8 votes

To all those demanding "Proof" regarding Conspiracy "Theories"

I am going to try to keep this short and sweet.

I have seen here, and recieved from my friends and family, demands that proof be provided to show that such and such attack was really a "false flag" operation. All of these people point out that any evidence provided is simply "conjecture" or "hearsay". Therefore, they conclude, they are going to reserve judgement or side with the official story until they are shown "proof".

Well I have news for you. It will never happen. EVER.

Proof of the sort they are seeking, forensic or otherwise, IS COMPLETELY CONTROLLED BY THE AUTHORITIES WITHIN MOMENTS AFTER THESE EVENTS. We out here in alternative media will never EVER get our hands on the actual evidence of these crime scenes. Furthermore, we have no right or ability to interrogate eye witnesses, subpoena them, or obtain unedited documents that are again CONTROLLED BY AUTHORITIES.

Thus, making such demands for proof plays right into the hands of the perpetrators IF IT WAS A FALSE FLAG ATTACK. This is like trying to prove in a court room that the judge or jury were the murderers of a case. They would never let you do it. The judge would find you in contempt and the jury would rule against you no matter what.

Therefore, in order to reach your own conclusions, you will have to do research yourself or listen to trusted sources that hopefully don't have an agenda.

To me, if the crime or attack is NOT INVESTIGATED PROPERLY BY AUTHORITIES that is CLEAR EVIDENCE of COMPLICITY and therefore GUILT.

I'm not sure about Boston, but it seems like a false flag.

As for 9/11, all I needed to see was the nine second video of WTC 7 collapsing at freefall speed.

So please tell us what reasonable proof might be provided for you? Or are you so enslaved and brainwashed by the authorities that you will only believe the "proof" that they provide?

-Daniel

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

When asked for bullet proof evidence...

I like to turn it around and ask Them exactly what bulletproof, smoking gun caliber evidence the government has provided That has satisfied Their high standard. Then watch them struggle. Most people have never been asked point-blank and they won't know what to say.

Why would they side with either side

without the evidence they need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The law dictates that one is innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt. This is the middle path to truth.

However taking the side of the official story propagated by the mainstream media without any evidence is downright dangerous. Why would someone just fall in line with the official story when the entire media has been proven to use lies, deception, trickery and conspiracy to be the cheerleaders for mass murder, torture, the Police state, bashing good people like Ron Paul, and on and on?

I am to the point that all experience with the mainstream media has proven that they are the prime driving factor in the destruction of our rights and peace. They have the right to speak freely but intentionally providing aid and comfort to the enemy of us is treason. Why would anyone side with traitors on anything especially with no real evidence?

One thing to look for with them intentionally deceiving is to ask yourself; are they propagating an outcome and conclusion universally with no real hard evidence. Are they nudging you in a direction? Do they attempt to reinforce this conclusion with "experts" who do not have access to the real evidence. This is a real sign that they are performing a coordinated attack against us in the info war.

The best thing to do is to kill your TV forever and drop the mainstream like a bad habit. Mainstream TV is worse for the human body and society at large than heroin.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

There's plenty of proof.

The problem is people who absolutely refuse to observe any proof.

Officials in government are

Officials in government are what you need to believe so you don't make the liberty movement look bad..

Our government would never conspire that a country had weapons of mass destruction so they could attack it!

Our government would never conspire to supply guns to Mexican drug gangs..

Come on you nut jobs where do you come up with this stuff?

Every time we're attacked

I'm reminded of a scene from V for Vendetta - After V bombs the Old Bailey building.


http://youtu.be/jbfxhdNpLFs

Well you make a good point.

Well you make a good point. We can never see all of the evidence. The best we can do is to try to show inconsistencies and poke holes in the official account. In other words, the best we can do is disprove the official version. It is nearly impossible, depending on available evidence, to piece together a "positive" theory of what occurred.

For example, the official account of 9/11 is full of holes and inconsistencies. Yet despite all the years of research, it is very difficult to propose a "positive"(i.e what actually happened) theory to counter the official story. Some have attempted and I have read some pretty compelling theories, but alas I have yet to see any proof.

What does that mean to us? I think we should be careful about suggesting WHAT happened and stick to, until new information becomes available, questioning and thoughtfully considering problems with the version of events that is presented to us.

"My theories explain, but cannot slow the decline of a great civilization. I set out to be a reformer, but only became the historian of decline."
- Ludwig Von Mises

Sounds Like Religion To Me

So You Suggest Proof Isn't Necessary and we are supposed to believe whatever a "conspiracy theorist" says because evidence is "controlled" by the authorities.. just like we can't question GOD because he's all knowing and powerful. No Thanks

Sounds like "Evolution" to me

Just like we can't question millions of years and the supposed "science" of evolution and i use "science" in quotes because you can't prove History with the new religion of "science"

Pull your head out of your BS that you spew

I guess you believe whatever "conspiracy theory" the government tells you .. nice work lemming

No You Can Question Evolution All You Want

Most Scientists admit they don't know everything and that the theory of evolution is changing as science finds more discoveries. Region is the one with the "trump card" by saying God is all knowing is perfect to explain the MANY inconsistencies in religions. This is beyond the point. Crying False Flag as soon as something happens is writing your own narrative before any info is published and following bloggers and hoping they don't have an agenda is not thinking critically. As is saying we don't need evidence because we know we are right.

How is this any better?

"Therefore, in order to reach your own conclusions, you will have to do research yourself or listen to trusted sources that hopefully don't have an agenda"

We are supposed to blindly follow some anonymous blogger or even worse Alex Jones (who has many special interests in the form of money and advertisers)? He didnt say blindly follow the government or MSM but to blindly follow AJ or a Blogger because they are suggesting a counter narrative is being a SHEEP with a different SHEPARD.

No

You are supposed to think critically

Asclepius's picture

Critical thinking is important, but...

I also think we should be encouraged to form our own hypothesis based on a critical analysis of the available information coupled with our experience (& intuition) and our knowledge of historical president. Yet, we should be open to reformulation if new information develops.

What we should NOT do is simply believe what billows out of the TV and then regurgitate "the official story" to others without a second thought.

The government always demands that the people "not rush to [their own] conclusions."

Of course, logic and common sense should never rise above the dictates of the state especially when the people are placed under the spell of fear. {/sarcasm}

‘Imagination is not a talent of some men, but the health of every man.’ Ralph Waldo Emerson

Saying Any Horrible Incident that Occurs

is a false flag right away before any info is released is not thinking critically. As soon as the bombing was reported people were on here yelling FALSE FLAG! just like they do in every incident. Not too long ago a house exploded bc of a gas leak in Indianapolis. Their were numerous threads on here saying drone blows up house in suburbs. It was accompanied with bogus internet facts saying the guy worked for some special tech company.

This is another good example of a thread on here today : http://www.dailypaul.com/282441/west-texas-missile-in-slow-m...

thinking critically is questioning everything including why the Government would use a missile to blow up a fertilizer plant that was already on fire...
Conspiracy people think they are thinking critically because they believe in a alternative narrative then the one the MSM is giving but the alternative narrative is even more absurd then the MSM's BS.

This is why I can't take the theorists seriously...

the attitude that you can never be wrong or mistaken - either you're right or the government covered it up. It's spiraled so out of control on here that people yell "FALSE FLAG" immediately every time something happens before any facts come out. This makes the liberty movement look bad.

I don't play, I commission the league.

Govenment is guilty until proven innocent.

If government can't establish it's innocence then what do we hope to find out for sure.

Free includes debt-free!

I want PROOF

Of the greatest conspiracy theory ever propagated on us .. the conspiracy is of course that 19 Arabs with box cutters hijacked 4 commercial airplanes, in a well coordinated attack, masterminded by a guy in cave on his satellite phone and laptop, they thwarted the best intelligence agancys and military to fly these planes for hours and then crashed three of the planes into buildings causing a fourth building to implode on itself ... Why does the Govenrment never have to prove there theorys .. cuz some of these people on here think if the government tells them the "Conspiracy Theory" that it isn't a conspiracy theory .. which is ridiculous

I'm still waiting to see

I'm still waiting to see evidence that anything other than a missile or drone hit the Pentagon. I guess physics doesn't apply to the Pentagon attack either.

“Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy.”
― Ron Paul

Not sure what you are trying to say

"Proof of the sort they are seeking, forensic or otherwise, IS COMPLETELY CONTROLLED BY THE AUTHORITIES WITHIN MOMENTS AFTER THESE EVENTS. We out here in alternative media will never EVER get our hands on the actual evidence of these crime scenes. Furthermore, we have no right or ability to interrogate eye witnesses, subpoena them, or obtain unedited documents that are again CONTROLLED BY AUTHORITIES."

Let's be clear here, asking for "proof" of a false flag and asking for evidence that leads you to believe it was a false flag are two different things. With events like this in Boston, it is not correct to say that all the evidence is controlled by the authorities. It happened in public in a crowd of people who probably all have a high definition camera on them. Look at how yesterday Alex Jones posted the very same picture of the two suspects that the officials have shown today as their suspects. Anybody(or many people for that matter)who were taking video could have unintentionally recorded one or both of the bombs being dropped, and who it was that dropped them, there's nothing to stop that from happening. Nothing stops you from looking at the pictures and identifying people there that would be witnesses and finding out who they are and interviewing them, it has been done many times for different events that have been questioned.

I don't think you believe ANY story from ANYBODY without checking out the evidence available. I mean whatever conclusion you come to about anything, there is some reason, some evidence that convinced you, to come to that conclusion. If you want people to believe something without any evidence whatsoever to support that belief, then you should expect to fail often. I don't know about you all, but I reserve judgement believing anyone's theory, official or otherwise, until I have seen enough reason to.

This time, we are ahead of

This time, we are ahead of them, and this time, they will not get away with it.

Who are "them" (sic) and who

Who are "them" (sic) and who are "we"?

I think he meant....

I think he meant us and them....

Same question applies.

Don't let government rob you blind.

Government is guilty until proven innocent.

Free includes debt-free!

deacon's picture

i can agree to a point

about government being guilty until proven innocent
but shouldn't it be guilty until proven not guilty?
after all we are supposed to be said gov,and we are always guilty first,and at best have to try to prove a negative
but there is no innocent plea,it is either guilty or not guilty ;)
and yes after all this time and all their lies,they do need to prove
themselves
deacon

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

Andrew Napalitano: Taxation Is Theft

"The Constitution doesn't permit the feds to steal your money. But steal, the feds do."

http://lewrockwell.com/napolitano/napolitano96.1.html

Free includes debt-free!

Asclepius's picture

I agree - "Government is guilty until proven innocent"

I think most here would agree that the "Government" we currently live under in America bears little functional resemblance to the historically very rare Republic that the founders initially created, a government whose primary function is to protect the rights of the individual.

Thus, the "Government" we currently live under in America has morphed into what the founders warned us it would become if we were not vigilant - the historically more common form characterized by the centralization of power over the individual.

Debating whether it is democratic, socialist, communist, tyrannical, or even a monarchy is a waste of energy and a distraction because in the end they are all driven by "collectivism." So, in this context, YES, "Government is guilty until proven innocent." After all, in this more historically common manifestation, "Govern-ment" literally means "control-mind.”

‘Imagination is not a talent of some men, but the health of every man.’ Ralph Waldo Emerson

my mind is in conflict over

my mind is in conflict over that statement

a part of me agrees, the other part doesnt want to risk the innocent

so intead of plussing or minussing, ill leave a comment instead,

i want to agree, but i probably dont.....yeah i know, not an answer, but its the closest i can give

unless offcourse you were being ironic, in how it seems governments view people in that manner, in that case, excuse my very serious answer to a very ironic joke

It was an appeal to the blind not to be naively innocent.

The threat of punishment for treason is no impenetrable barrier to wrongdoing.

Nothing about being in government sanctifies any official. After 5,000 years of history it is hard to imagine a scam or scheme that has not be tried.

The future will bring more of the same. Count on it.

I guess, if we agree it just means that government doesn't get a free pass, nor does is deserve one.

Free includes debt-free!

I'll admit that I am predisposed to distrust our government

Permit me to quote from The Freedom Answer Book by Andrew P. Napolitano:

When have presidents lied to rally support for a war?

A brief examination of our country’s short history demonstrates that many presidents have used self created fear and hysteria to justify war.

* To garner support for the Spanish-American War, President William McKinley touted the sinking of the USS Maine. McKinley claimed that a Spanish mine caused the boat’s destruction, when — according to the ship’s captain — a coal bin explosion caused the boat’s sinking.

* President Woodrow Wilson created the illusion that his soon-to-be World War I enemy — Germany — fired the first shot at the United States, when in reality Germany had notified the US that the British passenger ship, the Lusitania, carried illegal weapons and would become a German target in open waters. When the Lusitania went down near the coast of Ireland, 114 Americans went down with it.

* Franklin Delano Roosevelt was eager to fight the Germans, but he recognized that Americans were still reeling from World War I and the Great Depression. So he promised US citizens neutrality even as he planned to provoke the Japanese navy into killing American sailors, forcing him to respond militarily. FDR sent US ships into Japanese waters on so-called “pop-up” missions, and the US issued an ultimatum to Japan to remove all ships from China and Indochina.

The United States continued to monitor Japanese communications, but consciously chose not to prevent the attack. Eventually, FDR’s strategy paid off — and the cost was 2,403 dead from the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and 405,399 Americans eventually killed in World War II.

* President Lyndon B. Johnson provoked an attack to spark the Viet Nam W, claiming that America was shot at first. To carry out this charade, President Johnson pushed through a pliant Congress the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution — which was itself based on false reports of attacks on American naval forces.

* As for the War on Terror, George W. Bush purposefully inspired fear and anxiety in Americans through every channel of channel of communication available to him. Bush and his team, not having presented any convincing evidence of so-called weapons of mass destruction, lied us into war with Iraq. If the government truly believed that we were all in grave danger, if terrorists were lingering in our airports, then surely it would shift all of its resources toward eliminating that threat. So why was Congress spending money on fertilizer (the $180 billion farm bill in 2002), math books ($40 billion), job training programs, and peonies ($11 billion annually for “community development programs)?

None of Roosevelt’s, McKinley’s, Wilson’s, FDR’s, Johnson’s, or Bush’s actions were[sic] morally, legally, or constitutionally justified.

It is a history of lying and manipulation like this that suggests to me that our "leaders" would do anything to create fear in the American people so that they would support the government's actions against our "enimies." Call them conspiracy theories if you must, but I believe that there is a basis for at least being suspicious of any events like the Boston Marathon bombings.

Certainly, the preponderence of evidence shows that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition.

There is a sick, morally depraved pattern in many of the actions of our government.

Here's how it works ...

... (a) an event happens, and then (b) there is some sort of "official" theory as to what happened, and then (c) a certain portion of the population worships authority and will accept any theory that anyone in "authority" will provide, and (d) some other segment of the population will have a similar, but contrary knee-jerk reaction and question everything that the authority provides as their theory, and (e) some within the populace will not accept the "official theory" at face value, but will weigh that theory with the known or thought-to-be-known facts and will accept the theory ONLY IF it is consistent with the facts, but will question the theory IF THE THEORY DOES NOT SEEM CONSISTENT WITH THE FACTS.

It is at this point that those who bought the story hook, line, and sinker -- without any critical thought process whatsoever -- will begin to demand that those who are using an INDEPENDENT verification process (to decide whether or not they will accept the "official" theory) must come up with their own theory if they are questioning the official theory. But questioning evidence is not the same as presenting counter evidence. If this were true, then all courtrooms would demand that the defense present a better theory than the prosecution. This is how the Italian system works, but not the American system.

It is up to those who support a given theory to defend their theory and it is up to others to question the theory. But for some psychological reason, a few people are incapable of understanding that questioning a theory -- even one presented by perceived "authority" -- is a necessary part of the process IF ONE IS TO USE AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD OF PROOF.

Of course, one could just accept any crazy story that some government employee comes up with, but history has shown that it ain't exactly a smart thing to do.