Merged Boston Marathon CTs

[Bubba]

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.

Really? So, according to you, "normalcy" includes; militarizing police forces, instructing troops that Paul Revere & Co. were terrorists, teaching police that people carrying the Bill of Rights/paying with cash are potential terrorist suspects, and living under new laws allowing people to be held indefinitely without being charged?

Those are a few changes implemented after 'terrorist attacks'. Did you forget these or were you not aware?

 

[Bubba]

The question you have to answer is why it was allegedly done a very stupid way, not why it was allegedly done at all.

It was not done in a stupid way, within the premise holding that the carnage was a phase one stage setter, albeit horrible. I would expect such sinister perps would use a combination of effects including real bombs causing real injuries. After that perception control spin is another phase. That is why (not to obfuscate) I drew the 9/11 parallel about hypothetically inserting multiple fake evidences into the mix ie ony as food for thought rather than suggesting hypothetical perps would or did do that in Boston.

 

[abaddon]

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.

You have now flip-flopped and agree with everyone else that a false flag would be utterly stupid.

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.

Conflating unrelated events makes your position even worse.

Wouldn't you be clever enough to operate that way if you were in the clandestine operation planning business?

Nope. I would be clever enough to come up with a scheme which was beyond any banana-head with no more than a keyboard to think they could figure out.

In fact, were I the evil genius who plotted the whole thing, I would be laughing my head off at the sheer number of idiots who voluntarily run interference to hide my nefarious schemes by not only making up BS, but voluntarily propagate it free gratis.

 

[JayUtah]

It was not done in a stupid way...

Of course it was in your scenario, for the reasons given.

...within the premise holding that the carnage was a phase one stage setter...

No. You show no evidence for any other such stages. You simply speculate that they may somehow, sometime occur. What you think "must" have happened in Boston as a result of this action has, according to the residents of Boston speaking to you here, completely failed to materialize.

Without those other "stages" that exist only in your imagination, your scenario for the Boston bombing remains silly.

That is why (not to obfuscate) I drew the 9/11 parallel about hypothetically inserting multiple fake evidences...

But it's not hypothetical anymore. It's your answer. Your answer consists of two propositions:

(1) Other events may yet occur that make your scenario make sense.
(2) The complexity of the scenario relates to altering people's perception of it in the aftermath.

(1) is just wishful thinking and summarily dismissed as having no evidence. (2) is the thing you Googled up yesterday -- emphasizing strongly that it was only hypothetical -- and to which you have now subscribed. I already explained what was wrong with it back when you were strenuously urging us to consider it only a hypothesis. So if that's now your argument, deal with the rebuttal already on the table from yesterday.

 

[trustbutverify]

And even if they were good enough to pull it off, why didn't they think to plant WMDs in Iraq?

This is my question, too. The USG/Illuminati can pull off the most complex, unlikely projects but couldn't fake evidence for WMD production facilities and stockpiles in Iraq??

They couldn't avoid the most credibility-damaging event in US history?

 

[Bubba]

You have now flip-flopped and agree with everyone else that a false flag would be utterly stupid.

No. The point I was making about WMDs is that that particular deception required little more than mere administrative announcements, which could not apply in the case of Boston.

Conflating unrelated events makes your position even worse.

That makes no sense to me. What I said about assessing reactions for future planning is simply what most organizations do to improve operations.

Nope. I would be clever enough to come up with a scheme which was beyond any banana-head with no more than a keyboard to think they could figure out.

In fact, were I the evil genius who plotted the whole thing, I would be laughing my head off at the sheer number of idiots who voluntarily run interference to hide my nefarious schemes by not only making up BS, but voluntarily propagate it free gratis.

Thats exactly what they would do in the hypothetical model of scams in general.

 

[trustbutverify]

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?

There's no way a non-retarded human being could possible believe this idiocy.

 

[Arisia]

Someone must be having fun in here, I can't see any other reason why this is still going on.

 

[Bubba]

(1) Other events may yet occur that make your scenario make sense.

Other events have occurred....and of course they will occur per Boston, scam or not. The type of things I mentioned in post 1641 are what have occurred as a result of attacks, and will continue to occur. Boston's share will be added to the mix, or probably was already.

 

[Bubba]

There's no way a non-retarded human being could possible believe this idiocy.

Elaborate, or answer please. Why wouldn't any professional organization, clandestine or not, assess results for future planning?

 

[JayUtah]

Other events have occurred...

None that substantiate your need for comically overcomplicated false-flag terrorist plots.

...and of course they will occur...

Wishful thinking.

The type of things I mentioned in post 1641 are what have occurred...

No. Paul Revere does not substantiate the need for silly overcomplications in your hoax scenario.

Do not for a single minute think you have answered the question to anyone's satisfaction. You're just piling more speculation on top of the silliness you've already proposed.

 

[trustbutverify]

Elaborate, or answer please. Why wouldn't any professional organization, clandestine or not, assess results for future planning?

I'd be glad to reply fully, right after you explain exactly and directly how a fake FF terrorist attack provides an advantage over a real FF terrorist attack in terms of making a police state more acceptable to the public.

 

[DGM]

I'd be glad to reply fully, right after you explain exactly and directly how a fake FF terrorist attack provides an advantage over a real FF terrorist attack in terms of making a police state more acceptable to the public.

Or why the added risk of the complexity suggested would be beneficial.

The only thing I can think of is they're trying to make it so stupid only a moron could catch on to their evil plan. Naturally the ravings of a moron will be ignored by the general population. Maybe they are brilliant (the perps that is). .

 

[000063]

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.

You mean turning W into a laughingstock?

Wouldn't you be clever enough to operate that way if you were in the clandestine operation planning business?

I'd plant some WMDs in Iraq. It'd be child's play compared to faking a terrorist attack in a major American city at a highly public event, and you can only borrow on political credit for so long before the bill comes due. As TBV pointed out, the War on Terror was and is one of the most politically damaging events in American history. Not just domestically, worldwide.

Then again, that's assuming I'm some hypercompetent mastermind whose capable of reliably faking terrorist attacks in the first place, despite the nigh-impossible degree of difficulty. Give the people their bread and circuses, and gain political capital.

 

[abaddon]

No. The point I was making about WMDs is that that particular deception required little more than mere administrative announcements, which could not apply in the case of Boston.

As usual, you pet conspiracy gets bigger and more convoluted. Now you are proposing a nefarious scheme whereby the plotters carry off a fake bombing complete with actors while simultaneously are incompetent when it comes to planting WMDs in Iraq.

That makes no sense to me. What I said about assessing reactions for future planning is simply what most organizations do to improve operations.

"Makes no sense to me" is not a valid basis for anything. You have yet to demonstrate that anything at all makes sense to you.

Thats exactly what they would do in the hypothetical model of scams in general.

No. That is what you imagine "they" would do. Your imagination is not a substitute for reality. You imagine that "they" would pull off a hugely complex fake in Boston, yet fail to plant WMDs in Iraq. Your proposed "them" must perforce be both evil geniuses and useless morons at one and the same time. This is a common theme amongst CT proponents, one which the CTists continuously fail to recognise.

 

[Playing Games]

I have not seen this item mentioned here.

A conspiracist website claims indisputable photo evidence it was staged. I hope it is fake because it does not makes sense.

The first pic is apparently shortly after the incident. Smoke is in the air. Three people are in a huddle; Jeff Bauman, a hooded guy, and a woman in a red shirt.

Bauman (injured) is on his back. The woman and the guy are at his legs. Bauman is not bleeding on himself or them. His shattered left leg is on her right shoulder and very close to the hooded guy. It appears that no blood is visible on or near them.

Later, Bauman is gone and there is a big bloodstain on the ground. The hooded guy is leaning on one elbow with legs outstretched, and he is still not bloody. The woman is to the left, and she is not bloody.

Link

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/bostonbombingdidyouthink20apr13.shtml

.

I'm suuuuuure it was fake. The woman to Baumann's left with the red shirt on has a name, Mery Daniel. Her left leg was amputated.

 

[turingtest]

I'm suuuuuure it was fake. The woman to Baumann's left with the red shirt on has a name, Mery Daniel. Her left leg was amputated.

Not to folks like the guy (Ken Adachi*) running that website- the only person with a name is Jeff Bauman (and that's only because Adachi wants to frame him specifically as a "crisis actor" named Nick Vogt)- everyone else is just "cowboy hat man," "hooded man," or "the African woman." This gives him the distance he needs to put between his own humanity and that of the people in the picture- when they have no names, they're just cartoons.

*If you click on the link provided at "Want to Contact the Editor?" at the top of the page, you'll see this:

Call on the phone and leave a message if absolutely no luck sending an e-mail, but realize that I don't have the time or ability to solve difficult situations involving high tech harassment/torture coming from military, government, police, corporate enemies, satanists, or aliens. I'm not here for that purpose. I post articles and offer commentary and helpful information within my capacity. Too many people call me or write me with the unreasonable expectation that I can fix whatever horrible dilemma they are suffering from the Dark Side perpetrators listed above simply because I've posted articles about mind control or electronic harassment, or gang stalking, or aliens, or implants, or voices in the head, etc. I write articles and post commentary and letters from readers and make unique premium gift products, and that's more than enough to keep me busy. I'm not a magician. I especially welcome mail with HELPFUL information that will be of benefit to others. Health related matters are OK to seek information about.

He'll stoke the paranoia, but won't take any responsibility for the results. Disgusting...and he has the effrontery to say of the victims that day, and the people trying to help them, that:

All of the individuals participating in this hoax are committing criminal acts of subversion, conspiracy, fraud, and treason against the People of the United States and should be prosecuted.

 

[Playing Games]

I mentioned combining real and fake Boston bombing effects as possible or likely in the hypothetical model. This alludes to my personal discovery that I am actually more interested in overview profiling of elements in conspiracy theories vs what is 'reported'. I now see that for me individual conspiracy theory is not as interesting as discussing plausibility in general.

There is no plausibilty. It happened! Two individuals set off two bombs that killed 3 and injured almost 200. No false flag there.The frames were shot in a matter of an instance.

If you did some research you may also find out the plot was originally set for July 4th along the Charles River. The bombs used were completed early and the plot was carried out on April 15th instead.

 

[Bubba]

Were the two brothers in Boston involved in an FBI sting operation gone hot by a others involved at higher levels in the operation?

 

[Kid Eager]

Were the two brothers in Boston involved in an FBI sting operation gone hot by a others involved at higher levels in the operation?

Did their hairdressers have meusli for breakfast the day before they performed haircuts on the brothers, but disavowed participation when they got caught?

I'm just asking questions...