Why did H-wood glorify TITANIC as a tragic love story?
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (56)
sorted by:
There was no "hole." The collision was a glancing contact that carved a gash along the hull, spanning too many of the internal anti-flooding compartments. Impossible to obtain with an explosion, nor was any explosion mentioned by any witnesses. The iceberg was SEEN. My God, do your research.
I'm not saying it's 100% that you're wrong. But god are you such a fucking shill. Every time I see your name, you're towing the mainstream story/explanation for nearly every topic. And you do it in such a assured almost condescending manner, as if you know your position is of absolute fact. You're basically the resident agent Smith of this forum.
Yep. The golden rules: If it’s on mainstream media, it’s a lie. If it’s bulldozed, it’s a false flag to hide evidence. School shootings, 9/11… If the government gives it away for free, it’s bad for you If it’s a law, it’s to protect the cabal and it’s agenda, not you
Spot on observation.
He enjoys pissing everyone off by insulting them and talking down to them, he has no other way of communicating. Agent Smith, a good description, thanks for that.
Yeah, it's tough knowing what I'm talking about. Gets under the skin of those who only have opinions or suppositions. I know I'm over the target when I get flak.
Yep, and I bet you believe the Titanic was just a tragic accident as well.
Since it was, with no evidence to the contrary, I am losing no sleep over it.
I know what was reported just like Biden won the 2020 election. Too convenient of an accident and sure they reported icebergs, they were everywhere.
Not convenient at all. Immense loss of life and property. The expectation was that the icebergs would not be so far south (wrong expectation). All it took was one, in the wrong place. There were a host of other, compounding problems.
What do you think Q was talking about if it was just bad luck?
I have a different attitude. When someone is making obscure statements, I ask them for clarification. I don't put any stock in divining what someone means. I saw that too much at work. People working on a problem, based on what they thought their supervisor meant. I would ask them what they were doing and they would just mumble and speculate about what the supervisor would be thinking. I would go and ask the supervisor. Or, in one case, I summed up all the work that had been done and sent it off to the customer for clarification. We hadn't communicated to him for a year. He replied back, "No, that's not what I want. I want this..." It had no relationship to what everyone was speculating. After two weeks of analysis, I sent him the answer---and went off to open-heart surgery. Two months later, when I returned, I found that the customer was happy, the implemented equations worked perfectly, and the problem was solved. A complete waste of several man-years of fruitless effort, for the sake of unwillingness to get clarification from the customer.
Or, as I hinted, it was a test to see if we would put a rabbit in front of us on a pole and run after it. If we did that, it would be a flunk. Nobody ever seems to think that a proper answer could be that the "trail" is bogus. Closed minds.
Who knows what Q was talking about if he doesn't talk plainly? There is no telepathy good enough to sort it out.