Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Who started the fires in Ferguson

DCblogger's picture
Tags: 

I don't know what to make of this. Could be rumor mongering, or could be real. Judge for yourself.

Who started the fires in Ferguson

0
No votes yet
Updated: 

Comments

Submitted by lambert on

Seeing the guy's a regular Alex Jones reader gives me the creeps.

That said, there's an anti-militarization tendency over there...

I watched it; it's not unimpressive. Wish I had a view of the flames rising from that car, though.

DCblogger's picture
Submitted by DCblogger on

didn't notice the Alex Jones connection, or I probably would not have posted it. There is a lot of rumor mongering where Ferguson is concerned. On the other hand, the official version is patently false. a bad scene all around.

Submitted by lambert on

Nobody here is going to get taken in.

Just to add to the fun:

1) Some buildings were not torched. What was the pattern? (I think I know part but it would be nice to have evidence).

2) If you look at the whole of the original video -- and if you do, you'll see at once the absurdity of the idea that property damage isn't violence -- you see people on the street comment that the SWAT teams aren't doing anything. Why? And why the late hour, and why the national guard not on the street?

3) There's also the idea that some locals have, that the whole corridor is going to be redeveloped by real estate interests with TIF money. Which explains #2.

Would be interesting if you know anything about this. So, again, thanks.

Submitted by lambert on

http://youtu.be/ZDLpiEWlFZ0

From one "Victor Maggio."

The original is fairly represented in what you showed, but what I don't see is the car in flames at any point after the SWAT team supposedly set it on fire, either in this footage or elsewhere (there is a stain on the parking lot, approximately in the same position). And you would think it would be a natural thing to pan back to the now-flaming car.

Submitted by EGrise on

Agreed, I don't see any flames. I see bright flashlights illuminating something reddish that the cop at the car window seems to be handling, i.e. a blanket he's pulling back to see what's underneath. But hard to say for sure.

Submitted by lambert on

... it looks like there is at least not much to see. "Nothing to see here. Move along" is typically used when there is actually something to see.

nomad2's picture
Submitted by nomad2 on

So say you. Actually the most compelling part of the video is the point made about the timeline of the fires and systematic way the cars were torched. Not random like you'd expect from genuine opportunistic vandals, but each and every one burned in an area that was cordoned off by the paramilitary personnel. The rioters, curiously absent from the scene, obviously returned to finish the job after these guys left. But of course I know you have no imagination about such things and an acute inability to connect dots.

Submitted by lambert on

Others said the same. Maybe you're right on the timeline; I'll give the video a listen.

Anyhow, your suicide request is granted.

UPDATE I just wasted ten minutes watching the video again to make sure that what I thought was not there was not there:

Actually the most compelling part of the video is the point made about the timeline of the fires and systematic way the cars were torched. Not random like you'd expect from genuine opportunistic vandals, but each and every one burned in an area that was cordoned off by the paramilitary personnel.

There is no "point made" to this effect. One can read that in to the video if one likes, but people read a lot of stuff into videos.

So, both a liar and a timewaster. Good riddance.

nomad2's picture
Submitted by nomad2 on

And I'm not typical. So stop expecting me to be.

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you..."
then I think they falsely accuse you...or something like that...