Boston Bombing

omnithanos

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

why not show the full unedited video with timestamps? why the need to show only stills for part of the video?

Perhaps he does not have access to the full video footage or perhaps he needed to zoom in on specific points to show the evidence. If the complete video was shown small details like these could go unnoticed by the viewer.
Why also did they publicly relesse the video showing the second blast from behind but stopped it before we could see the outcome. They have shown plenty of other grusume pictures.
As there is controversy over whether Martin Richard died because he father is seen shilelding him as the blast goes off this could easily be addressed but as it is a scam it won't be.

galljga1

omnithanos wrote: »

My contention is that all these injuries should logically be evident immediately after the blast thereby dismissing the necessity of showing time stamped frames.
Fake blood is poured down her leg from out of her bag after the blast.
If she had a genuine leg injury then why are her pants not affected?
The same can be said for Mrs Brassard. She apparently has a serious leg injury which doesn't show up until she walks around to the shop window & even when we see blood on her jeans, the jeans are still perfectly intact.
How can.they alege Mr. Brassard left pools of blood as he walked when photographic evidence shows that the shoe on his leg getting treated had no sign of blood.
How can the girl run and rest her weight on a fractured ankle?

As a piece of evidence to argue for or against this injury being fake, this video is entirely unreliable.
Having said that, looking at the video I would argue that her leg is covered in blood seconds after the blast. That to me would qualify as being 'evident immediately after the blast'. Again without timestamping, this holds no water.

I see no evidence of fake blood being poured out of her bag. I see claims but no evidence.

I am not sure what you mean by her pants not being affected. They are covered in blood. If you mean, no tear is visible, i would agree, I cannot see one. It does not mean one is not present. The stills are not great quality and shrapnel can be tiny.

Re. Mrs Brassard, again we see a selection of stills from various angles some of pretty poor quality with no time stamping. I cannot declare that she is not injured. Possibly her wound was not bleeding much in the beginning but started to bleed heavier later.

Mr Brassard's leg was in the air. Perhaps the wound started bleeding when he was walking. The soundbite saying he left pools of blood as he walked was inserted at that point for effect. Those words were not said at that time.

Re people walking or running with injuries, I would say this is down to adrenaline. Sportspersons play on after a clash to discover later on that they have torn or broken something.

These two videos are pretty shoddy. They are snippets thrown together to try and prove a point and they fail completely.

Timberrrrrrrr

omnithanos wrote: »

My contention is that all these injuries should logically be evident immediately after the blast thereby dismissing the necessity of showing time stamped frames.
Fake blood is poured down her leg from out of her bag after the blast.
If she had a genuine leg injury then why are her pants not affected?
The same can be said for Mrs Brassard. She apparently has a serious leg injury which doesn't show up until she walks around to the shop window & even when we see blood on her jeans, the jeans are still perfectly intact.
How can.they alege Mr. Brassard left pools of blood as he walked when photographic evidence shows that the shoe on his leg getting treated had no sign of blood.
How can the girl run and rest her weight on a fractured ankle?

And again it's obvious from your posts that you know very little about injuries, it's possible to walk on a fractured ankle (although painful) and it is certainly possible to run on one when you have adrenaline coursing through your system.

omnithanos

The video shows an article extract which states that Karen Brassard had a quarter sized pipe protruding about an inch from her left calf and another 2 to 3 inch piece embedded in her right calf.

This screenshot from the video shows that her legs weren't damaged at all and there is no quarter sized pipe or 2 to 3 inch piece in either calf.

ohnonotgmail

omnithanos wrote: »

The video shows an article extract which states that Karen Brassard had a quarter sized pipe protruding about an inch from her left calf and another 2 to 3 inch piece embedded in her right calf.

This screenshot from the video shows that her legs weren't damaged at all and there is no quarter sized pipe or 2 to 3 inch piece in either calf.

why no timestamp on any of those videos?

omnithanos

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

why no timestamp on any of those videos?

If I obtain the original video will you accept the evidence?

ohnonotgmail

omnithanos wrote: »

If I obtain the original video will you accept the evidence?

please do show some original video. rather than edited versions with annoying voiceovers trying to tell us what to think.

omnithanos

Well, in my opinion, the most damning proof is that the shredded backpack that was used as evidence does not match the backpack or either brother.



It belongs to one of the members of the private military group called Craft International. If the Boston Bombing was not a hoax then why was this man not regarded as a suspect when it was clearly his backpack. We can confirm this as we see him running sans backpack in the second picture.

ohnonotgmail

omnithanos wrote: »

Well, in my opinion, the most damning proof is that the shredded backpack that was used as evidence does not match the backpack or either brother.

It belongs to one of the members of the private military group called Craft International. If the Boston Bombing was not a hoax then why was this man not regarded as a suspect when it was clearly his backpack. We can confirm this as we see him running sans backpack in the second picture.

show me a source that shows that that was the backpack as evidence? i.e. the one that contained a bomb. It certainly doesnt look like a backpack that had a bomb explode in it. There would be a lot less of it if that was the case. it looks like a backpack that was damaged in a blast.

galljga1

omnithanos wrote: »

The video shows an article extract which states that Karen Brassard had a quarter sized pipe protruding about an inch from her left calf and another 2 to 3 inch piece embedded in her right calf.

This screenshot from the video shows that her legs weren't damaged at all and there is no quarter sized pipe or 2 to 3 inch piece in either calf.

Two stills, one of which is pretty useless as it is dark and grainy. Between both, I cannot declare that she is uninjured.

Hoop66

Whay would members of a secretive private military organisation, especially if they were up to no good, wear their organisation's logo all over themselves?

Don't tell me....satanic ritual?

Overheal

Egginacup wrote: »

omnithanos, OMNITHANOS!!!

Listen....please!

When you are trying to discuss something of this nature then pick one, JUST ONE, anomaly that you would like to discuss and refuse to veer from it until your detractors have given satisfactory replies. Flooding a plethora of anomalies onto the stage gets you nowhere are gives your target audience an easy way to sidestep without giving satisfactory explanations.

Pick one question and ask it. And stay with it.

If you want to talk about 9/11, don't snowball the debate with a 1000 variables. Ask one simple question like how could a passport (made from paper and situated inside a plane and more than likely inside the clothing of a human who was inside that plane) be found outside of that person's clothing and outside of that plane when that plane and everyone and everything inside it was vapourised in a ball of fire?

Now that's a simple question to ask. Anyone of whom I've asked this question has never come up with an explanation. They deflected, they've tried to bring up other irrelevant parts of the puzzle but when I've insisted that they stay with the question that I've asked then tempers have been lost, and not on my part.

Almost a year ago I challenged people who insisted that Russia had invaded Eastern Ukraine to provide proof of their claims. In that YEAR I have been given laughable pictures of alleged Russian troop movements "NEAR" the Ukrainian border. I have had some of them try to con me with pictures of Russians in Crimea, NOT EASTERN UKRAINE...the place they said was invaded by Russia, I have received a picture of a Russian made tank that looks like it has been rusting beside a tree since the 80's. And this is the proof I get after simply continuing to demand proof of their assertions. A year after Russia is supposed to have invaded Eastern Ukraine and these people still can't explain why a single Russian bomber has not dropped so much as a bag of cowsh1t on Kiev or a single conventional Russian missile has been fired at Ukraine. The largest nuclear arsenal on earth and the most sophisticated ballistic capability ever has just invaded Eastern Ukraine and been thwarted for a YEAR so far. I even had one genius claim that sanctions have bogged down the Russian invasion.

Like I said. Ask one question and stick with it. You'll be amazed at the drivel with which you're met when bullying, browbeating and bullsh1t don't work.

All infractions aside, I agree with this.

Egginacup wrote: »

That blood did look really fake.

I've seen large quantities of blood on the street and it's NEVER bright red, almost scarlet. It's a dull brownish hue. It's never bright.

Which blood where?

There is also the matter of lighting, angle, exposure time, etc. not to mention the surfaces it is on. Dull wet stone, asphalt, or white concrete? Ever paint those warhammer models? The basecoat makes a huge difference.

We've all seen blood, anyone who has bought meat. Blood can indeed be bright red.

Also, looking for another angle: "Why would they use fake blood if they wanted to fake an attack?" Wouldn't it make more sense to use real blood, readily available to a government entity, from any number of hospitals, labs, and blood banks?

omnithanos wrote: »

The video shows how she did not have any evidence of an injury immediatly after the bomb went off but a few minutes later was lying in a pool of fake blood. How is it possible to obtain an injury from a bomb that only appears minutes later?
Can you explain how the claims made are ridiculous?

As a kid I was being chased by my brother, who had a sock full of pebbles he brandished as a Mace. I ran off on my bicycle - turned around to see where he was at, and hit a mailbox (a very rigid mailbox) (an asshole of a mailbox) dead on at about 15mph. I flipped completely over the fcuker. It felt strange. I actually laughed for a minute - after which - I bled profusely from my hand/arm which scraped along sheet metal.

Sometimes an injury does take time to manifest.

omnithanos wrote: »

Isn't it interesting that nobody lost arms.

Well rather than spew every random question you have about the bombing without, obviously, taking even the bare minimum amount of time to play Devil's Advocate with yourself to consider that there may well in fact be a reason behind your questions [yes, Mod], you might stop and ask yourself:

"What would explain why it might be more likely to lose a leg than an arm in a compression blast?"

To that, I would easily say that thanks to the wonderful world (Read: academic torture) that is Dynamics and Statics, we know that a leg is typically constrained in the Y-axis, supporting half the weight of an individual and pushing that net force against the ground it stands on. An arm is more freely constrained at a pivot joint (the leg is too, but see previous y-axis restraint).

Now, introduce a shear force in the X-axis (a blast of compressed air from an explosion) which hits the leg at an almost instantaneous impulse: there is no gradual ramp up from no force to full force; the leg is just instantly subjected to the full shockwave of a compressive blast. The leg is not designed to take huge amounts of force along its lateral. It's also not terribly elastic. As a result of this, and its general inability to freely break away from the ground or the heavier human body above it, it's going to direct that energy into all sorts of different shearing planes - and it breaks. An arm, meanwhile, will be more likely to be swung back by the force of the blast. Shoulder dislocation would probably happen sooner than the arm bones breaking in this scenario.

tl;dr - Science.

Now, this is a warning: vomiting question after-question is really ticking me off, personally, and evidently pissing off the locals. It puts you in the same category as Bill O'Reilly who famously challenged atheists by saying "Tide goes in, tide goes out. Never a miscommunication. You can't explain that." Really.

So if you keep making grandiose claims and/or questions without taking half a brain-cycle to think "why MIGHT that be?" etc. then you will probably be on the receiving end of my banhammer, Banjolnir, for about a week. When you ask a question kindly show that you've actually given some energy to trying to answer it, first.

galljga1

omnithanos wrote: »

Well, in my opinion, the most damning proof is that the shredded backpack that was used as evidence does not match the backpack or either brother.



It belongs to one of the members of the private military group called Craft International. If the Boston Bombing was not a hoax then why was this man not regarded as a suspect when it was clearly his backpack. We can confirm this as we see him running sans backpack in the second picture.

Again, another series of stills with no associated chronology showing what someone wants to see. I cannot make out the handle on the shredded backpack on which the white piece should be if it is the craft dude's. It could just as easily belong to tamerlan as his is a grey/black backpack. It is not possible to say from these photos.

omnithanos

galljga1 wrote: »

Again, another series of stills with no associated chronology showing what someone wants to see. I cannot make out the handle on the shredded backpack on which the white piece should be if it is the craft dude's. It could just as easily belong to tamerlan as his is a grey/black backpack. It is not possible to say from these photos.

You are stretching a bit here. There is green on Tamerian's dark grey backpack and there is no green on the black backpack.

ohnonotgmail

omnithanos wrote: »

You are stretching a bit here. There is green on Tamerian's dark grey backpack and there is no green on the black backpack.

can you answer this for me?

show me a source that shows that that was the backpack as evidence? i.e. the one that contained a bomb. It certainly doesnt look like a backpack that had a bomb explode in it. There would be a lot less of it if that was the case. it looks like a backpack that was damaged in a blast.

galljga1

omnithanos wrote: »

You are stretching a bit here. There is green on Tamerian's dark grey backpack and there is no green on the black backpack.

I am stretching?
It is a torn backpack of which only part is visible. The photo looks like it is taken in a much more shaded area rather than the bright sunlight of the tamerlan photo. It could be the same colour. The bits you cannot see could be any colour.

My main point is that throwing together photos in this manner means nothing.

omnithanos

show me a source that shows that that was the backpack as evidence? i.e. the one that contained a bomb. It certainly doesnt look like a backpack that had a bomb explode in it. There would be a lot less of it if that was the case. it looks like a backpack that was damaged in a blast.

I never said there was a bomb in a backpack, the authorities did. I reckon the firecracker was in the bin.

omnithanos

galljga1 wrote: »

I am stretching?
It is a torn backpack of which only part is visible. The photo looks like it is taken in a much more shaded area rather than the bright sunlight of the tamerlan photo. It could be the same colour. The bits you cannot see could be any colour.

My main point is that throwing together photos in this manner means nothing.

Of the three backpacks, it only resembles the craft international guys one. As I said before if it were a real bombing he should have been questioned at the very least for abandoning a suspicious backpack at the scene of a bombing.

Timberrrrrrrr

omnithanos wrote: »

Of the three backpacks, it only resembles the craft international guys one. As I said before if it were a real bombing he should have been questioned at the very least for abandoning a suspicious backpack at the scene of a bombing.

And again you are calling them "the craft international" guys when in reality that icon is used for other things (most famously the punisher) why would operatives of craft international wear the logo of the company on their hats if they are about to let off bombs when it's obvious there are thousands of people in the area with cameras and CCTV everywhere?

Overheal

show me a source that shows that that was the backpack as evidence? i.e. the one that contained a bomb. It certainly doesnt look like a backpack that had a bomb explode in it. There would be a lot less of it if that was the case. it looks like a backpack that was damaged in a blast.

Physics: it is probable that the majority of the backpack could have been expelled at high velocity away from the blast, after the majority of the blast exited through the weakest parts of the bag. Bomb casings, for instance, are not uncommon remainders from an explosion.

ohnonotgmail

Overheal wrote: »

Physics: it is probable that the majority of the backpack could have been expelled at high velocity away from the blast, after the majority of the blast exited through the weakest parts of the bag. Bomb casings, for instance, are not uncommon remainders from an explosion.

omnithanos still hasnt established that this the backpack that was the source of the explosion

NewCorkLad

If the 2 brothers and craft international were all in on it why would they need to use a different bag as fake evidence?

noway12345

What about that video I watched on the thread earlier about the husband and wife. The wife was badly injured and her picture was on the front cover of some magazine. The video shows the man ignoring his wife and running around in circles a load of times. He also had some device in his hand that he disposed of.

ohnonotgmail

noway12345 wrote: »

What about that video I watched on the thread earlier about the husband and wife. The wife was badly injured and her picture was on the front cover of some magazine. The video shows the man ignoring his wife and running around in circles a load of times. He also had some device in his hand that he disposed of.

you mean somebody in the aftermath of a bomb explosion was not acting rationally?

noway12345

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you mean somebody in the aftermath of a bomb explosion was not acting rationally?

No, look at the video. I can't add links it says so add the ww.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=cefbEY9PO5

(Mod: Link added)

miss tickle

omnithanos wrote: »

Well, in my opinion, the most damning proof is that the shredded backpack that was used as evidence does not match the backpack or either brother.



It belongs to one of the members of the private military group called Craft International. If the Boston Bombing was not a hoax then why was this man not regarded as a suspect when it was clearly his backpack. We can confirm this as we see him running sans backpack in the second picture.

Considering the impact of the explosion would it not have been blown to smithereens. It seems fairly intact considering the damage it's contents caused. Also what about the second detonation, where is the backpack from that?

Titanucd

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

And again you are calling them "the craft international" guys when in reality that icon is used for other things (most famously the punisher) why would operatives of craft international wear the logo of the company on their hats if they are about to let off bombs when it's obvious there are thousands of people in the area with cameras and CCTV everywhere?

First off I don't believe the CT around this but to play devils advocate as it were.....

Was there not some anti-terrorist exercise in the area at the time? Is it possible that 'Craft' were involved in this? (The exercise I mean). If so is it not possible that they would have been wearing their logo to identify them within the exercise? Is it not also possible that when the bomb went off they were in the vicinity and got photographed there?

OR.....

Were they wearing the logo to clearly identify themselves to crisis actors so they could give instruction to these guys and oversee events? Hiding in plain sight as it were with the fallback of 'We were in the area for the exercise and went to help' if they got rumbled?

I think my first scenario is more likely but as I say, playing devils advocate!

galljga1

noway12345 wrote: »

No, look at the video. I can't add links it says so add the ww.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=cefbEY9PO5

(Mod: Link added)

Video does not exist, we've been rumbled.

galljga1

noway12345 wrote: »

What about that video I watched on the thread earlier about the husband and wife. The wife was badly injured and her picture was on the front cover of some magazine. The video shows the man ignoring his wife and running around in circles a load of times. He also had some device in his hand that he disposed of.

I have given over a large portion of my life to watching videos on this thread. I don't want to do it again. Can you provide the post number please.

degrassinoel

galljga1 wrote: »

Video does not exist, we've been rumbled.

Strange, it worked fine yesterday.

this is the link again if you're interested