Still Unanswered Questions Involving the 2013 Boston Bombings

originally posted by: FamCore
a reply to: Krakatoa

(and keep the $$ fees rolling in as well, after all, she is a lawyer)

But I thought she is defending him Pro-Bono, meaning she isn't charging?

His high profile, pro bono lawyer, Judy Clarke, the same lawyer who handled the Jared Loughner case

Is she still paid by someone? Who would pay for her to represent an alleged extremist who killed people, and what would their incentive be?

Branding and PR. We make good money as attorneys, but if you can throw books and TV into that mix, you really can make bank. Simple capitalism. And idealism too. She genuinely does not believe the death penalty is legal. So she does everything she can in a high profile case to take it off the table. Gets her on TV with the biggest clients in America. You think maybe that gets her fees for her paying clients up just a wee little bit? Heck yeah it does. Nothing wrong with it either. She is good at her job, she deserves whatever she can get out of her skill set.

a reply to: jaffo

What the hell are you talking about, he plead not guilty and she tells the court that he is guilty, she should be disbarred!

a reply to: Rocker2013


I think there was more than one person saying there was a drill that day:

www.youtube.com...

A reporter asks the FBI why there was a bomb drill that day and was completely ignored.

I am glad to get discussion going on these topics that were seemingly forgotten in the fray. Some may claim that it is a conspiratorial bias, but anyone who has gone over the footage and seen the strange things, men squirting "blood" and throwing powder, changes of reaction, the intentional knocking over of flags and what not to show more damage, they would know that this is more than just a "domestic terrorist" attack.

I suggest people take a look at this. I haven't seen it in some time so I don't know how much of the information has stuck, but I do know that it provides proof of the fraudulent cowboy hero that was proclaimed "the hero of the Boston Bombings".

a reply to: TheNewRevolution

Being retired from the federal government, I can shed some light on this.

Some government agencies such as the FBI, CIA, DEA, DHS and others regularly use events like this to test their response capabilities.

The FBI was conducting one such scenario at the Boston Marathon that was totally unrelated to the events that transpired. The only trouble with doing this is, that should something ever happen at one of the events you are running a scenario on, then it starts to look like a false flag event after the event even though that couldn't be further from the truth.

Trust me, there are many many large events in this country that some of the government agencies will utilize for training...it just makes sense... the events are already well known and planned, all the agencies have to do is step in and run whatever scenario they are training for at particular time.

It looks strange afterwards, like the government knew in advance of what was going to occur, but when the reality is it is nothing more than a training exercise interrupted by a real world event.

In case your wondering, the scenario the FBI was running that day had to do with weapons of mass destruction, WMDs.... the scenario they were training had it been real would have left literally millions dead.... not just a few people.

a reply to: RickinVa

Interesting... has anyone done the math/statistics on this? 9/11, 7/7, Sandy Hook and Boston ALL had drills going on. Coincidence? Well maybe... but ignoring that, lets look at real evidence. Show me the autopsies from those who died at Sandy hook or Boston, AND their birth certificates to prove they were real people. Because we have no bodies, and the only pictures/video we have are clearly fakes. So being purely evidence based, we conclude false flag.

Once again, show us the evidence. Explain the 100's of youtube videos that use unedited stock footage to clearly show crisis actors. Why were all the injured people sent straight to the back rooms at the hospital, bypassing all SOP triage?? What were they hiding???

a reply to: RickinVa

That may be true that they do this at many events, and it sure does provide nice cover for false flags.

In fact the BEST cover imaginable.

orig list ftm the bomb in front of a bank or library a few blocks away...

Sorry, but it goes to follow if there was a perceived threat, tactical response would be there, forward deployed.

It makes no sense to operate in the open as contractors if they were doing wet work. I'm open to all kinds of theories, but in return I say to be open to mine.

a reply to: TheNewRevolution

I know this is a conspiracy site but why does every event have to be a false flag to a large majority on here, the problem that causes is preconceived ideas of what they think took place or what they think they see on videos/pictures.

I mean the question regarding the glass look at images of the scene here is an example



It doesn't take much effort to look at that image and see plate glass double glazing with only one pane shattered another next to it with both panes damaged and windows above damage , so that would be a reason for glass being outside & not inside.

It's a case of many on here seeing what they want to see even when a close look at an image for video would show they are mistaken.

Here's one more question that almost answers itself, yet is quite telling:

"Why, within a day or two of the Boston Bombing, was the public being asked for information about the Tsarnaev brothers, and told explicitly by authorities to ignore any other line of inquiry into anyone else they might have regarded as being involved in the bombing?"

This is Lee Harvey Oswald all over again. The very same "rush to judgment" took place in 1963 as happened in the Tsarnaev case, with the authorities falling all over themselves to tell the public what to think.

What happened to Dzhokhar Tsarnaev at the hands of authorities in Boston is a jurisprudential disgrace. I don't think of the US as the US I knew and loved anymore. I think of it as "Mexico North".



I hadn't heard this clip for a while and on listening again, the spokesperson seems to be laying emphasis on trying to get people to ignore photographic anomalies, . . . like there was a hope in hell of that happening.

By definition a "false flag" needs to have a "flag."

What's the "false flag" here? The American powers that be wanted to start cracking down on Chechen rebels?

Use some common sense.

originally posted by: hmmmbeer
a reply to: RickinVa

Interesting... has anyone done the math/statistics on this? 9/11, 7/7, Sandy Hook and Boston ALL had drills going on. Coincidence? Well maybe... but ignoring that, lets look at real evidence. Show me the autopsies from those who died at Sandy hook or Boston, AND their birth certificates to prove they were real people. Because we have no bodies, and the only pictures/video we have are clearly fakes. So being purely evidence based, we conclude false flag.

Once again, show us the evidence. Explain the 100's of youtube videos that use unedited stock footage to clearly show crisis actors. Why were all the injured people sent straight to the back rooms at the hospital, bypassing all SOP triage?? What were they hiding???

Anyone who says there were no victims at Sandy Hook is indulging in ridiculous delusional thinking or is engaged in some sort of sinister cultural trolling.

And I've looked at a lot of these Youtube vids about so called "crisis" actors. None of them stand up to even casual scrutiny and most are blatantly ludicrous.

a reply to: DelMarvel

ok, in your opinion. I choose to be evidence based, not popular based or what-the-TV-says based. So please, show me evidence that at least one child died at Sandy Hook. I would be happy with a matching birth/death certificate, and preferably an autopsy. None of these appear to exist.

Or maybe you interpret evidence different than me. For example, if I watch the unedited original video of the Charlie Hebdo police shooting here I do not believe the officer was shot in the head. This video may help clarify. The official narrative, and I suppose yourself, would say he WAS shot in the head.

We can agree to disagree. But I sticking to my guns and being evidence based. And all evidence I find points to crisis actors - no casualties.

Have a nice day.

originally posted by: texasgirl
a reply to: Rocker2013


I think there was more than one person saying there was a drill that day:

www.youtube.com...

A reporter asks the FBI why there was a bomb drill that day and was completely ignored.

Again, that video only shows one man claiming there was a drill and "bomb sniffing dogs" there. First of all, I have worked on security at large events and I can tell you for a fact than you would not know the difference between a drug sniffing dog and a bomb sniffing dog. Dogs are used by hundreds of thousands of security contractors all over the world for various reasons, at various times and for various events.

Even if they were bomb sniffing dogs, this was at a large event, do you think there should be no security, no preparations, no precautions at all?

And a "drill" is entirely different to having routine security checks. That should be a red flag right there, the fact that this "witness" doesn't know what a damn drill actually is.

Also, please explain why this man was noticing people on rooftops. Is that normal? You're in a street participating in a sporting event, and you're surveying the rooftops for people? Why the hell is he paying to much attention to the roofs of the buildings down the street? I can't remember the last time I even looked up to a rooftop, other than perhaps fifteen years ago on a historical tour of Oxford.

Nothing about that man is credible.

And why was the question ignored? Probably because it was a stupid question to ask and he didn't want to deal with the conspiracy theorists attempting to twist this attack into something it wasn't. It doesn't matter what he said in response to this, it would still be in that video. If he said there was a drill the video would be about them "admitting" something. If he said there was no drill the video would be about him "lying on camera!!!!". I would have ignored the question too.

originally posted by: ugmold
Perhaps your Average Joe isn't familiar with the "Craft" so what's to look for?

But they still go out in full uniform to help make sure the clever and special conspiracy theorists on the Internet have enough clues to work it all out....

I hope if the people that disrespect real victims and deny anyone was injured are caught in the same type of event one day, they get to watch dickheads on the Internet discuss how they are just actors and it's all fake.

If anyone is interested, last year there was a very good piece on NPR's "This American Life" about Ibragim Todashev (The Tsarnaevs' friend in Florida who was killed by the FBI and MA State Police). It is very interesting and worth the 1 hour listen!

www.thisamericanlife.org...

a reply to: Rocker2013


All the FBI director had to say were the reports of a drill were 'false', thereby nippping it in the bud. Why couldn't he just do that? It only fuels the fire.

a reply to: RickinVa

What's the simplest answer... that these drills caused these events or that these drills occur ALL THE TIME?