• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The documented failure of the official narrative in Boston Bombing

Last edited:
Crackpots come with the dumbest theories.

I guess that means you did not read the article. So very typical of crackpot statements made by brainwashed tax payers.
 
I guess that means you did not read the article. So very typical of crackpot statements made by brainwashed tax payers.

Actually I did read it, complete nonsense without a shred of evidence to support it. As some like to say, it is a big nothing burger.
 
Actually I did read it, complete nonsense without a shred of evidence to support it. As some like to say, it is a big nothing burger.

If you had actually read it, you would know that by its actions lately, the First Circuit disagrees with you.
 
If you had actually read it, you would know that by its actions lately, the First Circuit disagrees with you.

Sorry but I did read it, this will go no where. Have fun...
 
The statements below from the OP's article says it all. The paper is a personal view. It makes allegations not proven as fact.

"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."

"The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House."
 
The statements below from the OP's article says it all. The paper is a personal view. It makes allegations not proven as fact.

"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."

"The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House."

In other words it is fiction.
 
In other words it is fiction.

Pretty much. It was the statement by the author of "There were no real deaths or injuries, and the Tsarnaev brothers did not set off a bomb." that has me skeptical.

- No deaths. Really? No Law Enforcement no one in the public was killed or injured.
- I could give them that the "brothers" did not set off the bombs. It was the detonator that did.:lamo (I was thinking like the author)
 
You're "skeptical" of any statements that question the flawed official story Mike, that's it.

What do you think might have motivated the First Circuit to include that material in the official record, after the conviction? How do you interpret that Mike?

Are you "skeptical" of what the ER doctor Lorraine Day said? Do you assign any meaning to the fact that the boys from Craft International were carrying the black backpacks even as the photographic evidence shows the brothers to be carrying white ones? Or does the Sherlock in you just disregard such irregularities.

Skeptical? :lamo Your skepticism extends only to those who question a flawed prosecution.
 
You're "skeptical" of any statements that question the flawed official story Mike, that's it.

What do you think might have motivated the First Circuit to include that material in the official record, after the conviction? How do you interpret that Mike?

Are you "skeptical" of what the ER doctor Lorraine Day said? Do you assign any meaning to the fact that the boys from Craft International were carrying the black backpacks even as the photographic evidence shows the brothers to be carrying white ones? Or does the Sherlock in you just disregard such irregularities.

Skeptical? :lamo Your skepticism extends only to those who question a flawed prosecution.

The government isn't competent enough to pull off a conspiracy of this caliber.
 
The government isn't competent enough to pull off a conspiracy of this caliber.

A nearly universal fault in conspiracy theories.



My favorite: It's smart enough to pull off a conspiracy involving thousands of people whereby empty planes are loaded with explosives (the 'passengers' all being actors who weren't actually there, etc) and flown into the twin towers via remote control and/or using invisible bombs nobody saw planted around towers that are operating 24.7, all in order to get us into Iraq for its oil (and without one guilty conscience confession ever) but...

but.... it's dumb enough to topple a power structure in a Middle Eastern country that ruled warring factions with an iron fist, disband its army, sit back, and assume that everything would be just fine w/o security measures because yay Democracy. Oh, right, and then completely forget to steal the oil.



What fresh idiocy is going on in this thread?

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.

Oh, was all the evidence faked again? Do tell me you can identify one specific goal the conspiracy had in mind and whether this bombing accomplished that goal.

Thus far, every dumbass conspiracy you've peddled boils down to hundreds of people conspired to do this horrible things because, um, because reasons DON'T ASK ME BE QUIET!
 
The government isn't competent enough to pull off a conspiracy of this caliber.

But Putin is competent enough to "steal" our election? LOL

In reality Henry, the government is very much competent enough to pull off Iran-Contra. It is competent enough to pull off the Legend of Abbottabad and the events of 911, and competent enough to cover-up TWA 800 and MH17.

That you actually believe it is not competent enough to have some guys from Craft drop off some large pack-packs and get away with it is strong testimony as to the many disinformation efforts of that government.

The Boston Bombing, like the San Bernardino event simply shows the Scott Pelley Syndrome in play. The media believes everything "the authorities" tell them, and ask no questions, no matter the existence of facts contradicting the story. They repeat it, and you believe it. It is of no concern to you that men with reputations as liars continue to lie.
 
A nearly universal fault in conspiracy theories.



My favorite: It's smart enough to pull off a conspiracy involving thousands of people whereby empty planes are loaded with explosives (the 'passengers' all being actors who weren't actually there, etc) and flown into the twin towers via remote control and/or using invisible bombs nobody saw planted around towers that are operating 24.7, all in order to get us into Iraq for its oil (and without one guilty conscience confession ever) but...

but.... it's dumb enough to topple a power structure in a Middle Eastern country that ruled warring factions with an iron fist, disband its army, sit back, and assume that everything would be just fine w/o security measures because yay Democracy. Oh, right, and then completely forget to steal the oil.



What fresh idiocy is going on in this thread?



Oh, was all the evidence faked again? Do tell me you can identify one specific goal the conspiracy had in mind and whether this bombing accomplished that goal.

Thus far, every dumbass conspiracy you've peddled boils down to hundreds of people conspired to do this horrible things because, um, because reasons DON'T ASK ME BE QUIET!

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

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:
 
Hmm people in denial here, are always using a form of circular 'reasoning'. They assumed it can't be true, hence,,,


Once you look for it you see it doing it all the time.

Most of the times the denial is in the form of circular 'reasoning', or a form of "appeal to authority" and also a lot of the time a mix of these two. It's fascinating to watch, and they probably can't see it themselves because they are to close to their belief system.
 
More proof HD believes every CT he comes across
 
But Putin is competent enough to "steal" our election? LOL

In reality Henry, the government is very much competent enough to pull off Iran-Contra. It is competent enough to pull off the Legend of Abbottabad and the events of 911, and competent enough to cover-up TWA 800 and MH17.

That you actually believe it is not competent enough to have some guys from Craft drop off some large pack-packs and get away with it is strong testimony as to the many disinformation efforts of that government.

The Boston Bombing, like the San Bernardino event simply shows the Scott Pelley Syndrome in play. The media believes everything "the authorities" tell them, and ask no questions, no matter the existence of facts contradicting the story. They repeat it, and you believe it. It is of no concern to you that men with reputations as liars continue to lie.

It would be easier for you to list the harebrained crackpot conspiracy theories you don’t buy into.
 
It would be easier for you to list the harebrained crackpot conspiracy theories you don’t buy into.

I have Kobie, but it evaded you simply. However, it was not an exhaustive listing of the crackpot theories advanced by the government and media that cannot be true. Not exhaustive by any means.

JFK, RFK, MLK theories. That's not complete either. Those who think like Scott Pelley rule the airways and cables. In a sense we are all products of their nonsensical practices.
 
I guess that means you did not read the article. So very typical of crackpot statements made by brainwashed tax payers.

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.
 
Last edited:
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.

ot much point in going any further.

drill? wow! Like at 9-11, 7-7-7 and a lot of other 'terrorist bombings".

Just a coincidence, right?


well, jimbo, mate, you can't help it, but the world is waking up!
 
drill? wow! Like at 9-11, 7-7-7 and a lot of other 'terrorist bombings".

Just a coincidence, right?


well, jimbo, mate, you can't help it, but the world is waking up!

Your world. Things I see with my own eyes and hear with my own ears, even if only on TV, I tend to believe more than what somebody else reports in a CT theory rag.
 
Your world. Things I see with my own eyes and hear with my own ears, even if only on TV, I tend to believe more than what somebody else reports in a CT theory rag.

even if only on TV?

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


280.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom