False Flag Attacks

[Esox Lucius]

Make of this what you want.
http://yournewswire.com/shocking-list-o ... g-attacks/

[GaryT]

Sounds about right.

Then there is the list of sitting ducks deliberately left exposed for similar reasons....The Lusitania, HMS Endurance (leaving the Falklands exposed), Pearl Harbour.....to name three.

The US pulling strings in the Ukrainian government should be a warning not to believe everything you read about the Russians forces.

[trevsinclair85]

I'm convinced 9/11 was orchestrated by the US. Who in the US is the question (CIA, or a shadowy part of the government). So many holes in the official story.

Ask people to explain to you building 7, and look closely at the confusion on their face. "What building 7??"

[Lee Gib]

Make of this what you want.
http://yournewswire.com/shocking-list-o ... g-attacks/

Interesting and eye opening read, but some of it was just waffle. I think the bar for 'official proven' is quite low.

[Esox Lucius]

I only meant for the things that aren't waffle to be taken seriously.

[GaryT]

I'm convinced 9/11 was orchestrated by the US. Who in the US is the question (CIA, or a shadowy part of the government). So many holes in the official story.

Ask people to explain to you building 7, and look closely at the confusion on their face. "What building 7??"

It's been stated (how do you do your own investigation to prove it?) that only three high rise buildings have ever collapsed due to fire (the twin towers and building 7) yet there are interviews with people on the street who were convinced the buildings was going to come down. Hindsight maybe but what historical evidence gave them the impression that something that had never happened before was going to happen?

It really doesn't matter how much evidence there is that points to an inside job (and there's a hell of a lot of it), unless someone very high up says "yep, we did it" (and even then they would be ridiculed as a disgruntled employee/medically insane/hidden agenda) nothing will ever change. Having said that, the internet and Youtube and very useful tools for the man in the street to find out information on any given subject. Problem is, there is so much junk and deliberate misinformation, that needle is buried so far deep into the haystack you'll have a hard time finding it, but I guess that's the idea. I put up some links to an AIDS conspiracy a while (which seemed to fall on deaf ears) which on first glance is too insane to believe but if you are prepared to put in the hours of research and peel away the layers and go right back to the beginning...well, you need to follow the trail of crumbs to see what I mean.

There should be a 'Dummy's guide to becoming a conspiracy theorist" because there's still a very big stigma stick poked at people who say "hmmm, something doesn't smell right about that" and until the deliberate dumbing down of people who question the narrative is overcome, 'they' can get away with anything and label 'nuts' (AKA conspiracy theorist) to anyone who questions it. The more insane the conspiracy (AIDS doesn't exit), the more likely people won't believe it; seems to be working so far. The list of 'proven' false flags and the JFK speech about secret societies is a good place to start your "'disconnection from the Matrix' (IE if you think anyone who says anything slightly controversial is nuts). I also found an article where oil companies had admitted they funded groups to ridicule people who claimed burning of fossil fuels was causing the greenhouse effect/climate change. Once you accept what corporations/governments/security forces are prepared to do in the name of profit/self protection, you're on the road to discovering how far they are REALLY prepared to go. That's when it gets scary and unbelievable because the more unbelievable the act (orchestrating the demolition of 3 buildings to start a war with Iraq (who had nothing to do with the attack?) the more people won't believe it's true.

Information is power and when people get organised, things happen. Twitter campaigns to stop and old dear being deported to thousands of 38 degree members hounding their MP's on any given subject is having some effect. Mark Thomas was great at this decades ago (see "my life in organised crime, the extended edition) but it is now happening all over, which is why taking control of the internet is high on the (any) governments agenda.

That'll be me finished waffling for today but I like to finish with the classic "Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they AREN'T after me". Don't forget to tip your waitress.

[rblockells]

https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Barry_Jennings

[WA Hoop]

It seems to me that, in this day and age, anyone who doesn't swallow the authoritarian line as reported by an unquestioning media utterly devoid of investigative journalism is labelled a conspiracy theorist.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-02-2 ... ted-events

[BiscuitRanger]

are there any links to more balanced views on False Flag attacks? I'm interested to learn more but as propaganda or agenda free as possible.

[Esox Lucius]

Just found this by searching for "Authenticated false flag attacks".
http://www.globalresearch.ca/fifty-eigh ... ks/5505411

[GaryT]

1 - 53 is the same list as previously posted.

Everyone has an agenda, even if its just for the truth to be heard so it's going to be difficult to find anything that is agenda or propaganda free IMO.

[BiscuitRanger]

1 - 53 is the same list as previously posted.

Everyone has an agenda, even if its just for the truth to be heard so it's going to be difficult to find anything that is agenda or propaganda free IMO.

I'm not really expecting that GT, but rather a site where there is some reasoned debate. Most of what I have seen is the same "proven" false flag attacks that are self referencing with little or no validation. I have a completely open mind on the subject as I do with all conspiracies but am quickly put off by ascertations that well it must be like that because it makes sense to me. I guess I just want to avoid this type of thing:

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/soci ... 0303106790

[GaryT]

At the bottom of that last webpage Esox posted is a story about "Unmarked Israeli fighter jets and unmarked torpedo boats attacked – and did everything they could to sink – a U.S. ship off the coast of Egypt in 1967 called the USS Liberty and then at the end it says:

See this this this and this. Now it's the same story told by 4 different news outlets but does the number of times the story is told make it any more true? There are quite a few high ranking names mentioned but that happens with a lot of conspiracy stories so do we take everything with a pinch of salt? Well, yes, we do. Once upon a time we believed everything we were told because by nature that was our default position (Father Xmas, The Easter Bunny, God etc) but as we get older we flip this around and disbelieve everything we are told until it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, which, as we are finding, is very hard to do.

Sometimes you just have to look at a piece of news and ask yourself, why would they lie? Is JFK lying here when he talks about secret societies? Why would such a powerful man say something so outrageous unless he believed it to be true? Is Graham Redfearn lying here about a leaked memo that spills the beans on oil companies trying to persuade the public that fossil fuels had no impact on climate change? The best thing you can do is pick a story from the list and go and research it yourself. There's so much info and misinfo out there you have to keep digging until you think you know which side you fall on. Unfortunately there isn't a "This is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" website and even if there was, there will be a lot of people debunking it for their own agenda and propaganda reasons.

[BiscuitRanger]

Thanks for the info GT. Have you ever come across a site were a particular alleged event is discussed rather than stated.

[GaryT]

Thanks for the info GT. Have you ever come across a site were a particular alleged event is discussed rather than stated.

I have, a site about 9/11. One thread was about how the planes could not have been flown by inexperienced pilots and hit dead centre of the buildings (or at least not having a wing poking out one side). The problem was that it quickly became apparent that the site was infected with people who were not up for discussion but were sticking rigidly to their "it's all nonsense" position. There were trained pilots on both sides of the debate but one side just didn't smell right, if you know what I mean. It was too long ago to remember the details but it is widely reported that there are people paid to uphold the governments position in forums all around the world and this smelled like one of those. I came to the conclusion that the only balanced debate would be a live one between two very well known (or at least accredited) individuals who, armed with years of research, could state their case clearly and concisely. I can't recall one of those which is not surprising because one of them would be lying and unless you have an awful lot of counter evidence to back up your lying position, you're on a sticky wicket from the word go.

In the AIDS conspiracy, there are video discussions with Dr. Robert Gallo (the co discoverer of HIV) whose claims don't stack up with the evidence but it's not so much of a debate as he knows he's evidence is very shaky, in fact, he knows his evidence is a down right lie.

OneBobHazell is more up on stuff like this than me, hopefully he'll be along to point you in the direction of a good debate but here are few one sided videos to get you started if you haven't seen them already:

Geoengineering He goes on a bit and it can drag but if you stick with it, there's some intersting stuff in there.

House of Numbers Even if you don't believe it, how someone is diagnosed from one country to the next should make you sit up very quickly and say "seriously?"