Why is anyone who questions the official story of the Boston bombing considered a conspiracy nut?

Question

Why is anyone who questions the official story of the Boston bombing considered a conspiracy nut?

Answer 1

Asking questions is fine. Pulling alternate explanations for what happened out of your a$$ is something else. Alex Jones and his ilk were claiming 'false flag' THE DAY IT HAPPENED! Now I ask you, does that sound like people who are interested in finding out the truth?



And what evidence that they were 'framed'? There is no such evidence. The so called evidence that is out there would only lead you to such a conclusion if you were predisposed to reach such a conclusion in the first place. If you were to look at it again with a more objective eye you would realize that the conclusions based in the interpretation of that 'evidence' don't hold water.

Answer 2

There's no harm in asking questions. Investigators do it everyday. That's how you arrive at the truth. It's when people reject and refuse to accept hardcore facts that they become theory nuts. They absolutely believe only what THEY believe is true, not hardcore facts. Not only are they conspiracy nuts, they are a self centered, opinionated delusional cancer that causes nothing but the continuation of heartbreak for many.

Answer 3

Asking questions is fine.



Asking questions when you've already made your conclusions, however, is just a waste of everyone's time.



Ok, so let's start with your conclusion that they were framed. What's your evidence?



Now consider the questions:

Why did they carjack a guy? - it's caught on video.

Why did they shoot that cop?

Why did they shoot at the cops at all? - again caught on video.



Why did the cops find identical pressure cooker bombs in the car? You expect us to believe that the cops just happened across a separate pair of bombers who just happened to use the exact same bomb designs and materials?



Why did the cops find leftover materials from the bombs at the brother's dorm room? Again, you expect us to believe that he was just coincidentally building the same bombs with the same materials but didn't actually use them at the Boston Marathon?



Ok, fine, so let's say the brothers really aren't guilty of the Marathon bombings. That still leaves:

* Carjacking

* Armed robbery

* Killing of a cop

* Shooting a 2nd cop in a shootout

* Resisting arrest

* Participating in a high speed chase



Even as just an accomplice, this collection of crimes easily adds up to a lengthy prison sentence - possibly life without parole.



The recent discovery of "Female DNA" on the bomb remains does not change the existing evidence. Considering that the FBI have said the DNA could have come from a sales clerk at the store that sold any of the materials to the brothers, it's basically meaningless unless they can show that this person was some more involved. At worst, it simply shows that the brothers had additional help in constructing their bombs. It does not change the fact that the evidence strongly implies that the brothers carried the bombs to the marathon, and deployed them. That still means the charges of terrorism are valid.

Answer 4

There's nothing wrong with asking question, but asking a question, and proclaiming someone's innocence are two entirely different things. Also, there's a lot of questionable information you can find online, and a lot of it has been put together and manufactured in such a way, to spread doubt about who actually committed this crime. And many of the people who are posting these 'theories' and this 'evidence' and 'proof' that leads people to question facts, ARE in fact the conspiracy nuts that you're referring to.



And the news that continues to surface about who these boys were, their changing ideologies, and their mother's history... not to mention the younger brother's admission to having been influenced by his older brother and their foiled plans of continuing on to NYC... I don't know what's left to doubt



Its like doubting for the sake of doubting.

Answer 5

He has admitted to the bombings, and given the police information as to how why and when.

He has also admitted that he and his brother were going to New York city to bomb times square.

There is no other possible scenario, and so those who try to create on in their minds at least are conspiracy nuts.

It is ok to ask questions, and no one should be ridiculed for doing so.

Answer 6

I think you may be correct in questioning the official story...as the data is not all in. Several suspects in the case have been the subject of scrutiny, one Saudi national comes to mind. Others claim to have seen several men in military style clothing carrying backpacks also at the scene. One commentator suggested there may have been a dozen people or more involved in the planning and execution...pardon the word...of this attack on innocent people.



In the case of the brothers...they are guilty of whatever the authorities can prove they did. One will receive due process, the other was killed before getting due process.



Years ago someone showed me a clever trap for monkeys. A gourd or jar with an opening small enough for the monkey to reach his hand through; and a bait...a piece of fruit, or something was placed in the jar. The monkey could reach in and out, but when it would grasp the bait, it would not open its hand. The hand could not be withdrawn with the closed fist within the jar.



The brothers put me in mind of the monkey; they reached out to grasp something, then would or could not let go. They may have been scapegoats, but they did not help themselves "get away" by their behaviors after the "event". PS...who "framed" them, the American government, or their jihadi handlers and motivators? Did the "framers" also want them to get caught...red handed? Interesting questions.

Answer 7

Tiny piece of my own view on all this:



1) I don't think the young one is innocent, he did go along with big brother on the "mission".

2) I'm sure psychiatrists and psychologist, as well as anyone working in sociology issues, will study this case. What case? The case in which hundreds of thousands--probably millions--of young kids including the U.S., believe the 19 yr old is completely innocent!

3) No, we're not supposed to accept everything told to us, specially if we have a lot of life experiences and/ or have witnessed many "odd" things to which no logical explanation was ever given.

4) Do you ask yourself, "if Conspiracy Theorists" are so nutty, why do so many come into YA to write lengthy answers as to why they are nutty"? Decades back most people would look the other way and don't given them the time of day.

5) As for Tamerlane and the younger one "having been framed", worse things have taken place under the sun since the birth of humanity. Remember the Pharisees decided "it's better that one man perish and not a whole nation" concerning the fate of Jesus Christ????



Do I think they were framed? Why bother with it if that was the case? Who's going to stand up for the truth, the same that write lengthy answers explaining how crazy everyone is who "sees" anything odd in the Boston event?!!!



BTW, I asked a respectful, mature question yesterday. By mistake I included link to a different article and as I was going to delete q' and asked it once again using the correct one, my question had already been reported and deleted by Yahoo. By then I had received 8 answers, most of which were very civilized. This was the link I wanted to include, and the q' was if "in fact the video in question had given reason to theorists to believe Boston was all staged".





http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/05/us/amputee-actors-combat-training

Answer 8

I agree with you i think they could of been framed to an extent, and please im not a nut case most of the info proving there innocence is genuine the internet if full of unexplained facts like the backpacks how did HE shoot himself in the mouth if he didnt have a gun...anyway i think he'll get some sort of charge but not the death penalty thats all talk theres not enough evidence against DZHOKHAR more tamerlan i would say...but yeah im still following the case everyday, its just a pity they've ruined dzhokhars life he'll never be able to just go back to normal and if he does get a life sentence in prison or something imagine how much he'll suffer... well apparently theres a hearing May 30th so...

Answer 9

Entirely your prerogative to have whatever opinion you want.You say 'evidence', do you mean conjecture? What is this 'evidence' and is it backed by cold hard facts? Just askin'.



If you list here what you consider as evidence of innocence for scrutiny we could see if it does in fact stand up,non?



Couple of things- The dodgy looking similarly dressed obviously wired up guys may well have been Blackwater. My guess is they were there officially either as extra security and/or the authorities were aware of a prior threat, which in itself throws up different questions like could it have been stopped just like 9/11? Or the authorities did not want to alarm the public by admitting they have private armies policing the streets hence no finger pointing at these individuals.



The photos. Something tells me the timeline on them is wrong which makes some of the questions regarding each picture unfounded. The first pic is obviously the moment of the blast and the pic of the guy who lost is legs is far from clear tbph. The woman with the red jacket,blood would have been the same colour as her jacket in first pic later after moving around it bacame more noticeable as it got on her blouse and face also the initial pics might not show much blood but seconds later even little nicks would produce less gushing blood.As I say it's only possible to guess with things like that. Also a lot of the 'signalling each other' stuff can only be pure conjecture,the interpretation of the viewer not based on actual facts.

The boat query,again not clear pics and as there was blood visible on the boat step outside he clearly was bleeding. We only see the far side of the boat,who's to say there wasn't blood on the floor of the near side of the boat that is out of sight.

What about the dead,the little boy. How do you explain him away?



Surely that's contradictory to the 'proof' your citing of people acting,pretending to be injured. This is where it falls down. You're using these links to backup your belief that they're innocent while saying you think the child died but everyone else was acting?If you don't think that why post the link?



As for the brothers,I cannot say they are guilty as I don't know all the facts. The reporting on the Boston bombing was appalling from start to finish and it would be stupid for anyone to base their assumptions on such reckless reporting. As the brothers were pursued by the authorities and filmed resisting arrest one must ask oneself why would innocent people not immediately seek legal help and then volunteer to help the police? I wouldn't consider their actions to be in any way reassuring that the police were wrong to suspect them.



There's a difference between knowing your stuff and thinking you know your stuff.