Here is What ACTUAL Analysis of Brussels Bombing Looks Like
90 2016-03-23 by daddie_o
[Note: see Edit 9 at bottom for links to some decisive youtube clips.]
I have begun to notice some inconsistencies in the reporting on the Belgium bombing attacks. [The biggest inconsistencies are between the eyewitness reports that tend to be in agreement and the photographic evidence that has emerged.] I encourage others to post similar inconsistencies and other evidence (like crisis actors, etc.) here as it emerges.
First is this report in USA today about the photographer who took the picture of two wounded women (see link for pic). I'm going to pull out different bits from that article and another one and then discuss all the inconsistencies. In the USA Today article it says:
Ketevan Kardava [a Georgian photo-journalist] ... was in the departure hall of the Brussels Airport in Belgium ... when the first explosion went off a meter and a half from where she was standing.
A meter and a half is just under 5 feet. Keep that in mind.
The article also quotes her as saying:
Her first reaction was to take out her camera as glass, debris and smoke swirled in the air around her. "I was in shock. It was instinct...Everyone was covered in blood. They lost their legs. All of them,” she said. "I kept looking to see my legs. With my hands, I wanted to feel them."
Kardava says as soon as she realized she was alive, she screamed for help...."I was shouting “Doctor! Doctor! Doctor! And no one was there.” When no one came, she took her camera back out and snapped the photo of the "woman in the yellow jacket."
She kept taking photos and screaming for help until armed soldiers came and told everyone who was able to, to run as fast as they could.
"The people I photographed were not able to run and I wasn’t able to help them. It was very, very difficult for me to leave them. I was the only person on my feet. I wanted to help all of them but I couldn't. I left them. I had to — we expected a third explosion."
"I don’t know how I did it. I don’t know how I took that photo. As a journalist, it was my instinct. I posted it on Facebook and wrote 'Explosion … Help us.’"
Then there's this report in the Daily Mail from the heroic baggage handler (the Carlos Arredondo of this affair):
"I heard a man shout some Arabic words then an explosion.. then a second explosion, a massive explosion, much bigger....'It was a horror. I saw at least seven people dead. There was blood. People had lost legs. You could see their bodies but no legs,' he said.
More details on blood and dismemberment:
"Terrified passengers at Brussels Airport have told how there was 'just blood' everywhere after this morning's bomb blast and likened the horrific aftermath to 'the apocalypse'....Blood-soaked passengers sprinted for their lives as smoke filled the area near the check in desks."
One witness struggled to hold back tears as he described victims who had lost their legs lying in pools of blood in the airport's main hall. Others described seeing 'dismembered bodies everywhere' and the ceiling collapsing after two blasts rocked the building... Samir Derrouich, who works at a restaurant in the airport, said: 'The two explosions were almost simultaneous. They were both at check in desk. One was close to the Starbucks. It was awful. There was just blood. It was like the apocalypse.'
He said: 'There was a first blast and then ten seconds later a second explosion. It was a big big blast, the ceiling went down. It was just 30 metres from where I was. I saw people down on the ground and I just went running.
Mr Valaert, who was flying to a business meeting in Berlin, said he believed the bombs were hidden in suitcases that had just been checked in. He said: 'The explosions were just behind the service desks, they were blown towards us. To me it is the most realistic possibility. I don't think it was someone with a suicide vest.' He said he did not hear anyone shout anything before the blasts.
Martin Buxant tweeted how a witness had told him: 'We saw bodies go up in the air and then falling down heavily.'
There were reports that shouts in Arabic were heard before the explosions and shots fired in the aftermath.
And finally, a timeline:
8am: Shots heard at Zaventem international airport before someone shouted in Arabic and two explosions rocked the departure hall
8am onwards: Terrified passengers seen streaming out of the terminal while flights are diverted
8.30am: Witnesses describe blasts so powerful victims were thrown in to the air, Airport is closed
OK, so here's my analysis:
Regarding the journalist who allegedly took these pictures:
She was standing 5 feet away from a bomb that went off that was so powerful that 'victims were thrown into the air.' It was so powerful that many people had their limbs blown off and the terminal windows were blown out. It may have even been packed with nails. But she's fine. Just shakes it off and starts snapping pics. According to her everyone around her is "covered in blood. They lost their legs. All of them." But she's fine. I dare say she's luckier than Larry Silverstein.
[EDIT: here is a video where she is has a still picture of a CCTV camera supposedly from 7:58 AM and shows where she was standing in relation to the bomb. It corroborates her earlier testimony, although it also begs the question of why we have not seen the footage of the bombing yet, since we know they have it, and also why in the pictures are those areas relatively undamaged (except the ceiling tiles and windows). Also note how crowded the area is, but in the pictures we don't see all those people laying around in pools of blood with their legs and arms blown off.]
Also notice that nobody in any of her pics has lost any legs or other appendages. They apparently have some blood on them, but they're not covered in it by any stretch. What about the women she photographed? Were they closer to the bomb when it went off? Is that why they were injured?
Also, her testimony contradicts itself. At first she says her immediate instinct was to take out her camera and start taking pictures. But then later she says she called for a doctor first, then had a realization and started taking pictures. If she started taking pictures immediately, how likely is it that the woman in the first picture she took is sitting looking rather composed talking on her cell phone already? (Holding the pristine case with a hand made to look like it is covered in blood that has amazingly managed to dry so quickly.) She says that nobody was able to walk except for her. That woman talking on the phone sure looks like she could get up and walk. We see other people in her pictures walking.
Now let's talk about the pictures. According to her, everybody there has lost legs and is covered in blood. Look at her pictures in the article. Look at the pictures she posted on Facebook that she took (apparently can't link to facebook here so fill-in-the-blanks-dotcom/ketevan.kardava/photos?source_ref=pb_friends_tl). Do you see anybody without their limbs? Compare those pictures to other descriptions. Do we see "victims who had lost their legs lying in pools of blood in the airport's main hall" or "dismembered bodies everywhere"? No. Not even close. The pictures don't match the description. And remember, these are pics she posted to facebook, not censored news. She was free to post any pictures she wanted, no matter how gruesome. And, if she took all the pictures she possibly could, why do we only see 4 or 5 from inside? And why do none of them really match her verbal description of the scene?
Also consider this picture from another source of the ceiling tiles that collapsed in this crowded area: http://imgur.com/gallery/rG8NP
Here is another angle: http://imgur.com/gallery/yFyUXq3
And yet another few angles: https://twitter.com/FDuboccage/status/712200705625473025
This is all from the second blast near starbucks (you can make out the logo in the second picture from twitter in the background). Where are all the pools of blood...blood just everywhere...dismembered bodies...body parts everywhere. Those tiles look like they came down after people had been evacuated from that area. Certainly no evidence they hit or injured anyone. [But see edit 5 below]
[If you want to see real mayhem from real bombings, here are some NSFL links (scroll down for some of them): Here and here and here and here.] [See edit 5 below for even gorier pictures.]
And since we're talking about Facebook, you can look at her first post about the topic (fill_in_the_blanks_dotcom/ketevan.kardava/posts/10208876053449174?pnref=story). It was posted 8:11 am local time, and the details on the pictures indicate that they were mobile uploads. According to the official timeline, the explosions went off at 8 am.
Remember now, the story is that "Her first reaction was to take out her camera." (Later in the article, it actually says she "took her camera back out" and snapped the picture of the woman in a yellow jacket, which was the first picture she took.) The point is: she very clearly used her camera, not her phone, which makes sense given that she's a photojournalist.
What doesn't make sense is that between taking all the pictures she could and then being chased out of the terminal by soldiers, she still managed, somehow, to transfer those pictures to her mobile device and then upload them to Facebook before nearly 10 minutes had passed. I admit it's possible. Assuming the picture taking and evacuation took, say, 6-8 minutes. If she had a wireless SD card she could do have done it once she got outside. She could have had a ton of pictures sent to her phone or icloud, gone through them and selected a few, then uploaded them to her facebook and posted a status update. It's possible. I just think it would demand such a presence of mind that it's doubtful. We also don't know if she had such a wifi card.
And her post does not say "Explosion...help us." It says (according to google translate), something like: "Explosionnnn at Brussels airport. This was a disasterrrrrrr. Full panicccccc at the airport."
OK, on to some other inconsistencies.
We are now told that the airport bombs were suicide attacks, and initial reporting indicates that the attackers fired shots and shouted in Arabic before detonating the bombs. But then we have witnesses saying that one or both of the explosions came from luggage behind the check-in desk. So, if the explosives were not planted on the terrorists' bodies but rather in their luggage, then why do they need to commit suicide? Did they have a short range on the detonators? And why did two people need to be there to detonate? Couldn't one person detonate both bombs? And if they're there trying to blow people up, why do they need to start shooting (according to some reports)? The whole Kalashnikov angle just seems totally unnecessary and only more likely to expose them before detonating their the vests, since they'd have to reach into their suitcases to pull out their weapons. It also ruins the element of surprise, allowing more people to run away and escape injury. And in the pictures we see of these men, do they look like they're wearing explosive belts? Something here just doesn't add up.
Also, in the first picture from the Daily Mail article, the child he is carrying sure seems like a dummy. If the child is unconscious, his body would be limp. If not, well...it just seems awkward. Also, where is he going there? It seems like he's walking towards or into the wall there. At first I thought maybe he's going to prop him up against the wall, but the caption says he is being carried out to safety. And what about the poor person laying on the ground behind him? That airline worker is just kind of walking past him... is that what you would do? Or would you stop to try to help?
And speaking of fake children, here is another weird video that someone already posted of someone running with a baby doll carrying it like a real one: https://np.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/4bjwj4/brussels_attacks_crisis_actor_caught_carrying/
The full 'chilling footage taken seconds after Brussels airport blasts' can be seen here. Can anybody see any damage in that footage or anyone injured, let alone dismembered? Any blood? No, all we see is a man picking up a baby doll and running away, followed by his wife/girlfriend. If that doll belonged to their child, they seem to have left her behind. (But not before setting the overturned baby carriage upright.)
For those of you who will say that they were far away from the center of the blast, all you need to do is see the still frame from towards the end of the video where a police woman is moving them away. You'll notice the check-in for 'Jet Airways' in the background. A little hunt on the Jet Airways website shows that their check-in and ticketing counter at Brussels airport is check-in row 8 (choose Brussels airport on drop-down menu in link). Then meander over to this infographic, which shows that the epicenter of one of the bombs was allegedly between rows 8 and 9, with the other coming from the Starbucks. In other words: this video is coming from the epicenter of the explosions.
Now can we locate more precisely where the photographer is located? If we assume that the people we see walking and running to escape are moving towards the front exit (which is to the photographer's left), then we can conclude that this person has their back up against the check-in counters of row 9 at the upper end of the check-in counters as displayed in the infographics.
Note that in a second infographic, posted right below the other one in this article, shows the epicenter coming from one aisle over. This is a sign of inconsistency to be sure, but even if the second infographic is correct, the person filming is still very close to the epicenter. Accounts say it detonated near the American Airlines check-in, which is row 8. I see no damage caused by these so-called nail bombs, one of which was allegedly strong enough to throw people into the air. And I don't see anybody even slightly injured, either. Certainly no blood.
[Edit: See second video in edit 9 for a link to a more recent analysis of bombing locations, which have changed since these early reports. He also pinpoints the location of the fake baby video -- he actually had his back up against counter 8, not at the far end but closer to the blast and the front entrance of the arrivals hall.]
Let's go back to the now-famous picture of those two women. The women in yellow has now been identified as Nidhi Chaphekar, a stewardess for Jet Airways. According to her facebook page, she worked for Jet Airways. As in, past tense. I thought people usually write works for when they still work someplace. On top of that, you will notice that she is supposed to be wearing a Jet Airways uniform. It's basically a long yellow Nehru jacket over a black shirt and black pants. The jackets have a series of buttons that hold them closed. Are we supposed to believe that the blast, which did not injure the photographer, managed to opened up all of those buttons (you can see the loops where the buttons attach in the picture -- it looks like fringe and it's still intact indicating the jacket was not torn open). Also note that she is not wearing a black shirt underneath, or any shirt for that matter, (presumably against protocol on a conservative airline), and the length of the jacket appears to be much shorter than the standard jacket (though it maybe be occluded behind her). She is also not wearing pantyhose or socks, which appears to be part of the uniform. In short, although they got the jacket color right, everything else seems to be off.
I don't have time to dig into the metro blast, but I invite you to look through the pictures from this article. Lots of pics of non-official rescue personnel wearing yellow vests helping out. Where do those vests suddenly materialize from? One guy even has a vest strung up around his guitar strapped to his back. And then there's the couple kissing while some guy is laying on the ground, apparently bloodied, with his hand outstretched and nobody helping him. I admit these pictures, though still absurd in many ways, seem more genuine than the airport ones, and it's possible that some people were actually injured. Even the stewardess at the airport. But none of this matches the descriptions of the events. We're supposed to believe that over 200 people were injured, while at most we're shown maybe a dozen. According to the article I just linked to, the metro blast was so fierce that people were burnt on the street. Doesn't look that way to me.
And then of course there's that Mormon missionary who was allegedly injured who was also present at the Boston and Paris terror attacks. I guess this is his version of a grand slam?
And then there's CNN and other news outlets running footage from 2011 and stating it was from the latest Brussels attacks. SMH.
Got anything else? Post in comments and keep em coming...
[EDIT: Apparently not allowed to post to facebook here. Well you can find her profile and find the status update where she posted the pics. Her name is Ketevan Kardava. Also I read somewhere else that the security forces were slow to arrive and it took 10 minutes before they started clearing people out, which would make her Facebook status update even more miraculous. Although the video I linked to indicates that they appear to have started clearing people out rather quickly...]
EDIT 2: Ooh, here's a really good one: According to news reports, the flight attendant with the yellow jacket was due to board a flight to Mumbai, but according to the Jet Airways flight schedule, there was no flight to Mumbai scheduled for the 22nd. The only flights scheduled out of Brussels were to Toronto at 10:15, to Newark at 10:15 and Delhi (not via Mumbai) at 10:20.
And this story is just ridiculous. If she was supposed to be working that flight to Mumbai (that didn't exist), she would have already been on the flight with the passengers, not out by the check-in gates. The things they expect us to believe.
Edit 3: Incorrect claim about Jet Airways flight schedule corrected.
Edit 4: I should also point out, in case it isn't obvious, that apart from the ceiling tiles and windows blown out, there is no sign of physical damage from the alleged nail bombs. One or both of the bombs at the airport were said to be nail bombs, exploding with enough force to lift people off the ground and dismember them left and right. But not only have we seen nothing resembling that, we don't see any damage from the shrapnel: the walls, signs, monitors, self-check-in kiosks, etc., etc. are in perfect condition. Look at the hall where the ceiling tile came down. Other than the tiles, it's in pristine condition.
Edit 5: Lest I be accused of failing to consider contradictory evidence, someone posted this link in the comments. Here we see our first evidence of both physical damage (other than the ceiling tiles and windows in other pics), in this case damage to the TV screens with flight information and what appear to be people actually injured by the blast or the falling debris. But still, even in this pic, the big signs in the background are untouched, along with the entire rear wall. There is tile hanging down from the ceiling, but tell me how a blast from a nail bomb is supposed to dislodge the ceiling tile without riddling it with holes? If you look both in this picture and in the other pictures of this scene that I linked to from imgur and twitter, the ceiling tile that is hanging or still intact does not appear damaged from shrapnel at all. The plastic signs indicating the number of aisle are also unharmed. In fact, it looks as if the only damage that was caused was due to the falling ceiling tiles, which I suspect were likely rigged and may very well have landed on and actually hurt people. It may have even killed some. But it's not the story we're being sold.
That comment also included a picture we have all seen of the subway car that was allegedly bombed, with pixelated dead bodies removed so we can see the full image. I don't see anything that looks gory or like dead/burned bodies in the original image, so I don't consider it to be contradictory evidence.
Compare all the pics we have of Brussels to these others of bomb blasts that really harm real people, including dismemberment and disfigurement and pools of blood (not the same I linked to earlier): NSFL! Here and here and here and here and here and here and here and here. Of course I don't really know if any of those were really real, but they look a hell of a lot more convincing than the 'shocking' photos taken by our intrepid, quick-thinking photojournalist with nerves of steel and ice water running through her veins.
Edit 6: Lift The Veil has some good stuff:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-isvPs-Pa3o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lC5pkQ9iM7M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TL6loBIw0NQ
Edit 7: Peekay Truth and other stuff:
Here is his channel, which many of you are probably familiar with: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCuQiFhLJ3sJsf3SjJk1cWtw
Here are a few gems, but he has LOTS of other good stuff, also about the metro bombing.
A man develops a sudden limp: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsmBil7WMfA
A new, shitty quality aftermath video that once again shows NO blood, dismembered bodies, etc. etc.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyUrcv99p1s
Footage used from drill 100+ meters away from the train/metro station: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ss0r-Gq3Gbg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8tJGvdjEE0
Bent legs dummy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndx1bJwf9eA
A hero emerges: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QE455FO5cQk
In another post that was deleted, a guy said that when he was at the Brussels airport a couple of months ago, it was undergoing major renovations. https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/4cgb8a/my_2_cents_on_the_belgium_airport_bombing/ (It's deleted, so you'll have to take my word for it that that's what he said.)
What he said is supported by this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVKTqhcmk74
EDIT 8: Will add miscellaneous links I find as I find them:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESUTq7QP8Yw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0dAsblvbcc
This is a great one on the absurd conflicting stories told by the basketball player pictured laying on the ground in Kardava's pictures: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8muaJ-_SYc
And more really good ones:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1qxFCV_-IE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMrXDG2f5KQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcitrrrXmN8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GykJCMaN7xA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_uGXdpeKGE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhabsUQkcs8
What's up with all the towels?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLitHu44XDc
Edit 9: Youtuber Changing Reason has a great new channel with high quality stuff.
Here is a video showing clear evidence that one of Kardava's pictures was Photoshopped:
Here is another video showing all the various locations of the bombings and pictures, also showing glaring impossibilities and inconsistencies in witness testimony. This video also shows that I was wrong about the location of the video with the guy running away with baby doll. I was correct about the aisle, but he was on the end closest to the bombing and the front entrance to the arrivals hall, rather than towards the back:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gnl7o2UKX9Y
Which bomb goes first? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMrXDG2f5KQ
Here's another one from a different channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFcDPVMLmzY
163 comments
19 deslothy 2016-03-23
seems like a giant hoax just like the paris shootings
28 [deleted] 2016-03-23
[deleted]
7 [deleted] 2016-03-23
[deleted]
4 ImostlyLurk 2016-03-23
twitter account 2nd photo had a dome security camera hanging from the ceiling i was like...fffffffffff come on....
3 [deleted] 2016-03-23
what evidence is there that the Paris shootings were a hoax?
7 [deleted] 2016-03-23
[deleted]
9 captain_teeth33 2016-03-23
You mean, what convincing evidence is there that they were real?
There's definitely plenty of de-convincing evidence offered.
2 [deleted] 2016-03-23
Eyewitnesses, DNA, criminal proceedings, photographs, video... I know, I know, "GRRR THAS FAKE EVDICE" but again, I'm more interested in if there is any evidence at all that the event was faked. Like, even one single thing. No? Nothing?
1 martinskrtel 2016-03-23
prayforparis
-3 iamfromreallife 2016-03-23
Yeah, my aunt is dead. Giant hoax.
4 TeslasMuse 2016-03-23
you have some very strange comment history...you mostly hang out in the opieandanthony sub and android, you appear to be from portugal, you made two comments to see someone's interpretation of the san bernardino false flag shooting, but other than that, you don't seem to come to this sub. i just don't believe your aunt was murdered in paris.
0 iamfromreallife 2016-03-23
You got me.
1 CheesemooG 2016-03-23
He's from real life, story checks out. Sorry for your loss..
0 [deleted] 2016-03-23
[deleted]
1 Juan__Lennon 2016-03-23
Typical shill MO - "I'm related somebody who died!"
Sure you did.
16 -asabovesobelow- 2016-03-23
The more i see these things happen the more it makes me ask this question: Are TPTB deliberately releasing shaky accounts, bad photos, accidentally show a video from a russian bombing just to fuel conspiracy theories?
Everytime I see this stuff I wonder. This is a brilliant post, and is pretty objective. With the information provided this event looks very shady. But think about how they can control the internet. They can block whatever they want. Facebook could be blocking the real photos... the OTHER photos on the journalists camera. That way they can show the questionable ones and get everyone riled up.
In a world where every media outlet is owned, you have to question everything you see. Remember divide and conquer. How many relationships have been ruined just because of an argument about 911 or SH or whatever...
5 Autocoprophage 2016-03-23
Honestly I was wondering this for a long time myself as I really felt there was a substantial amount of evidence suggesting this could be the case. Didn't really make sense to me so it just sat in my head collecting cognitive dissonance for a while until I came across this post and the series of posts linked from the original post, which more or less spells out this exact thing. Guy basically has a whole coherent explanation for where all this craziness is going and it only helps put it into perspective better when you see he's been saying the same stuff for years. It gets pretty wild if you read it but definitely worth thinking about if you have the same suspicion I do about the discrepancies being planted on purpose.
1 thing_on_a_string 2016-03-23
UFO, ghosts, bigfoot, ancient aliens, false hope/dream SETI, its all designed to destroy established (and moral) religions.
1 daddie_o 2016-03-23
Yeah, I read it. Don't agree with his conclusions.
3 tsunamismile 2016-03-23
meta-conspiracy makes my head hurt.
-1 GavriloPrincep 2016-03-23
and
and
Holy fucking hell, you propaganda worshipers will stop at nothing in your disgusting "believe our lies!" "don't be disgusted at our disgusting dishonesties".
Your post is one of the clearest "WORSHIP PROPAGANDA NOW" pleadings I have ever seen.
3 -asabovesobelow- 2016-03-23
The fuck you mean propaganda worshippers?
I think you might have misinterpreted what I mean. Im not sure how saying "QUESTION EVERYTHING YOU SEE" is the clearest "worship propagoanda now" pleading you have ever seen.
Go back under your rock and leave thinking to the adults.
-1 GavriloPrincep 2016-03-23
I mean you and everyone else who's line is "non-approved evidence should be doubted". Note your "Every time I see this I wonder".
You are lying here, that is not what you said. Your three examples:
"accidentally show a video from a russian bombing". Note your complete excusing of the propaganda narrative's lies in "accidentally". The truth is that this wasn't an accident, it was a propaganda dishonesty.
" Facebook could be blocking the real photos... the OTHER photos on the journalist's camera."
" How many relationships have been ruined just because of an argument about 911 or SH or whatever... "
are each just copies of
Ha, you are going to have to try harder than that. Wow, I'm reeling: Your force of insult has successfuly replused me from the truth and left your pro-dishonesty propaganda worshiping statement winner by a TKO. Double plus good comrade.
3 -asabovesobelow- 2016-03-23
-I mean you and everyone else who's line is "non-approved evidence should be doubted". Note your "Every time I see this I wonder".
So your saying that we should believe any evidence we see? I was stating that critical thinking relies on objective observation. Keep believing everything you read on the internet its working out great for you.
-You are lying here, that is not what you said. Your three examples:
Im not lying go re-read my fucking post. Maybe i need to work on my typing skills. I know that the video of the russian bombing wasnt a true accident. I should have put "accident" in quotes to imply my sarcasm.
Im not pro-dishonesty propaganda... Im pointing out that they are being dishonest releasing information that can fuel conspiracy theories... on purpose in order to divide peoples opinions on whats happening.
You can reply if you want but im done.
13 Ihopeitsround 2016-03-23
Good hunting. Something definitely smells about this. It's too coicendental and the reports are so inconsistent. Belgium is de facto already locked down, so there's no way of telling if this is even real or just a staged psyop. I want a list of the people who were killed, that would bring me back into he camp of this being an actual event. The whole video of the airport thing, the fact that it came from Russia in 2011, is particularly damning evidence to the contrary.
3 TeslasMuse 2016-03-23
don't forget this image the news agencies are using, from a failed NASA rocket launch in 2014
1 daddie_o 2016-03-23
LOL, you trolled me good.
0 TeslasMuse 2016-03-23
no clue what you're babbling about
2 daddie_o 2016-03-23
You linked to a NASA pic and said news agencies were reporting it as smoke rising from Brussels. But I didn't see any news agencies doing that, so I just assumed you were pulling my leg (aka trolling)...
0 TeslasMuse 2016-03-23
i posted a thread, in the thread i posted a link to an example in romania
2 daddie_o 2016-03-23
Look at the edit I just made to the post about the Jet Airways flight to Mumbai. For me that seals the deal.
3 no1113 2016-03-23
I think /r/lucycohen has it about right.
3 Juan__Lennon 2016-03-23
2 no1113 2016-03-23
That's it right there.
2 DiscoLollipop 2016-03-23
I thought I heard on the world news this morning that Nidhi Chaphekar was also present during the Boston bombing. I was walking through the living room when heard that, stopped and looked at the TV and there was a picture of the woman in a yellow top that was unbuttoned. I never saw the picture of the Mormon guy. I'm going to assume the reporter on GMA made the mistake because I know what I saw and heard because I thought it was odd and made a note in my phone so I could look into it.
Edit: Also, good job on the post you put together, very informative!
1 TeslasMuse 2016-03-23
i couldn't find any link between her and boston, but would an indian woman typically sit there totally exposed in her bra? or are they trying to sell it all with sex?
2 daddie_o 2016-03-23
Honestly, the more I look at that picture, the more it looks like she's posing.
3 TeslasMuse 2016-03-23
ripped her shirt off, but not a scratch on her torso?
2 daddie_o 2016-03-23
Exactly.
1 DiscoLollipop 2016-03-23
I don't know, I'd say no because she has rolls instead of abs but then again it's a good distraction and makes you think the blast was so intense that it blew off the buttons on her shirt.
1 daddie_o 2016-03-23
Thanks. Interesting. I stopped watching and reading mainstream sources for my news about 3 months ago. One of the best decisions I ever made.
2 DiscoLollipop 2016-03-23
I still watch it to see what they are trying to make people believe/the propaganda and I need background noise. I can't stand when it's silent, I have a constant ringing in my ears so I need something to replace that sound.
2 daddie_o 2016-03-23
Ouch. Sorry to hear that. I just think there is so much that goes in subconsciously, that I'd rather just not have it soak in.
8 captain_teeth33 2016-03-23
Why is there a 'managed' 'consent manufacturing' thread stickied on this on this sub? What happened to this place, did it get taken over?
4 blumpkin_berry 2016-03-23
I've been asking the same questions
4 captain_teeth33 2016-03-23
complain to the mods, they reply that managing the discussion is a positive thing. WTF????
Edit: now I'm muted and accused of 'spreading malicious rumors' and 'calculated concern trolling' LMAO
1 blumpkin_berry 2016-03-23
The mods are the reason this sub is awful. The moderating here is the worst I've seen of any 'conspiracy' forum/board
5 inko 2016-03-23
Actually, I think a more plausible explanation is that you have everyone posting their alleged conspiracies, yet no one can agree which conspiracies are legitimate. No one trusts anyone else as far as they can throw them.
2 GavriloPrincep 2016-03-23
that's what investigation looks like, it's very good.
Propaganda, on the other hand, presents some story and then never changes or develops.
1 captain_teeth33 2016-03-23
the mods claim that more than two threads will confuse us and dilute our discussion, so we have to abide having it managed to brigaded threads stuck at the top.
1 daddie_o 2016-03-23
Can you suggest better conspiracy forums/boards?
2 blumpkin_berry 2016-03-23
How deep down the rabbit hole have you gone?
2 daddie_o 2016-03-23
Pretty far. I'm a big fan of Miles Mathis and Harald Kautz-Vella, both of whom are pretty far down the hole in their own unique ways. I haven't yet dipped my toes into the holocaust, directed energy weapons of 9/11 or flat earth. But my mind remains always open, to correct for my past sin of being so blindered by conceptions of what is and is not possible...
2 blumpkin_berry 2016-03-23
I'm not familiar with Miles Mathis or Harald Kautz-Vella but I'm curious so I'm going to read their work. Something I just noticed that concerns me about Miles Mathis is that his paper 'Proof from NASA that pie is 4' is written under the assumption that there are satellites and the first successful orbit was in 1958. There are no satellites as there is no 'space' and thus nothing in orbit.
It's exciting what you're about to uncover, it will make everything else seem small in comparison.
Watch Eric Dubay's YT channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/ericdubay77/videos?view=0&sort=p&flow=grid
His forum (strict no shill policy): http://ifers.ace.st/ Blog: http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/
From here you're things are really going to branch out because there's so much to learn about, how gravity/relativity are a hoax, Stephen Hawking is a hoax, etc etc It's all connected with Masons and the drive to replace "Science" with God/religion, to make us feel insignificant, and to make us question our senses from day 1.
I recommend John Le Bon's YT channel, he's a good moderator for the shows he does too, all very informative (The'Ball Earth Skeptic Roundtable' is 12 episodes and is great listening topic, there's also 5 or so impromptu chats. These are good if you need to load up your phone/mp3 player with something to listen to): https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOtL7oTHwA_iZhFZeAGVcqA
September clues forum: http://www.cluesforum.info/ (Incredibly and I didn't believe this for many years there were no planes used in NYC on 9/11. I already knew there was no plane crashes in PA or Pentagon. Watch the documentary September Clues for more info http://www.septemberclues.info/)
Random tabs open in my browser:
http://digwithin.net/
http://memoryholeblog.com/
https://truthshock.wordpress.com/2015/12/02/anatomy-of-false-flag-events/
http://www.septemberclues.info/vicsims_photo-analyses.shtml
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2864812-proofs-of-a-conspiracy#other_reviews
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_sociopol_illuminati.htm
http://www.deepinsidetherabbithole.com/Cassidy_Stay.html
http://www.deepinsidetherabbithole.com/Symbology.html
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_illuminati_11a.htm
1 daddie_o 2016-03-23
Awesome, thank you!!
Miles has two main lines of work, conspiracy-related and science-related, though the two sometimes blend. He's not a flat earther, but would definitely agree with the replacement of science with some kind of mysticism. See for example: http://milesmathis.com/20c.pdf and this http://milesmathis.com/quant.html
The link to all his conspiracy work is http://mileswmathis.com/updates.html
I recommend starting from his earliest forays into conspiracy writing and work forwards from there, since he is discovering a lot of stuff along the way, and he builds on and refers to that stuff later on. You could probably start from his paper from 10/18/13 on Theosophy and the Beat Generation and work your way up.
For Harald Kautz-Vella, I recommend this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHQeEnBZiFo&index=1&list=PLt3d0sqKNUuvkpA8IGzLDRc2Ud3aBHe5j
1 blumpkin_berry 2016-03-23
Thanks I will check it all out. There is a lot of controlled opposition out there so I can't help but wonder when I notice when certain people won't go all the way with the truth. Sure it's possible some don't know. Check out Eric's shill wall of fame for info on how he and other members rationalize these kind of things.
BTW, massive mistake in my last post I must have been tired. It's the other way around, the masonic psyop of NASA is to replace the One/Creator/God with "science".
2 blumpkin_berry 2016-03-23
http://www.scribd.com/doc/188101651/The-Atlantean-Conspiracy-Final-Edition#scribd
1 daddie_o 2016-03-23
To the mods' credit, they did put a link to this thread in their stickied comment in that stickied post.
1 captain_teeth33 2016-03-23
one of the mods has a conscience. how much did he have to fight for it?
8 BransonBombshell 2016-03-23
This is really weak. All reliable accounts point to a bomb. I'm willing to accept that people involved are under stress and excited and might get a few details wrong that are later put right by evidence and testimony. I don't see any solid inconsistency in any of the reports and photographs - sorreh.
10 tms10000 2016-03-23
I'm asking these question genuinely. Op presents some material which taken at face value suggests at least inconsistencies in the story unfolding:
Where is the surveillance footage of the bombs going off?
Where are the pictures of dismembered people and pools of blood?
Is it a case where the media is not willing to present those (for fear of being perceived as exploitative, or willing to be seen as respectful)?
All the videos and pictures I have seen are of people crouching in a foggy/dusty hall and no sigh of explosion or a big torn up wall with lots of debris and no corpse/bodies/hurt people.
But maybe better evidence is there and I have not seen it?
8 Lachlannn 2016-03-23
Wounded/body parts - http://www.corbeaunews.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/FullSizeRender2.jpg
(blurred version: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/03/22/12/3273F2C600000578-3504028-image-a-9_1458650342586.jpg)
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/03/22/08/32726E7600000578-3503928-image-m-45_1458633847814.jpg
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/03/22/08/3272923E00000578-3503928-image-m-58_1458634700481.jpg
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/03/22/09/3272C97700000578-3503928-image-m-77_1458637862743.jpg
Damaged luggage and tv screens from projectile and body - http://www.akhbarona.com/thumbnail.php?file=belg5_462746993.jpg&size=article_large
Damaged clothing - http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/03/22/09/3272CE1300000578-3503928-Aftermath_A_man_lies_stricken_on_the_pavement_as_survivors_kiss_-m-10_1458639898628.jpg
2 Juan__Lennon 2016-03-23
Good thing they used the shrapnel that only shreds clothes, leaving the skin perfectly intact.
Believability - 0/10
3 a_strangeblueshift 2016-03-23
It's pretty well proven that people in shock say stupid inconsistent things, nobody was probably paying attention so that's why there is no good consensus about FROM WHERE the bombs went off.
Also, I'd be interested in knowing what airports look like after a bomb is set off, maybe these were just really shitty bombs or something.
I see the politicians/media allowing things to go wrong rather than actively faking them. There is too much risk if they are ever found out.
-4 blumpkin_berry 2016-03-23
You are a well programmed sheep. Now, turn on your TV, and carry on with your routine.
6 BransonBombshell 2016-03-23
I'm one of maybe 3 people who dare disagree with the psyops theory and I'm the sheep?
Pot - Kettle - Black.
0 GavriloPrincep 2016-03-23
well, now, that is real dishonesty. You don't seem to have any shame.
-2 [deleted] 2016-03-23
[removed]
-1 Sabremesh 2016-03-23
You're becoming tedious. If you bleat about "sheep" one more time, you will be banned.
4 blumpkin_berry 2016-03-23
Don't you have MSM threads to sticky?
2 ImostlyLurk 2016-03-23
is this a bot or a mod? banned from conspiracy for calling something what it is? -_- legit
0 Sabremesh 2016-03-23
Who are you claiming has been banned?
Abusive comments get deleted. It's a necessary rule, and without it, many conversations in this sub would collapse into slanging matches - an outcome which the enemies of the sub would love. Is that what you want?
1 [deleted] 2016-03-23
[removed]
1 Sabremesh 2016-03-23
Rule 4.
4 lockey1995 2016-03-23
You're being conned by alt media, I don't believe msm either tbh but i know people are making bank off of gullible people such as your self.
-3 blumpkin_berry 2016-03-23
I don't follow ALT media. Try again sheep
3 eyedharma 2016-03-23
cough Bullshit
0 blumpkin_berry 2016-03-23
Alex Jones? I don't even know ALT media outside of him and I don't follow him.
Carry on sheep.
3 eyedharma 2016-03-23
You post on r/conspiracy and dont follow Alt media...not even remotely believable.
Nice try shill
1 blumpkin_berry 2016-03-23
I don't know any real truth seekers that follow "alt media".
Independent researchers that share their work are not "media".
How small is your world? :) Let me guess, democrat or republican? LOL
3 eyedharma 2016-03-23
If you don't follow alt media (which i agree is seriously warped) and you dont trust MSM (who would?) where exactly do you find information. You dont seem to want to have actual conversations. I was actually glad to see you replied more than 5 words but you still failed to deliver any meaningful content.
If your mission is to troll, find a better outlet for it and not in the vulnerable aftermath of death. If your interested in discussion speak your mind.
Im open for new ideas. Enlighten me
1 tms10000 2016-03-23
Name calling is not productive. We should challenge and be challenged. We should use out brains to gather evidence and analyze the events to discuss. All you are doing is shutting people out.
0 blumpkin_berry 2016-03-23
Have fun with that, see where it gets you with these people.
8 eyedharma 2016-03-23
I appreciate all the hard work you put into this post and I think it's important that we analyze these events in forums such as this.
However, some of your arguments are based off the incompetent work done by others. Things like "she works for" and she "worked for" comes down to semantics. News outlets these days are so desperate to be ahead of the curve, competing to have the story first that they rush these things out without ever checking anything. Hence you get shit grammar and bad information because any delay in reporting will be seen as indifference to the story. We saw it after Boston when random peoples pics were being posted saying they were involved. We saw it this morning when they said they had captured the guy in Belgium when they hadn't. This lack of vetting their information will always exist while news outlets compete with social media for breaking news.
The other example in your story is your claim on the caption of a Daily Mail photo showing a man walking towards the wall which you assumed he was going to use to prop up a victim but the caption said he was being carried out to safety. I can't imagine how low on the totem pole at the Daily Mail the guy who makes the captions for pictures is, but I'd assume he has absolutely nothing to do with the reporting of the story and is basically told to come up with captions that represent the picture. He's probably sitting in an office thousands of miles away and see's this picture and puts the most obvious assumption up there, that basically this guy is being carried out for safety .
You should also take into consideration that the photojournalist was just next to a massive explosion (taking the story as fact for this) and her recounting of the events is bound to be all over the place. Have you ever gotten in a fight and then tried to look back on it. Just a big blur of emotions and adrenaline, it's hard to keep your composure during stressful events and I can only imagine being next to two bombs going off is going to multiply this effect.
I agree with the idea of scrutinizing the evidence as it becomes available and looking for inconsistencies but the evidence in question here is shaky at best and using this as a evidence of something sinister only blurs the lines of truth in the days to come. Not everything is a conspiracy. There are bad people who do bad things and this may be one of those times.
To reiterate my initial point, you did a good job gathering your sources and documenting them and I appreciated the read.
4 daddie_o 2016-03-23
I appreciate all the hard work you did here cherry-picking my weakest points but ignoring the strongest evidence. Really, fantastic, important work. You should be a professional debunker. They're good at cherry-picking low hanging fruit.
That actually only supports my arguments about this woman's amazing ability to upload those pics and post a status update so quickly. Which, again, is one of my weakest arguments and I admit it in my post.
How do you explain the lack of damage from shrapnel from these two (or is it only one?) powerful nail bombs that were strong enough to dismember people and lift them into the air, cause the ceiling tiles to collapse and some windows to blow out, yet none of the signs, walls, monitors, self-check-in kiosks -- nothing else seems damaged in the slightest. It's all in pristine condition. Not to mention the lack of gore as described by all the eyewitness reports. Quite miraculous I'd say.
How do you plausibly explain the couple running away with a baby doll, apparently leaving their own child behind in the stroller that she had the presence of mind to set upright?
How do you plausibly explain the stewardess supposedly working a flight to Mumbai that doesn't exist, and a news outlet reporting on the hardship that all the passengers on that non-existent flight had to endure?
To reiterate my point, your attempt at debunking was weak in the extreme, but I appreciated it and enjoyed the read. Thanks for playing.
4 eyedharma 2016-03-23
What evidence? Your argument is conjecture, based on the shitty reporting done by others.
You do know what the word pristine means right? Because if this looks like nothing is damaged in the slightest to you then you must be one filthy slob of a human being.
Does the picture of the damage accuratley match the description some lady gave, no it doesn't but if that's what you expect a pristine airport to look like you have insanely low standards.
The "doll" looks like a baby to me, you can actually see it's arm moving. I don't see any real child being left behind in the stroller, just her moving the thing out of the way to get out of there.
As I said before there is a lot of shit reporting coming out immediately after this event so as for the what flight that lady was going to be on I'd probably put that in the "shit reporting" category.
Let me just leave you with this.
I gave you props for the research, I tried to engage you in a conversation and the best you can come up with is to call me a debunker and claim that it was "weak in the extreme".
You may think that you are on to something, but what you're doing is trying to get ahead of the rest of the conspiracy theories that will arise from this situation. This sub is supposed to be a place that we can come and have this conversation in a rational way while being objective. You don't have an open mind for any opinion that isn't your own and that doesn't leave room for growth on any level. Just because I took a few of your points and gave my opinion doesn't mean I think you're wrong about everything, it was supposed to make you think but clearly that's a problem for you. Your ego is too fragile to have anybody tell you could possibly have made a mistake. Your life will be a never ending dissapointment if you don't actually listen to other viewpoints. Good luck to you.
2 daddie_o 2016-03-23
That was from your previous comment. It wasn't reporting. It was from her Facebook profile. And I agree it could just be a mistake.
As for pristine, you once again cherry picked from my comments. I said besides the ceiling tiles and blown out windows. The picture you chose is a perfect example. Look at the walls in the background, the posters, the self-check-in kiosks, the signs with numbers indicating the aisle numbers, the sign in the foreground with 'departures' written on it. Nothing has any sign of damage from shrapnel, or really anything else. It's undamaged. All the other pictures, except for one, show the same thing.
I agree that some of it is just due to shitty reporting. But when so many people are saying the same thing and it contrasts so widely with the photographic evidence we have, then I think that's telling. As for the baby doll, well, I think you need your eyes checked.
1 daddie_o 2016-03-23
Just for the record my attitude towards you has nothing to do with my fragile ego. I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong. Hell my wife makes me admit I'm wrong twice a day.
My problem is with your transparent phoniness. You claim to be the voice of reason and to be 'engaging me in conversation' but it's just a pose. You say you don't think I'm wrong about everything, but you haven't said what you think I might be right about. As far as I can tell, you chalk it all up to problems with 'early reporting.' But the reporting hasn't changed on the key events of what happened there, and the photographic evidence still contradicts the reporting. I am open to revising my opinion if more evidence emerges, but I doubt it will. You even disagree that anything is fishy about the video of the man obviously carrying away a baby doll.
You don't agree with me at all, and that's fine. But it won't do to affect a pose of being the voice of cautious reason, because there is nothing reasonable about your position. You have offered nothing to explain all the huge discrepancies. You want us to accept the official story and ignore the evidence that anyone with half a brain and a pulse can see with their own eyes. That's not reasonable. Sorry.
2 captain_teeth33 2016-03-23
'degrade'
-3 blumpkin_berry 2016-03-23
Holy fuck you are ignorant
5 eyedharma 2016-03-23
such an eloquent statement. good talk.
8 modelo666 2016-03-23
These crimes aren't committed by random joes. They are paid and funded by intelligence groups.
6 blumpkin_berry 2016-03-23
Great job on your initial analysis, good info to look over
5 Grandfoot 2016-03-23
The sad part is it's all just a distraction. For what, that will be the bigger mystery, that generally goes unsolved.
12 tazcatlipoca 2016-03-23
More so PROBLEM > REACTION > SOLUTION
imo
6 daddie_o 2016-03-23
Well part of it is the 'clash of civilizations' they're ginning up in Europe, along with our acceptance of living in a state of lockdown (aka martial law). And they are going to use it (and the next event, coming soon no doubt) to get Europe behind a Western boots-on-the-ground intervention in Syria. They're already doing it.
2 Grandfoot 2016-03-23
lots of moving pieces, it's always the standard operating procedure.
5 Rockonfoo 2016-03-23
What do you think the biggest piece of evidence is for this being staged or a false flag? (Very good writing by the way the way you presented your case was very compelling and believe able but idk what to make of this until I know more of that makes sense)
9 daddie_o 2016-03-23
For me the biggest thing is actually the lack of evidence. The 'eyewitness' accounts say one thing, and they're very very clear about it, while the photographic evidence is very much at odds with that. Also the stewardess who is supposed to work a flight that doesn't exist. And the photojournalist standing 5 feet away from the bomb without a scratch. I mean, do they really expect us to believe this crap? (Sadly, the answer is yes and most people do.)
edit: just look at the pictures of the airport. Besides the ceiling tiles and glass blown out, there is no sign of damage from shrapnel or shock waves anywhere. Signs, walls, monitors, self-check-in kiosks, everything looks to be in pristine condition. And the couple running away with a doll! WTF? She took the trouble to set the baby carriage upright, but forgot the real baby!
4 datrutru 2016-03-23
You know the journalist could just be lying about how close she was to get more exposure right? And embellishing (or legitimately misremembering because it was traumatic) for the same reason.
Eye witness accounts are EXPECTED to conflict with each other, especially in traumatic situations.
I have no idea why I'm responding to this. I just googled to try and get some info on this situation and somehow this post came up.
But anyways... You're jumping to a TONNNN of conclusions all based on inconsistencies in eye witness reports. HOLY SHIT! Do you not realize that inconsistencies in eye witness reports ALWAYS happen? That they're so common it's assumed there will be inconsistencies?
People claim they heard shots because they were panicking and don't know what gunshots actually sound like.
A photojournalist being able to upload pictures within 10 minutes seems odd to you? That's LITERALLY her job.
It's just so strange that you start with the assumption that eye witnesses are accurate and not shaken at all by the bombs they just experience.
Also, people don't post pictures of mutilated corpses in the first world because of respect and more likely litigation.
4 daddie_o 2016-03-23
My problem is not with eye witness accounts conflicting with each other. My problem is with eye witness accounts being in total agreement with each other about the strength of the explosions and the level of carnage, which is completely at odds with virtually all the photographic evidence we have seen. Photographic evidence is not the same as eyewitness accounts. Are you going to try to tell me that all these people are going to claim seeing dismembered bodies laying everywhere because they were confused? Fog of war?
How do you explain the lack of damage from shrapnel from these two powerful nail bombs that were reportedly strong enough to dismember people and lift them into the air, cause the ceiling tiles to collapse and some windows to blow out, yet virtually none of the signs, walls, monitors, self-check-in kiosks have so much as a scratch on them or even soot. It's all in pristine condition. Quite miraculous I'd say. That has nothing to do with conflicting eyewitness testimony.
How do you plausibly explain the couple running away with a baby doll, apparently leaving their own child behind in the stroller that she had the presence of mind to set upright? That has nothing to do with conflicting eyewitness testimony.
How do you plausibly explain the stewardess supposedly working a flight to Mumbai that doesn't exist, and a news outlet reporting on the hardship that all the passengers on that non-existent flight had to endure? That has nothing to do with conflicting eyewitness testimony.
Oh please. It's honestly not worth going on line and taking 5 minutes to show how wrong you are about posting of mutilated corpses in the first world, but to take a recent example -- what about the pictures of all the "mutilated" (allegedly) dead bodies they posted from the Bataclan? And you're saying she had the presence of mind to consider possible litigation in the ten minutes after surviving a huge explosion and witnessing this horrific blood bath? This woman has really got to have nerves of steel and a heart of ice. And why would posting pictures of mutilated bodies be more likely to garner litigation than the pictures she did post who were (allegedly) wounded and bloodied, laying on the ground, with clear pictures of their faces? She didn't post mutilated, unrecognizable bodies out of respect but didn't care to respect the privacy of the people who were merely injured?
Yes, I agree the journalist could be lying. In fact that's exactly what I'm saying. And if she could be lying about being 5 feet away from the blast (without any news outlet stopping to question such an absurd claim), then she could be lying about any and all of it (without any news outlet stopping to question all the absurd claims). At least we're in agreement that she's willing to lie to advance her career.
2 twsmith 2016-03-23
The lack of evidence? Are you trolling? Are you trying to see how gullible people are? What makes you think there's a lack of evidence? Are you part of the investigation? Have you been there when then witnesses are being interviewed? Are you looking over the crime scene photos and the forensics reports, the autopsies, the doctors' reports?
Did I miss where you said what your training is? Are you a detective, a crime scene analyst, a medical examiner, a ballistics expert, an explosives expert? How many years of experience do you have? Which schools did you graduate from with what degrees? What certifications do you have?
How many bombings have you been at the scene of? In your experience, did everybody present get the same injuries? That seems to be what you're implying.
Also, the article you linked doesn't say anything about the stewardess working a flight to Delhi. It says "She was due to leave Brussels for Mumbai, where she is based, when the attacks hit."
Maybe the only times you have flown your Mommy and Daddie_O took care of buying the tickets, but often when you fly somewhere, especially on international flights, you can't get a direct flight to your destination, but actually have to change planes at an airport.
2 daddie_o 2016-03-23
I never said she was working a flight to Delhi. I said she was working a flight to Mumbai. And the flight schedules clearly mark whenever a flight has any stopovers. The one to Delhi scheduled for that day does not stop in Mumbai. In other words, to repeat myself, there were no flights scheduled to Mumbai that day on her airline.
Are you? Is anyone? Are there any?
I'm not saying everyone should get the same damage, though I do expect someone standing 5 feet away from a powerful nail bomb to have been injured. I don't know why that's so hard for you to swallow?
There is clear lack of evidence with respect to the claims made repeatedly by different witnesses regarding dimembered bodies, pools of blood, etc. etc. There is also virtually no sign that these nail bombs did any physical damage to the airport except with regard to the ceiling tiles and windows. The signs, walls, monitors, self-check-in-kiosks etc. etc. are almost spotless. And whether I have experience is besides the point. I have a brain. Which is more than I can say for you.
4 twsmith 2016-03-23
Have you never heard of changing planes? Have you ever flown across the country or internationally?
Of course I'm not. But there are hundreds of Belgian police working on this investigation. What we see are media reports and pictures taken by people who just happened to be there.
1 daddie_o 2016-03-23
Yes, many, many times. Probably more than you. I've never had a flight crew follow me to a plane change. When I change planes to a new destination, the new plane has a different flight crew. The original flight crew stays with the original plane. If they switch planes, it usually takes awhile, if they even do. On a long flight, say from Europe to India, they will deboard after the passengers and go to their hotel or home to sleep.
On a stopover, where the plane stops at an airport, drops some passengers off and takes on new passengers, the flight crew usually remains the same. But in those cases the flight tells you the final destination, and if you look at the flight schedule I linked to, it also lists stopovers. There were no flights from Brussels that day that were scheduled to land or stop in Mumbai.
Why is this so hard for you to understand? Are you being deliberately dense?
Yes, exactly. And that's great evidence. And so far, there is a HUGE disconnect between eyewitness accounts and photographic evidence that can't just be explained away by asserting (with no proof at all) that hundreds of Belgian police are working on this investigation.
5 twsmith 2016-03-23
Don't assume. I took my first international flight in 1968.
The article said "She was due to leave Brussels for Mumbai, where she is based, when the attacks hit." You misrepresented that when you changed it to "flight attendant with the yellow jacket was due to board a flight to Mumbai". Now you seem to be implying that she can't travel to her home in Mumbai unless the entire flight crew changes planes and accompanies her. Is that what you mean?
If I were to apply your standards to your statements then I would assume that your contradictions were evidence that you are deliberately lying and part of some conspiracy. But I don't actually believe that. I think that you just misread what was said in the article and now, instead of just admitting you were wrong on one small point, you just decide to bring up absurd arguments.
Are you being serious? There are 9,000 federal police officers in Belgium. Do you think that less than 2% of them are assigned to this?
I don't see what disconnect you're talking about. I see that the photographs don't match your intuition about what you think you should see, but that's about it.
1 Juan__Lennon 2016-03-23
TWSmith, always coming to help push the state's official narrative. Without fail.
5 Scroon 2016-03-23
The man carrying the doll did it for me. The only explanation for him having that thing is if his kid was around. The video was supposedly moments after the blast, yet there is no kid to be seen. Also, it looks like the women near him is supposed to be his wife. Noting the empty baby stroller beside them leads me to think that doll and stroller was used as a baby stand-in prop.
3 ImostlyLurk 2016-03-23
Every father I know would be in 100% rage and adrenaline mode trying to locate and secure his baby. He was largely hardly worried, just wanted to leave, and completely unsure of the manner in which he should have been leaving. I'm not a father but i'd carry my dead child out too, aaaaand there was too much rigor mortis there for minutes after.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigor_mortis
3 Scroon 2016-03-23
I agree. I'm also of the opinion he would have been holding his baby (dead or alive) pretty tightly, covering its head, shielding it with his body like we know all parents do.
It really is such a weird thing happening in that video.
-1 [deleted] 2016-03-23
[deleted]
1 daddie_o 2016-03-23
You should schedule an appointment with an eye doctor, stat. And pleeeeaaase for our sake don't drive in the meantime.
1 ImostlyLurk 2016-03-23
That back and forth "i don't know" is 'hurry' to you? You've never been in a car wreck, explosion or gunfight. There was no purpose in his movements.
Not trying to insult, but you might have nothing to accurately compare this to.
4 yowzapete 2016-03-23
This is brilliant! Thanks for all the research!
3 RyanLeciejewski 2016-03-23
This isn't evidence of a "hoax" but lets say it is a "hoax", please explain the motives behind creating a hoax that destroyed half an airport?
So just to create fear in peoples lives, they destroyed an airport causing ten's of millions of dollars in structural damage alone....not to mention the business and tourism cash they'd lose.
That's some VERY expensive fear mongering if I've ever seen it. I think they could have achieved the same reaction if they hired a bunch of goons with AK-47's to run down a street and shoot a bunch of people yelling "allah akbar" but to say this was a hoax is just idiotic.
6 captain_teeth33 2016-03-23
that one gets old.. even staged fake beheadings of people in the streets and machete wielding, blood dripping fake terrorists don't seem to faze old ladies walking by with their shopping these days.
the airport wasn't nearly destroyed. don't exaggerate.
5 daddie_o 2016-03-23
Destroyed an airport? Half an airport? They just need to replace some tiles in the entrance hall. Give me a break.
0 tms10000 2016-03-23
Be honest, there's a big hole where walls used to be. That's a little more than just ceiling tiles.
1 thing_on_a_string 2016-03-23
its called remodeling, all airports do this periodically.
-1 franciswsears 2016-03-23
Then why did they ground the planes? If "they" are controlling the attacks, then they should have known that there wouldn't have been any further attacks. What's the point in grounding the planes then, that's a super expensive thing to do for little to no propaganda benefit.
1 McLeech 2016-03-23
your question is ridicuolous
4 blumpkin_berry 2016-03-23
This event cost pennies compared to the billions/trillions made off of fear mongering.
Time to wake up sheep
4 lockey1995 2016-03-23
lol the cringe, does that make you feel superior bro?
2 blumpkin_berry 2016-03-23
Turn your TV on and think happy thoughts, sheep
2 lockey1995 2016-03-23
Cringe
4 RyanLeciejewski 2016-03-23
HAHAHHA okay bud, keep telling yourself that. I'll believe the actual evidence of pictures and first hand stories of people being maimed not your random and baseless comments about how every terrorist event that happens is a hoax.
4 blumpkin_berry 2016-03-23
You've done no research. You watch CNN and think you know what's going on in the world, sheep.
Anybody with half a brain who has looked at SH or 9/11 know the official stories are BS. I don't have to say they are hoax or psyops, all I have to say is the official stories are BS, that is a fact. Yet sheep still dismiss it because the Govt. said "carry on nothing to see here".
Bye sheep, turn your TV on and think happy thoughts.
0 [deleted] 2016-03-23
[removed]
1 blumpkin_berry 2016-03-23
I don't believe that, I look at each event individually, and I never trust the MSM.
If that makes me dumb, I'm happy to be the dumbest mother fucker alive!
BTW, I started making 6 figures @ 23. Self made self taught multiple website owner :)
3 RyanLeciejewski 2016-03-23
LMFAO SELF MADE MILLIONAIRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRE
Gotta love the internet, you can literally say anything eh? Maybe that's how you get away with saying such idiotic things without backing up anything.
You realize you're not smart by saying you automatically don't believe something without evidence right? And by evidence I don't mean random assumptions using grainy photos, or using irrelevant time stamps to try and discredit people.
There's a reason why you're a minority in the way that you think and its not because you're smart, its because you seek the attention that no one else gives you.
0 blumpkin_berry 2016-03-23
Millionaire? Want to look up what making 6 figures means again?
:)
Carry on sheep, turn the TV on.
3 RyanLeciejewski 2016-03-23
LOL Its called an exaggeration, maybe you should google that or is google a hoax too? I guess the moon landing was a hoax too right? You can see all those wires and all that green screen action right?
1 thing_on_a_string 2016-03-23
you were not even born then, why do you even try.
a little hint, 2/3 efficiency F1s , 2/3 scale LEM with a diameter of 20 foot, four foot astronots in the museum displays.
a 250,000 mile apogee. nazi Von Braun, nazi big rockets, nazi big fraud.
1 RyanLeciejewski 2016-03-23
yea definitely.....fuck man, you're pretty smart eh? Did you think of that all on your own? You should probably go to your nearest media outlet and say you've finally figured everything out. LMAO
1 blumpkin_berry 2016-03-23
You believe we landed on the moon? Hilarious
1 thing_on_a_string 2016-03-23
thank jebus you took time out from your wallstreet/corporate/academic/govt career to come here and educate us trailer trash...
1 SovereignMan 2016-03-23
Rule 10. No personal attacks. Removed. 1st warning.
4 gwsb 2016-03-23
You seem to think that if it's a hoax is HAS to have been orchestrated by the host country. Why would you think that? If we stay on the hoax theory, the people that are behind them owe no allegiance to any country or entity other than themselves. It's not their airport, it's not their subway... just means to their collective end.
2 blumpkin_berry 2016-03-23
Turn on CNN bro! LOL
3 kapitol_burden 2016-03-23
Not much of your post was resonating with me, until I got to this part. You've got my attention now. I distinctly remember seeing the footage with the "baby" you mentioned, and I distinctly remember thinking to myself "that looks like a doll". Very interesting...
2 SoCo_cpp 2016-03-23
Just some minors thoughts
The photos of the ceiling tiles fallen down, look like debris cover almost all the floor making it hard to see if there are any pools of blood or body parts or not.
I don't see how you determined she didn't use her camera phone for the mobile uploads. What makes you think she used her real camera, or that she wasn't referring to her phone when saying her camera?
The metro blast picture of a couple kissing while some guy lays on the ground looks more like a lady and a super old dude, maybe her father, embracing like they just found each other and were Ok.
One Metro blast picture that did stick out was "Destruction: Bricks on the walls of a nearby car park were reduced to rubble by the force of the explosion in the Metro station", whole wall of bricks in knocked down but what looks like plastic sewer pipes where unharmed, even the white one that looks like it came out in front of the bricks.
3 blumpkin_berry 2016-03-23
Bullshit, it's clear when looking at this picture there is no blood anywhere. The tiles will magically cover 100% of the blood?
2 ImostlyLurk 2016-03-23
no dents in tiles from people....or luggage, the one good looking (possible prop) body, his missing immaculate hat
1 daddie_o 2016-03-23
Well if we can't see them in the pictures, then the eyewitnesses couldn't have seen them either. But we are able to see the pictures taken by the photojournalist, and they do not square with her testimony at all. She should release all her pics if she's holding back.
We can't know for certain. It was twice stated, including by her, that she reached for her camera, not her phone. I suppose it's possible. But given that she's a photojournalist, she would want to take the highest quality pics with the best equipment she had in order to capture this event. It's her profession, remember. Also, if you've ever been around professional photographers or even amateur enthusiasts, they can't stand to take pictures on a camera phone. My brother-in-law needs a view finder to take pictures.
Possibly, but I don't see your point.
1 AnimatronicSlothEyes 2016-03-23
The flight attendant appears to have a torn shirt, a torn jacket, and something black, protruding from under her pants, right below the cuffs. She may have been wearing the proper attire. Without cleaning up the image upon a closer look, I am uncertain.
2 daddie_o 2016-03-23
Yes, I agree. Though how would a blast do that to her clothing, yet her torso remains unharmed? Not to mention the loops for the buttons on her jacket do not look torn, indicating she unbuttoned it herself. In any case, we can agree she wasn't there to get on a non-existent flight to Mumbai, as is being widely reported.
1 Tad23 2016-03-23
Personally I would take witness statements taken in the immediate aftermath with a pinch of salt.. For one people exaggerate, and if what you suspect is true and she's a photojournalist... This could be a big thing for her career and she would want to make as much fuss as possible about being there at the time of the explosions. There are a few things that I'm questioning regarding this incident which I will post in a separate thread..
1 apropo 2016-03-23
All the world's a stage...
0 Thompson_S_Sweetback 2016-03-23
They have WiFi capable SD cards now. If she's a photojournalist, her photos probably upload automatically to her phone without removing any hardware or using wires.
5 daddie_o 2016-03-23
Yes didn't I mention that possibility in my post?
2 [deleted] 2016-03-23
[removed]
1 SovereignMan 2016-03-23
Rule 10. Removed. Final warning.
1 Rockonfoo 2016-03-23
What did he say to violate the rule?
1 thing_on_a_string 2016-03-23
and all the public cellphone services would have been not working during the drill/exercise.
only the exercises peoples phones would have worked.
0 [deleted] 2016-03-23
[removed]
1 Sabremesh 2016-03-23
Removed. Rule 4.
-1 10Cb 2016-03-23
I don't understand these conspiracy theories of the psyops tragedies. You're looking at scenes less than 24 hours old and expecting people to behave in a calm, consistent way. Also, you expect the evidence you're shown on CNN to be as real and perfect as the evidence collected by the police and counterterrorism units. NOBODY knows the truth yet, and you're already yammering about this not being real.
6 [deleted] 2016-03-23
[deleted]
1 10Cb 2016-03-23
I was looking at youtube footage of psyops evidence, and I still don't see it. I still believe "s**t happens" is a truism. You don't need psyops to create mass shootings or terrorism. You don't need psyops to force people to hand over civil liberties. You just need a populace who doesn't believe in "Give me liberty or give me death" anymore.
2 FlipHorrorshow 2016-03-23
Don't try to convince anyone here. Everything is a fake psyop here. As evidenced by women (crisis actors) holding a hand to their face at most of the shootings to minor differences in a camera womans story (calling for doctor vs. Taking out the camera first) to USA today not posting gore on their webpage but instead two bloodied women.
3 blumpkin_berry 2016-03-23
Only the obvious ones.
Carry on, sheep
3 FlipHorrorshow 2016-03-23
Lol. How typical.
1 blumpkin_berry 2016-03-23
You're telling me
2 ImostlyLurk 2016-03-23
not just to USA today's website, anywhere... there's one body with a clean hat at that airport. any more? anywhere?
1 thing_on_a_string 2016-03-23
its about the selling of.
you lot are wasting your time, creating an artificial reality that not even the masses believe.
80% do read the 10% disbelief comments and watch the odd CT video, they might not admit to being into CT, but they do know.
1 blumpkin_berry 2016-03-23
Carry on sheep
6 blumpkin_berry 2016-03-23
Nobody knows the truth yet? That's weird, because all of the news outlets and law enforcement agencies around the world sure are acting like they know the truth. Surprise surprise another "suspect" is on the run!
3 GavriloPrincep 2016-03-23
yeah, exactly.
And, what's more, the guy you are replying to (/r/10Cb) seemed to have no trouble just saying "NOBODY knows the truth", calmly ignoring the(effectively uniform) media pre-judjing that is spoon feeding the information to the world's population. We all know that he or her (or they) has seen this media agreement onslaught, but no trouble pretending the complete opposite.
1 10Cb 2016-03-23
Actually - that's the best point I've heard for a psyops - knowledge aforehand is fishy to me.
3 FatwaBurgers 2016-03-23
I don't understand why /r/conspiracy readers (allegedly) believe everything's a hoax ---- yet don't believe this subreddit is flooded with propaganda calling everything a hoax to destroy serious investigation into organized crime.
1 Juan__Lennon 2016-03-23
Try they fuck up EVERY single staged public OP that they do.
1 McLeech 2016-03-23
your question is ridicuolous
4 blumpkin_berry 2016-03-23
Don't you have MSM threads to sticky?
2 daddie_o 2016-03-23
That was from your previous comment. It wasn't reporting. It was from her Facebook profile. And I agree it could just be a mistake.
As for pristine, you once again cherry picked from my comments. I said besides the ceiling tiles and blown out windows. The picture you chose is a perfect example. Look at the walls in the background, the posters, the self-check-in kiosks, the signs with numbers indicating the aisle numbers, the sign in the foreground with 'departures' written on it. Nothing has any sign of damage from shrapnel, or really anything else. It's undamaged. All the other pictures, except for one, show the same thing.
I agree that some of it is just due to shitty reporting. But when so many people are saying the same thing and it contrasts so widely with the photographic evidence we have, then I think that's telling. As for the baby doll, well, I think you need your eyes checked.
1 daddie_o 2016-03-23
Just for the record my attitude towards you has nothing to do with my fragile ego. I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong. Hell my wife makes me admit I'm wrong twice a day.
My problem is with your transparent phoniness. You claim to be the voice of reason and to be 'engaging me in conversation' but it's just a pose. You say you don't think I'm wrong about everything, but you haven't said what you think I might be right about. As far as I can tell, you chalk it all up to problems with 'early reporting.' But the reporting hasn't changed on the key events of what happened there, and the photographic evidence still contradicts the reporting. I am open to revising my opinion if more evidence emerges, but I doubt it will. You even disagree that anything is fishy about the video of the man obviously carrying away a baby doll.
You don't agree with me at all, and that's fine. But it won't do to affect a pose of being the voice of cautious reason, because there is nothing reasonable about your position. You have offered nothing to explain all the huge discrepancies. You want us to accept the official story and ignore the evidence that anyone with half a brain and a pulse can see with their own eyes. That's not reasonable. Sorry.
2 ImostlyLurk 2016-03-23
is this a bot or a mod? banned from conspiracy for calling something what it is? -_- legit
0 Sabremesh 2016-03-23
Who are you claiming has been banned?
Abusive comments get deleted. It's a necessary rule, and without it, many conversations in this sub would collapse into slanging matches - an outcome which the enemies of the sub would love. Is that what you want?