The documented failure of the official narrative in Boston Bombing

Belieth said:

even if only on TV?

O, ok, right! hmm what was it called? yeah TE LIE VISION. Hmmm welk, ok it's your birthright eh!?

Click to expand...

So all the networks and the reporters on the ground covering the race were in on this practice drill too?

sorry, couldn't resist

jimbo said:

So all the networks and the reporters on the ground covering the race were in on this practice drill too?

Click to expand...

Not necessarily, that is not the way it works. It is all compartmentalised. In reality you only need some people at key positions.

Once you can see that, a lot of CT becomes very clear. Maybe too clear!

Belieth said:

Not necessarily, that is not the way it works. It is all compartmentalised. In reality you only need some people at key positions.

Once you can see that, a lot of CT becomes very clear. Maybe too clear!

Click to expand...

You're correct. That's not the way it works.

jimbo said:

You're correct. That's not the way it works.

Click to expand...

Trying to twist my words now eh? cheap!

jimbo said:

I read the article. Starting with this:

As I reported at the time, and as all evidence indicates, the alleged Boston Marathon Bombing was a publicly announced drill in which crisis actors were used. There were no real deaths or injuries, and the Tsarnaev brothers did not set off a bomb.

Not much point in going any further.

Click to expand...

Reported? Made it up would be closer to the mark.

Thoreau72 said:

Every dumbass lawyer I've ever met makes me wonder about whether they really teach analytical thinking in law school.

Click to expand...

See? Random spastic idiocies. (Though it was really clever to say the word "dumbass" back to me).

Thoreau72 said:

The specific goal of terrorism, counselor, is to manipulate the normal reaction of fear. That is sir, the goal and function of terrorism is to keep the target audience in a permanent state of fear. Groups will quickly respond to terrorism events. They surrender their rights, among other things. They are conditioned by events such as the lock-down of a city like Boston. They meekly submit to imposition of martial law. They happily accept the loss of constitutional rights such as Habeas or the Fourth Amendment rights.

Question asking and analytical thinking are things of the past, alas. :shock:

Click to expand...

Yet again, you cannot articulate the who, what, why, where, and how of the ridiculous thing you automatically believed.

So you do the usual cowardly truther thing: spout generics, then personally attack anyone who doesn't think that generic babble about people giving up rights proves that the government perpetrated the Boston Marathon bombing, all evidence to the contrary.

Analytical thinking indeed.

It's pretty hilarious that you want to lecture me about boston. I was here. There was a very temporary 'lockdown' while they searched for the guy, which actually had nothing to do with anyone's fourth amendment rights - not even his, since he was hiding on someone else's property where he had no reasonable expectation of privacy. If you wanted to say stupid crap about a right, you should have tried to make something of the old due process freedom of travel cases, not that that would be much better.

There was no forfeiture of fourth amendment rights. There was no change in security at most places and those in which there was, it was at the order of the owners of the property, not the government. You don't even live here, but you act like you know things.

Habeas corpus? You use that like it's a word you remember from watching a police procedural. That, or go find a decision that specifically denies a petition for habeas corpus on the ground that "the Boston marathon bombings happened". Don't bother lying about what a decision *really* means, if someone puts on their magic decoder glasses. Find a decision that actually says just that.

:lamo






PS: If someone told you that there is no such thing as a stupid question, that person was wrong. There are stupid questions, then there are the questions you ask.

jimbo said:

I read the article. Starting with this:

As I reported at the time, and as all evidence indicates, the alleged Boston Marathon Bombing was a publicly announced drill in which crisis actors were used. There were no real deaths or injuries, and the Tsarnaev brothers did not set off a bomb.

Not much point in going any further.

Click to expand...

I doubt very much you were the only experiencing anxiety about reading any further. Keep those eyes closed, ears and mouth covered. Truth is usually painful and best ignored.

"Crisis actors" lol.

Thoreau72 said:

I doubt very much you were the only experiencing anxiety about reading any further. Keep those eyes closed, ears and mouth covered. Truth is usually painful and best ignored.

Click to expand...

What truth? What evidence? What public announcement?

Somebody set off a bomb. There were real deaths and injuries.

You can't possibly believe what you claim happened.

jimbo said:

What truth? What evidence? What public announcement?

Somebody set off a bomb. There were real deaths and injuries.

You can't possibly believe what you claim happened.

Click to expand...

The truth sir, is obvious--the official story of what happened at Boston that day is invalid. Not for the first time, a federal indictment was bogus. Not for the first time, a patsy took the fall for crimes he did not commit.

Manc Skipper said:

"Crisis actors" lol.

Click to expand...

Have you ever put that term into an internet search engine? You might be surprised at what you would find.

It reminds me of the Chevy ads running lately, where the person watching is advised (tongue-in-cheek IMO) that "these are real people, not actors". At least Chevy has a sense of humor.

Humans love to act, especially when they get paid for it.

As with 9/11 conspiracy thinking, Alex Jones acted as a major popularizer of crisis actor meme. Jones said back in 2012 and 2013 that Sandy Hook was a “false flag” and that “no one died”. He claimed that the children killed were acting for the cameras, and that the parents had faked their own childrens’ deaths.

Under pressure, Jones has sometimes tried to back away from his role in propagating the theory. But in other incidents since – from Orlando to Las Vegas, Jones’s first resort in his broadcasts and on his website has been to assume that the official accounts are elaborate lies, and that many on the scene are in on the deception.

Jones and others often take advantage of the inevitable confusion that attends complex events like mass shootings to freely speculate on the events, and lodge their explanation in the minds of their audience.

These theories would be laughable, and unworthy of our attention, were it not for their real world impacts, and the fact that so many people accept them. When Jones was interviewed by Megan Kelly last year, parents of Sandy Hook victims took to the airwaves and the Internet to protest. They said that on top of their grief, they had been harassed for years since the massacre by people who, thanks in part to Jones, believed that they and their dead children were lying.

The teens who are bravely speaking out after the attack will not only have to contend with conservative media bottom-feeders questioning their competence to speak about the massacre. They will also have to deal with people who think that they are knowingly participating in an elaborate hoax.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...flag-the-rise-of-conspiracy-theory-code-words

zyzygy said:

As with 9/11 conspiracy thinking, Alex Jones acted as a major popularizer of crisis actor meme. Jones said back in 2012 and 2013 that Sandy Hook was a “false flag” and that “no one died”. He claimed that the children killed were acting for the cameras, and that the parents had faked their own childrens’ deaths.

Under pressure, Jones has sometimes tried to back away from his role in propagating the theory. But in other incidents since – from Orlando to Las Vegas, Jones’s first resort in his broadcasts and on his website has been to assume that the official accounts are elaborate lies, and that many on the scene are in on the deception.

Jones and others often take advantage of the inevitable confusion that attends complex events like mass shootings to freely speculate on the events, and lodge their explanation in the minds of their audience.

These theories would be laughable, and unworthy of our attention, were it not for their real world impacts, and the fact that so many people accept them. When Jones was interviewed by Megan Kelly last year, parents of Sandy Hook victims took to the airwaves and the Internet to protest. They said that on top of their grief, they had been harassed for years since the massacre by people who, thanks in part to Jones, believed that they and their dead children were lying.

The teens who are bravely speaking out after the attack will not only have to contend with conservative media bottom-feeders questioning their competence to speak about the massacre. They will also have to deal with people who think that they are knowingly participating in an elaborate hoax.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...flag-the-rise-of-conspiracy-theory-code-words

Click to expand...

ah well, another one fooled:

Thoreau72 said:

An interesting turn of events regarding the Boston Bombing. It appears the court may be seeking the truth.

Paul Craig Roberts and John Graham at their best.

Boston Marathon Bombing -* The False Prosecution of Dzhokhkar Tsarnaev

Any thoughts, conspiratorial or otherwise? Yes Virginia, there are a few good lawyers.

Click to expand...

July 20, 2018 "Information Clearing House" - As I reported at the time, and as all evidence indicates, the alleged Boston Marathon Bombing was a publicly announced drill in which crisis actors were used. There were no real deaths or injuries, and the Tsarnaev brothers did not set off a bomb.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

This makes no sense to me. Who would conduct a drill in the middle of a public event? If the drill was publicly announced, why wasn't anyone aware of it? The statement is absurd on it's face. There was no need for me to read further.

bearpoker said:

This makes no sense to me. Who would conduct a drill in the middle of a public event? If the drill was publicly announced, why wasn't anyone aware of it? The statement is absurd on it's face. There was no need for me to read further.

Click to expand...

The statement is a fantasy.

bearpoker said:

This makes no sense to me. Who would conduct a drill in the middle of a public event? If the drill was publicly announced, why wasn't anyone aware of it? The statement is absurd on it's face. There was no need for me to read further.

Click to expand...

Well I appreciate your being candid in displaying a measure of "not being aware" regarding a number of such events with training exercises involved. Actually, it's happened quite a few times.

For example, in London train bombings back in July of about 2003, a training exercise was being conducted then.

On 911 in this country, NORAD and others were conducting training exercises under the umbrella of Vigilant Guardian. On the same day, FEMA was conducting its training exercise Tripod, right there in NYC.

In Newtown CT, a training exercise was being conducted when it hit the fan at Sandy Hook. In February in Parkland HS near Fort Lauderdale, staff and students were told that morning to expect a training exercise including the shooting of blanks and much yelling and screaming.

Boston. The event in San Bernardino happened at a facility at which SBPD often conducted "active shooter" drills. Indeed, the woman interviewed by Scott Pelley made reference to that fact. She worked there, saw the shooters, 3 athletic males dressed in military garb, arrive, and thought it was just another drill until the shooting started.

I understand your inability to read further. It causes many people to do the same because the truth if often too uncomfortable to deal with. We deny what we don't like.

jimbo said:

So all the networks and the reporters on the ground covering the race were in on this practice drill too?

Click to expand...

The reporters and their networks you refer to, the mainstream media, are easily represented by the example of Scott Pelley in San Bernardino. While interviewing a woman who worked in the building where it happened, and who saw the shooters enter the building, Scott Pelley listened to her story (which contradicted the official story), and in a televised display of cognitive dissonance, replied to her: "the authorities have told us (thus and so)…." He ignored her testimony IN FAVOR OF the official narrative as delivered to Scott by "the authorities".

Today's reporters and their editors write, say and show what "the authorities" tell them. That you refuse to understand that simple and well documented fact shows how thoroughly you have been fooled.

Thoreau... Man you should really check out Occam's Razor.

Thoreau72 said:

An interesting turn of events regarding the Boston Bombing. It appears the court may be seeking the truth.

Paul Craig Roberts and John Graham at their best.

Boston Marathon Bombing -* The False Prosecution of Dzhokhkar Tsarnaev

Any thoughts, conspiratorial or otherwise? Yes Virginia, there are a few good lawyers.

Click to expand...

There may be a few loose ends, no investigation is airtight, but it happened mostly as portrayed.

Thoreau72 said:

The reporters and their networks you refer to, the mainstream media, are easily represented by the example of Scott Pelley in San Bernardino. While interviewing a woman who worked in the building where it happened, and who saw the shooters enter the building, Scott Pelley listened to her story (which contradicted the official story), and in a televised display of cognitive dissonance, replied to her: "the authorities have told us (thus and so)…." He ignored her testimony IN FAVOR OF the official narrative as delivered to Scott by "the authorities".

Today's reporters and their editors write, say and show what "the authorities" tell them. That you refuse to understand that simple and well documented fact shows how thoroughly you have been fooled.

Click to expand...

A huge chunk of the society are chumps now, they believe what power tells them. Part of this is that so many people are fantasy based now not reality based, they want to believe so therefore they do, the will/ego gets what it wants. But another big part of this is how dim people are now, they literally are incapable of thinking for themselves far too often.

I am pretty sure that you and I have been on this general subject before, but I thought that I would pop in and say HI.

Maccabee said:

There may be a few loose ends, no investigation is airtight, but it happened mostly as portrayed.

Click to expand...

Yes, there certainly are a few loose ends. :lol:

Loose ends like photographic evidence, admitted into the record, that directly contradicts the indictment. And more, as mentioned in the article.

US juries are notoriously led by the nose by the prosecution, but that is to be expected considering the Sparf decision way back in 1895. Thoroughly indoctrinated citizens sitting on today's jury make it a rubber stamp for government malfeasance.

HenryLewis said:

Thoreau... Man you should really check out Occam's Razor.

Click to expand...

I have Henry, I have. Occam is very useful in analyzing contemporary events.

In this case, Occam requires that because the photographic evidence shows the boys with the wrong colored backpacks than the ones carrying the explosive devices, the boys are not guilty of the crime. And because the photographic evidence shows the troops from Craft International carrying back packs that fit the description, the simplest explanation is that they, working for a mercenary company, were hired to leave their back packs in the proper places, and hence are the guilty parties.

The only other choice would be that the indictment is defective and should have been declared so by the court.

Either way, Occam is most useful.

Thoreau72 said:

Yes, there certainly are a few loose ends. :lol:

Loose ends like photographic evidence, admitted into the record, that directly contradicts the indictment. And more, as mentioned in the article.

US juries are notoriously led by the nose by the prosecution, but that is to be expected considering the Sparf decision way back in 1895. Thoroughly indoctrinated citizens sitting on today's jury make it a rubber stamp for government malfeasance.

Click to expand...

Can you point to photographic evidence?

Maccabee said:

Can you point to photographic evidence?

Click to expand...

If you are not curious enough to do your own research, I'm not interested in doing it for you. If I did that, likely you would simply reject it for some reason.

It's years old. The article I linked to is recent information, recent developments.

Years ago when I was informing myself on the subject, I did see the Craft International men and their backpacks. To me the histrionics of several players appeared staged to me. That an ER doctor would go on the record confirms my suspicions regarding play actors. Like Dr. Lorraine Day, I've seen splattered human blood too. I've seen people bleeding out, so her comments make sense to me.

Many articles have been written about the malfeasance done by crooked prosecutors over many years, so I'm not surprised that another Kangaroo Court was staged. I'm more cynical than you.

If you're sincere in wanting to examine the evidence, do it on your own time. The contradicting photographic evidence may have been taken down in the meantime. Good luck.