DHS Admits Boston Training Drill Involving Backpack Explosives Planned Months Before Marathon

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by whatsecret
Why are they denying that there was any drill going on at the marathon?

Who is denying that there was any drill going on? If you have a link to a source, which is not a video, that would be helpful.

edit on 11-6-2013 by adjensen because: (no reason given)

You know it's funny that I can't find anything where they acknowledge that they did have a drill.

But I found a video where they simply don't answer the question. I know you cant watch the video, but that's all I got.

It basically goes like this:

Journalist to FBI "Tell Us About the Bomb Drill!"

FBI to Journalist "next question"

Originally posted by mrdeadfolx
reply to post by adjensen

 

That's the thing OP is trying to point out. They can say it was scheduled for October if they wanted to, we'd never know when it was actually scheduled. They can come up with excuses on the fly with no need for an alibi or anything, that makes it really difficult to catch them red-handed.

Yeah, I guess I'm just not seeing the logic. Why reveal that there was such a drill, but temper it by saying it was scheduled in June? Why not just cover up that such a drill was ever proposed in the first place?

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by wasaka
However, why should we trust these statements when the facts tell us a different story?

Well, in the case of the "bombs in backpacks drill", I trust the statement because why the "it was scheduled in June 2013" part of it if they were covering something up? Why say anything at all?

You can believe them if you want to... but the facts tell me another story.
Is it so hard to believe these things are planned months in advance?

Does the person making this statement believe what they are saying?
Yes, just like you believe what they said, and just like you believe
if they were covering something up why say anything at all--right?

Well, that is the whole damn point. That is why they do this, in order
to create Plausible deniablity.

Plausible deniability is a term coined by the CIA during the Kennedy administration to describe the withholding of information from senior officials in order to protect them from repercussions in the event that illegal or unpopular activities by the CIA became public knowledge.

en.wikipedia.org...

The CIA black ops division undertakes dangerous and usually what
would be considered illegal missions that are not officially sanctioned
by the US administration so that the administration, which usually benefits
from such missions, can safely dissavow any knowledge of them in the event
of their publically uncovered success or failure. The administration is in the
position of plausible deniability towards the CIA's actions.

This is how the world works.

There was a drill for a chemical explosion at the same time as the Texas fertilizer plant explosion.

There was a drill for a mass shooting last week in Santa Monica. And guess what happened?

Originally posted by CaptChaos
There was a drill for a chemical explosion at the same time as the Texas fertilizer plant explosion.

There was a drill for a mass shooting last week in Santa Monica. And guess what happened?

Is this going to be like that season of Dallas when JR was killed that the new season opened with Bobby waking up to realize it was all just a dream? Are we all going to wake up someday and realize these so-called drills have been real events staged for us to get us used to living in a nightmare world?

Too many things coincide to just brush this off as a concidence. Does every bomb in the US have a drill behind it? Or does every drill end up in a bang or a boom or a rat-a-tat-tat?

Maybe this is all just my dream but it is becoming too surreal. Are you having the same dream as mine? I must be losing touch with reality because this can't all be happening like these voices from that picture box keep telling me.

WOW WAC...(What A Coincidence).

reply to post by adjensen

Yeah, I guess I'm just not seeing the logic. Why reveal that there was such a drill, but temper it by saying it was scheduled in June? Why not just cover up that such a drill was ever proposed in the first place?

Well the scanners certainly talked about a drill across from the library, which was the scene of an explosion, as it turned out. I'm guessing that someone who was put on the hot seat has a conscience and maybe fought hard to get that much out. I'm also guessing that person's boss had input into the revelation. I once had a boss who ordered me to lie to the press about small details for political reasons. The bottom line for me though is that governments lie and lie and lie and cover things up. We all know that for sure now.

Originally posted by wasaka

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by wasaka
However, why should we trust these statements when the facts tell us a different story?

Well, in the case of the "bombs in backpacks drill", I trust the statement because why the "it was scheduled in June 2013" part of it if they were covering something up? Why say anything at all?

You can believe them if you want to... but the facts tell me another story.

What facts?

You went from "there was a drill planned in June with some similar aspects, 'bombs in backpacks' being the most obvious" to "they had actors and fake blood at the Boston Marathon!"

Is it so hard to believe these things are planned months in advance?

Of course not, it is obvious from the original article that the drill was planned well in advance of June 2013, as one would expect.

Well, that is the whole damn point. That is why they do this, in order to create Plausible deniablity.

That's where your theory runs off the rails, at least as you're presenting it. The "June 2013" bit has nothing to do with plausible deniability, because it has absolutely nothing to do with the Boston Marathon bombing. It's a non-sequitor, because the two things (drill regarding bombs in backpacks, and a drill scheduled in June) aren't presented separately.

Find a credible source that has evidence of such a drill scheduled in April, at the Boston Marathon, completely separated from this June business, and maybe you'll have something. Otherwise, it's just a weird coincidence that has no bearing on anything.

There was no drill.
There is no spoon.
Deny deny deny.
This was a false flag op and you all know it.

That wouldn't be because AQ has been publishing plans for easy to assemble backpack bombs and just maybe the law enforcement in Boston are competent?

The scary thing is that even though they had assets on the ground, they couldn't stop the bombs.

reply to post by wasaka

I'm almost certain that you've confused "drill" with "training."
You know what they say, "Practice makes perfect."

(Did you get that Eric and Clapper?)

jw

reply to post by adjensen


I think we have established by now that the OP was mistaken regarding the date. You can keep on focussing on that or just accept that other evidence shows that there was a drill going on and that there was foreknowledge of an explosion.

Originally posted by wasaka

This explains a lot. They had to come out and say this after all the photos of the questionable scenarios went viral. This explains why the director of FEMA was on site and giving orders. This explains why windows that were not broken out from the bomb show up broken later. There was a drill there. It just accidentally happened when real bombs went off…I guess….So there WAS fake blood and actors on the scene. That is what they do at these drills.

No it's not. This is what they do at these drills:



Urband Sheild training from 2012 & 2011.

Yes, they do have real life simulations at these things, but what happened in Boston does not in the least represent what happens at the normal drills.

Nothing suggests the events are no more fake or unreal than they were. It simply means there are some major questions that should be asked in these circumstances.

The training for 2013 never took place as it was scheduled for two months after the event:

But two months before the training exercise was to take place, the city was hit with a real terrorist attack executed in a frighteningly similar fashion. The chaos of the Boston Marathon bombings disrupted plans for the exercise, initially scheduled for this weekend, forcing police to postpone. Now officials must retool aspects of the training.

www.bostonglobe.com...

Also, as I posted a link with footage from 2011 it also states how the training was done in 2012 as well.

and from your source:

This would have been the third year for Urban Shield, a 24-hour federally funded training exercise meant to test the response of police and other public safety personnel in a large-scale emergency, such as a toxic spill or a natural disaster.

Again, nothing to suggest what happened in Boston was fake, or it was simply actors and drills. However, drills happen often around or sometimes on the day of actual events. Questions that should be asked, are they simply noticed because they are close to the dates of the events?? Are people using prior knowledge of the drills to facilitate their own actions?? etc, etc, etc.

Originally posted by whatsecret
reply to post by adjensen

 

The second video shows this:

Boston bomb squad had previously announced "controlled explosion" drill (Video)

Boston Globe tweeted

Officials: There will be a controlled explosion opposite the library within one minute as part of bomb squad activities

As far as I know they were denying that there was a drill. Makes me wonder why?

Was that not twitter quote not from after the event where they found a suspicious package and remote detonated it for safety precautions? It helps when you have full context.

Twitter HOAX revealed

A few of you in this thread have claimed how hard it is to trust the government when the same number are either outright lying in this thread, or just entirely ignorant.

So who should we trust again?






For those too lazy to read the article:

In the hours after the bomb attacks at the Boston Marathon (2:50 pm ET on April 15) police responded to multiple reports of suspicious packages. At least two were destroyed in "controlled explosions" around 4pm ET. The Boston Globe tweeted about these suspicious packages so residents would not be alarmed.

As people tuned in to the Twitter stream late, they were obviously confused by the timing. Twitter displays tweets in your local timezone. So a 3:53pm tweet in Boston looks like a 12:53pm tweet on the West Coast. As the hours pass, it becomes harder to keep the ordering of events in context - without stopping to actually look at the timestamps.


Then, because the conspiracy buffs were building upon an entirely false narrative it became self-evident that the media was ignoring the story:


By the end of the week the 'fact' that there was a cover-up is assumed, and any evidence to the contrary is further proof. In reality, a lot of people just don't know how to use Twitter:

reply to post by boncho


Never the less...I'm...pissed I guess. Whether this drill was scheduled for that day or the other, don't you find it funny how intelligence circles always seem to know what kind of attack is about to take place or is in progress.

9/11, Madrid, London, and now Boston. Always the exact same scenario of those drill as the real event.

Isn't life beautiful and full of crazy crazy coincidences.

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
reply to post by boncho

 

Never the less...I'm...pissed I guess. Whether this drill was scheduled for that day or the other, don't you find it funny how intelligence circles always seem to know what kind of attack is about to take place or is in progress.

9/11, Madrid, London, and now Boston. Always the exact same scenario of those drill as the real event.

Isn't life beautiful and full of crazy crazy coincidences.

Well no not exactly. The drill scheduled for Boston had run two years previously with no attack for those years. Completely different than 9.11 and 7.7

In the case of 9.11 I believe if I remember correctly the drill interfered with how the situation was handled, so that's a definite red flag. In the 7.7 I think there was a drill being planned. If they received intelligence on a possible attack, it would make sense for first responders to plan a drill.

In the case of 9.11, one could look at whether or not leaked information was used against the security of the State, and in abetting the actions that took place.

If it was all stuff thought up and carried out by the government or a small, all controlling unit within the government, it would not make sense doing drills that might thwart your covert plans however.

In Boston, there seems to be no evidence that suggests these drills were detrimental or beneficial in any way to the attacks being carried out. And nearly irrelevant as they were planned months later. Although, because the drills were set to include a scenario similar to what happened, it does raise the question of whether or not intelligence had prior knowledge to the possibility or planning of an attack.

Similar to 7.7

Also, if the claims of dogs at the event are true, it's possible they had information but didn't notify the public so as not to scare them. This wouldn't be the first time, as shutting down the Marathon would be a major, major action in light of intelligence which may have had no validity.

Keep in mind the intelligence community probably receives threats daily but doesn't disclose all of them because 1. They're complete bull or 2. They are on top of the actors, parties involved.

Intelligence agents were complaining about how at mosques, working undercover, they would come to realize half the people they were investigating were all agents of other intelligence communities. It was frustrating them. This was uncovered in a couple books on the subject.

There had to be a drill on the day so that people associated all the fake CGI videos and Photoshopped photographs of the event with an event (drill) that happened. The fact is, they dont care how bad their manipulated images look anymore and that the victims history is non-traceable. The words "Stage and Actors" are a strawman.

Respects

Originally posted by captiva
There had to be a drill on the day so that people associated all the fake CGI videos and Photoshopped photographs of the event with an event (drill) that happened. The fact is, they dont care how bad their manipulated images look anymore and that the victims history is non-traceable. The words "Stage and Actors" are a strawman.

Respects

Once again, the OP article is referring to a drill which had been carried out two years prior and was not going to happen until two months after the Boston incident happened.

Where are the pictures and video that had all the "fake CGI" you are referring to? Me and other members of ATS went through the pictures and video of the event. The pictures freeze in frame, video from the event which showed the incident happen in real time, where the pictures matched up perfectly. Would be extremely hard impossible to recreate that no matter how talented you are with CGI.

reply to post by boncho


I don't know man. 9/11 and 7.7 happened exactly like they drilled...and what is more at that very moment. That's a huge coincidence.

Granted. It makes no sense to do that if they don't want to implicate themselves.

Than again...makes sense to place your agents at the scene if you knew of the event in advance. Why? to control the public and what goes on. Especially to control the first news of the event. Later they would have to explain why they were there in the first place...drills are a good excuse...people are gullible anyway...(most).

Taking into account that both of those events were used as an excuse for invasion...you have to be suspicious about it, aren't you?

The Boston thing...I don't know...the intelligence always seems to know more than the people...yet they never actually prevent anything, even though they always find themselves right in the middle of some chaos. It's the dreaded secrecy and infamous inter agency information sharing that's the stumbling block. One could wonder what is their purpose than if not working together for the good and safety of the people?

Originally posted by wasaka

This explains a lot.

No.

Try reading the article properly.