Boston Bombings Bullshit

April 17th 2013

The bombings at the Boston marathon on Monday were yet another atrocity in a nation that has seen considerable bloodshed in recent months.  2012 was a record year for mass shootings in the US, and just like many of those events the Boston bombings have immediately been subject to scepticism, suspicion and in many cases outright speculation as to who was responsible.

However, the noisiest and most dogmatic voices in the conversation are, for once, not the government and the mainstream media, but instead have been the corporate 'alternative' media, predictably led by Infowars and echoed by their various followers and affiliates.  The same handful of stories and arguments that, so say Infowars and many 'truthers', point conclusively to a US state-sponsored false flag event have been recycled endlessly across the web in a farcical display of near-complete idiocy.

The most oft-recycled story is an interview from the local TV news with one of the runners in the marathon, Alastair Stevenson, talking about seeing bomb-sniffing dogs and being told that they were there because of a drill or training exercise, prior to the explosions.  Infowars picked up on the story and, likening it to 7/7, claimed that this was evidence that the government staged the bombings. 

Where and When?

There are numerous problems with this, not least of which is that you don't put sniffer dogs near bombs that you're trying to keep secret.  The idea that doing this would somehow help possible false flag state agents is absurd.  Needless to say, the story about the sniffer dogs has gone viral without anyone (apart from myself and a handful of colleagues and friends) noticing this rather fundamental flaw in Infowars' reasoning.  So much for the 'alternative' media being any more capable of applying simple critical faculties than the mainstream.

Furthermore, Stevenson said that he saw the dogs and heard the announcement that it was an exercise prior to the race beginning.  Ths not only means it must have been hours before the explosions, it also means that it was many miles away from the bombings, which were near the finish line.  In a followup interview with Anthony Gucciardi, Stevenson reiterated several times how he saw the dogs at the athletes village, near the start of the race, which was (predictably) 26 miles from the finish of the marathon. 

Boston Marathon Route Map

How holding a bomb-sniffer dog exercise 26 miles away from a place you intend to bomb a few hours later helps you mask those bombings and thus create a false flag event is beyond me. 

Was there an exercise?

Furthermore, was this even a training exercise?  Other suspicions have been raised about 'mystery men' on rooftops along the course of the race, and Stevenson himself referred to 'spotters' and how there was a much bigger security presence at the event that he had seen in other marathons.  Was the announcement that the dogs were at the athletes village an excuse, a cover story for the increased security theatre? 

There is an intellectual hypocrisy here that is truly shameful for a 'truth movement' and demonstrates the dogma and prejudice in the minds of many who identify themselves as part of that movement.  As Keelan Balderson of WideShut explained, 'The presence of various types of security at a high profile event like the Boston Marathon is not peculiar in fact many of the alternative news outlets that are insinuating that it's odd to have bomb sniffer dogs and security dotted around, are the same outlets that scream about the police state getting out of control. So which is it? Is the police and security state out of control or is it an anomaly to have them at the Boston Marathon?' 

It is a fair question.  There does seem to have been more security than we usually see at a marathon, though the Olympic games in London last year also saw much more overt, hands-on security than previous Olympics.  The trajectory of increased physical security, of people not being allowed to gather in public without the presence of armed police, is clear.  To cite this as suspicious in a single event is misleading, it is the pattern of increased security over many different kinds of events that should be of most concern to the public.  Of course, that doesn't drive internet traffic and therefore potential subscribers to your website, so the vast majority of the 'alternative' media have ignored this completely. 

Instead, they have conflated the details of what Stevenson has said, drawn spurious and tenuous parallels with previous terrorist attacks, and even outright lied.  For example, IntelliHub claimed that there were 'Military Drills Running at Boston Marathon', when at best there was one drill and it wasn't being run by the military.  Likewise Hang the Bankers turned Stevenson's report of what was going at the athletes village miles away and hours before the bombing into, 'law enforcement telling the crowd, "Its just a drill" immediately after the explosions.'  This isn't journalism, it's just attention-seeking bullshit. 


In particular the comparison with the 7/7 exercise is disingenuous, because there are crucial differences.  On the morning of 7/7, shortly after the real bombings on the tube, a private management consultancy run by Peter Power started running an exercise to see how publishing company Reed Elsevier would respond to such an attack.  According to Power, the only source of information we have about the 7/7 exercise, it was entirely office-based, basically a Powerpoint presentation and a Q and A discussion session. 

While they were running the exercise the news of the real bombings came in and so, in Power's words, 'we had to suddenly switch the exercise from fictional to real'.  Just as with the Boston bombings and other events Infowars and their cronies have cited this as conclusive proof that the government staged the attacks.  They have consistently overlooked the face that neither Peter Power nor his consultancy firm nor the client Reed Elsevier are the government.  How one set of people holding an exercise proves that another bunch of people carried out a real attack (that was similar in type to the exercise scenario) has never been explained.  Likewise, with regards to Boston, exactly how an on-the-ground training exercise 26 miles away from the explosions, going on hours before the explosions, is comparable to 7/7 where a office-based exercise was was similar to the real events going on at almost the same time, is anybody's guess. 

There are some parallels between the two events, but they point more to the drill as a disinformation tactic than as a means of masking a false flag attack.  In both instances we have single source - Peter Power for 7/7 and Ali Stevenson for Boston - with no confirmation from anyone else.  This is particularly strange in Boston because if the announcement that there was an exercise was made via loudspeaker then it should have been heard, and remembered, by thousands of people.  Needless to say, Infowars have not made any attempt to get up to Boston and interview participants to seek such confirmation.  Also, the story came out very quickly and via the mainstream media.  Peter Power voluntarily gave interviews to the BBC and ITV on the afternoon and evening of 7/7, without which no one would have known he was even running an exercise that day.  Similarly, Stevenson told the local news what he had seen and heard and, assuming his account is truthful, the authorities were openly telling lots of people that they were running an exercise.

Why would they do this if they were using the exercise to mask a false flag bombings attack?  For both Peter Power and the Boston bomb squad, telling everyone is only likely to engender suspicion, rather than provide a smokescreen for enabling the attacks.  Such public announcements make much more sense if the exercises in both London and in Boston (whether or not they really took place) were part of a disinformation campaign, to provide a distraction, a false dead-end lead.  If that was the intention then it has worked brilliantly, because just as Peter Power's exercise has dominated the 'alternative' media's discussion about 7/7, Stevenson's account of the Boston 'drill' is dominating the Boston bombings discussion. 

A False Flag?

None of this makes it any less likely (or any more likely) that the Boston bombings were a false flag event.  That remains to be seen, though it is curious that two days later the FBI have yet to name even a single suspect.  Within hours of 9/11 and 7/7 the blame had already been apportioned, so quickly in fact that the story must have been established before the attacks took place.  No such thing has happened with Boston.  There is no official story as yet, except that there were two bombings and several people died and over a hundred were injured.  Governments don't carry out false flags and then sit around for several days deciding who to blame. 

In fact, the people who have been quickest off the mark to subsume this atrocity and exploit it to further their agenda have been Infowars and their collaborators.  In a terribly unsympathetic display of something that does not deserve to be called 'journalism', they have muddied the waters of the unofficial investigation and propagated nonsense without taking the time to consider basic and obvious questions. 

One possibility has occured to me that at this stage should be treated as pure hypothesis.  Three years ago, during the Pittsburgh marathon, someone left a microwave oven near the route for the race.  It was determined to be a 'suspect package' and was initially reported as a bomb.  It was subject to a controlled explosion, whereupon it was found that it was just a microwave. 

This innocent microwave was the victim of hype and paranoia, and gained massive media attention.  Given that the FBI are now saying that the Boston bombs may have been contained within pressure cookers we are left to wonder whether the bombings were carried out by copycats inspired by the events in Pittsburgh.  Alternatively, there have been 6 prior terror attacks at marathons (see START's background report here) that may have served as provocation or inspiration.  Amidst the confusion, the misinformation and no doubt the disinformation one thing is clear: these attacks will be used to enhance and accelerate the trajectory of the security state.  Even Ali Stevenson said in his interview with Anthony Gucciardi, 'I hope that this leads to greater security at marathons'.  Whether a lone nut, copycats, an organic terrorist group (it's always possible) or state agents were to blame, sooner or later the governments and mainstream media will catch up with Infowars in exploiting the horror and terror for their own ends.