Braineack

iTrader: (62)

I dont need justification. Your points dont address MY concerns, and I'm the admin, so **** off.

If you dont believe me, we can wait till I ban you and then you can know for sure what that really means. derp.

Ryan_G

iTrader: (8)

I am unable to address your concerns... I am not part of the investigation. I do not have subpoena power over the FBI. I cannot draw conclusions without a reasonable amount of evidence which has not been presented.

18psi

iTrader: (76)

JasonC SBB

Are there spectator cellphone photos and vids of the perps that are clearer than the first "these are the perps" surveillance photo of them released by the FBI?

cordycord

iTrader: (2)

Very disturbing that the men in black forcibly removed private citizens from their homes with guns drawn.

Very disturbing that two ******** shut down an entire major city. That speaks more to the city than a pothead teenager on the loose. It makes me wonder how many times "We're open for a major law suit." was said at a city meeting, should the terrorists cause more harm because the city didn't shut down services.

It also makes me think of Katrina, where lawful citizens had their guns taken by the cops, and then had the looters steal their possessions.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

addressing concerns:

Okay. Now just some quesitons: Would they have done it if the FBI had no approached them? Who's the say it wasn't the FBI that Islamed them? Were these two part of a sting operation?

I would say a classic sting operation would be the FBI finds out about a crime, and then PREVENTS it; not encourages it.

Yes, they go about it on their own accord. It's not really entrapment, but I believe by using that term you knew exactly what I was talking about.

If the FBI happens to be providing them that day.

Questions: So even during a real live "sting operation" they couldn't stop two real bombing subjects. or every other times it coindientally happens? Does this suggest that bomb training is pointless becuase it's not preventable without a true sting operation or real information about it accuring? How do you know it wasn't an FBI inside job? Did you see the evidence after the trial?


Okay. that's fine.

Questions: Is it then wrong for me to ask questions and suggest different scenarios that might have played out? Is it wrong for me to question the motive of our gov't? Have I jumped to conclusions? How can you believe evidence if it's possible it was staged? what would the ramifications be if it was discovered there was something fishy going on? In an easy conviction case against OJ Simpson, police planted evidence, could they have done that here?


I'm sure it's pretty easy to get away with many a things. But yes, you bring up valid points.

yes they do, and even when they have more facts, they still want to convict Zimmerman.

I could come up with twenty to thirty different ways to maybe explain things. All I've done is question the stories and maybe suggest something bigger going on, be it a cover up or what I dunno. Things aren't adding up to me, I live to question EVERYTHING, so that's what I'm doing. Right now, as presented, there's more to meet the eye, maybe I'm wrong, but it just all seems crazy to me. Is that so wrong?

that's not contridictory, we have no idea what happens behind closed doors and without the beaurocracy at work. I dont trust our gov't.

This is like you saying, because I have no idea where Braineack works, or how much money he has in his bank account, or if he even has a bank account, I therefore conclude he does not make any money.

I have yet to draw one conclusion, I believe that's apparent from post #243. I jsut want to know what happened here. that's all, and when events dont add up I go crazy with crazy thoughts and since my wife wont listen to them, I post them here. Like how can I help but think, this is a great way to excerise the Patriot Act, get citizens used to having the military shut down their cities, force their way into their homes, and pass laws to make Big Brother a reality? Is it far fetched? sure. But really, it makes me wonder.

I'm just glad we are at this point, because from Monday-Thursday, if I heard another report about it potentially being a right-winged neo-**** exteremist...

here's some conspiracy theory for you Ryan: why did all the inital news reports all suggest that's who probably did it, and never once suggested it could have been some sort of al-queda group?

also please remember, take only about 20% of whatever I post online as serious or with any real thought behind it.

Ryan_G

iTrader: (8)

Maybe, maybe not. They had already expressed a desire to do so for the most part. There is that one case where the kid claims to have been put under intense pressure by the agent and this may be true and if so it would have been entrapment. However, many of the others possessed the will without the necessary skills. The FBI in a way acts as a terrorist recruiter and provides them with the tools necessary and maybe a target to carry out what they have already confessed to having the desire to do. They are just getting to them before a real terrorist does.

I highly doubt these two in the Boston bombings were part of a sting. There has been no real evidence to suggest that they were, only conjecture based on what their lives appeared to be after the fact.

Most stings are actually based off of FBI created scenarios used on people who were previously criminals (I.E. current drug dealers) or people who are believed to be capable of committing or planning to commit a violent act

You are right it is not entrapment. I do know what you are talking about but this is a great way to prevent crimes before they happen.

If you are referring to the bomb training as a sting operation, that would be incorrect. If you were talking about the video you linked earlier I have not watched it yet.

The bombs used in the Boston Bombings used either black or smokeless powder which bomb dogs are often not trained to smell. It is also not a plausible explanation to say that because a tactic failed once that it is never useful. Successful discoveries never receive coverage or not very much because nothing interesting happened.

This could have been an FBI inside job but I HIGHLY doubt it. I not claimed to KNOW anything.

I don't care if people ask questions. I am a little jaded and tired of all of the people who assert ridiculous conspiracy theories with no real evidence. You did not jump to any conclusions I just felt you were feeding a ridiculous fire. This is more of my own perception than reality.

Anything can be staged but you cannot discount evidence because it might be staged unless you have actual evidence that it may have been staged. As I said before, a lack of evidence is not actually evidence.

Political. I could totally see the prosecution railroading a bit on this case to because of its nature. That is far different then a full blown cover up.

No it is not. You just seem to be only suggesting large cover up explanations while completely overstepping much tamer ones.

That analogy has nothing to do with what I said.

As long as you admit it is far fetched then sure, it makes you wonder. Have I considered it? Sure. I would never pass it along though because most people spread that **** like its truth and not conjecture.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

there's officially too many words in this thread.

new info: When I walk around the office I always whistle Oh! Susanna.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Not enough resources to convict R. Kelly, Robert Blake, Lorena Bobbitt, Casey Anthony, Amanda Knox*, Andrea Yates or OJ Simpson apparently. Or is it your assertion that they were all framed as well?

* = Foxy Knoxy was acquitted by an Italian court, but that still counts as "the government."



That's the part that I find hilarious about mass-coverup claims. On the one hand, we love to point out how the Fed is basically incapable of doing anything perfectly, and on the other hand, we then assert that they are somehow capable of not merely orchestrating the perfect crime, but also of getting a thousand people to all keep it a secret for the rest of their lives?

Yeah...

Ryan_G

iTrader: (8)

I am not claiming anyone was framed or that they were not. Trials are a game. That is a fact. The govt. has a lot of money and a lot of people at its disposal. That makes it a lot easier to win a case whether you are right or not and you do not even need to frame someone to do it.

My current professor in the FBI who also has his law degree openly admits that trials are a game and involve theatrics. He never says if this is a good or bad thing. It is just the way it is. You have 12 jurors who need no qualifications making decisions about life and death. They are just normal people. Normal people are easily swayed by pretty graphs, experts who could tell them anything because the jurors would not know any better, and a smooth talking lawyer.

My favorite saying he has about jurors is, "Jurors are on average, below average. All of the above average citizens are able to get out of jury duty because they have more important places to be. That leaves you with average and below average people, which by definition makes them on average, below average."

In the end it comes down to whoever can come up with a more convincing narrative of the events based on the evidence and what the jurors are predisposed to believing.

shuiend

iTrader: (24)

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Well, I guess my only question would be what you propose as an alternative?

I guess we could do military tribunals; they are typically run entirely by people who are well-educated and not easily swayed by theatrics.

Ryan_G

iTrader: (8)

I never suggested we need an alternative or that there is a better alternative. I am just explaining the nature of the situation.

No system will ever be perfect. The system we have in place was designed that way for a reason and I think it does a pretty good job for the most part.

thenuge26

iTrader: (2)

I like the quote from Let's Go To Prison.

"Juries are made up of 12 people so dumb they couldn't even come up with an excuse to get out of Jury duty."

Tekel

iTrader: (2)

I simply LOVE how every major event that has happened on US Soil in the last 50 years is a Gov. conspiracy.

OKC: Was Gov., Look at angle of camera pointing from Gas station! Was a setup to peg it on the white man!
WTC 1993: Failed Gov attempt to bring down the building
WTC 9/11: Planned demolition to invade iraq! (Government)
Pentagon 9/11: Missile! (Government)
Aurora: Was special trained military operative and current suspect is just a patsy setup and left to take the fall. Setup for Gun Control
Sandy Hook: They took the kid in and 2 total operatives did the murdering (or did anyone even die?!?!?!?!?) and then planted evidence to make it look like kid did it all. Death blow for Gun Control
Boston: Government for yet undetermined reason. (Pat on back and rationalization for Patriot Act and budget)

So, either our Government is so awesome at protecting us that we are immune to terrorist attacks and mass shootings on our soil, or our Government is so powerful that it can pull off these massive feats of cover ups, scams, and atrocities all the while still arguing over what kind of toilet paper to keep stocked in the bathrooms.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

what they all have in common is islamic terrorists actually. so obviously a white neo-**** did it.

JasonC SBB

Ryan,

Have you read this?:
Rolling Stone: How FBI Entrapment Is Inventing 'Terrorists' - and Letting Bad Guys Off the Hook

The bastards "create" their own terror plots, then "bust" them, in order to justify the budget and existence of their anti-terrorism unit.

What if the bombing were an FBI entrapment operation gone awry?
What if the dipshits broke off contact from the informant that egged them on initially, and went ahead and did it?

Maybe someone had an inkling something might go down so they had bomb-sniffing dogs out, but so as not to worry the public, were told to say "it's an exercise".

If the above were true, the FBI would look really, really bad, and it would be in the FBi individuals' interest to cover it all up. Cover-ups can and do happen, and sometimes someone talks only years later.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Dont worry, the FBI, in an effort of honesty and transparency, would present this evidence in court and we would eventually know if this happened or not after the trial.

Seefo

iTrader: (5)

This by far the most realistic theory of the "conspiracies", I think.