Wednesday, August 19, 2015

Dzhokhar's backpack

As regular readers know, I do not usually hold a high opinion of Alex Jones or of his associates. Even though Paul Craig Roberts is smarter than your average Jonesian, I question the reasoning displayed in his recent piece, which proclaims the innocence of accused Boston bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev -- who has, incidentally, admitted his guilt.

As it turns out, Dzokhar's aunt Maret Tsarnaeva is a lawyer in the Kyrgyz Republic. With the aid of an American attorney, she has filed an amicus curiae brief in her nephew's case. Thanks to that brief, a number of FBI documents have been made public -- documents which, according to Roberts, prove Dzokhar's innocence.

The documents argue that on the basis of the evidence provided by the FBI, there is no basis for the indictment of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. The FBI’s evidence clearly concludes that the bomb was in a black knapsack, but the photographs used to establish Dzhokhar’s presence at the marathon show him with a white knapsack. Moreover, the knapsack lacks the heavy bulging appearance that a knapsack containing a bomb would have.
Let's take a closer look at this statement. These are among the photos which have been offered as evidence of Dzokhar's presence in the bombing area:

In the above photo, the boy outlined in blue was one of the victims. All sources agree that Dzokhar was wearing the white cap.

The photo below shows the post-explosion remains of the backpack.

Looks to me as though we are dealing with a backpack that is both white and black. I don't think that we can argue that the post-explosion backpack differs from the pre-explosion bag.

From Maret Tsarnaeva's filing:
Together, these plainly show that Dzhokhar was not carrying a large, nylon, black backpack, including a white-rectangle marking at the top, and containing a heavy pressure- cooker bomb, shortly before explosions in Boston on April 15, 2013, as claimed by the FBI and as alleged in the indictment for both explosions. On the contrary, these photo exhibits show unmistakably that Dzhokhar was carrying over his right shoulder a primarily white backpack which was light in weight, and was not bulging or sagging as would have been evident if it contained a heavy pressure-cooker bomb.

"Not bulging"? One need not be a professional photo analyst to see that the pack contains something with a girth substantially larger than the length of the baseball cap.

Amazon sells a standard cap that is 11 inches long. The FBI said that the bomb was constructed from a 6-quart Fagor pressure cooker, which is also an item sold by Amazon. According to the description, the cooker "Measures approximately 12 by 12 by 13 inches."

Roberts believes that the backpack would sag more noticeably if it contained this cooker, but I am not persuaded. I carry a backpack often -- especially when I have to carry home groceries. I doubt whether an outside observer could easily tell when my bag is filled with bread and eggs and when it is filled with canned goods. Backpack straps are not "stretchy": They look the same whether the burden is light or heavy.

I still suspect that we have not been told that full truth in this case: Oddities remain, and they deserve investigation. But our focus today is not on the case as a whole. Right now, we are looking at the argument presented by Paul Craig Roberts, which is hardly convincing.

His argument comes to this: An innocent Dzokhar was somehow convinced to visit the bombing site wearing a backback which contained something that was not a pressure cooker, even though it was the exact same 12"x12" size as a pressure cooker. Later, he would confess to being a bomber even though he really wasn't.

Seriously, does that scenario make sense to you?
That picture could easily be the inside of the backpack after having been blown apart by the bomb, but based on all of the shady stuff surrounding this (and every other "terrorism" case), we'll never know for sure...and that's by design.
Well, I think there is reason to believe he was set up by the FBI. Innocent? Perhaps not entirely, but I think the brothers were patsies in an FBI scheme that went "live" (much like the first World Trade Center bombing was). Of course, I don't have proof and I doubt there is much chance we ever will. One thing is certain, the government knew about the older brother long before the bombings, and killed someone they were "interviewing" about the case. They have also deported or intimidated friends and family members of the two brothers. Standard operating procedure for them, of course. See the Who,What,Why web site for more details, as they seem to have a less hysterical look at the "facts" surrounding the case. Personally though, I'm not really sure how anyone could see those two backpacks as being at all the same. Of course, there were Blackwater "employees" at the scene that day, with very heavy looking black backpacks with white triangles at the top (just like the bomb backpack that has been shown as evidence). I'm sure it's just a weird coincidence though.
"Seriously, does that scenario make sense to you?"


Let's see one of the photos that were taken of clumps of Blackwater employees in their characteristic black garb running away from the crowd shortly before the explosions began. Two words, Joseph: Dave McGowan. Look up his series titled "The Curious Case of the Man Who Could Only Sit Down." He's more convincing than the lame Roberts. And yeah I know he doesn't think we went to the moon in a jiffy-pop bag.
Loaded with explosive and shrapnel, I think the pressure cooker would have weighed at least 11 pounds. It doesn't look like whatever's in the backpack weighs that much, considering how it doesn't look like it's pulling his shoulder or jacket down. But I could be wrong.

I think the better place to find doubt about the official story is with Uncle Ruslan. For example:
I thought Dave McGowan's photo-analysis of the bombing's aftermath was interesting ( and lends credence to the notion that some sort of drill or simulation happened to go "live". See also first WTC, second WTC, and the London tube bombing.

What was most interesting with Robert's information was the degree by which the accused's public defenders considered themselves part of the conviction apparatus. A committed attorney could have tried to shed some light on the simulation - if that's what happened - in the interest of trying to prevent what seems to be a winning formula from happening again.
As I said, McGowan is impossible for me to take seriously. I do think that his Laurel Canyon book is a lot of fun, in that it is a repository of wonderfully weird stories about a weird place. But his overall "theory of Laurel Canyon" is ridiculous.
It should also probably be mentioned that "confessions" can be gleaned in a variety of ways, few, if any, of which our government seems to have no qualms about employing. There is a great deal of evidence pointing to this being a drill that went "live". While I don't always agree with everything McGowan writes, let alone his conclusions (which he rarely every comes right out and states), I think his information certainly creates sufficient doubt about the official story. It's certainly not a new thing for our government to create patsies to cover it's acts, and it's certainly been shown that the FBI creates more "terrorists" than it apprehends. No, something fishing was going on there, whether or not Zhokar and his brother were actually guilty of involvement with it. There is plenty of reason to doubt it was their idea, if they even were anything more than mere patsies.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is 

powered by Blogger. 

Isn't yours?