CNN reporters raise questions about the Boston bombings.

reply to post by gladtobehere


I find this really interesting that the media is coming out with such bold indictments against the FBI etal! I just saw this the other day and was rapt!

‘There’s something wrong at the FBI’: Maddow Urges Release of Boston Bombing Autopsy Report

But there’s one pesky detail concerning the Boston Marathon bombing Maddow just can’t get her head around: the mysterious circumstances behind the death of 27-year-old Ibragim Todashev at the hands of the FBI during questioning, an incident that has all the makings of a government cover-up.

Very interesting!

reply to post by gladtobehere


Ashley Banfield saying " the boston bombings may never have occurred" can be taken two ways.

She mis-spoke and meant was there a way it could have been prevented, so it never would occur
Or she is suggesting it never happened.

reply to post by Beamish


That's what I think it means.

violet
reply to post by gladtobehere

 

Ashley Banfield saying " the boston bombings may never have occurred" can be taken two ways.

She mis-spoke and meant was there a way it could have been prevented, so it never would occur
Or she is suggesting it never happened.

I think it was clear: in the context it was used it was meant that the bombings could have been prevented. I got nothing from the transcript that would suggest the bombing did not occur. Nothing whatsoever.

gladtobehere
reply to post by research100

 

I agree that its being presented as though the whole thing could have been prevented but it seems to me that they are insinuating that theres more to it.

The title is part of a much longer quote. If its simply a piece on how the bombings could have been prevented had the brothers been apprehended earlier, its not really worthy of ATS.

At-least not in the conspiratorial section.

Maybe if I edit the thread title, it will be less misleading.

edit on 27-2-2014 by gladtobehere because: wording

I have an idea...lets just make stuff up with zero basis in fact. There is nothing whatsoever in that linked transcript that comes even close to suggesting the bombing didn't happen.

There is a big discussion here about the Boston Marathon False Flag Event.

Boston Marathon Revisited

I posted the CNN story there a few days ago. I also, along with others posted a lot of pictures and transcripts that show clearly that the Boston Bombing was in actual fact a False Flag event using Fake Blood, Injuries and Crisis Actors!

CNN's report on the event is also put into question as they AGAIN have been caught with their pants down by posting news articles that contradict actual events!

They are not as bad as the BBC (British Brainwashing Corporation) who in the case of 9/11 were reading from a script and reported live on air that WTC 7 had just collapsed when it could clearly be seen standing up in the background. BBC are bad for screwing up their reports and inadvertently pointing out the obvious lies and propaganda in these events.

I don't think this interview with Banfield was made public. Yes she raise questions. But was this on CNN aired to the public? Or was this a web based only interview?

All the events we know that are False Flags have questions! Anything that is good for THEM and Bad for us is most likely a False Flag. Because they control it they created it!

What image change is that...trying a little truth for a change?

hounddoghowlie
reply to post by gladtobehere

 

just part of the new image change that the Communist News Network is trying out, to boost their ratings. Fox has put a hurting on them and others.
first they start producing,PBS type documentaries and special reports, then they boot Piers Morgan, even though he says he decided to quit. yea after they told him to hit the road. now if they would just get rid of anderson cooper they might turn out to have a pretty good network.

edit on 27-2-2014 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)

You got anything intelligent to say about this report on it and other things that don't add up...like this made report by a breath of fresh air here?...

There is a big discussion here about the Boston Marathon False Flag Event.

Boston Marathon Revisited

I posted the CNN story there a few days ago. I also, along with others posted a lot of pictures and transcripts that show clearly that the Boston Bombing was in actual fact a False Flag event using Fake Blood, Injuries and Crisis Actors!

CNN's report on the event is also put into question as they AGAIN have been caught with their pants down by posting news articles that contradict actual events!

They are not as bad as the BBC (British Brainwashing Corporation) who in the case of 9/11 were reading from a script and reported live on air that WTC 7 had just collapsed when it could clearly be seen standing up in the background. BBC are bad for screwing up their reports and inadvertently pointing out the obvious lies and propaganda in these events.

I don't think this interview with Banfield was made public. Yes she raise questions. But was this on CNN aired to the public? Or was this a web based only interview?

All the events we know that are False Flags have questions! Anything that is good for THEM and Bad for us is most likely a False Flag. Because they control it they created it!

bbracken677

gladtobehere
reply to post by research100

 

I agree that its being presented as though the whole thing could have been prevented but it seems to me that they are insinuating that theres more to it.

The title is part of a much longer quote. If its simply a piece on how the bombings could have been prevented had the brothers been apprehended earlier, its not really worthy of ATS.

At-least not in the conspiratorial section.

Maybe if I edit the thread title, it will be less misleading.

edit on 27-2-2014 by gladtobehere because: wording

I have an idea...lets just make stuff up with zero basis in fact. There is nothing whatsoever in that linked transcript that comes even close to suggesting the bombing didn't happen.

TheSpiritForce1
What image change is that...trying a little truth for a change?

hounddoghowlie
reply to post by gladtobehere

 

just part of the new image change that the Communist News Network is trying out, to boost their ratings. Fox has put a hurting on them and others.
first they start producing,PBS type documentaries and special reports, then they boot Piers Morgan, even though he says he decided to quit. yea after they told him to hit the road. now if they would just get rid of anderson cooper they might turn out to have a pretty good network.

edit on 27-2-2014 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)

here is a little truth for you just goggle it many more pages like these.

As a result, CNN recently announced drastic changes to its format to include more reality programming, documentaries, and other non-news offerings. CNN To Ditch News Programming

CNN appears to be throwing in the towel, at least when it comes to being a cable news channel. With its ratings and reputation sinking, CNN announced Friday that the third-place network will be investing heavily in everything except serious news-gathering. This new focus will be towards "a variety of unscripted formats, including other travel shows, and 'immersive' nonfiction programs." This also includes documentary films like "Blackfish." CNN Throws In the Towel; Moves Away from News

While breaking news is still CNN’s bread and butter, formats like “Parts Unknown” and Morgan Spurlock’s “Inside Man,” as well as films like “Blackfish,” tend to be more reliably popular with young viewers. Cable news viewership skews old, but Bourdain often tops its cable news competition among viewers 18-49 and viewers 25-54, the two key sales demographics. “Blackfish” crushed all of the competition in those demos when it aired. CNN on spending spree to rebuild channel

above from hereCable News Ratings for Tuesday, November 5, 2013

not only does it say that in all these reports if you have even watched the communist news network in the past 4 to 6 months, you see the changes, Parts Unknown,Blackfish, and coopers shows are indeed on cnn.

i just don't willy nilly put stuff up that i can't back somehow, even when i voice my opinion, i usually have something to back it up with.

so how's that for some truth.
and to barrow a saying from fox. i report , you decide.

reply to post by TheSpiritForce1


First off my comment was related to the interview transcript which was being referred to as having stated that the bombings did not happen. There is zero content in that transcript that states that. Period.

Regarding other threads crying false flag, well...those are other threads and people will believe what they want to believe. I followed the first one, that was posted moments after the bombing and within 5 or 10 minutes of it occurring with zero evidence people were already claiming it was a false flag. Therefore I choose to remain skeptical. I will, of course, not discount absolute evidence pointing in ANY direction, but I know this is a "conspiracy site" and therefore anything that has the slightest whiff (or in some cases lacking the slightest whiff) of conspiracy will be attributed as such.

I think that the bombings did occur. I cannot say with any surety that we know the whole story but those who claim there were no bombings that it was all fake are making matters a lot more complicated than need be. If the govt were to conduct a false flag operation they would use real bombs.... not fake the whole thing which is just ridiculous to the nth degree.

I am about as anti federal govt as a person can get. Therefore, I will not, as a knee jerk reaction support the govt's innocence when there is absolute evidence indicating the contrary. I will also not, as a knee jerk reaction, automatically claim guilt without the least bit of evidence.

I am forever the skeptic and this blade cuts both ways.

bbracken677
reply to post by TheSpiritForce1

 

I think that the bombings did occur. I cannot say with any surety that we know the whole story but those who claim there were no bombings that it was all fake are making matters a lot more complicated than need be. If the govt were to conduct a false flag operation they would use real bombs.... not fake the whole thing which is just ridiculous to the nth degree.

Something occurred but I don't think it went down the way they said it did. A lot of the injured were actors. Why would they use actors at a real bombing? Some of it was fake that is for certain. Just like some of 9/11 was fake. But when they orchestrate False Flags they mix fake with real to give the desired effect. Like the afore mentioned 9/11.

Sandy Hook on the other hand was totally fake!

Oklahoma City bombing on the other hand was real but the report was fake! They said it was a fertilizer bomb in the back of a truck that destroyed the building. That's obviously a load of rubbish. Oklahoma City bombing was orchestrated by the FBI. Some important witnesses to the truth were assassinated by the FBI.

You can be sceptical as much as you want but when you follow the money and see who actually benefited then you will see the truth@

See what I'm saying?

reply to post by stevcolx


No, none of the injured were actors. It can be twirled around as a theory that they were actors, but they were not in reality.

reply to post by Aleister



Hmmm. You really think that?







Check this site here. There are pictures of the aftermath. You'll notice the guy Jeff Baumann with the missing legs! But there is NO blood. Why? How?

Looks like actors were used to me!

Look at this site! They have done a very good at exposing the BS. It's too obvious to ignore!!

Boston Bombing Was Staged!

reply to post by stevcolx


So....exactly what would be the point of conducting a false flag bombing and using actors for the injured? The illogic of it all is....astounding.

If our govt were going to conduct a false flag operation to fake anything would be to invite exposure and discovery that would not exist/happen by just using the real deal with real casualties. There is absolutely zero logic to "fake" a bombing particularly in such a public manner. I am a strong believer in Occam's Razor even when subterfuge is being employed.

I would sooner believe the false flag operation was conducted with real bombs and real casualties than I would of the fake variety. I have little confidence in our govt's ability to do a lot of things well and efficiently. Blowing stuff up is one we do very well.

bbracken677
reply to post by stevcolx

 

So....exactly what would be the point of conducting a false flag bombing and using actors for the injured? The illogic of it all is....astounding.

If our govt were going to conduct a false flag operation to fake anything would be to invite exposure and discovery that would not exist/happen by just using the real deal with real casualties. There is absolutely zero logic to "fake" a bombing particularly in such a public manner. I am a strong believer in Occam's Razor even when subterfuge is being employed.

I would sooner believe the false flag operation was conducted with real bombs and real casualties than I would of the fake variety. I have little confidence in our govt's ability to do a lot of things well and efficiently. Blowing stuff up is one we do very well.

This is very true. The Washington Harbour shootings were real even though it was a False Flag. Like I said earlier the Oklahoma City Bombing was real albeit the explosive device blamed on something else to formulate the lie to blame someone else.

And this more recent one in the Ukraine to oust the leader out on Humanitarian excuses. US controlled opposition snipers killed people on the streets in order to blame the then ruler to take over the country!

But the Boston Bombing is questionable to say the least. Especially with the very obvious acting and fake blood. I presume that people were actually killed and the actors were to jump up the shock horror factor.

The 7/7 bombings in London in 2005 were also real. But the patsies didn't blow themselves up with the trains and the bus. Those were well placed explosive devices. Something that is also shared with the Boston Bombing!