Re: Terrorism in Paris again. : Wed Nov 18, 2015 7:51 am  

Sheldon wrote:

Just gonna grab me pad and pen and nip to Paris. Mr Hollandaise a few questions.

1. Who did it?
2. Bullshit you did it you friend! Admit it? Please?
3. No I'm not qualified not trained in this type of questioning or research, admit it you did it!!
4. I'm just gonna look at meme's and coincidence on the internet until I find what agrees with my opinion. Admit you did it!! I take by your baffled expression an expression of guilt. Case closed. I SAID CASE CLOSED!

Are you feeling quite alright?

Re: Terrorism in Paris again. : Wed Nov 18, 2015 9:48 am  

Mugwump wrote:

Leaving all other questions aside - what you are saying here is that "top medical professionals" agree that an explosive blast may or may not cauterise an amputated limb and stem the flow of blood.

With this kind of conviction who needs ambiguity, eh?

As per usual in both responses you resort to your usual trick of twisting people's words and attempting to make them look stupid. This is always your usual tact, however I wont fall for it.

Let's deal with your first post. So you admit you aren't innocent, yet still go on to get on your moral crusade against people to say it's disgusting. Which leads me to question, if you think it's disgusting, then why say it? And now you have, how can you possibly criticise others?

Now, onto your second point. It is acknowledged by medical professionals that this happens, it is the reason that when this event sadly happens to Soldiers that they don't bleed to death straight away. This is a logical explanation for why there wasn't much blood on the double amputee at the Boston Bombing. It is based on sound medical theory and provides a reason as to why this happened. It is much more reliable than a howl at the moon lunatic giving this as a reason as to why the Bombings were faked. Still, maybe we would all be better using your "This gives me cause to believe" or "Which leads me to think" Much more reliable aren't they!

Re: Terrorism in Paris again. : Wed Nov 18, 2015 10:28 am  

FLAT STANLEY wrote:

Research,, research, research. why do people post drivel before looking at the overwhelming synchronised evidence which ALL false flagged terrorist events carry the same DNA with the same modus operandi. It’s so blatantly obvious they’re planned and so coincidental in their making. Here’s a series of terrorist attacks that took place AT THE SAME TIME and IN THE SAME WAY as official "drills" were being conducted by governmental institutions or companies affiliated to the government.

During the 9/11 attacks, the US Air Force, NORAD was conducting a "simulation" where terrorists hijackers had taken over passenger jets in order to fly them into buildings. Also, for several years prior to the 9/11 events, the U.S. defence agency conducted drills using REAL AIRCRAFT simulating terrorist attacks crashing jets into buildings, including the twin towers and the Pentagon. On the morning of 9/11, 5 war games and terror drills were being conducted by several U.S. defence agencies, including one live fly exercise using REAL planes. Drills also apparently included the injection of false radar blips onto the screens of air traffic controllers.

Simulations of a terrorist attack were also undergoing in 2005 in London 7/7 , when the actual attacks took place: On the afternoon and evening of 7th July 2005, information came to light about a private company running a terror rehearsal operation in London at the time that real explosions were reported to have occurred on the transport network. These revelations came not from an anonymous source but instead from the Managing Director (Peter Power) of the private firm running the terror rehearsal operation.

During the Sandy Hoax massacre, the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA conducted an exercise entitled: Needs for children in disasters at the same day, 12/14/2012, and in the same State as the Sandy Hook events!

The Oslo, Norway, bomb attacks in Oslo, a powerful bomb went off in or near the building which houses the office of the Prime Minister. Exactly as we would expect, special anti-terror police had been drilling setting off bombs in a nearby part of the Norwegian capital in advance, specifically during 2010. The public had not been informed in advance, but found out what was happening when they began hearing bombs in the opera house district, less than a kilometre away from the prime minister’s office which was attacked on Friday. Armed police were seen in the area around the opera house in Oslo, and violent explosions could be heard over large parts of the city. No one knew that this was all a matter of practice. The Information Section of the Oslo police deeply regretted that the public was not made aware of the seemingly dramatic exercise. It was the emergency squad, the national police special unit against terrorism, which was conducting a drill in the cordoned off area at Bjørvika pier.
According to a press release from the police, nearly a day after the exercise, the drill consisted of training in the controlled detonation of explosive charges. The exercise will continue for the rest of Wednesday night and a few more explosions are expected. The exercise followed a familiar pattern for all anti-terror forces around the world: The men lowered themselves down from the ceiling and into through the window that had just been blown out, while they fired hand their weapons.

The 2004 Madrid train bombing. A few hours before the Madrid Bombings, NATO carried out a terrorism exercise in Madrid.
Former Secretary General of NATO, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, described it as a "coincidence" that, on 4 March 2004, there was an anti-terrorist exercise (CMX-04) in Madrid, finishing just a few hours before the bombings. The NATO counter-terrorism exercise involved an imagined attack which would kill 200 people. This number is very close to the number of fatalities that occurred in the actual Madrid Bombings.

There's many many more if you RESEARCH, Paris Friday morning being the latest to have this copy cat modus operandi event. It's easy just join the dots. Now if you think all this is conjecture or coincidence I suggest you do what Mugwump said and do your own RESEARCH which in the basis of your post you clearly haven’t.

The only drivel here is from yourself. Do you really believe the people involved would go to such lengths to advance a cause, and then make it so easy for people like yourself to discover it wasn't genuine!? Get real!

Just one example of an attempt to prove a hoax that is easily resolved. You claim Sandy Hook was a hoax because they ran a needs for children in disaster course on the same day and it's too much of a coincidence. The course is actually called Planning for the needs of children in disasters and was ran on at least six occasions across the state through November and December. Seems it was more a planned scheme and not a one off event to help facilitate a hoax!

Re: Terrorism in Paris again. : Wed Nov 18, 2015 11:49 am  

JLM32 wrote:

As per usual in both responses you resort to your usual trick of twisting people's words and attempting to make them look stupid. This is always your usual tact, however I wont fall for it.

People really don't need any help from me to look stupid.

Let's deal with your first post. So you admit you aren't innocent, yet still go on to get on your moral crusade against people to say it's disgusting. Which leads me to question, if you think it's disgusting, then why say it? And now you have, how can you possibly criticise others?

You really are struggling here. A single post now amounts to a "moral crusade"? Heaven forbid I should get serious for a moment - you'll be accusing me of moral genocide!



And I notice you never offered an opinion on the validity of my point.

Now, onto your second point. It is acknowledged by medical professionals that this happens, it is the reason that when this event sadly happens to Soldiers that they don't bleed to death straight away. This is a logical explanation for why there wasn't much blood on the double amputee at the Boston Bombing.

Are you so dense that you don't even realise you are misrepresenting your own "facts"? First you attack someone by introducing a completely unrelated argument made by persons unknown connected to the Boston Bombing (which was /paraphrase/ "blood would have drained from an amputation"). You then introduce expert testimony (sources?) and congratulate yourself as the victor over such conspiratorial nonsense. Yet your own experts - which either you aren't listening to or are twisting the words of - offer no such certainty. What is "likely" in terms of a percentage - 90%, 75%, 50%?

Recall - you DID NOT say "Medical professionals agree that blast wounds are in all cases cauterised to the point of sealing the wound completely".

So what were you saying about ME making YOU look stupid?

Re: Terrorism in Paris again. : Wed Nov 18, 2015 12:49 pm  

Mugwump wrote:

People really don't need any help from me to look stupid.

You really are struggling here. A single post now amounts to a "moral crusade"? Heaven forbid I should get serious for a moment - you'll be accusing me of moral genocide!



And I notice you never offered an opinion on the validity of my point.

Are you so dense that you don't even realise you are misrepresenting your own "facts"? First you attack someone by introducing a completely unrelated argument made by persons unknown connected to the Boston Bombing (which was /paraphrase/ "blood would have drained from an amputation"). You then introduce expert testimony (sources?) and congratulate yourself as the victor over such conspiratorial nonsense. Yet your own experts - which either you aren't listening to or are twisting the words of - offer no such certainty. What is "likely" in terms of a percentage - 90%, 75%, 50%?

Recall - you DID NOT say "Medical professionals agree that blast wounds are in all cases cauterised to the point of sealing the wound completely".

So what were you saying about ME making YOU look stupid?

Again, you resort to insult and silly little emoticons to try and get a point across. Your point has no relevance to the issue. You have told people they are disgusting, yet were quite happy to do it yourself. I notice you, yourself avoid my question if it is so disgusting then why did you say it? And how can you condemn others?

I haven't once said that all Medical professionals agree this is the case no, there is no evidence for this. What there is however, is a perfectly sound explanation as to why there would be little to no blood in cases like this. It is much more likely than some howl at the moon conspiracy theorist claiming that this is cast iron proof for a fake, without any reference to medical knowledge.

What's particularly interesting is that you make absolutely no mention of my second point, that shock would also cause vessels to constrict and reduce blood flow. Is this because you are aware it is scientific fact and so gives you no space to twist my words and attempt to belittle me?

Re: Terrorism in Paris again. : Wed Nov 18, 2015 1:03 pm  

JLM32 wrote:

Again, you resort to insult and silly little emoticons to try and get a point across. Your point has no relevance to the issue. You have told people they are disgusting, yet were quite happy to do it yourself. I notice you, yourself avoid my question if it is so disgusting then why did you say it? And how can you condemn others?

This is like saying St. Paul (if you believe in such nonsense) couldn't possibly become an apostle because he was once a tax collector. Or that Gandhi couldn't condemn western capitalism because of the fact that he was once a fully paid-up servant of the cause.

As stated - if I said such a thousand times - it wouldn't make the complaint any less valid.

I haven't once said that all Medical professionals agree this is the case no, there is no evidence for this. What there is however, is a perfectly sound explanation as to why there would be little to no blood in cases like this. It is much more likely than some howl at the moon conspiracy theorist claiming that this is cast iron proof for a fake, without any reference to medical knowledge.

What's particularly interesting is that you make absolutely no mention of my second point, that shock would also cause vessels to constrict and reduce blood flow. Is this because you are aware it is scientific fact and so gives you no space to twist my words and attempt to belittle me?

You're belittling yourself and really don't need any help from me. Your own expert testimony (sources?) states that blood flow may or may not cease. Even without knowing a great deal about the case in question this statement in no way disproves the argument you are attempting to poke fun at. So what was the pointing of posting it in the first place? The debate (which no one was having anyway) has advanced precisely nowhere.

Re: Terrorism in Paris again. : Wed Nov 18, 2015 3:08 pm  

Mugwump wrote:

This is like saying St. Paul (if you believe in such nonsense) couldn't possibly become an apostle because he was once a tax collector. Or that Gandhi couldn't condemn western capitalism because of the fact that he was once a fully paid-up servant of the cause.

As stated - if I said such a thousand times - it wouldn't make the complaint any less valid.

You're belittling yourself and really don't need any help from me. Your own expert testimony (sources?) states that blood flow may or may not cease. Even without knowing a great deal about the case in question this statement in no way disproves the argument you are attempting to poke fun at. So what was the pointing of posting it in the first place? The debate (which no one was having anyway) has advanced precisely nowhere.

Wow! Where to start! So you try and say I'm making myself look stupid by not providing a percentage and then your 1st example is something that may or may not have happened. Bravo!

You see, there's the thing though. Nobody did complain, so you are doing precisely what you are saying I am. Arguing a point that no one has raised. The only facts we do have, are that you are condemning what people has said asked disgusting, but saw absolutely no problem in doing it yourself.

Again, You do your usual trick. Taking half of a post and then attempting to twist it to suit your needs. You keep harping back to Traumatic amputation, yet have STILL Failed to answer the fact that I have also mentioned that shock causes Blood vessels to constrict and so would reduce blood flow, thus leading to not much blood being present. You state no one was having a debate, I've seen the Boston Bombing mentioned on here a number of times as a hoax. The example I have given is one reason used by your fellow lunatics to explain this, I was using this to show that the alleged hoaxes and their reasons can be disproved fairly easily.

Re: Terrorism in Paris again. : Wed Nov 18, 2015 3:25 pm  

Now you're just boring me. This conversation really is going nowhere and I have better things to do.

Re: Terrorism in Paris again. : Wed Nov 18, 2015 3:43 pm  

knockersbumpMKII wrote: ... I can can tell you from experience (Of serving in the army) that the explosion in Boston was little more than a large thunderflash. Firstly it was impossible for the injuries that were shown to have happened from this so called 'bomb', the collateral damage was completely and utterly disproportionate to the injuries shown (as in the collateral damage represented exactly what a thundeflash might do), additionally the injuries were massively inconsistant with the alleged type of device and even then those with these so called devastating injuries showed no other signs of the effects anywhere else on their bodies, none of them...not one! ... It is rare that I would link to the Daily Wail, but as a potted account of some injury evidence in the case, and many other details, including images of the tragic 8 year old Martin Richard, this is compelling. Read what is in these links. If you like, find other reports of the inquests, trial etc and the reams of evidence presented. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ifies.html As for your army experience, A trauma surgeon... testified at the Boston bombing trial about the 'visceral' pain eight-year-old victim Martin Richard suffered in the wake of the devastating explosions. Dr David King, a veteran military combat surgeon, took the stand on Thursday during the death-penalty phase of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's trial in Boston. Dr King said the little boy was gravely injured in the blasts and didn't die instantly, suffering terribly before he bled to death on the street on April 15, 2013. Here is another article. It shows images of a rescuer applying a tourniquet to the little girl's leg and the same part of the incident is also on video. Another article http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -died.html covers a wreath laying ceremony one year on, and shows an image of the family of the poor lad, including his sister jane who lost her left leg in the blast. Testifying in Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's trial on Monday, Massachusetts' Chief Medical Examiner Dr Henry Nields, who performed the child's autopsy, revealed Martin had suffered injuries to nearly every part of his body. ... 'Cause of death was blast injuries to torso and extremities,' Dr Nields said, adding that Martin died primarily from loss of blood. Shrapnel - including small nails, plastic, pellets and wood - from one of the homemade pressure cooker bombs set off by Tsarnaev and his older brother had punched through the boy's 69-pound body. He suffered a six-inch-by-six-inch wound to his left abdomen, which exposed his intestines, and caused damage to his liver, left kidney, spleen and two ribs, Dr. Nields said. 'There was also a perforation of his lower spine,' Dr Nields said, indicating that shrapnel had passed through the child's body and exited through his back It is hardly just the Mail. There was acres of coverage across the world's media and none of it is inconsistent for the simple reason that it all shows the identical event from many different places, angles and times. If you want to believe that there was no bomb, and so these injuries didn't happen, then I just feel terribly sorry for you. I would recommend you go pay a visit to the Richard family. It may comfort them to know that in fact there was no bomb.

knockersbumpMKII wrote: ... I can can tell you from experience (Of serving in the army) that the explosion in Boston was little more than a large thunderflash. Firstly it was impossible for the injuries that were shown to have happened from this so called 'bomb', the collateral damage was completely and utterly disproportionate to the injuries shown (as in the collateral damage represented exactly what a thundeflash might do), additionally the injuries were massively inconsistant with the alleged type of device and even then those with these so called devastating injuries showed no other signs of the effects anywhere else on their bodies, none of them...not one! ... It is rare that I would link to the Daily Wail, but as a potted account of some injury evidence in the case, and many other details, including images of the tragic 8 year old Martin Richard, this is compelling. Read what is in these links. If you like, find other reports of the inquests, trial etc and the reams of evidence presented. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ifies.html As for your army experience, A trauma surgeon... testified at the Boston bombing trial about the 'visceral' pain eight-year-old victim Martin Richard suffered in the wake of the devastating explosions. Dr David King, a veteran military combat surgeon, took the stand on Thursday during the death-penalty phase of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's trial in Boston. Dr King said the little boy was gravely injured in the blasts and didn't die instantly, suffering terribly before he bled to death on the street on April 15, 2013. Here is another article. It shows images of a rescuer applying a tourniquet to the little girl's leg and the same part of the incident is also on video. Another article http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -died.html covers a wreath laying ceremony one year on, and shows an image of the family of the poor lad, including his sister jane who lost her left leg in the blast. Testifying in Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's trial on Monday, Massachusetts' Chief Medical Examiner Dr Henry Nields, who performed the child's autopsy, revealed Martin had suffered injuries to nearly every part of his body. ... 'Cause of death was blast injuries to torso and extremities,' Dr Nields said, adding that Martin died primarily from loss of blood. Shrapnel - including small nails, plastic, pellets and wood - from one of the homemade pressure cooker bombs set off by Tsarnaev and his older brother had punched through the boy's 69-pound body. He suffered a six-inch-by-six-inch wound to his left abdomen, which exposed his intestines, and caused damage to his liver, left kidney, spleen and two ribs, Dr. Nields said. 'There was also a perforation of his lower spine,' Dr Nields said, indicating that shrapnel had passed through the child's body and exited through his back It is hardly just the Mail. There was acres of coverage across the world's media and none of it is inconsistent for the simple reason that it all shows the identical event from many different places, angles and times. If you want to believe that there was no bomb, and so these injuries didn't happen, then I just feel terribly sorry for you. I would recommend you go pay a visit to the Richard family. It may comfort them to know that in fact there was no bomb.

Re: Terrorism in Paris again. : Wed Nov 18, 2015 3:44 pm  

Mugwump wrote:

Now you're just boring me. This conversation really is going nowhere and I have better things to do.

So much better to do that you still have time to respond. If you say so! Funny, I've seen you post this many times before to people and it's always when you can't answer something.