Thursday, 24 December 2015

PARIS: FACT OR FRAUD (Pt. 5)

Suicide Bomber at the Comptoir Voltaire Cafe


SUMMARY: On the 13th November, 2015, at about 9.40 pm, as part of a wider alleged ISIS terrorist attack on Paris the French Government and media claim an individual by the name of Brahim Abdeslam, wearing a suicide vest at a cafe called 'Comptoir Voltaire'. Not only do witness reports about what happened differ significantly, there is evidence that they have been modified to take account of critical observations, the chief of which is that there appears to be no damage commensurate with a suicide bomb going off. Indeed the later official story, supported by dubious video even suggests the man was still quite intact and uninjured following the explosion! Much of the rest of the official story proves unreliable - in fact impossible. There is not time for the alleged bombers to do what they are accused of doing, and witness reports do not support it. One of the most blatant lies relates to the car the killers were supposed to have used - a black Seat - which police recovered in the night from a location about two miles distant from the cafe. I prove this was not the car described but a different make and model completely and probably not the same colour either! This of course ruins the credibility of the whole official story that has largely been uncritically been adopted by the world, and on the back of which new wars have been justified!


As to the subject of False Flag Operations (FFOs) generally you are referred to the following document which lists over fifty examples where the technique has been used mainly by governments, or admitted, to further policy objectives:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/false-flag-terror-a-historical-overview/5475591

Introduction

Previous parts to this series of articles can be found here:


Pt. 1   http://veaterecosan.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/parisfact-or-fraud-one-introduction-1.html
Pt. 2   http://veaterecosan.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/paris-fact-or-fiction-part-2.html ; and 
Pt. 3   http://veaterecosan.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/paris-fact-or-fraud-pt.html .
Pt. 4.  http://veaterecosan.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/paris-fact-or-fraud-pt_19.html

The Contextual Setting


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/11/16/16/2E7FB99000000578-3320157-image-a-5_1447691421721.jpg Published in the Daily Mail on 17.11.2015

It should be noted the Casa Nostra Restaurant is not listed for some reason (where reports erroneously stated five people had been shot dead); nor does it include the location where it it stated the black Seat car used in the raids was recovered abandoned with 'three Kalashnikovs and ammunition on the back seat'; nor the location of the final shoot-out in St Denis, a short distance north of the Stadium shown. 

Otherwise it does give some idea of the relationship and distances between sites, and the people the police have suggested carried out the attacks. In this Daily Mail graphic it is intimated up to twelve persons could have been involved although if only Salah and Brahim did all the restaurants this could reduce to nine. Note also how both brothers' names are incorrectly joined to form the suicide bomber's name.


This part focuses on the claimed suicide bomber (I)Brahim Abdeslam killing himself at the Comptoir Voltaire Cafe at  253 Boulevard Voltaire, Paris. 

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03503/Paris_bomber_Ibrah_3503436b.jpg


A later image published by the Daily Mail:



http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/11/17/16/2E86F62F00000578-0-image-m-4_1447776725478.jpg



Confusion regarding the Bonne Biere and Casa Nostra

I have drawn attention before to the apparent confusion over how the five deaths attributed to the shooting at the Bonne Biere have been attributed to the Casa Nostra. This is still being perpetuated as late as the 9th December, 2015 in the Guardian article here: http://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2015/nov/16/men-who-attacked-paris-profile-terror-cell . Yet again the Bonne Biere is not even mentioned or shown on the accompanying map. Almost a month after the event, the Guardian quotes Molins the Paris Prosecutor as follows: "the terrorists had divided themselves into three coordinated teams to hit at least six locations across Paris." 

OK I get the 'at least' but by any calculation there were nine locations - possibly ten or eleven if we include what happened at Boulevard Beaumarchais, where apparently at least four people (presumably bad men?) were killed or St Denis where at least a further three died.

Even if we call the three suicide bombers at the Stade de Paris 'one location' and ignore the last two, there are still seven distinct shooting or explosion sites. Why such errors even after a month to get it right?

What went wrong with the Plan?

I believe something didn't quite go according to plan at the Bonne Biere and Casa Nostra sites which has never been properly acknowledged or corrected. Similarly that Salah Abdeslam should remain alive and unlocated (despite being interviewed driving into Belgium the following day!) does not fit what the planners intended to happen. If the named 'bombers' were 'patsies' the intention probably was that they should die one way or another so that they were unable to 'spill the beans' so to speak.

In this scenario, as long as Salah remains at large, he would remain a threat, not to the public but to the security and secrecy of the plot itself. Whether Ibrahim Abdeslam ever did blow himself up at the Comptoir Voltaire Cafe at  253 Boulevard Voltaire, Paris remains something of an open question. If he did, he could not, as is claimed, been party to the killing of nineteen (19) people at the Belle Equipe, because they both happen at the same time (9.40 pm) and there is considerable distance between the two!

An Aside - Licio Gelli

Before getting into the substance of the Comptoir Voltaire 'bombing', an interesting and relevant aside, aimed particularly at those who consider any examination of, or doubt in, the official version of events just fanciful 'conspiracy theory', may like to be reminded of the following.

On the 15th December, 2015 at the age of 96, a certain notorious gentleman passed away. His obituary has just appeared in the Times (18th December 2015). His name was Licio Gelli and his biography reminds of the reality of conspiracy to create mayhem in Italy and Europe, and the labyrinthine web that operated to achieve it.

The shadowy network linked Gelli as the Grand Master of an organisation called Propaganda Due, or 'P2' for short, consisting of 962 influential members, with top Italian politicians including Silvio Berlusconi, the Vatican Bank, Freemasonry, the Mafia, top secret services including the CIA and NATO itself. Together they were connected to a NATO operation called 'GLADIO' which orchestrated violent outrages including the 1980 Bologna railway station bombing, killing eighty five people and injuring more than 200 - in fact somewhat analogous to the Bataclan! Of course the former was blamed on so called 'fascist terrorists'. He had been active since the early 1970's and was implicated in the murder of the socialist Prime Minister Aldo Moro in 1978 and Roberto Calvi - 'God's Banker' - who was found hanging from Blackfriars Bridge in 1982.

The parallels with the current situation surely do not need pointing out. Even if the Paris events are genuine and as described by the government, you might think the European public might be just a tad more sceptical  about a possible re-run and not so easily herded, wouldn't you? Given the track record of recent cases, incidents and general situation, scepticism should ALWAYS now be the default position.

COMPTOIR VOLTAIRE CAFE (9.40 - 9.45 PM)
253 Boulevard Voltaire
Suggested perpetrator: (I)Brahim Abdeslam 9.40pm (2140 hrs) 


https://tyntyn50.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/comptoirvoltaire.jpg

ONE lone suicide blows himself up outside the cafe at Comptoir Voltaire Cafe 253 Boulevard Voltaire but only injuring fifteen people. Brother Salah Abdeslam and possibly another ('the ninth man introduced later maybe in case a witness seeing two people emerge from the abandoned Seat (that wasn't! It was actually a Citroen C4)?) 

This 'ninth man' was suggested to be Abaaoud later killed in the St Denis shoot-out but this doesn't work either as he was said to be directing operations at the Bataclan at precisely the same time. This attack is put at the door of Ibrahim Abdeslam later generally referred to as 'Brahim'.


Accounts of what happened

We should perhaps right at the start point out a very significant, suspicious yet subtle change in the official explanation immediately after the event to that promoted about a week later. This may well have been in response to internet comments regarding the absence of physical evidence that an explosion had taken place outside as first stated. Rather strangely the 'explosion' moves inside the premises in later accounts, although as we shall see these still retain many inconsistencies that make them unreliable in the round.

Ibrahim Abdeslam detonated his suicide vest outside the Comptoir Voltaire cafe, but did not kill anyone other than himself.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11999576/Paris-attacks-suicide-bomber-drank-and-ran-drugs-den.html

An image of the cafe after the event from 'Russia Today' is here: 

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/I9XdLFlXo1g/maxresdefault.jpg

Wikipedia, on the other hand - before the smell of cordite has left the air! - has this:


"At about 21:40, on the boulevard Voltaire in the 11th arrondissement, near the Place de la Nation a man sat down in the Comptoir Voltaire café and placed an order before detonating his suicide vest, killing himself and injuring fifteen people." (WIKI)


The Guardian has this A terrorist detonates his suicide belt inside the Voltaire restaurant at 9.40pm, on Boulevard Voltaire, a long road linking Place de la République with Place de la Nation. One person is seriously injured.”

The Telegraph had this "Ibrahim, who seriously injured a bystander when he detonated his suicide bomb, rented a Seat Leon used in the attacks."

Nor is there consensus as to whether he was sitting at a table, or standing at the door, inside or out, with coffee or not. That is actually quite a lot of options already! Other sources stated that he injured only one 'passer by' which would of course infer he was outside at the time. 


Note the significant disagreement of number injured (1 or 15), although they are consistent with the even more remarkable fact that, even when in intimate proximity, no one else was killed here. We are forced to conclude at the very least this was a very untypical suicide bomber and a very ineffective suicide vest.

The Independent creates more confusion: 

"Half an hour earlier, at around 10pm, he had dropped his older brother, Ibrahim, on boulevard Voltaire, near the Bataclan. Ibrahim, a small-time criminal and Brussels bar owner, with vague links with radical Islam, immediately blew himself up outside the Comptoir Voltaire bar. He caused no more than minor injuries to passers-by."

There are serious issues with this account insofar as it is impossible to make sense of the timing: "ten o'clock" is fifteen or twenty minutes after the agreed time and "half an hour after" what precisely? Nor can the Voltaire Restaurant be described by any stretch of the imagination as "near the Bataclan". Then note it is claimed he "immediately" blew himself up "outside" confirmed by the injuries only being to "passers by".


It continues with Police opinion on what happened with some very curious aspects suggesting that 'Salah Ibrahim's' (note variation on name) motivation was obscure and irrational; that the belt had actually failed to explode earlier or that he was "filled with self disgust over what he had done", none of which makes any sense.


“Nothing [in Abdeslam’s movements] answers the description of a pre-planned escape,” one French police source told The Independent. “It is possible he panicked or chickened out of killing himself. It is possible that he was disgusted by what he had been involved in or that his explosive suicide belt failed to detonate.”

Where might he have intended to blow himself up before - they were primarily shooting incidents - and why if he knew his belt failed to detonate would it in any way inhibit the sort of shooting it is claimed they had done before? 

Anyway given the fact that the police claim the attack took them unawares and they knew virtually nothing about the conspirator's intentions, how could they speak so authoritatively about "nothing answering a pre-planned escape". The only way they could make such an observation would be if it was their plan he had deviated from!

Patsy Territory?

Whether true in this case or not, we cannot escape the fact this is classical 'patsy territory' evident in the Kennedy assassination, the 7/7 London tube bombings, Boston Marathon explosions, and Charlie Hebdo to name but four that we know about. The people set up to take the blame realise the situation they are in, go on the run and are subsequently hunted down and 'neutralised' - that awful term actually used in the French example.
The Independent account continues thus:


"Abdeslam is known, from CCTV images, to have been the driver of a black Seat which carried one of the three gangs of terrorists who struck on in Paris on 13 November. It was the car from which two gunmen – including his brother – emerged to machine gun people on the terraces of bars in the 9th and 11th arrondissements. After dropping his brother just before his self-inflicted death, Abdeslam and an unidentified “ninth” attacker, drove east to the suburb of Montreuil just outside the city boundary. The Seat was found abandoned there early on 14 November."
(See: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/paris-attack-eighth-attacker-salah-abdeslam-could-also-be-on-the-run-from-isis-amid-fears-the-group-a6740781.html )

Salah Abdeslam who is alleged to have dropped his brother Brahim off to do the bombing and then abandoning the Seat in Motreuil where it was recovered in the night.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/11/17/16/2E86D19C00000578-0-image-a-9_1447776780590.jpg

CCTV Images and DNA?

To this element of the story we have to ask what CCTV images? If they are available they haven't been published. As we saw in the Chevaline case the French prosecutor and police have a strange attitude to publishing critical identifying information. We might also note that with a certain serendipity in the latter case, the Prosecutor has just chosen to announce (after more than three years!) the discovery of new DNA evidence retrieved from the car. (See: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/french-alps-murders-dna-found-on-car-belonging-to-al-hilli-family-broadens-investigation-a6782101.html)

Three years in that case yet still unmatched, in contrast to this, where DNA was said to be matched with relatives within days, sufficient to positively prove the identity of a suicide bomber, so disintegrated it was impossible to identify him from any other part - except miraculously a finger with a print that matched a passport document!? The ineptitude on the one hand and the almost super-human science on the other is hard to reconcile.


Internal or External 'Explosion'?
The early reports of the explosion taking place outside the premises next morning in this image here:   It is worth taking a careful look at it. 


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CTwix0QWsAE5VON.jpg


Notice at least sixteen markers in the street presumably indicating either bullets (there is no report of shooting here strangely) or other debris, which certainly supports an external explosion more likely than an internal one although the absence of actual physical or structural damage other than a couple of chairs turned over (coffee cups are even still on the table!) would confirm no sizeable explosion could have taken place there. This leaves open the question of how the marked debris got where it was?

However later on we have emerging a quite different story that the explosion actually occurred inside the premises. Now the contention that no one else was killed or seriously injured becomes almost impossible to accept, the only explanation of which could be that there was in fact no explosion as such.


'Le JDD' Account

The following account comes from 'le JDD' of the 22nd November, (Google Translation) here: http://www.lejdd.fr/Societe/Brahim-Abdeslam-seul-mort-du-Comptoir-Voltaire-760963

"Flowers, candles, drawings, words and onlookers who bow. Voltaire Comptoir like all the other places affected by the attacks. It was there, at the corner of Boulevard Voltaire and Rue de Montreuil (11th), Brahim Abdeslam would actually drop by black Seat Leon after the shooting of La Belle Team. There, at the terrace of this neighborhood bar, he blew himself up without killing anyone. Overshadowed by debauchery horrors Moreover, the attack nevertheless did twenty injured, including four serious. A miracle: there were people that night. Stéphane works at the nearby butcher. He accompanied her friend to the toilet when Abdeslam coffee activated its detonator to the place they occupied a few seconds earlier. "I do not know why I went with my girlfriend this time, I was lucky, he says. It was very quick. On the way to the toilet, we crossed the waitress coming out ."

"To 9:40 p.m., the terrorist push the door of the terrace, heated and closed. Since it takes the fire, he stumbles on. It is well noted while no one had seen him leave the car. It is quiet, no breath. "It has taken four steps, was positioned where he hoped to do the most damage. He remained standing, turned and opened his jacket," restores Hervé Deguine, overlapping testimonies of nine people.

"The nurse began CPR. This former journalist, who lives in the neighborhood for fifteen years, left a call for witnesses on Voltaire front desk so as not to "let oblivion settle down" and write a historical narrative. "Apparently, the explosive charge was in his back, he continues. As it was back to the wall, this has limited the blast. He had not expected, either, that the windows of the bar were shielded. Several people received bolts chips, but rather the breath is directed upward. " The couple behind the terrorist violently reached. Catherine, the waitress who came to speak to him to install it, as well. Yet located less than two meters in front of him, a family almost unscathed."


http://s.tf1.fr/mmdia/i/60/0/david-infirmier-a-tente-de-ranimer-le-kamikaze-du-comptoir-voltaire-11490600aoysr.jpg?v=1

"Initially, local residents think of a gas explosion, especially as the neighboring pipelines are under construction. "I opened my window and I went down to see if I could help, says a trader who lives across the street. A woman was screaming, she was disfigured. A man's back was a mess." Inside the facility, people are convinced that a patio heater is blown. Feathers fly, a burning smell filled the space."

"Among the guests: David, a nurse emergency physician. After providing first aid to several victims, it takes care of the person who seems most ailing: embedded in a glass and with a hole in the back. He tears his shirt to practice cardiac massage; The scene was filmed. David sees the son of colors beyond. Doubt sets in. Firefighters arrive, nurse them of his discovery, they link with previous explosions. This is a suicide bomber, is an attack."
Video footage that claims to be of the actual scene immediately after the explosion, presumably filmed on an i Phone, can be seen here: ODN video of man being resuscitated and story @ Cafe Voltaire here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8l_7bgK4v_4

Alleged Video Reliable?


The translation is not good but it appears that the explosion was heard by people in their homes so it must have been considerable and that first aid was rendered to the body of the bomber. This is supported by a video that appeared on youtube, on the 21.11.15 (here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8l_7bgK4v_4) the day before the article above It must also mean that the police/government are in possession of a fairly intact body with only limited injury to the back. No mention has been made of this or of an autopsy report.


The video image is very indistinct (the still above is taken from it it appears) and heart compression is suggested but there are no identifiable features of a chest in the video to clearly make out what is going on. As it happens the still is clearer. It is also very brief and fuzzy which raises questions as to authorship. Would someone in close proximity to an explosion really be composed enough to take pictures? Then another worrying detail, the table is not overturned and even has an upstanding glass and other items on it. After an explosion right adjacent to it?

A final and worrying reservation: Brahim was of Middle Eastern descent and had olive skin. The man in the video and still certainly appears very white and indeed far more thick set and unmuscled than we can confidently assume the the 31 year Brahim would have. He is virtually unblooded and wholly intact. There is no sign of an explosives vest and would the para medical have gone anywhere near him if he had seen it? After all even if it had not gone off - and we are told it had - it would have to have been undone to reveal his chest as indicated. I am not even sure the man doing the CPR even approximates to the man 'David' who claims to have done it. Note hairline and what appears to be an ear ring in his right ear.

Could this possibly be Brahim? Could this possibly be the corpse of a suicide bomber? Or was this in fact a video of a different man, in a different cafe on a different occasion? You have to wonder don't you?

Interview with alleged 'First Aider'
There follows an interview with the man (later identified as 'medic' 46 year old 'David') who it is claimed carried out the CPR. He says he "removed him from the tangle of table and chairs and put him on the floor". Clearly then the 'suicide bomber' is still very much in one piece. He noticed he was "nothing special, just unconscious but I noticed on the side of his body there was an enormous hole but I didn't think at all he was a suicide bomber I thought he was like any other person who suffered from a gas blast who had hurt himself on something but his wound was huge."
'David'

https://s1.yimg.com/uu/api/res/1.2/GaCHZBqAZ_c_e_xqw6o5DQ--/Zmk9ZmlsbDtweW9mZj0wO3c9NjQwO2g9MzYwO3NtPTE7YXBwaWQ9eXRhY2h5b24-/http://media.zenfs.com/en-US/video/video.reutersnews.com/2015-11-21T100951Z_1_LOP000HFFBOZ9_RTRMADP_BASEIMAGE-960X540_FRANCE-SHOOTING-NURSE-BOMBER.JPG

He then realises it is something far worse than a gas explosion. "On the ground there was blood, then I noticed bolts on the ground, then I understood immediately told myself it was an explosion that made the wound on his side a suicide bomber and I knew it was him and at that precise moment when i realised what he was the emergency services arrived It was when i told the fireman who had recognised me this man has lots of wires on him he screamed 'Everyone get out of the way, we evacuate everyone, and then we all went outside" 

The narrator says 'David' did not see Abdeslam walk into the cafe but believes he was sitting on the terrace when he detonated the bomb.
Problems with this Account


I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of this man, the genuineness of the interview or the humanity and courage he showed, if what he says is true. Clearly however it raises some genuine questions that should be resolved. First it is not clear how if as he thinks the explosion took place outside, he came to be inside. If the explosion had happened inside he would have been in no doubt about it. How could anyone be. His obvious line is that the explosion takes place outside yet he was somehow able to walk inside and present himself. This certainly seems unlikely but not impossible if it had been an incomplete explosion.

However the next problem is that this is difficult to reconcile with his description of removing him from the tangle of tables and chairs. So then how is this explained? Did he walk inside after the explosion and then somehow get entangled? But the next bit is I would suggest harder to believe especially from a professional 'medic'. He says there is a very large hole in the man's side yet relatively little blood, nor as a medic does he appear to respond to this fact as a medic would, to check it out to assess how serious it was and if anything could be done to stop the flow of blood that must have been huge. This part of his story is hard to believe. No medic would do heart compression without considering stemming the flow of blood let alone hardly mentioning bleeding at all.

"Seeing bolts" at this point does not ring true either, not if the explosion was outside and he was inside treating him. How could it be? The bolts would have been outside. Nor is the accompanying video supportive of an explosive vest as only naked flesh is seen. As we have noted the vest must have remained inside as video shows forensics inspecting an apparently undamaged one inside. Someone must have removed it from the man (or body) - it is not clear at what point he succumbed to his injuries - and left at the scene when the 'the bomber' had been removed, of which no mention at all.

The fact that 'David's' account specifically contradicts the earlier one in respect of where the explosion actually occurred, inside or out, has not been explained.

Another 'witness' 'Hervé Deguine' gives a rather different story. 

In this the bomber seems to be described as appearing from nowhere ('no car seen') and walking several steps into the room closing the door behind him before revealing his bomb vest and detonating it. Nine people are said to agree with him. (Ten is after all a nice round number) Herve happened once to be a journalist and has apparently taken it upon himself to collate an account for posterity which we all hope is as accurate as he can make it. He postulates the limited damage because his 'back was against the wall' which is difficult to imagine in light of the glass frontage and also that the blast went upwards which is also very difficult to explain in practice.
Stated timing makes this or another incident impossible!

I draw your attention to the rather unlikely detail that "Abdeslam coffee activated its detonator" suggesting there had been time for him to order and get served a coffee and presumably the explosion was a mistake? The time for his entry is '9.40 pm' yet at this time he with his brother is still meant to be at the Belle Equipe! If this time is right there is no time to get from the Belle Equipe let alone be seated with a coffee.

Then we have the very obvious problem that if as he said both he and his girlfriend were in the toilet at the time "they passed the waitress coming out and they were both very lucky" how the hell was he in a position to know what had happened anyway?!! By definition this cannot be a reliable 'eye-witness' which throws doubt on the whole account.

And then there are the Cars!

The one constant to the official story is that one black Seat car was involved with all the restaurant attacks, containing two possible three killers, including brothers Brahim and Salah, the latter dropping the former off at the Comptoir Voltaire to do the deed, before driving the car a couple of miles further to the north east or so to dump it in a residential street in Montreuil. If the Seat car does not hold up, the whole story is in tatters, and that unfortunately is most definitely the case!

First, given the distances between the first and fifth/sixth restaurant attacks, it is extremely unlikely one vehicle could have done all of them. Secondly, a completely different car (a Mercedes) is described in the Belle Equipe attack and going in the opposite direction to Montreuil afterwards. Thirdly, a black Renault (I believe a 'Clio') is pictured elsewhere in the city abandoned and with smashed windows, obviously in police custody. This has as far as I have seen, not been explained by the police. But the fourth point - a 'clincher' - is that the car retrieved from Montreuil is not a Seat at all. I am now convinced it is in fact a pre-2008 model Citroen X4.

Note how in this Daily Mail graphic the black Seat and the suggestion that it carried out all the restaurant shootings/bombings is perpetuated.


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/11/16/00/2E7B44FC00000578-3319127-Timeline_of_events_Eight_bombers_carried_out_the_devastating_att-m-3_1447633834595.jpg

Make and Model of Car removed from Montreuil not as Stated!

I will now attempt to illustrate it in the published photographs that have never been challenged by the French authorities. Contrast and compare.

This photograph was published by the Telegraph with clear attribution and statement that it is the Seat car used in the raids being removed. Unfortunately it is not a Seat but a Citroen.

"A black Seat car used by the terrorist gang who fired at people in restaurants during the attacks on Friday - killing 38 - was found abandoned in the early hours of Sunday morning in the eastern suburb of Montreuil, three miles from the scene of the attacks" Telegraph.


http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03501/paris-car_3501359b.jpg


Note the rear light cluster and particularly the very unusual and distinctive way the reflector extends up the rear pillar. This feature was I believe abandoned in 2007 when a new model was introduced. The relevant Citroen model is shown below. Note how all other features including door handles, wheel trim, aerial and even Citroen logo on rear door may be observed. Nor would I say is it 'black'. It is more likely silver but given the lighting conditions it it hard to be precise. What we can be sure about it is definitely NOT a black Seat! What reason, apart from criminal intrigue would the French propagate this lie?
Citroen C4 (about 2005 variants) Match nearest camera.



A Seat Model for Comparative Purposes

Note how in no way does this match the car stated to be the 'Seat' removed from Monteuil and apparently containing three Kalashnikovs and ammunition on the back seat!

Seat Altea


http://www.autotrader.co.uk/used-cars/seat/altea-xl/used-seat-altea-xl-1-9-td-reference-5dr-livingston-fpa-201512259660846?logcode=p

Or the Seat Ibiza


http://www.autotrader.co.uk/used-cars/seat/ibiza/used-seat-ibiza-1-2-tdi-ecomotive-se-5dr-hexham-fpa-201512259660892?logcode=p

So we may confidently conclude that if as stated a black Seat was used in the raids, the car removed from Monteuil in the early morning of the 14th November, was not it as widely stated. If indeed it did have Kalashnikovs in it we now await an explanation not only for it but also why it apparently deliberately put out a story it knew to be a lie?

Another Black Seat Lookalike?

Now the story gets curiouser and curiouser! Apparently four days after the attacks (i.e. 17th November) and one day before the final shoot-out in St Denis, this unidentified black car was found abandoned. But more! The police then link it to the killings. Again it is not a black Seat but perhaps it could be mistaken for one to the untrained eye? I believe it is a Renault Megane. See the image below and a comparator below it.



http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/151117104520-paris-fugitive-suspect-car-found-atika-shubert-newsroom-00002619-large-169.jpg

CNN had this headline: "Paris terror suspect's rental car found".  This is the abandoned and damaged Renault (Clio I believe) that is much closer in appearance to a black Seat saloon. Was this in fact the car used in at least the first four attacks? Where was it abandoned? It seems unlikely that whoever was in it got anywhere near the Comptoir Voltaire.  It comes from a 16.11.15 CNN report stating clearly this WAS a car used by the terrorists. It no longer appears on the page. If so which ones and what happened to them?

This image is titled: "Police find car rented by Paris attacks suspect" 


http://www.vir.com.vn/stores/news_dataimages/hung/112015/18/10/paris-car.jpg

Here is a modern image of a 'souped-up' version from Auto Trader for Identification Purposes



Here's a picture of a Renault Clio, and yes indeed it matches with the one above but matches none of the previously issued story on which the whole torrid affair hangs. We may safely conclude that nothing issued by the French police and government can be relied upon without careful cross checking and much of the story issued to the press must have been known lies.

A report on the 22nd November, 2015 here: http://www.ibnlive.com/news/world/the-mystery-of-missing-paris-attacker-salah-abdeslam-1167239.html, appears to reveal that the car was in fact a Renault Clio found abandoned on a pedestrian crossing four days after the attacks, namely 17th November a day before the shoot-out in St Denis. 

The police introduce a new theory that THIS was the car Salah drove. "Investigators now believe Salah drove the Renault Clio, possibly dropping off the three bombers at the Stade de France." Well I never! If so who had the car for four days (of course Salah returned to Brussels the following day we were told) and why did they abandon it in such an obvious location? I thought stand practice was to set fire to implicating cars anyway?

The 'Black Volkswagon Polo'

The only other cars referred to specifically by the police to the events of 13/11 were a black VW Polo that was used by the Bataclan attackers and left at the scene after they were all allegedly killed. Of course the public have no independent reliable confirmation of this, or indeed if, contrary to what was reported, they all escaped alive. 

The image below appears to be an image of it. I found that pillar intriguing. Is it indicative that the location is at the Stade de France? If so it rather undermines the statement that it was used to deliver the attackers at the Bataclan three miles away.  The registration plate has some interesting numbers as well!

The original text is as follows "Šedým vozem Volkswagen Polo teroristé přijeli před koncertní sál Bataclan v centru Paříže, kde zabili" which with the assistance of Google translated from Czech reads "Gray Volkswagen Polo terrorists came before the Bataclan concert hall in central Paris, where he was killed."


http://i.idnes.cz/15/113/org/MLB5f7048_CHM01_FRANCE_SHOOTING_1120_11.JPG

It was in this car a parking ticket was allegedly found, which enabled the police to another car, this time a black VW Golf which was reportedly stopped on the Belgian border next day, heading for Brussels with three men inside including the chief suspect Salah Abdeslam.

Despite the fact that by this time they must have had the ticket and identified the car that would have been immediately circulated, incredibly the car and its occupants were allowed to pass, none being arrested or otherwise interfered with. Another report states they did follow the car however.

Further confusion is added by this Sun report here:  http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/6744752/Three-brothers-were-part-of-Paris-terror-plot-with-one-still-on-the-run.html

"Citing police sources, a Belgian TV station said a French national who rented a Volkswagen Polo seen outside the Bataclan concert hall where 89 people died was “not among the seven dead attackers or the men arrested so far in Belgium”.The station said three men were stopped by police on the French-Belgian border on Saturday night, but since their names were not on any wanted list they were allowed to continue. It is believed they travelled on to Molenbeek, the Brussels suburb where eight people have been arrested since Saturday, including five this morning."

The model illustrated is clearly NOT the same model shown above but an older one and a different colour but it is the one identified as being at the Bataclan and removed in Brussels. Clearly both stories cannot be correct. Anyway if none of the Bataclan attackers survived, how would it get back to Brussels, particularly as the only survivor (apparently) Salah was in a GOLF at the border with two mates and allowed through? Questions. Questions.


http://img.thesun.co.uk/aidemitlum/archive/02563/03_16094508_253a22_2563749a.jpg


Modern Polo and Golf models are illustrated below and neither it is probably unnecessary to point out, are easily confused with the Seat.

Volkswagen 'Polo'


http://www.paulcoxphotographic.com/wintonsworld/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/VW-Polo-review_4.jpg


Volkswagen Golf


http://www.nettiauto.com/extra/images/volkswagen-golf-3.jpg


So to conclude we may safely say that although throughout, the police have claimed a black Seat was used, it has not appeared anywhere. Either it didn't exist and the police cannot be relied upon even for a simple description, or it was and got away unidentified. To a certain extent this might have been a possibility were it not for the fact that the police announced they had the Seat car that was definitely the one involved in the attacks complete with weapons and ammunition. Except it wasn't and was in fact a completely different car - a Citroen C4! It is this intentional deceit that points a very sinister finger of suspicion at the police account and suggests that they were/are involved in some sort of plot to subvert the truth. If this is true, nothing issued by the French police and government can be relied upon without independent reliable corroboration.
QUESTIONS

There are some very strange and inexplicable aspects to this incident that have never been satisfactorily explained. 

First we need to establish that the incident fits a general theory that the individual involved had with at least one other, carried out ALL of the restaurant outrages - le Carillon; le Petite Cambodge; le Bonne Biere; le Casa Nusra; la Belle Equipe - on its way to the location where the car is allegedly abandoned. As I have previously pointed out neither the timings or witness observations support this and even if Abdeslam and his brother were the killers at the first four locations, which is unlikely, a second team must have been responsible for the Belle Equipe attack.

The next question is a situational and psychological one. The Prosecutor wants us to believe that after carrying out all these bloody attacks and killing at least thirty nine people with presumably the three Kalashnikovs found in the abandoned car (no doubt the bullets retrieved and the weapons have been matched????) Would Salah Abdeslam have calmly dropped off his brother Ibrahim, knowing he intended to blow himself up and this would be the last time he saw him, whilst secretly intent on saving himself? It's just a hunch I know, but does that strike you as likely? The family certainly does not think so from their reported comments. (See: above)

Further, if they are the brutal killers they are portrayed, why at this location did they depart from the previous modus operandi, namely to shower the restaurant with bullets and then depart? What was the logic of changing that here, after all three weapons were in the car. This has not been explained nor the fact that there were three Kalashnikovs that would suggest three passengers perhaps. Abaaoud has been suggested as the third man, but this would be impossible if another police story, that he was seen at the Bataclan directing operations at the same time.

A Contradictory Rationale?

It raises the question that I have not seen discussed, namely  paradox inherent in the assumption that this was both a well organised rational operation, whilst being marked by totally irrational actions, of which leaving the car and escape route, presumably to enable more terrorist acts to be carried out, was rejected in favour of a self-sacrificing gesture that did not even work 'properly'. 

A similar stupidity is evident at the Stadium, where the simple expedient of obtaining a ticket (some official reports state he had one, others that he didn't by the way) or even just arriving at the same time as the crowd, was missed. It is difficult not to conclude that if the suicides are real as described, they were either very stupid or intended not to hurt people, in stark contrast to the men that did the shooting.

Or that suicide bombers would be stupid enough to carry passports (undamaged by the blast!) or leave traceable parking tickets in a car used in an attack. There was clearly an intact body in the case of Brahim, yet apparently all the other disintegrated entirely using identical suicide vests. The police were adamant all the bombers wore identical vests although one was just thrown away later to be discovered and illustrated here.

The following quote comes from the Huffington Post here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/paris-attacks-suicide-vest_5653d247e4b0258edb32c507

"In France, police said an explosive vest — without a detonator — was found by a street cleaner in a pile of rubble in Chatillon-Montrouge, on the southern edge of Paris and a considerable distance from the sites of the attacks on the Right Bank of the Seine to the north. A police official later said the vest contained bolts and the same type of explosives — TATP — as those used in the Nov. 13 Paris attacks that claimed 130 lives and left hundreds wounded. The device was found Monday in the same area where a cellphone belonging to fugitive suspect Salah Abdeslam was located on the day of the Paris attacks but the vest has not been formally linked to him, said two police officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the investigation."

How sloppily helpful to the police is that?

Then there are the reports that Brahim was far from being a model Muslim. The Telegraph has this: "A Paris suicide bomber drank, smoked and ran a drug den, friends who visited the bar he ran have said. Ibrahim Abdeslam, who blew himself up outside the Comptoir Voltaire café on Friday night during a terrorist rampage, enjoyed activities banned under Islamic law." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11999576/Paris-attacks-suicide-bomber-drank-and-ran-drugs-den.html  From the report it would appear he was a 'devil may care', 'jack the lad' type of thirty one year old, not an ISIS fundamentalist warrior prepared to shoot 39 people in cold blood. I for one am not convinced.

Clearly what I am suggesting is that the people identified by the police were not the people that did the shooting at the restaurant locations, and as I have noted in previous articles, this is supported by witness testimony.

Family View

From: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/11998297/Suicide-bomber-blew-himself-up-because-of-stress-says-Ibrahim-Abdeslams-family.html 16.11.2015


"Ibrahim Abdeslam, 31, detonated his suicide vest outside the Comptoir Voltaire cafe on Friday night, but did not kill anyone other than himself.His brother Mohammed was arrested in Brussels on Saturday and a third sibling, Salah, is Europe's most wanted man after becoming the subject of an international arrest warrant."

"The Abdeslam family said they were "surprised" that Ibrahim blew himself up, even though he had spent time in Syria.Their mother Faklan, speaking to a reporter through her nephew - the bombers' cousin - outside the family home in Molenbeek, Brussels, told the Belgian website Het Laatste Nieuws that she was sure he had not planned to kill anyone."

There is this interesting exchange with a possible clue in a reference to 'encrypted objects' in an interview with Ibrahim's brother Mohammed, reproduced from Belgian broadcaster RTBF by the BBC on the 22nd November here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34895294:

"Journalist: You were arrested on Saturday, the 14th, questioned, detained during 36 hours. The judge released you without charging you with anything. She believed you when you told her you didn't know anything. Can you understand that it's sometimes quite difficult to believe that you didn't see or know anything?

Mr Abdeslam: My release, beyond the fact that the judge believed me, wasn't only based on my statements. I was able to bring elements that could prove that I wasn't in Paris during the attacks. I gave my mobile phone and some encrypted objects. I had nothing to hide, and I guess that the judge decided to release me on this basis."

Later in the interview further supports, without being explicit, is given to the possibility that the Abdeslam was being used by French Security Services to take the blame for something they didn't do - the traditional 'Patsy' role. It is admitted that both Salah and Ibrahim were known to them. If so who knows what methods of persuasion or coercion were employed?

"Mr Abdeslam: They became radicalised. Personally, I wouldn't use this term. Nowadays, a lot of young people can be easily influenced. I deeply believe that my brothers weren't radicalised. That's the reason why we didn't see anything. I rather feel like my brothers were manipulated.

Journalist: Salah Abdeslam was being watched by Belgian state security, Brahim probably tried to go to Syria. You weren't aware of this?

Mr Abdeslam: Salah was being watched by Belgian state security, but we didn't know that and we didn't know either that Brahim had tried to go to Syria. He's apparently been interviewed by police services on that subject, and we were never told about what he said.

Journalist: Brahim is dead, he blew himself up in a cafe in Paris. Salah has disappeared from the radar, and investigators are wondering if he didn't change his mind at the very last moment, before doing anything. Do you hope he didn't kill anyone?

Mr Abdeslam: It's more than my hope, it's what I believe. Salah is someone who is very clever. I think that, at the last minute, Salah decided to turn back. Maybe he saw or heard something that he didn't expect. And he decided not to see the plan through. I have to remind you that today, we are not aware of the latest elements of the investigation, but we do not know yet whether Salah did kill people or not, we do not know if Salah was at the scene of any of the attacks."

Journalist: How are you going to live now? You'll always be 'the brother of...'.

Mr Abdeslam: Yes, indeed, I'll always be "the brother of". I hope that this dark story will calm down. Journalists are ringing our bell almost every day to get some information or an interview. It's heavy, it's exhausting. I will always be "the brother of…", yes, but I hope people will be smart enough to understand that I'm not only "the brother of…", that we're not only "the family of…". And that beyond that, there are respectful and different people."

Impossible Timing

Then we have some more questions relating to the timing. Ok there may have been just about enough time to get from la Belle Equipe (say 9.40 pm) to Comptoir Voltaire for the explosion to happen five minutes later if he just got out the car and exploded his vest (we will put aside for the moment the witness reports that said a different car went in a different direction from La Belle Equipe!) but the story goes (and it has changed significantly) that he was sitting down at a table outside when it went off having ordered a coffee. That sounds very casual and relaxed and suggests delay. In fact we have no reliable witness statements in this regard on which to draw. There is neither time for a car to get from the first to the sixth site in the time allowed or even for Brahim to get from the Belle Equipe to the Comptoir Voltaire.

Conflicting Stories

The impression given at first, supported by photographic images, that this was yet another conventional suicide bomber event outside the event with the inference it was a very messy affair and no body to retrieve. When people on the internet challenged the story it morphed into a failed attempt inside the cafe with a virtually undamaged man and other improbable elements. As far as I am aware no mention has been made regarding the removal and present whereabouts of the dead Brahim. Nor does the family confirm they have seen the body. Strange to say the least. Is this a case for a Habeas Corpus writ (were it available)?

But the most questionable aspect of this incident is the contradictory story and the complete absence of any physical evidence to support the story of an explosion. As I have already referred all initial reports suggested he had blown himself up OUTSIDE sitting at a table and photographs such as this were published to support it. 

The conflicting versions that could only have come direct from the French police, were in the Guardian: "A terrorist detonates his suicide belt inside the Voltaire restaurant at 9.40pm, on Boulevard Voltaire, a long road linking Place de la République with Place de la Nation. One person is seriously injured,"  whereas the The Telegraph reported thus: "Ibrahim, who seriously injured a bystander when he detonated his suicide bomb, rented a Seat Leon used in the attacks." These accounts.

Is there any way to reconcile these two opposing accounts? The only thing I can come up with is that he was neither in or out cut coming through the door and finally coming to rest inside? The trouble is this is not supported by the various witness statements either. I guess it will remain a mystery.

No Physical Damage


This must constitute one of the most serious reservations to the police account. There is virtually no physical damage or any evidence of biological contamination. The only explanation for this could be that the bomb did not go off. What then would have caused the huge wound in his side (or was it his back?) and if so why no evidence of severe bleeding or appropriate response from apparently a trained medic. Can the alleged video of the event be relied upon? I doubt it. The man is white and appears to be different age and build to Brahim. I could be wrong but it has the appearance of an ineffectively cobbled together story and a video from a different event entirely.

Here is a picture of the after effects at another of the restaurant attacks at the Belle Equipe with just bullets, which I think is genuine (viewer discretion suggested) Note the contrast with the Comptoir Voltaire.

http://img01.ibnlive.in/ibnlive/uploads/2015/11/paris-terror-attack1.jpg1.jpg 

It confirms whoever is playing these 'games' are as callous as they are determined. If that doesn't wake people up to the danger, nothing will.

Here is a shot of Beirut and the after effects of suicide bombers on the same day in which many were killed although this did not get the international public relations campaign that accompanied Paris. Again compare and contrast.


https://img.rt.com/files/2015.11/original/564defa2c46188140b8b456f.jpg


Take a look at the image below showing the scene the next day. Note overturned chairs, coffee cups on table and no discernable damage to glazing or structure. Tape inside appears to demarcate an area in which white clad forensic officers work. The account below attempts to explain the lack of damage based upon the suggestion that the explosives were positioned on his back, that he was standing against a wall and that the force of it went up not out. However even were this true, the absence of any form of fire damage to the awning cannot be mistaken.

http://cdn-lejdd.ladmedia.fr/var/lejdd/storage/images/media/images/societe/comptoir-voltaire/12250347-1-fre-FR/Comptoir-Voltaire.jpg


I have to admit I find all of these unconvincing unless the explosive device was almost non- existent. Note there appears to be no wall he could stand against other than glass which appears undamaged. This could not have been any conventional suicide bomb which does immense structural and personal damage. In this report nine days later it is said that Ibrahim's injury was limited to a back wound and a member of the public attempted resuscitation. This on a suicide bomber but obviously not a typical one nor with a vest that replicated the others where the wearer was apparently blown to pieces and could only be identified by DNA and a detached finger!

Another next-day view was included early in the article (above).

And what is this officer holding? It looks like meat to me but I could be wrong.


http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/forensic-police-search-for-evidences-inside-the-comptoir-voltaire-at-picture-id497081200



Compare and contrast with the RT video footage that shows clearly the presumed suicide vest: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9XdLFlXo1g Yet again we have a serious problem. Remember the context - a huge explosion in intimate contact with vest and human body - yet virtually no evidence of either damage to it or contamination with blood or other human remains. This does not add up.

For a remarkable series of photographs that happen to capture the effects of a suicide bomb take a look at this and ask yourself could this or anything approaching it have happened at Comptoir Voltaire?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/worldnews/4973425/Suicide-bomb-blast-in-Sri-Lanka-caught-on-camera.html

False Information regarding the vehicles Used and other Deceit

As I think I have conclusively proved above, much of the information relating to the alleged cars used in the attacks is not only unreliable, it was positively false. Nor can much of the other information be relied upon. 


Conclusion

There are many unanswered question in relation to the events at the Comptoir Voltaire on the 13/11/2015 and many proven falsehoods to the official story put out by the French authorities. This does not inspire confidence to say the least.

Sadly however, I am convinced many did die in Paris on that night but by whom is still uncertain. It looks increasingly unlikely it was by the people the French authorities say it was. There is little hard physical evidence that anyone blew themselves up at any of the venues claimed and it is an open question what actually happened to the people named. 

Why did they make up the story about retrieving the 'black Seat' car; who were the four (at least) killed but not identified at the Boulevard Beaumarchais; how does the black Renault fit in the story; where is the black VW Polo and where was if found?

It looks likely that many were shot but increasingly unlikely the people the French government want us to think did it, did it! This means none of the story can hold up and makes it much more likely this was a False Flag Operation (FFO). That the British Government should persuade Parliament to justify war abroad and further measures at home on such unreliable evidence, is mind boggling, or that it continues to blindly perpetuate blatant lies, illustrates the nature of the predicament we find ourselves in. END.










7 comments:

  1. Well done, for undertaking your own thinking and investigating, Tim!

    Another blogger with lots of viewers has done so, too: https://hat4uk.wordpress.com/?s=paris&submit=Search

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for that Sabine. All facets of the bigger matrix I'm afraid!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Oh and thanks for ref. to that interesting blog.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well, yet another false flag. I don't even give these much attention anymore as they are too frequent and obviously fake or imposters and actors. Its all just games and lies. The devil rules supreme. but not for more than another 8 or 9 years and then his time is up for 1000 years.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Shayler concurs: http://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/630279/Former-MI5-officer-outrage-claiming-Paris-terror-attacks-inside-job-ISIS-Daesh

    ReplyDelete
  6. False Flag Events legalised in the USA: https://www.facebook.com/IkeBx/videos/10206228300879442/

    ReplyDelete
  7. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsbbzeqxJuw

    ReplyDelete