Any good solid resources (for) debunking these theories as this thread seems to focus on general CT bashing (no offence)?
Logic works well for the basics:
Theory A: The event was faked.
A. The video that we have onf the event shows people and property going from being uninjured/undamaged to injured/damaged in less than a second;
b. Given that make-up, costuming, and simulated damage/injuries take considerable time to execute we can conclude that the event either happened as per "the official version of events" (ie. there were two explosions causing casualties and property damage) or the footage was inserted;
c. Inserting the footage is unlikely due to the large number of people that would be able to debunk the whole thing by virtue of simply going to the general area and seeing that there is no damage.
We can therefore conclude that the explosions took place.
Theory B. The government did it to justify (x)
a. Pick whatever x is;
b. Ask yourself, "How does x relate to the planting of the bombs?"
i. Take away guns - no firearms were used in the main event, and other than the surviving accused, injuries from firearms in this entire incident have been minimal;
ii. Take away civil liberties - are there any proposals before Congress, the Senate, State legislatures to do that? Are there any calls for that; and
iii. Justify an increased security presence and social control for the elites through fear - this one is much harder to disprove as it requires a much more subtle hand - the way to deal with it is to recognize that either this plan has been going on for many years (general societal fears that crime, etc is rising, even if objective stats show that it is not), and would require a consensus amongst a variety of actors over an extended period of time (we're talking generations), which is unlikely given human nature.
If your response requires more than a couple of people to conspire carry out acts that would make most people blanch and that silence be maintained over many years I would posit that it is unlikely to happen that way as real people can't be counted on to keep silent without duct tape.
Theory C. It's a message
To whom and about what? So far all I'm gathering about the "message" is that:
a. Even with extensive security precautions, events can happen;
b. That group behaviours are somewhat predictable, even if individual behaviours aren't (ie. most people will move away from danger, some will move towards it, and some will try to help those people that they can); and
c. That given a reasoned explanation, people will accept a reasonable short term limitation on their freedom (ie. We're doing a wide area cordon and search - if at all possible stay where you are).
Generally, if getting the message requires more than one or two inferences, it's too subtle. For example, the one where this is a message from Israel to support them more strongly. That one requires that we draw the inference since Israel is facing a Muslim threat and the perpetrators have been revealed to be Muslim, we should support Israel more strongly because Israel also has a Muslim threat and if we don't then more of these events may happen.
Of course drawing that inference requires that we ignore the possibilty that it may have been a message from the Russians to support them in their actions in Chechyna (given the ethnic origin of the alleged bombers), a message from the Chechyans to support them or more of these events will occur, a message from radical Muslims to stop support for (x) or more events will happen, and the possibility that the bombers had other reasons for doing this.
