Updated: 12:25 AM (PDT)
May 26, 2013
Time in Seattle, WA, USA
Watch the video from 1:28 to 1:59. The full video is below.
They announced that there would be a controlled explosion; but if that's not been reported correctly, pay attention to the next part where the backpacks on the two alleged terrorist brothers (the Tsarnaev brothers) don't have the white square on them that's on the bombed backpack. They also aren't the same color as the bombed (blown-up) backpack.
However, the backpack on the apparent Craft International mercenary contractor (which backpack he reportedly didn't have on after the explosion) does have that symbol and is the same color!
(UPDATE: According to this site's blog post, "The Boston Bombings - From Russia with 'Love'?," the Craft International mercenary contractors were actually from what that article calls the "Civil Support Team or CST." However, that blog post doesn't address the backpack, which backpack is the most important unaddressed issue. If someone (I don't care if that someone comes from Craft or the CST) will point to some thorough, intelligent investigation about it, whether it refutes or supports the RT theory, I, for one, would appreciate it.)
(UPDATE: According to "CONFIRMED: Identity of the Men In Black and Khaki Uniforms at the Boston Marathon Bombings," Daily Paul Liberty Forum, this Washington Times Communities post, "Confusion for Boston Marathon reponsders," proves that the "Craft" people were really from the "Massachusetts National Guard 1st CST.")
The part I don't yet understand is the image at 1:42 where the mercenaries are shown where the bomb went off but also across the way and both still appear to have backpacks once across the way, one similar to the one that blew up. The moderator/reporter, Daniel Bushell, said, "After the explosion, the Craft backpack is missing."
We must have more details on the sequence of events explaining/showing which backpack is missing and exactly when it started going missing in the various videos/stills of the event (which Craft mercenary had one and then didn't) because it isn't clear in the video.
Look at the following image from the RT video. It seems obvious. I can't imagine that RT could possibly have the images wrong.
At the very least, those brothers did not do the bombing the way the government is claiming they did if the images are to be believed and if the brothers did not go to extremely elaborate plans to make it appear that Craft International personnel had done it (framing Craft). How likely is it that they would have planned to frame Craft, to know that Craft personnel would be there, etc., with that exact type of backpack...? Anyone that detailed would have realized all about the surveillance capabilities of the federal and other governments and that they would be spotted and identified throughout. They would know that they were being watched during the entire lead-up period as well. Afterall, look where they had traveled. Look at the places on the Internet they are claimed to have visited, etc. Look at the fact that the FBI had made clear that the FBI was watching them.
Has the mainstream media confronted the government concerning this? If so, what was the government's response? If the government didn't give a complete and satisfactory explanation (how could it if it maintained that one of the brothers placed the backpackÂ shown in the RT video image?), what did the mainstream media do? Did it rollover and play dead, or did it press the government via front-page headlines until getting to the bottom of it and forcing the cleanup of government, as it should? We know that so far it hasn't done the right thing, hasn't done any real investigative, brave reporting on this.
Here's the full video:
Unlike with the 9/11 Commission, there needs to be an independent, thorough,Â no-holds-barred investigation. The people in the government (federal, state, and local) behind this need to be removed from office from top to bottom! Everyone who had knowledge before, during, or after who has been covering it up needs to be fully prosecuted. I leave the decision on punishment to others.
It isn't government, per se, that's bad. It's bad government that's bad. Good government cleans up bad government. We need good government! That's what's missing. We need good reporting so we may obtain good government, reformed government, clean government. Right now, we have corrupt, rogue, illegal government and bad reporting.
We are under a plutocratic kleptocracy. We do not have true democracy! We do not have a republic! We have a shameful sham; and what's more, Barack Obama knows it full well and is helping to perpetuate it for his personal gain and the gain of his offspring at the direct negative expense of hundreds of millions of others.
Now, consider all of the above while considering the following:
Investigators believe Boston Marathon bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev built pressure-cooker bombs while watching his 3-year-old daughter at his Cambridge apartment, and that his wife was out working when most of them were assembled, a federal law enforcement source said. Source: Tamerlan Tsarnaev built bombs while caring for 3-year-old daughter at home
If he had been set up by criminal elements within government, then it would be an easy matter for those criminals to fabricate evidence against him. However, there is also this from the article on Newsday:
Forensic tests by FBI explosives experts have detected residue from explosives in the bathtub and kitchen sink in the couple's apartment, the source said.
The results, according to the source, appear to corroborate Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's statements to federal investigators that the brothers built the bombs in the apartment.
He has told investigators that he and his older brother learned to make the pressure-cooker bombs from instructions in Inspire.
How then does Dzhokhar explain the backpack images? If he can't do that and do it in a way that completely jibes with the stills and videos, what are we to conclude? We certainly couldn't conclude "case closed" that his brother and he were acting without criminal governmental elements within the US.
I retain an open mind about these matters, but I would say to anyone that just accepting official governmental versions is not justified. There is more than ample historical evidence to suspect foul play by sociopaths and dupes and minions of the power elite running the American/Global Empire.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)