Tennessee School Shooting (terrorists, visas, separation, Bill Clinton)
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.
At this point, it doesn't look like Hale's "manifesto" will be released to the public, as other mass shooters have been.
As curious as I am to read it, it's kind of a blessing not to have it published. There's not much that gives mass killers more pleasure than the thought that posthumously, people will be reading their evil plans.
They said they won’t release it during “an open investigation”, so it sounds like they might eventually.
And how do you account for the thousands of eye witnesses in person and millions watching live broadcast of the second one?
I don’t have to account for that, because it’s a childishly absurd argument. Millions of people watched Batman save Gotham City from the Joker, right? Millions of people watched Tom Hanks travel to the Moon, didn’t they? You aren’t suggesting that what those people saw on TV made it real, are ya?
I swear, we are doomed as a species unless people like you start thinking a little more. The reality is, what you watched on broadcast television news on 911 is exactly what I watched, as well as those countless millions of others who watched the same thing. So, we may have watched the same thing, but we obviously saw something different.
And in all honesty, at first, I was pretty convinced that what I saw was the same thing you saw. It was quite natural to assume what we were seeing was indeed what was happening. But later, after looking more closely, I began to notice things I had not noticed initially.
As for those “thousands of eye witnesses” you refer to, you have no basis for making such a statement as if it’s 100% truth. You can’t know that. You just assume that’s true. But your assumptions don’t make it true.
There are others who were there in NYC that day that say there were explosions, and no planes. Even a reporter who was on location near the Towers was reporting live, when she said ohhh there was just a huge explosion! It was her colleagues in studio that told her that a second plane had hit the Tower she was standing nearby. So she didn’t see a plane, but only heard an explosion. And there is a huge problem with that. If you’ve ever been near an airport with planes taking off and landing, you know they make a hell of a lot of noise. So, it’s unlikely that a commercial jet cloud fly over your head, 300 feet above you and you don’t hear it and look up. But apparently she didn’t hear it or see it, and had to be told about it, even though she was standing right there at ground zero.
Now, I had reservations about what I saw, and especially after both buildings totally collapsed. I just couldn’t put my finger on the problem. So, what I did was, I took the video that we all watched on TV, and I slowed it down, and watched in slow motion, as well as frame by frame. And that’s when the problems became obvious.
And at that moment I was rather disappointed in myself for not immediately realizing the major problem, physics wise, of a jet aircraft, primarily constructed of light weight aircraft grade aluminum and composite materials, slicing through structural steel and concrete like a knife slicing through butter. That’s something that should have registered immediately. In any event, after watching this plane crashing into the tower, frame by frame, it became clear that it was a fabricated piece of composite video, having no relationship with reality. A bloody computer generated cartoon, ending in a Road Runner style cutout in the side of the building, in the shape of the plane.
When you slow it down frame by frame, you can literally see the plane’s wings sinking into the side of the building like it’s entering jello, with the building closing up behind it, just before the big explosion and fireball eruption.
110% phony as a three dollar bill. No question about it.
plenty of others have tried to explain how trash cameras, compression, and converting would do that.
Yes indeed, and all of the explanations are complete crap. The video footage that covers that much larger area in the tiled floor area shows clear detail 30 feet away. But we’re supposed to believe that face on angle that’s hardly 8 feet away cannot even capture a clear enough image to see lips or eyes or any human facial feature one could use to identify the person, right? Nonsense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by naicha
yay,..more insults.
Of course, those are the Only possibilities. That you are willing to think of. No wonder the moon is made of cheese for you. lol.
There are no other possibilities, are there? If there are, feel free to share. The fact is, there are just those two, and the first possibility that she stopped to change her shoes mid murder spree is too ridiculous to consider. Thats why some insist that there are not two different set of sneakers, even though we can clearly see there are. We see the flames in the shoe in the police body cam footage, but every other image from the surveillance cameras show black and white only … no flames. Including the pictures of the shoes that aren’t distorted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by naicha
I noticed you didn't address the other photo showing the shoes on the carpet where it wasn't mush. You are implying they comped ( what exactly??) just in that mush portion but left the rest alone?
I believe I’ve already explained why I don’t need to address the absence of evidence, didn’t I? Again, if I point out that cockroach in your green beans, why do you insist it only matters if I can also prove to you there are bugs in your mashed potatoes? Isn’t the cockroach in the green beans enough evidence for you to send the plate back?
Quote:
Originally Posted by naicha
And you know they must have a bunch of other footage from different moments/angles that they haven't released that would probably make your "Demonstrable indisputable Facts" moot.
But nobody cares and are all watching Trump at the moment.
Oh, ok, they must have plenty of other evidence proving my hypothesis wrong that just hasn’t been released yet? Got it. Well, I guess that settles it then, doesn’t it.
Oh, ok, they must have plenty of other evidence proving my hypothesis wrong that just hasn’t been released yet? Got it. Well, I guess that settles it then, doesn’t it.
Yes. There must be more hallway footage. We already know there is footage of the actual shooting of the victims they just won't show for obvious reasons. That is a fact. And we don't have it.
So there are your other 'possibilities' that you dismiss. You do no favors for your case by speaking in such definitive language.
Again, I would simply employ a measure of basic common sense in making certain assumptions regarding those specific details you mention. But why should we expect that there would be different camera models used in one inside hallway of the school, and a different one in another hallway, using different software, or handled differently when transferring the data? Would you not expect a reasonably uniform experience that typically reflects what is done in commercial applications? I would assume the latter. Why would you automatically think otherwise?
Now, at first glance, my initial impression was that the video appeared fairly high quality, sharp, and a bit higher definition than some other surveillance videos I’ve seen in the past. But when slowed down, or frozen, there are issues that I have pointed out in rather detailed fashion.
What part of this “blob face” unrecognizable mess that is supposed to be the video image of the shooter has you confused? Do you think this clearly identifies the alleged shooter’s identity?
Obviously, that could never be used to ID anyone. But this is the repeating pattern … don’t believe what your eyes see, believe what we tell you you see.
This is the answer given for the two different types of sneakers the “shooter” is wearing in the different scenes also. Oh those flames are there on those shoes too, you just can’t see them … but they re there! It’s just shadow and lighting that keeps you from seeing them!
That image you show looks to be from a very old, low resolution camera
That image you show looks to be from a very old, low resolution camera
Well, that’s sorta the point, but even old cameras provide better images than what is seen in the videos. It looks ok when the video is moving, but under closer scrutiny, it’s total crap, and it doesn’t even appear to be a real human being. That’s the point.
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.
