Reporter and Cameraman shot by tormented ex-colleague

Paladin1 wrote:

Lastly out came the conspiricy nuts who seen the video and questioned how a 100 or so pound woman could get shot and keep running. Clearly the video was faked.

Well, to tell you the truth, there are many questionable parts to the story that have surfaced.

I'm not convinced at this point in time that we had a homocide.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

Well, to tell you the truth, there are many questionable parts to the story that have surfaced. I'm not convinced at this point in time that we had a homocide.

I think that leaves:

1) suicides

2) natural causes

Which do you think is the more likely, Noops?

ed'd to add:

3) they're not actually dead

I'm glad you added the third choice. :)
I won't say it's more likely at this point in time, however it's a possibility.

Aside from the very sloppy marksmanship at point blank range, I am having difficulty accepting the almost total lack of emotion/sadness on the part of Chris Hurst (Allison's boyfriend) and his agreeing to conduct TV interviews just hours after Allison's apparent death.

His 'tweets' are also quite remarkable.
You must catch one of his TV interviews where he proudly displays the photo album that Allison gave him.

Not a hint of grief displayed during the entire interview.

This is just the tip of the iceberg.

Quote:

Aside from the very sloppy marksmanship at point blank range, I am having difficulty accepting the almost total lack of emotion/sadness on the part of Chris Hurst (Allison's boyfriend) and his agreeing to conduct TV interviews just hours after Allison's apparent death.

Well, the smoking gun.  So to speak.

For some reason, you believe this is more compelling evidence than a video of the homicide.

A VIDEO OF THE HOMICIDE.

What if he'd somehow rigged up several cameras, to capture it all in real time from several angles?  Would that be more compelling than a victim's boyfriend giving an interview mere hours after that victim's "APPARENT" death?

Noops wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Well, the smoking gun.  So to speak.

For some reason, you believe this is more compelling evidence than a video of the homicide.

A VIDEO OF THE HOMICIDE.

What if he'd somehow rigged up several cameras, to capture it all in real time from several angles?  Would that be more compelling than a victim's boyfriend giving an interview mere hours after that victim's "APPARENT" death?

Actually, yes it would be more compelling. Because all we have right now is a TV video showing no kill shots and the "killer's" video showing three shots fired at point blank range (four feet) and the 'victim' running away after that. So no, we don't have a video of the homocide.

Take off the tin foil hat ,you fucking lunatic.

Go take some Thorazine and try not to watch more Alex Jones videos.

Noops wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

Take off the tin foil hat ,you fucking lunatic.

Go take some Thorazine and try not to watch more Alex Jones videos.

Judging by your response, it seems you could benefit more from the Thorazine than me. :) I haven't taken sides yet on this one, just keeping an open mind. BTW, just to know where you are coming from (the tin foil hat part) are you a believer of the 9/11 official story?

I'm guessing you are one of these people who believes Sandy Hook and the Charleston shootings were a hoax. If that is the case,and judging by your denial of a homicide caught straight on camera,you're at best a moron or at worst a lunatic.

alan smithee wrote:

Noops wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

Take off the tin foil hat ,you fucking lunatic.

Go take some Thorazine and try not to watch more Alex Jones videos.

BTW, just to know where you are coming from (the tin foil hat part) are you a believer of the 9/11 official story?

I'm guessing you are one of these people who believes Sandy Hook and the Charleston shootings were a hoax. If that is the case,and judging by your denial of a homicide caught straight on camera,you're at best a moron or at worst a lunatic.

I promise I will respond to your guesses, once you have answered my question about 9/11.

BTW, I find it's best to lay off the invectives when engaging in discussions. :)

Noops wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

 

I promise I will respond to your guesses, once you have answered my question about 9/11. BTW, I find it's best to lay off the invectives when engaging in discussions. :)

OK,you got me.

Clearly 2 planes flew into the Twin Towers. Exactly who was behind it,who knew what,exactly how the buildings uniformally imploded is debatable.

Now that I answered you,answer me.

Do you believe Sandy Hook,the Charleston shootings or even the Aurora theatre shootings were hoaxes?

If I was the father of the deceased and someone claimed her death as a 'hoax' or was defended by a gun nut,I'd shoot them in face.

What goes around comes around.

Their co-workers must be in on it.  Funeral arrangements are obviously part of the hoax.  Anyone saying otherwise is in on it as well.

alan smithee wrote:

OK,you got me.

Clearly 2 planes flew into the Twin Towers. Exactly who was behind it,who knew what,exactly how the buildings uniformally imploded is debatable.

Now that I answered you,answer me.

Do you believe Sandy Hook,the Charleston shootings or even the Aurora theatre shootings were hoaxes?

I'm glad to see we are roughly on the same page re: 9/11.

As far as the shootings you referenced above are concerned, I honestly haven't looked into them much beyond the pablum that the MSM served us.
That being the case, I have no evidence at all to conclude they were hoaxes.
Boston Marathon is another matter.

Ken Burch wrote:

Noops...I don't usually say things like this on Babble...but what the hell are you doing?  People were murdered here(you know perfectly well there was no hoax)and you're derailing this thread in the name of opposing gun control and bringing up 9/11?  

What is WRONG with you?   

Ken, since 9/11 I have, by necessity, been forced to take a very sober view of all things we are fed by the MSM.

There is absolutely no proof whatsoever that people were killed in the video(s) provided by the MSM last Wednesday.

BTW, I am all FOR gun control! So you read me totally wrong on that one.

Quote:

These are the precise questions I ask myself as well and are the reasons why I am not jumping on the hoax bandwagon just yet!

You're currently DRIVING the hoax bandwagon.  And it's a bandwagon of one.

Ken Burch wrote:

It is extremely insensisitive of you to use this situation, a situation in which people's lives were ended for no reason, to try to start yet another discussion of what happened in the Twin Towers.  There have been tons of threads about that on Babble ever since that event occurred. 

Ken, unfortunately I didn't participate in previous 9/11 discussions here. I was busy doing other things.

Let's not draw the "insensitive" card OK?
Don't you think it was insensitive of the (non-muslim) perps to murder thousands of innocent Americans on 9/11?

Quote:

And the murderer himself posted footage of himself killing the reporter and the camera guy.

I wouldn't want to have you on my detective team Ken.
The 'murderer' pointed a gun and fired shots at Alison.
She then turned around and started running away.
There is no video of the 'murderer' killing the reporter or the camera guy. That was left for your imagination.

Quote:

And there's no reason to think that the freaking county coroner would cooperate with faked murders designed to artificially build support for gun control, nor that people would willingly fake their own deaths and spend the rest of their lives in hiding in the name of that particular cause.

I agree.

Quote:

You don't need to imply that these deaths were faked to justify 9/11 skepticism, any more than you need to be a 9/11 skeptic to justify rejecting the Warren Commission's report on the JFK assassination...

I was not trying to tie these deaths to 9/11 in any way!
I simply asked the fellow about his take on 9/11 to get a sense of how he ingests American news.

Quote:

BTW, I had no reason to think you supported gun control.  You've rarely posted on this board in the ten years you've been a member here, so what would I have to base such a conclusion on?

No reason, yet you had no problem jumping to conclusions about my position on gun control:

Quote:

"and you're derailing this thread in the name of opposing gun control...

Quote:

Ken, unfortunately I didn't participate in previous 9/11 discussions here.

Really?

Quote:

I came to the 9/11 truth movement really late (like late last year). Hey, I was busy living my life, what can I say? I am one of those people who likes to check out the nitty gritty details of things/events but also keep the big picture clearly in mind with everything, not just 9/11. What I would like to know is who is coordinating, or trying to coordinate, all 9/11 truther efforts? Is anyone on the planet? I haven't found anything yet on the net. The reason I ask is the following. There are reams of information, videos etc. on the net today with details of alternate conspiracy theories and what not. Some is junk of course, but there are enough pieces or info that seem like solid evidence showing the 'official 9/11 story' is not accurate. There are 9/11 truthers in the U.S. Canada and all over the world. They don't all agree on what happened on Sep. 11, 2001, nor what specific evidence shows that the official version is not accurate. That really isn't important at this stage. What is important is that something is done soon to launch another U.S. inquiry into the event, this time an impartial inquiry. In order for this to take place I believe one or more of the following needs to take place: 1. An individual or groups needs to coordinate as many truthers/truther groups as possible so that the groups are all unified into one. Again, the members do not have to all agree on what the nitty gritty happened on 9/11. All the members though have to agree that a new impartial U.S. inquiry on 9/11 must take place as soon as possible. 2. The biggest, most famous, influential U.S. individuals (actors/politicians/TV show hosts/authors etc. need to be recruited to speak out in favour of this new impartial U.S. inquiry. Some have, but their numbers are far too few. 3. A 'JFK style' movie needs to be made and released to rally the masses in the U.S. to demand a new impartial U.S. inquiry. 4. Rich businessmen, somewhere in this world, need to purchase an old, ready for the scrap, Boeing 767 and find a tall skyscraper somewhere in this world that can be used as a target as part of a controlled experiment. If a building can't be found, then they should build one! Then the plane should be flown into the evacuated building by remote control, the entire event being videotaped. I believe that anything else that is done, short of the above; seminars, books etc. on 9/11, while noble in effort, won't be effective ultimately in bringing about a new inquiry.

Huh.

Paladin1 wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

 

Uh bluh bluh uh bluh bluh BLAAA woo woo bla buh buh buh buh buh BAAAAAAAH hahahahahahaaha HOO!

 

I have a conspiricy for you.

Noops and The Vicious joined approximately at the same time.  February 15th 2005 and February 3rd 2005.

Noops doesn't post very often, he only began posting again this month, August 6th 2015, after not posting in 9 months.

The Vicious, who joined in 2005, only began posting August 17th 2015. The very same month Noops returned from his sabatical and the first time posting in literaly 10 years of being a member here.

"Both" members seem to be instigating people.

 

Very coincidental, wouldn't you say?

 

Now that's a conspiracy theory if I ever saw one! :)

Good catch!

I'll stick with the dictionary definition of "previous".

 To be fair to the firearm advocates, they're jumping onto the defence right off the bat from past experience, gun control advocates using any murder as an excuse to demand gun control. Until both sides of an issue voluntarily agree that a tragedy is off limits for political exploitation for a set amount of time, this will continue.

Let's go back to the days of the 'Old West' where everyone is armed and you're free to blow someone's head off for someone looking at you crooked after drinking peyote laced tequila.

Maybe I don't like your face. My right to firearms protects my right to shoot you up with an AK-47.

Let's condone gun culture like the US so we can all masturbate into our guns while we read the bible.

Can I get an Amen?

Yes, i was being genuine with that question.  Mass shootings are no longer the rarity they once were.  They're quite commonplace in fact, and more often than not the target settings are where young people congregate, such as schools, theatres, or symbols like churches, courthouses, and media.  The trend vividly suggests that individuals who are so inclined seem determined to inflict as much harm as they can upon society itself.  Certainly we have seen more than enough examples, from one person or another of varying backgrounds, to suspect that society itself is responsible for spreading this type of contagion.  But while societies tend to create the conditions that give rise to events where the Blooms lash out in final acts of confused desperation, in my opinion it still remains the right of individuals and communities to provide for their own defence, whether that takes the form of armed guards or armed kindergarten teachers.  The problem in that event though, which no contingency plan can adequately address, is when the security guards and the kindergarten teachers are launched into a Bloomesque rage of their own.  In a society that turns out so few winners and plenty of losers, such as the capitalist ones where failure is common and violence gets worshipped like it does, you would need to employ guards to protect the innocents against their co-worker guards who crack under the strain of everyday life, and so on.

There's less emphasis here on the virtues of gun ownership for sure, but there are cases of mass shootings and plans to carry out mass shootings.

One comedian's take on an armed populace. (image)