CAN YOU FIND YOUR CRISIS ACTORS AT THESE MASS CASUALTY EVENTS❓

Sama_El
Published on Jun 19, 2024
?SHOCKING VIDEO: Most of the mass shootings & mass casualty or injury events you’ve been shown on television, such as the Sandy Hook hoax, were done by the government and crisis actors. Watch ?

Source: https://x.com/AmericazOutlaw/status/1802756862166663461

Thumbnail: https://www.11alive.com/article/news/half-of-americas-deadliest-mass-shootings-have-occurred-this-decade-here-are-their-details/85-2156fab4-2ac4-4180-9729-0e547c0d0243

Just the introduction:

After writing my first paper on this subject about two weeks ago, I have been ignoring the various
debunking responses from the government-controlled mainstream media. I considered them all too
weak to even merit a response. But now that even infowars is claiming that some of the points have
been debunked, and Glenn Beck is planning to repeat the debunking, I feel forced to respond.

The government always hires people to run this gambit: they publish some ridiculously weak response
as a debunking, it utterly fails to debunk anything, but then simply because it got published by top
outlets they claim the theory has been debunked. Go study just about any tragedy or big news story of
the past 50 years, and you will see the same progression. [Specifically, you can study Popular
Mechanics' pathetic efforts to debunk 911 Truth by this method.] But I have news for them, publishing
an article with the title Debunked does not automatically mean the theory has been debunked. You
actually have to make a strong argument. Blowing smoke for a couple of pages isn't a debunking, it is
just more propaganda, and most people who read these things can see that. The debunking of 911
didn't work, because the debunking was exponentially weaker than the data it was trying to debunk.

Most people now recognize that fact. We are seeing the same thing here with Sandy Hook.

To prove this, I will go point for point through the debunking of Salon writer Alex Seitz-Wald, showing
it is no more than 3rd-string debating tricks and cold cabbage. He starts by calling his paper “Your
comprehensive answer to every Sandy Hook conspiracy theory.” It is subtitled “Every conspiratorial
allegation about the tragic Newtown shootings, answered.” So it should concern you that he is starting
off with a bold lie. His paper is only about 3 pages long, so how could it possibly address every point
or be comprehensive? Not only is he not comprehensive as a whole, but each question he does address
is only given a sound-bite answer. Most answers are only two sentences long, and some are only one
sentence long. But although his title is obviously and demonstrably false, he says it anyway. Why? As
a mind game. That is the way these people were taught to write, in Langley, Virginia, or somewhere.
They don't have any real counter-arguments, so they have to come up with something. They want you
to think that all questions have been answered, so they try to hypnotize you from the first word into
thinking they have been. “See my watch swinging? You are getting sleepy. . . sleepy. . .all questions
have been answered.”

Probably the worst sound-bite answer he gives is one of his first. He addresses the fact that a little girl
who looks exactly like Emilie Parker, and who is wearing her dress, is seen in Obama's lap after she
was supposedly murdered. He assures us it is her sister, but provides no evidence of that. Those who
say it is Emilie include an argument for why they think it is her, but Seitz-Wald doesn't feel the need to
make a counter-argument. Because he is a writer for Salon, all he has to give is his assurance: he is that
important. But it turns out the evidence is a great deal more extensive than just that one photo,
although of course Seitz-Wald doesn't go there. I admit that one photo, by itself, is inconclusive, but
that doesn't debunk it. Yes, it is within the realm of possibilities that Emilie's parents are not only using
a hand-me-down dress, but that they also began parting the younger sister's hair like Emilie—and that
her hair, newly parted there, just happened to create exactly the same signature whispies that Emilie's
hair created. Its creepy, but not strictly impossible. However, it also remains possible that is Emilie.
Nothing has been debunked. To decide this, we should logically proceed to corroborating evidence, to
look for proof or disproof. That is the scientific method, after all. When we do that, the evidence that
things don't add up becomes very strong. The evidence that there is a cover-up becomes certain. It
turns out that most of the photos provided of the Parker family show clear signs of tampering of one
sort or another. In the one I analyze in my first paper, we have a substitute for Emilie. And after I
provided that analysis, a graphic designer on youtube found evidence of tampering on another photo.

Read the rest at:

http://mileswmathis.com/sh3.pdf