It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


To those who misunderstand a false flag event.

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 10:59 AM
So you think the last few tragedys are false flags? And the agressors and victims are all paid actors and shills, and of course the media is in on it too.

The reality begins here so if you are horribly set in your way of thinking click the back button.

Truth is these events are false flags but not with paid actors or shills. Real people died, lost limbs and suffered you do not need a troupe of actors to fool the world into doing as they are told. These events from aurora to the boston bombing were all preventable using current laws and methods of investigation. The warning signs were ever present just like 9/11 how ever if current laws and methods work to stop tragedy its harder to pass even more stringent legislation.

Take for instance the one that got the ball rolling 9/11, we had actionable inteligence and frankly knew who and how but not the when and where. Had our government persued the evidence gathered and attempted to stop these people lives would of been saved at the cost of governmental controll. The war to topple saddam and "nation build" afganastan would of never happend leaving the us citizenry happier and free but the government with the same power as before.
Instead it was in the best interest of the government to allow the planes to be hijacked as a population in fear will allow you to chain them up if it means they are safe.

Boston is much the same. You expect me to believe that our inept government could get 200 plus actors fake blood and "bombers" into a huge gathering and no one would notice. Instead it seems much more feasable that they knew the threat exsisted and chose to ignore it and hope it worked out the way they wanted. Further more considering that there was military, paramilitary, police, bomb sniffing dogs, drug dogs, swat etc etc... They knew damn well what was going to happen. You think normally the finish line would be thye most protected spot as it has the most importance of the event.

This my friends is the very definition of a false flag. Trading life to achieve a goal while making it seem like you were blind sided by the events.

posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 11:13 AM
reply to post by oasisjack

Am I understanding this correctly? A (false flag) event is when TPTB know ahead of time something awful is going to happen; (they did not create); and they allow it to play out and do nothing to stop the event; for the purpose of their own hidden agendas?

posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 11:19 AM
reply to post by caladonea

In the day and age of the internet and 24 hour news broadcasts it is far to risky to initiate the attack or incident. Instead its easier to motivate some one else to carry out the attack and insure no one is there to stop them. Plausable denailability.

There are cameras everywhere using a government agent would be akin to leaving your drivers license next to a dead body some one is bound to know who left the bomb, fired the gun etc. Thus making it traceble back to an agency or group.
edit on 30-4-2013 by oasisjack because: hit post by accident

posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 11:27 AM
reply to post by oasisjack

I agree with you that actors were not part of this incident.

I think the FBI had a clue that he was bad news, but they didn't have enough evidence to move forward with anything more than an initial interview. The FBI was not able to secure enough evidence for a more thorough investigation, because they would have infringed on his rights.

It didn't help that Russian forces never came fully clean on what they knew,

Russian authorities secretly recorded a telephone conversation in 2011 in which one of the Boston bombing suspects vaguely discussed jihad with his mother, officials said Saturday, days after the U.S. government finally received details about the call. In another conversation, the mother of now-dead bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev was recorded talking to someone in southern Russia who is under FBI investigation in an unrelated case, officials said. The conversations are significant because, had they been revealed earlier, they might have been enough evidence for the FBI to initiate a more thorough investigation of the Tsarnaev family.

So, in closing I do think the FBI knew he was bad news, but didn't have the legal justification to pursue anything more.

posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 11:34 AM
reply to post by Covertblack

I will agree that is a possibility but it seems they had a good clue that an event was going to occur. The saudi national may have been the one they thought was going to attack but the brothers beat him to it. They dont use that kind of manpower unless they are sure somthing is going to happen. Black water was hired to be there that in its own shows they expected somthing.

posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 11:35 AM

using current laws and methods of investigation

I think you accept false flags , but some part of the plan is to change the law.

There is a trade off between war-against-terror and freedom. The more govt wants to prevent WAT , the more people feel that they are losing their freedom.

That is where the pressure pot model comes into the play.

Govt manages these events , people lose their freedom , people get mad and excited against these false attacks , people decide that another invasion and killing is necessary to stand for their freedom and security.

Pressure pot thread

What fortifies my theory is that it worked in 2000 (end of the world) and in 2012 (end of the world).

Eventually , the people are ready to see the event in these years , but next years they come.

From Aura killing to Boston bombing , we are seeing rings of one chain which are telling us that a drastic reaction of US govt is going to happen in near future.

Take for instance the one that got the ball rolling 9/11, we had actionable inteligence and frankly knew who and how but not the when and where

It is exactly govt wants you to be in fear from when or where.

Boston is much the same. You expect me to believe that our inept government could get 200 plus actors fake blood and "bombers" into a huge gathering and no one would notice.

No one can tell who knows about the event except the ones who wanted these place burn for a reason.

Just like those masters of manipulation in middle east. Basically ,They give good money to one ignorant person and tell him to go somewhere they want and pull the ring.

No one knows them (but god) eventually.

And if you think that these ignorant people don't live around you , look more carefully.
edit on 30-4-2013 by mideast because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 11:41 AM
A false flag is any operation designed to deceive so that it appears that the operation is being carried out by others.

To prove a false flag, you would have to prove who actually carried out the operation, not just say it looks suspicious.

posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 11:42 AM
reply to post by mideast

I accept the false flag events as a fact of life. It seems that everytime an event related to terrorism happens we "deport a family or individual from the mid east who has no "known ties" to the event. We have warrentless wire tapping and lets face it if they say the word terrorism your rights are void before you know it. So it only makes sense that the gov agencies are aware of most of these events and turn a blind eye at least or at most move assets to keep them from interfering with the attack.

posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 11:44 AM
reply to post by Wildbob77

Or permit others to carrie out the attack.

posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 11:53 AM
reply to post by oasisjack

That's not the definition of false flag.

False flag goes back to the navy days of sailing ships. Sometimes one ship would show that flag of the other side to get in close and engage in false flag

This also happened with land troops.

posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 12:00 PM
reply to post by Wildbob77

Neat definition however i feel this is the new age way of doing a false flag attack. After all english is a living language.

posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 12:37 PM
reply to post by oasisjack

Then it's time for some creative people to coin a term that would fit what you are describing.

You then wouldn't be using False flag incorrectly.

posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 01:04 PM
The OP is correct! Shades of September 11th.

After 9/11/01 there was much of talk about it being a possible false flag. Many people who thought that a false flag was a completely absurd notion got completely caught up in the mind numbing "fake planes" or "They are claiming that nobody died on the planes!" aspect of it all.

And basically the same thing is happening with the Boston Marathon bombings now. Only this time it is the "actors". "They are claiming that the victims were actors!"

Inquiring minds still want to know if, in fact, there were agency bomb drills being conducted at the time and place of the bombings, as there were on 9/11 and 7/7.

Inquiring minds still want to know if the Tsarnaev brothers were, in fact, being handled by the FBI or other agency, like the bombers were during the first world trade center bombings.

Enough with the "actors" tripe. Proving that the injured weren't actors means nothing. It's a red herring issue.

What about the drills, and what about the multitude of intelligence agencies that had contact with the Tsarnaevs prior to the bombing? That should be the focus of ATS's discussion on the issue.
edit on 30-4-2013 by METACOMET because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 02:40 PM
reply to post by oasisjack

Exactly. I've been saying this for years, but no one listens. They don't have to be staged, there don't need to be actors or fake blood and gore, or anything like that. All they have to do is let the lunatics, who are out there already in great number, slide under the radar. Eventually, something is bound to happen.

posted on Apr, 30 2013 @ 03:42 PM
reply to post by Wildbob77

It's not a false flag if the attribution for the attack is to the correct "flag". More like "passive-misdirection"

posted on May, 2 2013 @ 08:27 AM
The problem here is, and I think most here understand this, is that the label 'false flag' has an attached stigma that creates an opposite reaction in people that the person using the term desires.

This is because the term is attached to events, that persons who study history, know is absurd. Also, this is fed by the incorrect assumption that any and all information on the internet is there for the sole reason for persons to manipulate to further a belief, or a political position.

Also, and just as important, persons attach modern technology-particularly communications and the instantaneous dissimulation of news to events that occurred 50 years ago.

For instance, the Paris Peace accords, which ended the Vietnam war, contain concessions by both governments of North Vietnam and the United States that neither side knew what took place in the Gulf of Tonkin. The were no bloggers on the warships, no satellites in orbit to measure the exact distances of home ports and international waters and no instant communications to some kind of 'war room'

Yes, two incidents took place in the South China sea, those incidents lead to a major escalation of the conflict, however there has never been any evidence that either side planned the event.

You can't pick up the internet and take it back in time to analyze historic events.

People today hear the term 'false flag' and totally dismiss it as a blanket term for persons who simply use it to get attention. The term is so over used-in context that history tells us is incorrect-therefore it is ignored as a term that simply seeks a buzzword effect.

top topics


log in