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.

 

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

page: 9
48
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by whatzshaken
reply to post by boncho
 


so you trust your GOVT then?


So you trust your Mother then?





A really stupid logic you are trying to work here. You take me as a fool do you?




posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by jrod
reply to post by boncho
 


If there was no drill, then why was the alphabet(FBI, DHS, ect.) there with working dogs telling everybody don't be alarmed, there are just conducting a drill...

The evidence that there was some sort of 'drill' is quite overwhelming.


This is a perfect example of someone already having the answer in their head before they know the facts.

Tell me which one of these is this a bomb sniffing dog?

west-hartford.com...

You have absolutely no idea.

Does that mean that bomb dogs weren't there? No, I would absolutely assume there were bomb sniffing dogs at the marathon. Just like there are a ton of drug and bomb dogs at the NYC Marathon and the LA Marathon...it's smart and it makes people feel safe. Does that mean that at every event where there are bomb/drug dogs they are doing a drill? No, and to assume such shows your true intent in generating the question. I am also sure that anyone going through the planning of the bombing process would also think about the presence of these animals in such a public event so they would do the following:

Completely seal the pressure cookers
Wash the outsides with bleach
Buy completely new clothes
Buy new bags to contain them in
Thoroughly wash your hair and body to remove residue and cover hair with a cap
Cover yourself in cologne

I just thought of that in 11 seconds...I am sure someone planning such a heinous act with the intention of getting away with it would put a lot more time and thought into the process.



posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


Maybe there was a tip and they were actively looking for bombs.

As most events of this nature, the official story smells fishy.



posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
...It's been posted in numerous places on the web, that dogs are seen at a lot of big public events like this.
...

That may be true...but if you're suggesting that those present were not there with an express purpose of "sniffing-out" potential explosive devices/materials...that wouldn't jive with some of the earliest reports...such as:
www.cnn.com...
Here's an excerpt... (I am including a non-relevant statement, to identify "who" was reported to be speaking)


From CNN article reference above...dated April 16, 2013
-- No one is in custody, Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis told reporters Tuesday.
...-- Two explosive ordnance disposal sweeps were carried out Monday, the first early in the morning and the second an hour before the first runners crossed the finish line, Davis said. "They did not turn up any evidence," he said.

...
edit on 6/13/2013 by WanDash because: clarify



posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by raifordko
 



I would absolutely assume there were bomb sniffing dogs at the marathon.

To be honest, I wonder why anyone would not assume that, and instead find such dogs at an event suspicious. After all, that's what these dogs are trained for, it's not like the police go around looking for bombs and then when they find one, they ring up the guy with the dogs and have him pop by to let the dogs have a sniff.



posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by WanDash

Originally posted by boncho
...It's been posted in numerous places on the web, that dogs are seen at a lot of big public events like this.
...

That may be true...but if you're suggesting that those present were not there with an express purpose of "sniffing-out" potential explosive devices/materials...that wouldn't jive with some of the earliest reports...such as:
www.cnn.com...
Here's an excerpt... (I am including a non-relevant statement, to identify "who" was reported to be speaking)


From CNN article reference above...dated April 16, 2013
-- No one is in custody, Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis told reporters Tuesday.
...-- Two explosive ordnance disposal sweeps were carried out Monday, the first early in the morning and the second an hour before the first runners crossed the finish line, Davis said. "They did not turn up any evidence," he said.

...
edit on 6/13/2013 by WanDash because: clarify


Really? If I was going to a public event with a lot of people and the cops were like "hey, we didn't do any security pre-checks, feel safe, 9/11!" I'd probably avoid it. The point of the article you linked is to present a timeline of when the bombs were probably placed. In this case there were no bombs present within and hour of the first runner crossing the finish line, so the bombs were brought much later to prevent discovery and possibly within minutes of when they were detonated.



Originally posted by jrod
reply to post by boncho
 


Maybe there was a tip and they were actively looking for bombs.

As most events of this nature, the official story smells fishy.



And Maybe I'll bump into Bill Gates in the street, a million dollars will fall out of his pocket and he'll say: "Just keep it buddy!". You can't just make an assumption and preface it with maybe to give it some credence. Statistically and historically speaking, since 9/11, the dogs were probably just there for precautionary security. They probably were actively looking for explosive residue typically found on explosive devices. Does this mean they had specific intel about an explosion at such and such points or that anyone had even called in a credible bomb threat? No it does not. However if you wanted to check for that stuff where would you put your defenses? Probably when and where most of the civilians would be: Near the finish line around the 5 hour mark when most of the average Joe's start to cross the finish line and their families are waiting for them.



posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by raifordko
...Really? If I was going to a public event with a lot of people and the cops were like "hey, we didn't do any security pre-checks, feel safe, 9/11!" I'd probably avoid it. The point of the article you linked is to present a timeline of when the bombs were probably placed. In this case there were no bombs present within and hour of the first runner crossing the finish line, so the bombs were brought much later to prevent discovery and possibly within minutes of when they were detonated.
...

And your point is...
...in relation to my statements?



posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


hahahahahaha no I don't, hahahaha and its no different than examining logic from reason...hhaahahahaha



posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 09:49 PM
link   
did not mean to post it twice, but just in case hi NSA

edit on 13-6-2013 by whatzshaken because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by WanDash

Originally posted by boncho
...It's been posted in numerous places on the web, that dogs are seen at a lot of big public events like this.
...

That may be true...but if you're suggesting that those present were not there with an express purpose of "sniffing-out" potential explosive devices/materials...that wouldn't jive with some of the earliest reports...such as:
www.cnn.com...
Here's an excerpt... (I am including a non-relevant statement, to identify "who" was reported to be speaking)


From CNN article reference above...dated April 16, 2013
-- No one is in custody, Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis told reporters Tuesday.
...-- Two explosive ordnance disposal sweeps were carried out Monday, the first early in the morning and the second an hour before the first runners crossed the finish line, Davis said. "They did not turn up any evidence," he said.

...
edit on 6/13/2013 by WanDash because: clarify


Just because they sweep for something doesn't mean they will always find it. Something like only 1-10% is ever caught at the border, when it comes to contraband.

Also note, that the sweeps were done at two different times, but nothing to suggest they were carried out as the brothers were there, and the devices were panted.

What you are posting fits in with most accounts more than anything, it doesn't put it in to question.
edit on 13-6-2013 by boncho because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2013 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by boncho
...Just because they sweep for something doesn't mean they will always find it. Something like only 1-10% is ever caught at the border, when it comes to contraband.

Also note, that the sweeps were done at two different times, but nothing to suggest they were carried out as the brothers were there, and the devices were panted.

What you are posting fits in with most accounts more than anything, it doesn't put it in to question.

I'm guessing that we're dealing with a fairly common problem with communications...
I was not suggesting (and have not) that the bombs were on the premises prior to the sweeps (or - at the time/s of the sweeps)... Simply that the sweeps (which were reported to have incorporated the bomb sniffing dogs, which appears to add weight to the credibility of the track coach's testimony) did take place that day.
I have not suggested that this proves or even implies that the drill scheduled for June, was taking place that day.
And I have not suggested anything more or less than your last line states...
Merely tried to be certain that we were dealing with the same (or a similar) set of facts, on this particular topic.



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 12:18 AM
link   
reply to post by WanDash
 


I was simply pointing out that what you posted fit in with the description of the eyewitnesses which seems like you are saying the same. Maybe a miscommunication but I don't think either of us are arguing each others points.



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 03:54 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


How can you perpetually missread what I am saying? I am not saying the fbi ended surveillance. I never said or even implied it. The brothers were likely still being worked and watched. That doesn't mean they couldn't get the time to throw together a weapon out of fireworks and a pressure cooker without the fbi knowing. Not to mentionn if the fbi was in touch with them like other terrorists they gave fake bombs to then they wouldn't have concern the brothers would attempt an attack on their own. They would expect the brothers to contact them if they were intendinng something. They wouldn't see it coming. I don't think you are getting what I am saying.



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 04:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by boncho
 


How can you perpetually missread what I am saying? I am not saying the fbi ended surveillance. I never said or even implied it. The brothers were likely still being worked and watched. That doesn't mean they couldn't get the time to throw together a weapon out of fireworks and a pressure cooker without the fbi knowing. Not to mentionn if the fbi was in touch with them like other terrorists they gave fake bombs to then they wouldn't have concern the brothers would attempt an attack on their own. They would expect the brothers to contact them if they were intendinng something. They wouldn't see it coming. I don't think you are getting what I am saying.


You are explaining much better than previously.

Though there really isn't any evidence and it's just kind of floating ideas around without any real basis for it.



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by jrod
reply to post by boncho
 


Maybe there was a tip and they were actively looking for bombs.

As most events of this nature, the official story smells fishy.



Aaron Dykes for truthstreammedia.com





Truthstream Media.com reported back on April 23 about the connection between the drill underway on April 15 at the finish line and the counterterrorism exercises conducted by Boston's Urban Shield team, which including overlapping layers of Homeland Security, FEMA, statewide & regional emergency responders and the City of Boston, including its Office of Emergency Management. This includes suggestive photographic evidence that may prove members of these emergency agencies were on scene at the finish line bombing no more than 2-3 minutes after the incident (in addition to the Craft International figures who've been much discussed).

Homeland Security Advisor: In Massachusetts… every Patriot’s Day and Fourth of July is treated as a ‘disaster.’
truthstreammedia.com...

The Boston Marathon bombing had obvious signs of being staged, and just like the pivotal false flag 9/11, that meant overlap with planning drills -- before, during and after.



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by wasaka


Truthstream Media.com reported back on April 23 about the connection between the drill underway on April 15 at the finish line and the counterterrorism exercises conducted by Boston's Urban Shield team, which including overlapping layers of Homeland Security, FEMA, statewide & regional emergency responders and the City of Boston, including its Office of Emergency Management. This includes suggestive photographic evidence that may prove members of these emergency agencies were on scene at the finish line bombing no more than 2-3 minutes after the incident (in addition to the Craft International figures who've been much discussed).

Homeland Security Advisor: In Massachusetts… every Patriot’s Day and Fourth of July is treated as a ‘disaster.’
truthstreammedia.com...

The Boston Marathon bombing had obvious signs of being staged, and just like the pivotal false flag 9/11, that meant overlap with planning drills -- before, during and after.


Weasel words galore, head explodes.

1) There was no drill underway. There is not a single shred of documented evidence outside of conspiracy theorists head's that there was a drill. That HOAX was started by Natural News by INTENTIONALLY taking a tweet by the globe out of context and then Alex Jones running with it because he trusted Natural News.

2) Of course emergency services are going to be at a massive public event...9/11. Our country changed after 9/11, every major event since then, especially televised ones, have heightened security and a ton of precautions to do their best to make sure the event is safe. Why do you think the brothers brought the bombs literally just before the explosions? They probably did enough research to know how the security at these events operates.

I went to the super bowl last year and the day before the game they had about 200 dogs combing the place. Does that mean they were setting up a false flag? NO! They are trying to prevent horrible things from happening. They just missed it in Boston.

Now I will absolutely admit that there is a real possibility the FBI were working with the brothers and it backfired in their face when/if the brothers went and made their own bombs. We've seen enough of similar tactics from the FBI and CIA before which are well documented.



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by raifordko
...Weasel words galore, head explodes.
...1) There was no drill underway. There is not a single shred of documented evidence outside of conspiracy theorists head's that there was a drill. That HOAX was started by Natural News by INTENTIONALLY taking a tweet by the globe out of context and then Alex Jones running with it because he trusted Natural News.

True - lots of weaseling... Nevertheless - the article was pretty well written, and did go into a lot more depth regarding the previous years' "drills" than I've even seen in this thread.
On the other hand - stating that "There was no drill underway", and claiming the proof for the statement as "not a single shred of documented evidence outside of conspiracy theorists head's" is not sufficient to justify said conclusion (for me) -- unless you claim "all knowledge", in which case, I may send some pestering questions your way in due course.



2) ...Why do you think the brothers brought the bombs literally just before the explosions? They probably did enough research to know how the security at these events operates.

You have presumed a set of facts that is not accepted across the board. First - not everyone, here, accepts that "the brothers brought the bombs"... Second - you've assumed that they (the brothers) planned the entire shebang. Your assumption may be reliant on the news we were fed...that Dzhokhar, within the first days of his hospitalization/incarceration, admitted to the bombings (in whatever capacities), and that he and his brother had no help, assistance or guidance in so doing...AND YOU ARE FREE TO ACCEPT that information... But, if others do not, or, others choose to treat facts from sources with potentially self-serving motivations as unreliable unless/until proven valid & untainted, you will be fighting over the wind. For my part - I do not accept the information that came out of the hospital room. Doesn't mean I BELIEVE it was a lie... It, for me, is UNRELIABLE, and I will only take it into account (for any reasonable explanations) with **asterisks** on all sides.
As an aside -- I work in a "legal" capacity. A question that arises with some degree of regularity in my profession is - "whose testimony is sufficient?" in a given scenario. The least "credible" witness, is always - someone who stands to gain (in whatever way) by their testimony. On the basis that I trust the FBI (and other such agencies/entities, and those climbing their various ladders) no more/less than I distrust them -- -- when it comes to information they reveal, that cannot be verified or substantiated by other uninterested parties/facts, on a scale of -5 to +5, their information receives a "0".


...Now I will absolutely admit that there is a real possibility the FBI were working with the brothers and it backfired in their face when/if the brothers went and made their own bombs. We've seen enough of similar tactics from the FBI and CIA before which are well documented.

There is also the possibility...that there was no "backfiring". The possibility that everything (or - most) went according to plan.
Just a possibility...
edit on 6/14/2013 by WanDash because: Too much



posted on Jun, 14 2013 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by raifordko



Does that mean that bomb dogs weren't there? No, I would absolutely assume there were bomb sniffing dogs at the marathon. Just like there are a ton of drug and bomb dogs at the NYC Marathon and the LA Marathon...it's smart and it makes people feel safe. Does that mean that at every event where there are bomb/drug dogs they are doing a drill? No, and to assume such shows your true intent in generating the question. I am also sure that anyone going through the planning of the bombing process would also think about the presence of these animals in such a public event so they would do the following:

.


I said working dogs, you said bomb sniffing dogs.

I think one thing is for sure is there will be more working dogs at those mentioned events and many more.

Maybe if they weren't so tied up in busting people for drugs using the dogs they could have focused more of their resources toward finding the real bomb.



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by boncho
 


I am floating an idea in hopes that discussions and investigation might expose something. There isn't much basis, but of course there wouldn't be. It would be very classified. Worth noting when consider is the fact that the fbi/cia did look into them and were warned off them by Russia. When you consider some of the people the fbi has radicalized to set up these two fit perfectly: angry, young, muslims leaning towards radicalism. When you further consider the people they have used this tactic on and survielled these guys throw up many more flags. I find it absolutely unbelievable that they wouldn't keep on these guys. So if they did keep on them, but can't tell, then there is a reason. Continuing on, the fact that there was a drill that happened/was happening/was to happen that was almost identical in type and location COULD be a big coincidence, but more likely the brothers knew and were making a statement to officials that knew. That could be why they were reluctant to release the drill info, concerned of the chance (albeit slim) that citizens might ask questions about these extreme coincidence. That would/could lead to people finding out these terrorists were radicalized by an agency. If they did know it could be because they read it on a conspiracy site, or it was public knowledge (for all I know), or someone on the inside told them.

Now to clarify, these two guys if guilty (which seems to b the case) then they are assholes that deserved to be punished. Also I don't believe this on faith, I just think it's worth looking into. Finally, it wouldn't be a big scandal or even the biggest right now, but it would point out the error in the FBI targeting people to be radicalized. That is something that is going on and should be known and disgust every American and be ended.
edit on 15-6-2013 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2013 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


I agree with you that there is many questions into how the feds handled the brothers before and after. As well as the other suspect who ended up being killed in his home, unarmed.

Although I have to break with you on drill. While there may be a few questions as to some similarities, it wasn't identical, and the scheduled drill was 3 months later.

Nothing wrong with looking into things, quite another when people feels pieces of the puzzle are coming together when they haven't even found all the pieces yet.

Not insinuating you specifically, just generally speaking here...



new topics

top topics



 
48
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join