So far I can see this nonsense in his long article talking about the nature of conspiracies (at about 2/3 of the way through):
I find things to admire in all of these taxonomies, but it strikes me as notable that none makes provision for truth-value. Further, I'm not sure that these or any mode of classification can adequately address the often-alternating, dependent nature of conspiracies, whereby a true conspiracy (e.g. the 9/11 hijackers) triggers a false conspiracy (e.g. 9/11 was an inside job), and a false conspiracy (e.g. Iraq has weapons of mass destruction) triggers a true conspiracy (e.g. the invasion of Iraq).
The article starts with a picture of Trump cast in mysterious light with his hands on some lit globe with a bunch of Arabs and one can concoct all kinds of ideas about what it was about. Snowden never elaborates, just builds a 'sinister narrative' about 'real conspiracies'.
The article was gibberish. All vague theory - no specifics and no real meat.
I pointed this paragraph out because we know 9/11 was (at least in greater part) an inside job. Anyone who has looked at it for a day or two will conclude that, so why is he telling us that it isn't an inside job?
He knows too. He's lying to us with the authoritative voice of a "white hat" ex-spook.
It must be important. Maybe he is trying to get ahead of some news on the subject.
I could be bothered finishing it because what you're saying is so clearly true.
This is the kind of thing someone who knows NSCWIC. It's almost like the reader should take away the opposite of what he writes, and it feels completely transparent.
It's Snowden, it's some sort of limited hangout.
So far I can see this nonsense in his long article talking about the nature of conspiracies (at about 2/3 of the way through):
https://edwardsnowden.substack.com/p/conspiracy-pt1
WTF?
trying to control the narrative on 9/11 ? now?
Aleister Crowley called and he wants his writing style back.
Yuk!
Talk about relativism!
Snowden is fake and gay.
https://qagg.news/?read=1124
The article starts with a picture of Trump cast in mysterious light with his hands on some lit globe with a bunch of Arabs and one can concoct all kinds of ideas about what it was about. Snowden never elaborates, just builds a 'sinister narrative' about 'real conspiracies'.
The article was gibberish. All vague theory - no specifics and no real meat.
For what exactly ?
For those article ? https://edwardsnowden.substack.com/p/conspiracy-pt1
What do you have to research really ?
If there is nothing to it that's cool just figured if it was y'all could pick it apart is all.
Ok,maybe 9/11 and Iraq according to u/propertyofUniverse can be some clues somehow,but it looks like all.
There is any open research about:
oh,well - maybe then those post of Lin about Tom Hanks ?
Not mentioning I don't see operative groups working or coordinating here. Q ordered us something https://qagg.news/?read=4509 - do we do this order ?
I'll just explain what I meant.
I pointed this paragraph out because we know 9/11 was (at least in greater part) an inside job. Anyone who has looked at it for a day or two will conclude that, so why is he telling us that it isn't an inside job? He knows too. He's lying to us with the authoritative voice of a "white hat" ex-spook.
It must be important. Maybe he is trying to get ahead of some news on the subject.
According to Q Snowden is rather NOT on our side.
https://qagg.news/?q=snowden https://qagg.news/?q=snowden&page=2
Yes, I didn't think he was on our side.
Supposedly a clown planted in the NSA... no sauce for that.
He expressly denies this in this article, so it's true I guess.
I could be bothered finishing it because what you're saying is so clearly true.
This is the kind of thing someone who knows NSCWIC. It's almost like the reader should take away the opposite of what he writes, and it feels completely transparent.
something about 'think mirror'
Eyes on !