Blue Pill Blue Ribbon. No passenger deaths on 9/11; also, no deaths at Sandy Hook, Orlando, Las Vegas, and New York City
His handle is Nimrod. He posts on my site's forums.
His basic thesis: all mass murders are hoaxes. He does not reveal by whom. He does not say how. But there was no one killed, except the individual non-murderers.
On 9/11
Posted July 4, 2015
No planes hijacked.No planes hit buildings.
A plane was used for the Pentagon, but it did not hit the building.
On Las Vegas
October 25, 2017
There is no evidence of people being shot, on any video of the concert goers. How about video of bullet wounds? Answer: None. The actors are clearly...actors.FYI: I have been told from someone who knows someone who seen dead people at the concert and I am calling him out as either a liar or just plain stupid. I'm not buying what he is selling. . . .
Also at my Walmart, someone who worked there, that I recognized died at the concert. Or at least that is what I have been told. . . .
Why don't I believe any of this? It has to do with evidence.
It appears to me Gary has the issue with "no one died". Why? Because that is what we have been saying about Boston, Sandy Hook, 9-11, Orlando, Nice, and others... It is okay, most people who are sincere do have problems with this. Just today I showed the error of 9-11. . . .
Posted Nov. 5, 2017
Multiple reports of people calling the hospitals in the area [Las Vegas] and found no one was administered with a bullet wound. Ooops, looks like they forgot to pay off the hospitals. . . .
They are trying to control the opposition. Throw enough rabbit trails in the mix, people will get confused and just give up.
No one died at the LV concert. . . .
There was no Paddock at the Mandalay Bay, that is pure nonsense.
On the New York City truck murders
Posted on Nov. 5, 2017
NY was Just another Hoax.
Texas Church
No opinion yet.
BLUE PILLS AND RED PILLS
This comes from the movie The Matrix. I didn't like the movie, but the phrase has gotten into the language. Wikipedia reports:
In the film, the main character Neo is offered the choice between a red pill and a blue pill by rebel leader Morpheus. The red pill would free him from the enslaving control of the machine-generated dream world and allow him to escape into the real world, but living the "truth of reality" is harsher and more difficult; on the other hand, the blue pill would lead him back to stay in the comfortable simulated reality of the Matrix.
The problem is this: some people who ingest blue pills on a regular basis are colorblind. They think they are ingesting red pills.
Everybody says he is selling red pills. That's the problem. They are all colored red. Every pill-seller points to the other guy's red pill, and says this: "Stop ingesting those blue pills. They will rot your mind. They will distort your judgment."
Those of us who are conspiracy theorists on such matters as Roosevelt's knowledge that an attack was imminent by the Japanese, or that Nixon was taken down by a technician inside the White House, are obviously amateurs. You might call us wimpy conspiracy theorists. When in the presence of a master, we should honor the consistency of the master.
The more conspiracies you believe in, the less evidence you have time to assemble and then analyze. Nimrod has identified so many conspiracies that he says are hoaxes, that he doesn't have time to offer evidence for all of them. "So many conspiracies. So little time."
It is best to specialize. You can not identify all of the conspiracies, and you surely cannot assemble a plausible case for the ones you do identify. You'd better be able to post a link to somebody who has specialized in each of them. Writing conspiracy history is not a one-man job.
DEBUNK, THEN RECONSTRUCT
Every historian should ask these five questions: "What, where, when, who, why, and how?" He should then look for two things: motive (why?) and opportunity (how?).
A persuasive conspiracy theory begins with anomalies in the government's official story. The conspiracy theorist should be very well informed on the official version. He should be sufficiently well-informed that he can spot the anomalies. If he looks hard, he will spot fake evidence. He can spend years doing this. Hardly anybody is going to believe him. He is essentially wasting his time. But it amuses him, and it doesn't hurt anybody.
The first step is to identify the impossibilities of the official version.
The second step is a systematic investigation of the primary sources. The historian must replace the impossibilities with high probabilities. This becomes increasingly difficult as more information is assembled. The key here is creative insight in identifying the dots that are worth connecting in the narrative. This is more art than science.
There is a science of collecting information. Historians have agreed-on criteria for separating the wheat from the chaff. This is the skill that historians are supposed to learn in graduate school.
The third step is to connect the dots that he has identified. This also is mostly art.
Inevitably, nobody can connect all of the dots in a coherent manner. God can, but we can't. We are not omniscient. There will always be loose ends. Therefore, there will always be unexplained aspects of historical causation. Therefore, there will always be a market for new conspiracy theories. The World Wide Web is increasing this demand. It is also increasing the supply. People are rarely willing to pay much money for news on the latest conspiracy, but people who produce conspiracy theories are willing to deliver at zero price. It is a workable arrangement. The market clears.