• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Boston Marathon CTs

smartcooky said:
So, what do we have so far

The CIA did it
The FBI did it
The Jews did it
The NWO did it

Any more? The Masons perhaps, or the Bilderberg Group?

This is starting to have a familiar ring about it!!
Click to expand...
I thought the Illuminati did everything? You know, that shadowy group which encompasses all of the above and more?
 
sylvan8798 said:
I thought the Illuminati did everything? You know, that shadowy group which encompasses all of the above and more?
Click to expand...

There's a JREF member who claims to be a member in good standing of the Illuminati. Maybe she can fill us in their current all-powerful activities.
 
sylvan8798 said:
The CIA did it
The FBI did it
The Jews did it
The NWO did it

Any more? The Masons perhaps, or the Bilderberg Group?

This is starting to have a familiar ring about it!!
Click to expand...
I thought the Illuminati did everything? You know, that shadowy group which encompasses all of the above and more?
Click to expand...
The above named groups ARE all part of the Illuminatti. Just as Shriners are part of the Masons.:D
 
So the Government must hire clever people to simulate in computer photo realistic massacre footage yet they never blow the whistle,and collect up all independent press agencies pictures after the event and manipulate those too. None of the photographers from AP Reuters etc seem to notice or care!
 
Caper said:
My question is.... Can the author of this article be charged? It has to be extremely dishonest.... Complete defimtion of character... just pure lies. So can anyone be charged?
Click to expand...

IANAL, so take this with a grain of salt:

The first issue is that the plaintiff in such a defamation suit would either have to prove damages (for instance, they get fired because of the defamation) or have to demonstrate that the defamation is libel per se (where damage can just be assumed). In this case, it would be libel per se if what the man is accused of would not only be a crime, but be a crime of moral turpitude. Again, IANAL, but from the little reading I've done I don't think that it would count as a crime of moral turpitude, so he'd have to prove damages. And since no one of any importance is actually going to believe these accusations, he won't have suffered any damages of the sort that count under defamation laws.

The second issue is if he counts as a public figure for in the context of the bombing. If he does, he'd have to prove that the defendant acted with "actual malice", which to my understanding means that the defendant either knew or suspect what they were saying was false, but said it anyways. But in this case you'd have "defendant is so stupid he actually believes what he says, while for anyone else the person would have to at least suspect what they were saying was false", and I have no idea how that would play out in relation to the doctrine of actual malice.
 
Garrison said:
What's astounding is how the CTs have leapt on the least plausible option for a Boston bombing conspiracy. I have to wonder why they think the 'evil government' is so squeamish? Why wouldn't they go for the simple and practically foolproof option of just planting bombs in a crowded place and letting things take their course? Why would they indulge in such a tortuous effort to fake a bomb victim, and do it so badly?
Click to expand...

To play devil's advocate: if they set off a real bomb, they have no control over what the surviving victims (and relatives of dead victims) will say to the media or on the Internet; they might say things that go counter to the agenda of the Conspiracy. Further, they have no control over who the victims and relatives will be: one of the victims might end up being serial murderer, for instance. But if everything is fake then the Conspiracy has complete control on the narrative which will arise.
 
Matthew Cline said:
To play devil's advocate: if they set off a real bomb, they have no control over what the surviving victims (and relatives of dead victims) will say to the media or on the Internet; they might say things that go counter to the agenda of the Conspiracy. Further, they have no control over who the victims and relatives will be: one of the victims might end up being serial murderer, for instance. But if everything is fake then the Conspiracy has complete control on the narrative which will arise.
Click to expand...

That's assuming they could have complete control of all participants in the hoax, and the number of participants in the hoax also goes up by a great deal compared to a simple bombing. As the number of participants goes up, the strength of control and Bayesian probability of none of them spilling the beans drops significantly.
 
Last edited:
LSSBB said:
That's assuming they could have complete control of all participants in the hoax, and the number of participants in the hoax also goes up by a great deal compared to a simple bombing. As the number of participants goes up, the strength of control and Bayesian probability of none of them spilling the beans drops significantly.
Click to expand...

Its all very well having"actors" but as you say you would have to EVERY person involved at that bombing,victims,their families,police,stewards,onlookers,medical staff,hospital staff(or take them to a pre-arranged hospital where they sneak out the back :D
 
Lenbrazil said:
Is the laptop missing or was it recovered?
Click to expand...
It's not clearly stated in the criminal complaint & affidavit against Dias Kadyrbayev And Azamat Tazhayakov, but I believe it probably was recovered.

After reading the affidavit it is my understanding that they threw the backbag containing fireworks and vaseline in the garbage, so apparently the laptop remained in Kadyrbayev's and Tazhayakov's apartment. Not sure though.
 
I was at a bar last night and invented the "pressure cooker." Take a pint of Boston lager and drop a shot, or bomb, of russian vodka in it. It's awful.
 
The young brother/ bomber suspect has confessed that he and his older brother were the bombers- how do the CTs explain that away? Do they think the bombers were holograms?
 
Last edited:
trustbutverify said:
All part of the conspiracy Titanic Explorer... all part of the conspiracy.
Click to expand...

So the bombers were in on it too? How long before they are accused of being government plants or holograms?
Im surprised Ct's have not accused the people who were blown up of planting the bombs-
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom