Processing Distortion: “Trailing the FBI’s Boston Bombing Investigation”

Peter B. Collins Presents Russ Baker

Investigative journalist Russ Baker details a newly published update on the investigation into the official investigation of the Boston Marathon Bombing and the May 22 FBI killing of a friend of one of the Boston suspects. Baker reviews the anomalies of the Boston storyline and compares it with the JFK assassination 50 years ago. He notes that there is little evidence to connect the Tsarnaev brothers to the shooting of the MIT campus policeman, and that the connection of Tamerlan Tsarnaev to a triple murder in in 2011 rests on his friend Ibragim Todashev, who was killed by an FBI agent during interrogation in Orlando. Todashev’s girlfriend was detained on an immigration hold, and was deported in mid-October–she says in retaliation for comments she made to the media.

Russ Baker is an award-winning investigative reporter who has broken scores of major stories over the course of more than two decades in journalism. Her has written for The New Yorker, Vanity Fair, The Nation, The New York Times, The Washington Post and other publications, and has served as a contributing editor to the Columbia Journalism Review. Baker received a 2005 Deadline Club award for his exclusive reporting on George W. Bush’s military record. He is the author of Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, the Powerful Forces That Put It in the White House, and What Their Influence Means for America (Bloomsbury Press, 2009).

Listen to the Preview Clip Here


Play


Listen to the full episode here (BFP Subscribers Only):

 

SUBSCRIBE
 

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by SUBSCRIBING, and by ordering our EXCLUSIVE BFP DVDs.

FB Like

Share This

This site depends….

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by SUBSCRIBING, and by ordering our EXCLUSIVE BFP DVDs.

Comments

  1. Thanks for the great interview, Peter B. And thanks for mentioning Sibel and James’ series on Gladio. I only wish that you had mentioned the “Plan B” aspect of it, and that it shows a continuation of this program of destabilization with links to the major players in the 9/11 narrative.

    I’m still not sure that even the informed alternative media producers, such as Mr. Baker, are informed about this important work.

  2. Great interview and I second what Xicha has pointed out about Gladio B.

  3. Excellent analysis. I suggest Uncle Ruslan is the key piece of this puzzle. He was the most likely person to get the CIA interested in his nephew who needed US citizenship for his boxing career.

  4. avatar chris bagg says:

    Why does Russ Baker not deal with actual forensic evidence? In the case of the Marathon bombing we have a great series of photos of the event itself, made by an onlooker in a window above the detonation. Ben Thorndike took 26 sequential photos of the immediate aftermath of the bombing, which can be viewed at Revolution Carbadges.com. These photos suggest that the first bomb injured no one. In them we see a guy in a hooded sweatshirt affixing a bloody prosthetic to the stump of Jeff Bauman’s leg. Are we supposed to believe that within four seconds of the explosion this hoodie guy had the presence of mind to place a tourniquet on Bauman’s severed leg? But only on one leg. Why are none of the paper and plastic signs within feet of the explosion damaged by shrapnel? Why was Bauman left on the ground for minutes with two severed legs, then paraded in front of cameras in a wheelchair on the way to the oddly distant ambulance?
    What about the woman walking around on her supposedly broken ankle, with spurts of blood coming out of her purse. Then she lies down on the ground, gets up and moves to a more hidden place, and lies down again, all with a broken ankle and severed femoral artery. These “victims” are actors, some of them amputees long before the event. Check out the utube videos by mumofgraviepie.
    Russ Baker is a 911 denier. He still claims to think that Arab hijackers flew planes into buildings. His skepticism evaporates into thin air, leaving us sputtering, wringing our hands, but not much else.

  5. @chris bagg:

    Let me be the first to say that you won’t get far in this crowd with that mumbo jumbo-wrapped speculative bad mouthing.

  6. The connection between Gladio Plan B and the Boston Bombing, specifically with Uncle Ruslan, is Graham Fuller. Please see the following BFP articles:

    Boston and the CIA ‘Snafu’ Part II: CIA’s Graham Fuller- A Deep State Rogue

    The EyeOpener- Who is Graham Fuller

    This connection would have added a lot to the conversation. They were close, though, and going in that direction. Maybe a follow-up interview, with this connection in mind, would be a good idea.

  7. avatar chris bagg says:

    I say look at the evidence. I am sure readers of this website are quite capable of making up their own minds with out being coached. Google” Revolution carbadges .com” to look at Ben Thorndike’s photos of the Boston bombing. Check out James Tracy’s blog “The Memory Hole”. See the youtube videos by mumorgraviepie, all ten of them .See David McGowen’s pieces “The curious case of the man who could only sit up” on the Boston Bombing. The evidence that this was a staged event is overwhelming in my opinion.
    The evidence that the three Three World Trade Center buildings were blown up is also overwhelming. The buildings each came down in under twelve seconds. All the major pieces were pulverized. This is simply not possible without the use of explosives. For Russ Baker to suggest that “Hijackers flew planes into buildings and the ensuing fires caused them to collapse,” is patent nonsense which defies the universal laws of physics.
    And since Russ touched on the JFK assassination, I suggest readers watch the documentary “The Men Who Killed Kennedy”, and in particular that they watch the episode “The Smoking Guns”, episode 7. Here we learn that there was a bullet hole in the FRONT WINDOW on the presidential limousine, seen by at least four witnesses. One of these witnesses was a worker at the Ford Motor Co. plant who removed and replaced the windshield.
    Hard evidence of government lies and culpability are what people need to overturn the official narrative, not innuendo and coincidence that might still have some innocent i.e. “in our best interest” explanation.
    Russ Baker belongs to the same crowd as Noam Chomski, Greg Palast, and Peter Lance, 911 Truth deniers all.

  8. Gotta tell people they stink, before you can sell soap, right?

  9. Chris Bagg,

    I would definitely not put Russ Baker in the “denier” camp when it comes to the Kennedy assassination. I don’t know what his theory is but absolutely does not buy the Official Story. Read his book on the Bush family if you don’t believe me. I can’t say for sure what his views are of 9/11 at this point.
    However, I do agree with you regarding the Boston Bombing evidence. From what I’ve researched, I doubt anyone was seriously hurt in this little episode. The woman that you mentioned who lied down in an area where she wouldn’t be seen until the professional photogs were on the scene is very revealing. To my eyes, she appeared to be uninjured after the initial blast.

  10. I haven’t read everything Russ Baker has written about 9/11, so correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems his main thing about 9/11 is the Saudi royals connection to the South Florida family that hosted so many of the alleged hijackers. And there is a certain type of 9/11 skeptic/truth-seeker who recoils at the mention of the word “hijacker” and heaps scorn upon anyone who uses the word. So since Russ Baker speaks of hijackers, to such people he is a vile gatekeeper only interested in limiting the damage to the official 9/11 Commission narrative.

    Me, I think that’s uncalled for.

    I don’t know whether those 19 guys were ever on those planes or not. I know there’s no convincing airport video showing them, I know there was that thing about their names not being on the passenger lists, I know the flight data recorders that were recovered for one or two of the flights show that the cockpit doors never opened during the flights, and I know that remote-control flying is totally possible and is arguably the best explanation for the behavior of the planes.

    But still: some of those guys, at least, had SOMETHING to do with it, even if it was just to be patsies. Who knows, they might have been on the planes and surprised as anyone else when they started flying themselves.

    We.
    Don’t.
    Know.

    It’s an aspect. An interesting aspect that is legitimate to look into. The CIA protection of Al-Midhar and Al-Hazmi, the shutdown of Able Danger, etc. Where their money came from, connections to Saudi royals. This stuff is relevant. Whether these men hijacked anything, we don’t know, but I think people can be forgiven, when doing these investigations, to use the word “hijacker” without always adding “alleged” or “phony” or putting the word itself in quotes every time, because that just gets tedious. Hijacker becomes a convenient term, accurate or not, and it doesn’t undermine the value of the research. In my opinion.

    So, unless anyone can quote Russ Baker as saying he supports the government story of 9/11, I don’t think it’s quite right to call him a “denier.”

    I haven’t been big into the Boston bombing thing because I try to limit these things in my life, I actually don’t want my entire world to be dominated by conspiracies and paranoia, no matter how real or justified, but unfortunately I’m getting intrigued… ;-)

  11. Great points, John. Very well stated, thanks.

  12. I agree, well said, john. Except the last sentence – chris bagg didn’t make me interested. I’m repelled by the MO, and have seen it make a big mess out of other sites. I’d rather nip it in the bud here. Have a little respect if you’ve got something to say. Then people can “look at the evidence” and “make up their own minds”.

    Instead, it’s come-in-swinging and looking for a reaction. Blurts out little tidbits about a wide range of topics and calls the guest of the show names. Nothing new, but it really won’t last long here, in my observation.

  13. Bologna railway station GLADIO 1980. 85 or so Civilians actually blown to pieces. Check THAT blood out ! NATO.strategy of tension proven. Sibel has time-lined GLADIO thru to GLADIO b, and Guhlen/Fuller etal, so GLADIOb is homegrown terror. For to sway the locals. Boston bombing has to be SAMO, but advanced thru special Plans and mass psyop systems, to a 2000′s terror bombing model where almost no-one need get killed, if actually anyone at all. Things get locked down so fast it’s a matter of luck anything gets seen out side of need-to-know. can all now be staged for camera and greatest effect thru compliant media/police and insidious contractors to a population so bought up on screen violence and targeted truth/lie ‘fuck-you’ game theory (JFK 911 Oklahoma etc etc), that very few can spare the brain to spot the difference . so the mass casualties are diminished drastically by sophistication of process. You would have to say that process is a credit to the evolution of SCAD that not so many people need actually die, just pretend that they do-even as it is by equal measure devolutionary in the mental health of the nation no longer able to trust or care that authority/justice systems are so corrupt that their investigations are just official narratives anyway.
    Unfortunately this ‘new terror model’ is not exercised in streets of IRAQ or Syria or the valleys of the SWAT, where very real local casualty numbers are completely irrelevant to the homeland audience brought up on body-count for breakfast.

  14. Right on and the importance of the Gladio B evidence and narrative from Sibel is that it does connect the dots between so much that has happened and is still happening, instead of leaving us wringing our hands, wondering how long it takes to put someone’s leg back on their body while in shock. People do pretty strange things in shock btw.

    It also allows us to give meaningful constructive criticism to these guests and hosts. To me it’s the main vein for insight into truth and accountability.

  15. Key word accountability

  16. (I meant that Russ Baker had gotten me interested in the Boston thing…)

  17. Sorry, john. You said it very well the first time. I should have gotten it that way. Guess I was preoccupied with gardening. Thanks!

    It does becomes more interesting the more it is understood in context and not as a stand-alone event. Another interesting aspect is the police lock-down and warrant-less searching.

  18. avatar chris bagg says:

    I thought that I should add one more comment here. But before I do, I would like to say that I have the greatest respect for Sibel and everything that she is doing with this website.
    My comment about Russ Baker being a 911 truth denier was really a response to something he said on the first podcast interview he gave with Boiling Frogs, podcast #16. I had read “Family of Secrets” and was eager to hear what he had to say. While the book was full of interesting new information about the Kennedy assassination, and Watergate, I wondered why he had not covered any of the hard evidence proving that Oswald could not have been the gunman. And I wondered what he thought about 911. At the very end of the interview Sibel asks Russ what he thought the most significant event of our time. His answer in 2011: “I have not done any research on 911″. Indeed, aside from the story about the hijackers connection to the wealthy Saudi family in Florida, there is very little if any information about 911 on whowhatwhy. So maybe Russ will read this and comment. What do you think Russ, were the buildings blown up, or did they collapse from all that fire?

  19. Hi chris bagg,

    I can empathize with you and your frustration about Baker’s, or anyone’s, lack of either knowledge or openness, when it comes to the demolition of Building 7 on 9/11. When Sibel first started 123realchange, the predecessor to BFP, I was, in fact, looking forward to trying to find out what she had to say about it, even though it wasn’t her area of focus. It’s just that important, I thought, and anyone who takes an honest look at the evidence should be able to make a simple statement about it.

    I have come to understand and respect Sibel’s proactive decision not to talk about such things. The main reason it makes so much sense is this. Sibel is protecting her own integrity and the integrity of the messages, evidences, testimonies, and narratives which she does actively speak out about.

    This wasn’t easy to understand, at first, but it finally hit me. I found that we really don’t need Sibel to speak out about building demolition. There are plenty of other people doing that work and they are much better suited for it. Also, when Sibel does speak out about something, we can bet that she’s going to have a 100% solid foundation for doing it and will be able to back up what she says. Having this kind of purity and integrity in her testimony is worth far more than the small benefit anyone can see of her adding her voice to the topic of demolitions.

    Now, I know you weren’t talking about Sibel in your comments, but I think the example is worth bringing up, to inform us about how we might approach other content producers, authors, etc. Let’s take a look at what kind of integrity they do have in the message they do communicate. And when we find omissions and/or distortions in the same vein of what they are saying, then we have a great opportunity for constructive criticism.

    I hope this helps. I know my comments were a little curt earlier, and I apologize if you took that personally. I’ve found that my best chance to squash some, what I see as, divisive conversations is to try to deflate them or ignore them. I now can see that your message is more thoughtful and and honestly frustrated than it appeared to me earlier.

  20. Chris, as far as I’m concerned as well your comments are very welcome, and I always feel a lively exchange of different views is what makes a conversation worth having. In that spirit I’ll add the additional and probably unnecessary observation that we should all probably be very careful about the conclusions we draw from the absence of evidence. For example, it’s tricky to conclude much from what Russ Baker has NOT said about 9/11.

    I think Xicha’s example of Sibel is a good one. I think she’s very smart not to get drawn into speculation beyond what she knows for sure, however tempting that must be at times.

    Going slightly further afield just because I seem to be developing a pet peeve: I hereby urge everyone in the world to infuse their justified cynicism and paranoia with kindness and respect, and never to be drawn into silly, immature battles of territory and ego. To my mind, there are few things more distasteful than to witness the ugly spectacle of different factions of 9/11 skeptics hurling insults at each other and calling each other “disinformation agents” and so forth any time there’s a disagreement.

    Or, for example, attacking Russell Brand AND HIS TASTE IN WOMEN for crying out loud, because he dared to say a few true things while being a celebrity, or because he once met the Queen and failed to spit on her. Jealous jealous jealous? I won’t name any names of anyone who’s recently done that but there’s a difference between scoffing at the notion that he’ll spark a revolution, and attacking him personally. After all, he did, I’ll say again, speak the truth. Is that not better than not speaking out? Is somebody worried about not getting enough attention compared to somebody else? Grow up people!

    There, I’ve gotten that off my chest and I feel better. :-)

  21. FYI this is from today’s Nightly News:

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/11/russ-baker/prepping-a-patsy/

Speak Your Mind