Are you feeling quite alright?

People really don't need any help from me to look stupid.



You really are struggling here. A [isingle post[/i now amounts to a "moral crusade"? Heaven forbid I should get serious for a moment - you'll be accusing me of moral genocide!

This is like saying St. Paul (if you believe in such nonsense) couldn't possibly become an apostle because he was once a tax collector. Or that Gandhi couldn't condemn western capitalism because of the fact that he was once a fully paid-up servant of the cause.

As stated - if I said such a thousand times - it wouldn't make the complaint any less valid.



You're belittling yourself and really don't need any help from me. Your own expert testimony (sources?) states that blood flow may or may not cease. Even without knowing a great deal about the case in question this statement in no way disproves the argument you are attempting to poke fun at. So what was the pointing of posting it in the first place? The debate (which no one was having anyway) has advanced precisely nowhere.

Wow! Where to start! So you try and say I'm making myself look stupid by not providing a percentage and then your 1st example is something that may or may not have happened. Bravo!

You see, there's the thing though. Nobody did complain, so you are doing precisely what you are saying I am. Arguing a point that no one has raised. The only facts we do have, are that you are condemning what people has said asked disgusting, but saw absolutely no problem in doing it yourself.

Again, You do your usual trick. Taking half of a post and then attempting to twist it to suit your needs. You keep harping back to Traumatic amputation, yet have STILL Failed to answer the fact that I have also mentioned that shock causes Blood vessels to constrict and so would reduce blood flow, thus leading to not much blood being present. You state no one was having a debate, I've seen the Boston Bombing mentioned on here a number of times as a hoax. The example I have given is one reason used by your fellow lunatics to explain this, I was using this to show that the alleged hoaxes and their reasons can be disproved fairly easily.

Now you're just boring me. This conversation really is going nowhere and I have better things to do.

It is rare that I would link to the Daily Wail, but as a potted account of some injury evidence in the case, and many other details, including images of the tragic 8 year old Martin Richard, this is compelling. Read what is in these links. If you like, find other reports of the inquests, trial etc and the reams of evidence presented.

Dr David King, a veteran military combat surgeon, took the stand on Thursday during the death-penalty phase of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's trial in Boston.
Dr King said the little boy was gravely injured in the blasts and didn't die instantly, suffering terribly before he bled to death on the street on April 15, 2013.'"

So much better to do that you still have time to respond. If you say so! Funny, I've seen you post this many times before to people and it's always when you can't answer something.

Yes i certainly do..And You know what. I could provide 10 tonnes of proof in front of people like you, and if you're not ready to accept an idea, they will never accept the proof. No amount of evidence will suffice to prove anything, it is the jury that will decide, and you are the jury. So there you go, I pity your judgement.

This is no conspiracy theory. This is FACT right from the horse's mouth.

Oh no! How embarrassing! You tell me I haven't done enough research then you bring up a quote that was made up!

Watch the video, what he actually said was "The present window of opportunity which during a truly peaceful and interdependent might be built will not be open for too long. Already there are powerful forces at work that threaten to destroy all of our hopes and efforts."

Can I suggest that you actually start to do your research on normal websites and not the daily crackpot?

In the days when there were myriad independent television news channels and newspaper owners it was practically impossible to hide major conspiracies (although like today most people tended to gravitate toward a very small number). But in the US right now there are now maybe four - possibly five television operators. And we all know how print media has been practically wiped out. The same has happened throughout the globe.

There's a very good book which has just been released by David Talbot called rlThe Devil's Chessboardrl in which he discusses the life of the Dulles twins - Allan & John Foster who went on to become the head of the Central Intelligence Agency and the US State Department.

Anyone who doesn't believe that the media is little more than a tool for the Deep State should really take the time to read it. One of the chapters deals extensively with Operation Mockingbird - which essentially boiled down to placing hundreds of agents within newspapers and television channels whose job it was to control the flow of information fed to the public. Dulles even had a name for it - "The Mighty Wurlitzer". Given that Dulles openly admitted he modelled the CIA on MI5/6 during the days of William Stephenson (who Churchill codenamed "Intrepid"icon_wink.gif I think it's very unlikely the same does not function today.

Just out of interest (I've been driving home) - have we now proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the lack of blood (or is it the profusion - I get confused?) emitting from some unknown leg wound (was a tourniquet applied - oh I forgot, we don't need those any more because shock will stem the flow before the patient bleeds out from an open femoral artery? ) proves that nothing untoward happened in Boston?

Seriously, you can't make this stuff up!

Isn't there a crack pot thread for this type of rubbish?
My thoughts are with all those affected