49 killed in mass shooting at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand

[St. Phatty]

Finally watched sections of the supposedly live-streamed video, supposedly filmed outdoors.

VERY STRANGE, & definitely not live-streamed. The brass casings ejected by the AR15 (the firearm painted with the big white letters) simply disappear.

The brass casings don't disappear off the edge of the frame. They disappear in the middle of the frame.

Not sure what the simplest explanation is. Perhaps that Tarrant blue-screened the video of the AR15 firing & ejecting casings, and mixed that with background image.

This would imply that this pre-edited video was later mixed with the supposedly live video shot (oh GOD bad pun) in the mosque.


Another explanation is that somebody edited the live-streamed video & posted it on Brighteon.com (where I saw it), and for their own reasons, removed the brass mid-frame.

 

[MJPassion]

I was hoping one of you would post that video. Nice work.

The video posted by RMS is the defining evidence for the 911 truthers of it being an inside job. The video makes you 3 look even more silly than you already do.

I encourage everybody to watch the video.

The video shows a BBC reporter in a hotel room with the NY skyline to her back. The cameraman is videoing her and the Twin Towers in real time as it unfolds.

The truthers believe the BBC was in on the 911 conspiracy along with the reporter and cameraman. Why? Because she claims a building collapses when it really didn't. This is the defining evidence needed for the truthers. She and her cameraman according to the truthers knew when the buildings were going to collapse. It has never been disputed that the reporter did in fact claim of a building collapsing when it hadn't yet. But hey to a truther the BBC denies this.

Now with her and the cameraman in on the conspiracy according to the truthers one would think they would both know the NY skyline and what building was what so they could be the first to report on the buildings collapsing. With both so deeply entrenched and having rehearsed the buildings collapsing and how they would report before anybody else the cameraman might have had some hand signals to inform the reporter the second the buildings were collapsing since they are in the background as she speaks. But they didn't. So again please watch the video and the reporter who clearly has no clue what buildings they are viewing in the background.

This video is the big fish for the truthers that proves to the three posters above without a doubt 911 was an inside job.

Truthers remind me of the flat earthers. They deny mountains of evidence and cling to one or two little pieces which they think blows the lid on everything.

If there is ONE piece of evidence to hold onto...


Larry Silverstein IS the smoking gun!

 

[growingcrazy]

First request to remove Burnone from his Moderator duties.

 

[MJPassion]

The livestream

https://www.atrocidades18.com/2019/03/massacre-ataque-mesquitas-na-nova.html

 

[St. Phatty]

The livestream

https://www.atrocidades18.com/2019/03/massacre-ataque-mesquitas-na-nova.html

Thanks !

OK Now I want to know what equipment he used.

Logitech clip-on webcam on the headrest of the passenger seat ? Oh I mean driver's seat. Does this mean he was wearing some of Google Glass head mounted video camera - I guess with a wireless attachment ?


Does the music he's playing have significance ? Just another rousing Celtic tune or something more ?


I just bought 2 more Alcatel 502DL Smart phones for $20 each, so I have cameras on my mind.

Tried a bud shot. Brian's something, the strain name.

Interesting how the bud on the right is in better focus. This was in cloudy weather about 10 AM.

Depth of field on this camera does not look good.

 

[Storm Shadow]

Wake the @#$% UP ... this video is from 3 years ago....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTzjrVaBUYQ

This is from today....

https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Pompeo-We-are-proud-to-stand-by-Israels-side-584079

Netanyahu added that the time had come for the United States to recognize Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights: "Only last week we exposed Hezbollah's efforts, backed by Iranian funding, to establish a military base in Syria on the border of the Golan Heights. I think that for this and other reasons it is time for the US to recognize Israel's presence in the Golan, which officially belongs to Israel.""

 

[NEW ENGLAND]

So how bout them Red Sox!

 

[Badfishy1]

Wake the @#$% UP ... this video is from 3 years ago....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTzjrVaBUYQ

This is from today....

https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Pompeo-We-are-proud-to-stand-by-Israels-side-584079

Netanyahu added that the time had come for the United States to recognize Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights: "Only last week we exposed Hezbollah's efforts, backed by Iranian funding, to establish a military base in Syria on the border of the Golan Heights. I think that for this and other reasons it is time for the US to recognize Israel's presence in the Golan, which officially belongs to Israel.""

Pipe it down goy... it’s just for security of the chosen ones. Don’t worry about the oil reserves.

 

[geneva_sativa]

GS; You are right. I apologize to you for being condescending. However my question still stands about how such a well executed and long term secret plan would be entrusted to a satellite reporter. [small time indeed]

I am fully aware that this shlock has been circulating for a long time. My skepticism does not mean a trust in the government version.

Brother Nature; I hear you. What happened was horrific-evil.

***************************
Remember when we used to look forward to getting the best hashish in the world, made by Muslims?

Fair enough, MM

of course, it would be hard to say how it happened for her to announce the fall of Building 7 before it actually did,,, but from eyewitness testimony from people on the ground,,, officials in NYPD and FDNY told them it was going to be "brought down" ,,,

so if it wasnt simply a collapse, as portrayed,,, there was foreknowledge and therfore a plan,,,

that BBC clip isnt the clincher for me,,, never was,,, but watching the news carefully, since my teens,,, I have no doubt that the media deliberately misleads people,,, usually for a particular purpose or effect,,,

and also knowing, that 90 some-odd percent of media is owned by six conglomerates,,, and also aware that Operation Mockingbird was implemented decades ago,,,

https://youtu.be/cDCfTIapds0

--- Colby testifies 1975 --- 3 minute clip

and as someone stated a few pages back,,, the obvious,,, the boogity evil weed propaganda,,, that has been a mainstay of all the major media outlets,,, and still is to this day, to some degree,,, bold faced lies to the public,,, not merely a case of them "not knowing better"

 

[Absolem]

If there is ONE piece of evidence to hold onto...


Larry Silverstein IS the smoking gun!

Not hard to refute at all.

Here ya go. They even have resources where you can see where they got their information. They do real research. Not just say to google some name.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/wtc-terrorism-insurance/

World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein bought terrorism insurance two months before 9/11, then collected double its value on the grounds that there were two attacks.

Rating

Mixture
About this rating
Origin
Some of the most persistent contemporary legends about the 9/11 attacks involve people supposedly benefiting from foreknowledge of the event, whether it be a group of World Trade Center workers who “fortuitously” called in sick and escaped certain death that day, or investors who “fortuitously” bought “put options” on United and American Airlines stock immediately before the attacks, thus profiting when the prices of those stocks fell afterwards.

American businessman Larry Silverstein, who famously signed a 99-year lease on the World Trade Center complex in June 2001, two months before the attacks, is at the center of another story about profiting from the event:

Just months before 9/11, the World Trade Center’s lease was sold to Larry Silverstein. Silverstein took out an insurance plan that ‘fortuitously’ covered terrorism. After 9/11, Silverstein took the insurance company to court, claiming he should be paid double because there were 2 attacks. He won, and was awarded $4,550,000,000.

While the story obviously contains elements of fact, it’s also partly fiction — most notably the implication, made via the use of scare quotes around the word “fortuitous,” that Silverstein’s decision to purchase terrorism insurance just before 9/11 was no mere coincidence.


Sponsored by schwab.com
Sponsored Video
Watch to learn more

See More

There are several underlying assumptions at work here: that the World Trade Center must not have had terrorism insurance before Silverstein took over; that selecting such coverage was purely optional; and that because he “chose” to buy such coverage when he did, Silverstein must have known in advance that (and when) terrorists would strike.

It’s important to note that, despite appearances, Silverstein wasn’t actually the sole leaseholder of the World Trade Center: He led a consortium of investors and lenders which included GMAC Commercial Mortgage (a General Motors subsidiary), Westfield America Inc. (a shopping center developer), and real estate investor Lloyd Goldman. All these entities had a voice in deciding how much insurance coverage the properties would have, and each had some claim on whatever insurance monies were paid out.

Bear in mind, too, that when we speak of “terrorism insurance coverage,” what we’re actually speaking of is coverage that doesn’t have a terrorism exclusion. Such exclusions aren’t uncommon now, but according to the Insurance Information Institute virtually all commercial insurance policies sold in the U.S. before 9/11 covered terrorist incidents as a matter of course (and essentially free of charge), because the risk was considered so remote. Thus, for example, the World Trade Center was fully covered when it was bombed by terrorists in 1993, and insurers paid out an estimated $510 million in damages after that incident. There’s no reason to suppose that the WTC wasn’t routinely covered against terrorist acts right up until the time Silverstein took over the lease in 2001.

Moreover, upon signing that lease, Silverstein was obligated to insure the World Trade Center. There was nothing strange, suspicious, or “fortuitous,” therefore, about his purchasing an all-risk insurance policy — which at that time would have automatically included terrorism coverage — two months before 9/11, because that’s when he became contractually responsible for doing so. Ultimately, Silverstein wasn’t even solely responsible for the total dollar amount of that coverage ($3.55 billion) because that was the minimum demanded by his lenders, according to a 2002 report in The American Lawyer.

It’s a fact that Silverstein took his insurers to court after 9/11 and asked for double the damages. It’s also a fact that he did so on the grounds that there were two attacks (or, in insurance lingo, “occurrences”), not one. But this wasn’t some premeditated scam based on foreknowledge that a terrorist attack involving two planes would occur. The cost of rebuilding the World Trade Center, which in 2004 was estimated at $9 billion, made Silverstein’s court strategy a virtual necessity. Plus, he had obligations to lenders and co-investors, and still owed lease payments of $10 million per month to the Port Authority.

The court ultimately did grant Silverstein a payout of $4.55 billion, which amounted to about a third more than the maximum allowable for a single “occurrence” by his insurance policy, but significantly less than the $7.1 billion he had originally sought.

 

[Absolem]

that BBC clip isnt the clincher for me,,, never was,,, but watching the news carefully, since my teens,,, I have no doubt that the media deliberately misleads people,,, usually for a particular purpose or effect,,,

That's not what you said when you replied to me when I mocked that video.

This is what ya said.

damn right it's a big fish !!!

cats outta the bag,,, the people know

Is it the "big fish" or not? Kinda talking out both sides of your mouth.


Could you please cite the original source for the information you claim below? Don't really trust what ya say. I'd like to research it.

but from eyewitness testimony from people on the ground,,, officials in NYPD and FDNY told them it was going to be "brought down" ,,,

so if it wasnt simply a collapse, as portrayed,,, there was foreknowledge and therfore a plan,,,

The NYPD has close to 39,000 employees. Now they are in on it too?

The NYFD has 11,000 employees. They are in on the plan too?

but watching the news carefully, since my teens,,,

^^^^^
Watching news, youtube videos, and listening to podcasts as your source information is the lazy persons way of research. Research requires checking verified sources. Where did the information originate? Are they experts in their field or just some actors, authors, producers, like they have on "Ancient Aliens". These fools want you to disregard all history and science and put your belief system in people that have no background in the given field. Reading hundreds of resources is so hard and takes way too much time for the youtube people.

 

[geneva_sativa]

Hey folks,,, Absolem says theres nothing wrong with the official 9/11 story (and probably any other official narrative )


guess we outta just take his word for it, huh ?

 

[Absolem]

Hey folks,,, Absolem says theres nothing wrong with the official 9/11 story (and probably any other official narrative )


guess we outta just take his word for it, huh ?

Come on bro. Don't bail on me now. You wanted this debate.

You claimed information about your beliefs.

I asked you too back it up.

If ya can't back up what ya say then why say it????

Because it sounded so convincing on youtube? So you figured if you repeat it and no one would question it?

 

[geneva_sativa]

I know there wont be any point conversating with you, Absolem

but please let us know, what we should do when we having them wrong-thinkins or illegal ideas ?

 

[Badfishy1]

Hey folks,,, Absolem says theres nothing wrong with the official 9/11 story (and probably any other official narrative )


guess we outta just take his word for it, huh ?

Yup snopes said so

 

[GOT_BUD?]

Finally watched sections of the supposedly live-streamed video, supposedly filmed outdoors.

VERY STRANGE, & definitely not live-streamed. The brass casings ejected by the AR15 (the firearm painted with the big white letters) simply disappear.

The brass casings don't disappear off the edge of the frame. They disappear in the middle of the frame.

Not sure what the simplest explanation is. Perhaps that Tarrant blue-screened the video of the AR15 firing & ejecting casings, and mixed that with background image.

This would imply that this pre-edited video was later mixed with the supposedly live video shot (oh GOD bad pun) in the mosque.


Another explanation is that somebody edited the live-streamed video & posted it on Brighteon.com (where I saw it), and for their own reasons, removed the brass mid-frame.

I think the more likely reason is the frame rate is slow enough during the live feed the brass seems to disappear, when in reality it's already moved out of frame for when the next frame is captured.

It's kind of the same thing when you see a video of an airplane or helicopter flying, yet the props appear to be stationary. They just happen to be moving at the correct speed for the camera's computer to interpret that way.

 

[MJPassion]

Not hard to refute at all.

Here ya go. They even have resources where you can see where they got their information. They do real research. Not just say to google some name.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/wtc-terrorism-insurance/

World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein bought terrorism insurance two months before 9/11, then collected double its value on the grounds that there were two attacks.

Rating

Mixture
About this rating
Origin
Some of the most persistent contemporary legends about the 9/11 attacks involve people supposedly benefiting from foreknowledge of the event, whether it be a group of World Trade Center workers who “fortuitously” called in sick and escaped certain death that day, or investors who “fortuitously” bought “put options” on United and American Airlines stock immediately before the attacks, thus profiting when the prices of those stocks fell afterwards.

American businessman Larry Silverstein, who famously signed a 99-year lease on the World Trade Center complex in June 2001, two months before the attacks, is at the center of another story about profiting from the event:

Just months before 9/11, the World Trade Center’s lease was sold to Larry Silverstein. Silverstein took out an insurance plan that ‘fortuitously’ covered terrorism. After 9/11, Silverstein took the insurance company to court, claiming he should be paid double because there were 2 attacks. He won, and was awarded $4,550,000,000.

While the story obviously contains elements of fact, it’s also partly fiction — most notably the implication, made via the use of scare quotes around the word “fortuitous,” that Silverstein’s decision to purchase terrorism insurance just before 9/11 was no mere coincidence.


Sponsored by schwab.com
Sponsored Video
Watch to learn more

See More

There are several underlying assumptions at work here: that the World Trade Center must not have had terrorism insurance before Silverstein took over; that selecting such coverage was purely optional; and that because he “chose” to buy such coverage when he did, Silverstein must have known in advance that (and when) terrorists would strike.

It’s important to note that, despite appearances, Silverstein wasn’t actually the sole leaseholder of the World Trade Center: He led a consortium of investors and lenders which included GMAC Commercial Mortgage (a General Motors subsidiary), Westfield America Inc. (a shopping center developer), and real estate investor Lloyd Goldman. All these entities had a voice in deciding how much insurance coverage the properties would have, and each had some claim on whatever insurance monies were paid out.

Bear in mind, too, that when we speak of “terrorism insurance coverage,” what we’re actually speaking of is coverage that doesn’t have a terrorism exclusion. Such exclusions aren’t uncommon now, but according to the Insurance Information Institute virtually all commercial insurance policies sold in the U.S. before 9/11 covered terrorist incidents as a matter of course (and essentially free of charge), because the risk was considered so remote. Thus, for example, the World Trade Center was fully covered when it was bombed by terrorists in 1993, and insurers paid out an estimated $510 million in damages after that incident. There’s no reason to suppose that the WTC wasn’t routinely covered against terrorist acts right up until the time Silverstein took over the lease in 2001.

Moreover, upon signing that lease, Silverstein was obligated to insure the World Trade Center. There was nothing strange, suspicious, or “fortuitous,” therefore, about his purchasing an all-risk insurance policy — which at that time would have automatically included terrorism coverage — two months before 9/11, because that’s when he became contractually responsible for doing so. Ultimately, Silverstein wasn’t even solely responsible for the total dollar amount of that coverage ($3.55 billion) because that was the minimum demanded by his lenders, according to a 2002 report in The American Lawyer.

It’s a fact that Silverstein took his insurers to court after 9/11 and asked for double the damages. It’s also a fact that he did so on the grounds that there were two attacks (or, in insurance lingo, “occurrences”), not one. But this wasn’t some premeditated scam based on foreknowledge that a terrorist attack involving two planes would occur. The cost of rebuilding the World Trade Center, which in 2004 was estimated at $9 billion, made Silverstein’s court strategy a virtual necessity. Plus, he had obligations to lenders and co-investors, and still owed lease payments of $10 million per month to the Port Authority.

The court ultimately did grant Silverstein a payout of $4.55 billion, which amounted to about a third more than the maximum allowable for a single “occurrence” by his insurance policy, but significantly less than the $7.1 billion he had originally sought.

I don't trust ANYTHING that's got Clintons hands all over it and that is exactly what SNOPES is!

I've been researching 9/11 since day fucking one.
It's quite obvious that you've taken the bait!

But enough on 9/11, that IS NOT the subject matter of this thread.
Why don't you go do some real research!

 

[MJPassion]

I think the more likely reason is the frame rate is slow enough during the live feed the brass seems to disappear, when in reality it's already moved out of frame for when the next frame is captured.

It's kind of the same thing when you see a video of an airplane or helicopter flying, yet the props appear to be stationary. They just happen to be moving at the correct speed for the camera's computer to interpret that way.

I've definitely considered this scenario but if you watch the video you can clearly tell that the casing being ejected, while outdoors, are disappearing into the void. Indoors the casings seem to do the same thing, ejecting then disappearing, BUT then you can see the casing bouncing around on the floor. Such is not the case outdoors. Some of those casings should have been bouncing on the ground within view of the camera. I'd think that brass against a black surface would show up well as it did on the green carpet indoors. I would think there would at least be some flash but the casings completely disappear.


It is interesting to say the least.


I don't want to watch the vid any more. It is sickening.

 

[Microbeman]

I saw casings on the ground outside.

 

[Badfishy1]

I saw casings on the ground outside.

*slow clap*