N.H. state rep. thinks Boston Marathon bombing was carried out by Black Ops: Believes Gov. Involved

page: 3
61
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Urantia1111
And my theory is proven correct! That didn't take long lol.



T&C violation??? For linking evidence of a crime? What terms and conditions am I violating?


Likely for these reasons here (from the site OWNER Skeptic Overlord): ATS Members: Do not speculate on complicity of private citizens




posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by thesmokingman

Even before Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was captured, Tremblay said she began to question the story being advanced by government officials. Pictures of the marathon posted online show men wearing black backpacks at the scene, Tremblay said, leading her to question whether the men were government operatives who had a hand in last week's carnage.

My god she has been on ATS

She might have been on here, but ats isn't the only website that ran these pics. Some of the stuff posted on here is copied off other people's investigative work. I see that a lot. Then you see "good find op".

Anyways, good on her for speaking up.

Good find op!



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by thesmokingman
 


Thanks for posting this. She sure has guts and I do fear for her safety.
Let's all send her some positive energy and good thoughts to help keep her protected from those who fear her speaking out further about her suspicions.
When people in high places start speaking out, they do know that they're putting themselves at risk, which makes them even more courageous and valuable to true Americans who know that rampant greed and corruption are ruining this once great country and the values it was based upon.
edit on 24-4-2013 by Afterthought because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
Geez people the Boston bombing was not carried out by "black op" government agents.

People do have something on them that is real, that is tangible and that is the abject failure of the FBI/DHS.


The FBI and DHS are set up for failure because no government can guarantee safety and protection, they can only falsely promise it in return for the surrender of liberties from the civilian population.

It's a shame more people don't recognize this simple truth, perhaps if they did, they would not be so quick to relinquish what freedoms we have left.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Afterthought
 


Thats a great point....I had only really thought of what it would do to her career. I did not think about her personal safety, that really is a scary thought



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by thesmokingman
reply to post by MystikMushroom
 


I definitely agree if she were a higher ranking member say of congress or something, this would be a little juicier, however, she is after all a representative of her state, she is to represent her state.


Right, she represents an area of her state.

We have some state reps where I live that are really out there because the communities they represent are very rural and "redneck-ish". Naturally these reps that go to the state capital tend to reflect their communities.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 01:54 PM
link   
reply to post by oniraug


so, guys in black coats, khakis and black backpacks and craft security hats. automatically it's THEM and black ops false flag. this is about as useful as blaming the nearest brown person, which never works (see 4chan)


 


The funniest part is that a "false flag" means carrying out an attack or action under a different flag. Flying your enemies colours, etc.





Soooo.... The most logical assumption if Boston was a "false flag" as people are suggesting, and the Blackwater-appearing fellows were responsible, is that, Al Qaeda, dressed up as Blackwater operatives, and carried out the attack.

Then, it would be categorically speaking, a false flag.



I know you are intelligent enough to understand this. It seems others aren't though.

Or perhaps have no understanding of the terms they like to toss around.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by MystikMushroom

Originally posted by thesmokingman
reply to post by MystikMushroom
 


I definitely agree if she were a higher ranking member say of congress or something, this would be a little juicier, however, she is after all a representative of her state, she is to represent her state.


Right, she represents an area of her state.

We have some state reps where I live that are really out there because the communities they represent are very rural and "redneck-ish". Naturally these reps that go to the state capital tend to reflect their communities.


Not sure what that says about the people who elected Jeb Bush into power.




posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 02:00 PM
link   
One banana shy of a bunch.
Hope her career is over.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Kali74
 


One banana shy of a bunch.
Hope her career is over.

Really?
You sound very narrow-minded. We need representatives who are willing to speak their minds instead of a bunch of Yes Men Robots.
Remember that truth is stranger than fiction and people who lust after power are capable of throwing their mothers under the bus.
edit on 24-4-2013 by Afterthought because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
reply to post by Urantia1111
 





T&C violation??? For linking evidence of a crime? What terms and conditions am I violating?


My guess is this may answer your questions...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And this is just my guess, as I could be wrong...


By golly I believe you're right! That's hilarious! SO has worded his Executive Order such that whatever opinion or evidence he or his controllers don't want you to see can be conveniently deleted under the guise of a terms & conditions violation as if I had threatened someone or used racial slurs. Brilliant!

I hope everyone can see what's happening here. Blatant censorship. Now the only question is "why?".
edit on 24-4-2013 by Urantia1111 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 02:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Urantia1111
 


You have a rather childish response if you ask me. The supposition that the victims are somehow complicit or faking their injuries is a blatant violation of the T&C;s, that we all agreed to when we decided to join here. It is at the least slanderous, and falsely accusing innocent people with no basis in fact. Not to mention an insult to those that both died and will be forever carrying the burden of that day. It is a form of hate speech if you want to look at it that way. And, if this adherence to the T&C is not to you liking, there's the door. I will even hold it for you on the way out.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 03:14 PM
link   
Congrats on her for speaking her mind! I'm sure she is aware of the consequences to come for this outlash against the official story -- any time you question the government's "offical story" you're some kind of freedom hating nutball who eats babies for breakfast and wants to watch the world burn. She'll be pushed out of whatever position she's in now due to the masses of facebook dolts who cannot think for themselves intelligently, they have faux news and c bs to do that for em!



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Urantia1111
 





SO has worded his Executive Order such that whatever opinion or evidence he or his controllers don't want you to see can be conveniently deleted under the guise of a terms & conditions violation as if I had threatened someone or used racial slurs. Brilliant!


First it has nothing to do with censorship.

What it is about though is you are promoting a blatant attempt to discredit the victims of this tragedy, and it doesn't matter whether or not the two boys did this the innocent victims do not deserve the disrespect you and your link have hurled at them.

If you have a problem with the way the government handles this that's fine,but do not disrespect the victims as they did nothing to deserve what happened.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Is it so wrong to question if a person actually was injured or even if that person was at the scene?
As horrible as it may be, they might not have existed at all.
"SEPARATING FAKES FROM 9/11 VICTIMS"
www.nytimes.com...

If we're prevented from researching these people and their stories, how will we ever get to the truth?
If people never lie about injuries and how they got hurt, why do insurance companies hire investigators to follow claimants around?



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Afterthought
 





If we're prevented from researching these people and their stories, how will we ever get to the truth?


There is a difference between research and slander.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Afterthought
 





If people never lie about injuries and how they got hurt, why do insurance companies hire investigators to follow claimants around?


That is because these insurance companies are looking for those trying to use fraud for their own gain, are you saying that these victims are trying to do the same.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by tsurfer2000h
 


How do you know it's slander unless you conduct research?
Those people in the article I linked to could scream slander all they want, but they were liars in reality.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
reply to post by Afterthought
 





If people never lie about injuries and how they got hurt, why do insurance companies hire investigators to follow claimants around?


That is because these insurance companies are looking for those trying to use fraud for their own gain, are you saying that these victims are trying to do the same.


No,. I was just offering an example of how insurance companies don't take people for face value and conduct research, so why shouldn't we?

Edit to Add:
Do you believe the government is above using fraud for its own gain?
edit on 24-4-2013 by Afterthought because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 03:49 PM
link   
There seems to be a lot of folk on ATS obsessed with WHO but very few are asking WHY. It seems to me you're more likely to figure out the WHO if you can work out the WHY. The first question foreign policy analysts ask in situations like this is "Who benefits?".
edit on 24-4-2013 by Archie because: typo





top topics
 
61
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join


Off The Grid with Jesse Ventura and AboveTopSecret.com Partner Up to Stay Vigilant
read more: Ora.TV's Off The Grid with Jesse Ventura and AboveTopSecret.com Partner Up to Stay Vigilant