Thank you Santa, for saving me looking for it. Wishing to get off your naughty list, I will answer. Soon. Promise. Merry Christmas!
Merged Boston Marathon CTs
- Thread starter Mark F
- Start date
Thank you Santa, for saving me looking for it. Wishing to get off your naughty list, I will answer. Soon. Promise. Merry Christmas!
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Why would you consider this in the first place? You have no proof or even a coherent theory as to why any of this would be needed. Bombs were set off, there's no question if this is true. The evidence was seen, heard and felt immediately and was apparent for several weeks after.
The simplest cheap and easy approaches you allude to were satisfactory in the past, and they still get the job done all over the world. Hypothetically, as in profiling, suppose you were the theorized alleged highly organized criminal psychopaths with a wider deeper longer agenda, and that you have the means and resources needed to apply it.
How did you determine I had no coherent theory? Psychic powers, or just that I did not mention one?
Bombs were set off, there's no question if this is true.
For sake of argument, supposing that is true, (and remember I'm not saying it isn't) how do you know that bombs were set off?
BTW DGM, you said I was trolling here, right? Shouldn't you be ignoring my posts? Why on earth then are you not doing so?
Haven't you got better things to do ?
Last edited:
Matthew Cline
Muse
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2009
- Messages
- 897
What sort of "wider deeper longer" agenda could be served by faking a bombing that couldn't be served by a real bombing?
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Why not now? The question is asked. The question is asked again. I ask the question a third time and press you for an answer. You ask me to repeat the question, and when it's laid before you a fourth time you promise an answer "soon."
Convince me you're not just trolling.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Going this long with no indication of one leads me to this. I don't believe in psychic powers.
Seeing the blast effects and talking to first hand witnesses. Bomb detonations when experianced in real life are un-mistakeable (and nothing like you see in the movies). Just so you know, I have friends that were there. One has a blood stained jersey, she was 50 yards away and the blood is not hers.
I am doing other things. This is a needed distraction to the piles of paperwork I need to do everyday.
Last edited:
Today Jay. Promise. Your question is so profound I must compose myself and my answer with utmost care. Actually I notice (if you'd notice), the answer is already emerging in posts made since you generously (4th X) repeated the question thereby saving me the effort to go looking for it. You gotta empathize with my position here Jay. I'm the one on the hot seat fielding all kindza questions and zingers. Not to mention, my imaginary psychic girlfriend Wendy Woo says the three wise men are about to arrive for our annual get together with you-know-who.
The claim is of optimum control of perception beyond a handful of victims and witnesses, to the nation and world, via some degree of controlling what is broadcast by major media.
Generally, the claims are about consolidation of power and control on a scale never seen before this age of instantaneous information.
Rather than appearing to represent it myself, I'd prefer to offer the claims and theories as represented by their originators. Search term 'examples of new world order agenda' comes to mind. Whether I endorse it or not is irrelevant to the fact many do so, mistakenly or not. The makeup of the theories is what you are asking about.
https://www.google.com/search?q=examples+of+new+world+order+agenda&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
No, your only purpose is to invent a completely bonkers narrative. You are unable to support your nonsense which you swallowed from various intertube gurus, but insist that your narrative must be true simply on the basis that you have been told it is true by unevidenced internet pundits on the basis of nothing substantive.
Allow me to make a prediction. When this latest rubbish is destroyed, you will abandon it in the very same way that you have abandoned every CT that you have proposed to date when confronted with actual evidence.
Feel free to present any evidence otherwise. Your prior proposals do not simply go away because you have move on to whatever you believe is the next most marvellous revelation.
Allow me to make a prediction. When this latest rubbish is destroyed, you will abandon it in the very same way that you have abandoned every CT that you have proposed to date when confronted with actual evidence.
Feel free to present any evidence otherwise. Your prior proposals do not simply go away because you have move on to whatever you believe is the next most marvellous revelation.
As I understand the conspiracy theory(s), here is my answer to your question:
The incident is only the stage setter for other factors, including subsequent elements in the "complicated hoax scenario".
Controlling how the incident and aftermath is perceived is one of those elements, per the conspiracy theories. Influencing govt policies, for example per the perception factor. Is there a relationship between such incidents and the programs militarizing police, for example?
I'm tryin here Jay, honest.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Telling us that you have to stall doesn't help. You didn't ask yourself this very important question before you jumped on the CGI bandwagon and fell for some nut-job web site hook, line, and sinker. So having others ask it of you now and demand an answer forthwith is your problem, not mine.
You keep suggesting that your approach to world events is so much more profound because you "question history" whereas, presumably, your critics do not. From such chest-thumping much accountability is required. If you cannot supply it when requested, then woe be unto you.
Cry me a river. Why should you expect any empathy? You put yourself in this position voluntarily by proposing nonsense and refusing to support it. I'm one of the ones putting you in the hot seat and asking you hard questions about your claims, so I think sitting it in is right where you deserve to be. Far from empathizing with your position, I think you're being deliberately evasive and stubborn and I wish you would take some intellectual responsibility instead of spending page after page conspicuously avoiding it.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
None of that speculative nonsense answers why a complicated scenario is necessary. As you have been told many times, all the nonsensical, imaginary results you attribute to the Boston bombing could hypothetically be achieved by the simple evident means. The question you have to answer is why it was allegedly done a very stupid way, not why it was allegedly done at all.
Clearly, but the question is what you're trying to do. You seem more anxious to keep the thread spinning than to put your claims to the test by responding to critical questions.
Jrrarglblarg
Unregistered
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2010
- Messages
- 12,673
If Boston was an attempt to condition us to military police actions it failed. The way to "condition" a person or group to a stimulus is by repeated exposure, not by one-off events widely separated in time. If you put every so-called false flag end end to end you'd barely reach across the street. Every terror attack is followed by return to normalcy allowing the sheeple to relax and get back to business as usual. We'll never become used to police activity that way. We need to be exposed to a seemingly continuous barrage of small incidents punctuated by the occasional Grand Mal attack like 9/11 or we'll just keep our status quo intact. Violence and fear have to become the new normal, not sporadic outlier events.
Thus I conclude the illuminati are incompetent.
Thus I conclude the illuminati are incompetent.
Last edited:
trustbutverify
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 5, 2007
- Messages
- 10,541
Is this your way of telling me you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about? Be honest.
JohnG
Pedantic Bore
What a fun response! I guess there's no such thing as "bad attention", is there, Bubba?
A colleague of mine ran that marathon and others at my company worked a first aid tent. They expected to deal with sprains, cuts, heat exhaustion and maybe a heart attack. They weren't expecting to become a M*A*S*H unit. I guess they were lying, too, about the injuries, huh? Actors, CGI, the complicity of countless strangers? Yeah, that's far more believable than a couple of young male zealots who decide to butcher some innocent people. That never happens in real life, does it, Encyclopedia Brown?
No, you're right, though. It's far better to trust the uninformed musings of some random anonymous pot-addled internet armchair detectives with their homespun wisdom who think there's "sumthin' funny lookin' 'bout that thar jagged leg bone". Yeah, that will probably end well.
Merry Christmas
Matthew Cline
Muse
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2009
- Messages
- 897
What aspects of what is broadcast would they need a fine degree of control over? For example, if the bombing had been real, then due to random chance the number of people who died would have been insufficient for their plans? No, wait, if the Conspirators are faking deaths, there's could add fake death to a real bombing if there hadn't been enough. So maybe (as another example) the Conspirators wanted for there to be a double-amputee survivor, which they couldn't guarantee if the bombing was real?
ETA: Your search link gives over 27 million results. I'm not going to sift through all that trying to find the examples you claim exist.
Last edited:
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Not one of your proposed conspiracies has yet withstood any examination. Why should this one be any different?
Yet you fail to identify any of those claimed "elements", preferring to imply that such elements exist without any evidence for those whatsoever.
What evidence do you have? None.
Is there a relationship between such incidents and the fact that potatoes contain toxic chemicals? What do you think? Do you not see how such unevidenced rubbish can be simply made up out of whole cloth?
Nope. You are not trying at all, you are recycling long debunked crank arguments.
Like all of the other threads you started on various crank ideas, you will abandon this one when it becomes to obvious that it is founded on mystical foundations and you will start a new one on a CT you think has not been debunked. And you will recycle this MO ad nauseum.
And even if they were good enough to pull it off, why didn't they think to plant WMDs in Iraq?
Why would they have to bother? All they had to do was appear on tv with their 'data' and tell us that there are WMDs is Iraq. No need to spend money or resources planting fake weapons anywhere other than in the minds of the viewers and voters. Agree? I should think you could have figured that out without asking me.
Further, they can later assess the public's reactions when they discover there were no WMDs, and apply that information (intel) to planning future scams.
Wouldn't you be clever enough to operate that way if you were in the clandestine operation planning business?