False flag (or black flag) describes covert military or paramilitary operations designed to deceive in such a way that the operations appear as
though they are being carried out by other entities, groups or nations than those who actually planned and executed them. Operations carried during
peace-time by civilian organizations, as well as covert government agencies, may by extension be called false flag operations if they seek to hide the
real organization behind an operation.
Source for Definition.
Please re-read the last sentence.
I'll open my position in this debate by briefly thanking my opponent for the challenge, and the staff for hosting these events. For the record, I
believe that people were murdered and wounded that day, having found pictures even more gory than anything MSM has released. The images are real,
IMO, and the hospitals have records of treating them. Thanks to HIPPA, we can't access those records, but that's rather irrelevant. There are a
lot of personal pictures taken by cell phones floating around the internet.
Secondly, all the opinions expressed are my own, and are subject to change as more evidence comes to light. I'll be using a specific format for my
posts in this debate, mainly, the presentation of an exhibit, and a Socratic Question for my opponent, as well as rhetoric.
I have no formal expertise in explosives, but I can tell you that as a young teen, living in the country, we built forts, hanging out with the few
other young souls that lived nearby, we learned how to make gunpowder.
There was no internet back then, so our attempts were trial and error, charcoal stolen from the grill, and sulfur pilfered from the fertilizer bags.
The oldest of our three whoop gang went to the drugstore, only 15, to buy saltpeter, the third magical ingredient we read in a book.
We milled the ingredients in different combinations, producing flashes when lit sometimes, and others, slow burning duds that barely smoked. We got
better. One such ignition flashed quick, and burnt off all our eyebrows and hair, as well as scorching our faces, our gunpowder tests conducted in a
6x6x6 square fort. Everyone one of us caught heck when we went inside, our parents ballistic, but we had a good laugh when we saw each other, hair
all fried off.
Here's a chart
that shows what temperature colors are:
Here is Exhibit A:
Referring to the above chart, we could assume that the temperature of that explosion was 600-1400 degrees F. Paper burns at 451 degrees F, and
coincidentally, the same temperature that hair singes at. Anything above that, given this situation, is a flash burn. I would expect to see everyone
within the blast zone depicted with hair singed off and 2nd to 3rd degree burns. I'll get into that later.
In false flag events, there is always room for error.
(The following deals with Scene 2 only, officially entered as the second bombing location, of which footage and pictures are rather sparse)
In this event, I'm placing ground zero close to the tree. More to follow on the tree.
Socratic Question #1: If the blast follows the direction indicated in Exhibit B, why are the windows blown out in a store to the right, and out of
the blast zone? Exhibit C seems to correlate with B, as the areas with blood stains indicate the shrapnel direction. Sadly enough, the blood zone is
a good indicator of how the blast randomly radiated.
Where's the tree? In the circled area it looks like the guy is standing in front of the tree, but we know the tree is in the foreground, near ground
zero. How can a picture be manipulated so quickly before being released to the MSM to publish?
(This particular picture is dated 3 days after the event.)
Where's the tree? The ground zero tree has been removed. Evidence, and now lack thereof. The Public, as with many tragedies, place flowers and
stuffed animals at scenes of events. The tree would have some tell-tale evidence, but now the public may never inspect it in place. There's only an
empty spot now where the second bomb was ignited.
Socratic Question #2: Would you agree that the general placement of the crime scene investigators is an accurate depiction of the blast zone, without
the crudely drawn red overlay presented in Exhibit C?
I'd like to establish these facts before moving on to Scene 1, the site of the first explosion, where footage and pictures are overwhelming:
1. Standing within the blast zone, given the exhibits, would have resulted in a flash exposure of up to 1400 degrees F.
2. There is little evidence of the char resulting from a black powder explosion. Singed hair, and blackened sidewalk, are not presented, but blood
is abundant, as if it was all shrapnel and no explosive heat. As we continue this debate, I will point out other inconsistencies, but for now, refer
back to Exhibit D, where the man in front has his jeans split on his left leg, with an apparent scorch mark on his lower thigh, and apparent powder
burns on his butt. Everyone within the blast zone should have the same scorch marks. A chemical reaction is not discriminatory.
For now, I rest, and turn the floor over to my esteemed opponent for rebuttal.