Boston Conspiracy Theorists - Please Answer

Abdul Rahman Ali Al-Harbi looks like Hamza Bin Laden to me – Obama has a striking resemblance to Mohammed Bin Laden , Osama Bin Ladens father – this would mean Obama and Osama are brothers and Hamza would be Obama’s nephew , is this why Michelle O’bama went visiting him
Has The House Of Sa’ud placed Obama in the white house ??

Barack = military general
Hussein=arabian given name
Obama= mount obama the highest point

Mount arabian military general at the highest point ???

The above was posted on infowars yesterday by myself at 4.29
I also posted this last week on Godlike Productions (banned ???) - my name on there is Relayer - the thread is

OBAMA=OSAMA'S BROTHER - ALL MAKES PERFECT SENSE

i came to the above conclusion through own research - I was awakened to the system when the 1st Gulf war began and have always sought the truth - learning what i did last week was a very powerful feeling - i am really frustrated because of the ban from GLP and cannot access my thread which is dated- if anyone views and replies [email protected] i will explain every step that lead me to the above which has already began opening doors to other rooms - the truth is becoming so clear to me - any reply regarding my thread at GLP would be greatly appreciated
KTN45

Originally posted by Morg234

would suggest that going on the run when you're are a prime suspect in a terrorist attack is the dumbest move either of them could have made had they actually been innocent.

Secondly only to turning yourself in as the dumbest thing to do when one is a patsy. Turning yourself in to the same authorities that have ensured you will get the blame for a horrific crime you didn't commit? Clearly only one fate in store.

Why didn't Oswald turn himself in? Why didn't the London "bombers" turn themselves in, deciding to run and eventually get shot by police marksman near Canary Wharf, instead of turning themselves in to the very same authorities, once news of their "drill" explosions reached them?

edit on 22/4/13 by Morg234 because: (no reason given)

Would it be a plausible idea to contact a lawyer then? Let the lawyer deal with the authorities in the public eye.
Would going directly to the press be a plausible option, with the agreement it would be an exclusive public interview?
But then, they would need to rid the house of all those pesky guns, ammunition and explosives with their fingerprints all over it first I guess.

reply to post by KTN45


I think you posted in the wrong thread, or, need glasses, or, are only posting to promote your own website, which is (I believe) against the T&C here at ATS.

Except for a few, most of the "Boston" threads don't act like it was a false flag, just the government taking the opportunity of the situation to curtail citizens rights.

Appeared that many just looked at "FARCE" and leaped to that conclusion.

Truth

Originally posted by Rocker2013

1. If the brothers were innocent, why didn't they do what others identified in images by guys on 4chan and hand themselves in the moment their images were seen on TV? An innocent person would have seen that and immediately attended the local police station ready to clear their name. So, please explain that to me. If you believe the brothers were duped into it in some way, this still applies, why didn't they surrender and why did they seemingly then go on the run armed with guns and bombs?

What if there is a middle ground between the official story and the extreme versions of a conspiracy theory surrounding the Boston bombings?

Speculatively: What if Tamerlan was recruited by and/or actively working as a double agent for the F.B.I and went rogue / was betrayed / etc.?

Alternatively, taking a more extreme view... The brother bombers actually did not harm any civilians as far as I am aware during the aftermath and shootout. If they were dupes or patsies, this could explain why they actively targetted LEOs but let their carjacking victim escape. I don't personally subscribe to the patsy theory in this case, but I think an argument could be made based on the pattern of facts.

2. The images of the two Craft International guys (if that's indeed who they are) have been taken out of context and a fictional time line added. People are claiming that one of them is seen after the blasts without his bag. In fact, the image of the two in the street was taken immediately after the explosions, and both are seen WITH their bags. Why do you accept the false narrative when the evidence is there for all to see that BOTH these men had BOTH their bags immediately after the explosion, are you not embarrassed that you didn't check this before believing that story?

There is a photo of both CSTs/PMCs?/UDMs with their backpacks. Their presence is quite noticeable in the image. I don't believe a high-level conspiracy would be conducted in a fashion that left significant detrimental photo evidence. I am skeptical that a high level government or rogue government element conspiracy would rely on photoshopping media images post hoc. However, the CST/PMC images post-bombing would be relatively straightforward photoshop jobs.

3. For those who believe the common "actors" story... how do you explain medical professionals, volunteers, BPD and race officials not noticing that there were no real injuries? Do you believe that all those present were actors? Thousands of them? If not, how many actors were there? Did they replace all the police who work there every year? How do you explain all the hospital staff who would have dealt with the injuries? Do you also claim that all those nurses, doctors and surgeons were all "replaced" by actors after the event? And if so, where are the doctors and nurses who would have been on duty and why haven't they asked why they all had a couple of days off at the same time, while strangers are appearing on the TV giving news briefings in their uniform?

I think actor-theories in regards to this and other events are complete nonsense. Actors are not reliable. It would be insanity to engage a large group of minimally compensated contractors and hope they would not reveal something even if accidentally. What if somebody had a bad take?

Additionally, if you were the kind of people who manipulated world evemts towards war, violence and strife then why would you think twice about real collateral damage? Evil masterminds behind a false flag attack wouldn't concern themselves with avoiding collateral damage by using actors. The risk would far outweigh the reward.

4. If it were a false flag and the two were "convinced" into doing it, why is the younger brother still alive? Would it not make a lot more sense - given that they have already killed three and maimed more than 150 - that one more life wouldn't be much to end? So, if these "mysterious people" can convince those brothers to take two explosive devices into the crowd, kill three, wound more than a hundred, why would they let them live? Do you not think they could have killed them in the days after, when both brothers were behaving as they normally would have? Why would such a loose end be left dangling?

Perhaps the brothers' work was not completed? I think its also worth noting that one brother is dead and the other brother cannot currently speak.

5. Why did those brothers then have a shoot out with police in the street, and how did those "innocent" brothers get hold of explosives if they were innocent? I will concede that we have no factual evidence ourselves of any of that happening, but this is the narrative we have, and there would have been numerous local BPD involved in that - did they all just "imagine" the...

A vast gulf of possibility exists between the concepts of innocence and guilt.

You ask some good questions op, however your questions pale in comparison to the real questions that need to be answered. The reason that people start to speculate and conspire is because of the glaring holes in the OS.

So if you could please indulge me and answer the following questions,

1. Why were they running drills before and during the race, to include craft international?

2. Why did the Saudi National go from being a detained suspect, to a person of interest, to a nobody, to getting approved for deportation based on terrorist activities?

3. Why did CNN go national and say that a suspect was under arrest and going to the courthouse, then turn around shortly after and claim nobody is under arrest and there is no suspect? And please don't tell me that the media just made a mistake, they were just in too big a rush to get the scoop. That is the biggest copout and always offers a get of jail free card.

4. Why did the FBI postpone and then cancel there scheduled press conference shortly after the CNN reversal? How much of that had to do with the 4chan pic dump?

5. Why did the FBI release pictures of the two suspects and ask the country for any and all information concerning their identities, when they had interviewed the older brother and had a file on him since 2011?(hint..they ain't that stupid)

There are a hundred other inconsistencies and questions that should be pointed out but the above are just a few that crossed my mind.

6. One last question before I go, why is it that we know so much about the official story and all the twists and turns, but whenever the hard questions get asked the first thing authorities do is claim that there is an investigation pending and they can't talk about it? Same thing happened with Benghazi, Sandy Hook and it's already happened concerning Boston (Napolitano refusing to answer a congressman's question about the Saudi National deportation).

reply to post by Rocker2013


I think perhaps, like most things, the truth is in the middle. Our government has lied to us so many times over so many years it is hard to muster up any trust. I am just happy that more people were not killed and that those injured are expected to recover. It could have been much worse.

Originally posted by Sek82
Who here could present evidence suggesting either of these two men are guilty of this alleged crime? Media reports do not qualify as evidence.

7-Eleven robbery not related to Boston bombing suspects

And who can provide evidence that either of them were not involved, or that there were actors playing the part of injured, or that no one died, or that the big bad Illuminati are responsible, or that the CIA did it take all your guns, or that...

There is MORE EVIDENCE that they DID actually do it, than any evidence suggesting ANY OTHER alternative scenario people on ATS like to imagine. That is what this thread is about.

There are a lot of members here creating massively detailed and involved "theories" based on complete conjecture, rumour, belief, or the completely fictional ideas of others.

There is evidence placing these two young men at the scene, witnesses who identify one or both as being responsible, and witnesses stating that they had a gun fight and explosives were used while chasing them. And on the opposing side of it, there are a lot of people using misidentified photos, incorrect time lines, false information and complete fantasy to come up with a different explanation.

There is a lot of investigation to go on and a lot more information will come out, but logic and reason should tell people to go with the most likely and plausible scenario, the one that actually has some credibility and some evidence, rather than to create a completely fictional story based on fantasy.

Originally posted by jaws1975
1. Why were they running drills before and during the race, to include craft international?

Can you provide evidence of this? All I have seen is one person suggesting it, but they could be confused, or simply another conspiracy theorist who wants to convince people that there is more to it. Of all the press, runners, staff etc on scene there, I have only seen one person suggesting it - why are there not more people talking about these "drills"?

Also, it could be that there were suspicions about something, maybe there was in fact intel about something happening but it was deemed to be almost insignificant?

Is there any evidence that they have conducted such searches before the event in other years? Is it usual?

Originally posted by jaws1975
2. Why did the Saudi National go from being a detained suspect, to a person of interest, to a nobody, to getting approved for deportation based on terrorist activities?

The media is reporting this, but it has been denied by government. This is something that needs to be looked into, but with all the false information being put out by the MSM during (in their race to be the first and get the viewers) they got a LOT wrong.

I guess we'll find out now that there are politicians on the case and demanding answers.

Originally posted by jaws1975
3. Why did CNN go national and say that a suspect was under arrest and going to the courthouse, then turn around shortly after and claim nobody is under arrest and there is no suspect? And please don't tell me that the media just made a mistake, they were just in too big a rush to get the scoop. That is the biggest copout and always offers a get of jail free card.

So you don't want me to tell the truth because it doesn't suit your fantasy? Sorry it's so inconvenient for you, but anyone can call up a news station and tell them anything, and I'll bet if it's juicy enough they'll be on the air with it seconds later without confirming the source. This is the difference between trash media and real journalism.

Sorry the truth is so inconvenient for your fantasy, but it's the truth and you need to deal with it.

Originally posted by jaws1975
4. Why did the FBI postpone and then cancel there scheduled press conference shortly after the CNN reversal? How much of that had to do with the 4chan pic dump?

Why did they have any news briefings? Why did they let the uncle speak? Why, why, why? There are a thousand things all happening at once behind the scenes of an active investigation like this, and suggesting news conferences were made depending on the rumours on the internet is a little stupid.

Originally posted by jaws1975
5. Why did the FBI release pictures of the two suspects and ask the country for any and all information concerning their identities, when they had interviewed the older brother and had a file on him since 2011?(hint..they ain't that stupid)

The FBI also (supposedly) didn't find anything on him back at that interview.
It's also an ongoing investigation, even if they had a name for him it's likely they would want members of the public who knew him to contact them. This could be for clarification, or to verify he's the right person they are looking for.
If they knew his name, it would be much more concrete if someone called and gave that name, without them having released it. This is a common method to gain credibility in a lead.

Originally posted by jaws1975
6. One last question before I go, why is it that we know so much about the official story and all the twists and turns, but whenever the hard questions get asked the first thing authorities do is claim that there is an investigation pending and they can't talk about it? Same thing happened with Benghazi, Sandy Hook and it's already happened concerning Boston (Napolitano refusing to answer a congressman's question about the Saudi National deportation).

Because, in an active investigation, they release information to the media that might help their case, and enough to reassure the public that it is being investigated thoroughly. There is also a lot of false information the media release that is just not true!

You seem to think they should be telling you the ins and outs of a ducks butt, when the truth is a lot of what they have will have to be held for use in a court case, to get a conviction.

There are a lot of questions, but there are a thousand and one plausible answers. You still haven't offered any evidence of anything. In order to have an alternative narrative it is your responsibility to present information to support that alternative, just picking holes in a story that is expected to have holes is not good enough for a conspiracy theory.

Originally posted by eXia7
Lets be honest here... Even if it's not a "false flag" like others are claiming, it's still an event that will be used to force more government control.

This was Obama's 9/11, and it's his time to shine. You seem a little bit upset that people would consider this to be a conspiracy considering governments in the past are guilty of being liars, and killing millions.. So can you really blame people for questioning the official story, considering they've been burned over the years?

Talk about a bad analogy: Appearing on television recently, former Hillary Clinton campaign adviser and current public relations executive Mark Penn suggested that President Obama needs a moment “similar” to the tragic terrorist attack on the Oklahoma City federal building, in order to “reconnect” with voters

Now clearly he's not trying to woo voters, but his approval ratings have tanked, and he needed something to uphold his image.

My thoughts, false flag or not, it's just another nail in the coffin of freedom.. if you don't believe government will use this like they have used every other tragedy, then you're clearly hiding under a rock.

The government will always use an situation, good or bad to push their agenda. They have always done this and always will do this. Politicians are scum and they do this regularly, but just because they use these situations to their advantage, it doesn't mean they were actually behind them.

As I said in another thread, there are plenty of crazy people in the world, why carry out a false flag when the crazies will do it for you.

reply to post by Rocker2013


Nice job rocker, but you are beating a dead horse. I have proven most of these wrong, clearly pointing out why, but then they will just move to another part of the conspiracy.

You have to wonder why posters here don't serious question themselves. If i was adamant about something and it was proven wrong, I would begin to question whether or not I was right about the conspiracy in the first place, not just blindly move to the next story I heard.

I guess the problem is people here want to believe the government is so evil they will believe anything. Pretty sad. I for one always am looking for the truth.

With still so many unanswered questions regarding what took place on the ground in Boston after the bombing, it's time to look at an extra, possible Top Ten list of lingering absurdities. And this without sidestepping other unanswered crucial questions, such as why a bomb drill - organized by Craft - was going on during the marathon at which the bombing took place; and why it was



vehemently denied that a bomb drill was going on. For this current set of questions, I'm grateful for the help of Asia Times Online's Bostonian readers.

Pick your Mercedes
1. Will the FBI come clean and admit they knew everything there is to know about Tamerlan Tsarnaev - after five years of monitoring/controlling him - and still lied to public opinion by swearing they knew nothing about his and his brother's identity, posting their photos and asking for the public to act ''as eyes and ears'' to identify those ''suspects''?

2. Since 9/11, the preferred FBI modus operandi is to use informants to lure ''potential'' terra-rists to act. See for example the Fast and Furious

Originally posted by Rocker2013

Originally posted by Sek82
Who here could present evidence suggesting either of these two men are guilty of this alleged crime? Media reports do not qualify as evidence.

7-Eleven robbery not related to Boston bombing suspects

And who can provide evidence that either of them were not involved, or that there were actors playing the part of injured, or that no one died, or that the big bad Illuminati are responsible, or that the CIA did it take all your guns, or that...

There is MORE EVIDENCE that they DID actually do it, than any evidence suggesting ANY OTHER alternative scenario people on ATS like to imagine. That is what this thread is about.

There are a lot of members here creating massively detailed and involved "theories" based on complete conjecture, rumour, belief, or the completely fictional ideas of others.

There is evidence placing these two young men at the scene, witnesses who identify one or both as being responsible, and witnesses stating that they had a gun fight and explosives were used while chasing them. And on the opposing side of it, there are a lot of people using misidentified photos, incorrect time lines, false information and complete fantasy to come up with a different explanation.

There is a lot of investigation to go on and a lot more information will come out, but logic and reason should tell people to go with the most likely and plausible scenario, the one that actually has some credibility and some evidence, rather than to create a completely fictional story based on fantasy.

Everyone should be forced to read this before they post. I have been trying to point out facts and separate fiction for years on this site, unfortunately people only read the OP, they usually ignore anything that proves what they are claiming to be false.

Goodjob. Wish I could give you more stars

Originally posted by Rocker2013

Originally posted by Sek82
Who here could present evidence suggesting either of these two men are guilty of this alleged crime? Media reports do not qualify as evidence.

7-Eleven robbery not related to Boston bombing suspects

And who can provide evidence that either of them were not involved, or that there were actors playing the part of injured, or that no one died, or that the big bad Illuminati are responsible, or that the CIA did it take all your guns, or that...

There is MORE EVIDENCE that they DID actually do it, than any evidence suggesting ANY OTHER alternative scenario people on ATS like to imagine. That is what this thread is about.

There are a lot of members here creating massively detailed and involved "theories" based on complete conjecture, rumour, belief, or the completely fictional ideas of others.

There is evidence placing these two young men at the scene, witnesses who identify one or both as being responsible, and witnesses stating that they had a gun fight and explosives were used while chasing them. And on the opposing side of it, there are a lot of people using misidentified photos, incorrect time lines, false information and complete fantasy to come up with a different explanation.

There is a lot of investigation to go on and a lot more information will come out, but logic and reason should tell people to go with the most likely and plausible scenario, the one that actually has some credibility and some evidence, rather than to create a completely fictional story based on fantasy.

To be honest with this robbery, who cares. Initial reports are wrong a lot of the times, if they were near the 7/11 and it was robbed, it makes sense that people would associate the two.

Ask yourself this, if you were a criminal or robber, what better time to actually commit a crime or rob a 7/11 when every cop in the city is looking for the two bombing suspects.

reply to post by Nedusa



just one because I have to go to work, but already you are completely wrong here.

5. The description of the car hijacked by the brothers, a Mercedes E350 SUV, matches the description of their car left at a service station in Cambridge for two weeks prior to the bombing. A mechanic in Cambridge said Dzhokhar, Tamerlan's brother, picked up his "black Mercedes SUV" on Tuesday, the day after the marathon. The two cars may be one and the same; that blows up the whole official ''carjacking'' narrative.

He picked up a white mercedes that was missing its bumpers.

Gilberto Junior, a Cambridge mechanic who owns Junior’s Auto Body, said Tsarnaev had dropped off a white Mercedes to have a bumper and body panel repaired. Junior had planned to start the job on Wednesday, but the suspect came into the shop on Tuesday.

Tamerlan picks up white Mercedes missing bumpers at body shop

So you already have one thing wrong, which you could easily have found out if you did a simple google search. What else are you wrong on. About everything, which I will point out later, when I have time.

reply to post by Rocker2013


It is belief the 1st suspect (Killed) Walked out of his house and was ran over and shot dead by the police, she suggests he walked out of his house to the police.... He had no weapon the neighbour said.
There was a neighbour who seen this happen...



This is one of a few things I have heard, I will try and find the chap who said he came out of his house with his hands in the air..

Make of it what you all will...
Who knows at this time

Cheers

Originally posted by eXia7

Originally posted by Rocker2013

Originally posted by eXia7
Lets be honest here... Even if it's not a "false flag" like others are claiming, it's still an event that will be used to force more government control.

That's debatable, and remains to be seen. Lets also not forget that the American people have the power to lobby their elected, and that's is seemingly rarely done. If this is of real concern, why isn't anyone protesting in the streets about it?

I can accept that things like this could be used to persuade the public to do something, but there needs to be evidence of that, not just the a knee-jerk belief by suspicious and paranoid people.

Those responsible for making the accusation are also responsible for proving it.

Well, lets take the "Lock down" aka Martial Law incident into account. The fact that they allowed a terrorist to run around the city, while making people stay in their homes and cower in fear, while they come in and save the day with their para-military forces, riding on the clouds of justice, to make a swift blow to the terrorist! Put on this exaggerated man-hunt, and just make people feel powerless in their presence.

I agree with your questions, they are very well thought out questions, and still a lot of details are emerging, so there still aren't exact answers to them. It's still unfolding, there is still time for a lot of inconsistencies to come out. But, my general belief is that no matter which "terrorist" committed the crime, we're still going to see new laws, and calls for more funding to bloated agencies, and add cameras in every home.

And what about the Saudi man that they swiftly deported?

edit on 4/22/2013 by eXia7 because: (no reason given)

Okay, you make a valid point for the 'Martial Law" piece.. but I will respond with this.. never did they FORCE people to stay in their homes.. they requested people stay in and for the most part the people complied .. for ONE DAY.. There were still cars moving around, I saw people moving through the streets of Boston but it was extremely limited... not by law enforcement.. but by common sense!

There was a video floating around of the the law enforcement 'raiding' a home and holding the homeowners at gunpoint... what they don't say in the video and you would only know this from listening to the scanners but that family CALLED THE POLICE TO INVESTIGATE THEIR OWN HOME.... they had a basement door unlocked that no one knew about and wanted them to come check it out.

I am sorry but Martial Law implied people would be shot or imprisoned if they left their homes... this was nothing like that and I watched it 24/7 and listened to the scanners.. I live about 40 minutes from Watertown and it freaked me out. People did what the police wanted them to but at no time were they threatened with arrest or violence if they left their homes... I feel like there is a BIG difference between that and martial law.

The crazy thing that I see now is the people who want this guy's rights to be incinerated and dismantled as an enemy combatant. These same people are the same ones who are fearful that Obama and his administration is taking away their rights and freedoms (2nd Amendment to be specific) but that is exactly what they want to do to this 19 year old AMERICAN CITIZEN. I am sorry but I don't see your 2nd Amendment rights as any more important or sacred at this guys right to due process under our law system.

Cheers.. I welcome to back and forth.. everyone doesn't have to agree with each other but it seems this thread is pretty level headed!

Originally posted by Nedusa
Will the FBI come clean and admit they knew everything there is to know about Tamerlan Tsarnaev - after five years of monitoring/controlling him

This is an accusation by their mother, it has not been proven and the FBI have refuted this. Why are you willing to immediately believe their mother and not the FBI? No doubt you criticise others for believing the FBI without question, but you're putting the same absolute faith in a woman who has a vested interest in protecting her sons.

Originally posted by Nedusa
There's a strong possibility the Tsarnaev brothers were set up. In this case, is there anyone anywhere among the vast US intel apparatus investigating the FBI investigators?

Possibilities are one thing, but they require evidence to be supported. Where is the evidence that they were "set up". And if they were set up or lured into it by the FBI, why did then then throw more bombs at police, why did they seemingly act normally and without care in the days after when they knew so many had died or were injured?

Originally posted by Nedusa
Will the FBI explain a tsunami of false reports by the usual, anonymous ''US officials'' of explosions or ''unexploded bombs'' - at two Boston hotels, a court house, and at the JFK library?

Why is it immediately the fault of the FBI when the media makes false statements on air and gives stories they haven't verified?

Originally posted by Nedusa
A Saudi student, injured at the bombing, who was in the US via a legal student visa, is suddenly deported on ''national security grounds'', even as investigators found ''unusual burns'' on his hand inconsistent with the injuries of other victims

Has he been deported? Have you seen the burns on his hands? Is everyone with that name now instantly a terrorist? How do you know this is not just more incorrect reporting?

Originally posted by Nedusa
The two cars may be one and the same; that blows up the whole official ''carjacking'' narrative.

You yourself say "may be" the same. But you can't prove it, so the carjacking narrative has certainly not been "blown up"

Originally posted by Nedusa
there's a media blackout on the owner of the allegedly hijacked Mercedes, who in theory managed to escape and call the police

He is a vital part of any court case, and him releasing any information to the press could destroy that case. Why is this so hard to understand?! Hi will be a key witness in any prosecution, so why the hell would he be giving press interviews and potentially destroying the case?!

Originally posted by Nedusa
The initial police scanner report mentions the suspect in singular as ''a Hispanic with a hat on''. This happened on the MIT campus, at a side street, after the officer had responded to the report of ''a disturbance''. Now the whole US law enforcement apparatus takes for granted that the MIT cop was killed by the brothers - with no investigation whatsoever.

I assume you were not listening to the radio scanner when all of this was going on? If you'd tuned in at ANY time during those days last week you would have been convinced that there were thousands of terrorists all over Boston. Guess what, crime didn't suddenly stop in the city during those days.

Originally posted by Nedusa
There's a whole murky story about a ''stolen police SUV with long guns and explosive''

A murky story indeed. I haven't seen this anywhere but here on ATS. No evidence for it, not even any witnesses to it, no media mentions, just a suggestion that it happened by those who want to make a more elaborate fantasy.

Originally posted by Nedusa
The whole law enforcement apparatus insisted that there was a heavy exchange of gunfire with Dzokhar while he was hiding in a boat, before his arrest. That is false. He was unarmed, barely moving and the hail of bullets towards the boat came from the police.

Do you have evidence of this? Were you there? Is there video footage of an unarmed and barely moving Dzokhar in a "hail of bullets"? No, you're assuming, and you're refusing the story because it doesn't suit your fantasy. Provide evidence that this was false please, because all the video and image evidence, and witness statements would say you're wrong in your assertions.

Originally posted by Nedusa
How come legions of police and mega-weaponized SWAT teams searching a ''20 block'' crime scene perimeter in Watertown simply could not locate Dzhokhar hiding in a street less than two blocks from where he had abandoned his car?

Because he had help?
Because he moved from one place to another?
Because the person who searched that area did a terrible job?
There are numerous logical explanations, but I don't know what you're implying.

Nope, still not convinced of any conspiracy.

If you are able to, I'd love to see some logical answers to these questions. Lets see if you can convince me that this was a false flag in one way or another


1. this right off the bat is shady. you dont tweet crap like that and expect no conspiracy theorists to come forward. thats like expecting an insurance company not to investigate you when you have fire insurance for your house then it burns down on the day you make a facebook post that says "housefire".

2.ever hear of the fbi catching itself in its own terrorist attacks? www.nytimes.com... and people of america actually call this police work. where i come from thats called entrapment and a set-up.

3. the fbi was very involved in their lives. the parents seem pretty firm on it being a set-up. id def take my moms word on me over the worlds view. dumb people seem to think moms will do anything to help their kids even if they were murderers. very unlikely. not to mention the obvious "you cant cath people your watchign and keeping track of" how bad can one suck at his job? rt.com...

4. the martial law tactic was the main event here that lots of people miss. to me it was a public reaction test and to me it went off as planned. only in america or maybe nazi germany that that much force is needed to apprehend 2 guys. it went off as planned. everyone cheered for it. and germans cheered for hitler and the nazi's. its hilarious that the "if you dont learn history you are doomed to repeat it" comes through so obviously right now. again how bad are the cops at their job? we need a military for 2 people? and you dont think thats a bit much?

5. if those "craft guys" were nobodys. why are they around cop cars and let behid police lines? why not be in uniform if you have a job to to at the event? why so undercover? was it also coincidence they have seal team hats on? did they also call eachotehr up in the morning and decided to match that day from the neck down? why is one wearing an earpeice. why do they have a Inspector Radiation Alert" device. and bomb sniffing dogs were brought in in the morning.

6but the best point. why is it every time americans are so retared that killing the guy is the best way of dealing with the problem. its never get him a live and question him then hear out is reasons and give him a public trial. if its true it should be extremely easy to prove. so why not just do it? and why when the do get him a live we never get to hear what he has to say. like the colorado shooter? it HAS to be done behind closed doors. main point is the truth is easy to prove because its true. so why not show the world how confident you are in your story about what happend by putting it to the test instead of getting rid of the only witnesses?