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

Part of the drill? Hired actors? Pretty awesome how the chace was being staged as well, btw.

Perhaps Kubrick is still alive and directing conspiracies? And the account of the guy whos car was hijacked. Brilliantly executed. If you zoom in on the footage, you can see Bin Laden and Obama making mad love on the back seat, btw.

But yes, ima grab some popcorn and see how joseph (mr zeitgeist?) reasons himself into another conspiracy.

Sorry for being a dick, but when people are being called stupid for ignoring "utterly convincing evidence"... Well, it has become fair game. Sort of.

It's a shame that this thread developed schizophrenia.

(p.s. FreeJahar NWO patsy)

I understand where Joseph is coming from because I was once there at my more paranoid hour. The inherent problem is that just because the government is a compulsive liar and a mass murderer doesn't mean that alternative news media websites and conspiracy websites are true by default. In fact I find that many of the websites calling out something as 'false flag' within an hour of an event to be mostly fear porn and poisoning the well of legitimate government conspiracy discussion (which there are ample well documented covered ups and conspiracies to discuss).

The idea that 'drills' automatically point to some sort of inside job come from all the war games going on the day of 9/11. The difference with 9/11 is that the government did absolutely everything they could to coverup the fact that these were occurring in the face of plenty of documentation to prove otherwise. Not that this alone points to 9/11 being aided by people on the inside (there are plenty of other pieces of evidence which lay this out besides the drills) but in the case of Boston besides eye witnessed seeing cops with dogs and 1 guy saying he heard there was a drill, there is absolutely no evidence this was occurring. But even if there were drills occurring this alone means nothing.

just because some of the accounts of Boston share similarities to other more famous conspiracies or conspiracy theories, ultimately means nothing. Add all the evidence up and let it speak for itself, but don't hear whispers of a drill and automatically assume it's an inside job. I think it's just irresponsible. I'm definitely not one of these people who ridicules people who believe in conspiracies though. Some of my own 'extreme' views, I believe that Anthrax was sent out by high level people in our government to frame arab muslims and to intimidate senators and reporters in order to get us into Iraq and to pass the Ptriot Act (for people ready to pounce on the tin foil hat nonsense, go look up Judicial Watch, Richard Cohen and Cipero and come back to this thread). Nothing will really waiver me from this belief because even if you use occum's razor and take all the evidence into account (including the official narrative) t is the most likely scenario. I just think at a certain point, calling everything an inside job will help discredit real evidence based skepticism when something really bad does come along like another 9/11 or anthrax. People are already seeing 'false flag' accusers as the boy who cried wolf, and in part rightly so. The Gulf of Tonkin was a false flag attack, and declassified documents show this to be the case, it is no longer up for dispute. Problem is that the term now has a bad connotation because of people like Alex Jones, even though it has great historical significance that people everywhere should take seriously.

after all the fallout from this bombing thing, the thing i'm most curious about is the coincidental timing of thew Ricin letter with the Boston bombing itself. Seemingly two totally unrelated events that helped create the perfect storm for a rekindling of 9/11 trauma and fear. Very strange, but again I have no proof that this was an 'inside job'. At this point i can only say it is highly suspicious and coincidental as fuck.

is Joseph Bread?

Good post, J.

First, I apologize for being a dick last night. I never ever make personal attacks, so if anyone thinks I was calling you stupid, I wasn't, I was calling an idea you expressed stupid.

That said, you guys really have to look at what I'm saying and ignore any rhetoric you perceive to be offensive. My rhetoric is designed to gain attention, but that doesn't mean I am a troll, it's because I see what's happening and it's important to tell everybody. Maybe this is a bad strategy.

  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...

I have considered this possibility, it was what I first thought when I learned about the drills, public announcements saying remain calm, this is just a drill, and the dogs etc. Of course what you're saying is possible. However, when you add this event to all the other simulation/attack coincidences, it becomes rather unlikely. The data that I am dealing with are the 8-10 events from the last 20 years that coincide with drills which simulate the same events. That's it, I don't even need WTC 7 to know 9/11 was a false flag, because I have the statistics on my side and I know that a real, general explanation is in order.

So the short version of the preceding paragraph is I would believe what you wrote if the other coincidences hadn't happened.

  On 5/21/2013 at 7:05 AM, goDel said:

 

  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?

 

The evidence is the following: at least 8 of the most well-known terror attacks in the west since (and including) OKC coincided with drills which simulated the same attacks, on the same day. If you think this doesn't require an explanation then you're wrong, you have no explanation, you believe in magic. The reason I said what I said in your quote, is because you basically outlined the reason why terror simulations should be illegal! The conspirators rely on the inherent confusion to get away with it, it's a crucial causal mechanism in my theory.

  On 5/21/2013 at 7:12 AM, lumpenprol said:

 

  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...

 

I'm not a troll, I'm purposely being condescending in the same way an evolutionist might be condescending to a creationist. It's not personal, it's because my theory explains the data and yours says magic did it. What caused the simulation/terror attack coincidences? If your theory gives them even a 1/10 probability per attack, the facts rule your theory out. Your theory has to predict the coincidences or it's wrong. It must give them a probability near 1. My theory does that, and I would like for people to propose alternative theories so they may be compared and discussed. Instead you are just ignoring the relevant data, which is the attack/simulation coincidences.

The last thing I need are links to bolster my theory (which by the way, isn't my theory), links just distract from real arguments. Links are a dime a dozen, and are a smokescreen.

  On 5/21/2013 at 8:48 AM, pattern recognition said:

 

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

how do the tsarnaevs fit in?

joseph?

 

Sorry. There are lots of possibilities for how the bros fit in. There's obviously not enough information available. But there are lots of possibilities. The most likely one to me is they were tricked into being at the finish line with their backpacks. Which doesn't mean that all the anti-American stuff is false, it almost certainly is true.

  On 5/21/2013 at 9:35 AM, John Ehrlichman said:

I understand where Joseph is coming from because I was once there at my more paranoid hour. The inherent problem is that just because the government is a compulsive liar and a mass murderer doesn't mean that alternative news media websites and conspiracy websites are true by default. In fact I find that many of the websites calling out something as 'false flag' within an hour of an event to be mostly fear porn and poisoning the well of legitimate government conspiracy discussion (which there are ample well documented covered ups and conspiracies to discuss).

The idea that 'drills' automatically point to some sort of inside job come from all the war games going on the day of 9/11. The difference with 9/11 is that the government did absolutely everything they could to coverup the fact that these were occurring in the face of plenty of documentation to prove otherwise. Not that this alone points to 9/11 being aided by people on the inside (there are plenty of other pieces of evidence which lay this out besides the drills) but in the case of Boston besides eye witnessed seeing cops with dogs and 1 guy saying he heard there was a drill, there is absolutely no evidence this was occurring. But even if there were drills occurring this alone means nothing.

just because some of the accounts of Boston share similarities to other more famous conspiracies or conspiracy theories, ultimately means nothing. Add all the evidence up and let it speak for itself, but don't hear whispers of a drill and automatically assume it's an inside job. I think it's just irresponsible. I'm definitely not one of these people who ridicules people who believe in conspiracies though. Some of my own 'extreme' views, I believe that Anthrax was sent out by high level people in our government to frame arab muslims and to intimidate senators and reporters in order to get us into Iraq and to pass the Ptriot Act (for people ready to pounce on the tin foil hat nonsense, go look up Judicial Watch, Richard Cohen and Cipero and come back to this thread). Nothing will really waiver me from this belief because even if you use occum's razor and take all the evidence into account (including the official narrative) t is the most likely scenario. I just think at a certain point, calling everything an inside job will help discredit real evidence based skepticism when something really bad does come along like another 9/11 or anthrax. People are already seeing 'false flag' accusers as the boy who cried wolf, and in part rightly so. The Gulf of Tonkin was a false flag attack, and declassified documents show this to be the case, it is no longer up for dispute. Problem is that the term now has a bad connotation because of people like Alex Jones, even though it has great historical significance that people everywhere should take seriously.

after all the fallout from this bombing thing, the thing i'm most curious about is the coincidental timing of thew Ricin letter with the Boston bombing itself. Seemingly two totally unrelated events that helped create the perfect storm for a rekindling of 9/11 trauma and fear. Very strange, but again I have no proof that this was an 'inside job'. At this point i can only say it is highly suspicious and coincidental as fuck.

I agree with almost everything you write. The conspiracy theory industry is pretty disgusting and serves mainly as a distraction from the real issues. For example, even if 9/11 wasn't a conspiracy, all the political aftermath of 9/11 still deserves the exact same amount of criticism. But most people would prefer to spend their time arguing over crappy photographs of the airplanes, and stuff.

It's completely wrong to say that if bomb exercises were held simultaneously, that means nothing. If you say that it's hard to imagine what could possibly count as real evidence for you. As I said in my response to kcinsu, although it's logically possible in any particular case, for example the London subway bombing, or Boston Marathon Bombing, that the simultaneous drill was purely coincidence, it's irrational to believe so when you consider the list of coincidences as a whole. If you believe the list of coincidences really just comes from nowhere, then you pretty much believe in magic. Once you have a predictive theory in hand, that offers a convincing explanation, which is that terror attacks => terror simulations,every event that confirms the theory is evidence for it, and your confidence that the reality conforms to your theory gets higher and higher (although you can't be certain, you can be very sure.) On the other hand all the official stories for the 8 or so events, do not predict coincidences at all, so they can be discarded pretty fast.

I think the speed with which you can dispense with the official stories, from a Bayesian perspective, once you factor in the coincidences, is hard to believe for most people. It's a matter of fact that most people I talk to, whether IRL or on the internet, have incredibly (implicit) high prior beliefs that the government is incapable of doing such a thing. Their belief in this is religious certainty, because it's the only way they can remain unswayed by any countering evidence, even when that counter-evidence becomes astronomical (and it is right now). What could possibly justify this certainty?

By the way, there is more evidence for there being an exercise at the BMB, besides the track coach. The controlled demolition stuff was announced by the Globe before the explosions, and I know because I watched it as it unfolded.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Theory Precis.

What has to be explained: A string of at least 8, and possibly more (evidence is lacking for several possibilities), coincidences where at the same time as a "terrorist attack" happened, an official simulation of the exact same scenario was also occurring. Example: OKC bombing. Example: 9/11. Example: Oslo bombing. Example: Madrid Bombing. Example: London bombing. Example: BMB.

Why is has to be explained: Because the odds of all these coincidences is astronomically low, any non-conspiracy theory is ruled out statistically.

What I am saying happens: The drills are held in order to facilitate a real attack, which happens at (roughly) the same time. The drills are predicated on intel that such an attack could happen soon. The vast majority of the officials involved in the drill are unaware of any conspiracy, not only before and during but also after.

Why it is a good explanation: The main (and legitimate) reason for doubting 99% of all conspiracy theories is that they require large numbers of conspirators. Some lunatics actually believe that hundreds or thousands of people are involved in covering up 9/11. On the other hand, this theory explains how the number of conspirators may be counted on one hand.

  On 5/22/2013 at 3:45 AM, Joseph said:

 

The last thing I need are links to bolster my theory (which by the way, isn't my theory), links just distract from real arguments. Links are a dime a dozen, and are a smokescreen.

 

 

flol, and this is exactly why you are a troll.

You have a hypothesis, that these 8 or more terrorist incidents had drills for the same kind of incident happening on or around the same date. I call bullshit. Source?

Also, I guess you're discounting most international acts of terror, eh? So the bombing in Kenya that killed 200 in 1998 can be conveniently discarded, as can the Bali bombing in 2005 that also killed 200. But for some reason attacks with much punier death tolls (Madrid, 30 ppl) are included. How convenient.

You, sir, are an imbecile.

Short reaction: if I start from the premiss that 8 out of 10 bombings are setup by the government (again, hypothetically), does that count as proof that the 11th bombing is a setup? No. It might make it a strong possibility. But even then, it would take far more than your bayesian statistics and some half arsed youtube vids of people who have blood on their face where it wasnt moments before. ( lots of possible explanations).

The bayesian instrument your trying to use is simply not useful in this example. At least, not in this pseudo scientific fashion. We're not looking at " natural phenomena" but at human made idiosyncrasies. Proof in this case is lawyerly in the first place. Not statistically.

The government can not be guilty in this case, because it might be in 80% of similar cases. You have to prove this is not that 20% where government is not guilty. It's not a " guilty until the opposite is proven". It's the other way around.

You guys heard about this 18 year old kid arrested and held w/o bail for posting violent rap lyrics on facebook?

He said something along the lines of "a boston bomb - yall should see the shit I do" in a facebook post... now he's a terrorist

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2013/05/teen_methuen_rapper_held_without_bail_for_facebook_bomb_threat

According to my personal observations, 80% of 18 years olds are guilty of some form of terrorism, so it's perfectly reasonable to regard this one as a terrorist as well.

;P

  On 5/22/2013 at 4:03 AM, lumpenprol said:

 

  On 5/22/2013 at 3:45 AM, Joseph said:

 

The last thing I need are links to bolster my theory (which by the way, isn't my theory), links just distract from real arguments. Links are a dime a dozen, and are a smokescreen.

 

 

flol, and this is exactly why you are a troll.

 

You have a hypothesis, that these 8 or more terrorist incidents had drills for the same kind of incident happening on or around the same date. I call bullshit. Source?

 

Also, I guess you're discounting most international acts of terror, eh? So the bombing in Kenya that killed 200 in 1998 can be conveniently discarded, as can the Bali bombing in 2005 that also killed 200. But for some reason attacks with much punier death tolls (Madrid, 30 ppl) are included. How convenient.

 

You, sir, are an imbecile.

 

You can google and see for yourself about the coincidences, if you're not even willing to do that then I don't even believe you are willing to change your views at all.

I should point out a typo on the post above, I said "terror attacks=> terror drills". The arrow should be reversed. I'm sorry for the confusion it could have cased. It's important because I'm not saying all terror attacks are caused by drills, nor am I saying terrorism doesn't exist, etc. I'm pointing out that when there are terror drills, they cause terror attacks with an alarming frequency. I'm sure there are examples of terror drills where no attack eventuated, but the frequency is still way too large. So you can't get around it by saying there are terror attacks where there was (we believe) no drill, because that's not relevant.

The fact that you require links in order to take me seriously is just weird. What could cause a person to behave that way?

  On 5/22/2013 at 4:04 AM, goDel said:

Short reaction: if I start from the premiss that 8 out of 10 bombings are setup by the government (again, hypothetically), does that count as proof that the 11th bombing is a setup? No. It might make it a strong possibility. But even then, it would take far more than your bayesian statistics and some half arsed youtube vids of people who have blood on their face where it wasnt moments before. ( lots of possible explanations).

 

The bayesian instrument your trying to use is simply not useful in this example. At least, not in this pseudo scientific fashion. We're not looking at " natural phenomena" but at human made idiosyncrasies. Proof in this case is lawyerly in the first place. Not statistically.

 

The government can not be guilty in this case, because it might be in 80% of similar cases. You have to prove this is not that 20% where government is not guilty. It's not a " guilty until the opposite is proven". It's the other way around.

First, you're wrong about what science does, it never provides proof of anything. You could just as well say that just because the sun has risen every day of your life, there is no proof it will rise tomorrow. You would be correct. But theories don't provide proof, they provide explanations and predictions, and incoming data that confirms the theory improves its status as an explanation. Also, I never said that 80% of bombings are set up by the government.

Second, that's just wrong, you can use Bayes everywhere, but Bayes is not important for what I'm saying. I'm essentially just using common sense. Lawyers can and do use probabilistic arguments all the time. And they certainly don't rely on proof.

Third, you're saying that if there's any doubt that the government is guilty, that should be the working assumption. That's not correct. You don't treat any other phenomena in your life like that, unless you are religious. But in any case you're wrong about the numbers, I don't know where you got 80%, but the odds of innocence given there was a drill, based on past similar events, are almost 0.

In order to get around that, it would suffice to show that each event is somehow, by its nature, likely to coincide with a simulation of the very event. If the odds assigned to each coincidence are more like .95, then the whole list gets a likelihood of about 2/3. Not too shabby. Now, I'm not sure what that would look like, or how the result would be functionally different from the theory I'm promoting.

If you showed that terror drills were held so frequently that terrorists would be hard pressed not to attack during one, that would be a start, although you'd still need to explain the close similarities of the drills and attacks. It starts to look hopeless pretty fast. I've done some preliminary searching for info about this, but haven't had much luck; I'll look harder.

  On 5/22/2013 at 4:46 AM, Joseph said:

 

 

The fact that you require links in order to take me seriously is just weird. What could cause a person to behave that way?

 

 

troll confirm. Hi...compson? Dunno, but you're behaving like a dupe as well.

  On 5/22/2013 at 4:33 AM, goDel said:

According to my personal observations, 80% of 18 years olds are guilty of some form of terrorism, so it's perfectly reasonable to regard this one as a terrorist as well.

 

;P

Guy's been held in jail without bail for weeks now... jokes are neat and all, but that kid deserves fair treatment. He's hardly a terrorist.

  On 5/22/2013 at 4:18 AM, luke viia said:

You guys heard about this 18 year old kid arrested and held w/o bail for posting violent rap lyrics on facebook?

 

He said something along the lines of "a boston bomb - yall should see the shit I do" in a facebook post... now he's a terrorist

 

http://cms.fightforthefuture.org/teenager/

 

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2013/05/teen_methuen_rapper_held_without_bail_for_facebook_bomb_threat

pagebreak fwp edit -- quoting myself so people know what I'm replying to goDel about.

  On 5/22/2013 at 4:56 AM, lumpenprol said:

 

  On 5/22/2013 at 4:46 AM, Joseph said:

 

 

The fact that you require links in order to take me seriously is just weird. What could cause a person to behave that way?

 

 

troll confirm. Hi...compson? Dunno, but you're behaving like a dupe as well.

 

I'm honestly insulted you would call me compson, and I'm also insulted you are ignoring what I'm saying but still feel it's worth your time to question my honesty. Maybe I really am completely wrong. But it doesn't get decided by calling me a troll and comparing me with a person who was recently banned. You can search watmm for old posts I've made, I've been here for a couple years and almost all of my posts are in music and not general banter.

Fine, then explain why there is something irrational or even slightly odd about expecting references, links, and proof. You aren't behaving like a real person at all, you're behaving like you're making your irrational posts as a lark or social experiment.

Joseph, I respect that you're trying to be rational here. But to say it's statically unlikely that drills and attacks happen concurrently without knowing the frequency of these drills is too big of a hole in your argument to overlook.

Understandably such data is hard to find, but if you want to do this by the numbers, you need that puzzle piece before your argument is interesting to me. Then you can begin the difficult task of showing why that data is important.

  On 5/22/2013 at 5:04 AM, A/D said:

Joseph, I respect that you're trying to be rational here. But to say it's statically unlikely that drills and attacks happen concurrently without knowing the frequency of these drills is too big of a hole in your argument to overlook.

 

Understandably such data is hard to find, but if you want to do this by the numbers, you need that puzzle piece before your argument is interesting to me. Then you can begin the difficult task of showing why that data is important.

I don't think you understand the odds involved here. Each coincidence would need a probability of over .9 just for the whole list to get over the 50% probability mark. I can tell you right now that the odds are nothing like .9, they are more like 1/100 or, if we're extremely conservative, 1/10. How do we know this? Because if they were much higher we'd see terror drills every day, everywhere! So while I will certainly continue in my search for information on drills, I don't think the theory lives or dies with my success. I think it's eminently reasonable and conservative to give each event a 1/100 probability.

However, you win a prize for offering the only substantial criticism so far. If you give the coincidences very high odds, then there's not much I can do other than say that your odds are unbelievable. I think your odds are much further from common sense than mine, and, if you don't mind, could you offer a defense for why they are so high? Please don't say that we can't assign odds, watch me! Sure our information is incomplete, but we can still use our common sense, even if the possibility remains that further data will cause us to adjust.

  On 5/22/2013 at 5:20 AM, Joseph said:

 

  On 5/22/2013 at 5:04 AM, A/D said:

Joseph, I respect that you're trying to be rational here. But to say it's statically unlikely that drills and attacks happen concurrently without knowing the frequency of these drills is too big of a hole in your argument to overlook.

 

Understandably such data is hard to find, but if you want to do this by the numbers, you need that puzzle piece before your argument is interesting to me. Then you can begin the difficult task of showing why that data is important.

I don't think you understand the odds involved here. Each coincidence would need a probability of over .9 just for the whole list to get over the 50% probability mark. I can tell you right now that the odds are nothing like .9, they are more like 1/100 or, if we're extremely conservative, 1/10. How do we know this? Because if they were much higher we'd see terror drills every day, everywhere! So while I will certainly continue in my search for information on drills, I don't think the theory lives or dies with my success. I think it's eminently reasonable and conservative to give each event a 1/100 probability.

 

However, you win a prize for offering the only substantial criticism so far. If you give the coincidences very high odds, then there's not much I can do other than say that your odds are unbelievable. I think your odds are much further from common sense than mine, and, if you don't mind, could you offer a defense for why they are so high? Please don't say that we can't assign odds, watch me! Sure our information is incomplete, but we can still use our common sense, even if the possibility remains that further data will cause us to adjust.

 

The fact that you're trying to assign actual probabilities is...well....something one might do in lieu of actual evidence.

Actually going to the moon is much less likely than shooting some footage on a sound stage. Therefore...

i don't know Joseph, i don't believe in 'magic' but i would be the first person to suggest it was a false flag in the face of compelling evidence. I haven't seen any yet, but I am totally open to the possibility.  If the US government had leapt on this opportunity to pass some new obvious legislation, i would be more inclined to look into it. but they haven't. What motive if any would there be for staging an event like this? If it's just to remind people of 9/11 again and re-open that wound, there seems to be much more effective ways to do it

edit: and for the record I totally agree that the drills happening on 7/7 and on 9/11 are beyond coincidental. The thing is though here is plenty of documentation to prove that there were drills occurring simultaneously on both events. If you saw this globe planned explosion thing before the bombing even happened, find proof of that and bring it to the table. The only 'evidence' i've seen that drills were happening was bomb sniffing dogs and navy seals with radiation detectors, however the scope and scale of a potential drill or if it was just extra security measures for a large event isn't made clear by any of this evidence I've seen. So i don't think it's accurate to compare 2nd hand reports ie: drills at Boston about some kind of faked bombing VS completely verifiable documentation of the multiple drills on 9/11 as well as the drills on 7/7

  On 5/22/2013 at 5:49 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

 

The fact that you're trying to assign actual probabilities is...well....something one might do in lieu of actual evidence.

 

 

 

Actually going to the moon is much less likely than shooting some footage on a sound stage. Therefore...

 

No, we do have plenty evidence from our own lives, namely the evidence that terror simulations don't happen all the time everywhere. And you have to factor in all the evidence, so your moon example is misleading, but you know that.

  On 5/22/2013 at 5:55 AM, Joseph said:

 

  On 5/22/2013 at 5:49 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

 

The fact that you're trying to assign actual probabilities is...well....something one might do in lieu of actual evidence.

 

 

 

Actually going to the moon is much less likely than shooting some footage on a sound stage. Therefore...

 

No, we do have plenty evidence from our own lives, namely the evidence that terror simulations don't happen all the time everywhere. And you have to factor in all the evidence, so your moon example is misleading, but you know that.

 

Walk me through the math(s). Walk me through the factors.

let's start with:

How often do simulations happen?

How often do attacks happen during simulations?

How often do attacks happen not during simulations?

  On 5/22/2013 at 5:55 AM, John Ehrlichman said:

i don't know Joseph, i don't believe in 'magic' but i would be the first person to suggest it was a false flag in the face of compelling evidence. I haven't seen any yet, but I am totally open to the possibility. If the US government had leapt on this opportunity to pass some new obvious legislation, i would be more inclined to look into it. but they haven't. What motive if any would there be for staging an event like this? If it's just to remind people of 9/11 again and re-open that wound, there seems to be much more effective ways to do it.

The compelling evidence is the simulation, taken alone it is not enough, but in conjunction with all the others it is. At first I thought the motive was to distract the media from CISPA, and I think that's still the most likely answer, but CISPA died shortly thereafter, so if that were the case then the effort was a total waste. You have to keep in mind that there was necessarily a very small number of conspirators, and most people in the government were not involved whatsoever, so analyzing the motives is not all that promising.

The thing i find a little frustrating is that as far as i know the topic of drills VS live being the cover for a particular event started with 9/11 conspiracies. But if it was just this alone that made people question what happened on 9/11 the evidence in and of itself is not a smoking gun. IT was because there were many facets to 9/11 besides this that seemed highly coincidental and irregular protocol. Boston does not follow a similar pattern as far as I can see. The only pattern is that people who are readers of the alternative media and put faith in go around saying everything is a false flag now before anything really convincing or concrete is learned. So I guess i think the issue of probability of drills happening the same time as an event is irrelevant to what the real issue is here.
I just think that people need to be on guard and critically think about these things even if you do believe as I do that the government is a highly dangerous entity that has no problem killing thousands of innocent people for unknown gains. You will end up discrediting yourself and people around you. I think it's fine to speculate about conspiracy, but as soon as it gets into the territory of asserting that you know the truth because of evidence that does not exist, is when it helps bring down the entire truth seeking movement as a whole.

  On 5/22/2013 at 6:07 AM, Joseph said:

 

  On 5/22/2013 at 5:55 AM, John Ehrlichman said:

i don't know Joseph, i don't believe in 'magic' but i would be the first person to suggest it was a false flag in the face of compelling evidence. I haven't seen any yet, but I am totally open to the possibility. If the US government had leapt on this opportunity to pass some new obvious legislation, i would be more inclined to look into it. but they haven't. What motive if any would there be for staging an event like this? If it's just to remind people of 9/11 again and re-open that wound, there seems to be much more effective ways to do it.

The compelling evidence is the simulation, taken alone it is not enough, but in conjunction with all the others

 

 

If this really qualifies as compelling evidence then we kinda have to believe every single conspiracy theory that's ever been put forth.

And every alien abduction too.

but I don't even think there is convincing evidence there was a simulation going on. Where is it?

on 9/11 we had hijackers living on US military bases, we had pakistani intelligence agents transferring money to Mohammad Atta (and also having breakfast with the State department on the morning of 9/11) we have drills involving simulated hijacked jets, we have the irregular protocol of no norad escorts being sent in the air, we have whistleblowers saying that we worked with Zawahari in the CIA around the time of 9/11. The evidence just stacks up and up, the evidence for Boston is however very flimsy and i think one has to be careful going around asserting it was an inside job without convincing evidence. IF we had even a fraction of these things like on 9/11 I'd be far more inclined to believe it.