How come we are drowning in conspiracies?

[Mark F]

Save links? What are you talking about? Just google "San Bernadino witness statements." Is your browser configured only to visit CT sites?

I Googled Scott Pelley Sally A and found it immediately. Not rocket surgery.

 

[Quag]

The account is a jumbled mess - not surprising really. Sounds to me like she is describing police tactical officers who responded to the scene.

Any reason why you are taking a quick, informal TV phone interview out of context as your sole source of evidence?

Because if he spent the time to research it he would realize it doesnt support his CT BS.
Just like his continued claims that Wally Miller said there was no plane crash, despite Wally Miller never having made such a claim.

One thing you can coutn on is that HD will always be dishonest

 

[mike2810]

I'm impressed Mike--you actually admit that it had been taken down. I would have bet you would have simply denied it, as you deny molten metal and the absence of airliners at several locations on 911. So, I guess that's progress. :mrgreen:

As to why it was taken down, your normal pattern returns. Yes, maybe it was removed because the person in charge simply had a bad day.

More likely it was removed so that future historians and researchers will not be able to hear the lady's testimony because it completely destroys the official narrative.

FYI, Alex Jones has done the same thing with the work of a man who worked with him. That fellow interviewed a man who saw the same 3 men flee the Inland Center after the shooting. By removing that brief interview, Alex' reputation as an Israeli sympathizer grows.

Life is funny, ain't it Mike?

Yes life can be funny at times. Your post just adds to the humor.

One thing that never changes is you not willing to admit your wrong, even when shown that you are. No progress in that area.

One only needs to look at AE911T to see images that were once there and were removed. Or Jones photo of firefighters looking down into a pit of molten metal, which was altered. The actual image was fftr's looking into a pit. The light was from lamps.

 

[Mark F]

Because if he spent the time to research it he would realize it doesnt support his CT BS.
Just like his continued claims that Wally Miller said there was no plane crash, despite Wally Miller never having made such a claim.

In an interview he has never provided either a quote from or a link to in spite of being repeatedly asked.

 

[Quag]

In an interview he has never provided either a quote from or a link to in spite of being repeatedly asked.

HD doesnt believe in backing up his claims with sources, that is for other people.
His stuff all comes from his memory the best and most reliable darn tooting source in the universe.

 

[Mark F]

How predictable you are Mr. Liar Pants On Fire. :lamo

Yes it is very predictable. You lie to cover our ass, I call you out on it. There is an easy way to stop this cycle. Simply stop behaving like a :censored

Now then, what made it so difficult for you to find this interview in the first place that you had to jump to the conclusion it was scrubbed from the internet (presumably by the evil gubmint)?

Why are you considering a brief live phone interview conducted by a reporter, not an investigator as the sole basis for whatever conclusion it is you are peddling?

 

[Thoreau72]

Yes it is very predictable. You lie to cover our ass, I call you out on it. There is an easy way to stop this cycle. Simply stop behaving like a :censored

Now then, what made it so difficult for you to find this interview in the first place that you had to jump to the conclusion it was scrubbed from the internet (presumably by the evil gubmint)?

Why are you considering a brief live phone interview conducted by a reporter, not an investigator as the sole basis for whatever conclusion it is you are peddling?

When I went back and found the thread I had started regarding the Scott Pelley interview, that thread included a link to the interview which I HAD FAILED TO INCLUDE in the initial post. Another poster had provided a link to the interview in about post #3 of that thread. When I clicked on that link from the other poster to refresh my memory, it did not work. I WRONGLY ASSUMED that it had been taken down. Thankfully ZY provided another link to the interview, and that link worked.

The substantive point that neither you nor ZY nor another poster will touch is WHY DID THE AUTHORITIES AND THE NETWORK not follow up on that testimony by Sally A? Because another witness in the area also reported on 3 athletic males in military garb at the same location, it seems to me that the police and CBS would want to investigate further. I guess I've watched one too many episodes of Columbo or read one too many Sherlock Holmes books? Why is it I think like a police investigator but SBPD apparently does not? Why was it dropped from the narrative, and why were 2 unlikely muslims pushed as the shooters in the official story?

The similarities between that and 911 is that in both cases the authorities never saw it coming, but before the barrels cooled on those assault rifles in SB, and before the smoke cleared that afternoon at WTC, the authorities had it all figured out down to the last detail.

I call bull**** on both the stories.

 

[Howler63]

Not sure what you're driving at......but conspiracies are fun, for one thing.

Some are real, some are not......all are fun.

I'll buy this. It is kind of fun. Especially debunking them.

 

[stg-44]

amazing

 

[Mark F]

When I went back and found the thread I had started regarding the Scott Pelley interview, that thread included a link to the interview which I HAD FAILED TO INCLUDE in the initial post. Another poster had provided a link to the interview in about post #3 of that thread. When I clicked on that link from the other poster to refresh my memory, it did not work. I WRONGLY ASSUMED that it had been taken down. Thankfully ZY provided another link to the interview, and that link worked.

But you never bothered to take the 10 seconds required to find out - you just jumped to a conclusion and ran with it. That is why you consistently get things wrong.

The substantive point that neither you nor ZY nor another poster will touch is WHY DID THE AUTHORITIES AND THE NETWORK not follow up on that testimony by Sally A?

A. A telephone interview with a reporter is not "testimony".
B. You are alleging the authorities did not interview Sally. I have seen nothing of substance or even not of substance to back up that claim.

Because another witness in the area also reported on 3 athletic males in military garb at the same location, it seems to me that the police and CBS would want to investigate further. I guess I've watched one too many episodes of Columbo or read one too many Sherlock Holmes books? Why is it I think like a police investigator but SBPD apparently does not? Why was it dropped from the narrative, and why were 2 unlikely muslims pushed as the shooters in the official story?

No doubt there are many, many witnesses to the event - we know there are - only a tiny handful of whom would have said anything at all to the media but will have given statements and been interviewed by investigators. The investigation is still ongoing so that information is not part of the public record at this time. Witness accounts being the least reliable form of evidence all of the accounts need to be compared to the known physical evidence before conclusions can be reached. Some witness accounts will be more reliable than others. It is the nature of witness accounts.

The similarities between that and 911 is that in both cases the authorities never saw it coming, but before the barrels cooled on those assault rifles in SB, and before the smoke cleared that afternoon at WTC, the authorities had it all figured out down to the last detail.

Not true in either case. You are engaging in sky-high hyperbole which is pretty bold for a guy who doesn't even think to use Google when he is looking for something.

 

[zyzygy]

When I went back and found the thread I had started regarding the Scott Pelley interview, that thread included a link to the interview which I HAD FAILED TO INCLUDE in the initial post. Another poster had provided a link to the interview in about post #3 of that thread. When I clicked on that link from the other poster to refresh my memory, it did not work. I WRONGLY ASSUMED that it had been taken down. Thankfully ZY provided another link to the interview, and that link worked.

The substantive point that neither you nor ZY nor another poster will touch is WHY DID THE AUTHORITIES AND THE NETWORK not follow up on that testimony by Sally A? Because another witness in the area also reported on 3 athletic males in military garb at the same location, it seems to me that the police and CBS would want to investigate further. I guess I've watched one too many episodes of Columbo or read one too many Sherlock Holmes books? Why is it I think like a police investigator but SBPD apparently does not? Why was it dropped from the narrative, and why were 2 unlikely muslims pushed as the shooters in the official story?

The similarities between that and 911 is that in both cases the authorities never saw it coming, but before the barrels cooled on those assault rifles in SB, and before the smoke cleared that afternoon at WTC, the authorities had it all figured out down to the last detail.

I call bull**** on both the stories.

How do you know that the authorities did not follow it up? Were you there when they interviewed her?

 

[Thoreau72]

How do you know that the authorities did not follow it up? Were you there when they interviewed her?

Because just like George Bush and 911, by the close of business it was all over. The story was told, and naturally accepted by the media and public--a muslim man and his muslim wife did all the killing.

There was never another word mentioned in the media about 3 athletic males in military garb, not one.

 

[braindrain]

I save money, but I don't save links, sorry. Likely you would not believe it anyway, and at this point in time it's irrelevant. The truth has been successfully suppressed.

In other words you have nothing and just made it up. How incredibly unlike you. That was sarcasm in case you couldn't tell.

 

[braindrain]

Because just like George Bush and 911, by the close of business it was all over. The story was told, and naturally accepted by the media and public--a muslim man and his muslim wife did all the killing.

There was never another word mentioned in the media about 3 athletic males in military garb, not one.

So the thought that they investigated it and determined that it was not 3 men in military clothing so there was zero reason to continue bringing up someone's testimony that was clearly flawed never crossed your mind

 

[Mark F]

Because just like George Bush and 911, by the close of business it was all over. The story was told, and naturally accepted by the media and public--a muslim man and his muslim wife did all the killing.

There was never another word mentioned in the media about 3 athletic males in military garb, not one.

And what possible reason for that might there be? Could it have turned out the 3 athletic men dressed like police tactical officers were in fact police tactical officers responding to the scene? San Bernadino SWAT was training just minutes away and arrived on scene very quickly.

Why do you always insist on looking at a single piece of evidence removed from proper context, insuring you will always miss the big picture? Why do you ignore all the witnesses who only saw 2 shooters? Why do you ignore all the witnesses who were co-workers of Syed Rizwan Farook and recognized him as one of the two shooters? Oh wait, they didn't go on TV telling a tale you wanted to hear. Why do you ignore the police chase in which Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife fired on and threw bombs at police? Why do you ignore the fact that ballistics tests confirm only 2 weapons were used, ruling out a 3rd shooter?

If "business was all over" by the end of the day, why did the FBI say 2 months later they had not ruled out the possibility of a 3rd shooter?

How can anyone take any of your claims seriously when you can never be bothered to even do the simplest of Google searches? That is a particular pattern we have seen over and over and over again.

 

[zyzygy]

Because just like George Bush and 911, by the close of business it was all over. The story was told, and naturally accepted by the media and public--a muslim man and his muslim wife did all the killing.

There was never another word mentioned in the media about 3 athletic males in military garb, not one.

The media didn't run the investigation.

 

[zyzygy]

So the thought that they investigated it and determined that it was not 3 men in military clothing so there was zero reason to continue bringing up someone's testimony that was clearly flawed never crossed your mind

Clearly not.

 

[chuckiechan]

First off, is we don't trust our government institutions anymore.

Second, is life is messy. Unlike NCIS, and other crime shows, results are theories, and like theories there are alternate theories. Lacking a confession or video proof, you take your theory to the jury and they agree with yours or they don't.

Some people can never absorb enough to get their minds around a theory.

 

[mike2810]

Because just like George Bush and 911, by the close of business it was all over. The story was told, and naturally accepted by the media and public--a muslim man and his muslim wife did all the killing.

There was never another word mentioned in the media about 3 athletic males in military garb, not one.

Seems VeternsToday and other sites you use also dropped the "3 athletic males in military garb" story line pretty quickly.

The evil govt. must have gotten to them also. Right HD?:mrgreen:

or could be that there was nothing to it?

 

[Thoreau72]

So the thought that they investigated it and determined that it was not 3 men in military clothing so there was zero reason to continue bringing up someone's testimony that was clearly flawed never crossed your mind

No, because they've never been asked that question, "hey what happened in the investigation, is there a case number open to public?"

Two different people saw them in 2 different locations, and it was on TV because I saw it.

And yet the story must go on, and it does, quite successfully as I'm sure you remember. :mrgreen:

 

[Thoreau72]

So the thought that they investigated it and determined that it was not 3 men in military clothing so there was zero reason to continue bringing up someone's testimony that was clearly flawed never crossed your mind

Me myself, I would prefer that it be not a thought, but a fact, that it had been investigated. If you know what I mean.:mrgreen:

 

[Thoreau72]

Seems VeternsToday and other sites you use also dropped the "3 athletic males in military garb" story line pretty quickly.

The evil govt. must have gotten to them also. Right HD?:mrgreen:

or could be that there was nothing to it?

Some of us are able to connect certain dots better than others can connect dots, life is just that way Mike.

Some of us are more perceptive and less easily fooled, and life is just that way. Some of us are able to perceive the deception practiced by our government in Washington, it's like out of a comic book, but I don't read them anymore.

Or, I've just watched too many Columbo episodes, read too many Sherlock Holmes books? Who knows, but it's easy to see the patterns and similarities. Despite the facts provided by Sally A, the story went the other way, and flooded the media with pictures of the muslim 'radicals', the story took hold, and weeks later they wanted Microsoft to invade privacy for them.

The people were fooled again, in the name of the GWOT.

 

[Thoreau72]

The media didn't run the investigation.

No **** Sherlock.

The media and government work hand-in-glove.

 

[braindrain]

And what possible reason for that might there be? Could it have turned out the 3 athletic men dressed like police tactical officers were in fact police tactical officers responding to the scene? San Bernadino SWAT was training just minutes away and arrived on scene very quickly.

Why do you always insist on looking at a single piece of evidence removed from proper context, insuring you will always miss the big picture? Why do you ignore all the witnesses who only saw 2 shooters? Why do you ignore all the witnesses who were co-workers of Syed Rizwan Farook and recognized him as one of the two shooters? Oh wait, they didn't go on TV telling a tale you wanted to hear. Why do you ignore the police chase in which Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife fired on and threw bombs at police? Why do you ignore the fact that ballistics tests confirm only 2 weapons were used, ruling out a 3rd shooter?

If "business was all over" by the end of the day, why did the FBI say 2 months later they had not ruled out the possibility of a 3rd shooter?

How can anyone take any of your claims seriously when you can never be bothered to even do the simplest of Google searches? That is a particular pattern we have seen over and over and over again.

As to the bolder that answer is simple. No one who is capable of rational though should ever talk Henry seriously.

 

[Mark F]

No **** Sherlock.

The media and government work hand-in-glove.

So Alex Jones and VeteransToday work hand-in-glove wit da gubmint? That explains a lot. Talk about your disinformation agents!

Some of us are able to connect certain dots better than others can connect dots, life is just that way Mike.

Some of us are more perceptive and less easily fooled, and life is just that way. Some of us are able to perceive the deception practiced by our government in Washington, it's like out of a comic book, but I don't read them anymore.

Before you pat yourself on the back too hard remember you were the one that was easily fooled into thinking the government had wiped the Sally A interview from the interwebs.
You you were the one that was easily fooled into thinking there was a "participants check in here" sign at Sandy Hook Elementary
You were the one that was easily fooled into thinking porta-potties had been placed at Sandy Hook ahead of the event instead of after.
You were the one that was easily fooled into thinking Sandy Hook Elementary had been closed for years due to ADA non-compliance.
You were the one that was easily fooled into thinking a routine and sloppily executed 3-minute descending turn is "impossible" - and you claim to be a pilot!

Should I continue? I can do this all day.

You've got some nerve getting on your high horse and preaching to others about being fooled.

Or, I've just watched too many Columbo episodes, read too many Sherlock Holmes books? Who knows, but it's easy to see the patterns and similarities. Despite the facts provided by Sally A, the story went the other way, and flooded the media with pictures of the muslim 'radicals', the story took hold, and weeks later they wanted Microsoft to invade privacy for them.

The people were fooled again, in the name of the GWOT.

You still have not explained why Sally Adelmageed's (hmmmm,... sounds Muslim) brief and chaotic live TV interview is sacred gospel to the extent that we have to completely ignore dozens of other witnesses - many in a better position to see what happened - and ALL of the physical evidence. Why can't you connect those dots?

Note to that while Sally describes seeing 3 athletic men dressed like,... well, like SWAT guys when asked to describe the shooter she said:

Scott Pelley: Ms. Abdelmageed, can you describe to me in as much detail as you can, what did the gunmen look like?

Sally Abdelmageed: I couldn’t see his face, he had a black hat on and from my view all I could see was a black hat and black long sleeve shirt, possibly gloves on. Ummm… he had black cargo pants on the kind with the zippers on the side and the big puffy pockets. He had a huge assault rifle and he had extra ammo. He was coming ready for, he was coming ready for something. To reload I don’t know. He had [inaudible] magazines. Umm… I couldn’t see what else, I just saw three dressed exactly the same.

The shooter is described in the singular, then she saw three others dressed the same (in black tactical gear like cops wear). But as the great connector of dots I supposed you caught that already.