It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Only One Gun Recovered From Boston Marathon Suspects?

page: 2
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 11:22 PM
link   
I have been silently watching this whole thing unfold. This thread seemed like the best place to post a link to an AP report that came out about 4 hours ago.




Two U.S. officials say the surviving suspect in the Boston bombings was unarmed when police captured him hiding inside a boat in a neighborhood back yard.


BUT...




Authorities originally said they had exchanged gunfire with Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (joh-KHAHR' tsahr-NEYE'-ehv) for more than one hour Friday evening before they were able to subdue him.


Link to full story

This makes no sense to me. How can they "exchange" gunfire when he was unarmed? Where are all the other guns? Something doesn't fit. Whether this was a false flag or a Alphabet agency plan gone wrong or even just two guys blowing stuff/people up they really should get their facts straight when giving statements to the press for release.




posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 06:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Magister
 

I heard that the MIT officer had a locking holster and they could not extract the handgun and then fled (you have to hold down the release button with your trigger finger as you draw the weapon otherwise it will remain locked in place).

edit on 25-4-2013 by CosmicCitizen because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 08:51 AM
link   
Well now we know how to get the gun out of a safety holster.....but things have been managed to obfuscate much of the INEPTNESS of the poorly trained and led police.
Either this was a deliberate farce to practice martial law in Boston with real live cops etc....or there is a whole pile of LEO employeees who neither deserve their badges or their pay cheques.

The problem in dissecting this operation stems from the deliberate spread of false information which often coflicts with previously reported details.
There was a claim of "non lethal" rounds fired at the boat....
I can assure you that the rounds fired went right through both sides of it.
If the perp was lying down beside the inboard motor of the boat he may have been spared in the fusillade of bullets without a hit.
But the hull definately displays through and through bullet holes elsewhere....
My Take on the arrest is that a nervous cop fired the initial bullet ( could have been accidental discharge)that caused the rest to also shoot indescriminately.
aside to this i have read that these brothers had other brothers that may have solid ties to Al CIAda as well as have been guests at Gitmo.
cannot confirm this but worth a mention.to the deep research people...hint hint.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
IF the one gun shared by the two suspects was recovered at the scene of the shootout then how the younger brother shoot himself in the neck in an alleged suicide attempt as police closed in? Was it from one of their "rubber bullets" or (fill in conspiracy theory here)?


Whoa....where did you hear that? I haven't heard that angle yet so help me out. I assumed he was injured in the initial shootout (with a superficial wound obviously). But he supposedly shot himself in the neck? Or is this theorizing?

And "rubber bullets"? I think you are stepping off the deep end here. Where are you hearing all this?


This was stated by the media apparently he had shot himself in the neck.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
I just started a thread in this forum asking if there were three bombers involved in the Marathon bombings. Now I'm beginning to wonder if Dzhokhar Tsarnaev did anything but rob a convenience store and run over his brother.


They didn't rob a convenience store. The police corrected that "information". Even a manager or representative of 7/11 claimed that is not CCTV footage of one of their stores, and that he/she was surprised/shocked it was alleged as such.

Now the police claim they only "stole a car at a convenience store, temporarily holding a hostage". Of course there is no evidence of this, just as there was no evidence of them robbing a 7/11. It's also alleged the brothers attempted to use the hostage's Debit card at an ATM machine, but apparently "couldn't figure it out".

---
Where we go from here, no one knows.. but 99% of the "information" and "evidence" presented has been completely false. There is no evidence, there simply is none that has been presented.



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 02:21 PM
link   
Let us all calm down and not get carried away, or we will only end up manipulated by those whom have personal or foreign agendas to divide us.

1. Very often, if not most the time, the media only reports from official press releases or presentations. Citizens should be thankful that throughout the ordeal of both the security officials and Bostonains caught up in street chase and battles, the police officials had maintained a press office to pass out whatever information that they do know as it occurred, within moments, unlike in China whereby it took the rest of the world 2 days to realize death to humans occured in Xinjiang,China, attributed to a 'supposed' terrorist attack.


2. At those press releases by the officials, they are deemed the final authority over the events that occured, and trusted, as they are the ones whom are in that fight, they have a responsibility to pass on the reality of whatever that had happened, as they know it then.

IF there had been no gun, but claimed during the official press release that had been a gun battle which means both parties had been engaged in guns battles, then a mistake had been made and should be CLARIFIED, and find out WHO was responsible for the mistake, and made to correct them.

There is nothing wrong, for ALL humans make mistakes, more so during the heat of the moment. And such mistakes do not detract from the fact that a street chase and battles had occured between the bombing suspects and the police in the streets of Boston in full view or earshot of witnesses.

Nor does it detract from the fact that Dzokhar, in the presence of a 3rd arm of the govt - the judiciary who declared that he was sane enough for trial, had admitted to the SLAUGHTERS and MAIMING of innocent americans at the Boston Marathon.


3. If suddenly now that there are 'investigative officials' who claimed no gun had been found, which may mean that they could not find it and not necessary anything else, which does not correspond with the OFFICIAL version, then these 'officials' must have their NAMES listed and lay claims to being the authorised OFFICIALS to rely such information to the public, and be HELD ACCOUNTABLE.

This is not against whistle blowing, but there must be CREDIBILITY to any claims.

This is necessary, as there are rumour mongers, profit seekers, agenda fulfillers out there ready to do ANYTHING to fool the american public, or in the least, cast doubts to NOT trust official sources. Glen Becks and Alex Jones and some out in the WWW internet loves such controversies as 'cool' and even 'fun', but if taken as reality, will only lead to painful consequences of lives lots to warped minds such as Brevik and Holms whom chosed to belief in self gratifying falsehoods than painful realities..



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrantedBail
There are still a lot of questions.


And one of those questions would be -

WHY, shoot the MIT cop 5 times in the head..that kind of violence reeks of a personal motive more than "oh no, this cops rumbled us, lets do him quickly and escape"

An exagerrated amout of violence used for what reason...

Or, was this poor cop used just as J.D. Tippit was, to point a finger at Oswald.




edit on 25-4-2013 by andy1972 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 02:40 PM
link   
if the gards gun was not drawn maybe its because he didn't precieve a threat from the "shooter"



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


If there was no percieved threat from the two, which would explain why he hadn't drawn his sidearm, and they killed him expressely because they had a need for arms and ammunition....

Then why waste 5 bullets on him when one was necessary...



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy


Whoa....where did you hear that? I haven't heard that angle yet so help me out. I assumed he was injured in the initial shootout (with a superficial wound obviously). But he supposedly shot himself in the neck? Or is this theorizing?

And "rubber bullets"? I think you are stepping off the deep end here. Where are you hearing all this?


He probably heard it from the media. It was reported that Police were shooting rubber bullets at the suspect while he was in the boat. The claim was that they wanted to take him alive and they suspected he was armed, had gasoline with him and possibly even more bombs.

Many articles about the rubber bullets are tough to find. I did however find this copied article posted onto a blog of what was originally reported.


Acting on a phone tip, Boston police surrounded a home on Franklin Street in Watertown around 6:00 p.m. The home’s owner called 911 to report seeing blood on a tarp covering a small boat in his back yard. Heavily armed SWAT members arrived on the scene minutes later and fired dummy bullets into the boat. Officers reported seeing the suspect moving in the boat during the standoff.

Source

If you are not aware, "dummy bullets" are also known as rubber bullets.

Then Police then changed their story and claimed that the suspect shot AT them and they returned fire.

Then Police claimed the suspect at some point shot himself in the mouth in a suicide attempt, and the bullet exited out the back of his neck and did not kill him, which you can see from this article.


CBS correspondent John Miller reported that one of the wounds Tsarnaev suffered was a bullet wound to the back of the neck, and that authorities think he may have tried to kill himself rather than be captured.

"But [investigators are] saying that wound to the back of the neck is very possibly a suicide attempt. They say it appears from the wound that he might have stuck a gun in his mouth, and fired and actually just went out the back of his neck without killing him," Miller reported.

Tasrnaev fired several shots from inside the boat, but investigators don't know in which direction he fired, Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis said today.


Source NY Post

Of course NOW police say that Suspect #2 DID NOT have a gun at all when he was captured, which now begs the question, "If he did not fire at Police as they claimed, then why did Police open fire on the boat? How did the suspect shot himself in the neck?"



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join