Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Boston Bombings: Why Think Conspiracy?

page: 2
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 

see
rhetoric
he had tape




posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 09:07 PM
link   
The degrees of belief in conspiracy theories is analogous to belief in the Bible. On the lowest levels are people who are of below to average intelligence who take it on faith. The middle tier is comprised of successful people of above average intelligence who question the narrative and side with the naysayers based on the lack of conclusive evidence. Then at highest levels are those who are deep thinkers and come to the correct conclusions as a result of serious study and contemplation (ie genius level). Ask yourself where you are on this continuum.......
edit on 25-4-2013 by CosmicCitizen because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by CosmicCitizen
 


The diference between believing in the bible and knowing there are actual conspiracies is
we have live witnesses and visible evidences and dead bodies everywhere
with biometric ID no less


as they say: "follow the money"
edit on 25-4-2013 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 

Some parts of the Bible are allegorical (Jesus often taught in parables) and some is actually contradictory (Old Testament vs New Testament)....but those things can be explained and understood - it is the core concepts; that of a Supreme Being (aka God) and the Divinity of His Son (Yeshua ben Joseph of Nazareth whom we call Jesus Christ - Jesus being the Greek form of Yeshua and Christ meaning "The Anointed One" or "Messiah").

As to the Boston Bombings there is some conspiratorial speculation about the use of crisis actors to facilitate staging a false flag. I do not see enough evidence to say, for example, that the double amputee was an actor helped by the black woman and man in the hoodie to stage his horrific injuries. I do see; however, evidence of Craft operators in the area (interestingly their motto is "Violence Does Solve Problems") and a) they are responding to orders via ear pieces (monitoring the suspects or ?), b) one has a hand held device (radiation detector or cover device for a detonator?), c) one operator had the only visible backpack similar to one that held the bomb near the finish line and he was sans backpack after the explosion, d) those closest to the finish line conveniently left before the explosion and came running from down and across the street afterward (was that in the direction of the 2nd device?), e) the team disappeared after gathering at the black suv with the satellite. Strange that despite the questions raised by the appearance of this "security" team the authorities initially said that there was no "drill" (a convenient cover for a false flag operation) and no one in the major media is inquiring as to who they were and why they were there.

There are other questions that have not been addressed also: who was the guy in the red tshirt w blue jacket that also was carrying a backpack on his arms (as if looking to lay it down) that had a silver stripe on the strap that matched the other exploded backpack? Why did the media report (supposedly verified by authorities that they had made an arrest, "a lone wolf" (not a pair of brothers) and then when the probability that the above mentioned suspect was a likely patsy they retracted their story, announced a bomb scare at the courthouse to clear it of media and witnesses gathered to see the "arrested suspect" and hear the news conference and then an armored vehicle was seen arriving at the courthouse with an armed soldier on the outside (to pick up the patsy and take him away?). And then when they came out with the Chechen brothers they asked for help from the public in IDing the suspects even tho they knew who they were....and the older brother was seen in their care and then ended up run over and shot repeatedly, et cetera, ad nauseum.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 



Those were extremely tepid 'ad hominems',


You called everyone who doesn't believe the "Official Story", Stupid.... how is this "Tepid" exactly?


especially considering that they weren't specific


You called everyone who doesn't believe the "Official Story", Stupid... how is this not specific, exactly?


and logically speaking, they're entirely true.


Your Opinion has absolutely nothing to do with logic, and secondarily, is demonstrably untrue.


It was never meant to mean that conspiracy doesn't occur


So... you are calling yourself stupid?




However, it shouldn't be turned to as the most probable explanation as often as it happens in our day and age.


So, let me get this straight....

Over the past week, Trillions of individual events occurred

Over the past week, Thousands of Events made it into the public perception via the news.

Over the past week, ONE event was labelled as a "Conspiracy" by people on ATS...

And you think this means, that we believe that "Conspiracy" is the most probable explanation for everything?


Wow... you sure are obtuse.


As for the second "ad hominem". Cynical means to think less of people. In this case, to imagine that every politician is bad, or capable of being bought off


We don't think all politicians are bad... just most of them.

And this is also demonstrable.


that our police officers are all crude


Nah, we don't believe that either.... just some of them.


or that our media has no real intention to promote the public good


BAHAHAHAHA, you are saying that they DO?

Lol....

Look pal, there is a difference between being cynical, and being realistic.


Only someone so committed to these views is able to blind himself to his own (albeit, unreflected upon) cynicism.


Only someone with his head in the sand, believes that power doesn't attract the corruptible, and that psychopaths don't seek power.

Go back to your Sand Bank, and keep your head buried, it seems to be your best outfit.
edit on 25-4-2013 by ErtaiNaGia because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 11:45 PM
link   
Well... to answer the question put forth by the OP, this kind of thing always makes me suspicious:



There are some claiming that what the fellow is throwing is a blanket, but that makes zero sense.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally
Apparently, there are hundreds of people in prominent positions (or perhaps all of them? :wow
who don't give a lick about the lives of strangers. Not only do they collude with others in misleading the public about these attacks, but they must also have an impressive dearth of humanistic feelings, like compassion, generosity, love; or for that matter, the oppressive feeling of guilt.


Cremation of Care ceremony seems to work well for them...



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 01:28 AM
link   
And things like this too:



C'mon, there has to be a plausible explanation right? For example, he's just had the pants bombed right off of him and got a wedgie from the blast, so he pulls his skivvies out of his crack and sits back down and waits for first responders, or some random passerby, to apply a tourniquet, or something. Sound about right?



Are we really supposed to fall for this ??



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 


Way to complain about ad hominems, and then start throwing them yourself.



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 


I do not assume politicians lie to me/us. I know they do. Do you ?

I do not assume people in charge of gov. agencies lie their asses off.
I know they do. Do you?

I do not assume there are wicked people in this world that own the politicians,
governments and all mainstream media. And the reasons they perpetuate the lies,
is because they have to, do to a different agenda and a sinister goal they are trying
to reach I know there are. Do you ?

I don't assume I'm being told the truth by any of them. Do you ?



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Pilot
 


OK, sure, thats a bizarre sight. Now, is it persuasive enough to lead one to believe that it was staged? That the child killed, those who lost limbs - none of them actually exist??

Might I not also point out the Islamic sounding voice of the speaker in the video??? Muslims are by far the most adroit conspiracy theorists - so much so that books and a whole literature has emerged documenting the sheer paranoia that grips so many of them.



I'd highly recommend Daniel Pipes study of conspiracy theories in the Muslim world. If after reading this you still think that the explanation given by this woman has more clout than the possibility that she is firmly of the belief that America/West/Zionists are trying to destroy Islam (a view that has been popular in the middle east for 50+ years now) than there is nothing more I can say.

I believe the two videos you gave, plus all else I have read, simply do not suffice to account for all the other facts of the situation. What about the people killed? Those who lost limbs? The relatives communicating with the media? A snapshot of a guy smacking dust into the air is not going to make me ignore all these other facts; a freeze frame of a guy with seemingly no lacerations (which could be possible) is not going to make me ignore the dozens around who do.



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 05:27 PM
link   
See with dumb asses like this gaining high places we don't need to assume anything not to trust anything.



What's that you say ?
edit on 26-4-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


First, Laura turns to George before he even mentions the word "conspiracy". This is usually how people function in such situations. Someone is speaking, and casually, Laura turns her head towards George, the speaker. So, there's no "laura gives Bush a quick look". To even interpret that completely inconspicuous action as meaningful only goes to show how tendentious people can be. Psychologically speaking, the desire to prove conspiracy, unwittingly draws the attention in ways that objectively speaking, are indefensible when analyzed from the other side.

As for the word conspiracy. Weren't the attackers conspiring? Why does the word conspiracy automatically suggest in your mind government conspiracy? When two or more parties secretly work to harm another party, they are said to be "conspiring". It's simple English.

He may have stopped himself from using that word because another more suitable word entered his mind. Or, perhaps he knows that people like you exist, and so as not to give them ammo, he stopped himself from speaking.

Whatever the case, he's a former president, who, it should go without saying, probably wouldn't be privy (since he's such an idiot, as you imagine) to plots being hatched by intelligence agencies.

But then again, why analyze your own thinking processes? Why question?



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 06:19 PM
link   
I'd like to bring up something all you government apologist seem to gloss over. This entire "event" regardless of who committed it, who by the way, should remain innocent until proven guilty, the entire responsibility/guilt belongs squarley on the FBI/DHS. The whole thing could have been diverted and thats why I say its bogus/allowed to happen. It was allowed to happen so they could stage a big show and all the steroid junkies could run around with boners and point thier machineguns at poeple to make them feel tough. They are no heroes. Every single thug that entered a home of unlawfully required ID broke his oath and should be ashamed of him self.
Now lets examine how it should have gone if we had actual people in high places that actually cared about the betterment of humanity and not the furtherance of some agenda, whatever that my be.
I;m going to go out on a limb and assume the fbi was aware of some event in Boston on the 15th, lets say they knew, by some fluke, by Friday morning that some kind of athletic event was planed. Perhaps it may have occured to one of the hundreds of agents who work in the boston area to run a check of possible terror suspects in the area. certainly the suspects name would have come up, since he has been on your radar for some time (admittadly). Since its Friday you kick off early and decide to pick it up on Monday. Monday morning, to follow up , you go to see what the tsavareaves (or what ever it is) boys are doing that day. Maybe going to the marthon? SIMPLE! Diverted no tragedy, no death, no questions!
If they were incapable of doing this simple task, commonly called "investigation" then they all need to be held acountable. Either way planned or not they are still complicit, and need to be held to the flame.



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ivbnu
 


So, in short, then, the FBI, CIA, etc, is infallible. They are incapable of making mistakes. If something bad happens, it must be due to design, because these agencies are as powerful as - the great and wonderful Oz?

But pull behind the screen, and see human nature. I make mistakes all the time. All the time teams coordinating on a project miss a deadline because one person wasn't doing what he should have been doing. All it takes is for one individual to have a lapse of mind - to misspell a name - and presto, calamity strikes.

To just jump to the conclusion that this must be planned because the facts were there overlooks simple human nature - that we all the time make mistakes. As the proverb goes, to err is human.




the FBI/DHS


They definitely deserve criticism, but to claim they "planned it" is to go completely overboard.

From what I understand, someone misspelled the name Tamerlan Tsarnaev. His name didn't go into the computer, and so he fell off the radar.

I see no reason not to trust this official reason.

It should also be mentioned - just for the sake of clarity - that those most eager to accept the claim of conspiracy already believe that there is a larger conspiracy which this conspiracy is merely a subset. If the idea of a larger conspiracy - and they are many and mutually contradict each other - is sensible to you, than you are probably going to overlook facts which contradict your primary assumption. On the other hand, if you are skeptical of a convoluted conspiracy shared by many parties worldwide (and btw, the idea of a one world government, is not conspiracy, but openly spoken about by many on the far left) then you are likely to treat this as an isolated freak event, caused by Islamic extremism - something that also exists and plagues many countries worldwide. It's a far simpler and more elegant explanation. It doesn't have the excitement of a "its actors, its planned, seth mcfarlene was in on it, etc". In short, it adheres to the logical method of Occams razor - the simplest explanation is probably the truest.
edit on 26-4-2013 by dontreally because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally
reply to post by Pilot
 


OK, sure, thats a bizarre sight. Now, is it persuasive enough to lead one to believe that it was staged? That the child killed, those who lost limbs - none of them actually exist??

Might I not also point out the Islamic sounding voice of the speaker in the video??? Muslims are by far the most adroit conspiracy theorists - so much so that books and a whole literature has emerged documenting the sheer paranoia that grips so many of them.



I'd highly recommend Daniel Pipes study of conspiracy theories in the Muslim world. If after reading this you still think that the explanation given by this woman has more clout than the possibility that she is firmly of the belief that America/West/Zionists are trying to destroy Islam (a view that has been popular in the middle east for 50+ years now) than there is nothing more I can say.

I believe the two videos you gave, plus all else I have read, simply do not suffice to account for all the other facts of the situation. What about the people killed? Those who lost limbs? The relatives communicating with the media? A snapshot of a guy smacking dust into the air is not going to make me ignore all these other facts; a freeze frame of a guy with seemingly no lacerations (which could be possible) is not going to make me ignore the dozens around who do.


That's you.

I was not there, and witnessed none of the alleged mayhem and death reported. So, because of the appalling track record of "authorities" who do not deserve trust, the lapdog media, who never ask anything but scripted sounding softball questions, I will look at these tid bits and see a pattern emerge.



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by dontreally
 





As for the word conspiracy. Weren't the attackers conspiring?


No attackers would only plan and attack. To conspire would be what was on Georgy's half wit twit brain, that caused him to back up and stutter and stumble, over the absolute truth, that was coming out his idiot, shark shaped mouth.



He doesn't even believe his own crap. How can you ?



posted on Apr, 27 2013 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally
1. The less unnecessary assumptions you make, the greater probability that your argument will remain reasonable.

2. The people who throw accusations of conspiracy around aren't very deep thinkers.

3. Psychologically speaking, people who assume conspiracy whenever something like this happens are the most cynical people imaginable.

Your opening statement is directly contradicted by your own words. You criticize assumption then turn around and make sweeping generalized insults about an amorphous group of individuals.
That is called hypocricy. It shows a clear lack of theological and philosophical understanding of what it means to have a coherant argument.
Perhaps you aren't as deep a thinker as you'd like to assume, or have us assume for that matter.
edit on 27/4/13 by Mykah because: format



posted on Apr, 27 2013 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by dontreally
Those were extremely tepid 'ad hominems', especially considering that they weren't specific, and logically speaking, they're entirely true.

This comment takes the prize for biggest pile.

"Its logically true that those who support non-mainstrem theory aren't deep thinkers"

Rhetoric from a soap box of trash.






top topics



 
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join