The Boston bombing was a false flag perpetrated by the US government.
Debate Rounds (3)
Evidence continues to accumulate across the internet from vigilant free-thinkers and conspiracy researchers proving that the Boston marathon bombing, just like the Sandy Hook and Aurora shootings, just like 9/11 and 7/7, was a false-flag operation carried out by the government. I've compiled the following key bullet points, pictures and videos which completely blow open the mainstream media version of this event:
-The two suspect's backpacks aren't even the same color or design as the exploded backpack
-Two other men with the same color and design backpacks as the exploded backpack have been completely ignored by the "investigation" and mainstream media reports. They are wearing wires, built and dressed like military, and wearing the logo of a private security firm (like Blackwater) called Craft. Not only that, but one of them is on film running away from the explosion with his backpack missing!
-Several of the suspect's family members including their parents said they were being set-up and that the FBI had been controlling them for years
-The Boston Bomb squad was there at the marathon running bomb drills, just like 9/11, 7/7, Oslo, and other false-flags where they "coincidentally" just so happened to be doing terror drills. This "simultaneous drill" excuse has been used again and again in false-flag operations
-The wheelchair double amputee victim "Jeff Bauman" has been positively identified as being Nick Vogt, an Afghan war vet whose legs were already blown off!
-Three of the same policemen at Sandy Hook have also been positively identified at the Boston bombing
-While being interviewed the Boston police chief in a likely Freudian slip referred to the suspects as "actors"
-The predictive programming cues were there with an in-depth Family Guy reference to bombings at the Boston marathon and a "Joggers" Illuminati card
-There was even a Boston bombing facebook aid page set up two days before it happened
First Photo : It has no time stamp or location, they are blurry poorly produced photos with no substance that really inspires us to believe an extra-ordinary claim of a hidden conspiracy.
Second Photo : Did the FBI say this? Was the bomb in that bag? Is that even a photo of the bag at the event? I can't tell anything from this.
Third Photo : No idea what the third photo is, too many lines going in no obvious direction. Is that a known symbol? Is that relevant? Where was the photo taken?
Fourth Photo : Terminology distinction. Even if he said that, which a meme of a photo won't tell us, then so what?
Fifth Photo : I don't understand this photo? Is that Putin? Is that an 'actor'? Is that someone relevant to this debate?
Sixth Photo : Two independent photos of one guy doesn't convey a 'set', it doesn't convey a 'false flag', it really doesn't convey anything, apart from in one photo he's helping someone .
The rest of the photos are either memes, poorly display and I can't read or simply irrelevant.
There has been no evidence that this attack was a false flag, the standard narrative is sound, I don't need to prove it didn't happen, only that it wasn't a false flag event, and as we have seen it isn't.
Whether or not my opponent chooses to properly research this argument, as I have done, is irrelevant in its accuracy. Con should research and provide at least one source, reliably disproving any of my points. Since this has not been accomplished, and my opponent seems to just brush my evidence off with no apparent reason other than pure speculation, I stand by all my points and forward them to the next round, urging a vote for pro.
Secondly, I don't need secondary sources, if you provided me with a specific narrative backed up more than memes and interrelated photos that are hard to make out, then I'd be compelled to investigate further. Out of the various photos shown, you've only provided one source. That source is the man actually saying 'Actors'. Now if this was a mega conspiracy with false flag twist, then we need more than just one person saying 'actor'.
It's not speculation to demand the following.
1. A narrative for why this was a false-flag operation.
2. The specific people behind this operation.
3. The theoretical and practical outcomes and motive for this operation.
4. Names, Locations and specific details regarding the event.
The first three have literally not been touched, for all we know this was a false-flag operation by Canada not the U.S. In fact we have no reason to believe it was a false-flag operation at all, this is a serious claim to make. I want details, I want names and I require a narrative that would necessitate this sort of bomb event.
The Twitter account of the Globe is irrelevant because Twitter fails to time stamp its tweets, so we don't have any idea about the connection between a controlled event and a terrorist attack.
I'm watching the videos and seeing little evidence. We see some point about men on the roof but again, it's hearsay and there's a blurry photo of a man standing on a roof, nothing indicates much. Remember, this was a huge event with a lot of runners and civilians, the police and special forces would be present regardless. Post- 9/11 the increase in security due to terrorist threats is significant and for good reason. Pointing to security as in someway evidence for a False-Flag operation is lazy, it assumes no other decent narrative could be given.
This is where I get confused, my narrative is the simple but layered narrative of the standard event that took place. Bombs blew up an event, security were present, the government was not directly involved in its execution. The narrative is of course naive if we accept memes as our evidence, but it is consistant and we have no reason to suspect a motive by the government.
The other video of the suspect leaving with his backpack, well he's not. Again, a blurry photo but it looks to be his arm in full swing. It is not sufficient to hinge your entire belief system on 2 minute YouTube Clips. I won't return in kind because it's not decent enough evidence to owe a response.
In conclusion, no evidence has been given, that is if our standard for evidence is not memes or YouTube clips consisting of Google Maps-esque detective work and loose 'it's possible' narratives.
Also, my sources contain the narrative I believe with two eye-witnesses who didn't point to anything out of the ordinary. If it is so obvious, then we should expect overwhelming disbelief in the narrative given by the 'Mainstream Media'.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Wylted 4 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro actually did better than I thought. Virtually every single one of con's rebuttals is succesful, pointing out the bad citations for some of the photos, or just lack of being able to see anything meaningful from them. The problem with Con's arguments is the stuff he fails to address, and the lack of positive argumentation. You should always provide some form of lositive argumentation just incase you accidently drop an argument or a rebuttal just doesn't work, but con just opts for rebuttals and does not address the predictive programming or the argument about training exercises as well as a few other indicators that pro points out that it is a false flag. The comment about being framed by the FBI and the training exercises makevthe link from not only false flag but U.S government involvement. Next time please offer rebuttals for everything and use some positive arguments, this should have been an easy win, but instead dropped arguments got to you. Congrats pro
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.