Police Commissioner of the Boston Bombings almost lets the cat out of the bag - General

[video=youtube;Gd8sULSaYms]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gd8sULSaYms&feature=player_detailpage[/video] Maybe it's nothing, but it sounds like a Freudian slip to me.

Actors, in this case is ambiguous in meaning. It can mean anything.

It could be actors as in people who acted out the crime. But I don't know. That's an odd thing to say especially when people have been crying conspiracy since it all started.

Bomb. Gun debates. Fox News. Conspiracy theory! Yum yum!

wake up sheeple

Don't let Glenn Beck hear!

Commit an act. Great, you're an actor. :ms:

aha oh fuck /pol/s going to have a field day

[img]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3877425/temp/bostonbombingwasaninsidejob.proof.jpg.bmp.png[/img] When he said actors, that's what I thought of as well.

the chemtrails softened up his mind, that's why he slipped that

[QUOTE=peterson;40390848]Actors, in this case is ambiguous in meaning. It can mean anything.[/QUOTE] Very well but why did he suddenly stutter and correct himself. Also would all you people be very willing to admit yourself being wrong if it did come out that it was planned as an inside job? you do realise they locked down almost the whole of Boston while on the hunt for the ''actors'' as a training exercise for marshal law? the problem is with society is everyone relies on evidence to provide truth, maybe there is no pure evidence, but if you look into it yourself and open your eyes a little you may be able to save yourself when shit hits the fan. Even if you do not believe in it, it is always good to gain knowledge on the matters at hand.

[QUOTE=Cairn Trenor;40391177]Very well but why did he suddenly stutter and correct himself. Also would all you people be very willing to admit yourself being wrong if it did come out that it was planned as an inside job? you do realise they locked down almost the whole of Boston while on the hunt for the ''actors'' as a training exercise for marshal law?[/QUOTE] That wasn't a correction, it was an elaboration. The second part is irrelevant because it wasn't an inside job.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];40391236']That wasn't a correction, it was an elaboration. The second part is irrelevant because it wasn't an inside job.[/QUOTE] It sounded like a massive correction to me. A believer of this shit is seen as a nut case and a loon, when perhaps these ones are the clever ones that have decided not to think within the hive mind that has become this society. I am not saying by any means your wrong for thinking it isn't a inside job because it very well might NOT be, but try looking at facts, knowledge that has been gathered on it. We'll never know the actual truth tho since the FBI and inside people cover their tracks to good and plus they already have people brain washed. The only reason it's far fetched is because we see it in films all the time, and anything we see in films we see purely as a work of fiction. But this is the real world, and try not to be blinded because once a civil war breaks out over there and they lock down the whole country for marshal law it'll be them that has to realise that the government and puppets that run it may not be all that caring after all.

conspiracy theorists are gonna have a field day

[QUOTE=Cairn Trenor;40391300]Crackpot rant[/QUOTE] Yeah guys, a conspiracy that requires complete silence and cooperation from witnesses, police, politicians, EMT's, soldiers, the national guard, and the local private security firms is going to be totally unraveled because one guy said "actors" on tv! IT'S ALL A LIE YOUR GOVERNMENT IS LYING TO YOU MAJESTIC 12 MONOPOLIES!!! Just stop. It would be impossible for this to be faked.

[QUOTE=Super Muffin;40391337]Just stop.[/QUOTE] Okay Mr Patriot.

Conspiracy theorists really do my head in, they're some of the most ignorant people around.

[QUOTE=Super Muffin;40391337]Yeah guys, a massive conspiracy that needs to be kept a secret despite plenty of witnesses, with police/emt involvement, government silence, and media coverage is going to be totally unraveled because one guy said "actors" on tv! IT'S ALL A LIE YOUR GOVERNMENT IS LYING TO YOU MAJESTIC 12 MONOPOLIES!!! Just stop. It would be impossible for this to be faked.[/QUOTE] I stopped believing in conspiracy theories when I realized our government is too incompetent to pull something off like faking 9/11 or the Boston Bombings. The term "actors" is probably used internally in police departments to describe the people who act out the crime, hence actors. They probably never use that publicly for the very reason this video exists.

[QUOTE=Cairn Trenor;40391300]It sounded like a massive correction to me. A believer of this shit is seen as a nut case and a loon, when perhaps these ones are the clever ones that have decided not to think within the hive mind that has become this society. I am not saying by any means your wrong for thinking it isn't a inside job because it very well might NOT be, but try looking at facts, knowledge that has been gathered on it. We'll never know the actual truth tho since the FBI and inside people cover their tracks to good and plus they already have people brain washed. The only reason it's far fetched is because we see it in films all the time, and anything we see in films we see purely as a work of fiction. But this is the real world, and try not to be blinded because once a civil war breaks out over there and they lock down the whole country for marshal law it'll be them that has to realise that the government and puppets that run it may not be all that caring after all.[/QUOTE] It's a elaboration, and I understand that because I speak in public the same way. I'll repeat the same sentence or part of that sentence in much the same tone, or a correcting tone, and replacing the primary subject with another in order to best illustrate my point or what I'm saying. I even write like that at times. There's nothing to say he was stumbling over his words or correcting himself. If we take the word actors for what he meant by it, then it makes sense because it's synonymous with what he said after. There's nothing to indicate he meant people playing parts. Beyond that, actors isn't the right word for that in an operational context- agents would probably be the common phrase, not actors. And when I say the next part, take it as coming from a former conspiracy theorist (5-6 years ago) and a former moderator of TinWiki, the now defunct wiki of AboveTopSecret, the world's largest "alternative topic" discussion forum. So understand when I say what I am about to, it's coming from the mouth of someone who has experience with this, on both sides. You assume that we'll never have the actual truth, and you seem to use that as a defense. This is common, but also a major fallacy that shows bias towards filling in the blanks- lack of knowledge of clear understanding, perceived or otherwise, is a common way that conspiracy theorists will act to say "since we don not, can not, will not know, then it is of equal worth, equal validity, to assume that the outlandish or alternative view is also true". Yet there is a secondary problem with this, and that is that you assume that we don't know it all. Obvious we don't but we do know that there are people who are putting lots of time and effort into knowing for certain, and by saying that we are intentionally mislead, and by filling in the blanks that we don't know because it's a conspiracy, then you're being irrational and going not off of the evidence at hand, but instead off what you or someone else wants. Using a made up story, a what-if, to contradict or fill in the blanks without reason. You also assume that the FBI covers its tracks good, and that they have people brainwashed. This is putting a lot of faith into the FBI. They have enough ability to brainwash and create a cover-up when the entire national media is focused on them, but they don't have the ability to get the police chief of Boston to not slip up. This is akin to the Illuminati arguments where there's an organization capable of ruling the world in secret and creating huge, complex sham networks out of markets and politics to give the illusion of choice and democracy, and yet they leave their imprint on bank notes and in music videos. Either the group is able to cover itself up, or it isn't. Pick one. It's not far-fetched because it's common in fiction, it's far-fetched because it isn't grounded in rationality. It's grounded in assumption, fiction, and general counter-facts. Are there conspiracies? Absolutely, but they look like back-room political deals, price fixing, intended absoleteism, and whatever the CIA does in its breakrooms. But those things have reasonable, rational goals with obvious immediate effects. If we can't find a reasonable immediate effect, then at every step farther something gets less and less likely. We could say that the FBI did it in order to help along martial law in the US or something, but how far removed is that? We would need to say that -the FBI did this to give a working example/training for martial law -The martial law is the goal of the government -the government wishes to initiate martial law because the government wants to be all powerful -the government wants to be all powerful because it's a puppet for the illuminati or something -the illuminati puppeteers the government because it wants to take over -it wants to take over because of personal gain for its members It's reasonable to assume the final point, but how difficult would it be to pull this off? At every step down the line, more people are involved, more sham networks need to be created, more resources expended, more people cut in on it, more evidence covered up. This is why when we look at real conspiracies, we can easily show the correlation. "People were killed in an IED explosion at the Boston Marathon because a small group of men want to rule the world". Yea, okay. But "The price of cable internet is extremely high because the cable companies have agreed to set the price high and not compete for mutual gain." That's reasonable. "The president of Chile was overthrown by the CIA because the CIA/US has an interest in not having socialist leaders in their sphere of influence." "The president of Iran was overthrown because America wanted access to Iran's oil." Those sound reasonable, direct cause and affect. You're blatantly filling int he blanks with unrealistic shit based on other blank filling based on blank filling, and picking and choosing things that seem to correlate with your version of what you [I]want[/I] to see, which is not the reality.

Seed Eater confirmed for CIA plant guys everybody hide!

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];40391518']It's a elaboration, and I understand that because I speak in public the same way. I'll repeat the same sentence or part of that sentence in much the same tone, or a correcting tone, and replacing the primary subject with another in order to best illustrate my point or what I'm saying. I even write like that at times. There's nothing to say he was stumbling over his words or correcting himself. If we take the word actors for what he meant by it, then it makes sense because it's synonymous with what he said after. There's nothing to indicate he meant people playing parts. Beyond that, actors isn't the right word for that in an operational context- agents would probably be the common phrase, not actors. And when I say the next part, take it as coming from a former conspiracy theorist (5-6 years ago) and a former moderator of TinWiki, the now defunct wiki of AboveTopSecret, the world's largest "alternative topic" discussion forum. So understand when I say what I am about to, it's coming from the mouth of someone who has experience with this, on both sides. You assume that we'll never have the actual truth, and you seem to use that as a defense. This is common, but also a major fallacy that shows bias towards filling in the blanks- lack of knowledge of clear understanding, perceived or otherwise, is a common way that conspiracy theorists will act to say "since we don not, can not, will not know, then it is of equal worth, equal validity, to assume that the outlandish or alternative view is also true". Yet there is a secondary problem with this, and that is that you assume that we don't know it all. Obvious we don't but we do know that there are people who are putting lots of time and effort into knowing for certain, and by saying that we are intentionally mislead, and by filling in the blanks that we don't know because it's a conspiracy, then you're being irrational and going not off of the evidence at hand, but instead off what you or someone else wants. Using a made up story, a what-if, to contradict or fill in the blanks without reason. You also assume that the FBI covers its tracks good, and that they have people brainwashed. This is putting a lot of faith into the FBI. They have enough ability to brainwash and create a cover-up when the entire national media is focused on them, but they don't have the ability to get the police chief of Boston to not slip up. This is akin to the Illuminati arguments where there's an organization capable of ruling the world in secret and creating huge, complex sham networks out of markets and politics to give the illusion of choice and democracy, and yet they leave their imprint on bank notes and in music videos. Either the group is able to cover itself up, or it isn't. Pick one. It's not far-fetched because it's common in fiction, it's far-fetched because it isn't grounded in rationality. It's grounded in assumption, fiction, and general counter-facts. Are there conspiracies? Absolutely, but they look like back-room political deals, price fixing, intended absoleteism, and whatever the CIA does in its breakrooms. But those things have reasonable, rational goals with obvious immediate effects. If we can't find a reasonable immediate effect, then at every step farther something gets less and less likely. We could say that the FBI did it in order to help along martial law in the US or something, but how far removed is that? We would need to say that -the FBI did this to give a working example/training for martial law -The martial law is the goal of the government -the government wishes to initiate martial law because the government wants to be all powerful -the government wants to be all powerful because it's a puppet for the illuminati or something -the illuminati puppeteers the government because it wants to take over -it wants to take over because of personal gain for its members It's reasonable to assume the final point, but how difficult would it be to pull this off? At every step down the line, more people are involved, more sham networks need to be created, more resources expended, more people cut in on it, more evidence covered up. This is why when we look at real conspiracies, we can easily show the correlation. "People were killed in an IED explosion at the Boston Marathon because a small group of men want to rule the world". Yea, okay. But "The price of cable internet is extremely high because the cable companies have agreed to set the price high and not compete for mutual gain." That's reasonable. "The president of Chile was overthrown by the CIA because the CIA/US has an interest in not having socialist leaders in their sphere of influence." "The president of Iran was overthrown because America wanted access to Iran's oil." Those sound reasonable, direct cause and affect. You're blatantly filling int he blanks with unrealistic shit based on other blank filling based on blank filling, and picking and choosing things that seem to correlate with your version of what you [I]want[/I] to see, which is not the reality.[/QUOTE] You have indeed some very good points which I do hope are real at the end of the day. Since even if the conspiracies are real, we would not be able to do anything even as a collective against them and even if we did take down the government, what then? anarchy would pursue even tho anarchy would already be spread through civil war. I don't want to be your average ignorant conspiracy theorist that will argue with you to the grave about non-facts and partly gathered information, but I will carry on believing in the theories and information we have been fed since it's just what I believe is the case. It doesn't make me live any differently or stop me from doing certain things so it's fine that my opinions and my ideas and my theories stay the same. But I respect you for writing this since it did put into perspective the truth that no one will ever rise against/find out about what is going on underneath our very noses.

[QUOTE=Cairn Trenor;40391866]You have indeed some very good points which I do hope are real at the end of the day. Since even if the conspiracies are real, we would not be able to do anything even as a collective against them and even if we did take down the government, what then? anarchy would pursue even tho anarchy would already be spread through civil war. I don't want to be your average ignorant conspiracy theorist that will argue with you to the grave about non-facts and partly gathered information, but I will carry on believing in the theories and information we have been fed since it's just what I believe is the case. It doesn't make me live any differently or stop me from doing certain things so it's fine that my opinions and my ideas and my theories stay the same. But I respect you for writing this since it did put into perspective the truth that no one will ever rise against/find out about what is going on underneath our very noses.[/QUOTE] I think, though, that you misunderstand my point. We have ample means to understand, but the answer is not to take baseless claims that fill in the gaps in our knowledge but instead to search for the truth given information we do know from sources that are statistically well-meaning and trustable. Act rationally and think critically not based from a conspiracy but on the events. When we assume that there is something that we aren't being told, then that is coming from the standpoint that so-and-so can not be trusted, in this case it's the FBI and the police. That standpoint has to come from somewhere, and for you that standpoint is coming from the pre-held belief that the FBI itself is untrustworthy and bad because it is malevolent to our interests. This itself is fundamentally incorrect and is again baseless- to come to this conclusion requires the chain of events I described above, where ultimately you're assuming that this is BS because of something three, four, five times removed from the situation. If you looked at the situation from the base of "there was a bombing, now people are investigating it, this is what they are saying", you would come to a different conclusion, and one that doesn't involve a conspiracy by the government. You may come to the conclusion that the FBI pulled a false flag, but that at least would come from some rational standpoint. Start from the closest evidence and work towards the closest solution, not the farther possibility and work towards your wants. That's the difference between critical thinking- building based on evidence- and spin- making the evidence or lack of into what you want it to support. When you assume or believe it to be a conspiracy without evidence, you are spinning a fantastical web. When you build based on evidence, and think rationally about goals and involvement, you are thinking critically. State with a blank slate and move up, don't start with a full table and fill in the empty parts.

anyone who knows how governments and militaries work, people get referred to as actors you're a political actor, a military actor, an ngo actor, civilian actor, etc anyone who does something towards an end is an actor

NO MY DEFINITION IS THE ONLY CORRECT ONE EVEN THOUGH HIS USAGE OF THE WORD OBVIOUSLY MEANT SOMETHING DIFFERENT. IM RIGHT YOU ARE WRONG WAKE UP [quote]ac·tor noun \ˈak-tər also -ˌtȯr\ Definition of ACTOR 1 : one that acts : doer 2 a : one who represents a character in a dramatic production b : a theatrical performer c : one who behaves as if acting a part 3 : one that takes part in any affair — ac·tor·ish adjective — ac·tor·ly adjective Examples of ACTOR[/quote]

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];40391993'] State with a blank slate and move up, don't start with a full table and fill in the empty parts.[/QUOTE] So then what about the presence of various [url="http://imgur.com/a/Nx8EU"]'Craft'[/url] Mercenaries at the Marathon? Some of which were wearing backpacks similar to those found exploded. I do agree with just about everything you've said thus far, when making extra-ordinary claims one must have significant support. However in the latter part of your post you said conspiracy statements must be simple in order to remain plausible. I find issue with this because I can make a statement just as you did. -Conflict is profitable to the Military-Industrial Complex -The FBI is part of the Military-Industrial Complex -The FBI incites conflict in order to profit. The problem now is that in order to prove my point and support the third claim, I must have a blanket of proof that covers the whole of the FBI, and this where it breaks down. There is a lack of understanding of the security employed within such organizations. There is mass-compartmentalization and that causes any attack against 'The FBI' to be a category mistake. In organizations such as this not only do you have a strict difference in the amount of intel one operative might get over the other, but the justifications break down to simpler more acceptable operations as it goes down the chain of command. Most of these organizations operate under a chain of command similar (not exactly obviously) to the Army. A call for "More security" from the highest command would translate down to the common foot soldier as "Gear up, we need to do a patrol". Even something heinous such as the "bombing of a school" could be justified simply by referring to the target as a 'compound' and saying there are likely enemy combatants when informing the bomber. In order to properly assess the maleficence of a group "The FBI" you not only would need to read between the lines of the lower ranks (which usually are blissfully unaware), but understand the semantics of the higher commands. (Please note I did not try to actually prove anything yet)

i found the immediate conspiracy theories about boston bombing being fake more disrespectful than the shitty jokes

Freudian slips don't exist. There has been no evidence of a mistake revealing true intentions.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;40392439]So then what about the presence of various [url="http://imgur.com/a/Nx8EU"]'Craft'[/url] Mercenaries at the Marathon? Some of which were wearing backpacks similar to those found exploded. I do agree with just about everything you've said thus far, when making extra-ordinary claims one must have significant support. However in the latter part of your post you said conspiracy statements must be simple in order to remain plausible. I find issue with this because I can make a statement just as you did. -Conflict is profitable to the Military-Industrial Complex -The FBI is part of the Military-Industrial Complex -The FBI incites conflict in order to profit. The problem now is that in order to prove my point and support the third claim, I must have a blanket of proof that covers the whole of the FBI, and this where it breaks down. There is a lack of understanding of the security employed within such organizations. There is mass-compartmentalization and that causes any attack against 'The FBI' to be a category mistake. In organizations such as this not only do you have a strict difference in the amount of intel one operative might get over the other, but the justifications break down to simpler more acceptable operations as it goes down the chain of command. Most of these organizations operate under a chain of command similar (not exactly obviously) to the Army. A call for "More security" from the highest command would translate down to the common foot soldier as "Gear up, we need to do a patrol". Even something heinous such as the "bombing of a school" could be justified simply by referring to the target as a 'compound' and saying there are likely enemy combatants when informing the bomber. In order to properly assess the maleficence of a group "The FBI" you not only would need to read between the lines of the lower ranks (which usually are blissfully unaware), but understand the semantics of the higher commands. (Please note I did not try to actually prove anything yet)[/QUOTE] But you lack the evidence that the FBI is part of the military-industrial complex (it's not), or that the FBI does profit from conflict (it doesn't). The chain breaks down before the third prong, it has no linking to begin with. And while it's well and good that the FBI could have had some justification that got watered down to a single plan on the way down that ended up being a bombing of US citizens, then you have to refer to the portion where I talked about complexity and networking- while the lower end of things is definitely not totally informed at every step, the planners are still interconnected with enough government organizations and NGOs and individuals that it would be highly difficult to keep something like that secret- there's always Bradley Mannings, there are secretaries, there are FOIAs and courts and oversight committees and politicians in the know who are swapped out ever 4, 6, 8 years. And the farther down the line the plan goes, no matter how simplified, the more people must be informed. while they may progressively know less the farther along, when the final result is questionable- the bombing of civilians on US soil- then there's going to have to be a larger amount of damage control. And unlike 2 PO'd dudes in hats, we're talking about a government agency that's part of a large beuracracy. Even if only 2 people commit the act, how many rubber stamps, planners, etc did it need to pass first? Again, it becomes less plausible the more degrees from the source it becomes, it becomes less likely the more people are involved. Also, everything in those links is really reaching and asinine and can be explained with a simple answer. Only someone picking out things that support a conspiratorial viewpoint sees discrepancies there.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];40392567']But you lack the evidence that the FBI is part of the military-industrial complex (it's not), or that the FBI does profit from conflict (it doesn't). The chain breaks down before the third prong, it has no linking to begin with. And while it's well and good that the FBI could have had some justification that got watered down to a single plan on the way down that ended up being a bombing of US citizens, then you have to refer to the portion where I talked about complexity and networking- while the lower end of things is definitely not totally informed at every step, the planners are still interconnected with enough government organizations and NGOs and individuals that it would be highly difficult to keep something like that secret- there's always Bradley Mannings, there are secretaries, there are FOIAs and courts and oversight committees and politicians in the know who are swapped out ever 4, 6, 8 years. And the farther down the line the plan goes, no matter how simplified, the more people must be informed. while they may progressively know less the farther along, when the final result is questionable- the bombing of civilians on US soil- then there's going to have to be a larger amount of damage control. And unlike 2 PO'd dudes in hats, we're talking about a government agency that's part of a large beuracracy. Even if only 2 people commit the act, how many rubber stamps, planners, etc did it need to pass first? Again, it becomes less plausible the more degrees from the source it becomes, it becomes less likely the more people are involved. Also, everything in those links is really reaching and asinine and can be explained with a simple answer. Only someone picking out things that support a conspiratorial viewpoint sees discrepancies there.[/QUOTE] I believe that it is easier than you think to spin an agenda in a certain way. I agree that they aren't perfect and there have been whistleblowers and people who pick up on certain things, but ultimately it seems more a function of quietism. In the case of the Boston Bombings, the argument is not that the 'FBI' twiddled their mustaches and cackled maniacally as the brothers did their work, but rather that the FBI was far more involved the events leading up to the blast than is let on. This could just mean they had an infiltrator in their group that incited or incentivised the plot in an effort to give them fake explosives and catch them red handed as is the FBI's common tactic. All I will say is that it has happened before in 1993, where a 'failed' FBI infiltration led to a bombing. While I am not in a position to definitively argue for the entire theory, I will say that for the time being the evidence which has not been overly covered has left a bad taste in my mouth, and because of that I keep an eye out for more suspicious things that will add to my argument. As more documents come out with the freedom of information act then perhaps a better view of the event will come out. One way or the other.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;40392733]I believe that it is easier than you think to spin an agenda in a certain way. I agree that they aren't perfect and there have been whistleblowers and people who pick up on certain things, but ultimately it seems more a function of quietism. In the case of the Boston Bombings, the argument is not that the 'FBI' twiddled their mustaches and cackled maniacally as the brothers did their work, but rather that the FBI was far more involved the events leading up to the blast than is let on. This could just mean they had an infiltrator in their group that incited or incentivised the plot in an effort to give them fake explosives and catch them red handed as is the FBI's common tactic. All I will say is that it has happened before in 1993, where a 'failed' FBI infiltration led to a bombing. While I am not in a position to definitively argue for the entire theory, I will say that for the time being the evidence which has not been overly covered has left a bad taste in my mouth, and because of that I keep an eye out for more suspicious things that will add to my argument. As more documents come out with the freedom of information act then perhaps a better view of the event will come out. One way or the other.[/QUOTE] I see your point, because that is a modus operandi of the FBI, but there's no evidence of that. There's no evidence there was a group to enter into. And even if the FBI gave them the intel or resources, there's nothing to say that they intended for anything to happen. The FBI has never given real explosives in a sting. If by the 1993 thing you're referring to the WTC bombing then you're mistaken, because the FBI was not involved in that except for establishing connections to informants loosely connected to the attacking group, and provided no resources, planning, or intel to the group.