dallas shootout thing was meant to deceive people, why on Earth would the deceivers intentionally put something into the story that would immediately make some people question it even the slightest bit?

Originally Posted by sumbich

do you have a problem with discussing actual aspects of events, or is it simply safer to keep things ambiguous, talk only of theory and dont ever discuss or look at details?

What? Attempting to discuss actual aspects of events is exactly what I've been trying to do. But for some reason you keep going off on overly defensive tangents and avoiding my question. I'll ask again. Can you please explain how inaccurate news reports are proof of a false flag operation? I'm trying to understand how the two are linked.

**uranus** · 07-14-2016

**sumbich** · 07-14-2016

Originally Posted by TimTim

Okay there are 2 things wrong with your assessment of the sparks in the Dallas shootout video.

First thing: FYI, cheap and/or steel bullets can cause sparks when impacting certain surfaces - e.g., a rock... or reinforced concrete which has wire mesh and/or steel embedded within it. I know this from both personal experience... and science. Due to their momentum, bullets carry a tremendous amount of energy for their size (mass). When they collide with something extremely solid like a rock or reinforced concrete, that energy doesn't just disappear (conservation of energy). Depending on the material the bullet is made of, especially in the case of steel bullets (or bullets with a steel core), the abrupt stop will cause it to separate into many fragments which continue to carry much of that energy, as it can't all be transferred into the rock/reinforced concrete. And what else do we know energy to be? Heat. When these fragments are small enough, this energy (heat) will be visible to the naked eye as it causes the fragments to glow for a short period of time while the heat dissipates.

Second thing: If the whole Dallas shootout thing was meant to deceive people, why on Earth would the deceivers intentionally put something into the story that would immediately make some people question it even the slightest bit?

What? Attempting to discuss actual aspects of events is exactly what I've been trying to do. But for some reason you keep going off on overly defensive tangents and avoiding my question. I'll ask again. Can you please explain how inaccurate news reports are proof of a false flag operation? I'm trying to understand how the two are linked.

ok there gunslinger

**Higor** · 07-14-2016

Well SMG's with badly inserted silencers can split up cheap bullets in two...

User Tag List

Thread: Butthurt Street

Thread Tools

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Similar Threads

Spiderman butthurt by the name Spiderpig, boosted me whole game

yeahhh street fighter

Members who have read this thread : 162

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions