April 18, 2014 at 2:39 pm #8714
haha, let’s just leave it theprice1. It’s silly to argue the toss on here. Mate, it either was or it wasn’t shown live and the truth is out in the open and quite easy to find probably. Unlike a lot of the stuff people come to this site to look at.
Wiki is a brilliant source of official information, so I don’t blame you for going there.
Peace and have a good bank holiday weekend.
DalTampraApril 18, 2014 at 3:02 pm #8715
I will be very interested to see were you are going to go with the whole thing. I will try and keep an open mind,though I do believe it was more likely to have been engineered than a hoax. It would not be a first time I have been wrong.April 18, 2014 at 4:11 pm #8716psyopticonParticipant
Isn’t it odd that there is NO live British TV footage of the alleged game on Youtube?
I knew quite a few soccer-anoraks from back then. They videoed every televised game to analyse later in slow-motion. Yet they and others all forgot to hit record on that fateful Saturday afternoon?
All we have is that single “live” excerpt from Irish RTE. Video recorders were commonplace in the home in 1989, yet there’s no “live” BBC/ITV footage? Doesn’t that tell us that the alleged game was NOT screened live in Britain?
For all the wrong reasons, it was a hugely important soccer event. Yet there’s no surviving footage in the public domain to speak of. Sorry, I’m not buying that.
Aren’t the TV cameras in a soccer stadium normally operated by a third party, any way?
Commercial third parties who then license their feeds to the broadcasters (BBC/RTE/ITV) ? Who then mix those live feeds in with their own mindless commentary, etc. Isn’t that how it works?
If so, the “live” RTE footage of the alleged game would be from that same contracted commercial third party. Which means that even if the BBC had screened it live – it would be the same footage shot from identical cameras as the RTE footage.
The Hillsborough Disaster has all the hallmarks of a hoax, not a staged event.
I would suggest that the “live” footage was pre-recorded. Meaning the players in both teams would have to be in on the scam; perhaps recording those few seconds of “live” footage in a pre-match friendly kick-about.
The fake footage of the crowd, and the “tragic crush”, would then be recorded separately on a separate video layer, and overlaid onto the “live” action on the pitch.
Of that six minutes of RTE footage, only a few dozen frames included BOTH the players and the spectator crowd. It’s quite feasible, even back in 1989, for those few frames to be video composite fakes.April 18, 2014 at 5:41 pm #8718
If so, the “live” RTE footage of the alleged game would be from that same contracted commercial third party. Which means that even if the BBC had screened it live – it would be the same footage shot from identical cameras as the RTE footage.
Yes. I think that’s right. ie We do have live footage of those 6 minutes from RTE.
If it had been ( was ) aired live on BBC, that’s what it would have looked like.
The Hillsborough Disaster has all the hallmarks of a hoax, not a staged event. I would suggest that the “live” footage was pre-recorded. Meaning the players in both teams would have to be in on the scam; perhaps recording those few seconds of footage in a pre-match friendly. The fake footage of the crowd, and the “tragic crush”, were recorded separately on a separate video layer, which was overlaid.
Interesting. I’m still favouring the idea that the real crush served its’ purpose. There was a genuine crush and this makes the eventual apparent loss of life, all the more credible. I think it’s pretty disgusting if they did it that way, it shows scant regard for humanity, squashing them in there. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if there were some actual casualties ( as well as vicsims) if this were true. It’d be a pretty disgusting op.
Having had a real crush gives the whole thing credibility. As with the Bradford fire where there was a real fire and it was very hot and dangerous, I think the real and dangerous crush was perhaps integral to the plan. You couldn’t convince anyone in the crush that it ‘didn’t happen’. They were there getting crushed too.
There was never much film of people being suffocated as I remember. It was the newspaper pictures that showed us the horror with this one. The TV never gave us the money shots.
That last edition of The Sun being the one that inflamed so many scousers and led to a ground level, anti-Sun, campaign which endures to this day.
Overall, right now, I trust your gut, Psyopticon, on the overall psy-op of Hillsborough.
When I first posted on it the other night I really didn’t have a firm take.
Your take and your confidence that it was an op, gave me the impetus to make that leap, if you will.
It was quite a big one for me to come round to that thinking (quite quickly) as we exchanged posts on Sunday.
Right now, I think Hillsborough and Bradford were both controlled events ( I wonder what your take on Bradford is? psyopticon and anyone else for that matter) and I hadn’t even really considered either as such until five days ago.
DalTampraApril 18, 2014 at 7:17 pm #8720
Excuse my return to Bradford, but I’ve not finished with that yet.
In fact, ‘I’m on fire’ if you pardon the reference.
I’ve come to understand in the last year that football is completely controlled and has been for a long time. Living with this idea, I’ve come to see that there is a need for agents. Controlled players within teams – fixers.
Men on the inside.
Meet Terry Yorath
Terry Yorath joined Don Revie’s Leeds at age 17. Leeds were a top team at that time – hence a team with the hidden hand very much behind them as I see it. A brief study of Revie will tell you that he was accused (in 1973) of offering (later) Sunderland manager Bobby Stokoe £50 to throw a match in 1965. This and other rumours didn’t stop Revie becoming England manager in 1975 but did lead to him doing a runner to Saudia Arabia when he thought the truth was going to come out. It didn’t, football is a sacred cow in the UK.
As I see it, Yorath was probably groomed from early on as a man on the inside of football. By the time he was Bradford player/coach in 1985 he was well established, their success a sign of his contacts rather than his genius with tactics – Bradford’s winning season in 1985 would be fixed, because they all are. The fixing of the 1985 season meant that the last game would be at Valley Parade on 11th May with a full crowd and an excuse for the TV cameras.
On that day Yorath had a role. Still wearing his number 6 shirt he was to go over and assist with the evacuation of the stands, making sure he was seen ‘injuring’ himself in the process. He then apparently went to a bar, threw a chair through a window and helped people escape. Why they never thought of that, we’re not told.
Anyway, this hero was then to fill-the-press-in with carefully worded gory details and stories of it being like a movie.
Go to 5:00 minutes on this interesting film and check out the tale of the old man with his arms across his chest, that had gone white…mmm…
Yorath was, and is, it very much looks like to me, a controlled, connected man. He’s an agent of sorts.
It’s no surprise his daughter Gabby, is in television, or that he rose to be Wales manager…
Yorath was written-in to be involved in The Bradford fire and to continue to promote it through the years for his masters. He’s a ‘player’ alright.
This one was interesting to me too. We get a chance to meet the incredibly unrepentant chairman Stafford Heginbotham, who seems to have suffered a bit from the dirty fall-out of such a fiery con, and he’s not particularly pleased about it. He feels that actually they should thank him probably. My ear caught the word ‘resilient’ and that he was looking to go forward and prosper post- fire with a kind of Sandy Hook optimism-and the game was up for me. I’ve heard that before. It’s the same lingo of the Rockefeller foundation and the 1000 resilient cities. This genie is all over psyops like a bad suit. Lo and behold, there’s me listening out for contemporary football people (who’ve clearly sat around tables with men who told them to say it) who use the word resilient, and I get it twice in that little film from 1985! Once from John Helm and once from Stafford Heginbotham. Same old word. Cities and teams face adversity and then they’re resilient and they develop. Going forward, always into their provided light.
Bradford? Out of the fire came a new state of the art ground and all the way into the premier league by the year 1999. Who woulda thunk it? Since then? Well, they dropped like a stone down to the bottom rung of the entire league including two periods of being in administration. Then, they became the first team from the bottom league to reach a Wembley final and now they’re back up into the third league. Resilient Cities can do that, you see. Funny old game.
DalTampraApril 18, 2014 at 9:41 pm #8726
1971 VICSIMS ANYONE?
Well, this thread has looked at Hillsborough and Bradford. It would seem obvious to look at the second worst football disaster in British history.
Ibrox 1971 here’s the wiki link for the official drone:-
66 dead? The worst football tragedy in British history until Hillsborough?
Well, by now I’m sure many of you think the same way I do.
That number has been written into British history a few times. 1066 William the Conquerer, the Great Fire of 1666 – that financial centre clear-out job, way ahead of 9/11 – oh and don’t forget (remember football is totally controllable) 1966 and the World Cup. How appropriate.
So they wanted to press that message home with the Ibrox disaster. Regardless of how many real casualties there were. That number is, in all likelihood, deliberately inserted. The devil reference works.
From my brief perusal, I think people died. I think there were at least two incidents of death on that stairway – ‘stairway 13’ – previously.
With this precedent a ‘natural accident’ could have been orchestrated.
The crush occurred when Celtic scored a goal in the last minute (this was a big derby game). Disappointed Rangers fans began to leave up stairway 13. This would be predictable.
Then, in injury time Rangers scored and the leaving spectators turned round and tried to surge back down to the ground. Again, predictable. This is when the crush occurred and the rails collapsed…or was it the other way round?
Football is completely controllable, down to last minute goals. In fact especially last minute goals. The 90th minute is the most common minute to score in and that isn’t by chance. Last minute goals appear to be a speciality of the fixers. Believe me, it can be done and is frequently and a top flight game such as this would be completely controlled. What happens between Rangers and Celtic affects how people behave -and it’s controllable.
My point here is that by controlling the game, you can control the crowd.
Big power knows this. It’s actually what this thread is all about.
In the case of Ibrox, they could control the movement of the crowd and create the perfect storm by controlling the game.
People had died in crushes on that stairway before. I think they did again.
The rails? Why when I saw them did my mind go to lamp posts outside the pentagon?
I think people died, but I don’t think 66 did. 5 boys from one street in a little Scottish village are said to have perished. Obscure village? All from one street? That’s either very tragic or very contrived.
It’s a little bit fluffy today, compared to something deadly like that (if that’s what it was) in the world of 21st century psy-ops. It strikes me that even in that world there’s some kind of nod to improved Health and Safety today, if you will.
I think they made that ‘natural’ crush occur at Ibrox in 1971. If they didn’t, they must have been pretty quick rustling up some extra vicsims to boost the death toll and turn it into an era defining event. That doesn’t seem as likely as the former to me.
Hey. Ground safety improved after that. People had died previously on that stairwell. That’ll be the excuse. Not that you’ll ever get to hear it!
IBROX 1971 – The second biggest football black-op in British history.
DalTampraApril 18, 2014 at 9:54 pm #8729psyopticonParticipant
Looking again at that RTE footage of Hillsborough, and even from the outset, things aren’t ringing true.
0m08s in the RTE footage and the ball, or at least a ball, is on the centre spot:
At 0m13s — we get a wide angle shot of the whole pitch. And that ball which was on the centre-spot just seconds ago has vanished!:
And yet the referee and a nearby Forest player remain in essentially the same position. No other player has entered the centre circle. So where did it go? There are a few other balls being kicked around in practice. Is it one of those? Though why would anyone remove the ball from the centre-spot, seconds before kick-off?
Also at 0m08s — notice the shadow cast by the referee. In length it’s about half his height, and falls roughly perpendicular to the centre line, i.e. it’s roughly parallel to the side-lines:
The ref’s shadow seems inconsistent. e.g. two seconds later, at 0m10s, it disappears altogether:
Yet not so for the nearby Forest player, whose shadow remains strong at 0m12s:
0m29s — take a look now at the angles of the shadows being cast by the players. Do they match the shadow cast just seconds earlier by the referee? Shadows now seem to be cast at about 45 degree to the centre line:
Yet some of the players don’t seem to be casting shadows at all.
E.g. look at 0m34s and the Forest players on the far right: no shadows! Yet all the Liverpool players on the near left are casting strong shadows of their own:
0m43s — Forest manager Brian Clough is filmed in the tunnel. That could have been shot at any time, and just spliced in. The camera cuts and we don’t actually see Cloughie emerge into the daylight (although the crowd apparently cheers him on!):
0m49s — shadow issues again. The cameraman is on the centre-line. And yet the Forest players on the far right are still casting no shadows. While the Liverpool players, a similar distance to the left, are all casting strong shadows:
0m56s — kick-off (genlocked mess!)
1m12s — look at the shadow angle now. It’s being cast virtually parallel with, rather than perpendicular to the penalty line:
2m02s — now look again at the shadow angles. Play is at the other end of the pitch, but the shadows are far from parallel with that penalty line. Maybe 30 degrees from parallel? How so?:
3m20s — the camera shot is now on the centre line, and the shadows are still consistent with those cast at 2m02s – perhaps 30 degrees from a parallel with the centre-line.
4m53s — very strong shadows still being cast at roughly 30 degrees from the centre-line parallel:
5m00s — suddenly the shadows disappear and it feels overcast (although we can’t see the sky to confirm for ourselves):
5m23s — first sign of a pitch invasion. Low scale; a handful on the grass behind the Liverpool goal line. No remark as yet from the commentators:
5m33s — number of spectators behind goal line – far side of the Liverpool goal – has swelled.
5m35s — sizeable crowd now on the pitch, near-side of the Liverpool goal. None look especially disturbed. Some seen climbing on the barrier:
5m46s — the commentator announces that “the police have taken the decision to open the gates to ease the crush“. The police and commentators really were in such immediate and close contact?
Another issue in this RTE footage, which stands out to me (albeit as a soccer rookie) is what appears to be a distinct dis-interest, almost a de-synchronisation between the alleged spectators and the alleged ball action.
From their head motions, the supporters at times don’t really seem to be following the ball movement at all.
Something else. At various points (e.g. 2m10s) there are quite a number of people walking briskly and meaningfully behind the advertising boards at the Liverpool end:
Who are those people? They don’t seem official (no uniforms) and don’t even seem interested in the game. At 2m16s there is another shot of them on the move. Who can they be?
Also, at that point (2m16s) there are several people climbing on the barrier, but no obvious sign of any sort of crush in the Liverpool stand. In fact, it looks like there’s still plenty of free movement.
Hmm..April 19, 2014 at 8:06 am #8732
The shadows, I dunno. The one seemingly parallel to the line is definitely incongruous, but on reviewing the footage it seems to perhaps be a fleeting illusion.
But maybe the camera angle is important. Maybe it changes.
The original camera shot at 0:49 and 0:56 for the kick-off, appears to be coming from right on the centre, line as you’d expect.
Then by the shot at 3:20 it appears the camera is situated slightly to the right of the centre line. This seems weird, is it normal?
The people behind the goal? There seemed to be a steady stream of people walking along. My take at this point is that maybe, they’re spectators who have freed themselves from the ‘crush’ and are heading somewhere as directed by the police.
As you say though. They don’t look at the pitch, they’re not animated. If people were really being crushed you’d expect perhaps more urgency or some sort of gesticulation or something. This doesn’t seem like a very serious situation is just behind them.
The other thing of note to me was the commentator:
”5m46s — the commentator announces that “the police have taken the decision to open the gates to ease the crush“. The police and commentators really were in such immediate and close contact?”
Considering it was a gate being opened that apparently caused the fatal crush, then this line could be implanted. The suggestion that the police were opening gates to ease the crush certainly suggests the police are doing a good job by opening gates. Perhaps there were gates visible to him – there were some doors in those cages that the fans were pinned in. Maybe he was literally seeing policemen open them. But like you, I’m suspicious. ”The police have taken the decision …(to open the gates) ” It sounds more like an official statement than an observation, but commentators are weird…
Photo analysis and video fakery is not my strong point. I don’t see things as quickly as others, I don’t think. I find the big picture doesn’t jump out at me instantly. I find myself thinking ”Why would they bother to go to all that trouble to fake that?”
But I’ve heard that question before. Normally aimed at me.
Right now, I’m thinking there was a second camera to the right of the one on the centre line.
If so,why? Possibly to a) Have a camera position a little further away from the hot spot so as not to see things in quite such detail from the broad shot?
b) Simply to have a second feed? To have options on what it looked like?
My theory on Hillsborough, as it stands, is that a crush was engineered and deliberately prolonged to the point of panic. This was vital to the op in creating an atmosphere of fear and to make the subsequent, largely, if not wholly, invented, carnage seem real.
Some control of the television would seem to be a given. Delaying helping people, not opening gates and standing around doing nothing (as policemen were blamed for doing) is not good. If there had been detailed footage of this it wouldn’t be good. Maybe there was just a second camera for the basic wide shot to reduce detail of the important end.
If that is a second camera near the half way line, and that’s not normal, then it surely would be telling.
DalTampraApril 19, 2014 at 8:48 am #8733
Just after the match gets called off, you can see spectators going up and speaking to Steve Nichol. Would that have been possible to fake in 1989. Brian Clough was not the sort of person who you would think they would get to be involved in what your talking about. The terraces behind the goal are split into pens and the worst of the crushing happens in the centre pen, it was not so bad in the pens either side of the centre pen.
The policeman in charge that day had never done a football match before and it seems that it was him that give the order to open the gate allowing people into the already overcrowded terrace. The only people who should be behind the goal are the ballboys and the people who watch the crowd. There are that many supporters behind the goal its impossible to say whos who. You can see people walking round the pitch to get back out of the ground by going up the steps of the stands and the passages beside the pens.
What about the families and the witnesses who were there. What about the footage of the people who were there that day. There is no way that they could all be actors. They can not get some credible actors to do these hoaxes these days, But 25 years ago they were amazing. The footage that was shown on the BBC will be very hard to come by with the BBC being a government agency and the police being the cause. Some of the footage has been used in some of the documentarys that have been done on the subject and maybe after the inquests some more of the footage might be made available.April 19, 2014 at 10:09 am #8735
The policeman in charge that day had never done a football match before and it seems that it was him that give the order to open the gate allowing people into the already overcrowded terrace.
That fact is a stunning one. Stunning. The policeman in charge had never done a football match before.
This strikes me as totally absurd. Why on earth would someone be given such power for the first time, on the occasion of an FA cup semi-final between Liverpool and Forest at Hillsborough?
Possibly the most challenging game to take charge of?
Gimme a break. So he hadn’t done so much as a Cambridge Utd game before that?
It’s a joke.
he terraces behind the goal are split into pens and the worst of the crushing happens in the centre pen, it was not so bad in the pens either side of the centre pen.
This is important to know, theprice. The centre pen was where the real crush was and where the bad stuff is said to have happened. It was concentrated there.
What about the families and the witnesses who were there. What about the footage of the people who were there that day. There is no way that they could all be actors. They can not get some credible actors to do these hoaxes these days, But 25 years ago they were amazing. The footage that was shown on the BBC will be very hard to come by with the BBC being a government agency and the police being the cause. Some of the footage has been used in some of the documentarys that have been done on the subject and maybe after the inquests some more of the footage might be made available.
Post a link to a video of a credible witness and I’ll have a look.
There were many, many real witnesses there that day as far as I see it.
ie there was a real Liverpool crowd in the stadium. But what did they really see?
I’m saying there were actors within the crowd. There was a real, contrived crush and then actor pairs could go to work. One collapsing, one tending, howling anguish, giving the kiss of life. A young boy being given the kiss of life by a couple of policemen, maybe( make sure to get the photos). When this scripted drama begins, a sudden, terrible ‘reality’ dawns on everyone in the stadium. Mass hysteria, mass shock, hey then we felt the same when we saw it on Tv.
People could genuinely start crying. It’s real to them. They were in a crush so they know that was real, then they see a child getting mouth to mouth and people dropping around them and men howling – it’s terrible.
That memory can make for a genuinely tearful and honest witness. But what did he really see?
Hey, there’s no fake blood needed here. Death by being squashed doesn’t have to leave very obvious signs. Especially to the lay man.
That’s where I’m at. A real, horrible crush ( the bastards ) with real injuries possibly and a real sense of panic, prolonged just enough( hence the accusations of Liverpool supporters of police just standing there),and then actors.
This photograph is powerful, you can see why the photographers were right on that one…two in the background getting the shot… policemen giving a young boy the kiss of life.
My questions would be:
1) Why are they seemingly up the other end of the pitch where hardly anyone is ? If he needs mouth to mouth, you don’t wanna be wasting time taking him far. I’m a healthcare professional. I should know. Why is he there?
2) Where’s his Dad or his guardian at this point?
DalTampraApril 19, 2014 at 10:39 am #8737
Further on Hillsborough. The FA Cup Final that year was between Liverpool and Everton.
At risk of labouring my point. Football is completely controlled. This I can
That is a big deal. It means that every Premier League Champion and every Cup Final Winner has only won because they were supposed to. Everything at the top level is fixed, all the results. Everything.
You see, if you can control the game, you can control the crowd. This is the very thing that real big power does. That’s their thing. They control the ‘games’, so they can control the crowd.
It’s a brilliant example of how it all works in many walks of life.
So yes, the Cup Final being between Everton and Liverpool that year, was a logical way to bring the reds and the Blues of Merseyside together after Hillsborough.
Hillsborough was always set to be the same teams in the semi as from the previous year and then Liverpool and Everton were always going to meet in the final.
That was fixed – because it all is.
It makes Hillsborough being an Op, all the more credible. It all fits.
DalTampraApril 19, 2014 at 10:55 am #8739
There have been lots of witnesses and family members who were there who have given interviews. Start with the videos you posted on this thread and point out which ones you believe are acting. Thats the theory that you are promoting, surely you have some evidence to back up what your saying. You say that there were pairs of actors in the crowd but were is the evidence. You believe that they engineered a crush but then used actors. For what? to act like they had been in a crush, which they had. They would not have had to do much acting.
Question 1. It is impossible to tell how far he has been taken and impossible to know why he is in that exact spot.
Question 2. Its impossible to tell what age the person is, it seems to be a male but again thats impossible to tell. Maybe he is old enough to go to the match alone or with friends and its also impossible to tell if his dad or guardian is not standing beside or behind the camera man.April 19, 2014 at 11:17 am #8741
Good shout. I’ll have a look.
DalTampraApril 19, 2014 at 11:27 am #8743
I have already seen that documentary that you posted when it was on the TV and I have seen them people being interviewed at other times and I consider them all to be credible.
It would have been very easy just to engineer the disaster and blame the Liverpool fans. They had been blamed for the Hysel stadium incident which seen all english teams banned from european competition for 5 years. The national perception of scousers has never been great, we have all heard the jokes.
Q. If you see a Scouser on a bicycle, why should you never swerve to hit him?
A: It might be your bicycle
Q: What do you call a Scouser in a suit?
A: The accused.
Engineer the crush, use the media to smear the fans, cover it up and the jobs done. Though the families wouldnt give up.April 19, 2014 at 1:26 pm #8745
This is just one local TV clip but I think it’s interesting.
We get one girl who lost a brother who says -glassy-eyed, but without running tears – ”I just want to prove he didn’t die a lie.’
And another girl who was six when she lost her father there.
They’re looking for witnesses, let alone me! If they can’t find them?…You get me?
The BBC Panorama documentary -posted below.
That establishment mouthpiece will be spinning it however they want and CANNOT be trusted. Surely we know that? We do get the guy who said he was in the temporary morgue and saw the guy punching the wall.
He seemed genuine to me – I’m not saying he was or he wasn’t, but he just seems genuine to me on watching it a couple of times.
We do hear about the morgue. They weren’t allowed to touch their relatives. How far did it go? Could they see them? It doesn’t seem like it. Was it was identification through polaroid, was that it? That’s what it seems like.
The plain clothes cop in the crowd is an interesting detail. Actors in the crowd? There you go. I don’t mean to be glib, but it’s a fact that there were police actors in the crowd anyway. That was par for the course.
The woman at 17:54 talking about the moment she’d realised she lost both her daughters. Well…I just don’t know. She could or she couldn’t be telling the truth.
My theory at this point says that there could, and probably would, be real injuries. This was a real crush and it was dangerous. It’s not unreasonable within my theory that there was some real fatalities caught up in this nasty plan. Hey, would it hurt? I’m fully with vicsims here, but I do wonder if some were real.
That’s my take on the Ibrox 66. Some real people did die, it would seem to me ( people had died before in crushing there-twice ) but the crush was engineered and then the number of dead greatly exaggerated.
Crushing deaths are difficult to pin on anyone. The people were killed by their people, if you will. They crushed themselves…
DalTampraApril 19, 2014 at 1:57 pm #8747
Why did you post it if it cant be trusted. There are always undercover police at football matches, especially in the 80s. Not really the same as people involved in a hoax type scenario. Have you got anything that you would say is evidence to back up any of the statements that you are making. The people appear to be genuine to me. The family members that they are talking about would be fake then. Have you found the family members they are discussing to establish if they are fake. The women (doreen jones) who says that she was not allowed to touch her son, her husband (leslie jones) speaks just before her and described how his son was wheeled in and he identified him then his girlfriend was wheeled in and he identified her. Other people describe being in the gymnasium while identifications were taking place.April 19, 2014 at 2:13 pm #8748
Do you think 3000 people died in the twin towers on 9/11?
DalTampraApril 19, 2014 at 2:27 pm #8750
No, though I can’t see how that is relevant to the hillsborough disaster.April 19, 2014 at 3:29 pm #8755
The concept of simulated victims is totally relevant.
The more death you have, the more powerful the op. It seems abundantly clear that this is the MO of whoever carries out these ‘mass casualty’ operations.
Why would this be different theprice1? Because it’s too close to home? You can’t see it? Jeez man, if they conned Americans with 3000 dead on 9/11 do you think they can’t pull it off with the 96? Gimme a break.
I’ve already said I’m open to there being actual casualties. Did you read that? It feels like you’re just being close-minded and denying there could be any faked victims. With what I know that seems very short-sighted.
If this is an orchestrated event, then it’s completely legitimate to question
if victims were faked. If you’re too close to this one to seriously consider it, then fine. I won’t take you that seriously though. The 96? Do you not question that figure?
You wasted time yesterday (big deal, my time isn’t that precious!) arguing the toss on a point that I knew from memory. You persisted and what we’re left with is a small irrelevant section of the thread where you prove yourself wrong.
I was a bit unsure about you but then you came out with the statement:
I will be very interested to see were you are going to go with the whole thing. I will try and keep an open mind,though I do believe it was more likely to have been engineered than a hoax. It would not be a first time I have been wrong.
and I thought, ‘This guy is really alright’.
Then today I post a Panorama edition saying the BBC can’t be trusted and you reply:
”Why did you post it then?’
Are you serious? It’s no different from posting information from Wikipedia and calling it Wonkypedia.
Wikipedia is still a good source of information if you’re looking for the ‘official’ story. Any researcher can gain a great deal from it from reading on ,and between, the lines.
The BBC too, is an excellent source of information when studying something like this. That it can’t be trusted is just how it is – one needs to look at it through those glasses.
I don’t think I really should need to explain this.
Engineer the crush, use the media to smear the fans, cover it up and the jobs done. Though the families wouldnt give up.
That’s your take, and fair enough. I’m not going to sit here and pick holes in it. I’m going to carry on and do my own research because that’s what I’m interested in.
DalTampraApril 19, 2014 at 4:04 pm #8757
You posted the panorama programme on the 13th april with the statement.
BBC PANORAMA one would think, would be as good as anywhere to look for some bum steers as they say down the gallops.
when I referred to something in it, You said that cant be trusted.
You didnt prove me wrong either, I remember it being on the TV and you remember it not being on the TV. We left it at that unless you have come up with footage from grandstand to prove it was not on.
I never said it wasn’t possible, anythings possible. I said that you have not presented any evidence to support the statements your making. Im not stopping anyone from doing any research on the subject.
You talk about vicsims yet you have yet to present any evidence to support a single vicsim. You talk about pairs of actors in the crowd, but no evidence to support it. It seems though that a different viewpoint is not appreciated or any challenge to the statements that your making.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.