2 votes

To All Who Believe there Were No Injuries in Boston:

First of all, let me make it clear: I know I am considered a "conspiracy theorist." You can take a look at my post history to verify that. The way I see it, the Boston Bombings were orchestrated by TPTB and carried out by military intelligence in coordination with police, and the whole thing from the marathon to the arrest of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev WAS a drill.

However, seeing all the comments from people on the DP about how "no one was injured" and "the injuries were all faked" prompted me to create this thread.

I live 45 minutes North of Boston and my family knows people who were injured at the marathon. The daughter of my Aunt's boss had shrapnel from one of the explosions lodged into her and had to go to the hospital; my mother also knows a man from her gym whose son lost appendages and required amputation. Obama actually visited him and the other people who lost appendages in the Hospital personally.

So please stop spreading that kind of false information. It reminds me of the childish "no one died on 9/11" crowd.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Here's an NBC news piece

Here's an NBC news piece interviewing and updating us on 6 of the victims of the Boston Marathon bombing. It is 6 women who all had to have amputations. Interestingly the black woman that Jeff Bauman was basically on top of after the blast is one of them. It's been questioned why was she helped first since she wasn't hurt as bad, well she had one leg and part of the other amputated as well.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/21134540/vp=52064547&#52064547

This is getting old

This is getting old guys...

Why continue to argue over small plants instead of concentrating on the forest? Did you see what happened to the citizens of Boston, getting their houses raided by men in black uniforms?

Argue over details, or focus on the big picture?

There's a huge forest ahead of us, but here we are chopping away at small plants and digging up dirt to prove the obvious....what we're being told isn't the truth.

Duh!

I think we're all quite used to that by now. We know it's a lie, the government has already proven beyond a doubt (writing on the boat wall) that we're being fed an official script that reads like a bad Noam Chomsky speech advocating for world government or something crazy like that.

Never be afraid to ask simple questions.

FYI Recent change in screen names:

FYI Recent change in screen names:

Straight Sativa = Veritas Aequitas (original poster)
SecretGubmintAgent = I like peanut butter

9-11 Media Fakery: Did anyone die on 9-11?
http://www.cluesforum.info/

http://www.septemberclues.info/

9-11 Actors:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aPvJSQtmoE

Pysops.. media.. actors.. propagandists... disinfo agents.. fake videos.. fake photos

Must be the work of

Must be the work of cointelpro. You know, because only shills and agent provocateurs change their name on forums. /facepalm

Yet another logical fallacy.

This one a syllogism. When did I say ONLY shills and agent provocateurs change their name?

I noted that both you and SecretGubmintAgent changed your names soon after I collected ad hominem responses and attributed them to the proper authors. Those attributions were based on your OLD names. Everyone can interpret this info however they want.

9-11 Media Fakery: Did anyone die on 9-11?
http://www.cluesforum.info/

http://www.septemberclues.info/

9-11 Actors:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aPvJSQtmoE

Pysops.. media.. actors.. propagandists... disinfo agents.. fake videos.. fake photos

uh ok

and now SecretGubmintAgent is the boneless chicken rancher, yes, I.

I've changed my screen name about 6 times, for no apparent reason, and not having anything to do with you or your stupid post.

As far as ad hominems go, let's be honest and just say that this is not the place to be complaining about that. After all, if you disagree with anyone, you don't get a substantive response. Instead you get called a government agent, or called "stupid" or "not awake" or a "shill" and so on. It doesn't even matter if the person you're discussing the matter with is an obvious fool with no experience or background or knowledge on the subject. The conspiratard majority (note I did not say libertarian majority) here usually overwhelm any rational thought. So, back to your accepted ad hominem attack on everyone who doesn't agree with your idiotic garbage.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

I believe you, BUT

( there's always a but ) what you presented as evidence of proofs, is in fact unsubstantiated hearsay " my Aunt, a friend "........ Now I know you've no reason to doubt the veracity of what they told you, but as far a legal, and definite proofs go, you'rs don't meet the criteria. So it works for you, and well it should, but don't expect that others will just gladly accept these proofs.
I'm not trying to be rude, just realistic; I appologise if I seem otherwise.
I'm in the camp of " I'm not convinced in either direction yet ", meaning I'm still sifting through the debris.

God Bless
Stēkō

Drew, by the very grace of GOD through the blood of Christ Jesus.
"there shall come after us men whom shall garner great wealth using our system, and having done so shall seek to slam the door of prosperity behind them." George Washington

Completely understand where

Completely understand where you are coming from.

I am not totally convinced of the official story of Jeff Bauman myself, however, the people denying there were any injuries are making a huge leap in the wrong direction. Frankly, those individuals are more apt to be part of some cointelpro operation IMO.

For obvious identity protection reasons, I will not explicitly name individuals that I mentioned in the OP.

'Obvious' identity protection reasons...

Oh sure.

It would have been easier to just pick two random names out of this PUBLIC list:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/specials/bost...

'Obvious' identity protection reasons... sure. What a coincidence to have a board member here with links to 2 of the roughly 50 supposed Boston bombing injuries.

Psyops.. military intelligence.. cointel pro... ACTORS. Hello y'all.. hope you are having a good day today.

9-11 Media Fakery: Did anyone die on 9-11?
http://www.cluesforum.info/

http://www.septemberclues.info/

9-11 Actors:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aPvJSQtmoE

Pysops.. media.. actors.. propagandists... disinfo agents.. fake videos.. fake photos

Your numbers are wrong,

and that list is not complete. There were 200+ alleged injuries. That is beside the point though.

How would you like if I posted your name, phone number, address and all personal information about yourself to the internet? What you're insinuating is that I do so to others - others who have gone through irreversible trauma, apparently unimaginable to you.

Mark Dice's take on "actors" theory

Sorry but after watching this I had to post it

http://youtu.be/-HmchThQlg8

Mark Dice really lowered himself with this video

Dice is usually clever and funny. His behavior in that video was just childish.

Also, I'll take Dr. Stan Monteith's thoughts regarding Jeff Bauman over Mark Dice's silly cartoon voice nonsense.

http://fauxcapitalist.com/2013/05/10/dr-stan-monteith-a-35-y...

It makes no sense that one could have a good grasp of the JFK assassination, the USS Liberty, the gulf of Tonkin, OKC bombing, 911, the war on terror, the war on drugs, the war on poverty, Iran/Contra (I'm sure I've left at least a few out) and then take the stance that it is unthinkable that the government might hire amputees and other actors to make a false flag op look more gruesome and that anyone who would even consider such a thing must be a total cad of an a-hole. Because we all know the government only has our best interest in mind and would never, ever do anything to further its agendas at our expense and the expense of our rights.

It would be interesting to see Jan Helfeld get a hold of Mark Dice, Jon the mod, Trevor Lyman and even Michael, and watch him do his Socratic questioning on them regarding this.

Resist the temptation to feed the trolls.

This is a great example of continuous Ad Hominem arguments..

It seems the ACTOR theory may hit too close to home for some, for what more are cointelpro and undercover operatives than ACTORS?

9-11 Media Fakery: Did anyone die on 9-11?
http://www.cluesforum.info/

http://www.septemberclues.info/

9-11 Actors:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aPvJSQtmoE

Pysops.. media.. actors.. propagandists... disinfo agents.. fake videos.. fake photos

Bingo!

"It seems the ACTOR theory may hit too close to home for some, for what more are cointelpro and undercover operatives than ACTORS?"

And for some reason, they're pulling out all the stops on this one.

Resist the temptation to feed the trolls.

oh man

you got me! the ear doesn't lie!*

*sarcasm

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

gov.shills are working 24/7 damage control

... showing us we are directly over target. This one event could bring the whole house of cards down.

hmmm

Did you forget to use the sarcasm tag?

Eric Hoffer

It does seem that way

And the Jeff Bauman thing in particular seems to have them in a tizzy. Looks like it was so glaringly unrealistic like, that even those who normally wouldn't think to question what they've been told have taken notice of it. And that part where they stop to do what looks like reattach the leg bone to him. I mean WTF?

Resist the temptation to feed the trolls.

just woke up my friend Eric

... his brother and I walked him through the faked double-amputee non-injuries ...

quote: "if that was faked .... well crap ... what else was faked?"

9/11 couldn't wake him up ... but the strange case of Jeff Bauman was easy for him to see. Easy, if you simply examine all evidence as Sherlock Holmes would do ....

Good to hear..

Yeah. I think the Sandy Hook incident started opening people up to the idea about actors and fakery too because that was so sloppily done. Anyways good to hear about your friend.

9-11 Media Fakery: Did anyone die on 9-11?
http://www.cluesforum.info/

http://www.septemberclues.info/

9-11 Actors:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aPvJSQtmoE

Pysops.. media.. actors.. propagandists... disinfo agents.. fake videos.. fake photos

Good for you.

It seems that different things seem to "flip the switch" for different people. Of course some people's switches are corroded in the "off" position. For them there's not much you can do.

Resist the temptation to feed the trolls.

wolfe's picture

"Beware of the Ad Hominem Defense"

To jd925 (see other people can post over you as well) -

An Ad Hom attack is when you attack someone -instead- of proving their argument false.

However, it is NOT an Ad Hom attack, to logically and factually prove your argument false and then call you out as an idiot for being so foolish as to hold your position.

We all rightfully point out that you are idiots, after we have proven you and your arguments to undeniably be idiotic.

That's not an Ad Hom attack... idiot.

Someone using an "Ad Hom Defense" would do so because they are unable to address the arguments which we have stated that lead us to believe you are in fact idiots.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.thephilosophyofliberty.com/

Beware of the Ad Hominem Argument

Per wiki: An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument. Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as an informal fallacy, more precisely an irrelevance.

Ad hominem arguments are one of the main tools of cointel (as well as the straw man argument). It's probably part of cointel 101 training. It's good to always look for personal attacks that appeal to emotion in any thread. Here is a list of ad hominem responses (and straw man arguments) just on this thread. I'm just quoting examples from this particular thread:

Straight Sativa (orignal poster):
"So please stop spreading that kind of false information. It reminds me of the childish "no one died on 9/11" crowd."

RonPaulWins:
"Kooks: “THERE WAS NO INJURIES! IT WAS FAKE! FALSE FLAG! ACTORS! DRILLS!”
I blame their retardation on the public school system in the United States.
It is completely made up, totally fabricated nonsense."

thelastbill :
"I think I saw nibiru in the replays...."

SecretGubmintAgent:
"Second, the actors / fake blood/ space alien theory is complete absurdity, in all of its different forms. There is no need to talk about it except to point out how stupid it is. In fact, it is so absurd that if it didn't have its brain-addled fans here posting about it, no one would think to discuss it, because it is absurd."

"Go way, they're baitin'. I find it really hard to believe that all of these people believe this crazy crisis actor bullshizzle. Are people really that stupid?"

"Maybe you just enjoy believing in the absurd."

silentboom:
"I don't even believe that the race happened. I think the crowd was a hologram projected from an alien spacecraft from the future.....and while I'm at it Rand Paul is just an alien shapeshifting reptileman inserted into the Paul family to fool us all."

Delysid:
"The buildings are hollow. The Soviets and Chinese made fake cities therefore my reasoning is sound. I looked at GPS and "satellite" images of Boston and it is clearly FAKE!
Nothing is off the table! No queations and no ideas are too stupid to talk about! Jon is a fascist for censoring us!!!!"
"They are paid to play hockey and lie about Boston being a real city! Duh! The DHS hires actors! It says so right on their web site! Also, hockey is fake! Pro wrestling is fake, that means hockey is, too! Everything is fake! The government lies!"
"Sadly I know for a fact that A LOT of people believe the lunacy
I added hundreds and hundreds of Ron Paul supporters on Facebook. A lot of them are intelligent and sophisticated, but Oh.My.God are there some Whackjobs. I have been systemically deleting them, yet there is always more. They are like clones of each other. They link to the same articles and conspiray sites. RELENTLESSLY. They blast their Facebook pages with as much shit as they can find(and it is all the same stuff). They feed on their numbers. It's a big subculture. And it is ACTIVE. They won't debate. They will just keep blasting you with links to alternative conspiracy sites and Youtube videos. The same ones. It seems as if there are a handful of people producing the paranoid garbage and thousands of people spreading it everywhere. They have attached themselves to Ron Paul."

godsfavson:
"I've just read that Lady Gaga is illuminati somewhere. Should make a new thread about this critical new information."
"Have you seen a movie called 'Idiocracy'? We are living it."

No.7 :
"Don't tell me you're one of those "nobody died during any terrorist attack"/"9/11 was filmed in the same studio where the filmed the moon landing" crap. Nevermind that two major towers disappeared, it's gotta be fake right????"

SuburbiaStopPushing:
They're like the "No Planes on 9/11" crowd. You can give them first-hand testimonials and all the home video footage they want, and they'll still keepblabbering away.

Just added:

wolfe:
If it can be found on Rense, it's retarded.
However, it is NOT an Ad Hom attack, to logically and factually prove your argument false and then call you out as an idiot for being so foolish as to hold your position.
We all rightfully point out that you are idiots, after we have proven you and your arguments to undeniably be idiotic.
That's not an Ad Hom attack... idiot.
Someone using an "Ad Hom Defense" would do so because they are unable to address the arguments which we have stated that lead us to believe you are in fact idiots..

-------------------------------------------------------

Beware of the ad hominem arguments... have a good day to all. Even to y'all in military intelligence...

9-11 Media Fakery: Did anyone die on 9-11?
http://www.cluesforum.info/

http://www.septemberclues.info/

9-11 Actors:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aPvJSQtmoE

Pysops.. media.. actors.. propagandists... disinfo agents.. fake videos.. fake photos

Right, referring to a group

Right, referring to a group who thinks no one died in 9/11 as 'childish' is 'ad hominem'...Then I'm the reincarnation of Charlemagne. You can't prove I'm not!! And pointing out the obvious is 'ad hominem' so you better not do that!

Do see your logical fallacy now?

Using the word 'obvious' is YET another ad hominem response..

But it doesn't surprise me. Using the world 'Obvious' is just another logical fallacy. It's like me saying you are obviously cointel pro and part of the psyop just like the ACTORS in the Boston Bombing. I may absolutely believe this and may not have a doubt in my mind, but even I don't say it's OBVIOUS.

9-11 Media Fakery: Did anyone die on 9-11?
http://www.cluesforum.info/

http://www.septemberclues.info/

9-11 Actors:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aPvJSQtmoE

Pysops.. media.. actors.. propagandists... disinfo agents.. fake videos.. fake photos

Uhhh

Using the word obvious isn't an ad hominem, unless you're for some reason taking it as a personal attack.

In a prior post, you said, "Ad hominem arguments are one of the main tools of cointel (as well as the straw man argument)."

This is akin to saying, "Drinking water is one of the main requirements of the violent psychopath."

Straw man arguments and ad hominem arguments are the main tools of a much larger body of people than cointel pro agents, namely 98% of people posting on forums on the internet. Do you see how your argument makes no logistical sense and is an implied ad hominem in and of itself?

Just like saying it's obvious that 2 + 2 equals four, when you make the point that it's obvious, you're saying that most average people would find it obvious. Don't take and claim the argument is something it's not just because you're feeling defensive. Not everything is a personal attack, and ad hominems don't encompass all personal attacks, they're really only applicable insofar as they're being used to toss out an argument. For instance:

Ad hominem - jd925 is an idiot, therefore you shouldn't believe what he says.
Not ad hominem - jd925 is wrong about ad hominems, as he has failed to take into account how their usage qualifies them as a fallacy, not a part of speech. jd925 is an idiot for trying to classify every sentence that attacks him as an ad hominem.

Do you see the difference? In one I'm trying to get your argument tossed on the basis of your idiocy. This is an ad hominem. You'll note it on the wikipedia page you've posted. "Ad hominem is an attack on the person, not the person's arguments,[7] though mere verbal abuse in the absence of an argument, however, is not ad hominem nor any kind of logical fallacy."

Eric Hoffer

I consider 'Obvious' an ad hominem because:

It's implied that the person on the other side of the debate can't understand or recognize the 'obvious'. That is a attack on a person's critical thinking abilities. There may be a more specific term for this kind of logical fallacy, but I place it in the ad hominem category.

Sure regular posters use ad hominem & straw man arguments too, but they're the predominant arguments of cointel pro and military intelligence. I like how you used the word 'idiot' to describe me in explaining your arguments. Clever.

Glad to see you following this thread EricHoffer. Weren't you on the BP HOAX thread? Didn't you take the time to make a video about that? I was trying to explain this whole ACTOR and HOAX theory back then. Yes ACTORS.. on TV or videos or Youtube videos. What's the latest? Oil still sinking in water? The gulf still a global disaster or people eating good ol' Gulf crawfish these days?

Good morning to y'all in military intelligence. It might make you feel good to get some air and plant something in the ground to grow sometime. Clean air and sunshine is good for the body and spirit. I'm trying to learn to grow food myself. Maybe you guys should try it sometime. Cheers.

9-11 Media Fakery: Did anyone die on 9-11?
http://www.cluesforum.info/

http://www.septemberclues.info/

9-11 Actors:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aPvJSQtmoE

Pysops.. media.. actors.. propagandists... disinfo agents.. fake videos.. fake photos

Eh

It's implied that the person on the other side of the debate can't understand or recognize the 'obvious'. That is a attack on a person's critical thinking abilities. There may be a more specific term for this kind of logical fallacy, but I place it in the ad hominem category.

This is like saying, "I don't like it, therefore it's a fallacy." Attacking the arguer, insulting the person, etc may be rude, but that doesn't make it a fallacy of any sort UNLESS it's a criteria being used to dismiss the point being made. "You're a conspiracy nut, therefore you'll believe anything" is a fallacy when used to dismiss things like 9/11, Pentagon no plane, etc. It can be uttered without being a fallacy, but you need to back it up with actual reasoning.

Sure regular posters use ad hominem & straw man arguments too, but they're the predominant arguments of cointel pro and military intelligence. I like how you used the word 'idiot' to describe me in explaining your arguments. Clever.

How do you know this? Are you a member? You've been trained in house by them? No, you just want to assume that because it would make sense to you. This makes me think you haven't been on the internet long, or ever played an online game, or had many online arguments. Humorously, even if the people in question ARE cointel-pro, by trying to argue that therefore their arguments are bunk, you're engaging in an ACTUAL ad-hominem argument, not to mention guilt by association. Calling you an idiot is blatant and unsubtle, but the fun part is it's still not an ad hominem attack. You can be a complete idiot, but still make valid and logical points. That's the fun part of logic, it is completely freed from the person who is making the arguments. You, however, are getting the fallacies obviously wrong, and that's why you're getting busted on.

Glad to see you following this thread EricHoffer. Weren't you on the BP HOAX thread? Didn't you take the time to make a video about that? I was trying to explain this whole ACTOR and HOAX theory back then. Yes ACTORS.. on TV or videos or Youtube videos. What's the latest? Oil still sinking in water? The gulf still a global disaster or people eating good ol' Gulf crawfish these days?

Oh look, subtle accusation that I'm a cointel pro guy! Awesome. Yes I entered into the BP Oil thread. The argument was that no spill happened, and I was disputing it as they were actually testing water from the spill in the laboratory complex I'm in. When the guy an office or two over has definitive proof of oil and oil testing being done, it's kinda hard for me to let it lie that the "spill never happened" as was being argued. Unfortunately for your argument, yes they're still having problems, and it looks like the Corexit used in conjunction with the oil are causing more problems. http://www.takepart.com/article/2013/04/24/corexit-bp-deepwa... as an example.

Good morning to y'all in military intelligence. It might make you feel good to get some air and plant something in the ground to grow sometime. Clean air and sunshine is good for the body and spirit. I'm trying to learn to grow food myself. Maybe you guys should try it sometime. Cheers.

If this is somehow supposed to be directed at me, I'm more into bonsai than anything else. I DO have some nice fresh basil growing, but that's the extent in my apartment. Not a whole ton of space for food, though I'd love to have some nice property someday with some acreage for food.

Bottom line: Trying to claim that all the people insulting you are using ad hominem attacks is a fail. Even trying to claim that people who majorly use ad hominem and straw men attacks is a fail. Especially using a guilt by association fallacy combined with an ad hominem (your argument being: "users of ad hominems are cointel pro agents, therefore we can disregard their arguments," a true ad hominem fallacy) is a fail.

Stop failing.

Eric Hoffer

The use of the word 'obvious' by Veritas Aequitas IS a fallacy

I repeat the use of the word 'obvious' in the following statement IS a fallacy:
"Right, referring to a group who thinks no one died in 9/11 as 'childish' is 'ad hominem'...Then I'm the reincarnation of Charlemagne. You can't prove I'm not!! And pointing out the obvious is 'ad hominem' so you better not do that!"
-Veritas Aequitas

The debate is whether Veritas Aequitas's response to the theory that 'No one died on 9-11' is a logical fallacy. I say YES it is a fallacy.

I'm not making any arguments that you, EricHoffer or Veritas Aequitas are cointel pro even if I might ABSOLUTELY believe it. I'm not even arguing for or against the theory that no one died in the 9-11 WTC attacks, even though I might ABSOLUTELY believe that theory. I'm just making a statement that Veritas Aequitas made a logical fallacy by using the word 'obvious' in the above statement. I further categorize his argument as an ad hominem argument for the reasons I stated.

BTW It's interesting how the conversation diverts to all these topics like 9-11 media fakery theories and logical fallacy interpretations when Veritas Aequitas (formerly Straight Sativa) originally boldly proclaimed with a bold attention grabbing title "To All Who Believe there Were No Injuries in Boston" that he had not one, but TWO links to people who had injuries and went on to describe some graphic details. Even with the lack of interest or belief of his statement by members on the DP I would think Veritas Aequitas/Straight Sativa would defend his bold and BOLDED proclamations about knowing the injured rather than responding to these various other side issues. Is that how someone is supposed to respond when a tragedy supposedly hits so close to home? I think not.

9-11 Media Fakery: Did anyone die on 9-11?
http://www.cluesforum.info/

http://www.septemberclues.info/

9-11 Actors:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aPvJSQtmoE

Pysops.. media.. actors.. propagandists... disinfo agents.. fake videos.. fake photos

Uhh...

How are you failing to read what he wrote correctly? He is saying that when he points out the obvious, you're calling it an ad hominem. How is using the word obvious is the quoted usage an ad hominem?

I'm just making a statement that Veritas Aequitas made a logical fallacy by using the word 'obvious' in the above statement.

I'm REALLY interested in how or what fallacy, because it's certainly not an attack on your personal credibility as a method of refuting your point. He's saying that you're calling everything an ad hominem, whether it is or not, or at the very least overusing the term to the point of supposedly occurring every time you're personally attacked or put down.

The reasons you've stated are clearly outlined in the wikipedia article you quoted as not applying, so I'm having a tough time figuring out why you keep trying to hold them as valid.

As a side question, have you really argued that no one died in the 9/11 WTC attacks? Seriously? Oh God I just realized that you have, looking at your signature. I'm just going to exit stage left at this point. Please stop trying to redefine everything encompassing verbal abuse as an ad hominem. You aren't allowed to redefine logical fallacies to suit your whim.

Eric Hoffer