Merged Boston Marathon CTs

[DGM]

No. I should have clarified. Rather than applying the hypothetical 9/11 perps' hypothetical strategy(s) to Boston, it was meant to be taken only as a generalization regarding DGM's hypothetical perp group's, a generalization which could be applied to any claim of conspiracy, hypothetically. Sorry that was not clarified.

So, you're just trolling here?

 

[jaydeehess]

So, you're just trolling here?

Its that obvious, isn't it.

 

[Bubba]

I didn't ask what I thought. I asked you. You brought up this supposed conspiracy.

Specifically, what goals were achieved by this attack (and the way it's playing out).

Sorry I figured you knew of this;

I'm not saying goals were achieved. However I think it is fair to observe;

* A public fear factor is increased. Hypothetically that can become a factor in perception manipulation. Especially where media spin factors in. Fear can be used to control behavior, votes, lynch mobs, armies, etc.

* Conditioning populace to martial law style operations in their homes and neighborhoods also comes to mind.

Can these be applied to a hypothetical profiling of a theorized agenda in your hypothetical Bilderberg, NWO etc?

Originally Posted by Bubba

...Use of the phrase 'we were told' is a reminder that someone said we cannot always be sure of what really happened, even if we were there at the time.

Posted by DGM:
You need to define "sure". Sounds like you have an excuse to dismiss history even if evidence confirms it.

That's not what I meant.

It would be more like:

Sounds like an excuse to question history if evidence of revision is seen.

 

[DGM]

Sorry I figured you knew of this.

I'm not saying goals were achieved. However I think it is fair to observe;

* A public fear factor is increased.

Not in this case (remember, I'm a local). This has been played all along like an isolated event by a couple fanatics.

That's not what I meant.

It would be more like:

Sounds like an excuse to question history if evidence of revision is seen.

Even if there is no basis of this revisionist evidence? Do you think anything someone could think up is evidence of something? Your posting suggests this.

 

[LSSBB]

Sorry I figured you knew of this;

I'm not saying goals were achieved. However I think it is fair to observe;

* A public fear factor is increased. Hypothetically that can become a factor in perception manipulation. Especially where media spin factors in. Fear can be used to control behavior, votes, lynch mobs, armies, etc.

* Conditioning populace to martial law style operations in their homes and neighborhoods also comes to mind.

Can these be applied to a hypothetical profiling of a theorized agenda in your hypothetical Bilderberg, NWO etc?

What specific benefit could these hypothetical nefarious groups get out of a general "fear conditioning" using a complicated plot, that they could not achieve by just doing a simple bombing?

How could this "fear conditioning" pay off in a society conditioned to value weapons to fight against threats? After Sandy Hook, weapon sales skyrocketed. Do these nefarious plotters not look at the actual results of such events?

 

[JayUtah]

No. I should have clarified. Rather than applying the hypothetical 9/11 perps' hypothetical strategy(s) to Boston, it was meant to be taken only as a generalization regarding DGM's hypothetical perp group's, a generalization which could be applied to any claim of conspiracy, hypothetically. Sorry that was not clarified.

No, it was perfectly clear. I even mentioned something to that effect You were asked a question, you avoided it by taking a detour into 9/11 and then returning back to make the same claim you were asked about.

For the third time, we don't care how you think other people might hypothetically answer the question that has been put to you -- we want to know your answer to it. Will you oblige us? Or will there be another irrelevant foray?

 

[JayUtah]

I'm not saying goals were achieved.

Achieved or attempted, makes no difference. If you hypothesize a deliberate act, it must have had a goal.

A public fear factor is increased.

Where's your evidence that any such thing occurred? The guy next to me in the locker room at my gym runs the Boston Marathon ever year, and has for decades. He's 80 years old and still running. That year he was about 15 minutes behind the bomb. The following year he couldn't wait to go back and run it.

And as has been said, the attempt to create fear is a credible goal, and was the primary stated goal of the people accused of perpetrating it. You haven't shown that your hypothetical Powers That Be need to have that as their goal, nor why they would stoop to such a comically ineffective and elaborate method of attempting it.

Especially where media spin factors in.

Whereas conspiracy spin factors don't seem to bother you. Again you're still stuck in the mindset that anything that isn't aligned with the majority belief must necessarily be reliable.

Fear can be used to control behavior, votes, lynch mobs, armies, etc.

Indeed, irrational fear of some supposed Powers That Be can even be used to persuade someone to adopt unsupported and irrationally alarmist beliefs and give attention to people whose only stock-in-trade is that they aren't the majority, and who otherwise would receive practically no attention. Given how easily such fear can be created and maintained by conspiracy theories aimed at gullible people, what have you done to ensure you yourself aren't being controlled in such a way?

Conditioning populace to martial law style operations in their homes and neighborhoods also comes to mind.

So we're just going to ignore the huge public backlash against military tactics and weapons finding their way into law enforcement? That's pretty strong evidence that you don't just "condition" people that way.

Can these be applied to a hypothetical profiling...

Geez, how much longer are you going to avoid giving a straight answer? At this point the answer is pretty obviously going to be that you haven't thought out your claims well enough to give a real answer, but it would be nice if you admitted as much now instead of dragging out the discussion for another five pages with some pretty obvious ham-fisted attempts at evasion.

 

[abaddon]

Sorry I figured you knew of this;

I'm not saying goals were achieved. However I think it is fair to observe;

Nope, because

* A public fear factor is increased. Hypothetically that can become a factor in perception manipulation. Especially where media spin factors in. Fear can be used to control behavior, votes, lynch mobs, armies, etc.

Real or fake, the very same "fear factor"will occur. Unless your are proposing that a fake bombing will somehow induce more fear than a real attack.

* Conditioning populace to martial law style operations in their homes and neighborhoods also comes to mind.

1. feel free to demonstrate this conditioning. You cannot.
2. Were such a response not forthcoming, you would be first in line criticising it's abscence.

Can these be applied to a hypothetical profiling of a theorized agenda in your hypothetical Bilderberg, NWO etc?

No more than you can infer anything real from NORAD tracking Santa Claus every Christmas.

That's not what I meant.

It would be more like:

Sounds like an excuse to question history if evidence of revision is seen.

Perhaps you should type what you actually mean in future.

 

[JayUtah]

Sounds like an excuse to question history if evidence of revision is seen.

The caliber of argument that you're accepting and promoting in favor of revision is comical. As you've seen, here and in other threads, you don't get very far into this "evidence of revision" before it blows up in your face. You're groping for the flimsiest of evidence, largely on no basis other than it's a minority representation, belief, or interpretation. You don't check up on it. You don't think critically about it, trying to poke holes in it before you bet your credibility on it.

This points not to rational distrust but instead toward irrational, knee-jerk distrust. You have the cart before the horse. You aren't led to reinterpret history by legitimate problems with the evidence. Instead you have an illogical need to reinterpret history, and you backfiill that with the semblance of "revised" evidence. You're just putting a pseudo-intellectual veneer over beliefs you've decided to adopt for other reasons.

Further, even when you think you can make the case that some observation is anomalous and should motivate a reinterpretation, you toss out a de minimis, parsimonious explanation and go right for the jugular -- something far-reaching and nefarious.

 

[Craig4]

Sorry I figured you knew of this;

I'm not saying goals were achieved. However I think it is fair to observe;

* A public fear factor is increased. Hypothetically that can become a factor in perception manipulation. Especially where media spin factors in. Fear can be used to control behavior, votes, lynch mobs, armies, etc.

* Conditioning populace to martial law style operations in their homes and neighborhoods also comes to mind.

Can these be applied to a hypothetical profiling of a theorized agenda in your hypothetical Bilderberg, NWO etc?





That's not what I meant.

It would be more like:

Sounds like an excuse to question history if evidence of revision is seen.

No you found a photograph and read into what you wanted to read into it. That's hardly the same as finding evidence of revision.

 

[Bubba]

...So we're just going to ignore the huge public backlash against military tactics and weapons finding their way into law enforcement? That's pretty strong evidence that you don't just "condition" people that way.

Huge public backlash? Where? In Alex Jones' office? What percentage of populace is 'huge' ?

Besides, even if the percentage is a majority, it doesnt change the hypothetical intent of attempted conditioning. I think it is reasonable to say some people did become conditioned to martial law, even in Paul Revere's hometown.

JayUtah

Geez, how much longer are you going to avoid giving a straight answer?

Kindly re-state the question please? Pretty please ?

 

[Bubba]

Abaddon
Real or fake, the very same "fear factor"will occur. Unless your are proposing that a fake bombing will somehow induce more fear than a real attack.

That was it.

 

[Bubba]

Abaddon
1. feel free to demonstrate this conditioning. You cannot.

Unannounced police 'threat response drills' intimidating kids in public schools comes to mind, as just one of several. Another would be warrantless door to door confiscation of firearms during Katrina, including the video of them brutalizing an elderly woman in her kitchen. There are more.

 

[DGM]

Unannounced police 'threat response drills' intimidating kids in public schools comes to mind, as just one of several. Another would be warrantless door to door confiscation of firearms during Katrina, including the video of them brutalizing an elderly woman in her kitchen. There are more.

Changing the subject I see. So, what exactly would make me think Boston was a conspiracy plot/ false flag(obviously, not the one perpetrated by the Tsarnaev brothers)? Give me your best.

 

[Hans]

Dear Santa

Please send us a real conspiracy buff with new info, ideas, theories and a streak of honesty as wide as the CIA secret tunnel to Atlantis.

 

[Craig4]

Ah... there's the rabid blithering this thread was missing.

 

[Bubba]

Changing the subject I see. So, what exactly would make me think Boston was a conspiracy plot/ false flag (obviously, not the one perpetrated by the Tsarnaev brothers)? Give me your best.

Changing the subject? No, just answering someone's question. Since it was obvious, why would anyone spin it into an accusing question such as 'changing the subject?'?

Sorry, I dont have a "best" anything for you.

If it were confirmed that cgi imagery was broadcast as authentic, I'd offer you that as something which might make you think it was a fraud. but I dont have proof of that. I dont recall saying I had anything like that.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Changing the subject? No, just answering someone's question. Since it was obvious, why would anyone spin it into an accusing question such as 'changing the subject?'?

Sorry, I dont have a "best" anything for you.

If it were confirmed that cgi imagery was broadcast as authentic, I'd offer you that as something which might make you think it was a fraud. but I dont have proof of that. I dont recall saying I had anything like that.

Bubba,
That's the point. You don't have proof of any of this nonsense you keep championing, nor do the whackjobs you are linking us to. Yet, you keep on keeping on. CGI fakery is a pet topic among complete nutbar conspiradroids. Look up the work of Ace Baker, who has the other CGI nutjobs like September Clues calling him a government shill because his CGI nonsensical theories are not in keeping with their CGI nonsensical theories. CGI fakery is a favorite of people with a two-hour course in film-making. No one takes it seriously.

 

[trustbutverify]

No. I should have clarified. Rather than applying the hypothetical 9/11 perps' hypothetical strategy(s) to Boston, it was meant to be taken only as a generalization regarding DGM's hypothetical perp group's, a generalization which could be applied to any claim of conspiracy, hypothetically. Sorry that was not clarified.

Putting the bro-science aside, can you please specifically tell me, in plain, direct language, the advantage the USG (or whoever you think fake-bombed the Boston Marathon) received by performing an elaborate, make believe terror attack as opposed to a simple real terrorist attack? Assuming the "government" is trying to condition the population into accepting a continuous state of martial law and, I suppose, the eventual installment of a fascist regime, how do actors making believe they've had their legs blown off trump real victims having their legs blown off in advancing this agenda?

Please, no "profiles", no "theoretic scenarios"...just a simple direct explanation for why anyone (outside of the kind of idiots who think the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is real) would even consider such a laughable course of action.

 

[JayUtah]

Huge public backlash? Where? In Alex Jones' office?

No, all over the media. Citizens worried over the militarization of law enforcement. Did you miss all of that?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...how-global-militarized-units-enforce-the-law/
http://www.salon.com/2014/07/04/11_disturbing_facts_about_americas_militarized_police_force_partner/
http://www.wsj.com/articles/senators-criticize-militarization-of-local-police-departments-1410287125
https://www.aclu.org/war-comes-home-excessive-militarization-american-policing
http://www.newsweek.com/2014/08/29/why-militarized-police-departments-dont-work-265214.html

I think it is reasonable to say some people did become conditioned to martial law...

At least one person who lives there and who is writing here in this very thread is telling you such a thing didn't happen. But I guess you really need to believe otherwise, so good luck with continuing to beg the question.

Kindly re-state the question please? Pretty please ?

Kindly have answered it two or three pages ago when it was first asked. I'm inclined to say no, I won't keep repeating myself for your evasive benefit. But since it's so close to Christmas:

Why such a complicated hoax scenario when a much simpler one would have been easier and just as effective?