by JAN

(Just Another Nobody)

In my first post on the Boston bombings, I presented a number of reasons to reject the Official Story of this event.[1] Since the bombings occurred two more events have happened which look like attempts to cover-up and/or clean up after the event. The first of these was the murder of Ibragim Todashev in Florida, which I have discussed in my second article.[2] This article will focus on the deaths of the two FBI agents and other events which have been linked to the Boston bombings.

Two special agents of the FBI’s Hostage Rescue Team (HRT), Christopher Lorek and Stephen Shaw, died in an accident off the Virginia coast. It seems they were fast-roping from a helicopter to a ship when the aircraft experienced difficulties.[3] The fact which connects this with the Boston bombings is that they were members of the HRT and “last month, the team was involved in the arrest of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, a suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings.”[4] The Virginia medical examiner’s office found that the “two FBI agents killed in a fall while training off the Virginia Beach coast died from blunt force trauma.”[5]

Two different posts from people with military backgrounds suggested that such an accident was rather unlikely, particularly if it is thought of as “falling” from the helicopter to the ship.


“RED FLAGS !!! How do you fall out of a “controlled” situation where you are supposed to have a special 600 pound test line with a special climbing harness and special “repelling rig” with a figure 8 repelling device.

“After that, it is up to you and your “break hand” with a Heavy Leather glove that is reinforced.

“You also have another “safety line” which is also attached, unless you are an “experienced” repeller and are on some SRT or extraction team.”[6]

“They were suppose to fast rope down to the ship. Being former Special Forces I can attest to the fact that there are two ways to use a rope from a helicopter. One is by repelling and the other is by fast roping. The helicopter is about 75 feet above the ground. Repelling is from the side of the helicopter and fast roping is from a trap down in the middle of the helicopter. Since there is all sorts of safety involved murder is a possibility. (…) I would have to say that while these FBI agents were repelling or fast roping, somebody probably cut the lines. The rope is pretty strong, it isn’t that easy to fall when you are hanging on to it.”[7]


This seems to be a simple exercise of putting two and two together to get four, and almost everyone commenting on it assumes this is enough to make a case for the FBI’s murder of two or their own agents. Unfortunately, I don’t think it is as simple as that, and it is useful to compare this case with the one I have discussed in my previous article, called Part 1, dealing with the murder of Ibragim Todashev.

First, in his case, we have photos of the body showing seven gunshot wounds, on of them being the head shot used by killers to make sure their victim is dead. In the case of the FBI agents we have nothing but the medical examiner’s report which is consistent with the FBI claim that the men died from impact, either with the boat or the water, rather than drowning.

Second, Dzhokar Tsarnaev was captured by a MBTA SWAT team.[8] Some members of the HRT were present a the capture of Dzhokar, as they apparently tossed a stun grenade into the boat where he was hiding.[9] The problem here is that the HRT consists of about 90 agents. There is no evidence that the two agents who died were even in Boston at the time, and no evidence agents with the HRT had anything to do with Dzhokar after he was arrested. “Considering how many people were involved in the actual arrest and how many agencies got involved, we’re talking about a lot of personnel that were in some way around.”[10]

Finally, even if you assume that many things about the Boston bombings are being covered up the FBI, this does not immediately give you a motive to kill two of their own agents. The main reasons to reject the FBI story of the death of Ibragim Todashev are (1) the number and kind of gunshot wounds he died from, (2) his being unarmed at the time, and (3) his likely knowledge of some important facts about the Tsarnaev brothers because of his common interests and background. We would need much more evidence to connect these two agents to something important relating to Dzhokar before we can reasonably suspect the FBI would have any reason to silence two of their own agents.

Thus, at this point, I think there is no reason to connect the deaths of these two agents to the Boston Bombings, and no reason to doubt the FBI’s account of their deaths. Clearly our government does lie to us, but the only way we can know this is to examine all the available evidence. While there is a widespread scepticism of the government, its actions and its statements, which is good, many of these people who are suspicious do not seem to be capable of digging around for evidence and weighing up what they find to come to a reasonable conclusion.

In his interesting series of shows on GreeneWaveTV, Christopher Greene has one entitled: INVESTIGATED: Woolwich and Boston Terror Attacks.[11] In this he discusses not only the death of Ibragim Todashev and the two FBI agents, but also the death of Sunil Tripathi who was found dead in the Providence River. He ties all of these four deaths together into one grand conspiracy.

A spokeswoman for the Provincetown police stated that “Tripathi’s body had been spotted in the river by a Brown university rowing coach on Tuesday and that it had been identified by dental records, suggesting a long immersion. Foul play was not a factor, she confirmed.”[12] The only connection he had with the Boston bombings was that users of Reddit mistakenly identified Sunil as one of the bombers. The mistake was eventually recognized and apologies offered to the family.[13]

Here again, there is no hard evidence to link Sunil Tripathi to the Boston bombings, and no reason to see his death as more than a personal tragedy. Perhaps it makes the “investigator” seem to be so much smarter than everyone else to link all these deaths together, but it does not advance our understanding of events any more than the lies of the government and the mass media.

We live in difficult times where the government lies and distorts the truth every day, and the media which reports these stories will not, and cannot, seriously question these stories. We have also seen that people who want to tell us the truth, called “whistleblowers” like Bradley Manning, Julian Assange among many others, are harassed by this same government and charged with invented “crimes”. We desperately need people who are sceptical of what they are told, capable of looking behind the stories to see what truths are being hidden, and willing to explain what they find to the rest of us. We need truth instead of lies!

[1] Boston Bombings: Not to Know is Bad; Not to Wish to Know is Worse.

[13] Ibid.



by JAN

In my previous post, I presented a number of reasons to reject the Official Story of the Boston Marathon bombings.1 Since the bombings occurred two more events have happened which look like attempts to cover-up and/or clean up after the event. I will discuss both of them, but in separate articles.

The first of these is the death of Ibragim Todashev, a Chechen and friend of the Tsarnaev brothers in Boston. Here we find clear evidence of a murder by the FBI which must have been to silence any statements by people who know their Official Story is a pack of lies. Ibragim’s father, Abdulbaki Todashev, showed reporters pictures of his son’s body taken in the US. In these photos “Todashev is pictured lying in a Florida morgue. His father claims they show brutal injuries from up to seven bullets including one to the back of the head.”2  In another article his father stated that “they could have wounded him, in the leg or the shoulder. But this is a killing with a ‘control shot.” The article went on to explain that his father used the Russian phrase translated as a “control shot” for a point-blank shot used by hit men to ensure their victim is dead.3

For its part, the FBI keeps changing its story about what happened.   Josh Voorhees in his blog Slatest explains that at first the AP, NBC News and others claimed that Ibragim had a knife and lunged at the agents, while the New York Times claimed it was “a knife or pipe or something.” Then the Washington Post explained: “Initial reports citing anonymous law-enforcement individuals provided conflicting accounts of what happened. Some law enforcement officials said Todashev wielded a knife and others suggested that he attempted to grab the FBI agent’s gun.”4 The knife probably dropped out of the story when it was revealed that Ibragim was unarmed when questioned by the FBI.

But this is not the end. No doubt the script writers at the FBI are working overtime to invent a plausible story to cover what is clearly a cold-blooded murder. This is their latest take on Ibragim’s death:

“Mr. Todashev, according to the F.B.I., confessed to his involvement in [a 2011 triple homicide] and implicated [Tamerlan] Tsarnaev. He then started to write a statement admitting his involvement while sitting at a table across from the agent and one of the detectives when the agent briefly looked away, the official said. At that moment, Mr. Todashev picked up the table and threw it at the agent, knocking him to the ground.
“While trying to stand up, the agent, who suffered a wound to his face from the table that required stitches, drew his gun and saw Mr. Todashev running at him with a metal pole, according to the official, adding that it might have been a broomstick.
“The agent fired several shots at Mr. Todashev, striking him and knocking him backward. But Mr. Todashev again charged at the agent. The agent fired several more shots at Mr. Todashev, killing him. The detective in the room did not fire his weapon, the official said. Under the F.B.I.’s guidelines, agents can fire a gun at someone if they feel the person is a threat to them or someone else.5

Notice how the story shows that the agents followed FBI guidelines to the letter. How difficult it must be to make up these stories and follow FBI guidelines as well!

Ibragim was not the only person at the interview. “A friend of Todashev, Khusn Taramiv, said Todashev, was being investigated for his connection to Tsarnaev because both had lived in Boston and were MMA fighters.” They were interviewed together for about three hours. Khusn’s account of event is given here:

“(The FBI) took me and my friend, (Ibragim Todashev). They were talking to us, both of us, right? And they said they need him for a little more, for a couple more hours, and I left, and they told me they’re going to bring him back. They never brought him back,” Taramiv said.
“He felt inside he was going to get shot,” Taramiv said about Todashev. “I told him, ‘Everything is going to be fine, don’t worry about it.’ He said, ‘I have a really bad feeling.'”
“Taramiv said he left the interview, and when he came back to the apartments, he found that there had been a shooting.6

As I see it, the only reason to kill Ibragim Todashev is that he knew things about the Tsarnaev brothers that did not fit into the Official Story. Fortunately for  Khusn Taramiv he did not seem to know anything of importance about them. Probably what Khusn knew also made him realize that he had something to fear from the FBI. So we now have five victims of the Boston bombings.







Boston Bombings: Not to Know is Bad; Not to Wish to Know is Worse

by JAN

(Just Another Nobody)

Most of the people who really know what happened in Boston work for the FBI or the Boston Police. They are not likely to explain the details to us any time soon. Still, there is one thing I am quite sure of. The Official Story told by the FBI is both implausible and inconsistent with many credible reports.

There is total acceptance of the Official Story in the mainstream media and the alternative media is not much different. On the other hand, Alex Jones at Infowars or Veterans Today clearly do not accept the FBI’s version of events, but such sources are dismissed by “progressives” as right-wing nutjobs. And, if you look elsewhere on the internet, you find a vast array of blogs and YouTube videos disputing every aspect of the Official Story. I consider these blogs and videos as “citizen journalism.” They have one element sadly missing from the most of the media, a healthy scepticism about the statements of our government. Why are they ignored? Is it the occasional misspelled word? Or is it just that they are “nobodies”?

My speculations about what might have happened in Boston can be found at the end of this article. To begin, I would like to list the credible reports and a few reasonable questions relevant to the Official Story of the bombings. Details are given below, and full references are in the endnotes.

Summary of Main Points[1]

1. There was a bomb drill taking place during the Boston Marathon.

2. Employees of Craft International, a private security firm, were present.

3. Tasrnaevs’ backpacks do not match a bomb backpack.

4. Craft employee’s backpack does match a bomb backpack.

5. There is evidence that one bomb was planted by Craft employee.

6. There were between three and five explosive devices near the finish line.

7. According to his mother, Zubeidat Tsarnaeva, Tamerlan Tsarnaev had been working for the FBI.

8. Tamerlan Tsarnaev has been linked to US funded Chechen separatist organization.

9. Tamerlan Tsarnaev was captured alive by police and handed over to the FBI.

10. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was not seriously harmed and unarmed when captured.

11. Dzhokhar himself claims he was set up in his last message to his father.

12. Tamerlan’s uncle, Ruslan Tsarni, also has links to CIA and Chechen separatists.

13. Five suspects were named before the Tsarnaev brothers were identified.

There are also further questions:

Q1. Were some of the injuries faked?

Q2. Is the man in the wheelchair Jeff Bauman?

Q3. Why didn’t sniffer dogs detect black powder bombs?

Q4. Was one of the bombs fake?

Q5. Who else uses pressure-cooker bombs?

Q6. Did Dzhokhar Tsarnaev leave the scene with his backpack?

Q7. How many people were injured by the bombs?

Q8. Is the alleged motivation of the Tsarnaev brothers plausible?

Q9. Are there any more questions?

1. There was a bomb drill taking place during the Boston Marathon.

There is a report from Alastair Stevenson, U. of Alabama coach and marathon runner, that there were sniffer dogs and spotters on roofs, unlike any marathon he had ever been to.[2] There is also photographic evidence for this.[3] Boston Police deny there was any such drill.When asked about a bomb drill and the presence of contractors at the marathon the FBI spokesperson just ignores the question.[4]


2. Employees of Craft International, a private security firm, were present.

Once you know what to look for, the Craft International agents are easily visible. They have black jackets, tan pants and black caps. Several can be seen in photos of the finish line.[5] These security contractors are not acknowledged in the Official Story. If they were supposed to prevent something from happening, they obviously failed. Also, just after the explosions an unmarked SUV appeared with more Craft agents and a roof full of communications equipment. Then a truck from the FBI bomb squad pulls up and a female FBI agent emerges. She talks with some of the Craft agents and then they disappear. The contractors have torn up the skirting around one of the bleachers apparently looking for something and later this area is taped off.[6] Were they looking for another bomb?


3. Tasrnaevs’ backpacks do not match a bomb backpack.

Pictures of bags carried by the Tsarnaev brothers do no match the picture of a bag used to carry an explosive device, which is clearly black in the photos with a white patch on top. The older brother Tamerlan has grey backpack, while the younger brother Dzokhar has white backpack. Dave Lindorff brings up another point. He actually made a copy of the blackpowder bomb using an identical pressure cooker and found that it weighed about 30lb. When this is put in a backpack on a model with a backpack similar to Dzokahr’s

“…both packs being slung over the right shoulder using the right strap only, you can see a dramatic difference. There are stress wrinkles under the jacket of the (…) image on the model, caused by the 30-lb. weight pulling downward, but Dzhokhar’s jacket can be seen to be completely smooth under the strap. His pack is clearly extremely light on his shoulder (which may be why he’s not wearing it slung over both shoulders). As well, you can see that the weight of the pot, pulling down and outward in the model’s bag (…), is causing a downward sloping of the top of the backpack, and is also causing many vertical stress lines on the face of the bag itself. Dzhokhar’s bag, however, is flat across the top, indicating no such downward pulling force, and it does not exhibit any downward wrinkles on its side. Whatever he is carrying, it is clearly not a 30-lb., or even a 20-lb. cylinder.”[7]

Lindorff comes to the same conclusion with respect to Tamerlan’s backpack, comparing the photos of the model with the FBI surveillance photos. So, their backpacks do not match the colour and markings of a bomb backpack, and they do not seem to contain anything nearly as heavy as the gunpowder bomb. He also notes that the pack in a photo where the second bomb exploded “bears no resemblance to the pack he was photographed wearing, which had wide black seam lines and zippers.”[8]


4. Craft employee’s backpack does match a bomb backpack.

While the Tsarnaevs’ backpacks do not match a bag which apparently carried an explosive device, it does match a black backpack worn by a Craft operative. “That backpack (which apparently carried an explosive device) has a white square on top. The paramilitary bomber (in the Craft uniform) is the only person in any of the photos with a backpack featuring that white square.”[9] The photo shows Tamerlan, a Craft agent, and Dzhokhar, each with backpack, and a black backpack after an explosion.

5. There is evidence that one bomb was planted by Craft employees.

There is evidence Craft operatives were standing where one of the bombs went off and then crossed the street. This is from the same article by Dave Lindorff: “The man on the right (in the image) below is photographed before the bombing. He is also seen, in an image (on the left) taken after the explosion, running alongside a second identically-dressed Craft man wearing a pack and the company’s logo-emblazoned hat. Note that the left runner, interestingly, now no longer has on his pack. Where did it go?”[10] This point is also made by Kevin Barrett in Veterans Today.[11] There is also a person crouching next to a back pack in a doorway.[12] One of the agents holds a radiation detector.[13]


6. There were between three and five explosive devices near the finish line.

One of the stories making the rounds on the internet concerns a Boston Globe tweet: “Officials: There will be a controlled explosion opposite the library within one minute as part of bomb squad activities.”[14] The library concerned was the Boston Public Library, just at the end of the Marathon route, not the Kennedy Library, as some have thought.[15] Many have taken this to show at least one of the explosions had been planed before by the government as part of a drill or a false flag action. It was picked up by Mike Adams and reprinted in Global Research.[16]

The standard reply to this is put by LyubenV in a comment on YouTube: “Its not bombing exercises you retard. They are having a controlled explosion of a suspected bomb. You can’t transport suspect packages, they might blow up. So what they did was evacuate the area, and blow it up from a safe distance.” This account is confirmed by a report from the Providence Journal: “A third explosion was heard about an hour after the first two after authorities warned spectators to expect a loud noise from a water cannon that police apparently were using to destroy one of the devices.”[17] These reports indicate that there were either three or four explosive devices near the finish line, not just the two which are central to the Official Story. Did the accused brothers also plant the bomb apparently exploded later opposite the library? If they didn’t, who did?

But there is more. I noticed an article in our local paper about the bombings.[18] There is an aerial photo of the finish line showing a “third device discovered and disabled at Copley Square, near the main finishing line medical tent.” An arrow points to a site perhaps 200 yards beyond the finish line, not before the finish line where the other three other bombs have been located. According to an article posted at CNN, the Boston Police Commissioner said there was one other explosive device found, while Rep. Bill Keating of Massachusetts said two more were found, one of them at a hotel on Boyston Street, the last leg of the Marathon.[19]

The article noted above from the Providence Journal also contains the following report: “A senior U.S. intelligence official said the two other explosive devices found nearby were being dismantled. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the findings publicly.”[20] There is even a report by Rep. Keating that there were five devices in all.[21]

7. According to his mother, Zubeidat Tsarnaeva, Tamerlan Tsarnaev had been working for the FBI.

The claims we have examined so far raise serious problems for the Official Story, but there are two which are quite devastating. The mother of the two men, Zubeidat Tsarnaeva, states clearly that Tamerlan had been working with the FBI for some time. This is passage is taken from her conversation on RT:

“This is a setup—.” “Tamerlan got involved in religious politics five years ago—.”  “Never talked about jihad—.”  “He was controlled by FBI for five three.five years—they knew what my son was doing.—They knew what sites on the internet he was going. They used to come and talk to me—. They used to tell me that they are controlling him—.They were telling him he was a fearless leader and they are afraid of him. So how could this happen? They told me my son was an excellent boy and they have no problem with that—.”[22]

She added that Tamerlan always told her what was going on. This statement probably forced the FBI to admit that they had “interviewed” the brothers in 2011. This spin is how the Official Story deals with the connection between Tamerlan and the FBI, but his mother quite explicitly stated that he was controlled by the FBI. Her statement is simply ignored or dismissed. If he was controlled by the FBI, he was not a “suspect”, he was working for them.

Since this point is so important, I will spend a little time justifying the weight I put on this statement. Here the obvious question is: Who do you believe? If you believe the FBI, you are on the way to accepting the Official Story. If, like me, you accept the statement by Zubeidat Tsarnaeva, then you can begin to see the whole scenario in a totally different light. One good reason for not believing the FBI on this point is that time and time again the FBI has been found to set people up so they can later be “discovered” and arrested for attempted bombings.[23] This is expressed well by Bill Van Auken in Global Research: “One thing is clear: the Boston bombing, like virtually every other major terrorist incident, real or invented, since the September 11, 2001 —was carried out by someone who was known to and under surveillance by US intelligence agencies.” In many cases the people arrested were part of a “sting” operation organized by the FBI or police.[24] But there is another quite specific reason not to accept the FBI story about their connection with Tamerlan.

8. Tamerlan Tsarnaev has been linked to US funded Chechen separatist organization.

Although there is almost no discussion of this in the mainstream media the US has been heavily involved in the religious based opposition in Chechnya to the Russian Federation.[25] Izvestia describes a report by the Counterintelligence Department of Georgia which shows that Tamerlan Tsarnaev attended a seminar in the summer of 2012 put on by the US funded Georgian Foundation. The main purpose of this organization is to “recruit young people and intellectuals of the North Caucasus to enhance instability and extremism in the southern regions of Russia.”[26] The CIA ran a covert program to destabilize Russia’s North Caucasus region. “The ultimate goal of the CIA’s campaign was for the Muslim inhabitants of the region to declare independence from Moscow and tilt toward the U.S. Wahhabi Muslim-run governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar.”[27]

One could see this as independent confirmation of the claim made by his mother that he had been working with US intelligence organizations, not against them.[28] This has also been suggested by Barry Grey, writing for Global Research: “More plausible (than the claim Tamerlan had been investigated, but the authorities failed to connect the dots), given what is already known, is the likelihood that the brothers, particularly Tamerlan, were being developed as assets for use in US imperialism’s operations in Chechnya, Dagestan and Georgia.”[29]

9. Tamerlan Tsarnaev was captured alive by police and handed over to the FBI.

The claim that Tamerlan Tsarnaev was captured alive is the other suggestion which completely undermines the Official Story. Global Research presents a report and interview from a local TV station made just after Tamerlan was captured by the police.[30] The naked man shown being captured on TV has been positively identified as Tamerlan Tsarnaev by his aunt Maret Tsarnaeva. This has been reported by Dan Dicks of PressForTruth.[31] There is also an audio recording of a woman Linda who claims to have seen the police run over Tamerlan and then shoot him near or outside the place she was staying.[32] Later he is said to have died either in a shoot-out with police or run over by his brother.[33] Needless to say, this is denied by the police in Watertown. They say it was another man, but the identity of the other man has not been released.[34] If these reports are correct, Tamerlan was killed while in the custody of the FBI.


10. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was not seriously harmed and unarmed when captured.

When he came out of the boat by his own efforts, Dzokhar did not seem to be injured and no blood found in the boat. Then later he is shown with face and shirt covered with blood as well as blood in the ambulance. Also there is a picture of him being given a breathing tube.[35] There is an image of Dzhokhar climbing out of the boat,[36]. and an image of Dzhokhar after injuries, said to be self inflicted.[37] “Although police feared he was heavily armed, the suspect in the Boston Marathon bombing had no firearms when he came under a barrage of police gunfire that struck the boat where he was hiding, according to multiple federal law enforcement officials.”[38] The obvious conclusion is that Dzhodar was injured nearly to the point of death after he was captured.

11. Dzhokhar himself claims he was set up in his last message to his father.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s last message on Vkontakte (Russian Facebook) to his father reads as follows: “This will be the last message before the police get me. I never done it. They set me up. Father please forgive me. I am sorry it has come to this.”[39] Someone noted that it was in English, not Russian, but the reason could be simple. He wanted people in the US to understand it as well. In a report on the BBC dated 16 May, 2013, Dzhokar Tsarnaev left a hand written note in the boat where he was captured saying that the victims of the bombings were “collateral damage”, and the attack itself was retribution for the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Apparently “the content of the note sounds similar to what Mr Tsarnaev reportedly told officials as he was interrogated at a hospital.”[40] Thus he lies to his father while he is free, but tells the truth when he is the custody of the FBI.

12. Tamerlan’s uncle, Ruslan Tsarni, also has links to CIA and Chechen separatists.

Ruslan Tsarni (formerly Tsarnaev) has worked with the USAID around the Caucasus region, and in 1995 set up the Congress of Chechen International Organizations. He was also married to the daughter of Graham Fuller, a former CIA station chief in Kabul with an interest in Islamic extremism.[41] An article by Daniel Hopsicker shows that in 1996 Ruslan Tsarni was involved in actively aiding Islamic terrorists in Chechnya. Since 2008 he has worked for a USAID program of economic assistance for Kyrgyzstan.[42] This suggests Tamerlan could have been aware of the US work with Chechen separatists. It also indicates the suggestion he was himself involved is hardly far-fetched.

13. Five suspects were named before the Tsarnaev brothers were identified.

The first two bombs went off about 2:49 pm on the 15th at 671 and 755 Boylston Street. Three days later, on Thursday the 18th, the FBI released the photos of the Tsarnaev brothers as the suspects. However the first suspects identified within hours of the explosions were Yassine Zaimi, a 24 year old track coach, and Salah Barhoum, 17, a Moroccan American middle distance runner.[43] They were soon cleared.

Police also considered Abdulrahman Ali Alharbi, a 22 year old student from Saudi Arabia who was himself injured in the blasts, as a person of interest to the federal authorities soon after the event. His apartment was raided but he was eventually cleared.[44] While official attention moved away from Abdulrahman Ali Alharbi, others have pointed out that there is a prominent Alharbi clan in Saudi Arabia. Many individuals from this clan are reportedly active in al-Qaeda and several in Guantanamo Bay.[45] This has led to another strand in the conspiracy theories about the bombings: a Saudi connection.[46]

For a while there were reports in the media blaming “right-wing extremists” for the bombing, but no individuals or groups were ever named.[47] After these three named individuals were ruled out as suspects, the new suspects were said to be Sunil Tripathi, a teenager who had gone missing a month or so before, and Mike Mulugeta. The latter was said to have been shot, an apparent confusion with the death of Tamerlan.[48]

It seems the information which led to the identification of the Tsarnaev brothers came from Jeff Bauman, a victim who lost both legs in the explosions. He was adjacent to the location of one of the bombs. Upon recovering consciousness he asked for pen and paper and wrote a note to the FBI, “bag, saw the guy, looked right at me”. Bauman was later able to provide detailed descriptions to the authorities of a suspect who was seen placing a backpack beside him at the bombing scene two and a half minutes before it exploded, enabling the photo to be identified and circulated quickly.”[49]

Sibel Edmonds, posting in an article by Pepe Escobar, claims there are “absolutely no witnesses saying the brothers dropped the bombs.”[50] While the account given above might seem inconsistent with Edmonds claim, both the report in Wikipedia and her statement could be true. The article in Wikipedia insists that Bauman was able to give a detailed description to authorities. According to an article in Bloomberg: “While still in intensive care, Bauman gave the FBI a description of the man he saw, his brother said. Bauman’s information helped investigators narrow down whom to look for in hours of video of the attack, he said.”[51]

Notice that the description he gave helped authorities “narrow down” their search, which concluded with the identification of the Tsarnaev brothers. The description quoted in the Bloomberg article, “a man wearing a cap, sunglasses and a black jacket over a hooded sweatshirt”, is clearly going to pick out any number of different young men around such a sporting event.[52] The same may be said for his description of a backpack. Jeff Bauman did not pick either of the brothers out in a lineup. He saw someone drop a bag and gave the FBI a description which they used to identify the Tsarnaev brothers.

Q1. Were some of the injuries faked?

This is perhaps the most common way the Official Story has been challenged. It takes several forms, such as the use of amputee actors or fake blood on people and the street.[53] A video report about the use of amputee or crisis actors to train soldiers in simulated combat situations can be seen here: Some of the questions come from trained ambulance personnel. For example, the iconic photo of a man in a wheelchair with a blown off leg is said not to be a person who has just suffered such an injury. This case is put by B’Man: “I’ve studied and graduated EMT-B certification with the state of Oregon. I’ve been on calls with heavy arterial bleeds, internal bleeding, fatalities, doa’s. I am speaking from direct personal experience with severe trauma. Here is a telling photograph of the amputee actor. I encourage readers to view the photo side by side with my analysis. If you loose both your legs from explosive trauma half your blood is gone in one minute via the femoral arteries, you’re dead after two.”[54]

In the article B’Man goes through several frames which he claims shows where and when the fake prosthetic leg is installed on the amputee actor seen in the photo below. Another site gives a picture which appears to show the man with the cowboy hat who pushes the wheelchair, Carlos, Arredondo, waiting quitely next to the place where the alleged fake amputee is being prepared.[55] Some of the points can be seen in the following picture:

The author of the article from which this picture is taken also goes through the forms of identification used during FEMA exercises. His comment about Carlos Arredondo (seen in the photo below) is: “I have a question about the guy in the ‘cowboy hat’… who is he? If he is just a volunteer why isn’t he wearing a volunteer shirt… yet he has a nametag. Hmmmmm….”[56]

Q2. Is the man in the wheelchair Jeff Bauman?

One of the most widely circulated photos of the bombing shows a man apparently with his legs blown off being wheeled away from the scene by a man in a cowboy hat.[57]


Another popular topic concerns the identity of the person in the wheelchair. The New York Times published a story which claimed that the father of Jeff Bauman identified his son as the man in the wheelchair.[58] But is it really Jeff Bauman, the injured man who helped the FBI focus their attention on the Tsarnaev brothers? Some have claimed that the person in the photo is not Jeff Bauman, but Nick Vogt, a veteran of the Afghan war who lost both his legs in the conflict. He is apparently a crisis actor and is missing his left pinky finger. Several blogs claim that the person lying on the ground at the top of the previous photo is the same person as the one in the wheelchair and is also missing their left pinky finger, which is not missing from the hand of Jeff Bauman.[59] Here is close-up picture of that person:


While many have claims the picture is of Nick Vogt, a short video on YouTube explains that the person in the wheelchair cannot be either Jeff Bauman or Nick Vogt. “Jeff Bauman’s hair is straight and a different colour. Cheeks are different as well. Nick Vogt is complete disinfo. His nose is completely different. The legless wheelchair man is an unknown crisis actor.” The clip simply shows photos of all three faces and the differences are clear.[60] The same point is made here: “How many Boston Marathon Jeff’s exist? I compared the popular photo online to a photo copied from The Raw Story just to compare….. As you can see the hair texture is different. I’m confused? Why does the top person part his hair on the left (see other online pictures) and the bottom on the right? Also, one has hair that continues across the bridge of the nose while the other has the normal bald spot in between.”[61]


This may seem to be an irrelevant question. However, if the two photos are really pictures of two different people, then the often cited story from the New York Times has inadvertently opened the serious question raised above. Was the person in the wheelchair, who is not Jeff Bauman, actually injured in the bombing? If he was not, then the person his father identified was actually a crisis actor. This mistake cannot be acknowledged, and must be simply swept under the carpet.


Q3. Why didn’t sniffer dogs detect black powder bombs?

Let me quote Chris Floyd: “Surely, if the sniffer dogs were doing their job and weren’t all stuffed up in their sinuses, they would have detected two amateurs who had allegedly just packed two large kitchen pressure cookers with black powder and nails, and then placed them into backpacks, and who were walking around in the crowd at the finish line. Black powder has a strong recognizable odor, and would be very hard to work with in any kind of clean manner — sort of like working with talcum powder and trying to keep it from getting all over the place (try it sometime).”[62]

Q4. Was one of the bombs fake?

One interesting video shows how at one bomb site, where an alleged fake amputee is seen, there was later no serious bomb squad investigation, while at the second explosion there are many investigators in their white suits. The claim is that the first bomb was fake, while the second one was real, and all the injuries were caused by the second explosion.[63] The video also makes clear that the second explosion involved a large and intense fireball. This provides good reason to believe that the bomb backpack noted in 4. above was not used for the second explosive device, but it could have held the first (fake) bomb producing only noise and smoke.

Q5. Who else uses pressure-cooker bombs?

An article by Intellihub reports that the Daily Beast “has confirmed with U.S. counter-terrorism officials that the bombs placed Monday at the marathon were made from pressure cookers, a crude kind of explosive favored by insurgents in Pakistan and Afghanistan. A recipe for a bomb that uses the pressure cooker was part of the debut issue of Inspire, the English-language online magazine of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.”[64]

Q6. Did Dzhokhar Tsarnaev leave the scene with his backpack?

Pictures seem to show Dzhokhar Tsarneaev walking away after the blasts still with his backpack. The photos are far from perfect, however if he was not involved in the bombing, it would be natural that he would carry his own bag away with him.[65]

Q7. How many people were injured by the bombs?

One of the initial estimates of the injured was 170. Later the number was revised upwards to 264 by Reuters, and 282 by the City of Boston and the Boston Globe. There were several reasons given for the later increase in numbers. It was said that many people with minor wounds or symptoms waited to see if they would go away on their own, but later went to a hospital, and patients were seen at 27 different hospitals in the Boston area. Examples of such minor injuries were small shrapnel wounds or hearing problems. On the other hand, if you visit the website at which lists the victims of the Marathon bombings, there are only 54 listed as of 17.05.2113, and four of them are given as fatal injuries.[66]

The figure of 55 victims, while much lower than later numbers, is twice the number originally given. “The original injury count in the immediate wake of the BMB, which was reported as a much less sensational 23 injured and two deaths— (are) figures in rough accord with the number of individuals whose images were recorded on CCTV and surveillance cameras involved in and around the initial blast that exhibited ostensible injuries.”[67] Certainly the deaths and injuries for the 54 people reported at the site are a tragedy, but how do they, or any of the other spectators and participants, gain from the apparent victim inflation?

Q8. Is the alleged motivation of the Tsarnaev brothers plausible?

One approach to the question of their motivation can be found in an article which appeared in AlterNet and other places entitled “The Boston Bomber Brothers Got the Attention They Wanted.” It was written by Paul Campos, a professor of law at the University of Colorado at Boulder.

“It’s important to remember that the Tsarnaev brothers were a couple of nobodies, whose only real power came from their ability to use their very limited capacity to engage in acts of public violence to create a level of public terror out of all proportion to any threat they could pose to the public as a whole.”[68]

In saying this he is just repeating the assessment of the two brothers given by Ruslan Tsarni, their uncle who helped arm the Chechen separatists and was married the daughter of a high ranking official in the CIA.[69] The point seems to be that the brothers were misfits, outcasts, who just wanted to lash out at a society which they could not join.

A casual look at the lives of these two brothers shows nothing of the sort. By all accounts they were rather successful as migrants to the US. In fact, one of the more bizarre features of the Official Story is that they are not the sort of young men you would expect to set off a murderous explosive device at a popular sporting event in the town where they lived. And even if they were “losers”, does this provide any real insight into their motivation? One might have thought that a Professor of Law could have pointed out that in the US legal system, one is innocent until proven guilty, or does this no longer apply in cases of “terrorism”?

Another more thoughtful attempt has been made by Gary Leupp in an article for CounterPunch entitled “What Motivated the Boston Bombers?”[70] Professor Leupp, who teaches history at Tufts University, finds “the outlines of the stomach-churning story seem clear.” In other words, he sees no reason at all to challenge the Official Story. He points out that racism and islamophobia shape the coverage in the media, and also rejects the media speculation that the brothers were alienated, maladjusted or unable to fit into US society. His account is quite different:

“Today’s headlines include ’Boston Bombing Suspects Motivated by Iraq, Afghanistan Wars.’ The world responds with a resounding: Well, duh… Of course they were motivated by those wars! That’s a no-brainer.”

He continues:

“Many young people have been radicalized by knowledge of the realities of the Iraq and Afghan wars. They’ve come to understand that they live in an imperialist country run by a 1% who care nothing for human life, whose military does not even bother to keep figures on civilian casualties. Such radicalization is entirely appropriate. May it spread!”

For Professor Leupp and many others no doubt, there is nothing wrong with being radicalized by these events. The problem is that “what really seems to have happened was that the brothers were increasingly drawn to a terror-validating strain of extreme Islam, which the preponderance of Muslims see as a travesty of the religion.”

Oddly, this is exactly the same motivation which now forms part of the Official Story. Dzhokhar himself is alleged to have provided it in writing since he was captured, and even before, while hiding out in that boat. The question for the FBI and Professor Leupp is this: What evidence is there for the claim that they accepted a “terror-validating strain of extreme Islam”? Is it the fact that Tamerlan was interviewed and “cleared” by the FBI? Or was it just the simple fact that Tamerlan and Dzhokhar were known to be Muslims, they planted bombs at the Boston Marathon, so they must have taken up a terror-validating strain of extreme Islam? What else could possibly explain why a Muslim would undertake a terrorist attack in the US?

Of course the Tsarnaev’s mother was lying when she said Tamerlan was controlled by the FBI and never talked about jihad. Her statement can be safely ignored by all sane people. Apart from planting bombs at the Marathon, they seem to be completely unremarkable or even normal for their age, mixing successfully in a range of social activities and studies. What is more, Professor Leupp notices another interesting fact about them. They seemed to suppose “that they could walk away from the crime scene smiling and go on with their lives as usual.” In other words, in addition to behaving normally before the bombing, they continued to behave in the same normal way after the bombing.

In the first place, this account of the Tsarnaev brothers’ motivation, their being radicalized by the US aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan, only makes sense with the assumption of some kind of Islamophobia. Are Muslims really a different species from the rest of us? Many of us, including Professor Leupp himself, are radicalized and enraged by the wars of the US, but do not turn to terrorism as a result. So, why would a basically normal couple of Muslim young men turn to terrorism if they are radicalized? Anger about the US wars on its own, if the brothers had any such anger, no more “explains” or motivates this sort of behaviour than does being a misfit. Angry Muslims commit terrorist acts is a right-wing stereotype. It is easy to sell to many in the US population, but this does not make it cogent.

Undoubtedly Professor Leupp can see that there is something missing from the Official Story. Why would two otherwise normal young males decide to kill and injure innocent people at the Boston Marathon? He must assume that, unlike the rest of us, angry Muslims have this tendency to terrorism. And he makes the problem even worse because he recognizes that after the bombing they just carry on behaving as if nothing had happened. Not only are the brothers fanatical terrorists, they turn out to be complete morons as well. When one reaches this conclusion, perhaps it is time to take another look at the Official Story.

Q9. Are there any more questions?

There are so many questions it is hard to know where to start. Because there seem to be so few people prepared to ask questions about the Official Story of the Marathon bombings, I would like to include two accounts which express clear scepticism about these events. One is by Sibel Edmonds, the FBI whistleblower:

“Let’s assume tough guy Tamerlan and his impressionable brother Dzhokhar were actually responsible (no FBI in the picture). After so much planning there had to be an immediate escape route – as in transportation, passports, money, plane tickets. There was nothing. Dzhokhar went to school, worked out in the gym, socialized, sent Twitter messages.

There are absolutely no witnesses saying the brothers dropped the bombs. They did it because the FBI says so. And from there onwards, it’s holes galore. They robbed a Mercedes at a gas station and let the driver go away – not without telling him that they were the marathon bombers. Dzhokhar and the Mercedes manage to escape from a major gunfight, by-passing a massive police barrage – but not without the Mercedes running over Tamerlan whose body was enveloped in explosives. Dzhokhar leaves a blood trail but he is not tracked by any dogs.”[71]

The other is from Dr Paul Craig Roberts.

“When is the last time the media investigated anything? A good candidate for investigation is the post-bombing rampage the brothers allegedly went on, robbing a 7/11 store (later contradicted by local police), killing a campus policeman, shooting a transit cop, high-jacking a SUV and releasing the owner.

Why would terrorists seeking to escape in order to strike again call attention to themselves in such outlandish ways and release a car-jacked owner to alert the police of the tag number? If the brothers were willing to kill police with gunfire and innocents with bombs, why release the guy whose vehicle they stole so he could inform the police of the license plate and make the brothers’ capture easier? What is the evidence, other than “reports from authorities,” that these events occurred or had any more connection to the brothers than the falsely reported 7/11 robbery that local police disavowed? Why does the US media simply accept whatever government authorities say?[72]

There are many more questions which should be examined, including what happened after the marathon finished. Where did the brothers get the gunpowder? What did Tamerlan and Dzhokhar do in the hours or days following the bombing? How and when did they discover they were suspects? Is there any independent confirmation of the police reports of robberies, chases, gun battles, etc. Did the brothers even have any weapons? If they did, where did they get them?

My Speculations about the Boston Bombings

I do not claim to know what happened in Boston. So far I have concentrated on what look like reliable factual reports which do not fit neatly the Official Story. However, as I worked through this material some scenarios occurred to me which I will now share with you. I cannot say I have found “the answer” to this puzzle, but there is lots of room for further investigation.

The best place to start is with the one thing which is closer to undeniable fact than anything else. There was a bomb search drill taking place during the Marathon. There is highly reliable eyewitness and photographic evidence for this, although I believe it has been denied by the Boston Police. Knowing what we do about the use of legless “crisis actors” to train the military recruits for combat, is it not possible it was decided to include a fake bombing incident, complete with legless victims, to improve the training effect for the volunteers? One alternative is that nobody was killed or injured, because the whole thing was made up from start to finish. Thus the real purpose of the “drill” was to pretend that there was a real “terrorist attack” and use that to justify the lockdown and massive police reaction.[73] This is plausible, but there are several other possibilities as well.

A second alternative is that one of the planted bombs went off by mistake. The first device – the fake – goes off with lots of smoke, and low level officials truthfully tell people, this is a drill. Don’t panic. The “explosion”, the red paint and crisis actors are all just part of the drill. Then, twelve seconds later, a real explosion goes off, with a huge fireball, not much smoke, causing death and serious injuries. If this was a drill meant to be as realistic as possible, could there not have been several devices planted around the venue to test the skills of the man and dog sniffer teams? Then suppose that someone screwed up, and one of the devices that was supposed to be found exploded?

Now you have a crisis. A practice drill goes wrong and people are mistakenly killed and wounded. What can you do? You could just admit that FEMA and the FBI were holding a drill to train people in dealing with a terrorist incident, but something went wrong. “We had an accident.” This means that the very bodies which have been created to protect people from death and injury from terrorism themselves just killed and injured innocent bystanders at a sporting event. And what would happen next time they approached the organizers of another major event to ask for their permission to hold another drill? People might even start to think that they have more to fear from FEMA and the FBI than they do fanatical Muslim terrorists who hate our freedoms.

Or you could insist there was no drill and declare it to be a terrorist attack. It might take some time to find the guilty parties, but this is less of a challenge than actually admitting the guilt lies with the security services themselves. And you might have been very lucky. Perhaps you noticed that one of the people you have worked with regularly, a Muslim named Tamerlan Tsarnaev, attended the Marathon with his brother. Or, better yet, perhaps you used Tamerlan in the drill. “Just drop this backpack here, OK? It will be a great help.” If the brothers were not murderous terrorists, the police and FBI would need to scare people into keeping away from them until they were captured in order to completely control the story, so you spread stories of murder and mayhem and make people stay indoors.

Fast forward to the conversation between Tamerlan Tsarnaev and the FBI when he is finally captured. Yes, he has helped the FBI now and then. Yes, he likes it in the US and wants to stay. “And you want me to agree that I planted a bomb, trying to kill innocent people in the US? No way!!” I don’t know much about Tamerlan, but with his history of boxing behind him, he does not strike me as a wimp. And perhaps he had what one might call normal human pride. “I didn’t do it, so why should I say I did and shame my self, my parents, my wife and child?” After you finish reminding Tamerlan who is boss, perhaps his brother will see reason. Just explain how he could die of his wounds in prison or commit suicide. The rest we know. The trial will be very exciting. They might be able to use the script again for a Hollywood movie.

On this scenario, the Craft operatives were almost certainly part of the drill. If a Craft operative did drop the black backpack with the white square, this could have been the alleged pretend bomb that went along with the alleged pretend injuries. When you see the nature of the second explosion with its giant fireball, it is doubtful that anything but a few melted fragments would have remained of any backpack. Certainly nothing you could instantly recognize as in the photos in the internet.

There are also two more sinister alternatives to this scenario. Suppose that, instead of the second explosion being a mistake, it was deliberately planted by people who knew there was going to be a drill, but wanted to send a message to the people at the top in Washington? The message would be: “You have your fancy drills but they can’t stop us. We can strike whenever and wherever we like.” On this scenario, the people running the show in Washington know who is behind the bombing, but they would be too powerful to name publicly.

This would not be a “false flag” operation, because the bombers are not intending to pass the blame on to anyone else. Their goal would be to make the FBI and the security state look ineffective and powerless against them. For the FBI, their weakness could not be exposed, so this scenario would play itself out in much the same way as the mistake scenario explained above. Find someone to pin it on and sweep it under the carpet as quickly as possible. Some people might see this possibility as not far off blaming the explosions on the activity of aliens from outer space, but you need to remember one thing. The US is by far the most powerful country in the world. Is it not naive in the extreme to imagine that, when the wealth and power at stake is so enormous, the actors will all play by the rules if they do not get what they want?

Finally, it is also possible that someone with (secret) government approval decided to create a real “terrorist attack” in conjunction with the drill. This would be the classic false flag action, in that the person or persons who are officially blamed for the deaths are either not involved at all, or only play a minor role. It seems that there is evidence of drills taking place in the Norwegian attack and the London 7/7 bombings.[74]

Why is there so little interest in a serious examination of the Official Story? The only answer I can see is that many people seem to have complete faith in the statements of the FBI. In spite of all the terrible things the US does overseas, our government wouldn’t lie to us, would they? The relentless focus in the public mind on terrorism has successfully produced an almost universal mindset described by Wayne Madsen in an article for Global Research: the Boston Marathon bombings represent the “new normal,” and “Americans should get used to the idea of living under virtual martial law with the U.S. Constitution representing nothing more than a ‘quaint piece of paper’.”[75]

The death and injury inflicted by explosions at the Boston Marathon are indeed tragic. However, the far greater tragedy is the way that many people who should know better accept the mythology of the security state while turning off their critical faculties and inquiring minds at just the right time.


[1] Some of these points are discussed in an article dated 24 April in the Guardian. ( I believe that the author, Amanda Holpuch, plays down the evidence for the ones I discuss here, so in my view her rejection of them as without real evidence is mistaken.

[5] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

[14] T

[18] The Advertiser, Adelaide, South Australia, April 17, 2013, page 7.

[52] Ibid.

[74] This website also has a list of 50 different points related to the Boston bombings, some of which are not covered here.

Aside  —  Posted: May 29, 2013 in Uncategorized