Welcome, Guest

 or  Register
NewsFeed

I don't believe this Christchurch Massacre was Real - not just False Flag, but a Hoax*MERGED*
(04-15-2019, 01:14 AM)Deepsouthlady Wrote:
(04-15-2019, 01:10 AM)Elric Wrote:
(04-15-2019, 12:38 AM)Deepsouthlady Wrote: Ok. What the hell.... @Sassy  @Dawahproof @Elric. This is a thread about the nz shooting. You know the false flag that allowed NZ to confiscate guns. Yet yall have turned it into a pissing contest, on who right and whos wrong. Come on yall! We r not liberals who scream at pwople whos opinion differs fro. Ours. We listen and decide for ourselves. I did post a clearer video than live4 had the same day as event.

It seems dawah is saying this event was a falseflag. Which we all know is truth. I also believe the video was prerecorded. Some stuff that cant be explained there. But it was real. People died.

Facepalm

Yes Facepalm  Facepalm  exactly what i am feeling reading yall criticizing each other. Fucking face palm. Smack my head.

3palm
Deepsouthlady  likes this!
Reply Share
alright ladies and gents, how aboot we all have a drink and relax... Drinks
Deepsouthlady, SoldiersAngel  likes this!
Reply Share
(04-15-2019, 02:04 AM)Elric Wrote:
(04-15-2019, 01:14 AM)Deepsouthlady Wrote:
(04-15-2019, 01:10 AM)Elric Wrote: Facepalm

Yes Facepalm  Facepalm  exactly what i am feeling reading yall criticizing each other. Fucking face palm. Smack my head.

3palm

Ok ur point is what exactly? What do u think i said wrong in b my original post
We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.
Abraham Lincoln


The very word 'secrecy' is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings.
John F. Kennedy
Reply Share
Once more, everyone needs to look at these screen caps of gun boy "shooting" a drag dummy.  It absolutely IS a dummy, exactly like those with which LE and rescue people train for when they might have to haul an injured person out of harm's way, etc.  Those used in this production appear to be "EconoMan" models.  Sized, jointed, and weighted to approximate a human body, but no life-like frills.

Here gun boy has delivered a "bullet".  Can see an overlaid (shopped), inaccurate high velocity blood spray pattern, yet zero damage to the target:


[Image: m2.png]


Here is the same dummy that gun boy only seconds earlier "shot".  We can see nearly the entirety of the dummy's head in these two images.  There is CLEARLY NO DAMAGE TO THE FABRIC COVERED HEAD, after it was shot, even with a more than 180 degree view of the head:


[Image: m3.png]

While we're at it, I'm 100% satisfied that the "person" arranged under the bench in the first image is also a drag dummy.  Note the same solid white, TOO SMALL head, the disproportionate stuffing of the clothing.  The hands/arms folded beneath the bodies to conceal the hands, because the hands on drag dummies are not life-like.  We can see one "hand" exposed in the second image.  It is the same white jersey fabric as the head and feet, and has a sock-like shape rather than a human hand shape.

The above proof is inarguable. 

Frame X frame analysis reveals several of these things visible in the large room and in the corridor.

The entire video is simply abounding with amateur production mistakes. Regardless of carefully curated walls of text designed to sow doubt and deflection from photographic proofs, this was a complete hoax production. Whether using pre-recorded and edited drill footage or specifically produced whole cloth, the usual multiple goals and end results were once again swiftly achieved, and apparently with zero pushback.
The storm approaches, with fury destined to be unleashed.
Reply Share
Responding to Elric's comments:

Yes I am extremely prejudiced against those who have an agenda to destroy our culture, to kill us, to rape our girls & who revere a filthy pedophile who drank camel piss & who kept sex slaves. Yet you seem to have a problem with that.

Are there ANY Muslims you aren't prejudiced against, or do you believe that they ALL have an agenda to destroy our culture, kill us, or rape our girls?

No I didn't catch Mo the Pedophile in congress with a goat, what a ludicrous claim. Goats & other farm animals are not safe around moslimes. As they follow every other foul deed that he committed - you know, raping non-moslimes, keeping sex slaves, drinking warm camel piss, slaughtering innocents, pedophilia, etc., it's reasonable to presume that they got the idea to fornicate with animals from the foul creature himself.

I don't think it's reasonable to presume these types of things. Muslims will usually demand proof whenever someone makes a negative claim about their prophet, so whenever I say something negative about their prophet (like him being caught in bed with one of his concubines in the home of one of his eleven wives), I always have the proof at hand, from their own sources, to back it up.

I'm not able to do that with your "goat fucker" presumption. Are there Muslims who have sex with animals? Probably. But is that an idea they got from Muhammad? Not according to their sources: "The Messenger of Allah said: 'Whoever has intercourse with an animal, kill him and the animal too.'" (Sunan Abu Dawud, #4464)

Why would you defend the evil thing if you're not a moslime?  

I'm not defending him. I just don't like to accuse him of doing something I can't prove. If I can't prove it, I don't make the accusation. As for the raping of non-Muslims, keeping sex slaves, prescribing camel urine to cure an illness, beheading young Jewish boys, having sex with a 9 year old girl who he married when she was 6 – how can I argue with any of those facts? They are all documented in their sources.

You say "negative things about Muhammad all the time" You do? I haven't noticed.

Of course you haven't. I never mentioned them here.

Moslimes consider any non-moslime as beneath them, as people for them to dominate & to do as they please. They consider me as an "enemy" regardless of what I do or say. So I couldn't give a flying fark what the vile creatures think of me.

Do you believe that ALL Muslims have this mentality?

How is it a "lie" when I don't know & said as much? What I said was that you appeared suspicious, & gave my reasons why, & simply asked you a few questions that you initially refused to answer, raising my suspicions even further.
Then I asked you to make it clear what you thought of Muhammad the Pedophile which you also refused to do.


No. It's a lie because what you said was, "Sets up an account on 31/3, then starts to post just on this thread TO TRY & CONVINCE OTHERS THAT THIS IS ANYTHING OTHER THAN A DS OPERATION to make Whitey look bad & to disarm honest citizens."

What you see in BOLD CAPS is what I have an issue with. What did I ever type in any of my posts that made you accuse me of posting on this thread to try to convince others that this was anything than a DS operation? THAT is the question that I want you to answer.

You said you'd put me on ignore. So you lied? To be honest I really don't care one way or the other but please, do make up your mind rather than flinging around idle threats.

I never said that I would "put you on ignore". What I said was, "Unlike XassX, I can ignore someone without actually putting them on ignore." In other words, I would still read your posts, but if I didn't like the questions you were asking, I would ignore them. It didn't mean that I was going to go to your profile and click the "Add to Ignore List" button like she did with me.

If you think that my comments are just "anti-moslime and anti-islamic rhetoric", then you really do need to read the Devils Handbook, aka the koran.

I've read it, and I know that their scripture teaches them that "kafirs" like you and I are the worst of creatures.

It's comments like that that raises others suspicion. Islam is a vile disease that has no place in civilised countries. Can't you see that?

Yep.

If you're not a moslime or a moslime sympathiser then you have my unreserved apologies. I do mean that. If you aren't then you should have made that clear from the start.

Let me ask you a question, and be completely honest with me. I don't know if you believe that 50 Muslims were actually killed in Christchurch, but if they were, is this heinous act something that you condone or is it something that you condemn?

My tolerance for these vile invaders, their 'culture' & their agenda is extremely low, as it should be for all moral civilised people.

So what type of behavior should they expect from you once your extremely low tolerance completely runs out?
Reply Share
(03-25-2019, 04:11 PM)Mehitable Wrote:
(03-25-2019, 10:26 AM)Ravenage Wrote: Has the issue with the socks been posted yet?

I haven't been able to keep up with the thread.

[Image: ae520f6aa63d25b7299fcb2db620755e9951a329...3e997d.jpg]

Some are saying he had blue shoes with white soles on his feet thus the discrepancy in the pics, but they don't wear shoes in mosques, right?


Wow, I missed this one!  

No, that is an absolute continuity error in editing the video.  He is clearly barefoot in one shot going in, and wearing socks as gunman goes out - he must have got cold feet in between takes, LOL.  They don't wear shoes in mosques and even if he were, how can you go from a dead guy with white soles to a dead guy with blue socks, that still doesn't make sense.  He's not wearing shoes - those are socks, socks don't have soles.  That's a GREAT CATCH!!!!!  Right there, that proves this was done in more than one take.

Clearly barefoot? At what point did you see the man remove one or both of his shoes? As the gunman turned into the parking lot to approach the main entrance, the man was walking up the steps between two men as he entered the shoe corridor, and from the moment he stepped onto the shoe corridor platform, I never saw him or the man to his left remove their shoes. When the shooting began, they were both standing upright before the man on the left fell to the ground and landed on his back. That man still had his shoes on when the gunman walked by him as he was switching guns, so why would you assume that the man crawling up the hallway was "clearly barefoot" going in, and then wearing socks as the gunman went out if you never saw him remove one or both of his shoes before the gunman began shooting?
Reply Share
(04-13-2019, 02:15 PM)hurchel Wrote:
(04-13-2019, 10:16 AM)Dawahproof Wrote:
(04-12-2019, 12:17 PM)hurchel Wrote: Good to see you Dahwah P...

No matter what you feel about religion, it was a terrible loss of innocent life, in a place of trust and worship...

Tarrant seems like a trained want to be mercenary, in contrast to a steroid crazed lone gun white supremist.  The countries he visited and stayed in make it difficult to identify where he trained and the motivations that got him to the point where, he could act.

When he says "well boys, we didn't get the bird today" I get the feeling he was really really after that Iman...

Always good to see you as well hurchel.

I heard, "Looks like we might get the bird today boys." I thought he was making the comment because he had just dropped someone he saw trying to escape toward the back of the car park.

I'm curious to know why you think he was after the imam? We can hear the imam's voice from the speakers as the gunman approached the main doors, so if that's who he was targeting, he should have known that the imam was still somewhere in the building, especially since both sides of the room were already crowded with people trying to escape. If the imam was standing on the pulpit when all the people began to scatter, he would have been one of the last people to exit the room.

It struck me the first time I saw the video...

Karu, had posted an article about Al Noor and terrorist training susceptibility a year or two before there..

Bird and the behavior of pheasant hunters...

He went back twice, looking for something...

Just plain old proverbial cherry on top...

Trying to find logical conclusions in illogical actions,

Where there are none...

I really resent the censorship of this event by New Zealand...

In my opinion he said "we didn't get to burn today" - referring to the gasoline jerrycans he left in his car.
------
Speak your mind or lose it
Reply Share
As a reminder.

The Tarrant shooting was some form of black op.

Main reasons:
  • Tarrant hand signals to man in red while waiting to start the operation
  • Magazine waiting in the corridor left upon first entry
  • Car parked with driver inside right next to mosque entry - Tarrant aims at driver when coming out then ignores
  • Car vanished upon Tarrant entering mosque second time - the road marker in the street toppled over
  • Multiple shooters recorded and witnessed

All the other reasons only add to the suspicions.

Who: Mossad most likely given Tarrants itinerary.
Why: Further the Greater Israel agenda by polarizing and destabilizing the west. (this includes stricter gun laws)

Never forget that it is Israel and their helpers you need to fear.
------
Speak your mind or lose it
Reply Share
Responding to @Dawahproof comments. (that I stumbled across because he/she didn't have the basic manners to tag me)

Looking at your response shows my initial impression correct. Totally ignoring my apology shows that at the very least, you're a dickhead.

It's simple; anyone who reveres a pedophile & follows a book that permits pedophilia, rape, the keeping of sex slaves, lying, cheating, the domination of others & killing those who disagree, are uncivilised, mentally deficient filth who don't belong in civilised countries.
No such thing as a 'moderate moslime'.

Tell the truth, you're either from a 3rd world background, a moslime apologist or both.
Reply Share
(04-19-2019, 10:21 PM)Dawahproof Wrote: Responding to Elric's comments:

Yes I am extremely prejudiced against those who have an agenda to destroy our culture, to kill us, to rape our girls & who revere a filthy pedophile who drank camel piss & who kept sex slaves. Yet you seem to have a problem with that.

Are there ANY Muslims you aren't prejudiced against, or do you believe that they ALL have an agenda to destroy our culture, kill us, or rape our girls?

No I didn't catch Mo the Pedophile in congress with a goat, what a ludicrous claim. Goats & other farm animals are not safe around moslimes. As they follow every other foul deed that he committed - you know, raping non-moslimes, keeping sex slaves, drinking warm camel piss, slaughtering innocents, pedophilia, etc., it's reasonable to presume that they got the idea to fornicate with animals from the foul creature himself.

I don't think it's reasonable to presume these types of things. Muslims will usually demand proof whenever someone makes a negative claim about their prophet, so whenever I say something negative about their prophet (like him being caught in bed with one of his concubines in the home of one of his eleven wives), I always have the proof at hand, from their own sources, to back it up.

I'm not able to do that with your "goat fucker" presumption. Are there Muslims who have sex with animals? Probably. But is that an idea they got from Muhammad? Not according to their sources: "The Messenger of Allah said: 'Whoever has intercourse with an animal, kill him and the animal too.'" (Sunan Abu Dawud, #4464)

Why would you defend the evil thing if you're not a moslime?  

I'm not defending him. I just don't like to accuse him of doing something I can't prove. If I can't prove it, I don't make the accusation. As for the raping of non-Muslims, keeping sex slaves, prescribing camel urine to cure an illness, beheading young Jewish boys, having sex with a 9 year old girl who he married when she was 6 – how can I argue with any of those facts? They are all documented in their sources.

You say "negative things about Muhammad all the time" You do? I haven't noticed.

Of course you haven't. I never mentioned them here.

Moslimes consider any non-moslime as beneath them, as people for them to dominate & to do as they please. They consider me as an "enemy" regardless of what I do or say. So I couldn't give a flying fark what the vile creatures think of me.

Do you believe that ALL Muslims have this mentality?

How is it a "lie" when I don't know & said as much? What I said was that you appeared suspicious, & gave my reasons why, & simply asked you a few questions that you initially refused to answer, raising my suspicions even further.
Then I asked you to make it clear what you thought of Muhammad the Pedophile which you also refused to do.


No. It's a lie because what you said was, "Sets up an account on 31/3, then starts to post just on this thread TO TRY & CONVINCE OTHERS THAT THIS IS ANYTHING OTHER THAN A DS OPERATION to make Whitey look bad & to disarm honest citizens."

What you see in BOLD CAPS is what I have an issue with. What did I ever type in any of my posts that made you accuse me of posting on this thread to try to convince others that this was anything than a DS operation? THAT is the question that I want you to answer.

You said you'd put me on ignore. So you lied? To be honest I really don't care one way or the other but please, do make up your mind rather than flinging around idle threats.

I never said that I would "put you on ignore". What I said was, "Unlike XassX, I can ignore someone without actually putting them on ignore." In other words, I would still read your posts, but if I didn't like the questions you were asking, I would ignore them. It didn't mean that I was going to go to your profile and click the "Add to Ignore List" button like she did with me.

If you think that my comments are just "anti-moslime and anti-islamic rhetoric", then you really do need to read the Devils Handbook, aka the koran.

I've read it, and I know that their scripture teaches them that "kafirs" like you and I are the worst of creatures.

It's comments like that that raises others suspicion. Islam is a vile disease that has no place in civilised countries. Can't you see that?

Yep.

If you're not a moslime or a moslime sympathiser then you have my unreserved apologies. I do mean that. If you aren't then you should have made that clear from the start.

Let me ask you a question, and be completely honest with me. I don't know if you believe that 50 Muslims were actually killed in Christchurch, but if they were, is this heinous act something that you condone or is it something that you condemn?

My tolerance for these vile invaders, their 'culture' & their agenda is extremely low, as it should be for all moral civilised people.

So what type of behavior should they expect from you once your extremely low tolerance completely runs out?

You, motherfucker are a Heman sock or one of his ilk. And to answer your last question. Bullets. Now go home and cry to Mama./
Built to ignore totally arbitrary boundaries of others.
Elric  likes this!
Reply Share