Debate: Druid42 vs adjensen: The Boston Marathon Bombing was a false flag event.

False flag (or black flag) describes covert military or paramilitary operations designed to deceive in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by other entities, groups or nations than those who actually planned and executed them. Operations carried during peace-time by civilian organizations, as well as covert government agencies, may by extension be called false flag operations if they seek to hide the real organization behind an operation.
Source for Definition.

Please re-read the last sentence.

Thank you.

I'll open my position in this debate by briefly thanking my opponent for the challenge, and the staff for hosting these events. For the record, I believe that people were murdered and wounded that day, having found pictures even more gory than anything MSM has released. The images are real, IMO, and the hospitals have records of treating them. Thanks to HIPPA, we can't access those records, but that's rather irrelevant. There are a lot of personal pictures taken by cell phones floating around the internet.

Secondly, all the opinions expressed are my own, and are subject to change as more evidence comes to light. I'll be using a specific format for my posts in this debate, mainly, the presentation of an exhibit, and a Socratic Question for my opponent, as well as rhetoric.

I have no formal expertise in explosives, but I can tell you that as a young teen, living in the country, we built forts, hanging out with the few other young souls that lived nearby, we learned how to make gunpowder.

There was no internet back then, so our attempts were trial and error, charcoal stolen from the grill, and sulfur pilfered from the fertilizer bags. The oldest of our three whoop gang went to the drugstore, only 15, to buy saltpeter, the third magical ingredient we read in a book.

We milled the ingredients in different combinations, producing flashes when lit sometimes, and others, slow burning duds that barely smoked. We got better. One such ignition flashed quick, and burnt off all our eyebrows and hair, as well as scorching our faces, our gunpowder tests conducted in a 6x6x6 square fort. Everyone one of us caught heck when we went inside, our parents ballistic, but we had a good laugh when we saw each other, hair all fried off.

Here's a chart that shows what temperature colors are:


Here is Exhibit A:


Referring to the above chart, we could assume that the temperature of that explosion was 600-1400 degrees F. Paper burns at 451 degrees F, and coincidentally, the same temperature that hair singes at. Anything above that, given this situation, is a flash burn. I would expect to see everyone within the blast zone depicted with hair singed off and 2nd to 3rd degree burns. I'll get into that later.

In false flag events, there is always room for error.

(The following deals with Scene 2 only, officially entered as the second bombing location, of which footage and pictures are rather sparse)

In this event, I'm placing ground zero close to the tree. More to follow on the tree.

Exhibit B:


Exhibit C:


Socratic Question #1: If the blast follows the direction indicated in Exhibit B, why are the windows blown out in a store to the right, and out of the blast zone? Exhibit C seems to correlate with B, as the areas with blood stains indicate the shrapnel direction. Sadly enough, the blood zone is a good indicator of how the blast randomly radiated.

Exhibit D:


Where's the tree? In the circled area it looks like the guy is standing in front of the tree, but we know the tree is in the foreground, near ground zero. How can a picture be manipulated so quickly before being released to the MSM to publish?

Exhibit E:

(This particular picture is dated 3 days after the event.)

Where's the tree? The ground zero tree has been removed. Evidence, and now lack thereof. The Public, as with many tragedies, place flowers and stuffed animals at scenes of events. The tree would have some tell-tale evidence, but now the public may never inspect it in place. There's only an empty spot now where the second bomb was ignited.

Exhibit F:


Socratic Question #2: Would you agree that the general placement of the crime scene investigators is an accurate depiction of the blast zone, without the crudely drawn red overlay presented in Exhibit C?

I'd like to establish these facts before moving on to Scene 1, the site of the first explosion, where footage and pictures are overwhelming:

1. Standing within the blast zone, given the exhibits, would have resulted in a flash exposure of up to 1400 degrees F.

2. There is little evidence of the char resulting from a black powder explosion. Singed hair, and blackened sidewalk, are not presented, but blood is abundant, as if it was all shrapnel and no explosive heat. As we continue this debate, I will point out other inconsistencies, but for now, refer back to Exhibit D, where the man in front has his jeans split on his left leg, with an apparent scorch mark on his lower thigh, and apparent powder burns on his butt. Everyone within the blast zone should have the same scorch marks. A chemical reaction is not discriminatory.

For now, I rest, and turn the floor over to my esteemed opponent for rebuttal.

To begin, I would like to thank my opponent and friend Druid42, for suggesting this "current event" topic, the ATS Debate Forum for hosting and judging, and the ATS moderators, for allowing a debate on a breaking, and controversial, subject. I hope that our discussion adds to the pool of knowledge, in a way that is respectful, thoughtful and relevant.


Druid has opened the debate by noting a number of apparent inconsistencies in photographs taken of the bomb site. I am not sure that a false flag event is evidenced on inconsistencies which don't really have anything to do with who committed the act, but perhaps he will flesh out the connections in a subsequent post.

His points (serving to answer the Socratic Questions):

The colour of the explosion indicates a very high temperature, but those injured do not appear to have been severely burned.
Two points strike me - first, the explosive was derived from commercial fireworks, and it is unlikely that the bombers were particularly careful to keep the colourant which makes fireworks colourful completely separate from the pure black powder. In this picture, the fireworks used by the bombers, we can see an orangish-red powder, so I don't think that we can use the colour shown in Exhibit A as being conclusive evidence of heat.


Secondly, though the shrapnel radius of the bomb could be as much as a hundred feet, in Exhibit A, the fireball does not appear to be more than perhaps ten feet in diameter. As there are numerous victims reported with severe burns, I think this is a non-issue -- people definitely got burned, just not a lot, because you had to be within five feet of the bomb to have been inside that fireball.

Why were windows blown out of the store down the street from the bomb?
I think that there are too many variables involved (such as window size, glass thickness, angle to the blast, tensile strength, etc) to draw much of a conclusion, though as this video shows, simple sound will break glass -- the meteor didn't hit the school.



What happened to this tree?
Well, we know that it was actually removed after the bombing because it had potential DNA evidence of the bombers, but it sure does look likes it's gone in that picture right after the bomb went off.

But I think I've solved it - there are two non-obvious issues. First, the picture is at an extremely acute angle, evidenced if we draw a line between the metal pole and the brick facade directly behind it in the picture. That makes the tree further left than it would seem to be in the picture, and I think the guy with the torn pants is blocking it, and above his head it blends in with the dark background. Secondly, if you look at the guy in white standing by the tree in the first picture, it appears that the branches don't start until the tree is well over his head, but the other picture is only about eight feet tall, and we can see what appear to be some isolated branches present at the top of the picture.





Now, as to the actual false flag nature of this event, if we look at the signs of an FF, we begin to run into problems. (Source is www.kwa.us... )

Top 9 Signs of a False Flag Terrorism Operation
1. The terror incident or attack follows the Hegelian Dialectic model (a.k.a. Problem-Reaction-Solution).

This doesn't really apply - there is no call to ban pressure cookers, fireworks or students from Russia. It's early, but the circumstances do not appear to typify the Hegelian Dialectic model.

2. The mainstream media hypes up the possibility of a terrorist attack weeks or months before the event.

Did not happen.

3. Following the incident, news media endlessly covers the most traumatic moments of the incident, ad nauseum to traumatize the public.

Oddly, the media didn't seem to sensationalize this as much as they usually do. And apart from incidentals (like yesterday's arrests,) it's slid off the front page already.

4. Terror or public safety drills are conducted prior to and during the false-flag event.

This was true, but it seems like there are drills at all major events these days, so I don't know that it's relevant.

5. Eyewitness reports vary greatly from the propagated version of what really took place during the incident.

I don't believe that this is true -- reports have been consistent, and one of the bombers was identified by a victim before it was even known that video footage existed.

(to be continued)

I am not sure that a false flag event is evidenced on inconsistencies which don't really have anything to do with who committed the act.

I had to read that twice.

"A false flag event is evidenced on inconsistencies which don't really have anything to do with who committed the act."

It's after there are inconsistencies in a story that people begin to question facts. No anomalies, no questions. When questions are denied answers, the "False Flag" meme instantly takes hold. People have gotten rather callous in this modern age of instant communication, and with an internet to access information, that callousness causes them to question. Pictures are released after the video is shown, and what was subliminally introduced becomes exposed as something that just doesn't quite make sense.

I'll briefly return to Scene 2 before moving on to Scene 1:
Exhibit G:

We all agree the shops are Atlantic Fish Co., the Forum, and then Starbucks. I've denoted lines between facias. We can all see that the upstairs windows above both the Forum and Atlantic Fish Co. show evidence of damage, which agree with the blast direction, exhibiting random patterns.

Exhibit H:

This clearly shows the blast occurring in front of the Starbucks. If you refer back to Exhibit B and C, evidence shows that the windows were blown out in the Starbucks, but not the Forum or the Atlantic Fish Co.

Socratic #1: How can a blast directed in one direction affect another location?

Let's move on to Scene 1:
Exhibit I:

This picture of Scene 1 defies logic. He has no left leg?

Exhibit J:

The black oval depicts the "damage zone" of the blast, and the red indicates ground zero and the approximate backpack location.

Exhibit K:

Another view of the "damage zone".

Exhibit L:

We can see that the blast zone actually encompassed a broad area. At ground zero, there were multiple amputations.

Exhibit M:

Yet we have this guy, shredded jeans, no blood, standing up from ground zero, and running off. I'm not questioning his flight, but he seems perfectly ok having been in the blast zone.

Exhibit N:

We have the police running, beside the fallen runner, rushing to the aid of someone away from the blast zone. Good picture, and it draws no obvious questions. Save for Exhibit O, taken mere seconds later.

Exhibit O:

Here's where a reference back to Exhibit N is required. The shadows come into play here.
Why does the female police officer have her gun drawn, and why is she running away from the bomb zone? This is a sole exhibit of ANY police officer drawing their gun that day. None of the other police drew their weapons. Why only her? There were hundreds of law enforcement and CST squads on scene.

Socratic #2: Do you have any explanation for the shadow variance, save an obvious photo manipulation, released by the MSM?

Exhibit P:

This is the video of the suspects. Notice the woman in the light blue coat, holding the three yellow balloons. She walks in front, then stops to the side. She can also be found, later, at ground zero.

Exhibit Q:

The balloons, at ground zero. If you watch the live footage, you can see them break loose, swirl around, and float away. It seems the balloons were a marker. (Rhetoric: Or just a simple coincidence, of course.)

Socratic #3: Could Exhibits P and Q indicate a subliminal technique for a Psy-op? Three yellow balloons.

Exhibit R:
Boston Marathon 2008 Mass Casualty Training PDF.

You'll have to download the PDF, it's 39 pages, but I'll post this for your discernment:




Exhibit R clearly notes, within it's pages, that a mass casualty event at Boston has been thoroughly documented since 2008. File creation dates on a PDF don't tell lies.

Rebuttals:

the explosive was derived from commercial fireworks

3 pounds worth, which accounts for one bomb. Where did the other explosives come from?

people definitely got burned, just not a lot, because you had to be within five feet of the bomb to have been inside that fireball.

An explosion radiates heat. I have evidence of victims with singed hair twenty feet away, yet many victims, especially female, at ground zero, have wispy hair with no evidence of singing.

one of the bombers was identified by a victim before it was even known that video footage existed.

Under heavy sedation, according to your link. Reliable?

Your Floor....

Socratic #1: How can a blast directed in one direction affect another location?

As noted in the last post, windows are fragile things, with many variables associated with how fragile, blast radii are not limited to a single direction, and mere sound waves can break windows.

What is the alternative? Additional bombs hidden in the windows of the Starbucks simply to blow them out?



Man in the picture is obviously crouching, not kneeling, the natural position one would be in if they stopped to render assistance.


The "photoshopped" thing is coincidentally the same colour as his pants, I see nothing wrong with the hat, and I have no idea what's with the fingers, though it makes no sense that someone would change the picture to give him more fingers.


I don't understand the relevance of Exhibits J, K and L, and there's no indication that the person in "M" was right at the bomb site when it went off, as the picture only shows smoke, no explosion.

Socratic #2: Do you have any explanation for the shadow variance, save an obvious photo manipulation, released by the MSM?

It took me a while to figure it out, but there's an optical illusion here, because the two officers on the right have their bodies in a different position than the one on the left, which results in it looking like the shadow is skewed, but it isn't.

The key is her left leg -- if you look at that, and the shadow of it, you see the same natural angle. Forgive the crudity of my photo, but I lowered the leg to be the same as if it were on the ground for a clearer perspective. As her leg is behind her body, the rest of the shadow falls into place.


Given that the three cops are in the previous picture, in similar positions, indicates nothing unusual about the second picture. Her gun is drawn in the first picture, and she appears to be looking at something and starting to run, so it seems reasonable that she saw a suspicious person and was in pursuit.

Socratic #3: Could Exhibits P and Q indicate a subliminal technique for a Psy-op? Three yellow balloons.

So a woman carries three yellow balloons and risks life and limb to stand at ground zero to show the bomber where to put his package? Why not just tell him? If he was hypnotized, and she was hypnotized to get her to stand at ground zero, why not just hypnotize him?

And where were the balloons at the other bombing site?

Exhibit R clearly notes, within it's pages, that a mass casualty event at Boston has been thoroughly documented since 2008.

Well, it isn't exclusively the marathon - they also reference sporting events and the 4th of July celebration. As a group, they likely represent the largest regular events in the city, and it would be the height of irresponsibility for the government NOT to have a plan to deal with such in place. If you read the document, only in part does it reference terror events - there is everything from weather to medical emergencies to managing heatstroke.

the explosive was derived from commercial fireworks

3 pounds worth, which accounts for one bomb. Where did the other explosives come from?

Probably from other fireworks, which they got rid of earlier. Build one bomb, throw away the junk, build the other bomb, decide that it's time to go, leave the empty fireworks behind.

An explosion radiates heat. I have evidence of victims with singed hair twenty feet away, yet many victims, especially female, at ground zero, have wispy hair with no evidence of singing.

Fire and explosions are random things, it is not reasonable to see uniform damage across the whole space.


We continue with our "signs of a false flag" countdown.

6. The first two hours of “live” news broadcasts following the incident, due to limited censoring, provides the most telling evidence.

Again, we've seen pretty consistent stories from witnesses, and nothing really new and noteworthy. Early reporting is often erroneous, because things are broadcast without confirmation, but the actual bombing event didn't see that.

7. Counterfeit evidence suddenly appears in support of the official story to enhance the story’s believability.

All of the evidence that I've seen has been consistent with two bombs, in two precise locations, with nails, BBs and packed in pressure cookers.

8. All official investigations conducted only consider evidence that supports the official story and everything that proves the contrary is ignored.

I'm not aware of any contrary evidence that is both credible and clear.

(cont.)

What we have open before us is an event in this debate that will affect our lives indeterminably. Policies will change, and fear will replace confidence.

If there is an essence to a FF, it is to instill fear in a population, and fear leads to the concession (violation) of our rights, and legislation such as the Patriot Act. Sadly enough, we are allowing our rights to just seep away, with nothing that we can really do, save to watch the hard-earned freedoms our ancestors gave to us wash down the drain, with every event that occurs.

Ok, I've attacked this event logically, from every angle, and I simply can't agree that this was caused by two young males, without having more proof. Without seeing addition footage the FBI hasn't released. They did release footage of the "supects", in fact Exhibit P, which released the term "alleged" from their identity, to guilty. The American people stripped their rights in that instance, and this is why instant finger pointing smells like a FF event. The withholding, and lack of information, makes it stink. I've seen the pictures of the apartment, and they found no evidence of bomb tech there. If they found one soldering iron, some solder, and a roll of wire, yes, I'd scream in an instant that they were bomb makers. I can't convict them without ANY evidence.

I've presented a variety of images, and labeled them as Exhibits, which are open to a variety of interpretations. I haven't bothered much to attack my opponent, because honestly, the proof leans heavily to towards Media Manipulation, and Withholding Evidence. Why did the FBI confiscate video? Why can't we view original footage, and only see the edited version? Red flags go up. I do appreciate his rebuttals, but personally, he has not been strong enough in his position to change my mind.

I'd like to summarize my position as such:

All the Exhibits pertaining to blast areas and damage zones should indicate massive damage, high degree burns, and nobody without singed hair within said zones. Photographic evidence yields otherwise, yet wounded.

I do believe people died that day, lost limbs, and there were wounded. Factored against a FF mentality, I am left to question the brutality of our government in order to pass new legislation.

Going over all the variant evidence of the explosion, I could say that Americans in Boston had a very lucky day. After the subsequent "lockdown" of Boston Proper, with militarized inspections of property without warrant, I began to imagine an ulterior motive. 625,000 people told to stay in their homes in the search for ONE person.
So I'm torn, actually, really torn, between two perspectives:

1. The Boston Bombing was a randomly generated event.

2. The Boston Bombing was a constructed event.

Position 2 indicates a false flag.

Position 1 indicates the cruelty in the world, and how individuals suffer from injustice, and cause harm to others. It also indicates extreme hatred for other Americans, and while Tamerlan was a mal-adjusted individual who "didn't understand", and allegedly beat his ex GF and wife, he was a follower of Islam. While we judge Tamerlan from within a Judeo-Christian perspective, he was entitled within his religion to act as he did. Yes, it's wrong, but while reader's hackles have been raised, realize that in Iraq, Iran, Syria, and EVERY Islamic country, women are beat everyday. Regardless of his personal life, and religious beliefs, Tamerlan had an FBI record of him. They dropped surveillance. I'd say pantsy, which lends credibility to my FF theory, and I wish to remain objective, but the government dropped the ball here. I can hardly see Position 1 being feasible, once it's known that Tamerlan was once being tracked, but was taken off the observation list. If so, our Government has failed us, and if not, a random senseless event occurred where people directly lost their lives.

Tamerlan went to Russia for 6 months, and was able to re-enter the USA easily. From my research Lee Harvey Oswald had the same ease, traveling back and forth from Russia. Sure, that's off topic, but perhaps related to the concept. You readers of this debate are intelligent enough to form your own opinions. I will not sway you further.

I wish to thank adjensen for the opportunity to present my case, and for the willingness to engage me on perhaps an unsolvable debate before all evidence is released. Most of this debate was based factual speculation, and as such, has no resolution. Opinion, therefore, will render a decision.

Thanks to the readers and judges, and the staff who dedicate their time to this forum. If nothing, we gain insight from unseen contributions, and truly appreciate their time perhaps well spent. Answers? Few. Debate and Conversation? Plenty, for those who......really care.

The final entry in the "Signs of a False Flag Event":

9. Any identified "terrorists" are later revealed to have intimate ties with the CIA, MI5, MI6, Mossad, ISI, or another government agency.

Well, it does say "later", but as of now, apart from the fact that Tamerlan Tsarnaev had been interviewed and investigated by the FBI, it seems highly unlikely that any government ties will be found.

So, of the nine "Signs", only one can be said to have definitely existed in the case of the Boston Marathon bombing (drills being held,) presenting a pretty solid case for it not being a False Flag Event.


My opponent has presented a number of photographs as evidence of apparent discrepancies, but in them I find nothing that is indicative of anything beyond the facts as we know them. It is appalling, I know, that so much misery could be inflicted by two morons with fireworks, nails, and copies of Inspire magazine which contain directions of building an IED out of kitchen appliances, but we need not presume anything beyond that to account for said misery.

Though Druid found some interesting pictures that seemed to hold inconsistencies, once carefully analyzed, explanations were found for most of the points. A few remain unanswered, but it seems like a massive leap in logic to go from a picture of a man who appears to have six fingers to the conclusion that the bombings were a False Flag Event and that the Tsarnaevs were innocent patsies.

While armchair detective work can be interesting, fun and, once in a while, useful, it can also lead to erroneous conclusions because of the limited data. Remember when we were so darn sure that this guy was the bomber?

I've attacked this event logically, from every angle, and I simply can't agree that this was caused by two young males, without having more proof. Without seeing addition footage the FBI hasn't released.

I don't think that there is anything about this event which indicates that it could NOT have been carried out by the Tsarnaev brothers in the manner described. Is there more evidence? Of course, but law enforcement is not in the business of debunking conspiracy theories, so they have no compelling reason to release anything until it is necessary to prosecute the case.

In law enforcement, the mantra is "means, motive and opportunity." Did these two have such?

Means - Yes, the weapons used were not esoteric, just comprised with every day ordinary objects that could be put together by non-experts with the instructions printed in Inspire magazine.

Motive - There doesn't appear to be too much objection to the claim that Tamerlan Tsarnaev had subscribed to a more radical form of Islam, and expressed disdain for Americans.

Opportunity - Both brothers were at the Boston Marathon, carrying bulky backpacks in the vicinity of the bombings, and Dzhokhar was photographed minutes after the explosions, without his previously seen backpack. An eyewitness identified Tamerlan as the man who dropped a backpack which exploded moments later.

The brothers' behaviour on the night of 18 April is consistent with them being the bombers - boasting of it to the carjacking victim, planning to go to New York City for more mayhem, using homemade explosives and getting into a firefight with the police, sure suicide given how outgunned and outnumbered they were.


The best evidence that this was not a False Flag Event? The continued existence of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, of course. The fact that he is alive, talking to authorities diverse and numerous enough that they cannot all be part of a grand conspiracy, and will be tried in a civilian court makes it quite clear that he was not an innocent patsy, framed by the powers that be.

So, on the one hand, we have evidence both revealed and yet to be revealed, we have demonstrable means, motive and opportunity, and we still have one of the suspects, who will be put on public trial. In addition, we see none of the signs attributable to a false flag event, and it is difficult to ascertain what might be gained from doing such a thing, as opposed to having someone shoot up the place with an AK-47 to further the cause of gun control.

On the other hand, we have a few unanswered questions about a handful of photographs, none of which, as I said earlier, speaks to the likelihood that this was pulled off by anyone other than the Tsarnaevs.

It is clear that the Boston Marathon Bombing was a tragedy caused by two disturbed brothers, and was not a False Flag Event.

I am not a Moderator but I've been asked to bring this outstanding debate to a judgment - since it sits here since last May.

Here are the judgments:

Judge #1:

Introduction:

Druid42:

I believe that your introduction could have been constructed better. Instead of talking about your past time, it perhaps would have been better if you dived straight into the information. Furthermore, your statement about your opinions being subjected to change should not have been included, as it weakens your argument somewhat.

Lastly, it would have been better if you had included sources (scholarly?) of or relating to the Boston Bombings incident (in order to support your assumption made from the chart).

Adjensen:

You successfully rebutted Druid's points; however i would have liked to see a source supporting the alleged picture of the firework bombs used at the Boston Bombings. Further, your last argumentative piece would have been greater if you had provided sources to counter the 9 point model.

Winner: Adjensen.

Body:

Druid42:

While you have provided further interesting inconsistencies, your argument would have been a whole lot better if you had summed up your points at the end of the body. As not including a summary only leaves a set of information without a clear direction.

Your rebuttals were good, but included sources would have been nice.

Adjensen:

Adjensen had again successfully rebutted Druid's arguments. I believe the reason being is the lack of summary on behalf of Druid42. I would have liked to see sources supporting your counter claims to Druid's.

Winner: Adjensen (by a small margin).

Conclusion:

Druid42:

Your summary here was long needed, but it was good. You brought up a lot of stuff which would have greatly aided you earlier on if you had provided them then.

Overall, if you had summarised your points in the intro and body, your argument would have been so much more stronger. Without the use of summaries in the aforementioned, your position was lost.

Adjensen:

Your conclusion effectively addressed the lack of support Druid's photos had to indicate a FF event. Your summary in the form of "means, motive and opportunity" were also effective.

Overall, your rebuttals were good, and is what set you apart from your opponent. Using better summaries would have supported your argument further.

Winner: Adjensen

Good debate both of you!!!

Judge # 2:

This was an incredibly difficult debate to judge. Due to the lack of information and evidence available to the general public, this debate had to be judged based on what seemed logical to the reader.

Druid had a very difficult task and he/she used very specific information that, on the surface, could easily sway the average person into believing the bombing could have been a false flag. To the untrained individual, the photo anomalies are quite compelling and leaves one baffled by the apparent doctoring of photos and inconsistencies of the blast itself.

But I believe adjensen was able to stand against Druid's attack by providing a clear analysis of the photos, providing logical explanations for what may seem out of place or manipulated, highlighting that the color of the flash is unreliable since colored fireworks were used to make the bombs and that the inconsistencies in the damage around the blast are unreliable indicators of foul-play since explosions are not 100% uniform 100% of the time.

This was a perfect example of how a debate on such a sensitive topic should be approached and both participants deserve much respect for the work they did, but I must give the debate to adjensen.

Winner: Adjensen.

By a slight margin, the winner of this debate is Adjensen. Congratulations to both fighters for showing the membership how a debate should be done. Huge thanks to both judges for their time and efforts.

A Moderator may now close this match. Thank you.