• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Not another one?

Sorry Dave but a vague report that there may have been someone talking to the gunman can only mean that the gunman was a brainwashed Manchurian Candidate and the person he was talking to was his "Handler." It's a known fact that assassins only ever talk to people they are conspiring with. Talking to anyone else causes a safety trip of a hidden explosive device which instantly decapitates them.


Makes sense to me.
 
Dave Rogers said:
So, let's see if it's possible to construct a plausible hypothetical scenario that encompasses all these statements, shall we?

Let's suppose the following happened: Bedell got to the place where he wanted to carry out his attack, wasn't entirely sure which way the Pentagon entrance was, and asked a passer-by. Then he went to the nearest place he could find security guards, opened fire on them, and got shot. The police mentioned that he'd been seen talking to someone just before the attack. That someone got in touch with the police and said, "I didn't know who he was, he just asked me the way to the Pentagon entrance." The police checked out his story, he was ID'ed by some other passers'by, and CCTV footage showed Bedell approaching him, talking to him briefly, and him then leaving the scene before the attack. Result: Police are happy that there was no second shooter, and they choose not to name an innocent witness because there's no need to expose him to the groundless suspicion of lunatic conspiracy theorists like the one who just tried to murder two innocent people.

Is that so implausible that a government false flag conspiracy has to be invoked to provide a better explanation?

Dave
Click to expand...

Sorry, but your scenario lacks imagination. Where are the secret Swiss bank accounts? The hidden rocket launchers? The ALLIGATORS, man, what of the alligators?!?

I'm bored. What else is on?
 
If I understood correctly, what Alex Jones is saying is that the mother reported her missing son as "missing, armed and dangerous" one week prior to the attack? Is that it what he is claiming? If so, how compeling is his evidence for this? And if it's proved that the authorities knew about it, would it be possible for authorities to bring it to higher ranks of police/intelligence in order for them to be on his track and monitoring his activities, following him and etc?

How plausible is it? Do we have any case in which the intelligence intercepted a criminal about to act based on prior knowledge? It appears to me that what Jones says is that the penty was expecting an attack, and simply didn't bust the nut before he attacked as to use it against the 911 truth. I think it is how I understood Jones' claims.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom