By Craig McKee
Remember the notes that accompanied the anthrax deliveries right after 9/11? They said things like, “Allah is great!” “Death to Israel,” “Death to America!” and “9-11-01: This is next.”
In other words, THE MUSLIMS DID IT: the same ones who had so handily defeated the world’s greatest military machine on Sept. 11, 2001. And they did it because they hate us and our freedoms … the usual. They apparently really wanted to rub salt in the wounds of a traumatized America after the largest supposed terrorist attack ever on U.S. soil. And it worked; people were suitably freaked out.
The problem was that the Muslims didn’t carry out the anthrax attacks, which was later proven by the fact that the anthrax was highly weaponized and was manufactured at a U.S. military facility. The whole thing was later pinned on American scientist Bruce Edward Ivins after he had allegedly committed suicide. We also learned that Bush, Cheney and other key administration officials were put on the anthrax-preventing antibiotic Cipro in early September 2001, long before the anthrax attacks happened.
Funny they thought of that precaution but didn’t think of evacuating the Pentagon when a plane was supposedly heading right for it on 9/11.
So Muslims didn’t do the anthrax, just as the evidence clearly shows they didn’t do 9/11.
Now we have an oh-so-convenient “confession” by Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to handily explain his motives for the Boston Marathon bombing. Apparently, Dzhokhar wrote a kind of claim of responsibility on the inside of the boat where he was hiding, using a marker he “found” (no paper was handy, so he wrote it on the cabin wall as he bled from multiple gunshot wounds).
The note has all the key Muslims-are-to-blame talking points. Here are some of the things, paraphrased, that Dzhokhar is supposed to have written:
- When you attack one Muslim, you attack all Muslims
- We’re getting you back for killing Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan
- The innocent victims in Boston are collateral damage just as Muslims are in U.S. wars
- I don’t mourn my brother because he is a martyr in paradise, where I expect to be soon. (How did he know for sure his brother was dead?)
We learned of this note in a CBS News report on May 16 during which Charlie Rose and his grinning sidekick Norah O’Donnell speak with “senior correspondent” John Miller, a former FBI assistant director. This CBS “scoop” came a full month after the bombing because, Miller suggests, the note was “…the thing that investigators never found anywhere else.”
Ahh … let me get this straight. They didn’t examine the boat where Dzhokhar spent his last several hours of freedom for possible evidence at the time? Really? And when they did, they magically came up with the familiar “death to America” justification that so often accompanies these false flag events.
The ironic ending to the report comes when O’Donnell mentions that the note itself ended up being riddled with hundreds of bullet holes, which Miller confirms, saying: “The note has those holes in it.”
Here are the four major elements of this false flag event and how the official story fails to hold up in each case:
The most obvious sign that Boston was a false flag operation is the bomb “exercise” that was going on at the exact same location and time as the actual bombing. This has become a tell-tale sign of false flags, particularly since 9/11 when numerous exercises were taking place that morning that simulated the very thing that happened.
The most absurd example is the 7/7 London bombings when a simulation of the bombing of three underground stations was going on as those same stations were actually being bombed (not to mention a real bus bomb that was also reflected in the exercise).
The pattern was repeated with the mass shooting in Norway in 2011, the Aurora movie theater shooting in July 2012, and the Sandy Hook school shooting in December 2012.
In Boston on April 15, loudspeakers announced to the crowd near the finish line of the Marathon that they needn’t worry about the bomb squad and their bomb-sniffing dogs patrolling the area during the race because it was just an exercise.
Then there were the “contractors” wearing black jackets and caps, beige pants, and black backpacks. It has been alleged that they were from the private, CIA-linked security firm Craft International. Their presence in Boston has been denied but the photographic evidence confirms that they were there.
There are so many questions and anomalies concerning the actual destruction and death that we’ve been told came from the bombing. I do, however, want to make it clear at this point that I am not saying no bombs went off or that no one was really hurt. The event may well have been a combination of real victims and fake ones. It also seems to have involved a wild exaggeration of the number of injured. We’re told there were as many as 264 people were hurt but the photo evidence does not support this.
We’ve also been presented with an obviously fake story of “heroism” as Carlos Arredondo wheeled Jeff Bauman, the man who supposedly had his legs blown off, down the street past photographers. It is actually the Bauman part of the story that makes it most clear that the whole event was not what it was made out to be. This topic was addressed in detail in the last Truth and Shadows post, written by Sheila Casey.
First, I do not believe the image that has been burned into everyone’s mind – of Bauman being pushed down the street in wheelchair – came about by accident. It too perfectly achieved all that the real perpetrators could have wished for: a human face on the horror and a hero who would overcome all odds to triumph over evil.
I find it impossible to believe that a man who had his legs blown off would be left lying on the ground for several minutes while others with seemingly minor injuries were attended to. There were gurneys and ambulances, but not for Jeff. He was just left there.
Arrendondo supposedly came to the rescue (he claims to have rushed to Jeff’s aid although video clearly shows he was more preoccupied with wrestling with the fence than with helping anyone). So much of Arredondo’s story is proven false by the photos and video. He says Bauman’s shirt was on fire, but there’s no evidence of this. He also says all the flags were blown over by the blast: not true. And the bloody American flag he unfurled for cameras? Yes, we get the symbolism.
And then there is the blood. At no time do we see any blood coming from Bauman’s legs even when they were draped over the shoulders of a woman who was wearing a white top. This woman was later transported in an ambulance while Bauman was apparently left behind. When she was wheeled away, there was plenty of blood on her. But where did it come from? And the blood on the sidewalk (as shown in some of the photos, anyway) is a bright red color that looks a lot more like paint than blood.
We have the mysterious hooded man (who has been identified as Christian Williams) who appeared to be working on Bauman’s lower body in some way. Was he coming to his medical aid or was he affixing some kind of prosthetic? This same man was later attended to by medical personnel as he lay on the ground. Shortly before that, he’d been propped up on his elbow, looking quite casual and not very badly hurt (no, there’s no proof he wasn’t hurt). According to the New York Times, however, Williams has had four operations on his legs since the event. He and his friend, Caroline Reinsch, have a fundraising web page and has received more than $100,000 so far. Jeff Baumans’ page has raised more than $760,000.
There is also the comical photo of a victim walking down the street whose clothes had all sorts of slices in them, while he didn’t appear to be injured.
Nothing about the identification and pursuit of the Tsarnaev brothers passes the smell test. We learned early on that these two had been identified as prime suspects, in part because legless victim Bauman identified one of the brothers as having set a backpack on the ground just before the blast.
Initially, the FBI released surveillance video of Tamerlan and Dzhokhar with a plea for help in identifying them. Later we found that the brothers – and particularly older brother Tamerlan – were well known to the FBI. So they appeared to be lying about not knowing who these two were.
Fact is, most people are convinced the brothers are guilty because of how they allegedly reacted violently when they were pursued. (“If they are innocent, why did they shoot it out with the cops?” is how it goes.) But how much of that story stands up – or makes sense? The story of the shootout involving police and Dzhokhar – who was hiding in a boat – turns out to be a lie.
We were told by police commissioner Ed Davis that there was an exchange of gunfire between Dzhokhar and police that led to his capture. At the end of the shootout, the story goes, Dzhokhar may have shot himself in the throat on purpose (huh?). Later, a police spokesman said the throat wound looked more like a knife wound than a bullet wound.
Now we know he was unarmed and that police riddled the boat with bullets unilaterally. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/24/boston-bombing-suspect-unarmed_n_3150723.html)
Oh yes, and the owner of the boat is quoted as saying he looked into the boat and saw a pool of blood. But photographs taken the next day show only a small amount of blood where Dzhokhar would have climbed out (and it’s highly unlikely that the police would have cleaned up the blood by the next day – especially when we can plainly see a small amount blood on the outside of the boat).
We’re told that Dzhokhar drove over Tamerlan’s body while escaping after shooting and hurling explosives at police. But did Tamelan really die in the shootout or after being run over? A video surfaced that showed a man looking awfully like Tamerlan, handcuffed and naked, being placed in a police car. Dan Dicks of Press for Truth reports that he spoke to the brothers’ aunt, Maret Tsarnaeva, who said that the man in the video was absolutely 100% her nephew.
If true, this means that Tamerlan was murdered while in police custody.
And think about this: the brothers are cornered by police after a massive manhunt, and one, Dzhokhar, is allowed to escape in a car? He ditches the vehicle and then runs away? Boy, it’s darned lucky we had the whole martial law thing going. Regular cop tactics just weren’t enough with these masterminds.
Alleging that Dzhokhar drove over his brother did make him seem less human, but is it at all believable? We later heard from an eyewitness that it was police who drove over Tamerlan’s body. And, according to Infowars.com, the brothers may have been trying to surrender to police. And, for some bizarre reason, the brothers stood in the light of the headlights of their car as they exchanged fire with police. We were told they had a veritable arsenal of weapons, including explosives, but then later that turned into one gun between the two of them.
In fact, authorities say the brothers killed MIT cop Sean Collier because they were short one gun. That’s right, they shot him in the head because they needed his gun. This was their escape plan. If all this is true, then these guys really must have wanted to get caught. So far, we haven’t been given any hard evidence at all to support the accusation that the cop was killed by one of the brothers. (http://news.yahoo.com/final-shootout-then-boston-bombing-suspect-caught-112744657.html)
It reminds me of the murder of Officer J.D. Tippitt in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963. That was pinned on Lee Harvey Oswald even though eyewitnesses said two men got out of a car, shot Tippitt, and then drove away (for more on this, check out Mark Lane’s recent book, The Last Word). In the public mind, the extra murder solidifies the public’s belief in the guilt of the suspects.
The Tsarnaev brothers are supposed to have committed a carjacking after shooting Collier, and they even told the driver they had done the bombing. The alleged victim told police that the brothers only let him live because he wasn’t American. And while he didn’t understand what they were saying, he heard them say “Manhattan” several times. How convenient is that? How convenient is all this evidence.
Oh yeah, the carjacking victim escaped while the brothers were getting “snacks” at a gas station. I guess we just have to take his word for that.
We were told the brothers had shot Transit Police Officer Richard Donohue during their shootout with police. But it was later admitted that Donohue had been killed by police “friendly fire.” We were also told the brothers had robbed a convenience store. Then we were told they didn’t do that either. (http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/04/19/tsarnaev-brothers-didnt-rob-a-7-eleven-spokesperson/)
So it turns out that the brothers were well known to U.S. intelligence, including the FBI, which interviewed Tamerlan in 2011. The boys’ mother, Zubeidat Tsarnaeva, says the FBI had been watching their family for years and had even been in their home, telling her that her eldest son, Tamerlan, was a dangerous extremist. She was quoted in minds.com as saying:
“He was controlled by the FBI, like for three, five years,” she said. “They knew what my son was doing, they knew what actions and what sites on the Internet he was going [to], they used to come…and talk to me…they were telling me that he was really a serious leader and they were afraid of him.”
Both of the brothers’ parents claim their sons are being set up, with their mother saying the FBI had been in touch with Tamerlan for years. In an article in Global Research, Bill Van Auken makes this telling statement:
“While much remains murky about these and other issues, one thing is clear: the Boston bombing, like virtually every other major terrorist incident, real or invented, since the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York City and Washington, was carried out by someone who was known to and under surveillance by US intelligence agencies.”
And perhaps most significant are the connections between the brothers, their uncle, Ruslan Tsarni (who called them “losers” on TV even though he hadn’t seen either of them in several years), and the CIA. Tsarni, it has come out, was married to the daughter of a senior CIA official, Graham Fuller. He even lived at Fuller’s home.
In another Global Research article, F. William Engdahl writes:
“Is it mere “coincidence” that the uncle of the two young men accused of the Boston bombings was related in marriage to the CIA figure who advocated using the networks which were later named “Al Qaeda” across Central Asia including Chechnya where the Tsarnaev brothers had roots?”
How I learned to stop worrying and love martial law
There are a number of clues that make clear that this was a story contrived to play on our emotions. We can start by looking at the results: this theatrical event creates a contrived coming together of the population “in the face of tragedy.” Boston Strong? Who thought up that bit of branding? anyone? This makes me think of Wag the Dog and the “Good Old Shoe” song that was written, recorded, and placed in the Library of Congress as if it had been there for decades. The Boston slogan, and the song, were clearly intended to create some of that artificial warmth.
People come together to celebrate their strength and resilience based upon a lie. (As Sheila Casey said to me, the tragedy of it creates a kind of “feel-good” bonding situation that people don’t want interfered with). Hence the anger expressed when anyone challenges the story (“How dare you disrespect the victims by questioning the facts?”)
The pattern from Sandy Hook is repeated: media reporting misinformation that they should not have until they knew it was right. These are just too blatant to be honest mistakes. Either the younger brother drove over his brother or he didn’t. Either there was a pool of blood in the boat or there wasn’t. Why do we keep getting dozens of unconfirmed facts from unnamed sources that turn out to be false? In my experience of reporting on crime stories, police do not throw out “rumours” or guesses about things for public consumption.
The news media, of course, pour flames on the emotional fire while keeping us distracted from clear facts that show that we’re cheering as much for a script as for a triumph over real adversity.
Because the whole event is swept up in a wave of emotion, anyone who questions the facts is seen as an intruder in the “overcoming-tragedy” presentation. We are told that we are disrespecting the victims, that we should leave the “conspiracy crap” for a later time (or cut it out altogether). What an effective way to marginalize anyone who dares to question the story or use their brain in any way.
And the point of all this?
Martial law is imposed where people are forced to stay in their homes, businesses are forced to close, and an army of police (who look just like soldiers) go door to door searching houses and forcing inhabitants out at gunpoint with their hands up. Only a well-planned psyop could turn this into a patriotic event instead of the ominous precedent that it was.
And now that we’ve been introduced to the reality of martial law – and we seemed to like it – we’re likely to be seeing it again very soon.