8 minutes in, Charlie mentioned Noam Chomsky, saying he thinks every other big event is a false flag, except 9/11 (the mos, and rightly made him look ridiculous for that.
Chomsky's obfuscations on 9/11 are so juvenile, that it makes him look suspicious given his academic reputation and writings about other events he says are government conspiracies or false flags.
It raised a red flag for me just like Jesse Ventura did, when coming off of his book, 63 Documents the Government Doesn't Want You To Read, documenting past proven conspiracies and false flags, once Sandy Hook happens, he's out there saying, nope, nothing suspicious here, folks -- just read old documents where it doesn't matter much if they're exposed if key aspects of 9/11 or subsequent false flags are being gatekept.
I didn't suspect Ventura of anything up until that point, but taking it along with his regular and deep association with Alex Jones (saying he ultimately woke him up), I don't see his actions nor Chomsky's as some odd coincidence.
If they are like Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity, then it would be expected for them to discount any notion of 9/11 or Sandy Hook being false flag events, but given what they have done before, it's suspicious.
Just like when former Worldcom CEO, Bernie Ebbers, claimed he had no idea about all the fraud that was taking place in his company, and his excuse seemed so good all the way up until the point that witnesses were brought in who were close associates of him over the years who said he was a control freak, obsessed with details.
That's similarly why if you're Jim Traficant, who was a colourful character, it's actually a plausible defense that he gave, at least on its face, that he was conducting some personal sting operation when he was alleged to have been engaging in criminal activities, but if you're the average politician, it's not remotely believable.
2 comments:
8 minutes in, Charlie mentioned Noam Chomsky, saying he thinks every other big event is a false flag, except 9/11 (the mos, and rightly made him look ridiculous for that.
Chomsky's obfuscations on 9/11 are so juvenile, that it makes him look suspicious given his academic reputation and writings about other events he says are government conspiracies or false flags.
It raised a red flag for me just like Jesse Ventura did, when coming off of his book, 63 Documents the Government Doesn't Want You To Read, documenting past proven conspiracies and false flags, once Sandy Hook happens, he's out there saying, nope, nothing suspicious here, folks -- just read old documents where it doesn't matter much if they're exposed if key aspects of 9/11 or subsequent false flags are being gatekept.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?402073-Jesse-Ventura-Beware-of-Conspiracy-Theories-About-Sandy-Hook
I didn't suspect Ventura of anything up until that point, but taking it along with his regular and deep association with Alex Jones (saying he ultimately woke him up), I don't see his actions nor Chomsky's as some odd coincidence.
If they are like Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity, then it would be expected for them to discount any notion of 9/11 or Sandy Hook being false flag events, but given what they have done before, it's suspicious.
Just like when former Worldcom CEO, Bernie Ebbers, claimed he had no idea about all the fraud that was taking place in his company, and his excuse seemed so good all the way up until the point that witnesses were brought in who were close associates of him over the years who said he was a control freak, obsessed with details.
That's similarly why if you're Jim Traficant, who was a colourful character, it's actually a plausible defense that he gave, at least on its face, that he was conducting some personal sting operation when he was alleged to have been engaging in criminal activities, but if you're the average politician, it's not remotely believable.
Meant to say above...
except 9/11 (the [most obvious false flag), as Charlie mentioned]
Post a Comment