A pair of explosions rocks the finish line at the Boston Marathon, injuring at least a half-dozen people.

  On 5/21/2013 at 4:29 AM, data said:

[youtubehd]waiOEveTSm4[/youtubehd]

 

(pretty very graphic picture around 4:05 - 4:30)

 

so is this the general consensus in the us now or what? atleast you'd think that listening to how fucking smug this dude sounds. like "everyone knows it was staged, c'mon now, don't be an idiot lol".

no, it definitely is not the consensus. i know no one that believes this wasn't real, and these videos make me sick. they all the have the same arrogant, defiant smug attitude, like they can't believe people can be so fucking stupid to not know this is fake. sickening.

Well, I'll say it then, you have to be fucking stupid to not know this was fake.

Not because of sketchy images of "crisis actors", or weird pictures of Blackwater or Craft International agents strutting around the blast area afterwards (these are merely suggestive).

You know it's fake because it follows the same pattern as all the major "terror attacks" in the West from the last 20 or so years, including OKC, 9/11, Oslo, Madrid, London, and so on. Namely, there was a drill on the same day, in the same area, designed to simulate the exact same attack that later went live. This pattern is so regular by now that yes, you have to be stupid to see it and still believe these weren't false flags (although most people apparently haven't seen it).

In the case of Boston, we know from eyewitness reports and Twitter posts that bomb drills were held in the vicinity of the race on the day of the attack, complete with bomb dogs and "controlled demolitions" (according to the Globe).

The simulations allow an inside-job without a large number of conspirators. In fact, only a handful of conspirators are needed, maybe only 1 or 2. You set up the drill, and carry it out. Dozens or hundreds (depending on the nature of the drill) of unknowing, innocent LE agents do the work involved in setting up (or at least, covering up) the attack, and then a conspirator switches a few details, like putting a live bomb where are fake one would be, and the job is done. After the bomb goes off, the innocent LE agents involved just think it's a spooky coincidence. Gee, the intel that justified our exercises sure was accurate! And the few who inevitably realize what happened, are terrified witless into silence.

Well that's bullshit, and if you don't see it then you are blind and stupid. I can say this because I used to be blind and stupid too.

"Used to be"

  On 5/21/2013 at 5:08 AM, disparaissant said:

"Used to be"

Yes, with respect to this particular issue. Of course, I am fallible, and surely stupid and blind about lots of other things.

While you're in the thread, you should try not focusing on rhetorical things in my posts, and focus on the content of what I am saying.

I've found between 8 and 10 of these terror attack / terror simulation coincidences, so call it 8, and put a conservative 1/100 chances of the coincidence on each event given that the official story is right, and that gives 10^-16 odds, it's not tenable. On the other hand the theory I have outlined above explains everything perfectly.

"Used to be"

hey Joseph. I have no idea what you're saying. What does a bomb drill have to do with anything? Are you saying the drill was using live or not live bombs? That someone took a not-live bomb, made it live and then used it for the bombing? If a drill was done using not live bombs, why would it have any relationship to the bombing?

Or are you saying that someone knew of these guys' plan and let it happen? I find that more plausible than the former scenario.

To me it seems like a pretty clear-cut case of a few loser kids setting up homemade bombs. Nothing I've seen so far makes me question that scenario.

I think if someone were going to make a false flag event, it would be much more dramatic, with a juicier target. At the end of the day people see the bodycount of just a few dead, shrug, and go about their day. It's not the sort of event that would lead to policy changes (a la 9-11).

  On 5/21/2013 at 4:54 AM, Joseph said:

In the case of Boston, we know from eyewitness reports and Twitter posts that bomb drills were held in the vicinity of the race on the day of the attack, complete with bomb dogs and "controlled demolitions" (according to the Globe).

 

Bomb drills and bomb dogs at a large event with thousands of people?! Why I never.

The language in my post #916 above is ambiguous as to whether the attack was fake and an inside-job or real and an inside-job, this is because it's hard to tell from the evidence available and I don't have a particular side, the point is it was an inside job and the evidence for this is utterly compelling.

  On 5/21/2013 at 6:03 AM, lumpenprol said:

hey Joseph. I have no idea what you're saying. What does a bomb drill have to do with anything? Are you saying the drill was using live or not live bombs? That someone took a not-live bomb, made it live and then used it for the bombing? If a drill was done using not live bombs, why would it have any relationship to the bombing?

 

Or are you saying that someone knew of these guys' plan and let it happen? I find that more plausible than the former scenario.

 

To me it seems like a pretty clear-cut case of a few loser kids setting up homemade bombs. Nothing I've seen so far makes me question that scenario.

 

I think if someone were going to make a false flag event, it would be much more dramatic, with a juicier target. At the end of the day people see the bodycount of just a few dead, shrug, and go about their day. It's not the sort of event that would lead to policy changes (a la 9-11).

I'm not a genie, I don't know if the drill used live or not-live bombs, hopefully the info on the drill will be made public soon. In any case it's not a big deal. The point is that there was a drill that involved bomb squads. Most likely the bombs were fake, and one of the fake bombs was replaced by a real one. It has a relation to the bombing the same way the 9/11 drills have a relation to the twin tower attacks: the simulation was of the exact event that later transpired for real.

The drills were an excuse by a high-level conspirator to get the real bomb into place. The drills were likely predicated on intelligence that this high level conspirator had, or claimed to have, about there being a real bombing threat within, say, a month or so. This gives the Boston LE ample reason to organize drills, and the conspirator just needs to replace one of the fake bombs with a real one in order to turn it into a real attack.

You're right, it's not obvious what reason there might be for the attack. My initial guess is it was to distract from CISPA which passed in the House at the same time. It gave the media an excuse not to cover it unlike SOPA/PIPA. However, CISPA died in the Senate, which is a bit puzzling but also a relief.

where is the compelling evidence, Joseph?

I watched the video data posted and it is not only utterly moronic (powder that becomes fake blood?), but utterly reprehensible. The guy is obviously full of bile and envy and an idiot to boot.

why would somebody go to the trouble of swapping a fake bomb with a real one? Wouldn't that just lead to more investigation and scrutiny?

Makes more sense just to use a real bomb from the start, unrelated to any bomb squad.

Don't follow your reasoning.

  On 5/21/2013 at 6:12 AM, lumpenprol said:

where is the compelling evidence, Joseph?

 

I watched the video data posted and it is not only utterly moronic (powder that becomes fake blood?), but utterly reprehensible. The guy is obviously full of bile and envy and an idiot to boot.

 

why would somebody go to the trouble of swapping a fake bomb with a real one? Wouldn't that just lead to more investigation and scrutiny?

 

Makes more sense just to use a real bomb from the start, unrelated to any bomb squad.

 

Don't follow your reasoning.

I don't endorse that video at all. Please reread my first post, #916.

Here is the compelling evidence: Just like with the OKC bombing, 9/11, Oslo Bombing, London Subway Bombing, Madrid bombing, and several other widely publicized terror attacks and shootings, an official simulation of the real attack was being carried out by LE at the same time. The odds of these coincidences on a non-conspiracy theory are astronomically low.

Most conspiracy theorists do not connect the dots, so they focus on finding fake blood in pictures and stuff. Not me, I believe in Bayes and I just look for the drills the inevitably precede the attacks.

If you're a government conspirator, you have to use the simulations. You have to think practically about this. How is the bomb procured? Who arms the bomb, and who delivers it to the target? You can't just wave your hands and use magic. The easiest and arguably only way to get it done is to use the tried and true method of organizing a simulation of the event you wish to happen, under false pretenses.

how do the tsarnaevs fit in?

Seems extremely tenuous to me, I just don't see how a bomb drill either a) helps conceal the origin of the bombing, or b) helps "someone" better "prepare" for the bombing...I mean, what?

You bolded "If you're a government conspirator, you have to use the simulations." As if that should make common, logical sense. It doesn't to me. Okay, so say you want to simulate a bombing. Why not do it months or years before? Why not simulate it in the middle of the fucking Nevada desert? Not to mention that conventional bombs are pretty well understood at this point.

So why do you need simulations? To check how the rescuers respond? To check that you sufficiently understand such a simple bomb? That doesn't make sense.

Maybe if it was a trial run for a dirty/radioactive bomb that might make sense...I guess. Or a biotoxin, like the sarin used in the Tokyo metro. Like, studying dispersal patterns or something. But this is a very straightforward kind of bomb we're talking about.

As Azatoth said, you'd expect bomb drills, dogs, etc near any large public event.

There is not story.

Can people please not refer to this attack as "fake". If you want to call it a false flag, or a setup, or whatever, that's fine.

The bomb was not fake though. There are not 3 fake dead people, and scores more fake maimed permanently people.

What's the LE?

The funny thing is, where I work ( prolly similar to other people) we have a fire drill a couple times a year. And when the alarm goes off, we literally have no idea whether it's a drill or real, so it basically becomes a game to find out. Sometime afterwards we might hear it wasn't a drill and that there was actually some issue, and other times it was a drill. And that 's the idea, right? Even the people taking part in the drill don't know, because they're being trained to do something under uncertain conditions.

So without having seen any bit of your utterly compelling evidence, what makes you think this is any different from those events you're putting here? My guess is most of the people don't know whether it's real or fake when a alarm goes off. But when they see a freaking disaster...

  On 5/21/2013 at 6:41 AM, lumpenprol said:

Seems extremely tenuous to me, I just don't see how a bomb drill either a) helps conceal the origin of the bombing, or b) helps "someone" better "prepare" for the bombing...I mean, what?

 

(A) It conceals the origin of the bombing because everything is set up by the conditions for the simulation to take place. The bombs, real or fake, are procured legally. The experts who arm the bombs are diverted in order to help out. The rest of the cops, and bomb dogs, are not needed for the actual attack, but are needed as part of the ruse. You can't tell the BPD chief, hey, we need to have a domb drill at this time and place, but don't worry, I only need the bombs.

 

(B) Simulations of terror attacks are held under precisely for the reason you list under (b), it's called training. I'm surprised you aren't aware that military and Law Enforcement sometimes train for the situations they believe could imminently be a threat. Well, they do, and don't let your incredulity trick you into thinking that somehow these drills don't happen, because they happen.

 

You bolded "If you're a government conspirator, you have to use the simulations." As if that should make common, logical sense. It doesn't to me.

 

Of course it's not common sense! It is perfectly logical, however.

 

Okay, so say you want to simulate a bombing. Why not do it months or years before?

 

From the perspective of the conspirator? Because that's impossible! From the perspective of everyone else? Because your boss says so! We have to remain vigilant against terror, after all.

 

Why not simulate it in the middle of the fucking Nevada desert?

 

It wouldn't be a simulation then, would it? Anyways, you act like there wasn't a simulation going on, but there was.

 

Not to mention that conventional bombs are pretty well understood at this point.

 

Yeah, they are.

 

So why do you need simulations? To check how the rescuers respond? To check that you sufficiently understand such a simple bomb? That doesn't make sense.

 

Yes, for all the standard reasons you might expect, plus presumably a lot more. It's not to understand a bomb. IT's to understand the whole scenario. You need training for police officers, and Air Force pilots, not manuals. Jesus Christ, I can't believe I'm explaining this to you. The drills happen! Look them up and stop asking me hypotheticals.

 

Maybe if it was a trial run for a dirty/radioactive bomb that might make sense...I guess. Or a biotoxin, like the sarin used in the Tokyo metro. Like, studying dispersal patterns or something. But this is a very straightforward kind of bomb we're talking about.

 

As Azatoth said, you'd expect bomb drills, dogs, etc near any large public event.

Come again?

  On 5/21/2013 at 6:49 AM, goDel said:

What's the LE?

 

The funny thing is, where I work ( prolly similar to other people) we have a fire drill a couple times a year. And when the alarm goes off, we literally have no idea whether it's a drill or real, so it basically becomes a game to find out. Sometime afterwards we might hear it wasn't a drill and that there was actually some issue, and other times it was a drill. And that 's the idea, right? Even the people taking part in the drill don't know, because they're being trained to do something under uncertain conditions.

 

So without having seen any bit of your utterly compelling evidence, what makes you think this is any different from those events you're putting here? My guess is most of the people don't know whether it's real or fake when a alarm goes off. But when they see a freaking disaster...

If I understand what you're saying, the only difference is here a high-level conspirator is making small, impossible to trace alterations to the drill that cause it to "go live". But you've caught onto exactly what I'm saying, I think you get it. The point is everyone's confused, cause that's part of the drill too!

Law Enforcement

  On 5/21/2013 at 6:46 AM, Kcinsu said:

Can people please not refer to this attack as "fake". If you want to call it a false flag, or a setup, or whatever, that's fine.

 

The bomb was not fake though. There are not 3 fake dead people, and scores more fake maimed permanently people.

yeah, I made it about 3/4 of the way through the video data posted, one of his pieces of "evidence" was the "unrealistic nature of the clothing tears of the victims" (I love how everyone is an expert when it comes to these events). I'm certainly not, and even I know better than that douchebag. In an explosion like that people's clothing usually hangs in strips and tatters. Or it even gets blown completely off; I've seen pictures from WW2 of naked bodies up in trees, thrown up there by explosions.

Real violence does strange things to our clothes, belongings, and fragile meat tubes.

It's getting late, and I have to get some sleep. Please consider what I'm saying and double check your questions before posting, taking care to eliminate obvious or easy to answer questions, reading all my posts carefully, every word was written with the utmost care. Of course this theory sounds retarded, it has to, otherwise we'd live in a very different world. But it holds water, and it's the only theory that explains the astronomical coincidences.

Also, how about the possibility that there was whispers of something planned at the Boston Marathon, and so instead of:

a. canceling an event that has been going on for decades, or

b. telling everyone that this might happen, but you know, show up if you like, or

c. going on complete lockdown and searching ever persons bag who enters an 8 block radius,,,

the authorities instead say "ok, we dont know for sure... but we better take steps to make sure this doesn't happen, so lets say we have a drill going on, and that way we can have bomb sniffing dogs looking for the real deal, and have agents on hand...

And so then they fail to prevent it. Do you think the authorities get on the news the next day and say "lol, our bad, we knew this might happen... we put in a good effort to stop it without causing panic and canceling the event, but we didnt manage to stop it. Sorry dudes... but hey, at least we tried right?"

No, they'd all fucking lose their jobs. The public backlash would be massive. "Why didnt you cancel the event?" "Why didnt you have MORE security?" etc.

Im more inclined to believe that there was a conspiracy of covering up ineptitude for the sake of preserving careers, than a massive well coordinated government conspiracy to gain control of the internets.

Look, I can conceive of a plausible explanation too! OK, off to iMovie to prove it with my voice over...

  On 5/21/2013 at 6:54 AM, Joseph said:

 

  On 5/21/2013 at 6:49 AM, goDel said:

What's the LE?

The funny thing is, where I work ( prolly similar to other people) we have a fire drill a couple times a year. And when the alarm goes off, we literally have no idea whether it's a drill or real, so it basically becomes a game to find out. Sometime afterwards we might hear it wasn't a drill and that there was actually some issue, and other times it was a drill. And that 's the idea, right? Even the people taking part in the drill don't know, because they're being trained to do something under uncertain conditions.

So without having seen any bit of your utterly compelling evidence, what makes you think this is any different from those events you're putting here? My guess is most of the people don't know whether it's real or fake when a alarm goes off. But when they see a freaking disaster...

 

If I understand what you're saying, the only difference is here a high-level conspirator is making small, impossible to trace alterations to the drill that cause it to "go live". But you've caught onto exactly what I'm saying, I think you get it. The point is everyone's confused, cause that's part of the drill too!

 

Law Enforcement

I'm guessing my Engrish must be pretty fucked up again.

The idea was people involved in security rarely know whether somethings a drill when an alarm goes off. That's part of the training. This is the only part of the story where we can find some agreement.

Besides that, no agreement whatsoever.

The fact they don't know, is no proof for real bombings being a conspiracy whatsoever.

I still don't see compelling evidence, btw. Especially in the context of the "small, impossible to trace alterations to the drill that cause it to "go live". It's impossible to trace but still the evidence is utterly compelling? What?

  On 5/21/2013 at 7:03 AM, Joseph said:

It's getting late, and I have to get some sleep. Please consider what I'm saying and double check your questions before posting, taking care to eliminate obvious or easy to answer questions, reading all my posts carefully, every word was written with the utmost care. Of course this theory sounds retarded, it has to, otherwise we'd live in a very different world. But it holds water, and it's the only theory that explains the astronomical coincidences.

I have come to the conclusion you are a troll. Not to mention more than a bit condescending. I'll have to take you at your word that you wrote really vague, nebulous nonsense with the utmost care.

Also, some links to bolster your theory couldn't hurt. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and all that...

  On 5/21/2013 at 4:54 AM, Joseph said:

You know it's fake because it follows the same pattern as all the major "terror attacks" in the West from the last 20 or so years, including OKC, 9/11, Oslo, Madrid, London, and so on.

so in the last 20 or so years, every single event is a staged event by the government. yea, I can see the logic in that and how stupid people must be to think otherwise.

  On 5/21/2013 at 7:04 AM, Kcinsu said:

Also, how about the possibility that there was whispers of something planned at the Boston Marathon, and so instead of:

 

a. canceling an event that has been going on for decades, or

b. telling everyone that this might happen, but you know, show up if you like, or

c. going on complete lockdown and searching ever persons bag who enters an 8 block radius,,,

 

the authorities instead say "ok, we dont know for sure... but we better take steps to make sure this doesn't happen, so lets say we have a drill going on, and that way we can have bomb sniffing dogs looking for the real deal, and have agents on hand...

 

And so then they fail to prevent it. Do you think the authorities get on the news the next day and say "lol, our bad, we knew this might happen... we put in a good effort to stop it without causing panic and canceling the event, but we didnt manage to stop it. Sorry dudes... but hey, at least we tried right?"

 

No, they'd all fucking lose their jobs. The public backlash would be massive. "Why didnt you cancel the event?" "Why didnt you have MORE security?" etc.

 

Im more inclined to believe that there was a conspiracy of covering up ineptitude for the sake of preserving careers, than a massive well coordinated government conspiracy to gain control of the internets.

 

Look, I can conceive of a plausible explanation too! OK, off to iMovie to prove it with my voice over...

perfectly put

  On 5/21/2013 at 6:39 AM, pattern recognition said:

how do the tsarnaevs fit in?

joseph?

Wearing my Umass Dartmouth t-shirt. Awkwardness ensues.