Debunking: Conspiracy Theories - Boston Marathon Bombings

Mick West

Staff member
In any unfolding event nowadays, some people are going to be shouting "false flag". It's just a habit they have got into. You can see how people get into that state - once you believe that 9/11 was a series of controlled demolitions, then really, how hard is it to believe that every single thing you see on TV is faked.

As of now, there is NOTHING beyond pure speculation that this is anything other than a terrorist attack. Two bombs went off, some people are dead, many people are injured. Nobody has yet claimed responsibility, and there are no known suspects.

What's going to happen now is that no matter what evidence comes forth, there will be people who will nit-pick this for the next few years.

Wikipedia is a good place to get the latest information, and a good place to start when you want to check on some claim. Wikipedia gets updated to clarify misleading early new reports, such as the reports of additional explosive devices (none actually found so far).

Debunking threads by subject here:

Debunked: Natural News - Boston controlled explosion exercise
Debunked: Boston Bombing: Man on the Roof
Debunked: Boston Marathon Family Guy Prediction
MSN Debunks 'Facebook Page' set up before the Boston Bombing' theory

Other Boston Debunking pages:
5 viral stories about Boston attacks that aren't true -

General Articles about the Boston Marathon Conspiracies
Why the conspiracy theorists will have a tough time with Boston.
Photos won't stop Boston conspiracy theories
Last edited:


New Member
Okay ... I'm new to the site ... an extremely rational human, but always a sarcastic cynic, given the number of clueless idiots, slaves, and zombies that occupy our country. I judge by logic ... always ... and I am formally trained in it (I used to architect parallel supercomputers, among other things). I appreciate anyone who tries to argue any POV, and I appreciate those who take the time to tear them apart and save me effort. I've quoted a number of nice debunkings from this site on some Sandy Hook-related theory specifics, and I like the way Mick handles himself.

I looked around and couldn't (yet) find any reference to Dave McGowan's extensive (and, as always, extremely entertainingly-cynical) analysis of the HAROLD & KUMAR WIN THE BOSTON MARATHON story, and I wondered if anyone has taken the time to consider it. Dave is no fly-by-night hip-shooting conspiracy theorist. He's done fabulous stuff (not all of which I agree with) and, while certainly hinting, lets you judge for yourself. There's a couple of more things I've seen on BOTHTON THONG that add more questions, but I think Dave raises enough. I'm especially impressed by the lack of collateral damage to any of the surrounding elements, but there are many other things in here that relate to the victims' scene, explosion sources, etc., that need answering if this story is ever to go away. I'm very busy fighting Empire elsewhere, so I don't really want to engage with anyone who hasn't actually gone through the whole series. I promise a great read, no matter where you come out, and certainly anyone that can answer all of this will take home the win, because few do it better than Dave. Thanks for letting me in.

And I have NOT watched this epic by Brendan Hunt, but I repost it here (from an extensive thread in our FB group on the subject) just to show the difference between someone who throws out one fact in a video and demands an explanation, and one who takes the time to pull together a lot of data, and present it refutably:

Another lengthy, cogent, non-hysterical analysis that is refutable:
Last edited:

Pete Tar

Senior Member
I'm very busy fighting Empire elsewhere,

If you want a focused conversation, feel free to start a thread looking at a particular point.

Otherwise commentary will tend to be very general and may not get anywhere useful.

eg, claims about the glass.

So the claim seems to be there was another bomb inside the building because glass could not fall outside the window frame.
(to which the answer is probably disappointingly mundane; eg, it can and did.)

Choose what you think is the most 'rational'. I wasn't really impressed by the last link, but I haven't gone through everything. I don't watch videos sorry, but others probably will. Written descriptions are best.

Pete Tar

Senior Member
There's already been a debunking review anyway...


New Member
Thanks. I read through the entire series by McGowan, so I'll be interested to read that "review". McGowan doesn't put up with a lot of crap, that's for sure. I don't mind aggressive language, as long as I can discern the substantive arguments.


New Member
Seems to be mostly about Baumann, and btw, I was not interested so much in the glass (which is another good observation, as well as related to the "upper floor" explosion), as the lack of any collateral damage from the "bomb" to things like banners, poles, bunting, etc., near the blast, which supposedly shredded all those limbs.


New Member
Gotcha. I'll try to find a few sections worth pulling at some point. McGowan's series is worth a look for anyone interested, though. You definitely have to be careful not to get caught up in the entertainment, but he generally provides the evidence to consider (I debunked his Wagging the Moondoggie series to my satisfaction, and it's hard to know what to think about his LC series, but I was quite impressed with the specificity of the Boston Bombing series).