Comment: Why do you assume that is the backpack that exploded?

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: I agree with you fishy. (see in situ)

Michael Nystrom's picture

Why do you assume that is the backpack that exploded?

You see a picture of crumpled fabric and you "know" it is the exploded backpack?

How do you come by that information? The MSM? I thought the MSM was a false narrative? But it is ok to pick and choose some information from the MSM to build your case?

All I'm trying to do is show that what you and the guy in the video call "proof" is just conjecture, based on assumption. If you change the assumption, the "proof" falls apart.

Lots of backpacks have little white squares on them.

To be mean is never excusable, but there is some merit in knowing that one is; the most irreparable of vices is to do evil out of stupidity. - C.B.