Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

The Boston Massacre **

inferno
Posts: 10,556
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 1:34:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Hello there. Well here we have specific evidence about the untold story about the Boston Massacre or so called terrorist attacks. See the video below. What do you think DDO.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 2:20:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Do you consider a blurry photograph of some guy who looks kind of like one of the bombers taken after the shootout to be specific evidence that the government planted bombs? Do you consider an eyewitness account that there were government agents on scene at a public event as specific evidence of conspiracy? Do you think before you type?

My favorite though was the suggestion that their motive for these attacks was so that they could pass laws on background checks for gun powder and another law to stop insider trading among politicians. So the idea here is that these guys would risk their careers and livelihoods setting up an operation involving hundreds of accomplishes to murder and injure all of these innocent people and fellow citizens, but they won't pass legislation that would make anyone mad.
inferno
Posts: 10,556
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 2:23:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/25/2013 2:20:42 PM, Double_R wrote:
Do you consider a blurry photograph of some guy who looks kind of like one of the bombers taken after the shootout to be specific evidence that the government planted bombs? Do you consider an eyewitness account that there were government agents on scene at a public event as specific evidence of conspiracy? Do you think before you type?

My favorite though was the suggestion that their motive for these attacks was so that they could pass laws on background checks for gun powder and another law to stop insider trading among politicians. So the idea here is that these guys would risk their careers and livelihoods setting up an operation involving hundreds of accomplishes to murder and injure all of these innocent people and fellow citizens, but they won't pass legislation that would make anyone mad.

Yes I have noticed all of these things. These so called security detailers were in on the act the entire time. The number one stupidity of skeptics such as yourself is when you "ignore" former Government and FBI agents who expose this wickedness for what it is. So yes, we will just look pass the high operating officials and what they say. Because us low life skeptics are smarter than them. Bleepin idiot. =)
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 2:33:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/25/2013 2:23:00 PM, inferno wrote:
At 4/25/2013 2:20:42 PM, Double_R wrote:
Do you consider a blurry photograph of some guy who looks kind of like one of the bombers taken after the shootout to be specific evidence that the government planted bombs? Do you consider an eyewitness account that there were government agents on scene at a public event as specific evidence of conspiracy? Do you think before you type?

My favorite though was the suggestion that their motive for these attacks was so that they could pass laws on background checks for gun powder and another law to stop insider trading among politicians. So the idea here is that these guys would risk their careers and livelihoods setting up an operation involving hundreds of accomplishes to murder and injure all of these innocent people and fellow citizens, but they won't pass legislation that would make anyone mad.

Yes I have noticed all of these things. These so called security detailers were in on the act the entire time. The number one stupidity of skeptics such as yourself is when you "ignore" former Government and FBI agents who expose this wickedness for what it is. So yes, we will just look pass the high operating officials and what they say. Because us low life skeptics are smarter than them. Bleepin idiot. =)

A typical conspiracy theorist response: Ignore any of the points made, re-assert your theory with no further support, resort to appeal to authority, insult the person making the points, then press "add reply" as if you just said something intelligent.
inferno
Posts: 10,556
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 3:19:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/25/2013 2:33:54 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/25/2013 2:23:00 PM, inferno wrote:
At 4/25/2013 2:20:42 PM, Double_R wrote:
Do you consider a blurry photograph of some guy who looks kind of like one of the bombers taken after the shootout to be specific evidence that the government planted bombs? Do you consider an eyewitness account that there were government agents on scene at a public event as specific evidence of conspiracy? Do you think before you type?

My favorite though was the suggestion that their motive for these attacks was so that they could pass laws on background checks for gun powder and another law to stop insider trading among politicians. So the idea here is that these guys would risk their careers and livelihoods setting up an operation involving hundreds of accomplishes to murder and injure all of these innocent people and fellow citizens, but they won't pass legislation that would make anyone mad.

Yes I have noticed all of these things. These so called security detailers were in on the act the entire time. The number one stupidity of skeptics such as yourself is when you "ignore" former Government and FBI agents who expose this wickedness for what it is. So yes, we will just look pass the high operating officials and what they say. Because us low life skeptics are smarter than them. Bleepin idiot. =)

A typical conspiracy theorist response: Ignore any of the points made, re-assert your theory with no further support, resort to appeal to authority, insult the person making the points, then press "add reply" as if you just said something intelligent.

Your points were incredibly invalid based on what former GOVERNMENT agents, politicians, celebrities, and religious scholars say and show us as evidence.
When you get those shoes filled, then Ill listen to ya. =)
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 4:07:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/25/2013 3:19:15 PM, inferno wrote:
At 4/25/2013 2:33:54 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/25/2013 2:23:00 PM, inferno wrote:
At 4/25/2013 2:20:42 PM, Double_R wrote:
Do you consider a blurry photograph of some guy who looks kind of like one of the bombers taken after the shootout to be specific evidence that the government planted bombs? Do you consider an eyewitness account that there were government agents on scene at a public event as specific evidence of conspiracy? Do you think before you type?

My favorite though was the suggestion that their motive for these attacks was so that they could pass laws on background checks for gun powder and another law to stop insider trading among politicians. So the idea here is that these guys would risk their careers and livelihoods setting up an operation involving hundreds of accomplishes to murder and injure all of these innocent people and fellow citizens, but they won't pass legislation that would make anyone mad.

Yes I have noticed all of these things. These so called security detailers were in on the act the entire time. The number one stupidity of skeptics such as yourself is when you "ignore" former Government and FBI agents who expose this wickedness for what it is. So yes, we will just look pass the high operating officials and what they say. Because us low life skeptics are smarter than them. Bleepin idiot. =)

A typical conspiracy theorist response: Ignore any of the points made, re-assert your theory with no further support, resort to appeal to authority, insult the person making the points, then press "add reply" as if you just said something intelligent.

Your points were incredibly invalid based on what former GOVERNMENT agents, politicians, celebrities, and religious scholars say and show us as evidence.
When you get those shoes filled, then Ill listen to ya. =)

Again, no intelligent response to anything I actually said. Just a generic response that my points are invalid because your people say so.

I don't care what your former government agents say. I care if they have a valid point to make. Your video didn't provide any, I am still waiting.

Do you consider a blurry photograph of some guy who looks kind of like one of the bombers taken after the shootout to be evidence that the government planted bombs? YES or NO?

Do you consider having government agents on scene at a public event, as evidence of conspiracy? YES or NO?

Do you find the idea that the government conceived, planned, and carried out this attack all so that they could distract people while they pass legislation that no one was paying any attention to anyway to be a reasonable possibility? YES or NO?

Can you actually engage in the topic, or is telling me what "others" say the only argument you have?
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 4:10:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Or perhaps I am going about this the wrong way, I forgot how conspiracy theorists think. I forgot that it is not your responsibility to bring an intelligent case to support your allegations, it is my responsibility to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that what you are alleging is not true. And if I can not convince you (who does not want to be convinced) that your allegations are false then they are true by default.

My mistake, I guess you win.
1Devilsadvocate
Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 5:47:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If what they say is true, they have some interesting points, but not nearly enough to conclude with any level of certainty.
The truth of the matter is that it's full of irelevant associations, unproven assertions, and straight out lies.
For example, 1:45 - 2:00, discusses the "fact" that suspect #1 was immediately killed in the gun battle. False. Reports said that he died later in the hospital.
I cannot write in English, because of the treacherous spelling. When I am reading, I only hear it and am unable to remember what the written word looks like."
"Albert Einstein

http://www.twainquotes.com... , http://thewritecorner.wordpress.com... , http://www.onlinecollegecourses.com...
inferno
Posts: 10,556
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 6:02:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/25/2013 5:47:42 PM, 1Devilsadvocate wrote:
If what they say is true, they have some interesting points, but not nearly enough to conclude with any level of certainty.
The truth of the matter is that it's full of irelevant associations, unproven assertions, and straight out lies.
For example, 1:45 - 2:00, discusses the "fact" that suspect #1 was immediately killed in the gun battle. False. Reports said that he died later in the hospital.

You must watch all of the videos about this event online.
Then it becomes perfectly clear. And yes, I agree with Beck about some of what he said. Somebody must be held accountable here.........
inferno
Posts: 10,556
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 6:23:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Those people looked like they were operating in a secret organization kind of way. These were not your usual law enforcement divisions and security guards.
It was almost as if they were a cloak used to hide those who would otherwise stand out in a crowd of people.
YYW
Posts: 36,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 8:21:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I genuinely enjoy it when Double R makes appearances in the forums. People make audacious claims, and he lays down the law. Simple as that.
Tsar of DDO
Apeiron
Posts: 2,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/25/2013 8:37:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/25/2013 4:10:20 PM, Double_R wrote:
Or perhaps I am going about this the wrong way, I forgot how conspiracy theorists think. I forgot that it is not your responsibility to bring an intelligent case to support your allegations, it is my responsibility to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that what you are alleging is not true. And if I can not convince you (who does not want to be convinced) that your allegations are false then they are true by default.

My mistake, I guess you win.

Hahaha