Skip navigation

26FBI photo of backback alleged to contain pressure-cooker bomb (note white patch)black_hat2Suspect #2: “Black Hat.” (Note lack of white patch.)white_hat1Suspect #2: “White Hat.”1QzeEqshTwo The Craft mercenaries, lower frame, within yard of bomb site.8VF5oh0crpThe Craft mercenary with full backpack (note: white patch, earplug)The_Craft_Two_Guys_Boston_MarathonBomb_Resembles_Black_Backpack

The_Craft_Three_Guys-600Same The Craft operatives at explosion; man at right no longer has backpack.After_BombBlast_Across_Street1



The_Craft_Communications_Van-600The Craft mercenaries; note again, no backpack on same man.FBI_Arrives

FBI_Contractors_DisappearMercenaries disappear

Meantime after a massive manhunt, in which the entire city of Boston and surrounding areas were subjected to a total lock-down and martial law, one alleged “terrorist” is dead, killed in an alleged shoot-out and run over by his brother according to the police.  The other, a 19 year old young man, severely wounded, is seen exiting the boat in which he’d take refuge, with no gun in hand or suicide vest; he was then shot several times while the police claimed he had attempted suicide by shooting himself in the mouth.  The owner of the boat reported it appeared to be riddled with holes “like a Swiss cheese.”

imagesexit boat

Meantime the FBI has now admitted it had contacts with the now dead Suspect #1 (Black Hat), and has quickly concocted stories of his recruitment as an Islamic jihadist.  His mother says they had him under surveillance for 5 years.  The mass media after attempting to utterly ignore the presence of The Craft operatives all around the bombing site have now been told, owing to the considerable evidence, that these were “normal” National Guard forces assigned to such events (curiously wearing a private mercenary company’s clothes, and whisked away by the FBI shortly after the bombing.)

The “official” story of the Boston bombing is more full of holes than the official versions of 9/11 or the Kennedy assassination.  It is the nature of our corporately controlled media that anyone raising questions regarding “official/authoritative” versions of events will be labeled as a tin foil hat wearing nut-case, etc., or if possible, simply ignored, as in an old-style Soviet tactic of making a “non-person”of dissenters.  From “magic bullets” to buildings collapsing on their own (WTC#7), and on through myriad lesser State lies, America has a considerable history of governmental malfeasance in the name of “patriotism.”

There are far too many “strange things” present in the Boston Marathon bombing, not least the servile behavior of our press which seems merely to parrot the government line while such obvious anomalies are present.  Were it not for the internet it is clear all these things would be simply erased from view.  The question is what purpose and for whom was this bombing intended to serve?


20dzhokhar-thelede-blog480Dead men don’t talk.

Some sources:




  1. I would have assumed you’d seen this by now? From the very internet epicenter of these cover-up speculations:

    Also, having spent a bit of time in the city, this local response to your description of the police state rings true to me in keeping with the culture of Boston:

    • Yes, I had seen the shuffle-the-cards assertion that the Craft folks (a private mercenary outfit, which thus far the Marathon and no one else has claimed were hired for security) were somehow part of a CST National Guard outfit. I don’t find the explanation very convincing or encouraging: the FBI was clearly cooperating with these guys. Kinda like the Brownshirts of Nazi Germany in my book. I just read the article – so Boston stood down while the police shot a 19 year old guy who was coming out on his own from the boat he’d taken refuge in; and from some pretty clear evidence (the video of naked man who looks damn like the other guy, but our police force claims was “someone else” [who might we ask, then we could ask them if they’d been told to strip by the police and lived to tell the tale]) the same police gunned down and ran over the Suspect #1. Well, forgive my skepticism, but I find all this a bit hard to believe. But if you are arguing that Bostonians are good law-abiding citizens, who like their “order” and such, I guess you might be right. Circa another time they said kind of the same thing in Germany when others were being hunted down in their streets. The militarized response was way too much over-kill in my view, but, well hell, they “got their man” and I guess a lot of Bostonians thought that was something to get out and cheer about. That “their man” was probably “their man” in a another sense cheers me not at all. Nor does Boston’s rah rah response: I think those who set this up indeed got what they wanted, which is not cheering, but chilling. America is moving headlong into a corporate police-state, Mussolini’s definition of fascism. (I note the police of Boston, as seen in a press conference, look, down to the hats they wear, like fascist thugs to me.) Now I don’t know – nor do many of us – what really happened in Boston, but there are far far too many strange dubious things in plain sight to swallow the official story straight. I certainly don’t.

  2. You say you like to ask questions, get to the bottom of things, etc. But how can any government affiliated agency ever provide an answer that will satisfy you unless they give the kind of answer you want to hear? In other words, if everything is truly on the up and up, how can they ever convey that to you? Aren’t you likely to simply discredit them as being part of some cover-up?

    You say you like to look at evidence, but The Craft isn’t a mercenary firm like Blackwater (Xe) or a “private security agency” (as you wrote) — they provide training for police and military, that’s it. Did you even bother to read their website? They also sell hats there that anyone can buy. And you find it strange that no credible news organization is talking about the fact that a couple of guys wearing Craft hats — likely DHS or police — were at the Boston marathon? You note that it’s been ignored — which it has — yet also say that it’s been “swept under the rug” as if to imply that these hats make for something notable, something that should be reported, instead of something akin to what it is, which is meaningless. It’s like all of those who suggested or implied that there was a cover up in regards to Obama’s place of birth because his administration and the media were refusing to comment (or report) on their inane, misguided speculations.

  3. Your equivalence of birthers to questioning, in this case, those like myself who question the Boston marathon official version is rather absurd, but have at it. Ditto your rhetorical opening sentence. If you wish take US government claims at face value, you may. I don’t, nor have my nearly 70 years of experience given me much reason to do so. In this specific instance there are just way too many indications to suggest the official version is remotely accurate, and new things come up everyday. If most people would prefer to imagine official versions are innocent, in the interests of “the people” and so on, that is kind of normal. Germans in the 30’s and 40’s were similarly credulous, out of a similar sense of self-interest shown by the flag waving Bostonians once the alleged culprits had been caught.

    Why were Craft people there – training? Whom? Under whose invitation? Why does it appear they have the cooperation of the FBI? Who was the naked man taped by a journalist surrounded by police, who looks a lot like Suspect #1, who police say was killed in a shoot-out? Why does it appear the Suspect #2 was coming out of the boat looking well enough to lift himself up, and then police claimed to have shot himself, though the boat was subsequently found riddled with bullets?

    And so on and on. But we don’t want to believe our wonderful police and FBI could have a dirty hand in all this. Nope, we’re the good guys. Always.

    Yeah, sure. And Saddam had WMD too.

    So, go ahead and be a good citizen. Believe whatever they tell you.

  4. My opening questions were not rhetorical. I was trying to show you a flaw in your thinking. I’ll try again.

    First, if you’re going to tell me that equating your way or thinking with the birthers is “absurd,” you end up looking a bit silly (not to yourself, of course, but to others) when you then go on equate “flag waving Bostonians” with German citizens of the 30’s and 40’s. (Which, by the way, you equate nearly everything with. To those on who didn’t agree with your tactics in regards to the Rappaport/Carney fiasco, you wrote: “These are the kinds of nice arguments people sit around and make while Hitler’s carry on.”) I was not equating birthers with your *questioning* the official version of the Boston bombing, I was equating your specific remark about the media sweeping The Craft hats “under the rug” with birthers because the thought process was similar. Many birthers used to say that Obama and the media’s early lack of response to their questions was further proof that something was amiss, but in reality their claims were largely being ignored because they lacked credible evidence. It was nothing but speculation and assumption by a group of people online, none of whom knew much of anything. Cut to: you assuming that a shadowy, fascistic-looking organization called The Craft was hired by someone as “private security” because a few people in Boston were photographed sporting their hats. A few curious clicks of a mouse, however, would have told you that The Craft doesn’t work that way — they aren’t even a security agency! In other words, both the birthers and you believe something with no evidence — they that Obama wasn’t born in the Unites States, you that The Craft is 1.) a private security agency and 2.) hired by someone to be at Boston. And both you and the birthers believe that “your” theories being ignored by the media is (or was, in their case) further proof of something amiss (or something being “swept under the rug”). In short, you’re jumping to conclusions online and then calling foul when the media doesn’t follow suit. I think that mindset links you with the birthers fairly well, though if it doesn’t I’d still wager that it’s a more convincing and direct link than flag waving Bostonians and 1930s Germans.

    Independent media such as Democracy Now, as well as the likes of Glenn Greenwald and Jeremy Scahill (who is perhaps the most knowledgeable person around when it comes to private armies and forces), haven’t touched these Craft theories either, yet they all have track records as being outspoken and reliable sources when it comes to being deeply critical of “official” stories. (Something scandalous, some actual evidence may indeed come of The Craft, but it certainly hasn’t yet.) Alex Jones (of infowars), on the other hand, has a long history of rendering himself untrustworthy and unreliable. (Listen to the last few minutes of his interview with Noam Chomsky and tell me that you believe him to be a solid, rational thinker.)

    “If you wish take US government claims at face value, you may. […] So, go ahead and be a good citizen. Believe whatever they tell you.”

    Huh? You seem to have set up a false dichotomy where anyone critical of someone who is questioning the official line must therefore be in support of the establishment view. Somehow you read my response as saying that it’s wise or advisable to uncritically endorse the government and the FBI, that they are never wrong, that they are “always” the “good guys.” Strange, because I never said or implied a thing like it. Your thinking lacks nuance, to say the least (“You’re either with me, or you’re with Hitler!”). Isn’t it possible for me to be skeptical in regards to the Craft story while also viewing the “official” story with open and clear minded skepticism? Isn’t that what critical thinking is all about? Must I side either with the government and the FBI or with every alternate theory that comes along? Are those my only choices? Isn’t there a middle ground somewhere between naively believing everything the government says and throwing down with whatever latest thing Alex Jones cooks up? Instead of believing what you want to believe, one should look for evidence. By writing (believing) that The Craft is a “private security agency”, you have allied yourself with the former way of “thinking.” You keep talking about “Craft people” as though they are some kind of secret cabal (with a public website). One of the many plausible explanations for guys wearing Craft hats is that they were policemen or members of DHS (which explains cooperation with FBI) who were trained by The Craft — which is what The Craft actually does — and who then wore a hat to the marathon because they liked it, because it was a good place to advertise a company they liked or supported, for the same reasons people wear baseball caps, etc. Hats that anyone can buy. It’s plain that you’re jumping to quick, unfounded and even false (“private security agency”) conclusions, as well as asking questions that do not at this time time fit with the evidence (“who hired them?”).

    If believing the government or FBI makes one a good German, then nothing they ever say can be believed (even though sometimes the official story is actually what happened). Alright, I won’t argue with that. But when people start building castles in the air, to assume that a lack of answers means something dubious is a false assumption.

    What happens when an independent group of experts answers your questions but their conclusions still end up supporting the official story? Would you believe them?

    The collapse of WTC#7 via controlled demolition was shown by the National Institute of Standards and Technology to be bogus. Okay, even though they utilized several private institutions, it’s still a government agency, so we can view the report with skepticism, dismiss it, whatever. But what about when Popular Mechanics assembles a team of over 300 experts across various fields who conclude that WTC#7 was not a demolition and go on to explain (using physics) how and why it fell? And what about when the structural engineering community concludes that it wasn’t a demolition? And when consensus in the mechanical engineering community supports the same thing? With all of this out there, instead of switching or modifying to a more objective but still skeptical, “I’m not sure I know what happened in regards to WTC7,” you opt for, “The idea that the building collapsed on its own is a State lie.”

    This is why your thinking is forever locked into a self-reinforcing loop of prejudice. I don’t doubt that you think you’re looking for answers, but you’re really not. Only certain kinds of answers. In order to seriously ask questions you have to be willing to give due consideration to the evidence and the answers, especially when they’re not in support of your own predetermined stories, feelings, views, prejudices, theories.

  5. You are correct, and my thinking lacks “nuance.” I, along with some others, think the the government story on the Boston marathon is fishy, at the least (though am not buying Alex Jones’ claim that a photo of now-injured “Suspect #2” showing him running away after the blast shows him with backpack still – it is an inconclusive shot in which he might or might not have backpack – though the FBI could perhaps resolve this matter if they would show the tape which they claimed some days ago which shows him putting his pack down at the site of 2nd blast.)

    I believe military regulations would forbid wearing a private company’s hat because you liked it while on duty. So I’d like an explanation for Craft men hanging around so close to bomb site just before and then after explosion. Or for the evident collaboration between them and FBI. Or some authoritative thing like a contract between Craft and the Boston Marathon. Or I would like clear evidence that last year there were similar clusters of military/police etc hanging around. Or and explanation for why some runners and others were told a bomb blast “exercise” was being done at same time (like the 9/11 “exercise” happening same day in which fictional airplanes were hijacked… ) Or or or…

    (Or why a sizable contingent of engineers and architects question the official story on not only WTC7, but also #1 & 2 – a question I share as a once-architectural student who studied the construction of those building as it went up when I was in school.)

    And yes, my questions surely inhibit my capacity for nuance.

    And yes, I question the Magic Bullet. And a lot of other things.

    No nuance here.

  6. Well then I guess your nuance lacks thinking.

    The man in the following photo you posted–the “Craft mercenary” who is “no longer [wearing] his backpack” after the blast–is wearing it again in a post-blast photo you posted:

    (He also looks to be wearing it in the photo above that one, though it’s harder to tell.)

    Couldn’t it also be that The Craft might have sent their people to the marathon to train THEM on how to cover such an event? The NYT reported on the massive amounts of protection that was afforded to the event by the city. Maybe The Craft took note and decided to see what they thought, or how it was done, what they would have done differently–a professional interest. Then when the events took place, they did the human (and professional) thing and assisted the FBI? (All of this is pointless speculation I realize; I’m simply trying to note that there are many fairly benign possibilities which could explain their hats.)

    “Or an explanation for why some runners and others were told a bomb blast “exercise” was being done at same time…”

    Did that even happen? I assume you got that from this article:

    Or maybe this one: (another disreputable site)

    In any case, it all began with two tweets posted by the Boston Globe referencing a controlled explosion that was about to be done by police. Suspicious packages were found after the initial bombs went off, so they blew them up to be safe. (Which is why some original reports said there were three blasts — the third one was done by a bomb squad). Certain people thought it was tweeted BEFORE the blast because they can’t tell time, didn’t look, or because they were ignorant of how Twitter displays tweets in local time zones.

    For the facts, as well as details on how this snowballed, see:
    boston tweet, with commentary and information:

    Or do you mean the one runner who said he was told, over a loud speaker, that there was a drill?

    “One popular theory centers on an account by Boston Marathon runner Alastair Stevenson, who said a bomb drill was held before the event. ‘At the starting line this morning, they had bomb sniffing dogs and the bomb squad out there,” Stevenson told “They kept announcing to runners not to be alarmed, that they were running a training exercise.’

    “This theory relies on the testimony of one person who has experienced a highly traumatic event, but many theorists are using it as a key piece of evidence, choosing to ignore the frequent appearance of bomb sniffing dogs and crews at major events in the US. It also remains unclear why organizers would run a bomb drill before setting off an explosion.” (

    See also this video (from 4:41 to 9:15):

    Alex Jones gets paid to conjure up shadows (a tiny sample–unfairly edited, but not out of context: Reading his website is a waste of your time.

    As I wrote previously, when people start building castles in the air, to assume a lack of answers means something dubious is a false assumption.

    The government doesn’t owe you answers to the phantom questions Alex Jones conjures up.

    • Even if the government owed me an answer, I know they would not give it, or if they do it is likely to be an answer highly skewed to its interests – which do not correspond to my interests – hence their hounding of Assange, or their treatment of Bradley Manning. Truth is not one of the US govt’s interests – be it about the Boston Marathon attack or pretty much anything else.

      For some further questions regarding Boston, see this article in which the very “liberal” Timothy Egan gives an adulatory white-wash of the incident, and then read the readers comments – not from the rabid pages of Alex Jones or other such net notes (though those are the only places which deemed publishing a lot of these fotos – certainly not to be seen in mainstream press), but readers of the NY Times.

      The official narrative has bounced around like a ping-pong ball: it was these two guys, armed and dangerous; it was a shoot-out at the boat; it was a 12 person cell; it was just these two guys; the shoot out was between the cops only because the armed and dangerous guy didn’t have a gun. Etc. etc. etc.

      You are welcome to believe the official versions and find “benign” reasons for the Craft folks being around; my 70 years of experience of the US govt tells me to beware of almost anything it does, and to always be skeptical of its announcements. Then again I have in the past had its forces camped at my front door, and I have spent a few years in prison owing to its policies. I suppose that biases me and makes my views invalid.

      • I read Egan’s article and started reading the comments, then started browsing them… I can’t say I know what you’re talking about. The majority are about Amanda Knox, the Central Park Five, police procedure and media coverage. But even if I had read every comment and seen what you were referring to, I don’t understand why you’re referring me to a comment section in order to make a point about something in the first place. What is your point anyway? That you aren’t alone? That people who “don’t read” Alex Jones are “on your side”? (And how do you know they don’t read Jones? Are people who read infowars or other dubious sites not allowed to comment on the NY Times? Aren’t Glenn Beck’s acolytes — as well as Fox News junkies — found in all corners of the web?) Even so, what is your argument? Appeal to the people? Communal reinforcement (bandwagon effect) as proof of something ? They are logical fallacies for a reason.

        * * *

        You needn’t convince me of the government’s war on whistleblowers, its war on truth (or general disinterest in it), the hijacking of government and the press by corporations, etc. I’m well aware of it. Are you next going to bring up the murder of Fred Hampton as evidence for why the FBI did something dubious in Boston (as well as to further outline what you perceive to be my naivety)? You are unwilling or unable to see what I’m saying, and you continue to imply that I can’t hold an argument against you without also being naive about the government. I thought at first it was an incapacity for nuance that was at the root of this, though now I’m thinking it might be ego driven. Perhaps you see yourself as a stand in or symbol for all just opposition to the powers that be, and therefore any attack on you is viewed as an attack on opposition itself. I don’t know.

        This is my last comment. I’ve been trying to make a single point while you keep trying to have arguments other than the one I’m having. You keep responding to things I’m not saying, things like “craft presence WAS benign”, “there are NO QUESTIONS regarding the Boston bombings in need of answers”, “I trust official narratives as my default position”… All I’ve been trying to show you is that your thinking is flawed.

        Some of the theories you have decided to swallow and pass along are filled with many holes or are otherwise untrue. Example: You formulated the question, “Why were some runners and others told a bomb blast ‘exercise’ was being done at the same time?” out of little to no evidence, and likely out of a string of online conspiratorializing (see links previously provided). Had the “official story” somehow needed the “bomb blast exercise” in order to support its version of events, you would have been quick to point out how full of holes it was and talked about how fishy it all smelled. But as it came from the position of questioning the official story, you swallowed it wholesale and added it to your bag of evidence. Put another way: when it comes to disproving the official story, you jump on Google; when it comes to disproving or discrediting theories and speculations, instead of jumping on Google to vet them, you demand that the government does it for you. Once more: for the government (and even credible independent media, apparently) you require an unattainable (or perhaps ALMOST unattainable) level of evidence; from sources discrediting the government (no matter their reputations and standards!), you require nothing but speculation before gleefully hopping into bed with them. (For other examples see the captions and insinuations regarding the Craft backpack(s) that I pointed out above, the unfounded belief in The Craft being a mercenary force, that the government or media ignoring an unfounded speculation is suspect, etc.)

        This is the flaw in your thinking. It’s clear, it’s real, and it’s borne out of a mentality and procedure very similar to that which fuels birtherism, climate-denialism, and all manner of other things you rightfully disdain. It’s an easy trap to fall into, and no one is immune. That’s why we must always be on guard.

  7. Uninformed pseudo-radical posturing gives the left a bad name. Try doing something useful.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: