THE BEST DISASTER THESBIANS THREAD.

Awoken2

Star
Joined
Jan 22, 2018
Messages
3,554
Spielberg-esque? LOL WUT.
You spend far too much time here directing people to what they should be investigating and how they should be investigating it, and what they should do with their findings.

I thought you were here to tell us all about your telepathic Radiohead theory. Now you have nothing more to add to your own topic but choose instead to advise people how to add to their own topic.

If you have something to add to this particular subject matter please feel free to post.

Just go back to the very first post on this thread then come back and talk to me about how that makes you feel. Then perhaps we may progress?
 






RainDownPlane

Established
Joined
Dec 20, 2019
Messages
191
I thought my ideas were good in terms of coming up with comparisons. 1) Compile real life news eyewitnesses who were confirmed liars. 2) Compile actors playing characters testifying to the news. 3) Compile actors playing characters lying to the news. If you don't think those would be helpful, maybe it's because you don't want to do any actual detective work, and you just want to assume that every mass tragedy is fake?

If your approach to potential conspiracies is sloppy, be prepared to hear someone else suggest better ways of theorizing. Your approach to the possibility of crisis actors is sloppy and unrigorous. You seem to have caught one person lying about Grenfell, coming up with a tall tale about catching a baby. Other than that, your "method" is to just post a clip of apparent victims and ridicule them for being phonies. That method is stupid and irresponsible and counterproductive. Not only are you probably ridiculing a lot of actual victims, which is inherently unethical, but every instance of you doing that helps to discredit the whole community of rationally paranoid skeptics. Assuming every damn mass tragedy is fake is not rational paranoia. It's gaslighting. Maybe you've gaslit yourself and you just want company. Or maybe you're intentionally trying to warp people's minds. Might as well be either, the effect is the same. It's becoming clear you're an all-around blackpiller. That's not good. It's destructive.
 






Awoken2

Star
Joined
Jan 22, 2018
Messages
3,554
It's becoming clear you're an all-around blackpiller. That's not good. It's destructive.
And it's becoming clear to me that you're an ignoramus. Is this productive?

Or maybe you're intentionally trying to warp people's minds.
Tell me more about this telepathic Radiohead theory you have. Behave yourself will you?

Assuming every damn mass tragedy is fake is not rational paranoia.
Completely untrue. Just the events mentioned in this thread. That's it. My avatar was designed for people just like you.

. You seem to have caught one person lying about Grenfell, coming up with a tall tale about catching a baby. Other than that, your "method" is to just post a clip of apparent victims and ridicule them for being phonies
One person?!?!.... the majority of them were all lying. I have the proof, I have the evidence. The fact that I'm not dumb enough to disclose everything on this forum doesn't mean jack shit.

Read carefully again what I claimed. Most of the victims paraded to us by the MSN were telling a pack of lies. I have proof of this, this proof was gained by their subsequent statements given to the public inquiry.

I'll share this information with parties I trust who I think will expose the whole damn thing for what it was to a larger audience.

I don't trust you so I suggest you go find the information/evidence that I found. I ain't handing you nothing. You have no idea what you are talking about re Grenfell Tower. I worked for over a year on it so don't even go there.

Did you see the OP? You telling me she was a genuine victim? Why you even on this thread anyway?
 






Awoken2

Star
Joined
Jan 22, 2018
Messages
3,554
Were you actually aware that on the night of that fire the control room that were taking the calls from the people trapped in the building had their large central tv monitors turned OFF? These monitors were on EVERY night leading up to the fire allowing everybody in the control room to see live tv news pictures. But on the night of the worst fire in the UK since WW2 those pictures were not available...the reason for this was not questioned by the inquiry team, just accepted.

If they would have had the images the rest of the world was being show on live tv they would NOT have advised all the people to stay in the building.

The 72 people killed were told to stay where they were because the phone operators could not even see the fire.

Does that not seem a little odd to you?

There are also more coincidences that occured on the night that resulted in this event happening as it did they would put 9/11 in the shade.
 






Last edited:

RainDownPlane

Established
Joined
Dec 20, 2019
Messages
191
"Did you see the OP? You telling me she was a genuine victim? Why you even on this thread anyway?"

Yes, she looked like a genuine victim to me. You must not remember what teenage girls are like, you must not know what this recent generation of always-on-camera youth are like, you must not have any experience with traumatic grief. She's a typical Zoomer chick holding it together for a news interview and then losing her composure about her dead friend. She must've been struck by a funny thought at the same time she was crying. Maybe it was remembering some joke her dead friend told, maybe it was thinking about how silly her dead friend would think being interviewed by NBC would be, maybe it was a meta moment where she realized how pathetic she'd look crying on national TV and then immediately how superficial and self-absorbed a thought that is, which triggers self-deprecating laughter, which then triggers a realization that now she's laughing on national TV in the middle of crying about a tragedy, which is only more ridiculous and triggers only more laughter. The mind is weird. People are not robots. Young people are absurdly self-conscious. Nothing about that girl seemed especially fake to me, apart from the inherent artificiality of teenagerness and maintaining poise for a TV interview.
 






Awoken2

Star
Joined
Jan 22, 2018
Messages
3,554
Just the look of fear on Alex Jones's face when he realises he is in front of a camera without a script is priceless here. The ad lib nonsense that falls out of his mouth is put under the microscope here by Adam Green.

AJ is after all one of the best examples of a disaster thespian.

When the camera pans back to get a broader view of the "crowds" surrounding Jones and you see a group of about 25 people all grouped together like ants on candy for the best camera shots it just goes to show the theatre that surrounds this clown.

 






Last edited:

Awoken2

Star
Joined
Jan 22, 2018
Messages
3,554
You seem to have caught one person lying about Grenfell, coming up with a tall tale about catching a baby. Other than that, your "method" is to just post a clip of apparent victims and ridicule them for being phonies.
I thought I'd come back to this.

First of all I want you to see with your own eyes how this event started. This evidence was gathered by Professor Luke Bisby for stage 1 of the inquiry.


Did you notice that by the time the fire crew managed to get a jet of water on the outside of the building all water was able to do at that point was chase the flames up the building itself?

The inquiry team did not allow an open comments section on the first phase but have allowed it open in there opening statements so I directed my questions directly at them.

I wonder how long the comments section will be open now for?

 






RainDownPlane

Established
Joined
Dec 20, 2019
Messages
191
I thought I'd come back to this.

First of all I want you to see with your own eyes how this event started. This evidence was gathered by Professor Luke Bisby for stage 1 of the inquiry.


Did you notice that by the time the fire crew managed to get a jet of water on the outside of the building all water was able to do at that point was chase the flames up the building itself?

The inquiry team did not allow an open comments section on the first phase but have allowed it open in there opening statements so I directed my questions directly at them.

I wonder how long the comments section will be open now for?

So for several minutes the firefighters were late with the water and then by the time they applied the water it was too late because the fire had grown? And this doesn't strike you as something that could totally happen because humans can be fallible and make mistakes? Are you sure they already had the water ready to deploy? Are you sure that applying water at the beginning of that video could've even suppressed the fire?
 






Awoken2

Star
Joined
Jan 22, 2018
Messages
3,554
So for several minutes the firefighters were late with the water and then by the time they applied the water it was too late because the fire had grown? And this doesn't strike you as something that could totally happen because humans can be fallible and make mistakes? Are you sure they already had the water ready to deploy? Are you sure that applying water at the beginning of that video could've even suppressed the fire?
I'm struggling here with your "blasphemous agnostic who just hates antisemites" standpoint.

I've made it quite clear to you that I spent a year investigating this fire and the subsequent joke of a public inquiry.

I really have no interest whatsoever in anybody who comes onto a conspiracy forum to try and defend mainstream news.

Here are some more facts about the fire that were revealed during the inquiry.

1. All attending fire crews were working off a 7 year old ORD (operational risk database) which related to the building BEFORE the renovations. This meant the fire crews were given wrong information regarding how many floors the building had.

2. On the two previous fire safety inspections of Grenfell tower the fire crews were unable to get into the building because they didn't have a key fob to get in. On the night of the fire the fire crews had to wait inside the building foyer for two minutes until a resident let them in...because they didn't have a key fob.

3. The original OC for the incident Mike Dowden has said on the record that he wasn't aware that there were people in the building for the first 30 minutes he was in charge.

4. The fire lifts were not operational at Grenfell Tower.

5. The communal fire alarm which had been deactivated during the renovations was not reactivated after the renovations.

.... I will list another five unfortunate coincidences for you to try and explain away when I'm not busy. I have around 40 unfortunate coincidences for you but let's take this nice and slow to start off with.
 






Last edited:

RainDownPlane

Established
Joined
Dec 20, 2019
Messages
191
I'm struggling here with your "blasphemous agnostic who just hates antisemites" standpoint.

I've made it quite clear to you that I spent a year investigating this fire and the subsequent joke of a public inquiry.

I really have no interest whatsoever in anybody who comes onto a conspiracy forum to try and defend mainstream news.

Here are some more facts about the fire that were revealed during the inquiry.

1. All attending fire crews were working off a 7 year old ORD (operational risk database) which related to the building BEFORE the renovations. This meant the fire crews were given wrong information regarding how many floors the building had.

2. On the two previous fire safety inspections of Grenfell tower the fire crews were unable to get into the building because they didn't have a key fob to get in. On the night of the fire the fire crews had to wait inside the building foyer for two minutes until a resident let them in...because they didn't have a key fob.

3. The original OC for the incident Mike Dowden has said on the record that he wasn't aware that there were people in the building for the first 30 minutes he was in charge.

4. The fire lifts were not operational at Grenfell Tower.

5. The communal fire alarm which had been deactivated during the renovations was not reactivated after the renovations.

.... I will list another five unfortunate coincidences for you to try and explain away when I'm not busy. I have around 40 unfortunate coincidences for you but let's take this nice and slow to start off with.
Those are unfortunate, for sure. Possible it's a horrific plot. Also possible it could just be authorities not giving a shit about poor people and tolerating incompetence. Maybe you've never been poor, but that kind of negligence is standard. Criminal, but not necessarily a conspiracy at all.
 






Awoken2

Star
Joined
Jan 22, 2018
Messages
3,554
Exhibit A

Listen carefully.from 56 min 18 secs to 57 min 56 secs. This is witness testimony from the guy who's flat the fire started with.


This is his story presented to the press


This man is a crisis actor. There was no smoke on the 4th floor after he had exited the building. This is evidenced by CCTV pics of the 4th floor at the time he left presented to the inquiry and also by the evidence given by all attending fire crew.

I have another 5 unfortunate coincidences for you RDP.

. On the way to the fire the fire crew have access to an ORD (Operational Risk Database) This contains vital information relating to a particular buildings, lay out, fire safety systems and resident instructions in the event of a fire.

The ORD for Grenfell had not been updated for the last nine years.

2. On the arrival of the first Fire Safety Officer on scene his first priority is to get the plans of the building which would give him vital information regarding the best way to evacuate residents and Fire fighters.

The plans kept at Grenfell Tower showed it to be a 20 storey building, that's three storeys short of what it actually was.

3. On two previous AFA calls to Grenfell in the year leading up to the fire the Fire service were unable to access the building because they didn't have a fob to open the security doors.

On the night of the fire they had to be let in by a resident because they didn't have a fob.

4. The Automatic ventilation system for Grenfell was faulty and was described by one senior fire fighters as it was sucking air in and blowing it out through the lobby... "like it was breathing"

5. From approximately 1.30 am all communications between fire fighters and the bridge head in the building completely failed. Each firefighter states that the reason for the failure was there were too many messages being relayed to understand any of them.
 






Awoken2

Star
Joined
Jan 22, 2018
Messages
3,554
Here is Incident Commanders Mike Dowdens final day of evidence to the inquiry with a following summary of evidence he has already provided.


After 3 days of giving evidence I shall now summarise what we have learned after hearing all evidence from Incident Commander Michael Dowden.

Mr Dowdens rank only gave him authority to command a 4 pump fire. He was completely out if his depth and expectations of him far exceeded his knowledge, training and experience.

Mr Dowden had never had any practical training dealing with a high rise fire other than on a station training ground where the bottom two floors of an 8 story training tower were used to simulate a high rise fire.

Mr Dowden had only ever completed basic station based training on policies and procedures relating to Incident Command Decision Making and IC Procedures. He is also recorded as giving training courses on training records but on being quizzed on the details of the Policies and Procedures his knowledge on the subject matter appeared vague at best.

Mr Dowden had only ever attended one high rise fire at his current rank, this fire was at Shepherds Court in Aug 2016 and by the time he had got there the fire was extinguished.

When asked to explain his understanding of the key points of Policy 431 (Decision Making) Mr Dowden was unable to identify the number 1 priority key point of that policy which was to save life. Mr Dowden was under the impression that the number one objective was not to put fire fighters at any risk

On arriving at Grenfell Tower Mr Dowden did not complete a Dynamic Risk Assessment and did not even notice that the tower was covered in cladding. His risk assessment was done mentally drawing conclusions from "his previous experience"

Mr Dowden had not familiarised himself with the layout, design, possible hazards or any other relevant information on a previous familiarisation visit to Grenfell Tower.

Mr Dowden did not see the need or importance of contacting a responsible individual to get important information on the Tower once arriving on scene.

Communication between the control room and the fire field was virtually non existent due to all crew members having specific job roles on arriving meaning nobody was manning the radio.

Mr Dowden did not come to the understanding that there were people in the building until 1.30am, at this point the incident was up to 20 pumps.

Mr Dowden was unaware that fire would be able to penetrate other compartments from the exterior.

Mr Dowden said his decision making was heavily impaired by the amount of traffic coming through his radio but had no recollection of speaking to any fire fighters tackling the fire or to anybody in the control room during the hour he was Incident Commander.

All messages passed to him testified by other fire fighters during the incident Mr Dowden had no memory of.

Mr Dowden at no time during his commanding of the incident declared it a major incident.

Mr Dowden did not see the need to change the stay put policy even when people were seen coming out of the building showing obvious signs of smoke inhalation at 1.30am because he thought they would still be able to put out the fire.

When asked what plan Mr Dowden had for putting out the fire he could not offer an answer.

Mr Dowden sent a team of fire fighters up to the top of the tower to try and tackle the fire from there despite not having any plan of how to access the roof and also having no idea of how the water pressure would be affected by using a dry riser on the top floor.

Mr Dowden was unable to answer when asked what the water pressure would be at a working height of 60 metres.

Mr Dowden did not retract or question the stay put policy because he had never been in that situation before.

I've listened very intently to all of Mr Dowden's evidence and can conclude this.

This man should never have been in that position in the first place. The chain of command appeared non existent during the first hour, which was the most critical time. His apparent inability to foresee any potential risk to the residents trapped inside highlight how far our of his depth he was.

If anybody else invests the time to listening to his testimony you will come to the same conclusion as me. I wouldn't have had this man monitoring a Nov 5th bonfire.

I feel this is the first of a long line of scapegoats.
 






Last edited:

RainDownPlane

Established
Joined
Dec 20, 2019
Messages
191
Exhibit A

Listen carefully.from 56 min 18 secs to 57 min 56 secs. This is witness testimony from the guy who's flat the fire started with.


This is his story presented to the press


This man is a crisis actor. There was no smoke on the 4th floor after he had exited the building. This is evidenced by CCTV pics of the 4th floor at the time he left presented to the inquiry and also by the evidence given by all attending fire crew.

I have another 5 unfortunate coincidences for you RDP.

. On the way to the fire the fire crew have access to an ORD (Operational Risk Database) This contains vital information relating to a particular buildings, lay out, fire safety systems and resident instructions in the event of a fire.

The ORD for Grenfell had not been updated for the last nine years.

2. On the arrival of the first Fire Safety Officer on scene his first priority is to get the plans of the building which would give him vital information regarding the best way to evacuate residents and Fire fighters.

The plans kept at Grenfell Tower showed it to be a 20 storey building, that's three storeys short of what it actually was.

3. On two previous AFA calls to Grenfell in the year leading up to the fire the Fire service were unable to access the building because they didn't have a fob to open the security doors.

On the night of the fire they had to be let in by a resident because they didn't have a fob.

4. The Automatic ventilation system for Grenfell was faulty and was described by one senior fire fighters as it was sucking air in and blowing it out through the lobby... "like it was breathing"

5. From approximately 1.30 am all communications between fire fighters and the bridge head in the building completely failed. Each firefighter states that the reason for the failure was there were too many messages being relayed to understand any of them.
Where are those CCTV pics of no smoke?

The other 5 coincidences could all be explained by the pretty universal negligence of the poor which tolerates incompetence and failure.
 






RainDownPlane

Established
Joined
Dec 20, 2019
Messages
191
Here is Incident Commanders Mike Dowdens final day of evidence to the inquiry with a following summary of evidence he has already provided.


After 3 days of giving evidence I shall now summarise what we have learned after hearing all evidence from Incident Commander Michael Dowden.

Mr Dowdens rank only gave him authority to command a 4 pump fire. He was completely out if his depth and expectations of him far exceeded his knowledge, training and experience.

Mr Dowden had never had any practical training dealing with a high rise fire other than on a station training ground where the bottom two floors of an 8 story training tower were used to simulate a high rise fire.

Mr Dowden had only ever completed basic station based training on policies and procedures relating to Incident Command Decision Making and IC Procedures. He is also recorded as giving training courses on training records but on being quizzed on the details of the Policies and Procedures his knowledge on the subject matter appeared vague at best.

Mr Dowden had only ever attended one high rise fire at his current rank, this fire was at Shepherds Court in Aug 2016 and by the time he had got there the fire was extinguished.

When asked to explain his understanding of the key points of Policy 431 (Decision Making) Mr Dowden was unable to identify the number 1 priority key point of that policy which was to save life. Mr Dowden was under the impression that the number one objective was not to put fire fighters at any risk

On arriving at Grenfell Tower Mr Dowden did not complete a Dynamic Risk Assessment and did not even notice that the tower was covered in cladding. His risk assessment was done mentally drawing conclusions from "his previous experience"

Mr Dowden had not familiarised himself with the layout, design, possible hazards or any other relevant information on a previous familiarisation visit to Grenfell Tower.

Mr Dowden did not see the need or importance of contacting a responsible individual to get important information on the Tower once arriving on scene.

Communication between the control room and the fire field was virtually non existent due to all crew members having specific job rolls on arriving meaning nobody was manning the radio.

Mr Dowden did not come to the understanding that there were people in the building until 1.30am, at this point the incident was up to 20 pumps.

Mr Dowden was unaware that fire would be able to penetrate other compartments from the exterior.

Mr Dowden said his decision making was heavily impaired by the amount of traffic coming through his radio but had no recollection of speaking to any fire fighters tackling the fire or to anybody in the control room during the hour he was Incident Commander.

All messages passed to him testified by other fire fighters during the incident Mr Dowden had no memory of.

Mr Dowden at no time during his commanding of the incident declared it a major incident.

Mr Dowden did not see the need to change the stay put policy even when people were seen coming out of the building showing obvious signs of smoke inhalation at 1.30am because he thought they would still be able to put out the fire.

When asked what plan Mr Dowden had for putting out the fire he could not offer an answer.

Mr Dowden sent a team of fire fighters up to the top of the tower to try and tackle the fire from there despite not having any plan of how to access the roof and also having no idea of how the water pressure would be affected by using a dry riser on the top floor.

Mr Dowden was unable to answer when asked what the water pressure would be at a working height of 60 metres.

Mr Dowden did not retract or question the stay put policy because he had never been in that situation before.

I've listened very intently to all of Mr Dowden's evidence and can conclude this.

This man should never have been in that position in the first place. The chain of command appeared non existent during the first hour, which was the most critical time. His apparent inability to foresee any potential risk to the residents trapped inside highlight how far our of his depth he was.

If anybody else invests the time to listening to his testimony you will come to the same conclusion as me. I wouldn't have had this man monitoring a Nov 5th bonfire.

I feel this is the first of a long line of scapegoats.
Scapegoat? Seems like he was just incompetent. And that incompetence cost people their lives. I understand the instinct to doubt that a well-ordered system can be capable of THAT much incompetence, such as the litany of supposedly incompetent moments from absolute experts which allowed 9/11, but you also have to realize how very far from competent a lot of seemingly well-ordered systems are. There are a lot of morons in charge of life-or-death situations. Which is frightening, sure. But not necessarily proof of a malicious plot.
 






Awoken2

Star
Joined
Jan 22, 2018
Messages
3,554
Scapegoat? Seems like he was just incompetent. And that incompetence cost people their lives.
So being incompetent means you can't be a scapegoat? Is this your conclusion? Have you heard this?


Is that a reasonable statement after 72 people get killed? Take into account you are now aware that the Incident Commander for the first hour didn't even realise there were people in the building for 30 minutes?

And before a single person has been made responsible Ms Cotton gets to waltz off into her early retirement with a lovely financial package.


Stop trying to defend this shit RDP, it's wrong, on every level.

Where are those CCTV pics of no smoke?
They are in the evidence section of the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, along with all the verbal evidence from the firefighters. Stop being so lazy by asking me to provide you with specific evidence. If you want to check facts go to where the facts are being presented...like I did.

There are a lot of morons in charge of life-or-death situations
Of course there are! Ffs just go to the Trumped thread. And you wonder why I'm concerned?...sheesh!
 






Awoken2

Star
Joined
Jan 22, 2018
Messages
3,554
Where are those CCTV pics of no smoke?

The other 5 coincidences could all be explained by the pretty universal negligence of the poor which tolerates incompetence and failure.
Just incase you're struggling to find the pics of him walking out of the building here is one of his press photos. This is not for a washing powder advert, it is supposed to show him being helped by concerned members of the public. Notice how all that smoke he was coughing on didn't manage to take the shine off his t-shirt.

grenfellcrisisactanalysis-1.png
 






Last edited:
Top