Tsarnaev’s “defense” team.
By Mary Maxwell, PhD, LLB
I believe that the following three bombing incidents were Inside Jobs, that is, carried out with governmental assistance: the Oklahoma City bombing on April 19, 1995, the London Tube bombings on July 7, 2005, and the Boston Marathon bombing of April 15, 2013.
Needless to say I cannot prove it. I lack any confessions from the principals, videotapes of the planting of the bomb, or eyewitness whistleblowers from within the judicial system. But let me walk you through my hypothesis by asking: “What would a governmental team need if it were to conduct a bombing?”
They would need:
- A team of experts in production and usage of bombs
- A story, believable to the public, of how a foreign group, or ideologically motivated individuals, would do such a thing
- A set of media reporters who could announce, in print and on TV, some aspects of the event, while leaving a few questions unanswered at first
- A very compliant police administration to support “the story” about the way the bombings were accomplished
- A national government agency that could see to it that anyone arrested would be taken to the right place
- A collection of evidence against the arrestees, for example: receipts proving that they had purchased weapons material, phone records showing that they conspired with others, pals to declare that they had discussed their motives, and videos of them attending the crime scene.
- A control of all courts such that no judge would speak out, or allow witness testimony to uncover the truth.
Top-of-the-Crop Coordination
At the outset, we can see that a government is in a perfect position to manage all of the above. I wager that if the government of the United States wanted there to be a bombing in Chicago next month, they could carry it off flawlessly. A large percent of American citizens would believe the narrative.
Even those who were skeptical would not make much of a dent in the carefully generated impression that the named terrorists were involved in the events. This is primarily because the human brain can’t picture the leaders of the nation, the police, or the courts, as harming the people. “Why would they di such a thing?” Even the ‘prestigious’ media is assumed to be fundamentally benign. “They care for us.”
“Getting Them”
There is also the apparent impossibility of bringing government people to book, should the public become aware that Government caused the bombings. In London, you can’t very well call Scotland Yard to report that Scotland Yard has done the Tube bombing. (Well, maybe you can, and should, but it’s counterintuitive.)
Will it help to go shouting to the office of London’s Daily Mail or The Guardian? No. The folks there clearly know that the story they have printed is false (as they know where the “facts” they used came from) and thus the editors must be knowingly in cahoots with Government operatives.
Could you go to your MP or town mayor or whatever? There are a few honest MPs. Robin Cook, ex-foreign minister of UK, comes to mind. He resigned from the House of Commons to protest the invasion of Iraq. However, 30 days after the London bombings, he passed away (age 59), so was not available as a possible commentator on that event.
There may be an honest mayor somewhere, but the 2013 mayor of Boston doesn’t strike me as one of them. (Fancy him locking the city down and even cancelling the trains.) The governor of Oklahoma in 1995 was not someone we would expect to tattle on the FBI — the FBI being the main suspect, in my opinion.
Can you make your plaint to some judges? We did not see Judge George A O’Toole so much as raise an eyebrow when Dzhokar Tsarnaev’s “defense attorney” proclaimed “He did it.” Nor did that judge’s instructions to the jury contain anything that looked like a word of caution about, say, Judy Clarke’s omitting to cross-examine any of the prosecution’s witnesses.
Some Mistakes That Leaked Out
In each of the three bombings, numerous items engendered doubt about the alleged criminals’ participation – or provided insights into government’s participation, whichever way you prefer to look at it. Examples:
- On the very day of the London bombing, Peter Power of Visor Consultants stated on radio that he was running a “drill’ for an explosion at the very same Tube stations that experienced the real thing.
- In the OKC bombing, a city cop named Terrence Yeakey had found explosives inside the building (contrary to the story of all the damage having come from Tim McVeigh’s Ryder truck outside). Yeakey, a happy Dad of two children, then suicided.
- Someone posted on Youtube, way back in May 2013, a video of Tamelan Tsarnaev face down on the ground in custody of police. He had no gunshot wounds, so could not have been killed in a shootout with police as the story boldly alleges.
Stop Blaming the Patsy
It’s about time we moved into the next phase of our pubic life in which we stop saying stupid things like “Oswald killed JFK.” All the necessary data has been available for a long time to prove – and I do mean prove – that the patsy was a patsy.
Let’s grow up real fast and never again say “the three Muslim boys blew up the London Tube in 2005;” “Timothy McVeigh blew up the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City in 1995;” and “the Tsarnaev brothers blew up the finish line at the 2013 Boston Marathon.”
I believe we should even stop sleuthing 24/7 in an effort to collect a mountain of evidence to prove that the FBI did it. (Or, for London, that MI6 did it.) Who needs a mountain? And what good would it do?
We already have enough. It is unimaginable that amateurs could pull off any of the events. It has to have been highly coordinated. All the cases are so similar!
Please do what you can to put this business on a new footing.
Mary W Maxwell, a graduate of University of Adelaide Law School, can be reached at ProsecutionForTreason.com. She has retired from sleuthing (as of a minute ago). But she’s more than willing to discuss the Marathon case with anyone who agrees that it’s silly to put the Tsarnaev boy to death for a bombing committed by Government.
Oops. Somebody asked me who the ‘Birdie’ is. I shouldn’t have implied that anyone told me. (I was joking.) What my story showed is that there must be a “master plan” of some sort to organize these big disasters from the top.
They are all so similar and now that the harm-doers have got it down to a science, it’s a snap.
However, the similarities are beginning to be OH SO NOTICEABLE.
You forgot to add the BALI Bombings, without which Australia would never have got involved.
Too right. Thanks for the reminder.
A while back I posted a Bali essay at Gumshoe:
http://gumshoenews.com/2014/10/05/sedition-laws-in-australia-and-a-retrospective-on-the-bali-bombings/
Eddy, I quote the Oct 12, 2005 Sydney Morning Herald online:
“Indonesian police or military officers may have played a role in the 2002 Bali bombing, the country’s former president, Abdurrahman Wahid says. In an interview with SBS’s Dateline program, on the third anniversary of the bombing that killed 202 people, Mr Wahid says he has grave concerns about links between Indonesian authorities and terrorist groups. While he believed terrorists were involved in planting one of the Kuta night club bombs, the second, which destroyed Bali’s Sari Club, had been organised by authorities.
Asked who he thought planted the second bomb, Mr Wahid said: “Maybe the police … or the armed forces.”
“The orders to do this or that came from within our armed forces not from the fundamentalist people,” he says. The program also claims a key figure behind the formation of terror group Jemaah Islamiah was an Indonesian spy. [?] Former terrorist Umar Abduh, who is now a researcher and writer, told Dateline [that] Indonesian authorities had a hand in many terror groups.
“There is not a single Islamic group either in the movement or the political groups that is not controlled by (Indonesian) intelligence,” he said.
So, kind of like ISIS huh?
Sometimes the most important time to capture a false flag is to watch for the very first newsbreaks, wherever they come from, and which often contain important clues that tend to get sanitized out as the story “evolves”. The London bombing was a classic in that regard.
Paul, I think you mean that an innocent bystander or unclued-in journo gives away some correct info early on?
But then there’s the whole phenomenon of us being told correct items, maybe to drive us crazy. Peter Power can’t have spoke innocently, can he? He did say the coincidence (of the same Tube stations hosting his drill that day) made his hair stand on end, but that remark could have been in the script, too?
I think the “28-body morgue truck” in Tassie was purchased in advance not to help out on the day (after all when you’re dead, what’s the rush to get transport) but to be thrown in as a maddening clue. I could be wrong.
Then there is what you say, the story evolving, often shamelessly. As in Tsarnaev first said to have run over his Bro and then it was said that the Bro got caught in the wheel and dragged. Someday (in Heaven?) we will learn exactly at what moment that story about the wheel was dreamed up. Possibly years in advance.
When I get to heb’m gonna put on my robe….
I think in the rush to get the story out, or at least a unique angle the “un-clued journo” (as you so correctly put it) is our friend. Some of the first reports and victim interviews out of London neatly contradicted the later narrative (the man who didn’t see the backpack that was supposed to have been there, the damage in the train floor that indicated a device UNDER the floor, the claim of the smell of military-grade explosives), and don’t forget Benny Netanyahu having a bit too much to say before his people told him to shut up.
[…] it’s easy to understand once you get the hang of it. Please see my September 1, 2015 article “How Did They Do the Bombings? A Birdie Told Me” (at GumshoeNews.com). The court personnel are, like the president and legislature, under the sway […]