Forgotten Resources

Today we will be focusing on the Boston Bombing. This post is an extension of my previous post on Sandy Hook; in similar fashion, I wanted to give some resources questioning the official & mainstream narratives on the Boston event which happened only 4 months after. These types of resources are even more important now since YouTube is removing, en masse, videos which cover these sorts of topics and others like them. Here are two videos which I think do a great job of showing, at the very least, how much of the eye-witness testimonies do not match up to what we see documented with video and photographic evidence in which they are found.

(Sorry, but Steemit won't embed the videos to watch in this post)

#1 Dave McGowan on Caravan to Midnight Episode 269

https://www.bitchute.com/video/vnkButpq2Wza

It takes a little while for the conversation to get going.

#2 Peekay & David Weiss on Caravan to Midnight Episode 232

https://153news.net/watch_video.php?v=RN8B8AK6O29R

Here is an alternate source on YouTube, but not as good quality as the above link:

This video gets a little scattered and jarring with the loud voices at times, but worth the watch. Unfortunately Peekay who had many many videos following up on more suspicious stories and activities of the survivors had his channel taken out by YouTube a while back.

#3 Optimal Health Revival Blog Post on Bombing

http://coconutrevival.com/?p=5834

Many pictures and videos making good points and observations.

As always, to provide the counter-balance, we have Metabunk combating many of the claims and observations from the above links/videos. They do make some good points here and there, but there are still fundamental issues that they boldly 'claim' they've debunked; I wasn't convinced. Did people die? Was it all staged? Those are the big questions. I don't have all the answers, but I can say with confidence that there's definitely some 'fuckery' going on with the official story of the mainstream media and the witnesses, such as:

1. Why is Carlos Arredondo, who is said to be an American Red Cross volunteer, walking around for several minutes holding an American flag, playing with what appears to be an ID tag or a cell phone (hard to tell), talking with random people, then finally taking several pictures of a man with both of his legs blown off [Jeff Bauman], whom he finally decided to scoot off in a wheelchair? Why in fucking hell would you take the time to stand there (as an American Red Cross volunteer no less) and photograph a guy who's legs have been blown off???? His excuse: "I thought it was important to document the event." [paraphrased] This was complete nonsensical, negligent and unacceptable behavior for a "hero," yet no one seemed to care. How is this man so revered if this was a real event and Jeff Bauman's real legs were blown off? Not to mention that there were several people who revealed themselves as EMT's and medical professionals surrounding Bauman and doing absolutely NOTHING about him, all while Carlos is off playing with his flag, ID's and camera. Bauman would obviously be the most badly injured person, yet they completely ignore him and let some random guy with a cowboy hat and an American flag take off with him in a wheelchair? Let's not even discuss how Bauman even survived for that long without bleeding out, not leaving any blood trails on the wheelchair's path.

2. Why did the bomb not affect the clothing in anyone's genitalia region, or women's chests? I guess it was programmed to be a PG-13 bomb in relationship to sexual nudity. Metabunk shows that sometimes clothing can be blow off with pressure from explosions without injury to the body, but in those cases all I saw was the entire shirt gone, or the entire layer of a jacket gone; not some shredded pants or straight-lined cuts up the pant leg that never goes above the upper thigh into the underwear regions. Apparently only males had their shirts taken off, no females; how kind of the bomb to keep the women's modesty.

3. Strange how there were two specific benches that were completely intact after the explosions and during a lot of the mayhem, only to be toppled over and destroyed for the final 'aftermath' photos. These benches were within an enclosure in which no victims were near––i.e. no reason for people to go near and clear them out during the event. There was some blood nearby one of the benches, but only the one that was knocked over, not the bench which was completely destroyed and looked like someone took an axe to it. Makes sense right?

4. Some people claimed to attend to victims who were spraying blood and bleeding all over the place, yet had no blood on their shirts at all. The most notable example being the doctor (Allen Panter) in his yellow shirt, in which blood would have been easily noticeable from any of the photos, yet there is none. His wife also claimed he was covered in blood when she saw him, yet if he'd already helped and saved all the people before the clear picture of him with a completely spotless shirt, that makes no sense. If this was real, why should we respect people who are grossly exaggerating their heroism in these horrid events and in some cases straight up contradicting the photographic evidence?––this is called lying.

5. Why was the one Tsarnaev brother, who was on the run for several days, posting to Twitter and not being tracked to his location? I remember back in the late 90's playing an online video game (right at the beginning phases of such technology open to the masses) and a person I was conversing with in the chat room was able to tell me where I was without me giving him any information. He was somehow able to check my IP address I suppose, though I never found out how. Granted I'm one of the least tech savvy guys out there, but it's common sense that if some random guy can do that in the late 90's and know where I am located because we are logged in to some obscure video game, how could the Boston police, CIA, FBI, NSA and all the high profile organizations involved not be able to track a device and location of numerous Twitter posts from Dzhokhar Tsarnaev; especially when nowadays your WiFi device of choice knows exactly where you are whenever you post anything on social media. My phone knows where I am before I do; what good is big brother if they can't find some asshole running around Boston posting Jay-Z lyrics on Twitter? If all this internet tracking couldn't find him, then why do we have it at all?

6. For some reason there seems to be a majority of policemen just standing around letting some civilians run into the crime scene, yet kicking out others, noticeably one with a camera phone filming the event. And somehow there were a few policeman who didn't flinch when the bombs went off, as if they either A) expected something to happen, or B) were just the toughest, most badass mofo's alive who weren't scarred of anything; especially not a giant explosion only a few feet away that injured over 200 people and cut off legs and limbs.

7. Why was CISPA passed just days after the Boston Bombing without any protest? SOPA, an internet regulation bill and precursor to CISPA was popularly recognized as a very bad thing that no one wanted; it received mass protest in the public forum and from internet petitions. Yet when essentially the same bill comes about a year later no one cares? Probably because they were too wrapped up in following the Boston Bombing event––how convenient.

Just a personal note, I also remember Yahoo Mail and Hotmail completely changing their interface just months after CISPA, the same interfaces that had existed for over 10 years (yes I had my accounts that long). Another noticeable byproduct of CISPA passing was just how often key words I searched for in Google popping up everyone in online ads, hinting that tracking and data collection was being taken to another level. Fast forward 5 years to today and none of this online tracking and data collection has done anything to protect us from so-called 'terror' events, if one even believes them to be organic and completely real. Obviously some would argue that these events are either staged hoaxes or a false flag attacks occulted by mainstream narratives. I'll let you decide that on your own.

I'm sorry but so much of this doesn't makes any sense despite the Metabunk rebuttals that are so brimming with confidence that they've torn the "conspiracy theorists" a new one on yet another major event. Call me crazy, but there seemed to be some serious 'fuckery' going on in Boston back in 2013, and if anyone is new to looking into that dirty word––conspiracy––the Boston Bombing is treasure trove. As always, I'm not here to debate, just to encourage you to "make up your own damn mind"––as the oracle says.