It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Top 9 Signs of a False Flag Terrorism Operation
1. The terror incident or attack follows the Hegelian Dialectic model (a.k.a. Problem-Reaction-Solution).
2. The mainstream media hypes up the possibility of a terrorist attack weeks or months before the event.
3. Following the incident, news media endlessly covers the most traumatic moments of the incident, ad nauseum to traumatize the public.
4. Terror or public safety drills are conducted prior to and during the false-flag event.
5. Eyewitness reports vary greatly from the propagated version of what really took place during the incident.
I am not sure that a false flag event is evidenced on inconsistencies which don't really have anything to do with who committed the act.
the explosive was derived from commercial fireworks
people definitely got burned, just not a lot, because you had to be within five feet of the bomb to have been inside that fireball.
one of the bombers was identified by a victim before it was even known that video footage existed.
Socratic #1: How can a blast directed in one direction affect another location?
Socratic #2: Do you have any explanation for the shadow variance, save an obvious photo manipulation, released by the MSM?
Socratic #3: Could Exhibits P and Q indicate a subliminal technique for a Psy-op? Three yellow balloons.
Exhibit R clearly notes, within it's pages, that a mass casualty event at Boston has been thoroughly documented since 2008.
the explosive was derived from commercial fireworks
3 pounds worth, which accounts for one bomb. Where did the other explosives come from?
An explosion radiates heat. I have evidence of victims with singed hair twenty feet away, yet many victims, especially female, at ground zero, have wispy hair with no evidence of singing.
6. The first two hours of “live” news broadcasts following the incident, due to limited censoring, provides the most telling evidence.
7. Counterfeit evidence suddenly appears in support of the official story to enhance the story’s believability.
8. All official investigations conducted only consider evidence that supports the official story and everything that proves the contrary is ignored.
9. Any identified "terrorists" are later revealed to have intimate ties with the CIA, MI5, MI6, Mossad, ISI, or another government agency.
I've attacked this event logically, from every angle, and I simply can't agree that this was caused by two young males, without having more proof. Without seeing addition footage the FBI hasn't released.
I believe that your introduction could have been constructed better. Instead of talking about your past time, it perhaps would have been better if you dived straight into the information. Furthermore, your statement about your opinions being subjected to change should not have been included, as it weakens your argument somewhat.
Lastly, it would have been better if you had included sources (scholarly?) of or relating to the Boston Bombings incident (in order to support your assumption made from the chart).
You successfully rebutted Druid's points; however i would have liked to see a source supporting the alleged picture of the firework bombs used at the Boston Bombings. Further, your last argumentative piece would have been greater if you had provided sources to counter the 9 point model.
While you have provided further interesting inconsistencies, your argument would have been a whole lot better if you had summed up your points at the end of the body. As not including a summary only leaves a set of information without a clear direction.
Your rebuttals were good, but included sources would have been nice.
Adjensen had again successfully rebutted Druid's arguments. I believe the reason being is the lack of summary on behalf of Druid42. I would have liked to see sources supporting your counter claims to Druid's.
Winner: Adjensen (by a small margin).
Your summary here was long needed, but it was good. You brought up a lot of stuff which would have greatly aided you earlier on if you had provided them then.
Overall, if you had summarised your points in the intro and body, your argument would have been so much more stronger. Without the use of summaries in the aforementioned, your position was lost.
Your conclusion effectively addressed the lack of support Druid's photos had to indicate a FF event. Your summary in the form of "means, motive and opportunity" were also effective.
Overall, your rebuttals were good, and is what set you apart from your opponent. Using better summaries would have supported your argument further.
Good debate both of you!!!
This was an incredibly difficult debate to judge. Due to the lack of information and evidence available to the general public, this debate had to be judged based on what seemed logical to the reader.
Druid had a very difficult task and he/she used very specific information that, on the surface, could easily sway the average person into believing the bombing could have been a false flag. To the untrained individual, the photo anomalies are quite compelling and leaves one baffled by the apparent doctoring of photos and inconsistencies of the blast itself.
But I believe adjensen was able to stand against Druid's attack by providing a clear analysis of the photos, providing logical explanations for what may seem out of place or manipulated, highlighting that the color of the flash is unreliable since colored fireworks were used to make the bombs and that the inconsistencies in the damage around the blast are unreliable indicators of foul-play since explosions are not 100% uniform 100% of the time.
This was a perfect example of how a debate on such a sensitive topic should be approached and both participants deserve much respect for the work they did, but I must give the debate to adjensen.