LAX Shooting Conspiracy Theories - Los Angeles Airport - False Flag Theories

Status
Not open for further replies.
When so many indicators point to such a possibility it seems prudent to consider it likely, does it not? On the other hand, ignoring or dismissing the indicators out of hand while insisting that there's "nothing to see here" based on nothing more than a wish that it not be so doesn't have much in the way of rational backing, does it?

Can you offer a reasonable scenario of what is taking place instead, given the indicators?

So how long do you worry about it?
 
f the goal truly was to usher in a police state in the face of resistance, what do you think would be different from what we see happening across the land?

What happened in other countries where someone tried to "usher in a police state"? Disappearances, torture, violent suppression of protests, state control of media, restrictions on travel?

So far your main evidence seems to be buying a lot of bullets (the number being debatable). That is very much NOT what I would expect. Police states really don't use very many bullets, except for target practice.
 
I forgot too that David Barton has some white supremacist connections. That and his antipathy towards the gayz I think more than makes him a hatemonger.

One could probably just as easily say that the SPLC has some Jewish supremacist connections due to the way they list some groups promoting ideologies of supremacy but not others. I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that this "seeing connections" stuff is usually relative to fairly vague and subjective perceptions, given that few develop a factual or historic framework for their claims.

For instance, claims about how American populists and civil libertarians are "in some ways" fascists and totalitarians. (????) Meanwhile, back in reality... Jones can see Nazis or a Soviet police state forming every time a policeman passes gas the wrong way, so it seems unlikely that he'll ever be involved in building any type of totalitarian structure similar to the Jewish Bolshevik's (Genrikh Yagoda) or the more reactionary German Nazis. Contrast how unlikely that is with the SPLC, given that they've probably already begun partnering with the DHS to try to police "hate speech" or "hate groups."

Other "connections":
Alex Jones it some ways fits the bill of a fascist for his support of gender roles, social conservatism, declaring dissenting opinions as treasonous, and yes... spreading conspiracy propaganda.

"In some ways" that would need a lot of work to get it into some sort of a factual framework in which civil libertarians like Jones are a threat to everyone's civil liberties and so forth. To begin with Nazi fascists were eugenicists while Ernst Roehm and other homosexual Nazis weren't exactly "social conservatives."

Seriously. "In some ways..." it seems like Metabunk is usually full of fact free bunk linked to a progressive worldview. I'm all for having a worldview or building theories based on the facts. But you don't need to have elaborate theories about how civil libertarians are like fascists when one can just focus on a factual/historic view instead.
 
Are you claiming that the US does not practice torture and disappearances?

It's on the list I linked to.

But I was thinking of something more along the lines of the South American experience, Chile, Argentina, where thousands of citizens in the homeland were affected.
 
How did we get from LAX shooting conspiracy theories to gay rights? I believe we are off topic unless the theory is the shooter was a member of a radical gay militia group with a grudge against the TSA.
This has been off-topic ever since the defence/culpability of Alex Jones began being discussed.
 
What happened in other countries where someone tried to "usher in a police state"? Disappearances, torture, violent suppression of protests, state control of media, restrictions on travel?

So far your main evidence seems to be buying a lot of bullets (the number being debatable). That is very much NOT what I would expect. Police states really don't use very many bullets, except for target practice.

The NDAA gives Obama the ability to detain American citizens indefinitely without charge or due process based on nothing more than his say so. That would qualify as a disappearance and could easily lead to torture.

Violent suppression of protests is certainly in play. See Seattle, Pittsburgh, Oakland, UC Davis, OWS, etc. Sound cannons, flashbangs, pepperspray, rubber bullets, tear gas.

State control of media isn't of the overt nature of say China or Russia, but the press is being defanged as much as possible and with the repeal of the propaganda ban, the lines are more blurred than ever.

Travel limitations exist in the way of no-fly lists, TSA prescreening, and DHS clearances.

http://thestateweekly.com/tsa-to-pre-screen-air-travelers-tax-info-property-records-travel-history/

http://hasbrouck.org/blog/archives/001156.html
External Quote:
The USA Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has proposed that airlines cruise lines, and operators of all other ships and planes -- including charter flights, air taxis, fishing vessels, etc. -- be required to get individual permission ("clearance") from the DHS for each passenger on all flights or ocean voyages to, from, or via the USA. Unless the answer is "Yes" -- if the answer is "no" or "maybe", or if the DHS doesn't answer at all -- the airline wouldn't be allowed to give you a boarding pass, or let you or your luggage on the plane.

I filed comments this week with the DHS on behalf of the Identity Project, the World Privacy Forum, and activist entrepreneur John Gilmore, objecting to this proposal as a violation of international human rights, First Amendment rights, and privacy and government accountability laws.

This is the third identification-related "rulemaking" in the last month and a half in which the DHS has proposed to restrict the right to travel. I've worked with the Identity Project to file formal objections to each of these proposals:


As for them not using lots of bullets, well, sure. That's because they have such strict gun control and why so many are against the same happening here. It's easy to say nobody is trying to take away guns, but it's not as easy to support.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnew...-is-the-federal-government-disarming-veterans

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/09/gun-grabbing-legislation-sweeping

http://downtrend.com/travis/california-begins-confiscating-legally-purchased-guns/

The idea that things are going to jump off next week or whatever is a red herring. It's more death by a thousand cuts. To say that there aren't any warning signs or that it is paranoid to be concerned about the erosion of liberties and privacy or the ramp of the security apparatus seems like turning a blind eye.
 
This has been off-topic ever since the defence/culpability of Alex Jones began being discussed.

That was not entirely off topic, as one of the conspiracy theories is that the event was a false flag staged to discredit Alex Jones. Unfortunately people always take even a tangential suggestion like that as some kind of personal attack.
 
I seem to have missed those reasons. All I recall is mentions of bulk purchases and weapons proficiency. They don't address the context within which the situation, let alone counter it, so you will have to excuse me for taking them as a dismissal.
...
The context is a movable frame, so you can juxtapose a purchase order with general civil dissatisfaction to make them seem connected.
Given the context of bureaucracy and the realities of training police forces, which seem more pertinent, your inference has less weight.
 
The idea that things are going to jump off next week or whatever is a red herring. It's more death by a thousand cuts. To say that there aren't any warning signs or that it is paranoid to be concerned about the erosion of liberties and privacy or the ramp of the security apparatus seems like turning a blind eye.

Would you put money on something measurable happening in five years? Say $100?
 
But is it not getting worse? Creeping. That is the only real question.

For example, is the US torturing/disappearing/spying-on etc., more people (proportionally) than they did in say the eighties. Or was it just as bad then?
 
These sorts of concerns and paranoias seem to be examples of the evolutionary theory of the value of fear - something *might * be happening, so let's assume it is and panic/plan accordingly. Except it seems people are taking it to extremes.
 
But is it not getting worse? Creeping. That is the only real question.

For example, is the US torturing/disappearing/spying-on etc., more people (proportionally) than they did in say the eighties. Or was it just as bad then?


That is a good question. A lot of BtD's points above have historical precedence and thus are not really new ie; violent suppression of protests, torture etc...

Perhaps now it is more difficult to keep such things in the shadow so that it seems like things are "ramping up" when its really just a long continuum...
 
Last edited:
Jones can see Nazis or a Soviet police state forming every time a policeman passes gas the wrong way, so it seems unlikely that he'll ever be involved in building any type of totalitarian structure similar to the Jewish Bolshevik's (Genrikh Yagoda) or the more reactionary German Nazis.

What? Who has said AJ was going to be involved in building a structure similar to the Jewish Bolshevik's (Genrikh Yagoda)? Where did that come from?
 
There is difference in not agreeing with someone or their views and in hate speech toward them.

Say I disagree with the 'Lemonade Party'. I can say that, I can explain why, "lemonade is a foul tasting drink'. However, if I start saying that all members of the Lemonade Party are pedophiles and rapists, then that is different. That is HATE speech.
 
So your default position is to assume they're preparing for combat against civilians until proven otherwise.

That's a fairly reasonable position in general - never trust any person or entity with power over you. Always assume malice until proven(to an unreasonably high standard) otherwise . Government has proven time and time again throughout history the world over to be untrustworthy, deceptive, corrupt, oppressive, and violent. Who in their right mind gives any government the benefit of the doubt? Or takes it for granted that government is benign? Hanlon's razor is for suckers and if you buy the "it was a failure of intelligence" excuse, then a failure of intelligence has definitely occurred.



"There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army.”
 
That's a fairly reasonable position in general - never trust any person or entity with power over you. Always assume malice until proven(to an unreasonably high standard) otherwise . Government has proven time and time again throughout history the world over to be untrustworthy, deceptive, corrupt, oppressive, and violent. Who in their right mind gives any government the benefit of the doubt? Or takes it for granted that government is benign? Hanlon's razor is for suckers and if you buy the "it was a failure of intelligence" excuse, then a failure of intelligence has definitely occurred.

"There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army.”

What are you going to do about it then?

I mean if you assume there's about to be violent takeover of the population, surely you are taking some precautions? Heading for the hills? Stocking up on guns? Moving to France?
 
What are you going to do about it then?

I mean if you assume there's about to be violent takeover of the population, surely you are taking some precautions? Heading for the hills? Stocking up on guns? Moving to France?
When the spit hits the fan, I'm moving to Cameo.


But seriously, that's a good question. What are you doing in anticipation of such a cataclysm?
 
Just another day at the orifice? Zoiks. This isn't even the only case of this kind of insanity. Another guy and a woman got the same treatment in NM.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/363531/drift-toward-despotism-mark-steyn
External Quote:
David Eckert was pulled over by police in Deming, N.M., for failing to come to a complete halt at a stop sign in the Walmart parking lot. He was asked to step out of the vehicle, and waited on the sidewalk. Officers decided that they didn’t like the tight clench of his buttocks, a subject on which New Mexico’s constabulary is apparently expert, and determined that it was because he had illegal drugs secreted therein. So they arrested him, and took him to Gila Regional Medical Center in neighboring Hidalgo County, where Mr. Eckert was forced to undergo two abdominal X-rays, two rectal probes, three enemas, and defecate thrice in front of medical staff and representatives of two law-enforcement agencies, before being sedated and subjected to a colonoscopy — all procedures performed against his will and without a valid warrant.

Alas, Mr. Eckert’s body proved to be a drug-free zone, and so, after twelve hours of detention, he was released. If you’re wondering where his lawyer was during all this, no attorney was present, as police had not charged Mr. Eckert with anything, so they’re apparently free to frolic and gambol up his rectum to their hearts’ content. Deming police chief Brandon Gigante says his officers did everything “by the book.” That’s the problem, in New Mexico and beyond: “the book.”

Getting into the spirit of things, Gila Regional Medical Center subsequently sent Mr. Eckert a bill for $6,000.
 
What are you going to do about it then?

I mean if you assume there's about to be violent takeover of the population, surely you are taking some precautions? Heading for the hills? Stocking up on guns? Moving to France?

You bring up a good point. What to do about it? This may be why so many folks turn a blind eye to it or dismiss it. Not because they don't care or can't see it, but because of a sense of helplessness and outrage fatigue. Even many of the rabid patriot types ready to fight fire with fire realize it's a losing battle ultimately.
 
Just another day at the orifice? Zoiks. This isn't even the only case of this kind of insanity. Another guy and a woman got the same treatment in NM.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/363531/drift-toward-despotism-mark-steyn
External Quote:
David Eckert was pulled over by police in Deming, N.M., for failing to come to a complete halt at a stop sign in the Walmart parking lot. He was asked to step out of the vehicle, and waited on the sidewalk. Officers decided that they didn’t like the tight clench of his buttocks, a subject on which New Mexico’s constabulary is apparently expert, and determined that it was because he had illegal drugs secreted therein. So they arrested him, and took him to Gila Regional Medical Center in neighboring Hidalgo County, where Mr. Eckert was forced to undergo two abdominal X-rays, two rectal probes, three enemas, and defecate thrice in front of medical staff and representatives of two law-enforcement agencies, before being sedated and subjected to a colonoscopy — all procedures performed against his will and without a valid warrant.

Alas, Mr. Eckert’s body proved to be a drug-free zone, and so, after twelve hours of detention, he was released. If you’re wondering where his lawyer was during all this, no attorney was present, as police had not charged Mr. Eckert with anything, so they’re apparently free to frolic and gambol up his rectum to their hearts’ content. Deming police chief Brandon Gigante says his officers did everything “by the book.” That’s the problem, in New Mexico and beyond: “the book.”

Getting into the spirit of things, Gila Regional Medical Center subsequently sent Mr. Eckert a bill for $6,000.


There is evidence of abhorrent behaviour from many individuals all over the country. But for some reason when we see this type of behaviour in a police officer, CTs see it as evidence of a police state, martial law takeover.
 
You bring up a good point. What to do about it? This may be why so many folks turn a blind eye to it or dismiss it. Not because they don't care or can't see it, but because of a sense of helplessness and outrage fatigue. Even many of the rabid patriot types ready to fight fire with fire realize it's a losing battle ultimately.

Or maybe because they don't really believe it. Maybe they just like arguing.
 
Anecdotes are not data. I'm sure you could find plenty of cases of nasty police behaviour every year.

I don't get that bit about anecdotes, truth to tell. What is data besides a collection of individual events?

Regardless, you are right that you can find plenty of cases. It's just that there seem to be more and more of them coming to light and they keep getting more extreme. Hell, today there was another story where a guy wouldn't get his teen son a pack of cigarettes. So the kid stomps off and takes the dad's car. Dad reports him to the cops to "teach him a lesson" (bright move, dad) and when the cops get to the kid, he doesn't turn off the engine when instructed to.

So the cops shot him six times and killed him.

hat's just not normal procedure, just as it wasn't normal for the DC cops to kill that lady for panicking and ramming those barricades, never mind congress giving them a standing ovation for doing so.
 
Last edited:
Or maybe because they don't really believe it. Maybe they just like arguing.

Could be, I suppose. But I do think there is something to the outrage fatigue. When the stuff with Snowden and the NSA broke it was tons of wtf?! Now, when the repeated examples of such stuff comes up on the feed, it's just a shrug and whatever. Desensitization as a coping mechanism.
 
I don't get that bit about anecdotes, truth to tell. What is data besides a collection of individual events?

Regardless, you are right that you can find plenty of cases. It's just that there seem to be more and more of them coming to light and they keep getting more extreme. Hell, today there was another story where a guy wouldn't get his teen son a pack of cigarettes. So the kid stomps off and takes the dad's car. Dad reports him to the cops to "teach him a lesson" (bright move, dad) and when the cops get to the kid, he doesn't turn off the engine when instructed to.

So the cops shot him six times and killed him. That's just not normal procedure, just as it wasn't normal for the DC cops to kill that lady for panicking and ramming those barricades, never mind congress giving them a standing ovation for doing so.
Keep in mind that alot of news articles you see about so called "police mis behaviour" often leave out details that might explain why the police did what they did. Usually because these incidents are reported not long after when they occur, so information will be limited. And it rarely makes the front page when further details do come to light that might look favorable to the officer.

You don't whether the father had a gun in the car and his son knew about it and threatened to use it. And ramming gates at the white house is a little different than ramming the gates outside a country club.
 
There is evidence of abhorrent behaviour from many individuals all over the country. But for some reason when we see this type of behaviour in a police officer, CTs see it as evidence of a police state, martial law takeover.

Maybe it's because they are supposed to be trained professionals. That is supposed to make a difference, right?
 
I don't get that bit about anecdotes, truth to tell. What is data besides a collection of individual events?

Regardless, you are right that you can find plenty of cases. It's just that there seem to be more and more of them coming to light and they keep getting more extreme. Hell, today there was another story where a guy wouldn't get his teen son a pack of cigarettes. So the kid stomps off and takes the dad's car. Dad reports him to the cops to "teach him a lesson" (bright move, dad) and when the cops get to the kid, he doesn't turn off the engine when instructed to.

So the cops shot him six times and killed him.

hat's just not normal procedure, just as it wasn't normal for the DC cops to kill that lady for panicking and ramming those barricades, never mind congress giving them a standing ovation for doing so.

You missed out the bit where he tried to kill the cops by running them over.
 
Keep in mind that alot of news articles you see about so called "police mis behaviour" often leave out details that might explain why the police did what they did. Usually because these incidents are reported not long after when they occur, so information will be limited.

You don't whether the father had a gun in the car and his son knew about it and threatened to use it. And ramming gates at the white house is a little different than ramming the gates outside a country club.

The kid was unarmed.

What is so different about the white house barricades that it was necessary to kill the poor woman?
 
Maybe it's because they are supposed to be trained professionals. That is supposed to make a difference, right?
But they're still human beings capable of mistakes, poor judgement, and malfeasance. The point is that everytime a cop screws up, chances are you are going to hear about it. Certain events receive more media attention than others. When 20 kids die in a New England Suburb, it's a big deal. When 20 kids die in a nasty part of a big city, nobody cares.
 
The kid was unarmed.

He was armed with a car. Look at the video.



Your description of the story is utterly dishonest:

So the kid stomps off and takes the dad's car. Dad reports him to the cops to "teach him a lesson" (bright move, dad) and when the cops get to the kid, he doesn't turn off the engine when instructed to.

So the cops shot him six times and killed him.

Pure BS. You should apologize.
 
The kid was unarmed.

What is so different about the white house barricades that it was necessary to kill the poor woman?
Because it's the White House and that's where the President lives.

How about you explain to us what you think the correct course of action would have been.

You have a lady driving like a maniac and ramming gates. You have no idea what her intentions are. You don't know whether or not she has any weapons or explosives. She might try to run people over.

You have a badge and a gun. You're duty is to protect and serve the people and the White House. You have to act fast.

What would you do?
 
Because it's the White House and that's where the President lives.

How about you explain to us what you think the correct course of action would have been.

You have a lady driving like a maniac and ramming gates. You have no idea what her intentions are. You don't know whether or not she has any weapons or explosives. She might try to run people over.

You have a badge and a gun. You're duty is to protect and serve the people and the White House. You have to act fast.

What would you do?

What about shooting out the tires and attempting to immobilizing the vehicle in some way?
 
That only works in high speed police chases. A vehicle with flat tires is still operable and deadly with the wrong person behind the wheel.

And again, in that situation. You have no idea whether she is armed or what her intentions might be.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top