Debunked: Movie producer Nathan Folks claims bombing false flag, Voice of Russia says blood too red

[MikeC]

The Tweet from Boston Globe is just the crack that started the downfall of this event.

[off topic material removed]

Perhaps you could address why tweet did not mention exactly the same location as the explosion as you suggested it did.

That is a pretty central and easily verifiable claim - all the evidence above says you are wrong about it. If you maintain you are correct then which of the evidence above is wrong?

 

[Mick West]

And for clarity. This is the tweet:
It was one hour after the bombings, and refers to a controlled explosion of a suspicious device outside the library across the road from the first bomb.

Do you disagree with that assessment. If so, then why? If not, then what's the tweet evidence of?

 

[Trailblazer]

I never stated the blood was too red. Maybe listen to my interview again. That would be an obvious weak argument. I know actual crisis actors in the event. I know how they produced the event to seem real. It was a Homeland Security drill produced by several production companies. Boston Globe even tweeted the event was a drill. Then retracted later. How can it not be more obvious to the people on this site? I can prove the deception to the American Public on due course.

You make no sense at all Nathan. If it was a super-secret false-flag drill then why on earth would the Boston Globe tweet that it was a drill?

[off topic material removed]

 

[Mick West]

Let's keep on the topic of the tweet please. Nathan claims this is key evidence. So Nathan, if you wish to continue here, please back up your claims. Why not start with the simplest point. When was the tweet? What is the significance of this time?

 

[Nathan Folks]

Please change title about blood to red. This is inaccurate. There actually wasn't blood at all until added by production designer and later added with special effects. Make-up artist will be exposed as well. I am finished discussing claims at this point. Will all have to just wait until the class action suit begins in Feb 2015. Thank you for your patience.

 

[MikeC]

@Nathan - any actors/financier/etc should certainly be tried for fraud, as should anyone else who was fraudulently involved - but you haven't actually addressed the tweet at all - so can you have a look at that please?

 

[Nathan Folks]

And for clarity. This is the tweet:
It was one hour after the bombings, and refers to a controlled explosion of a suspicious device outside the library across the road from the first bomb.

Do you disagree with that assessment. If so, then why? If not, then what's the tweet evidence of?

The Tweet was sent before any bombs went off. I am not sure why now it is stated an hour after the event unless they have manipulated the Tweet.

 

[Mick West]

Please change title about blood to red. This is inaccurate. There actually wasn't blood at all until added by production designer and later added with special effects. Make-up artist will be exposed as well. I am finished discussing claims at this point. Will all have to just wait until the class action suit begins in Feb 2015. Thank you for your patience.

The title has been changed to clarify who made the claim.

 

[Mick West]

The Tweet was sent before any bombs went off. I am not sure why now it is stated an hour after the event unless they have manipulated the Tweet.

And what evidence do you have of this?

 

[NoParty]

The Tweet was sent before any bombs went off. I am not sure why now it is stated an hour after the event unless they have manipulated the Tweet.

That would contradict everything known at this time.

Are you saying that you have new evidence that places the tweet before the bombs went off?

That would be huge! Why has that never been made public?

 

[Nathan Folks]

The Tweet is merely evidence of the controlled DHS drill that went live.

 

[Nathan Folks]

[...] the tweet was before the bombs. [...]

 

[Mick West]

The Tweet is merely evidence of the controlled DHS drill that went live.

Not if it happened after the bombs. And since it seems like it did, then what's the actual evidence here?

 

[NoParty]

[...] the tweet was before the bombs. [...]

So, you're saying that your entire theory hinges on the idea that the 12:53 pm tweet
actually happened an hour earlier than that...but where is your evidence of the new timing?

 

[Mick West]

[...] the tweet was before the bombs. [...]

Explain how you can prove this. Or any evidence at all that it might have happened before the bombs.

 

[MikeC]

Soo...er.......was it at exactly the same spot or not?? That was the central pint of your post highlighting it to us and yo haven't addressed the evidence that contradicts that.

Saying there was a DHS drill that went live is another claim - obviously potentially related, but it will have other evidence to support it - and I expect you're probably not going to supply that as it'll be part of your court case - so how about we just stick to the one that is fairly easy to check - the time and place of het tweet?

 

[Nathan Folks]

[Off Topic Material Removed]

 

[MikeC]

You haven't actually said anything at all except "you should believe me"....:/

 

[Mick West]

So, you're saying that your entire theory hinges on the idea that the 12:53 pm tweet
actually happened an hour earlier than that...but where is your evidence of the new timing?

Times of the tweets are Pacific (at least for me), so 12:53 pacific is 3:53 Eastern, the bombing was at 2:50 Eastern, so these tweets are about an hour after the bombing

Here's an embedded tweet, and a screen grab of that tweet, is there a difference for anyone?

 

[Nathan Folks]

You haven't actually said anything at all except "you should believe me"....:/

I am sorry you feel that way. I don't need to prove it here. It really only counts if I can prove it in court. I think you will agree that if I give everything away here they will have a chance to combat it before it is in court.

 

[Mick West]

[Off Topic Material Removed]

Address the tweet. What evidence do you have that it was before the bombing?

 

[Mick West]

I am sorry you feel that way. I don't need to prove it here. It really only counts if I can prove it in court. I think you will agree that if I give everything away here they will have a chance to combat it before it is in court.

You should be able to address the tweet. You brought it up, you said it was the prime bit of evidence that we should debunk.

Would you agree it is debunked, as you have no evidence it was from before the bombing?

 

[Nathan Folks]

Times of the tweets are Pacific (at least for me), so 12:53 pacific is 3:53 Eastern, the bombing was at 2:50 Eastern, so these tweets are about an hour after the bombing

Here's an embedded tweet, and a screen grab of that tweet, is there a difference for anyone?

I have a better question. Why would the Boston Globe report this an hour after? If the news was already out about a terrorist attack?

 

[MikeC]

I am sorry you feel that way. I don't need to prove it here. It really only counts if I can prove it in court. I think you will agree that if I give everything away here they will have a chance to combat it before it is in court.

I am only talking about the tweet - you have intimated that your case has more than just that, so why not just confine yourself to it's time and content?

 

[MikeC]

I have a better question. Why would the Boston Globe report this an hour after? If the news was already out about a terrorist attack?

Because another explosion an hour after a terrorist attack would be big news!!

 

[Nathan Folks]

Wouldn't a better tweet be, There was a bomb explosion injuring many on 600 Block on Boylston Street.

This was before the bomb and they must have changed the time stamp on Twitter.

Twitter has been known to change time stamps I have noticed if asked by the right people.

 

[NoParty]

Why would the Boston Globe report this an hour after? If the news was already out about a terrorist attack?

Well, as Post #36 says: (http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/boston.asp#globe)

"However, this tweet was issued about an hour after the bomb blasts and referenced a controlled detonation of a suspicious device near the central branch of the Boston Public Library, which is on the stretch of Boylston Street where the initial explosions occurred. Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/boston.asp#ilbQzVCApE04xF7D.99"

It obviously is not about a drill of any kind...


...and if you're accusing Twitter of changing the time, proving that would be easy:
merely point out any cyber acknowledgment of that tweet an hour earlier.
As of now, your entire case hinges on a timeline that is off...
so you now imply that it was manipulated...and still, with no evidence whatsoever.

Seriously, if y'all plan to go to court with this kind of "evidence," you're in for a long, unhappy day.

 

[Mick West]

I have a better question. Why would the Boston Globe report this an hour after? If the news was already out about a terrorist attack?

Didn't you read the explanation?

It was a controlled explosion outside the library. A suspicious bag. Their next tweet, less than a minute later, said:

 

[Nathan Folks]

Because another explosion an hour after a terrorist attack would be big news!!

Why would they have a bomb drill after a terror attack? This was a prearranged tweet. It was sent before the bombs went off. Then quickly changed time stamp. There is metadata that will prove my point on how the event unfolded and the times 911 dispatchers were called off the scene.

 

[Mick West]

Why would they have a bomb drill after a terror attack? This was a prearranged tweet. It was sent before the bombs went off. Then quickly changed time stamp. There is metadata that will prove my point on how the event unfolded and the times 911 dispatchers were called off the scene.

Read the next tweet.

 

[Nathan Folks]

Controlled explosion means DRILL

 

[Mick West]

Would you at least agree that you currently have zero evidence it was sent before the bombing?

 

[Mick West]

Controlled explosion means DRILL

No, it does not. Just Google It.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_explosion

A controlled explosion is a method for detonating or disabling a suspected explosive device.

Methods which are used to set off a controlled explosion include clearing the area and using a bomb disposal robot to attach a shaped charge to the suspected bomb to sever the explosive from its detonator.

Another classic method of controlled explosion is to place the suspected bomb in a skip and fill it with sand before detonating it with a self-incendiary device or a fuse.

Content from external source

 

[Mick West]

Bomb Squad activities. Drill?? Are people really this ignorant? This is hurting my brain having to keep reiterating this point.

So it looks like you've got a tweet sent an hour after the bombing, and it refers to a controlled explosion, which is what is used to disable a suspect explosive device.

Do you have any evidence at all that this is not the case.

 

[Mick West]

Here's the tweet directly after the bombs

and here's what you consider evidence. One hour later

 

[MikeC]

Why would they have a bomb drill after a terror attack?

I see nothing identifying it as a drill - the public information says it was a suspicious bag, and AFAIK blowing such things up is normal practice.

This was a prearranged tweet.

in what way prearranged?

It was sent before the bombs went off. Then quickly changed time stamp.

Well then that should be able to be established with some good evidence - what is it?

There is metadata that will prove my point on how the event unfolded and the times 911 dispatchers were called off the scene.

I look forward to seeing it.

 

[Mick West]

A Twitter search:
https://twitter.com/search?q=from:BostonGlobe since:2013-04-15 until:2013-04-16&src=typd
Shows the timeline of all the tweets that day

Significant evidence that this timeline is genuine is that thousands of people replied to these tweets and retweeted them. And none of it is consistent with Nathan's alternate timeline.

 

[MikeC]

Bomb Squad activities. Drill?? Are people really this ignorant? This is hurting my brain having to keep reiterating this point.

Possibly because there's no actual evidence to support your contention - and so the pain comes from trying to maintain something that is obviously not defensible!

I suggest that reviewing the evidence - such as the tweet timeline posted by Mick immediately above - and grasping that this tweet was sent exactly when it says it was might help your discomfort.

 

[Trailblazer]

I have a better question. Why would the Boston Globe report this an hour after? If the news was already out about a terrorist attack?

Most likely to allay people's fears if they hear another loud bang!

Controlled explosions after an attack or terror alert are common practice, especially in a chaotic situation when people will have fled and dropped their bags etc.



You are trying to conflate "controlled explosion" with a drill. That is just totally false. I have lived in and around London all my life. Terror alerts have been a fact of life for most of that time, from the IRA in the 1980s through to more recent threats.

"Controlled explosion" means exactly what it sounds like. A suspicious item is being blown up in a controlled manner. Spend a few months on public transport in London and you will soon hear the phrase!

An example culled at random from the press:

 

[NoParty]

...My claim will focus on the One Boston Fund.

I gotta say, this is a little weird.

I mean, the only reason anyone was listening to Nathan Folks, re. the Boston tragedy,
was that a "Hollywood Producer" was using his insider knowledge of film to make a
gigantic claim that the Boston Marathon bombings were an elaborate Hollywood-style hoax.

I must say, at first, that movie-maker credibility got my attention, as well.

But now you say that you are not focusing on the Hollywood angle, but rather the more
prosaic accounting side of a fund set up to help victims of the bombing? Odd.
Unless you're planning on spending weeks in the courtroom (not with the Globe tweet, I hope)
proving that everything was actually all an illusion...and then attacking the help fund.

Tips For Teens: If One Fund Boston truly is the focus of your big lawsuit,
you'll definitely want to get the name right. Judges like that sort of attention to detail.