Stevenson said he saw law enforcement spotters on the roofs at the start of the race. He's been in plenty of marathons in Chicago, D.C., Chicago, London and other major metropolitan areas but has never seen that level of security before.

　
"Evidently, I don't believe they were just having a training exercise," Stevenson said. "I think they must have had some sort of threat or suspicion called in."

CNN reports a state government official said there were no credible threats before the race.

Stevenson had just finished the marathon before the explosions. Stevenson said his wife had been sitting in one of the seating sections where an explosion went off, but thankfully she left her seat and was walking to meet up with him.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I would trust this COACH who has been to many marathons before I trust some UK member( who said he was there too. This explains both the misinfo about the facts and the rush to blame both muslim/right wing. I fear only a few will see this truth.

All these bombings, shootings etc. could be done by other foreign troops positioned here in order to hurry up a police state.

These troops know how to speak English as they've been trained in espionage and counter
intelligence. They've assimilated themselves into most police agencies and look like any average Joe.

"We are just so thankful right now," Stevenson said.

SupremeCommander wrote:I think it's odd whenever I see bomb sniffing dogs at the train station - doesn't mean there's a bomb there

And that's assuming these dogs were bomb sniffing dogs and not just regular old police dogs. Though, admittedly, track coaches from Mobile, AL are well-known and respected for their knowledge of security details of major events in large metropolises.

Article that mentions Alex jones and infowars.com :

Permanent Address: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-people-believe-conspiracy-theoies
See Inside Why People Believe Conspiracy Theories
Why people who believe in one conspiracy are prone to believe others

By Michael Shermer | Saturday, August 18, 2012 | 103

Image: Brian Taylor

On Wednesday, May 16, I spent several hours on a hot bus in a neon desert called Las Vegas with a merry band of British conspiracists during their journey around the Southwest in search of UFOs, aliens, Area 51 and government cover-ups, all for a BBC documentary. One woman regaled me with a tale about orange balls of energy hovering around her car on Interstate 405 in California, which were subsequently chased away by black ops helicopters. A man challenged me to explain the source of a green laser beam that followed him around the English countryside one evening.

Conspiracies are a perennial favorite for television producers because there is always a receptive audience. A recent Canadian Broadcasting Corporation documentary that I participated in called Conspiracy Rising, for example, featured theories behind the deaths of JFK and Princess Diana, UFOs, Area 51 and 9/11, as if there were a common thread running throughout. According to radio host and conspiracy monger Alex Jones, also appearing in the film, “The military-industrial complex killed John F. Kennedy” and “I can prove that there's a private banking cartel setting up a world government because they admit they are” and “No matter how you look at 9/11 there was no Islamic terrorist connection—the hijackers were clearly U.S. government assets who were set up as patsies like Lee Harvey Oswald.”

Such examples, along with others in my years on the conspiracy beat, are emblematic of a trend I have detected that people who believe in one such theory tend to believe in many other equally improbable and often contradictory cabals. This observation has recently been confirmed empirically by University of Kent psychologists Michael J. Wood, Karen M. Douglas and Robbie M. Sutton in a paper entitled “Dead and Alive: Beliefs in Contradictory Conspiracy Theories,” published in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science this past January. The authors begin by defining a conspiracy theory as “a proposed plot by powerful people or organizations working together in secret to accomplish some (usually sinister) goal” that is “notoriously resistant to falsification … with new layers of conspiracy being added to rationalize each new piece of disconfirming evidence.” Once you believe that “one massive, sinister conspiracy could be successfully executed in near-perfect secrecy, [it] suggests that many such plots are possible.” With this cabalistic paradigm in place, conspiracies can become “the default explanation for any given event—a unitary, closed-off worldview in which beliefs come together in a mutually supportive network known as a monological belief system.”

This monological belief system explains the significant correlations between different conspiracy theories in the study. For example, “a belief that a rogue cell of MI6 was responsible for [Princess] Diana's death was correlated with belief in theories that HIV was created in a laboratory … that the moon landing was a hoax … and that governments are covering up the existence of aliens.” The effect continues even when the conspiracies contradict one another: the more participants believed that Diana faked her own death, the more they believed that she was murdered.

The authors suggest there is a higher-order process at work that they call global coherence that overrules local contradictions: “Someone who believes in a significant number of conspiracy theories would naturally begin to see authorities as fundamentally deceptive, and new conspiracy theories would seem more plausible in light of that belief.” Moreover, “conspiracy advocates' distrust of official narratives may be so strong that many alternative theories are simultaneously endorsed in spite of any contradictions between them.” Thus, they assert, “the more that participants believe that a person at the centre of a death-related conspiracy theory, such as Princess Diana or Osama [bin] Laden, is still alive, the more they also tend to believe that the same person was killed, so long as the alleged manner of death involves deception by officialdom.

As Alex Jones proclaimed in Conspiracy Rising: “No one is safe, do you understand that? Pure evil is running wild everywhere at the highest levels.”

On his Infowars.com Web site, Jones headlines his page with “Because There Is a War on for Your Mind.” True enough, which is why science and reason must always prevail over fear and irrationality, and conspiracy mongering traffics in the latter at the expense of the former.

SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN ONLINE
Comment on this article at ScientificAmerican.com/sep2012

VCoug wrote:

SupremeCommander wrote:I think it's odd whenever I see bomb sniffing dogs at the train station - doesn't mean there's a bomb there

And that's assuming these dogs were bomb sniffing dogs and not just regular old police dogs. Though, admittedly, track coaches from Mobile, AL are well-known and respected for their knowledge of security details of major events in large metropolises.

YEA ESPECIALLY WHEN THE PLACES WERE AVG SMALL IN SIZE, CITIES LIKE LONDON , CHICAGO, WASH DC ETC..

Nalod wrote:

playa2 wrote:

Nalod wrote:Playa don't list his sources. Nalod does!

Article that mentions Alex jones and infowars.com :

That wasn't my source , you don't have a clue what my sources are. LOL

LOL?

YOu don't list your source. Your cutting and pasting. Looks like InfoWars stuff.

Its all the same rhetoric that gets monetized on sites that sells fear to move survivalist supplies and other goods.

Sells fear of a "Police state" over and over. BTW, who profits from a police state? Big business? Hardly, its awful for it. Why do they want to control us? What is the model BTW? Which country on the planet has one of them police states that function well?

Unfortunately for you Nalod you live in a good ole American bubble, being in the military would give you some sort of clue to all your institutionalized shill questions you continue to ask.

Try to remember, just because YOU don't know that something exist , doesn't mean it's not true. You really crack me up .

The military-industrial complex is what you should study and also find out what parties has an interest because they are the ones benefit from it.

The role of the USG/MIC, Mafia Industrial Complex is being the economic hitmen for the INTERNATIONAL CORPORAOCRACY PREDATORY CAPITALIST WELFARE KINGS. Author John Perkins reports his role as an economic hitman. He would go to a head of government with $200 million to offer as a bribe for the country to take on useless loans by the IMF, WORLD BANK,for useless projects which could never be repaid and the country would have to cut all spending for education, transportation, food, roads, medical so the useless loans would be paid back with interest. The money of course disappeared to the foreign bank accounts of the corrupt politicians who take the US$, and issue their own currency for use in that country.

Here's a piece of the article for you:

In the five decades since Eisenhower left the White House for his retirement home in Gettysburg, much has changed. The Soviet Union has disappeared. So too, for all practical purposes, has Communism itself. Yet in Washington, an aura of never-ending crisis still prevails—and with it, military metaphysics.

The national-security state continues to grow in size, scope, and influence. In Ike’s day, for example, the CIA dominated the field of intelligence. Today, experts refer casually to an “intelligence community,” consisting of some 17 agencies. The cumulative size and payroll of this apparatus grew by leaps and bounds in the wake of the September 11 attacks. Last July, The Washington Post reported that it had “become so large, so unwieldy and so secretive that no one knows how much money it costs, how many people it employs, how many programs exist within it or exactly how many agencies do the same work.” Since that report appeared, U.S. officials have parted the veil of secrecy enough to reveal that intelligence spending exceeds $80 billion per year, substantially more than the budget of either the Department of State ($49 billion) or the Department of Homeland Security ($43 billion).

The spending spree extends well beyond intelligence. The Pentagon’s budget has more than doubled in the past decade, to some $700 billion per year. All told, the ostensible imperatives of national security thereby consume roughly half of all federal discretionary dollars. Even more astonishing, annual U.S. military outlays now approximate those of all other nations, friends as well as foes, combined.

Here's a link to try and explain to you why we like to go to war and who benefits.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/01/the-tyranny-of-defense-inc/308342/

jrodmc wrote:INTERNATIONAL CORPORAOCRACY PREDATORY CAPITALIST WELFARE KINGS

Didn't read any of your stuff, playa, but you had me at Welfare Kings!

I smell a really cool indie band name!

Now my only question is why did the welfare kings want to kill a 29 year old fiancee, an 8 year old, and a Chinese grad student? With pressure cooker bombs filled with BB's and roofing nails?

Not belittling the life of those three who died , but to them that's a drop in the bucket compared to 911. Their goal has never changed to keep the American people CONFUSED AND DAZED staying in constant fear and danger. The reason they coined the term war on terror is because they can keep it going as long as they like with no one immediate country to conquer.

For guys like Nalod who I really like its funny how he and a few others who ridicule conspiracy research, have never done any serious research. It's like saying to Einstein, You're a fool for believing your new theory, when you haven't even studied mathematics.

I have never met those who oppose to admit to me that they had never actually researched the subject, just going off the theories the mainstream media gave them.

No time to read them all but some were very informative. Most say its an impossible endeavor.

I'll take that advice to heart. The subject is very interesting.

“The conspiracy community regularly seizes on one slip of the tongue, misunderstanding or slight discrepancy to defeat 20 pieces of solid evidence; accepts one witness of theirs, even if he or she is a provable nut, as being far more credible than 10 normal witnesses on the other side; treats rumours, even questions, as the equivalent of proof; leaps from the most minuscule of discoveries to the grandest of conclusions; and insists, as the late lawyer Louis Nizer once observed, that the failure to explain everything perfectly negates all that is explained.”

— Vincent Bugliosi, from Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

The subject of "Denialism" is an interesting one and one I have read up on.

In the end, I won't debate playa2 on this. It maybe his passion to follow up on these matters but not mine do debunk. Seems many do a fine job themselves.

Nalod wrote:I did a google "how to argue with a conspiracy theorist" and was shocked how many articles came up.

No time to read them all but some were very informative. Most say its an impossible endeavor.

I'll take that advice to heart. The subject is very interesting.

“The conspiracy community regularly seizes on one slip of the tongue, misunderstanding or slight discrepancy to defeat 20 pieces of solid evidence; accepts one witness of theirs, even if he or she is a provable nut, as being far more credible than 10 normal witnesses on the other side; treats rumours, even questions, as the equivalent of proof; leaps from the most minuscule of discoveries to the grandest of conclusions; and insists, as the late lawyer Louis Nizer once observed, that the failure to explain everything perfectly negates all that is explained.”

— Vincent Bugliosi, from Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy.

The subject of "Denialism" is an interesting one and one I have read up on.

In the end, I won't debate playa2 on this. It maybe his passion to follow up on these matters but not mine do debunk. Seems many do a fine job themselves.

Funny you mentioned the word conspiracy theorist, I would consider myself a Truth Patriot.
Nalod I have a question for you, do you consider yourself an open minded critical thinking person, if so how can you possibly ridicule an opinion when you haven't even done 30 minutes of research into the matter?