Is anyone interested in the terror attack in Moscow?

DH is a naval architect/ marine surveyor. Damage done to every possible marine structure from bridges to light houses to dock walls and gates when ships lose propulsion, follow the wrong course, or because no one is on the bridge and the ship is on autopilot is just about the most common marine accident out.

Conspiracy theorists should concentrate on less common accidents, like knocking drinks over, or bursting balloons.

Oreo

That’s another thread, and sadly another conspiracy theory.

Having read your post, I googled, and did indeed find a host of conspiracy theories.

The most alarming is one showing a video of the Crimea Bridge over the Kerch Strait (it connects the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov) taken in 2022 when a car-bomb or blast hit it, and it is now being touted as something that happened on the Baltimore Bridge prior to the collapse. The poster claims it's a newly-discovered camera showing that there was an explosion on the Baltimore bridge. In spite of the fact that this video he's using was shown at the time, in 2022, by many news outlets!

Robin202

Innocent bystanders being killed is tragic in whatever the circumstances - but unless a whistleblower steps up, we only have the news from the media and we know that is controlled and we only see and hear what they choose to show us. There will always be fingers pointing in different directions, according to the agenda at the time of play. We know warmongering countries deliberately start wars, terrorist factions are controlled - (by whom?). There is always far more to these events than we’ll ever truly know.
The latest being the Baltimore Bridge.

And if a whistleblower did step up, we would only hear from him or her via the media - such an individual would not be going from door-to-door disseminating the information. So you could just as easily say the same thing about his or her 'report' - that the media are choosing what we see and hear, and equally disbelieve it to be true, no?

Obviously certain media leans politically one way or another to some degree anyway, but I think the BBC, for all its faults, is about as balanced as it is possible to be and, generally, reports in good faith. It is also fairly well respected internationally. As a state broadcaster it has a difficult role, as the many accusations against it prove. However, as these accusations come from both the Left who thing it's too Right-wing and controlled by the government, and the Right, who believe it's too Left-wing, then logic might dictate that it's actually getting the balance right.

We can't, surely, reach the stage where we believe everything is "fake noos" and that there is a conspiracy behind every event!?

As for the collapse of the Baltimore Bridge - well, it's only just happened, so we're hardly likely yet to know much more than the superficial details which are that a huge container-ship hit one of the bridge supports. However, conspiracy theories are already hitting social media, including YouTube. There's an image being shared around which appears to connect Barack Obama with the collapse because he was once involved in a Neflix movie thriller where the story line involves a ship crashing into a beach. I'm sure there'll be many more before the next few days are over.

I've been critical of the BBC, as have others, in the past, but I'm sure, overall, it's a fairly reliable source of information -even though it has to tippy-toe around those who believe it's part of some deep-state conspiracy to fool us all.

A dreadful occurrence, I know, but ordinary Russians like these support Putin no matter what and, let’s face it, he’ll twist it to his advantage, not caring who did what to whom.

Absolutely the Russians using the attack to blame Ukraine.

OK, here is some news that is not from the media.

This event never took place. It is a the result of the duplicity of western nations who published this event in our media complete with AI film of the events, while knowing that nothing of the kind had happened.

Faced with this fait accompli, Putin felt he would lose face if he denied it so he has been forced to agree this eveent happened and sent a couple of policemen out to arrest the last 4 people getting off a bus in Red Square and accuse them of causing the non-existent explosion

Now prove, without reference to any media that this is not what actually happened.

I agree, they were found too quickly. Reports are that they are just migrants who have made into handy scapegoats.

I think I’m right in saying that Putin has now acknowledged that this was the work of extremists and not down to Ukraine. No matter who is responsible it is a despicable act.

That’s another thread, and sadly another conspiracy theory.

Innocent bystanders being killed is tragic in whatever the circumstances - but unless a whistleblower steps up, we only have the news from the media and we know that is controlled and we only see and hear what they choose to show us. There will always be fingers pointing in different directions, according to the agenda at the time of play. We know warmongering countries deliberately start wars, terrorist factions are controlled - (by whom?). There is always far more to these events than we’ll ever truly know.
The latest being the Baltimore Bridge.

Well none of us know, but unless the US Intelligence, Washington, the BBC, and other media, are all lying through their teeth, or the warning, through which ever channels are used to convey them to Moscow, didn't reach as far as Putin - then it does appear that this one was ignored.

The BBC admits it does not know the exact nature of the warning and that "Intelligence can often be vague and hard to act on" presumably in an effort to give a balanced report, and because it's true.

However Putin, when addressing Russia's Federal Security Service on the nature of its top priority - which was to support the special military operation in Ukraine also talked about "provocative statements" from the West about such attacks within Russia which "resemble outright blackmail and the intention to intimidate and destabilise our society".

Which begs the question - was he aware of the warning, but simply dismissed it as Western propaganda?

On the balance of probabilities, who would you trust to be more likely to be trying to get to the truth of the matter?

Why would the BBC's Verification unit publish fake news? What would convince you? Putin knocking on your door and telling you all about it? Mind you, of course he is an accredited liar.

How do we know the explosion and deaths happened at all and the story isn't just a Russian tale to get sympathy.

You’re honest maddyone as so many seem to think they know all there is to know on any given subject.I don’t know either, doesn’t make you or me a Kremlin sleeper ( hilarious suggestion)😂

No Monica I am not, but I keep saying I don’t know and that’s because I don’t know.
I do know that I do not believe everything the BBC reports. That doesn’t mean I disbelieve as you seem to think, it means I don’t know.

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

M0nica, I agree with you that it is good that intelligence is still being passed among countries. Perhaps there is still some hope for us all in these otherwise dire times! What happened in Moscow was awful, and the accounts of some of those involved are so sad. What a tragedy that warnings did not prevent this attack.

Everyone knows so much, yet none of us was there!

Monica, you may know that Putin knew this attack was going to happen. Unlike you, I don’t know, and I have clearly said I don’t know. I don’t believe everything that’s written or reported in the news. I’m obviously rather more sceptical than you.

Excuse typos.

There was no security to speak of at the concert hall, the gumpnmen just walked in.

Watching TV coverage of the Russian Police in action on the streets arresting and dragging away protestors, I am sure if they had been deployed to any likely venues, as warned, the gunmen would not have got through.

It wasn't just negligence that allowed this atrocity.

Dickns Putin did know in advance that Islamic Militants intended to attack a conference centre or concert hall n the Moscow area. It is obvious that they would want to attack one full of people, not an empty one

This iformation was passed to them by the Americans.

It is to the credit to all nations that, despite the poor relations between many countries, major and minor, the system for passing on information of terrorist attacks between nations continues - so Putin knew. It would have not been that difficult to get a list of all conference halls/concert halls holding events and then to have had increased security for all events until the danger level fell.

He knew an attack was coming, he did nothing to stop it. Using Russian citizens as bait in a rat trap, he then made sure that the National Guard delayed their response to ensure maximum damage - not just killings but a massive fire. He then tried to pin it on the Ukrainians, but the problem was that the warning to him from the Americans wa in the public domain, so instead he said that those invovled were going to flee to Ukraine.

On the day after this attack I heard an interview with a soviet specialist academic. He said that when " Putin has decided who has done this .." then we will be told what happened. I found the phrase chilling and believable.
Their leader sees his people as cannon fodder with the only goal is his win. Twas ever thus - the siege of Stalingrad demonstrated the same mind set.
The man/ woman in the Russian street , or, indeed, the concert hall, is merely a pawn in a terrible game of chess.

maddyone

I don’t think Putin is behind the attack, but whether or not he knew is impossible to say, regardless of what the BBC or any other news outlet claims. Likewise I have no idea why the authorities were slow to react, if indeed they were. The authorities were slow to react to the Manchester Arena bombing too. Does that mean they were complicit in the attack or they had been ordered by the government to take their time? Of course it doesn’t.
The world is awash with conspiracy theories. Some are probably correct, others are not. I’m not in the position of knowing which are right or which are wrong, and so I take most with a large pinch of salt.

I think you're right - it's impossible to claim without incontrovertible evidence whether or not Putin knew in advance about the attack and allowed it to happen to suit his agenda. However, the speculation will continue.

But you make a good point about the Manchester Arena bombing, so wild conjecture based on single elements of such an attack just leads to the conspiracy theories which really don't help at all. The world does indeed seems awash with them at the moment, but I suspect that's because the internet allows us to hear about them in a way not possible before the advent of the infobahn.

All this just emphasises the helplessness I think many feel as individuals and our inability to do anything about it apart from look in horror at the ongoing slaughter of fellow human beings, and wonder if this is the future now.

I don’t think Putin is behind the attack, but whether or not he knew is impossible to say, regardless of what the BBC or any other news outlet claims. Likewise I have no idea why the authorities were slow to react, if indeed they were. The authorities were slow to react to the Manchester Arena bombing too. Does that mean they were complicit in the attack or they had been ordered by the government to take their time? Of course it doesn’t.

maddyone You never told us before that you had access to knowledge and tools far in advance of those available to the BBC verification unit, with all the power of its experience fact checking.' Are you saying you have information that the public notice sent to all American citizens in Russia, didn't happen - when it can be readily accessed online.

I would be fascinated to know what other secret information you may have about events like this. I can only assume you are part of a deep knowledge government unit, in which case, should you be be reveaaling this informationon GN or you are working for a foreign cyber espionage group.

There are clear differences between the authorities reaction at the Manchester Arena, where there was an immediate reaction, but for complicated reasons, not a full response for 30 minutes, from a range of different ervices and, again, the verified information that the National Guard, or whatever they are called took 90 minutes to respond to such a major event 2 miles from their barracks.

kittylester

It isn't compulsory to follow up on a thread. Once you've started one it ceases to belong to you.

Well I didn't think in terms of ownership of a post - it just seems courteous to at least read the replies and possibly respond to those that might pose a question or challenge something.

Though I wouldn't expect a huge response to anything I chose to post about anyway.