Because...that is not the older brother. That was a guy in the wrong place at the wrong time. He was released.
What was the question, exactly? What was even the point of your post, given that the hypothetical scenario described never happened? News organizations are not relevant here. The person in your photos was IN CUSTODY. The police who actually could see him in real life and weren't relying on grainy photos were able to better identify him than either you, me, or the aunt can do from those photos. And he wasn't the same person, regardless of what the aunt might have said based on photos. I don't even see the point or why those photos raise any questions.
As a general rule, it seems like if you're going to try to argue that the official story might be wrong, it would helpful to know what the official story is, no? Instead of reading and pursuing possible conspiracy theories, perhaps your time would be better spent finding out what's actually known first?
This is how conspiracy theory works. I wish people would figure this out and stop latching on. These websites/blogs/theorists take information that is not a big deal and distort it, lie about it, edit it, make up false timeline information, omit a few key facts, etc. and they do it repeatedly. They will post pictures of suspicious looking people, try to link a guy who lost his leg to being an actor who fakes injuries, use a photo that looks like a kid is still alive, fake a tweet by a newspaper, show a story and omit the date it was published, etc. To the conspiracy theorist who sees all this it looks like a preponderance of evidence. They see all these things linked together and think "AHA!" The rest of have to then spend time searching the web for the things that prove these are false, but by the time we can prove why one was false the next 3 "pieces of information" are already out there. The goal post is constantly moving and then when we finally quit trying to prove it the conspiracy is still out there with "unanswered questions."
Agreed. A lot of bad info came out as these events were unfolding so temporarily unplugged from the media feeds.
They have been answered. There's nothing wrong with asking questions because you're not well informed and/or haven't kept up with all this. What is annoying is, these people claim they have done their research and are well informed, but yet the questions they ask were answered already, even as early as day one of the capture, and in real time. For example, the question of why dogs didn't smell his blood whent he cops passed by, if he was hiding in the boat? The answer is, the boat wasn't searched because it was outside the perimeter they locked down. They were off by one or two blocks and that was made clear by the media as the police were still bringing him in. Why would cops miss him the first time on purpose just to catch him an hour or two later? Nothing different came about from that. It would make more sense to scream conspiracy, if he got away and that resulted in him hurting more people or police shooting him dead later.
My questioning has more to do with what the FBI knew before the bombing. I don't doubt that this was executed by the brothers.
how about the bomb dogs at the finish line? Can't use "they were outside the perimeter" excuse there. They've been practicing for this event (at the Boston Marathon) for at least for 8 years.. probably more. So they just plain suck at their jobs and need another decade of practice or something else is going on. Conspiracy or not a lot of the "answers" are not ANSWERS but **** made up by MSM and we all have to sift through what's the truth and the rest.
How much do you know about bomb-sniffing dogs, how they work, their range, and what they can/can't detect?
I know if a unit is trained to detect bombs for a decade or more at the actual event they are training for.. and yet fail to detect a a damn thing... THEY ARE NOT GOOD ENOUGH at what they do, a waste of resources and need to be REPLACED. Simple as that.
So in other words, you don't really know anything about how these things work. If you expect 100% success in disaster prevention, you might as well give up now - everyone and everything is and will be a failure, in your eyes. Might as well not secure anything under your standard. BTW, the article you referenced about years of training is not about dogs identifying bombs - in fact, it doesn't even mention anything about prevention at all. It's about reacting to a disaster that occurs - and by pretty much every measure, the post-blast emergency response in this event was fantastic. From police to medical resources, everything went extraordinarily smoothly and likely prevented far more potential deaths from people bleeding out.
Some interesting stuff here from one of the internet's most well known hackers, the j3st3r. He is linking Jahar with some of his buddies from Twitter that are leading the conspiracy campaign - http://jesterscourt.cc/2013/04/23/boston-marathon-bombing-just-a-hunch/
why can't you exactly? Is there a certain range a bomb dog can detect a bomb at? Do the dogs have to focus on a searchable area on a specific person or place at a handlers command or can they independently choose targets at their own discretion in a very large crowd/event? Were dogs posted at every street entrance to the race? How many streets did the race course pass through? How many trained dogs would it take to secure each street corner in crowds of thousands? How many trained handlers are available? How can they do it without checking each and every person? What was the wind direction at the time of the explosions? What are the other trillion variables? lets think this through! Wait nope let me turn off the brain. Ah there we go. Conspiracy
