Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
oxmox

Boston Marathon: 2 bombs blow up near finish line

Recommended Posts

Reminds me of an accident I witnessed years ago

Guy on a bicycle got run over and killed by a bus

his bike survived intact and some guy waltzed out

out of a building across the street, picked up the bike

and starting strolling off with it.

when the cops grabbed him and the bike, asking what the fuck he was doing

the guy casually answered" "What's wrong, he doesn't need it anymore"..

he was actually offended that the police dared stop him and take the bike back

and threatened to arrest him for interfering with a accident investigation.

One day my father and I were tending to something on the highway when there a loud tire screeching followed by a loud smash. We ran as fast as I could to see what the cause was. A large truck and a car sitting close to another. We checked both vehicles, the car door was jarred and driver unconscious. I hit the windows trying to wake her up but nothing came of it, my father called me over to help him with the man, we had to carry him out together and keep his legs elevated.. By the time we had him settled safely on the shoulder a spark or..something occured, the car lit up.

By now there were several people pulled over to watch the scene unfold with their fucking cell phones out. Despite my want to help the other drive, my father told me to stay and watch the man, talk to him while he ran towards the now burning car, trying to smash the window open but to no avail. In the end he had to back away...now there is a wooden cross on that spot. I wonder what was going through his mind...a marine, then national guard, state trooper then police officer..always wanted to protect and in the end nobody helped...

If you get into an accident in public you might as well toss in the cards because the common citizen is not going to help especially in a crowd..they would rather stare and gawk, wait for authorities or "someone" to help rather than throw themselves into the fray.

Edited by NodUnit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I haven't passed off anything, I just asked some questions, seems I got some logical replies (thanks), is this a forum or not? How can anything I posted be based on a theory to conspire? Does anyone want to know the security aspect to this and its failings? Is that not a valid question to ask? So why is it that asking this puts me in the "Conspiracy theory" assumed list?

It might be worth reading my posts sometimes, none of it was a suggestion, all were media links, valid questions from said media and also logical to the fact that in such a well covered area this got through which should be asked by everyone and all involved in ref to the security even Fox has asked about this.

So you saw media asking this question. Did they have the answers? If they did why did you come here and ask again? There is difference between asking questions and throwing things around without basis.

(Sadly) this is not a forum where you are going to get a straight answer on such matters. The people who work in related fields are probably busy doing their real job. And they will not comment on on-going investigations. That means whatever question asked about security at events like this probably will get very little correct information. That means more confucion, useless arguments, etc.

It is one of the techniques of conspiracy theorists to provide a biased/partial fact and try to extrapolate a story out of it or try to fit their story. There is no proof to discount their theory because it is something that can not be shown to be false.

Here's an example.

Boston marathon attack was actually a British operation. Boston is famous for being center of US independence(Boston Tea party) and someone wanted to get back for US trying to gain independence 230 years ago.

Prove I'm wrong.

You can't.

This is exactly what this type of postings end up. Countless stupid questions and then someone tries to come up with 'enlightening' answer about big conspiracy involving Rothschilds, Free Masons and aliens.

There has been warnings about this type of posts in this thread already. I don't have to repeat myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is one of the techniques of conspiracy theorists to provide a biased/partial fact and try to extrapolate a story out of it or try to fit their story. There is no proof to discount their theory because it is something that can not be shown to be false.

I was looking at the security aspect for this to come about, where is that a theory or conspiracy even put to be proven false with my claims? Im lost.

Thats my point, everything else you just mentioned about conspiracy is way off the mark from what I was posting.

So you saw media asking this question. Did they have the answers? If they did why did you come here and ask again?

Pick many threads in this entire forum where someone has asked about a media link or what's been asked in that format to see what people think inside a "forum" among other members, do they get asked why they are bothering to ask?

I could understand if it was about "the aliens did in from a large gun in space" link or something ludicrous but it was the questions that would now naturally come regarding security, which is nothing like a conspiracy theory pushing agenda.

Don't try to paint yourself a skeptic and try to pass off your conspiracy theory. - assumes I post some sort of agenda, and I dont take kindly to that no matter who posts it, I doubt you would either.

Anyway, we will differ forever on this I guess, I understand the tidy up to a point, but just wanted some clarification, just get a hint of pre-conceived skim reading on what I posted, otherwise I wouldn't have a hint of an issue of it. Oh and this is more off topic to the point anyway :)

EDIT:

This is precisely what I was referring to in my posts ref "Camera City" and the security levels:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2034734/massive-citizen-smartphone-photo-and-video-probe-underway-into-boston-bombings.html

Edited by mrcash2009

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was looking at the security aspect for this to come about, where is that a theory or conspiracy even put to be proven false with my claims? Im lost.

Thats my point, everything else you just mentioned about conspiracy is way off the mark from what I was posting.

Pick many threads in this entire forum where someone has asked about a media link or what's been asked in that format to see what people think inside a "forum" among other members, do they get asked why they are bothering to ask?

I could understand if it was about "the aliens did in from a large gun in space" link or something ludicrous but it was the questions that would now naturally come regarding security, which is nothing like a conspiracy theory pushing agenda.

Don't try to paint yourself a skeptic and try to pass off your conspiracy theory. - assumes I post some sort of agenda, and I dont take kindly to that no matter who posts it, I doubt you would either.

Anyway, we will differ forever on this I guess, I understand the tidy up to a point, but just wanted some clarification, just get a hint of pre-conceived skim reading on what I posted, otherwise I wouldn't have a hint of an issue of it. Oh and this is more off topic to the point anyway :)

Here's what you wrote after you linked that article

Also allot of valid questions surrounding the amount of military based personel (who can be seen helping in videos) CCTV coverage and "name that surveillance" that did not pick any of this up for something placed in supposed "bins" on the street. We shall see what comes I guess.

You are essentially asking "Why didn't CCTVs and security catch the terrorist before the bombing?" i.e. someone let this happen. It doesn't have to be directly stated - just inferred, which is what conspiracy theorists tend to gravitate towards.

Contrary to what some believe CCTV does not fully prevent crimes, but is useful as a tool to gather evidence after incidents.

EDIT:

This is precisely what I was referring to in my posts ref "Camera City" and the security levels:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2034734/massive-citizen-smartphone-photo-and-video-probe-underway-into-boston-bombings.html

Yeah, sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are essentially asking "Why didn't CCTVs and security catch the terrorist before the bombing?" i.e. someone let this happen. It doesn't have to be directly stated - just inferred, which is what conspiracy theorists tend to gravitate towards.

No Ralph, you have jumped to a conclusion and practically putting words in my mouth, I didnt ask that at all, you even deleted my further posts that explained by point about this too. When I say "We see what comes" it means, we do not know all the answers, I am asking this question in a thread on the subject thats a debate type forum, is this not allowed?

Yeah, sure.

Yeh sure what? Ralph? Yeh sure this isnt what im referring too and im lying? Or yeh sure its not of much use in terms of what they are looking for? Im sorry mate but you are WAY off the mark with your pre conceived ideas of why I posted here, moderation or not, on a personal level you have a picture of where you think im coming from and have got it wrong. So if I post anything about this you are assuming that I have an agenda? and your going to be my personal cynic of it?

Contrary to what some believe CCTV does not fully prevent crimes, but is useful as a tool to gather evidence after incidents.

Yes I know, hence my point about security and "camera city" with that article.

I want to see how this came about and any security holes, "we shall see" with this evidence that will come forthe next, is that not logical? The kicker of all of this is, everyone else incl yourself has been throwing token names around and quoting theories and ive just posted some links with a question and opinion about security, I find that quite funny, seems a conspiracy is being aligned with me and this thread, oh the irony :)

Edited by mrcash2009

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First picture links to a bag which makes sense, but that bag picture has no surrounding reference, the second two in what context does it link for why they are highlighted? Is it from an article to explain it more? Wheres the original article link to the uploaded pics?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No article, just a random post in a forum saying it was from 4chan.

I'm not following the case at all, so I just asked if it is something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thoughts I have is that they are both holding their rucksack the same way, and that's not quite a convential way. Could just be out of fear of being pickpocketed though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah some people have found suspects from photos at the crime scene before the incident took place and try to ID the person that carried the bags.

Here are #1, #2 and #3/4.

#3/4 look like some form of (security) agents due to them wearing the same kit and military boots with heavy jackets and cargo pants. Definitely not anything usual.

These photos are surely helpful but one should not make any unrational assumptions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bomb fragment analysis here:

http://imgur.com/GHkXoqf

Hi-res evidence pictures:

http://imgur.com/a/nBtIW

Pressure cooker is said to be a Fagor brand - not seen any photos to confirm that yet?

Lots of speculation over many people with black backpacks - dozens of people wearing them.

The zipper in the evidence photos has a Fox brand logo on it - but did it come from the bomb or another bag?

Edited by Mattar_Tharkari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
;2374736']What's the red marker for in the second picture' date=' Is that the general area of interest?[/quote']

Iam not sure why there is a red mark.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8126/8654617135_29c34da7f0_k.jpg

But, if you watch closely you will see a woman with 3 children on the right upper corner of the marker. The woman has shoulder long hairs with glases on her head, looks like a girl in her arms and one child on her back. There is one boy with a baseball cap in a white shirt......maybe they are waiting for Dad at the finish line.

I assume it is the family mentioned in the media, the boy is the 8 year old one who died in the bombing attack, one girl lost his leg and the mother got badly injured. This is also the area where you see on other images the most blood and bodies on the ground.

This is an image of the family:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/img/skip_intro/2013/04/16/martin-family.jpg

Edited by oxmox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No Ralph, you have jumped to a conclusion and practically putting words in my mouth, I didnt ask that at all, you even deleted my further posts that explained by point about this too. When I say "We see what comes" it means, we do not know all the answers, I am asking this question in a thread on the subject thats a debate type forum, is this not allowed?

Adding "We see what comes" does not negate the fact that you were throwing somet thinly-veiled conspiracy thoughts in to the thread. This is case of "Just because you can doesn't mean you should."

Yeh sure what? Ralph? Yeh sure this isnt what im referring too and im lying? Or yeh sure its not of much use in terms of what they are looking for? Im sorry mate but you are WAY off the mark with your pre conceived ideas of why I posted here, moderation or not, on a personal level you have a picture of where you think im coming from and have got it wrong. So if I post anything about this you are assuming that I have an agenda? and your going to be my personal cynic of it?

Yes I know, hence my point about security and "camera city" with that article.

Your first article link was about increase in security as pointed out by a coach. Your question was about the security at this venue. Your second link was about how CCTV and numerous cameras assisting the investigation after explosion. Second link doesn't prove much in terms of what the first article was questioning.

I want to see how this came about and any security holes, "we shall see" with this evidence that will come forthe next, is that not logical? The kicker of all of this is, everyone else incl yourself has been throwing token names around and quoting theories and ive just posted some links with a question and opinion about security, I find that quite funny, seems a conspiracy is being aligned with me and this thread, oh the irony :)

Maybe I'm a bit old, but I don't think I am senile enough to post who the perpetrator was. Care to show me MY post where I said it was a particular group/individual?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Embarassing. Spending 80% of the "Reality check" with informing and biasing the viewer with past events... The WTC bombing and involvement of the FBI has no evident connection to the attacks in Boston.

And of course there are EOD dogs and guards around. It would be a story if there wouldn't!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fox News Reality Check about the Bomb sniffing Dogs at start and finishing line.

1. That's not Fox News, it's Fox19 (WXIX-TV) News a small local TV station in Ohio.

2. Swann is a regular on Alex Jones (world #1 conspiritard), Swann is so revered he is currently looking for a new job.

3. A few minutes research would tell you what you have there is conspiracy theory.

4. We were asked not to post conspiracy theories in this thread and the exact same one was deleted from previous pages.

5. As is widely pointed out, sniffer dogs are used at all major public events these days, it's standard practice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5. As is widely pointed out, sniffer dogs are used at all major public events these days, it's standard practice.

As opposed to common sense and reading, as has been clearly demonstrated by the conspiracy crowd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm about to go Walker up in here. I mean I'm about to get all conspiratorial up in here.

I found this picture post on OperatorChan, and it does look like these two people could be responsible? Looks like the one guy on the right looks overgenerous, while the other looks like he is out for revenge.

Edited by Hans Ludwig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I clearly said no conspiracy crap here!

Minutemen is the first who's banned from this thread. And so is everyone who thinks he must come up with whatever conspiracy idea coming to his mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm about to go Walker up in here. I mean I'm about to get all conspiratorial up in here.

I found this picture post on OperatorChan, and it does look like these two people could be responsible? Looks like the one guy on the right looks overgenerous, while the other looks like he is out for revenge.

To be fair, the bag may be on the ground.

If you look at the picture taken of that area from an elevated view it's pretty crowded near the fence

so it would be natural for someone to remove their bag so as not to bump into people or getting pickpocketed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm about to go Walker up in here. I mean I'm about to get all conspiratorial up in here.

I found this picture post on OperatorChan, and it does look like these two people could be responsible? Looks like the one guy on the right looks overgenerous, while the other looks like he is out for revenge.

It's probably not a good idea to go through the photos basing suspicions on racial profiles / bags like many are doing. The Boston Marathon is an international event and North Africa have a fine tradition of long distance running. It's likely (I'm not 100% certain) the two men shown are Taoufik Makhloufi and Rashid Ramzi, both well known Olympic / World Championship athletes. Or could be 2 local people that look similar.

It's likely that many innocent people have been highlighted on various photos circulating on the internet, it's not right or fair is it?

Edited by Mattar_Tharkari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Adding "We see what comes" does not negate the fact that you were throwing somet thinly-veiled conspiracy thoughts in to the thread. This is case of "Just because you can doesn't mean you should."

I just explained to you about this, if you choose to see otherwise that's your own personal view & again telling me what I think even though its taken me 2 posts and 2 removed posts to explain it.

Your first article link was about increase in security as pointed out by a coach. Your question was about the security at this venue. Your second link was about how CCTV and numerous cameras assisting the investigation after explosion. Second link doesn't prove much in terms of what the first article was questioning.

And where lies a conspiracy in a link to a eye witness report about this? Shall we just edit this information out so it does not exist in the public domain & that person is just a complete lier or anyone who spots security lapses? People seem to assume that questioning security = inside job. Thats your own reaction, mine was ... "we should check this security out as to why this happened" ... quite normal, and again I will repeat myself, with all that security CCTV and cams and everything else incl the sniffer dog & spotters reports none of that did a jot of difference, and as a result should be questioned about security issues ... what on earth does that have to do with " .... " .. I cant even say it any more its such a token throw away phrase now its a bit of a joke now.

This is the chap in question on a news section in refernce to the sniffer dogs and training accouncements:

q_G7uTWINXc#!

Now, before everyone shoots off at the hip yet again, the point about this is (made in this video and others) .... *drum roll* with this being the case, security and agencies may have had a tip off but are not letting that fact open to media, and its for the public to ask whether or not they were privvy to such information as to why they were more geared up to combat it, with this being the case, and IS NOT ... conspiracy nut job ramblings. Otherwise what we are saying here is, this information is good, all other is bad ... and that's some very dodgy ground considering this is all important to the case of an event such as this. The question should be, is this to be completely ignored as if its non existent?

Inside job (conspiracy) = Government did it .... | Security questions = If they we heightened to it, what were the failings? Privvy to prior info in an agency isn't automatic "they did it and knew" its standard practice for agencies if they may think something is likely, and if this is true with such announcements and right at the points they were focusing the bombs went off, if nothing else, they failed miserably and public should ask why, can anyone else see past conspiracy here and see how normal that is to ask about?

Maybe I'm a bit old, but I don't think I am senile enough to post who the perpetrator was. Care to show me MY post where I said it was a particular group/individual?

I was referring to your open statements about the theories you listed as examples to describe a theorist, my point being everyone throws this phrase around and jumps onto people in moments if anything even remotely sounds a little bit like that "might" be asking about security lapses and makes that a conspiracy call out, which it blatantly is not. If I wanted to go a conspiracy claim that you suggest I would d make a better job of it than I have so far if I was! :p

Sorry Wiggum i realise the moderation aspect but I just got sniff of "if the shoe fits" that was all.

Onto the subject ...

That backpack photo isnt much to go by, easily see thats its a separate time frame and quite easy to have a your backpack on and then take it off, nothing out of the norm, unless backpack use is now the enemy of course .. but then surprisingly allot of people mulling over un linked photo's and making assumptions certainly isnt what I do, which is a bit out of character for a "conspiracy theorist" wouldn't you think. :)

It's likely that many innocent people have been highlighted on various photos circulating on the internet, it's not right or fair is it?

Exactly the point summed up, this is ok, but question security seems to be completely outlandish and which one is more flimsy?

BTW I am assuming this is an industrial accident right?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22195495

Many casualties in Texas Waco fertiliser plant blast
Edited by mrcash2009

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×