Posted by Vivek
(here)
Alright. I think this is the most plausible explanation. I also think this is why all the media outlets and officials are worried.
The biggest story (other than the tragedy of lost lives and limbs) is that personnel from the Craft were there, and that there were bomb drills being conducted around the incident. I don't think it's because it was a false flag. Well, maybe it could have been, but all factions and authorities in a multi-tiered government aren't all on the same page.
It's looking increasingly likely that this is indeed a coverup. I think Mike Adams and Alex Jones are a tad off base. They're on the right trail, but their focus is shifted and stuck a little too deep in conspiracy to be honest.
Here are some of the pictures out there of the Craft personnel.
These guys where definitely there. Observing.
This next one is especially important.
What he is holding in his hand is a radiation detector. Used to detect any radiation emanating from nuclear weapons or other kinds of bombs.
These men were hired for security measures. The authorities probably did receive a tip that there could be a bombing, or they at least received intelligence about a bomb threat. So, the city authorities beefed up security under the guise of performing drills (for increased readiness, just in case) and they hired Craft.
Posted by Vivek
(here)
A threat may have been made, or the authorities may have received a tip about a possible bombing. Therefore, they beefed up security. Instead of informing the public (which they probably rarely do, if ever), they found it prudent to conduct a drill surrounding the event. In this way, they could be better prepared against countering such a threat -- increased readiness.
Obviously, it didn't work out if that was the case. Yet, it could account for the increased security.
The city may have even hired the personnel from Craft for added security measures. I do think it's strange that they were there though, but it's not outside the realm of possibilities considering the aforementioned scenario.
If they did have prior knowledge of a bombing, you bet they'd try to cover it up. If this thing could have been avoided and people find out, there would undoubtedly be outrage and public officials would share accountability. They tend to keep things like this from the public because it would weaken the public perception of their projected power and system of control.
They like keeping secrets, which leaves us guessing within a wide range of "what if" scenarios.
Freshly after the Sandy Hook incident, many are happy to color the secrecy with false flag conspiracies. This may or may not be the case. What I'm more sure of than anything is that the gov't won't let this crisis go to waste. Whether they're behind it or not.
This is the story I think. Imagine the public outcry if we learned that the authorities knew that an attack was possible because they received or had prior knowledge of a threat. They obviously took the threat seriously enough to enact these dramatic security measures.
Why would the media and public officials deny something as obvious as the presence of Craft operatives in addition to the same day bomb drills? To protect themselves from public scrutiny. The pieces fit. If it comes out that they knew this could've have happened, and thereby been avoided, then they would have to share accountability. This is a big deal.
Even if it was some sort of false flag operation, it was beyond the awareness of the local authorities and the Craft operatives.
That's why they are scared, because they may face the prospect of sharing responsibility if it comes out that this could have been avoided by calling off the event. They played a risky hand, and tried to hedge their bet with the bomb drills, Craft personnel, and overall increased security. They bet wrong.
This is the cover-up. All the talk of false flags can resume, but I think if that was the case, it came from much higher up.
Again, the gov't doesn't like a crisis to go to waste. They'll exploit anything they can to increase their power and control. They'll sure as hell do anything they can to place the blame as far away from them as they can. In this case though, they may be close to having to share some accountability for this tragic event.
The FBI and DHS may also be trying to cover up the incompetence as well. Hence all the confusion, and the neglect of such apparent facts.
EDIT/ADD:
If there was this much added security surrounding the event, it's not outside the range of possibility that some official/authority advised canceling the event.
It didn't get cancelled though. So, whoever it was that pressed for the event to ensue, then that is good reason to think that they were receiving orders from higher up to allow the event to continue in the face of the evidence that it should've been cancelled. That, or they had knowledge that the bomb would indeed go off and it was to be allowed. Of course, they wouldn't admit to this.
An aggravated police official had to follow marching orders and allow the event to continue in the face of a credible threat and against their better judgement. So, they heavily increased security, conducted bomb drills surrounding the event, and hired Craft because the threat was so serious and yet they were ordered to allow the event to continue.
That makes the most sense to me. Cover-up. This is serious. This is a reason for them to be scared. In this case, you could be damn certain that the "higher ups" in the DHS and FBI wouldn't want these dots connected.
I'm sure that there are many threats around major events, but this one ... this one in particular was serious enough for all these measures. Somebody higher up gave the order, against all the evidence, to allow the event to transpire. That's conspiracy worthy.
Just like the events of 9/11 were "allowed" to take place by ignoring the files supporting the evidence of high-jackers training to fly planes into buildings.
Why should the gov't avert a crisis, when it can be used to their advantage somehow, to further their agenda?
In these kinds of cases, there's a fine line between incompetence and complicity.
Whoever ordered the event to continue is who we need to look at. Them and whoever pressured them to make that call. Then we can better judge if they were complicit or just plain incompetent.
Re: Boston marathon bombings (was: Explosions at Boston marathon)
Reply With Quote
(FALSE FLAG) in on itself...
Bookmarks