Frankly, fbenario, I don't get why you have decided to nit-pick my every post in this thread looking for unlikely, unreasonable faults of mine, as if to suggest I must have some preconceived idea about this event.fbenario wrote:What? Haven't we already been through this earlier in the thread? Proof of a disaster? What are you talking about?nonhocapito wrote:but I think this thread proves that there are many reasons to believe that, once again, a big disaster is being using for psy-op/scam purposes.
All we have is a silly broken boat lying in the water. In NY a broken plane in the Hudson did not mean the Sullenberger Event occurred. Here, we have no proof at all that any boat full of passengers had a problem leading to nighttime evacuation.
Again, did I miss something somewhere?
In any case: I said that this thread proves (I should have said shows, but it's the same) that there are reasons to believe (notice the subordinate) that this event is a scam. That's all I've said and you know it very well. I used the word "disaster" rather than "event" simply because this is what the media call it. Just as I might call 9/11 a "terror event" in one context or the other, if only because after all it was aimed at causing terror.
Besides a gigantic ship stranded next to the coast can be called a "disaster" without irony or metaphoric sense -- even if the dynamic of the events and the alleged victims involved are all false. Disaster, according to the Oxford dictionary is "an event or fact leading to ruin or failure". And we certainly have plenty of those.