7/7 Dallas Shooting

[Nordic]

I didn't write that article I just reported it.

So sick of hearing that cowardly bullshit out of you.

Go choke on your raw eggs and turmeric.

[Spiro C. Thiery]

Why would we meet in the back room of a public coffeeshop with no air conditioning and no refreshments if we were getting all of some billionaire's money?

How could one be a frequenter of this forum not already knowing a perfectly good answer to this question?

[Luther Blissett]

Some people have a cartoonish view of the left informed by "Hail Caesar."

[backtoiam]

Luther Blissett » 7 minutes ago wrote:
Why would we meet in the back room of a public coffeeshop with no air conditioning and no refreshments if we were getting all of some billionaire's money?

Luther I suspect almost every member is genuine and sincere.Most may know very little about Mckesson. I also suspect they don't realize that the people funding it and leading it at the top do not have their best interest at heart and may be leading them into a hornets nest that might not be in their best interest. I believe the people funding it and leading it from the top only have their own best interest at heart. I doubt the vast majority of BLM members realize what happens at the top or even where it is. You are probably the exception.

[82_28]

I could tell you stories about the vast ghettos of Aspen. Obviously I kid. But could you imagine a carload of black folk pulling into town (Aspen) and just start wandering around, legitimately checking out the shops? I guess you could be a football or basketball star. But I don't see that as being remotely possible. In Aspen.

[MacCruiskeen]

This may or may not be relevant:

Sat Aug 23, 2008 thegovernmentflu wrote:
What if the explanations for Building 7 are deliberately shoddy, in an attempt to keep political dissidents focused on what basically amounts to a non-issue in the grand scheme of current world politics?

Sat Aug 23, 2008 Eldritchwrote:
That is a brilliant observation, in my opinion.

Sat Aug 23,2008 Jeff wrote:
Likewise. And the same re the Pentagon and Rumsfeld's early "misspeak" of missile, and the farcical foot-dragging on the release of crappy security cam images.

from this thread about the final WTC 7 report: http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/view ... 1&start=45

Demolished by kenoma, later in the same thread:

What if the explanations for Building 7 are deliberately shoddy, in an attempt to keep political dissidents focused on what basically amounts to a non-issue in the grand scheme of current world politics?

If the official explanation is "deliberately shoddy", are we to assume there is a far more credible explanation for the collapse of WTC7 gathering dust in a cubicle at NIST? Can you tell us what such a non-shoddy explanation might look like? Can you tell us how it might plausibly explain the freakish collapse of WTC7?

If you can't, then quit your ridiculous hypothesizing.

The Warren Commission was shoddy, the casus belli for the invasion of Iraq was shoddy, the current expanation for the anthrax attacks is something more than shoddy. When people lie, the results are invariably shoddy. That's what a lie is: a shoddy explanation of reality.

I can't understand why people think the official story would have to be sophisticated and plausible for it to work. The NIST report produced the desired 'Eggheads refute Conspiracy Theorists' headlines not because it was plausible, but simply because it was a government-sponsored report.

(^^slightly reformatted for clarity (paragraphs))

Also, if we rephrase the question to refer to Today's 9/11:

Sat Aug 23, 2008 thegovernmentflu wrote:
What if the explanations for [Dallas 7/7] are deliberately shoddy, in an attempt to keep political dissidents focused on what basically amounts to a non-issue in the grand scheme of current world politics?

- then the obvious response to that question is: it's not working at all. Because practically no one is focused on this issue. Me and stickdog99 and Nordic and maybe half a dozen others on this thread on this obscure board. Maybe a few hundred others in total worldwide. And that's it. For everyone else, "politically dissident" or not, it is a complete non-issue. They have swallowed, without any hesitation or the slightest questioning, the police explanation transmitted via the corporate media.

The fact that that explanation makes no sense at all is irrelevant. When the Emperor asks, then you admire his clothes, if you value your life and/or your job.

Also (on edit): It is not a non-issue. Anything but. And that's precisely why most people won't even look at it.

[Luther Blissett]

Luther Blissett » 7 minutes ago wrote:
Why would we meet in the back room of a public coffeeshop with no air conditioning and no refreshments if we were getting all of some billionaire's money?

Luther I suspect almost every member is genuine and sincere.Most may know very little about Mckesson. I also suspect they don't realize that the people funding it and leading it at the top do not have their best interest at heart and may be leading them into a hornets nest that might not be in their best interest. I believe the people funding it and leading it from the top only have their own best interest at heart. I doubt the vast majority of BLM members realize what happens at the top or even where it is. You are probably the exception.

I guarantee that almost everyone who participates in Black Lives Matter knows about Deray.

Here's a secret though: decisions about actions are hard-won and reached through consensus-building at meetings on the ground level, usually after many rounds of deliberation, clarifying questions, revisions, and votes. This is how it is with pretty much any (left) activist org I've ever been a part of, proposals are brought in from the street, can often be at odds, and get hashed out. How does the "top" its way down to that level in your fantasy version?

[backtoiam]

How does the "top" its way down to that level in your fantasy version?

Like Dallas. Somebody powerful planned that in my opinion and it was not run of the mill BLM members. Mckesson hangs out with an elite crowd and probably the sort of people that would pull a stunt like that. Its a shame it happened at a BLM protest because the masses at large that have no clue what is really going on watch tv and will associate it with BLM even though BLM protestors were as shocked as everybody else. I have no idea if Mckesson had foreknowledge but considering who he hangs with, the Aspen crowd, it wouldn't surprise me. Regardless in the minds of a lot of people that don't know better to some degree the BLM brand will be associated with it unfortunately.

edited to add

When things like this happen its not just bad for black BLM members it also bad for white people because it ratchets up the "strategy of tension" and everybody loses. And that is goal of the tension makers.

[Rory]

Luther Blissett » 7 minutes ago wrote:
Why would we meet in the back room of a public coffeeshop with no air conditioning and no refreshments if we were getting all of some billionaire's money?

Luther I suspect almost every member is genuine and sincere.Most may know very little about Mckesson. I also suspect they don't realize that the people funding it and leading it at the top do not have their best interest at heart and may be leading them into a hornets nest that might not be in their best interest. I believe the people funding it and leading it from the top only have their own best interest at heart. I doubt the vast majority of BLM members realize what happens at the top or even where it is. You are probably the exception.

I guarantee that almost everyone who participates in Black Lives Matter knows about Deray.

Here's a secret though: decisions about actions are hard-won and reached through consensus-building at meetings on the ground level, usually after many rounds of deliberation, clarifying questions, revisions, and votes. This is how it is with pretty much any (left) activist org I've ever been a part of, proposals are brought in from the street, can often be at odds, and get hashed out. How does the "top" its way down to that level in your fantasy version?

Soros speaketh (and spendeth), and thus his will be done. Its so simple, unless you're one of them?

[0_0]

Yes it was a good reply by kenoma, but still i think there's something to what thegovernmentflu said, although maybe in slightly different way than (s)he meant. I just sometimes suspect that whenever and however events like these take places it's almost become standard procedure to add in inconsistencies and nonsensical statements on purpose. For sure this board is pretty obscure but the "everything is a hoax" crowd has really taken off the last couple of years and i think that must be cause for much cheer and celebration in certain circles. Just check the comments section on the #keepdancingorlando video the orange county sheriff dpt posted (if they're still up). Off course relatively speaking that's still a drop in the much vaster ocean of people who strictly only care about themselves, their families, their work and maybe sports and who laugh at anyone whoever thinks about anything outside of that. But it definitely poisons the well so that when they're confronted with someone who questions any official narrative they laugh even harder! Also by adding in nonsensical statements on purpose with everything it makes it more difficult to hold officials accountable and it perversely breaks any hope anyone anywhere still has for any sort of reasonable discourse or conclusions. I applaud, respect & support people who keep trying!

Tbh i just find myself hypnotized by how shoddy their explanations are and this was more of a personal reflection. I feel like a squirrel in a snakepit (not this board, but the media world).

[82_28]

Like you cats wanted to hear from me again. I think that this little dwindling creek in the wilds of the Internet isn't always hoax first. It's just basically speculation by a lot of open minded people who for the most part like to read the ideas of other people who are also contemplating. 99% of members here are left wing, never have liked Obama etc. Yet somehow we all congregate here. We all ply the web, but to me this is the place that really is a cut above the rest. Basically no trolls and all that.

This place is deffo old skool as far as design. No thumbs up and no thumbs down. One is just free to bring shit up here. All my friends who I turn onto this place instantly get scared and remain "dormant" as it were.

[MacCruiskeen]

Can anyone find an on-the-record police statement as to where exactly the alleged shooter was trapped and killed? On which floor of which building, in which room or which corridor, in exactly what kind of inaccessible nook or cranny?

There's this, from July 10, by one Max Geron, a Dallas cop who actually headed the mobile command post:

The suspect was finally cornered on the second floor of El Centro and shots were fired. Negotiators continued to work to try and get him into custody, but that was not to be. He refused and so SWAT developed a plan to resolve the situation. It would eventually involve a robot and some C-4 plastic explosives. It worked.

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/lates ... ambush.ece

Again, it's weirdly fuzzy and unspecific. "Cornered" - Where was he exactly? Did he stay there or move elsewhere, "eventually"? And note the use of the passive voice: "Shots were fired" - by whom?

That's his description of the "stand-off" in full! Why so coy? Why is Geron's account so rushed and attenuated and lacking in detail? He seems oddly embarrassed here. (And the article itself is endless, mainly because it's packed with novelettish detail about Geron's own emotions and state of mind.)

[Novem5er]

Novem5r wrote:
You make a fair point. We should absolutely be skeptical. However, in the interest of avoiding this entire forum becoming nothing more than an echo chamber, I think we should also be skeptical of our skepticism.
Most of the skepticism in this current case stems from initial reports from the police. Where there eye witness videos that said multiple shooters? I'm not sure. What we have to realize is a fact that courts and police departments have known for decades: eye witness testimony is often very unreliable. It is why we use forensics now in court. Study after study has shown that eye witnesses, in dangerous situation, will get details wrong over and over again. Some are correct, others are wildly inaccurate. We know this.
Yet, a lot of people on this forum grasp at any witness that says anything out of the norm and they hold on to that as proof that a conspiracy is underfoot. Oh, we should be skeptical, which usually means viewing those early witnesses with as much skepticism as we do everything else.

Strongly disagree. Initial accounts are different than “testimony” (that is what happens in deposition and courtroom in front of judges, lawyers and bagmen & photogenic whores.) I would much rather risk being wrong about asking lots of questions related to an initial account than being right about swallowing the official story whole. Over the course of the last decade or so on this site and parent site (along with Jeff’s book) the main part of the intuition is that if it smells fishy it probably is. It is better to risk being wrong about corporatist state media post incident vomit/propaganda for the sake of maybe, just maybe, stumbling across the truth, or at least highlighting discrepancies in the ever oversimplifying commercial-state media machine.
Sure there maybe was only one shooter. Lots of posts on that in your local online fucking newspaper. But there might have been more. And, at the very least, I am pretty sure whatever the story is it will be played for maximum effect for reasons that have little to do with facts, truth, apple pie and democracy.

We must always remember these fuckers are liars, thieves & child killing murderers in $4,000 suits and $80,000 dresses. Nothing. Absolutely nothing is beyond them and the only thing that is not expendable is their fealty to their paymasters and their lust for power. We don't mean anymore to them than the shit under their fingernails.

RI has always been a place where it is not only safe but considered healthy to be off the wall. To a point. I read a lot of bullshit that doesn't merit comment and so...I don't comment on it. But some people seem to revel in internecine squabbling more than "what we don't know". Occasionally I see something here that makes me think, makes me wonder, makes me realize...reminds me of how we are being roasted alive by blind greed heads. And many times I come here to find out stuff I would never have come across otherwise. If I want to read the official story I go to the paper or cable. If I want to hear other challenging ideas, no matter how crazy, ridiculous or even stupid...
I come here.

and

Like you cats wanted to hear from me again. I think that this little dwindling creek in the wilds of the Internet isn't always hoax first. It's just basically speculation by a lot of open minded people who for the most part like to read the ideas of other people who are also contemplating. 99% of members here are left wing, never have liked Obama etc. Yet somehow we all congregate here. We all ply the web, but to me this is the place that really is a cut above the rest. Basically no trolls and all that.

This place is deffo old skool as far as design. No thumbs up and no thumbs down. One is just free to bring shit up here. All my friends who I turn onto this place instantly get scared and remain "dormant" as it were.

I just want to reiterate my commitment to RI as an open forum. I like this place and I like the speculation. I think it's good that posters go back and forth on issues. I think both of you, whom I've quoted, are absolutely correct that this is a great place to come and scope out the possibilities. That's why I come here

If I ever say something to the point of "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar" it's not to shut down any argument and it's not to deny that conspiracies are possible. It's just well, you know, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar or these aren't the droids we're looking for

I think if someone has a point to make, then they should make that point, and if anyone questions it, then the person is free to back it up or move on. In theory, (on edit) this should only make an argument stronger, right?

[82_28]

I think tha your comment is incomple

Just kiddin. I do it too.

[Novem5er]

Dang it but thanks for pointing it out!