Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You don't find it odd that these dispensable pages were created just a couple days prior to the shooting? I understand that it's possible to rename the page, but I don't get the logic of going through an entire existing page, stripping it of its years of content and changing the name, rather than simply created a new page.
I would find it more plausible if these pages existed for some time, but not simply 2 days before the shooting.
That is my question, but I'm still all ears.
There are something like 50 million facebook pages. On any given day hundreds are created, on the flimsiest topics you can imagine.
The worst part of this idiotic clip is the accusation that President Obama took a picture with one of the victims, a 6-year old girl, AFTER the shooting. That's beyond tasteless.
I think there are unanswered questions here, but the smoking gun is not facebook pages. A conspiracy of this nature would have its "t"s crossed and "i"s dotted better than to have facebook donation pages up before the event took place.
I think there are unanswered questions here, but the smoking gun is not facebook pages. A conspiracy of this nature would have its "t"s crossed and "i"s dotted better than to have facebook donation pages up before the event took place.
RE FACEBOOK DATES: If you create a page on facebook you have the option to change it. Chances are someone created a page and never used it, then the shooting happened and they decided to chane that page to a memorial page. So yes, the page was created before the shooting, however who knows the content. I just found a page that purposly did this prove a point. I will provide a link when I find it.
Yes, makes perfect sense ... and it was also just a glitch in the space-time continuum that caused the BBC to report the collapse of building 7, 25 minutes before it did ... and the same apparently true when news organizations overseas reported that Oswald had been arrested two hours before JFK was actually shot.
But the one explanation that is out of the question is just the idea that someone fouled up, and said the wrong thing at the wrong time. That's just not possible. This type of thinking really floors me ..... one of the most oft used excuses for why conspiracies of such a complex nature could never be "pulled off", because someone would screw up, or spill the beans. Then, the very same people will come forward with a dozen and one excuses to explain away those very "screw ups" as just coincidences ... creepy coincidences.
If this entire video turns out to be BS, I would like to kick this gentleman who made it right square in the ballsack.
That said, I still want to know who that little girl in the red dress is, why she is seen in a photo with the president, and why her "father" is laughing before the press conference, only to put on a show for the cameras.
Intial reports on any major news event are notoriously unreliable. I heard reports that there were as many as 10 highjacked planes on 9/11, including one that was headed toward my city. That turned out not to be the case. That doesn't mean there was a conspiracy. News anchors are so anxious to get the latest juicy tidbit out there that they themselves throw a bunch of crap at the wall.
Then you have eyewitness reports. Ask any detective, they'll tell you these are the least reliable forms of evidence. The mind and eye are deceptive. There are residents in Queens to this day who'll swear they saw a cruise missile enter the South Tower, nevermind that millions more saw a commercial jet enter the building on that day. Doesn't mean anything, the guy from Queens simply did not see what he thought he saw.
The cops arrested a potential suspect in the woods? Wouldn't that be considered the standard procedure in a major catastrophe such as a school massacre?
I think there are unanswered questions here, but the smoking gun is not facebook pages. A conspiracy of this nature would have its "t"s crossed and "i"s dotted better than to have facebook donation pages up before the event took place.
Really? Just because folks work for the government doesn't mean they aren't idiots. Plus when it's all flushed to the side and anyone who questions anything is called a nut or crazy then you have your extra coverage from the sheep who question nothing and just nod their heads and say baaaaaaaaa.
You call accepting the MSM news, in 2013, for face value "critical thinking"???
Last time I checked, seeking alternate references and many sides of the same argument is what qualifies as "critical thought".....Just because they have come to a different conclusion than you doesn't make them "self deluded"... They can same the same thing about you. The fact is...neither one of you know any better.
.
Not really true. Conspiracy theories rely on a huge set of human fallacies, they work very hard to seem credible, but they aren't. . and can be reasoned out.
Mostly they focus on cherry picking. Normally it involves the current medias "rush" to get a story and how they report on just about anything. For instance "healthcare reform struck down". . .
So they take these reporting, understandable errors knowing the nature of these idiots, then they attempt to separate/beef them up as "accurate" while reporting that came afterwards is not accurate. They "cherry pick" only the stories/evidence that fits their world view.
After cherry picking these "events" they build post-event patterns. The human mind is quite good at creating patterns and events when none exist (see stars, clouds, toxic breast implants, etc).
Then they assemble these ideas into a distrust of a group. Be it Jews, Media, Federal Government.
It goes on from there, but usually these debates end with the c-theorists accusing the critical thinker for working for the government, new world order, or something like that. I know I've won, when they accuse me of working for the Feds (I don't).
The second win is accusing someone of being a sheep. That usually means you won too, because when it gets ad Hominem you know their out of ammo.
.
Really? Just because folks work for the government doesn't mean they aren't idiots. Plus when it's all flushed to the side and anyone who questions anything is called a nut or crazy then you have your extra coverage from the sheep who question nothing and just nod their heads and say baaaaaaaaa.
You guys have either (a) never been privy to an operation similar to the one you're talking about (not necessarily a conspiracy, but a TS tactical operation or (b) are reading way too much into this.
As I said, after years in law enforcement, and consulting, I think there are major issues with this incident, but the facebook time stamp theory isn't your smoking gun. The ME's reporting, and autopsy order of operations is a much bigger concern.
But facebook pages? Time stamps? Guys .... get a grip. If we're sitting here talking about it, had this been a gov op, there was have been a room full of guys, much smarter than you, sitting in a room chatting about all these scenarios months before it took place. Facebook time stamps included.
Intial reports on any major news event are notoriously unreliable. I heard reports that there were as many as 10 highjacked planes on 9/11, including one that was headed toward my city. That turned out not to be the case. That doesn't mean there was a conspiracy. News anchors are so anxious to get the latest juicy tidbit out there that they themselves throw a bunch of crap at the wall.
Then you have eyewitness reports. Ask any detective, they'll tell you these are the least reliable forms of evidence. The mind and eye are deceptive. There are residents in Queens to this day who'll swear they saw a cruise missile enter the South Tower, nevermind that millions more saw a commercial jet enter the building on that day. Doesn't mean anything, the guy from Queens simply did not see what he thought he saw.
The cops arrested a potential suspect in the woods? Wouldn't that be considered the standard procedure in a major catastrophe such as a school massacre?
Ask the same detectives why they try and convict folks on eyewitness testimony then??
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
