Sunday, 6 March 2016


BATACLAN CONCERT HALL , 50 Boulevard Voltaire (9.45 PM – ABOUT 12.30 AM)

Map of Paris showing site of attacks and other related locations

1.  Introduction

So now, rather belatedly, we come to a consideration of what might be considered the most devastating of the events to occur on that most unlucky of Paris nights. (This is the sixth of related articles on the Paris outrage. The previous five can be accessed on the 'December' element of this 'Veater Ecosan' blog.)

The British Channel 4 report from the next day is here: Perhaps it is worth noting that embedded within it is the statement that only TWO gunmen - young and under twenty five - were seen in the Bataclan, and that they 'told everyone to lie on the floor.' This is a detail I haven't seen repeated elsewhere.

Meanwhile in this recorded interview with Khaled Saadi who lost two sisters at the Belle Equipe, he states the killers arrived 'at half past nine'. This you will note is at least ten minutes BEFORE the time they were stated to arrive in the official version. This of course is important because if true, it positively rules out the possibility the same group did all the restaurant attacks, an crucial plank in the police story.

A few years ago, on a memorable trip to Paris with a friend, I recall walking past this building and taking note of its highly ornate facade. Its reputation now rests on a far more macabre feature – the unexpected and premature death of eighty-nine (89) mainly young people enjoying a night at a rock concert.

In the light of this, I am mindful of the need for sensitivity and respect in analysing the circumstances of this case. However it has to be said that it was an integral part of a whole series of outrages that killed, it is claimed, a further thirty-nine people, not including the attackers. As suggested in previous articles the many anomalies, inconsistencies and even down-right lies mean nothing can be taken for granted.

We need to approach the Bataclan therefore with the same open mind and analytical approach, always following what we know of the facts – wherever they might lead. It may contain both elements of truth and falsehood and it is important we distinguish between the two if they exist, if we can. We are aware that unlike the authorities, we only have access to the information in the public domain, which can itself be limited, partial and suspect.

All the time we need to bear in mind that western governments have conspired to create innumerable so called 'false flag events' over the years, which have been blamed on innocent parties to further political ends. The question is was the Bataclan one of them?

We should be reminded that when it comes to 'false flags' the deception can operate on several levels. The event described may have not happened at all or in a way different to how it was described. The deaths and injuries may be exaggerated, under-reported or put down to causes different to those experienced. Untrue elements may be introduced for emotional effect. Visual images may be real or contrived. People different to those accused may have actually carried out the terror. Sadly, the fact that people actually die, does not of itself validate the official story, although this is overwhelmingly the effect in the public mind.

The official narrative is carried on the back of a wave of natural shock, outrage and sympathy, and cemented by well organised public relations campaigns and political ceremonies. It is seldom examined or questioned thereafter, except on the fringe of public debate. The main media channels will not touch it. Any individuals who try are immediately labelled with the damning label of 'conspiracy theorist' and thereby rubbished. The official version gains mythic unassailable status. This is the only explanation why, other than all the deeply entrenched vested interests, the lies of 9/11 and other notable events, could have held for so long.

Even if the basic facts of the Bataclan massacre are correct and that eight-nine people tragically lost their lives, this does not of itself prove that they died in the way described, or that the act was carried out by the people identified and accused, or was organised in the way and for the purpose as described. As outsiders we have great difficulty in establishing any of these things, however we can examine what evidence we do have and subject to some form of analysis to see if it is internally and externally consistent. Whether it does or doesn't, it is hard not to be amazed by the 'co-incidences' and strange elements that keep appearing that should at least make us question if everything was as described by the French Government.

2.  Official Version of Events

This was the last of the EIGHT locations or premises alleged to be attacked. Perhaps we should note that the timing and other factors, rules out any possibility that the people engaged in the other location unless they were carried out by persons other than those accused. 

I will merely reproduce the summary verbatim from Wikipedia here: 

"At approximately 21:40, a mass shooting and hostage-taking occurred at the Bataclan theatre on the boulevard Voltaire in the 11th arrondissement. The American band Eagles of Death Metal was playing to an audience of around 1,500 people. About an hour into the concert, a car pulled up outside the venue and three dark-clad men with AKM assault rifles entered the hall. Witnesses heard shouts of "Allahu Akbar" just before the gunmen took up positions on the mezzanine and opened fire on the crowd. Initially, the audience mistook the gunfire for pyrotechnics.The attack lasted 20 minutes, and witnesses also reported seeing the attackers throw hand grenades into the crowd. A radio reporter attending the concert described the attackers as calm and determined, telling CNN they had reloaded three or four times.[77] Survivors escaped via the emergency exit into the street or made their way onto the roof, with some taking refuge in toilets and offices; others lay still on the floor pretending to be dead. The band's members escaped without injury. 
Around 22:00, the attackers took 60–100 concertgoers hostage as police gathered outside the venue. They threatened to decapitate a hostage and throw the corpse out of the window every five minutes. A witness who escaped told a journalist that the gunmen had mentioned Syria. One witness in the Bataclan heard a gunman say, "This is because of all the harm done by Hollande to Muslims all over the world." There were further attacks on police and first responders who arrived at the scene.
Starting at 22:15, the Brigade of Research and Intervention (BRI) arrived on the scene, followed by the elite tactical unit,RAID. The assault on the theatre began at 00:20 and lasted three minutes. Police launched the assault because of reports that the attackers had started killing hostages. They initially estimated that 100 people had been killed, but the toll was revised to 89. Two attackers died by detonating their suicide vests. Another was hit by police gunfire and his vest blew up when he fell.  Identification and removal of the bodies took 10 hours, a process made difficult because some audience members had left their identity papers in the theatre's cloakroom."  
Source: (References have 
been deleted for simplicity)

3.  Discussion

At 9.40pm (2140) (but times vary up to 9.50) two, three or four (!) terrorists in a black Volkswagen Polo parked on the street outside the Bataclan, and on getting out with assault rifles immediately fatally attacked a passing cyclist and then entered the music club, shooting at the people in the entrance lobby and crowded hall. The car had been hired it is said by Salah Abdeslam, 26, one of the attackers, of which more later. 

Rather amazingly it is claimed he left his driving license at the pyrotechnics firm where he picked up detonators a year before. ( The sales assistant didn't mention it to police until after the Paris bombings. Leaving aside the fact that an Arab buying detonators might have evoked a certain curiosity after the Charlie Hebdo events, it poses some other rather obvious questions in and of itself (not posed or answered in the Mirror article). 
For example why would he leave his drivers license with the firm in the first place clearly linking him with the purchase of explosives? No half-professional terrorist would make such an obvious mistake. Second he seems to have made no effort to locate it. Third he was obviously moving around for a year without an important document that could be required at any time. Fourth, how did he hire the VW Polo without the document? Fifth, police stopped and identified him the next day on the Belgian border. How, if he didn't have his driver's license in his possession? (OK he could have been by passport the question is worth posing - how did the police identify him and of course let him continue on his way unmolested?)

It is suggested that 'Salah Abdeslam drove three of the suicide bombers to the Stade de France', though how he did this and then in the 'black Seat' managed to carry out all the gun attacks on the restaurants is not explained. Incredibly he was stopped on the Belgium border the day following (Saturday 14th), but let go because investigators had not yet connected him to the attacks. "Abdeslam and Abaaoud were believed to have planned and coordinated the attacks. Abdeslam had made several trips between the French and Belgian capitals in September and October, and he had also traveled to Italy, Hungary and Austria."

Now reconcile this with reports by the Daily Mail here ( ) that the car that was used in the Bataclan attack (claimed to be a VW Polo 'hired by Abdeslam' was actually chased through the streets of Paris by police before it was parked up outside and the attack began! 
"Police are also reportedly chasing a car containing four 'heavily armed men' who stormed through a police road block as they headed towards Paris." Also, "Officers are said to be in pursuit of a Citroën Berlingo after it forced its way through a toll on the A10 in the Ablis area of Yvelines in north-west France." the Daily Mail stated. Presumably these are both aspects of the same incident as reported to the Mail by the authorities. Also, "Police are also reportedly chasing a car containing four 'heavily armed men' who stormed through a police road block as they headed towards Paris. Armed with AK47 machine guns and shouting 'Allahu Akbar', four of the group marched into a rock concert at the Bataclan theatre, massacring up to 100 people and taking dozens hostage."

So if this account can be relied upon, we have to ask why the occupants were not engaged immediately they parked up if armed police were already on their tail and aware by then, of other attacks in the city?

An American group, 'Eagles of Death Metal' were playing to a packed audience (the exact figure varies from 1000 to 2000!) mainly French nationals in their twenties and thirties, although other nationalities and ages were represented. They kill eighty-nine people, mainly in their twenties and thirties. They then blow themselves up inside the hall it is claimed. Even if we take the mean figure of 1500, this is impossible to reconcile with an alleged survivor stating there were about "200 in the mosh pit" at the time.

The actual number, where and how also varies. For example say only two were involved, others three whilst the official number also varies between three and four. Some claim the shooting came from the back entrance area, another witness says "it was coming from the balcony", whilst yet others quoted by the Mail, who say they were in the balcony, say the gunmen were below. Some claim the lights came on immediately after whilst others say they crawled out in the dark. It is clear from the short video clip (if it can be believed) that the shooting started when the house lights were off and there were only spots on the stage, yet witnesses describe the gunmen when they entered in detail and heard them shout slogans above the sound of the music. (There is no evidence of this on the video and audio clips released) All these apparent inconsistencies need to be followed up and explained.

Almost immediately following the initial assault, video captures an exchange of gunfire between police and the assailants, in which apparently no-one is actually hurt other than arguably a local resident (see below) There is further opportune video taken from a vantage point in the adjacent side street, of people pouring out of two emergency exits after the attack starts. It is taken by a Le Monde journalist on presumably his i-phone and immediately circulated world wide, creating the iconic image of the attack.

Not until twenty-two minutes past midnight (00.22) – that is more than two and a half hours after it began - is it reported do the police storm the building. It is claimed a 'hostage situation' existed inside the building. 

However prior to this there are worrying variations to the official story that raise questions in the mind. For example the number of attackers varies between two, three and four as does the way and when they died. It is claimed all blew themselves up but there is scant supporting evidence of this. Rather surprisingly it appears not one policeman lost his life or was even injured despite the desperate nature of the attackers.

The Telegraph on 16.11.2015 reported thus (note the significant differences): “The sixth attack was at the Bataclan at around 9:50pm. The siege lasted two hours and forty minutes. Two of the terrorists blew up their explosive belts as police arrived on the scene at around 12:30am”

Another version suggests that a policeman entered early on and shot the terrorist exploding his vest in the process. Here ( we have a variation on that story. In this one the lowly policeman is promoted to un-named hero 'Commissioner'. 

"As the attackers mowed people down, a police commissioner and his driver, learning from the police radio that they were near the site, sped to the concert hall before more elite teams could get there. They charged inside, shooting one of the gunmen before the attacker had a chance to use his high-powered rifle. Then they retreated so that special-operations teams could assemble.

"It was a key action that slowed the pace of carnage. “In hindsight, I know that we saved dozens, maybe hundreds of lives,” the commissioner, who hasn’t been named, told private television channel M6. While the Bataclan death toll of at least 89 was horrific, most of the partygoers survived."

According to the official story, this left two or three (?) holed up in an upstairs room with hostages. Two are said to have blown themselves up killing the third with the blast although not wearing a suicide vest. Of course it poses the obvious question, how in those circumstances the hostages could have survived?

Here is another version taken from the above: 

"The police intervention team, defying shouts from the attackers, fired precision shots at the gunmen in the space between two hostages, Sebastien said.“Then they bashed the door in, and the real shooting started,” said Sebastien. Nearly 20 officers were plowing in behind a heavy duty Kevlar shield drawing a hailstorm of return fire that left over two dozen welts in it, officials said. One officer lost a finger after a ricocheting bullet went through his hand. The assault, ordered at 12:20 a.m., left one gunman dead from gunshots, and another blown up in a suicide explosion, said Paris prosecutor Francois Molins."

An otherwise unidentified 'Sebastian' is said to be the source of this story which apart from conflicting with others, is patently ridiculous. How would 'precision shots' be possible through a locked door? If two suicide belts had exploded in a confined space, no one in the room would have come out alive let alone the policemen. Note also in this account only two not three terrorists died in this exchange and only one not two suicide vests exploded. Factor in the initial statement that this final assault took only "3 minutes" and as with much of the Paris attack we are faced with a conflicting and barely credible account.

I have not found any witnesses claiming to see more than two gunmen. In fact an Australian businessman 'John Leader' and his young son (one wonders how his son was allowed into the event?) quoted in this article states: 

"Others desperately wounded, playing dead or crying out in agony, as police stormed the building, shot one gunmen on the ground floor and cornered and shot the other two upstairs, as they threatened to behead a group of hostages." (Note how in this version all three are killed when the building is stormed at 12.20 rather than one being killed by the Commission at the beginning of the siege!) 

Leader continues I only saw two shooters in the Bataclan. I’ve heard there were four. Maybe the others were upstairs. They were wearing these very voluminous, tan vests. I thought they had stashed magazines in the vests but now it looks like they were suicide vests. I popped my head up and looked at them. One was doing crowd control. He was standing there with his gun at the ready, but not shooting, just watching the crowd. The other one was reloading and then he started shooting again"

This divergence in the account is very worrying and introduces an element of doubt to any of the versions. We are left wondering if there were two, three or four attackers and how they were killed - if indeed they were?

There are two - just two - sources claiming to capture the moment the firing started, one a short video clip that went viral, the second just an audio captured on an I-phone here The latter emerged after seven days. 

I have to say I find the audio more convincing than the video clip. Indeed the two do not appear to match well. I have not been able to compare the sound scientifically, but the bangs do not sound identical to me. In the video clip the metallic sound of the Kalashnikov, apparent on the audio is missing, as are the authentic sounds of people in distress. The audio recording lasts considerably longer. Fraud in respect of one or other or both cannot be ruled out unfortunately.

There is an anomaly to both of these sources that needs to be mentioned. It has been stated that before entering the Bataclan itself, the attackers shot and killed a passing cyclist with a burst of gunfire. As far as I am aware his identity and details have not been released. It has also been stated that on entering, the bouncers and lobby staff were shot, yet the recordings give no indication of either of these events if they occurred. The first might be explicable by the attenuation afforded by structure and distance but the second cannot be so easily argued away. Why I wonder are these earlier bursts are not recorded as more muffled ones before the firing in the actual hall took place?

4,  Was Abaaoud at the Bataclan?

The latest (14.12.15) variation is that Abdelhamid Abaaoud was seen by 'a woman in a car talking excitedly' outside the location. From this it is concluded that he was directing the attack in the vicinity. Abaaoud was suggested to be the 'mastermind' of the operation and was killed with a girl in a shoot-out with police in the suburb of St Denis on 18th the November (the following Wednesday)

In the same report, credence is also given to an incident in which a teacher was said to have been stabbed with scissors and a box cutter, that later proved completely fabricated. I suggest the Abaaoud story is equally unconvincing. 

What master mind would stand in the street shouting commands when he could do so from the anonymity and comfort of his home or a less obvious location. The fact that CNN naively accepts this story without challenging any aspect of it and builds it up into a new and unique development of 'controlling the battle-ground' is a sad comment on the media.

It also requires Abaaoud, who the police suggest was also in the abandoned 'Seat' (that was actually a Citroen C3!) which means he had to get back from there - over three miles - before arriving outside the Bataclan to make himself a very obvious target. Does this really sound likely? I am doubtful. If nothing else, if this is correct, he couldn't have got there before about 10.30 pm at the very earliest, as after the claimed Voltaire drop-off he had to drive three miles, park up and then get back to the Bataclan using public transport.

5.  Gun battle with police outside Bataclan

There is Youtube video of shots being fired at police initially. It is here: There is no time stamp so it is not clear precisely when this happened. Many police vehicles can be seen so it must be a little while into the attack but the absence of any fleeing victims or over a thousand survivors in various states of distress, suggest it must be before the mass exodus.

The shots fired appear to be real as there is evidence of sparks as they strike the car and dust as they strike the wall but by the same token they are completely ineffective if the intention was to strike the police. If these are callous and trained killers as we are led to believe, the random, inaccurate shooting is not supportive of it. Perhaps it is worth noting and significant, that throughout the many incidents, not one state official (policeman) as far as we are aware, was even injured.  (Apart that is from one policeman injuring a finger in the final assault (see above)) The police (and army) we must conclude, were never intended targets despite this being, we are told, a protest against the French State's action in Syria. Strange. Very strange.

Occupier of flat opposite shot dead.

Perhaps this is when a local neighbour got shot in his flat if a more sinister explanation is not to blame?

The 'Independent' newspaper on the 18th November, 2015 - the same day as the final shoot out in St Dennis took place - that a fifty two year old man had been found dead in his studio flat over-looking the Bataclan. His name was given as Stephane Hache and it was claimed he was hit by a stray bullet through his open window. He was only discovered a day after the attack.

In a Le Parisien report of the 25th November, it is confirmed he had only been in the flat for two weeks when he was shot in the back in the region of the heart it is conjectured from a ricocheting bullet. An open window and a bullet in the back deserves more investigation and detail. For example was it a police bullet or a terrorist bullet or even one that matches neither? As usual this crucial information is not forthcoming. (Search: Stephane Hache Bataclan - I'm afraid the site will not allow anymore cut and paste.)

6.  How many attackers?

There is considerable disagreement over how many attackers were involved. For example in this report from three days after the event, it is claimed that four entered and that three wore suicide belts.  It includes the Le Monde video footage of the escape of perhaps fifty people through the side doors. (The fact akin to Charlie Hebdo, that a video by a newspaper reporter managed to record the event is a fortunate coincidence) I will return to this footage in a moment. This particular news video also claims 1,800 people were at the concert. (The BBC states it was 1500. Other reports state 'more than a thousand') If we accept the mean figure of 1500 it would mean that about a fourteen hundred managed either to escape or survive the attack. The question arises how and why so many were spared or managed to escape. They were indeed very lucky. A video examining the many 'survivor' testimonies which throws considerable doubt on their voracity is here:;;

7.  When, where and how the attackers are killed

There are small but significant variations to the official story but it goes something like this:
First note the time it starts (9.40 pm) effectively rules out the involvement of the alleged 'second team' responsible for all the restaurant/bar shootings. The others are effectively ruled out for other very good reasons. We are told all the three attackers at the Stade de France killed themselves so clearly they were no longer available. 
The BBC account here ( (which incidentally is full of inaccuracies) reports that 'gunmen' (it doesn't say how many but other sources put it at two - a gunman and a driver) attack first the Le Carillon bar, 18 rue Alibert and Le Petit Cambodge (Little Cambodia) and then went on to attack the Cafe Bonne Biere and La Casa Nostra pizzeria in rue de la Fontaine au Roi.

(This is inaccurate as the Bonne Biere is at 32 Rue du Faubourg du Temple, 75011 Paris, which is some distance from La Casa Nostra at 2 Rue de la Fontaine au Roi, 75011 Paris. This is important because the five shot dead are placed at both locations - clearly impossible. Also a questionable video was published by the Daily Mail that claimed to represent the attack at the latter with a time-stamp that contradicted the report (see earlier articles)) 

8.  Strange British Twist

We are all aware how David Cameron and other British Ministers seized on the Paris events with almost alacrity to support plans already in the pipeline, but likely to be again rejected, to bomb Syria. However for Britons affected directly by events a far less approach was demonstrated.

In a strange twist the Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond fails to declare it a 'designated event' for the purposes of the criminal injuries compensation board even two months later. This was after a British couple at the Bataclan had been treated with total disinterest by the British Embassy in Paris when they sought help.

Christine Tudhope and her friend Mariesha Payne were told, “The [Overseas Terrorism Compensation] Scheme only applies to an incident which the Foreign Secretary has determined a “designated act”. The incident in which you sustained injury has not been designated… Your application will be held meantime, and eligibility for an award will only be considered if the incident is designated.’

Read more:

This may not of itself indicate fraud but it certainly indicates a failure to demonstrate joined-up thinking or prioritising the victims of terrorism, being far more interested in using the event for propaganda purposes. It strengthens the view that this was indeed yet another fraudulent and criminal 'false flag' event to achieve both foreign and domestic objectives. Note how France's 'state of emergency' has been extended beyond the first three months with the stated intention being to incorporate it permanently into the Constitution!

9.  The Black Seat car that wasn't

However moving on, the official story claims this team in the 'black Seat car' was the same one to carry out the devastating attack a mile or two to the south east, at the Belle Equipe in the rue de Charonne. This also is quite impossible given the timings as they would have had to have been at two locations, far apart, at effectively the same time (9.40 pm or thereabouts)

The BBC states the black Seat was used and that it then moved on to the restaurant Le Comptoir Voltaire on the Boulevard Voltaire where (A)Braham Abdeslam - killed himself by detonating a suicide bomb, thus making him by inference one of the killers in the first attacks.

As to more inaccuracies, it was not a black Seat that was witnessed at the Belle Equip but a Mercedes. The BBC states: "The gunmen arrived at the scene (i.e. 'Le Carillon') in a black Seat car, later found abandoned, about three miles (nearly 5km) away in the eastern suburb of Montreuil" clearly suggesting it was the same team in the same car responsible for all the locations except the Stadium and Concert Hall.

This too is highly misleading because of the impossible timings and conflicting description of the vehicle, the clincher being that the recovered car was not even a Seat but a Citroen! (see earlier article by me) This falsehood has never been corrected by officialdom or media since. In addition the BBC reports that following the Belle Equip attack, "a witness said, "Then they got back in their car and headed towards Charonne station." This is in the general direction of the Bataclan but not the Comptoir Voltaire where the official story wants us to believe it went.

Taken altogether, these fact thoroughly undermine and invalidate the official narrative of events as issued to the French nation and world. It simply cannot be true. The fact that it hasn't been corrected or explained must mean this is an intentional deception for the real thing, whatever that was.

10.  Implications for the Bataclan Attack

However, if for argument's sake, we were to accept the official version, the implications are clear for the Bataclan attack, namely the attackers could not have included either of the gunmen involved in the other attacks. Indeed as we have seen, one of the two ((A)Brahim Abdeslam) (if it was more than two an additional person must have joined at some point) in the car was alleged to have been dropped off at the Comptoir Voltaire (where he blew himself up) whilst the driver continues to Montreuil three miles in the opposite direction.

Not only does this rule out this team in the Bataclan attack, but it renders very suspicious and unlikely the official story that the alleged driver of the 'Black Seat' (actually Citroen!) retrieved at Montreuil with guns and ammunition inside, and Salah  Abdeslam, still on the 'run' (see also and would after parking up, get into his own car to drive home, breaking down on the way, as is alleged, and then pleading with two friends for a lift.

However a different and conflicting story has also been put out that it was Abdelhamid Abaaoud (see above) who was driving the attack car (the Seat that was actually a Citroen) and who after having parked it at Montreuil was witnessed outside the Bataclan directing operations. This would have meant after parking up three miles out of town, carelessly leaving his weapons behind and other incriminating evidence behind, and drive or get public transport back in again, well after the attack had started. 

This is indeed what is being claimed by the police who say they have photographic evidence of him entering and leaving metro stations near his car and near the Bataclan, that supports it. In which case I have to pose the question what was the point of abandoning the car and weapons if he intended to rejoin the fight. Surely after dropping his mate off at the Voltaire Cafe, he would have just driven back, utilizing the weapons in the process? What terrorist would leave his weapons behind if the purpose was to kill? It makes no logical sense.

So if the police hold to the theory that one Seat (actually a Citroen) car was used to carry out all the restaurant attacks, who drove it? Was it Saleh Abdeslam or Abdelhamid Abaaoud and why did they not both return to the Bataclan if both were in the car?

But that is not all, as we shall see, the police also claim Abaaoud's Renault Clio, used to ferry Abdeslam into Paris was also used for the raids. If he wasn't driving his own car who was? He certainly couldn't be driving both. And if the Clio was involved, later the centre of a gun battle apparently and impounded, how was it involved as in the official story it does not appear and has no obvious function? 

We need not dwell on the fact, that although known to police and associated with the attack, Salah Abdeslam was allowed to pass through the French/Belgian border the next day despite being identified and questioned! Considering the fact that besides the massacre of thirty nine people as is alleged, and having dropped off his brother at the Voltaire, where he promptly blew himself up, he is amazingly relaxed about the whole business when photographed the next day at the petrol station, on the way home. Must be the calming effect of the cannabis that he was smoking in the car! (Not my guess but what the police reported!) Never was there a less convincing scenario.

In this article he is pictured nonchalantly walking with a friend at a garage the next day on his journey back to B, making no attempt to hide or disguise his face.


It need not be stated that this is not typical operating procedure for 'masterminds' and participants of mass assassination! 

Nor is the reported 'pothead' behaviour (they apparently smoked pot in the car on the way back) typical of a dedicated Muslim. This added to the fact that the police didn't bother to arrest him when questioned (or even pursue the matter of the cannabis) despite knowing who he was, is surely enough to rubbish his reported role in the proceedings? 

In fact, it is hard not to conclude that circumstantially it appears the man has been framed for something he is unlikely to have done. No wonder, given previous instances, he is on the run, as the likelihood he would be shot on sight, with no questions asked if and when located, is hardly in doubt. It is now stated French government policy with which the British government wishes to compete apparently!

Yet another complication is posed in this Daily Star report ( it is claimed he "drove jihadis to the Bataclan Theatre where they killed 89" and that, "In the aftermath of the atrocity, he called his pals for help and wept like a little girl over the phone" not only highly contrived, it cannot be true if at the same time he was supposed to be abandoning the Black Seat (that was actually a Citroen!) three miles away in Montreuil. Physically he could not have been in two wide apart locations beside the minor difficulty of driving two different cars.

So not only Abaaoud placed in two cars at the same time, so is Abdeslam unless I have got it very wrong.
"He had called them for a lift after his own car broke down, according to The Brussels Times." Oh really? So what car was this now and where was it. Clearly not the black Seat or the black Polo at the Bataclan, he had allegedly hired with his fingerprints all over it, or the Renault Clio or the Mercedes at the Belle Equip. No mention has been made of these additional vehicles or identified. Come on Paris police, you are slipping. The two friends who drove him back from Paris and were subsequently arrested are named as Mohammed Amri, 27, and Hamza Attou, 20. They assert they had nothing to do with the attacks. No doubt given their very precarious position they came under a lot of pressure to say what the police demanded of them.
Then we have to add to the confusing mix, that Salah Abdeslam was photographed heading towards Paris in the Renault Clio with its owner Abdelhamid Abaaoud. The car is later photographed abandoned, the scene of a police shoot-out when several died. This is something of a mystery as Abaaoud died in the final shoot-out in St Denis the following Wednesday and the car was never mentioned by 'witnesses' or formed part of the original official narrative. 

If it was actually the Renault Clio involved it of course makes unreliable the whole 'black Seat' so central to the whole story, and for that matter the Citroen (said to be the attack Seat that clearly wasn't) found in Montreuil. (I hope you are still with me on this as I agree it is very confusing) And if a shoot-out with putative 'terrorists' killed, who were they and what part did they play, because they are unaccounted for in the official script. Remember all but Salah Abdeslam were killed elsewhere.
But it doesn't stop there. This report put Abaaoud as the driver of the abandoned alleged 'black Seat' (actually Citroen) in Montreuil.   The Mail reports: 
"The news comes as it was revealed the ringleader of the Paris attacks returned to the scene of the shootings and was near the Bataclan concert hall while police were still trying to oust the gunmen who killed 89 people there.
Abdelhamid Abaaoud, who died last Wednesday when police raided a flat in Saint-Denis north of Paris, was captured on CCTV going into a metro station near where a car with three assault rifles inside had been abandoned.

French prosecutor Francois Molins said Abaaoud emerged from the underground at Nation station on the night of the attacks.
He added: 'The geolocalisation of Abdelhamid Abaaoud's alleged phone between 10:28pm and 12:28am confirms a presence in the 12th, 11th, and 10th districts, and notably near the Bataclan concert hall.

'This allows us to think that Abdelhamid Abaaoud returns to the crime scenes following the attacks on terraces of the cafes and restaurants of the 10th and 11th districts while (special police) was still taking action at the Bataclan.'

( )

Here is copy of said image said to prove Abaaoud and Salah were said to be together on their approach to Paris and obviously at an advanced stage in their preparation for the attacks. Neither footwear, clothing or purchases would give any intimation of their dastardly plans or indeed that they made any effort to conceal their identity in any way, knowing that both car and person would be captured on camera. Mercenaries have a tendency to dress like them but there is no sign of this here - casual clothes being the order of the day. Nor for that matter is there indication of the uniform black clothing described by witnesses. Don't you find this just a tad strange?

Here he is pictured entering the Renault Clio at the petrol station which was used in the Paris massacre two days later

Now here (below) is an image of we assume the same car. (Note the registration is only shown on the abandoned vehicle so we can't be absolutely sure it is one and the same though identical colour and model though I have to say I am unable to spot any features that might distinguish the two.) It was abandoned on the 17th November, a day before the final gun battle but there is virtually no information on it, who was driving it or what happened to the passengers. 

Was there a police confrontation or gun battle? The photograph certainly gives indications of a smashed passenger side door and even I believe (I can't be absolutely sure) signs of bullet holes in the windscreen. If so what happened?

We know very little about it because it has been largely ignored by the news media. All we were told was that the car was involved in the attacks. So if as we have been told seven of the 'eight' were killed, who could have been driving it? And where does a Renault Clio, never mentioned, fit into the events? What could be the real role it played in them? 

Again I would ask if this was Abaaoud's car and he was elsewhere, who was driving and in it and what role did they play in the attacks? Given the fact that police knew principal suspects were connected to the car, why was the description never released, why did it take so long to locate it, and why were terrorists stupid enough to be driving it around Paris four days later? All these are questions I haven't seen posed, let alone answered.

11.  Boulevard Beaumarchais 10.00 pm Four (4) Dead

Then we have another very curious but significant incident that yet again has hardly been reported or explained. This must be highly suspicious because such a serious event, with no less than FOUR people shot dead only about a quarter of an hour following the Bataclan attack, with no other rational explanation provided, must surely be connected. What could possibly justify keeping this incident secret, and if four people were killed, not otherwise accounted for, who were they?

There are two Daily Mail reports that refer to it on the 13 and 15th November as below:

"The final separate incident of the evening, an attack on Boulevard Beaumarchais, was reported around 10pm. Four people are believed to have died at that attack." and 

"22:00 Shooting on the boulevard Beaumarchais, where four more deaths were reported."

Fox News on the 13.9.15 also covered the story with a photograph as follows: "A general view of police at the scene on Boulevard Beaumarchais following a shooting on November 13, 2015 in Paris, France. 26 people have reportedly been killed following a series of violent incidents in and around Paris. (Photo by David Wolff – Patrick/Getty Images)"

It also reported the following at the same time: "Five suspected attackers have been “neutralized”, the Paris prosecutor’s office said Saturday, French media reported. It was unclear what that term precisely meant. BFMTV reports that SWAT units stormed Bataclan and that the siege was over. Two attackers were killed, a police union said."

This is also curious and raises questions. For example it suggests five people had been shot by police rather than having killing themselves. No one, particularly Police or Government would use the term 'neutralize', very pointedly introduced after Charlie Hebdo, unless they meant shot. Were four of the 'five' those referred to in the Beaumarchais shootout? The original story included one being shot by a policeman at Bataclan. That would make FIVE. Is that the explanation?

In any event, just like the renault Clio, we have been told nothing about it. Was that because it does not fit with an official narrative that had been agreed well before the actual attack took place?
12.  An Alternate Theory

So with the official story (as relayed faithfully by the BBC and others) in tatters we might consider another option: if there were two teams operating, probably consisting of persons other than those officially accused, they could have contributed to the Bataclan attack. Please note I am not saying they did, only that they are not automatically ruled out, as in the above official scenario. 
The two attackers in the 'black Seat car' allegedly involved in the first four restaurant/bar locations (Le Carillon barLe Petit CambodgeCafe Bonne Biere and La Casa Nostra) had time to get to the Bataclan, as would a second team responsible for the Belle Equip outrage coming from the South East and said by the witness to be travelling in that direction.

This possibility has the further advantage that it supplies the four necessary for the attack with similar style of ruthless unemotional killing. The modus operandi I would argue is much more in keeping with trained soldiers/mercenaries and the descriptions from witnesses, than it is with profile of the accused. If these individuals were working at the behest of government (foreign or domestic) their vehicles might have been conveniently 'lost'. 

And what if the characters who did the shooting never did blow themselves up but in fact vacated the premises, after causing all the mayhem? Given ALL the other highly suspicious features, it cannot be ruled out completely. It is also possible the real (mercenaries?) were shot dead at 10.00 pm at Boulevard Beaumarchais as they attempted to escape. Either that or there were four people otherwise involved who were 'neutralised' but have never been identified. Can there be an untarnished reason for keeping these facts secret?

Now a word on the number of people involved in the Bataclan attack. From the beginning, with the many other conflicting stories, the police/government never seemed to be able to make its mind up from the beginning. Was it three, was it four or was it more? 

13.  The alleged attackers:

Frenchmen Omar Ismail Mostefai, 29, and Samy Amimour, 28.
Samy Amimour, adopted the name Abu Hajia. Subsequently (9th December, 2015 – almost a month later) a third name was produced by government sources as French national Foued Mohamed-Aggad, 23, from Strasbourg. A BBC visual summary is provided here: The photo here is said to contain 'risky elements'! However the article and accompanying photograph of police allegedly claimed to be involved is clearly meant to be propagandist.

The question that we should continually keep in mind is were these the actual people who carried out the attack, or were they just convenient people to blame for the action of others? Were these named individuals not only known to and by the French Security Services but in fact assets of theirs, working to their instructions? Alternatively were the security services aware of the plans hatched by these individuals and allowed to carry them out for some 

political purpose? Let's take a closer look at these three named and accused individuals:

13.1  Salah Abdeslam (26)

Wikipedia informs us that "Salah Abdeslam (born 15 September 1989) is a Belgian-born Moroccan-Frenchman, a known criminal, and a terrorism suspect. He rented a car used to drive the attackers to the Bataclan theatre preceding the Paris attacks. Soon after the details of the attacks became public, he was billed by some newspapers as 'Public Enemy No. 1', or as "the most wanted" for crimes by the authorities in Europe." 

"Abdeslam was at some time a reputed user of cannabis, in addition to drinking alcohol while at the bar, according to customers of a gay bar in Brussels who told the British Sunday Times that had been a frequent visitor there. 
According to his ex-fiancée Abdeslam had a meal with his then fiancée 3 days prior to the November 2015 attacks."

"Le Point reported that Abdeslam is known to have used the website to rent rooms 312 and 311 of the Apart'City hotel in Alfortville, two days prior to the armed attack. Police apparently found syringes and pizza in the room. DNA traces indicated Abdeslam shared the room with others."

Note from the above account and the reference to regular cannabis use, possible heroin injection and the regular frequenting of gay bars, whether gay or not himself, is not suggestive of - in fact quite contrary to - what we might expect of a hardened Muslim Jihadist that the French government has portrayed. 

According to this CNN source (below) 

"Salah Abdeslam, who drove three of the suicide bombers to the Stade de France, is still being sought. There has been no sighting of him since hours after the attacks, when he was stopped on the Belgium border, but let go because investigators had not yet connected him to the attacks."

The point I want to make here is that if he provided the mode of transport to three suicide bombers at the Stade de France, it is highly unlikely he could be responsible for the later restaurant/bar shootings that have also been put at his door. Both by virtue of space in a black Seat (it would put five or even six in it!) and time/distance, it is highly unlikely unless he dropped them off there much earlier. In any event, if the 'Black Seat' story is reliable, then it was a different car to the Citroen C3 parked up in Montreuil that was claimed falsely to be the Seat and the car Abdeslam either drove or was in.

The CNN report continues: "According to Brisard, Abdeslam and Abaaoud are believed to have planned and coordinated the attacks. Abdeslam had made several trips between the French and Belgian capitals in September and October, and he had also traveled to Italy, Hungary and Austria."
The Paris attacks have focused attention on the substantial French contingent within ISIS. The statement claiming responsibility was read by one of them -- Fabien Clain -- who is now thought to be a senior figure within ISIS according to Brisard. The terrorism expert writes that Clain's name "had been associated with a 2009 plot against the Bataclan" theater.
Clain was also a friend of the family of Mohammed Merah who carried out a series of gun attacks in the Toulouse area in 2012. Other individuals of interest to French investigators are Salim Benghalem and Boubaker el-Hakim, who are both believed to be senior ISIS operatives based in Syria."

Fabien Clain is discussed in greater detail below.

Wikipedia also has this: "Reports from both police and accomplices indicated that Abdeslam was supposed to launch an additional suicide bomber attack in the 18th arrondissement. ISIL claimed responsibility for eight attackers, but only seven were found dead at the scene. They also claimed an attack in the 18th arrondissement, but no such attack took place. Instead, investigators found Abdeslam's abandoned car there. Later, forensic analysis of a discarded suicide belt found at rue Frederic Chopin in the Paris suburb of Montrouge found traces of sweat. The DNA on the sweat was matched to DNA samples held by police services for Abdeslam. Another source (reporting February 12th 2016) states DNA found on the discarded belt was not matched to the DNA record held by police services for Abdeslam."

Again we have highly suspect and conflicting information coming from police or government sources. It is certainly true that Salah Abdeslam and another claimed to be Abaaoud, are photographed in a black Renault Clio that fits the description of the one photographed abandoned in the 18th Arrondissement four days after the attack, but if Abdeslam travelled back to Belgium on Sat 14th and remained there, this would of course rule him out from driving the abandoned Clio. Further if all the other seven attackers were dead, they could not have driven it there either, so who did?

There is also a claim that an abandoned 'suicide vest' had sweat DNA on it that matched Abdeslam but this is promptly contradicted so is obviously unreliable. Clearly someone wanted to link him this way though. Nor is there any explanation of how they had his DNA in the first place to compare. Surely the most obvious place to find comparisons of DNA, were they to exist, would have been in the recovered Seat (but actually a Citroen C3!) he was said to have been in and on the abandoned weapons he was said to have used. Yet incredibly no link was reported there. Again highly suspicious I would say.
So Salah is implicated in the Bataclan event 'merely' as the hirer of the VW Polo that transported the actual attackers and by the fact that he purchased the detonators for all the explosive devices deployed. It is claimed that he was one of the principal organisers of the attack and was one of the gunmen at ALL the restaurant attacks, but then calmly drove back to Belgium with two friends apparently were completely unaware of his involvement in these cold blooded murders and have not been charged with any offence. Factor in, if the police account can be believed, that he had just delivered his own brother to the Voltaire cafe realising he had committed suicide, yet is completely unaffected emotionally by this, nor are his clothes stained by blood, when the police interview him the next day.
I have shown elsewhere that the police story about the black Seat, he was either supposed to be driving or be in, does not stack up in any respect - in fact it was not even a black Seat that was said to be recovered with the attackers weapons in it! There is therefore a big question mark over whether Salah played the part he was said to have, or indeed any part at all! It appears more likely that it is a complete fabrication! Even if uninvolved in the Paris attack, this of course does not rule out the possibility that he was being managed and operated by either a state secret service or other terrorist or criminal gang, or that the whole intention was to implicate him dishonestly in the events that took place.

13.2  Omar Ismail Mostefai, 29

Mostefai, was according to the Mirror, the first to be identified by French police. This was as early as the next day, from it  is claimed, the remnants of a finger at the Catalan after he blew himself up. Considering it could not have been retrieved amidst the carnage until about one in the morning, someone must have worked through the night to obtain the fit so quickly. Obviously not only would they have had to have found and retrieved the finger, they would have had to get it to a mid-night lab, got the results and then been able to compare it to records on which Mostefai appeared.

Rather strangely there appears to be no visual image of Mostefai despite his criminal past and police involvement. Surely they had a 'mug-shot'? "A Paris prosecutor told the news organization that Mostefai "had been singled out as a high-priority target for radicalisation in 2010 but, before Friday, he had 'never been implicated in an investigation or a terrorist association." Singled out by whom though? One way a quick result can be obtained of course, if they knew who was there in advance or even if not there, earmarked as one of the 'attackers' - i.e. a 'patsy'.

This appears to be the only image of him, it is said, taken from a 'rap video'.

From Yahoo: "Identified by his finger, which was found among the rubble of the Bataclan concert hall, the 29-year-old was one of three men who blew himself up killing 89 people in the bloodiest scene of the carnage. Born on November 21 1985, in the poor Paris suburb of Courcouronnes, Mostefai's criminal record shows eight convictions for petty crimes between 2004 and 2010, but no jail time. A source close to the enquiry said Mostefai regularly attended the mosque in Luce, close to Chartres, to the southwest of Paris.
The BBC had this: "Courcouronnes is the Paris suburb in which Omar Ismail Mostefai, one of the suicide bombers in the Paris attacks, grew up. It's an area that has been known for gang violence, particularly at the time when Mostefai lived there. One former gang member who knew him spoke to the BBC's James Longman. He knew Omar from his days hanging out with other boys in the Canal area of town, and they'd film these videos all the time.Things escalated when in 2008, a man was murdered at the local grocery in an apparent drugs dispute. His killer has never been found."

"But, Dominic says, everyone knew who did it."This was the life Omar knew. It's just how it was."For Omar it was later, around the time he moved away from Courcouronnes, that gangster life and its anti-establishment ethos morphed into a twisted concept of Islam. For young men like him, perhaps central Paris was always another world - far away from the banlieue he'd grown up in.The lure of extremism - another brotherhood of violence - seemed much more familiar."

The Telegraph has this on him: 

French police ignored two warnings about Mostefai, before he helped carry out the attack on the Bataclan concert hall which killed 89 young music fans.Turkish authorities twice flagged up the 29-year-old as a possible terror suspect last year, but their alerts were unanswered until after Friday’s Paris attacks.

"The Frenchman born to Algerian parents was a known radical and is believed to have trained with Isil inside Syria last year. Mostefai made contact with the extremists in Syria after travelling through Turkey in late 2013, security officials said, staying until at least early 2014. Old friends of the jihadist also described how they had once tried to alert the French police to his radical views, only to be told the authorities could do nothing. He was identified by prints from his severed finger found in the Bataclan, after the deadliest of the Paris attacks.”

After being arrested for a string of petty offences in his youth, but never being jailed, his religious views became increasingly extreme and in 2010 he was marked up by intelligence agencies as a potential radical. He was tracked to Syria but Turkish authorities have no record of him leaving. A senior Turkish official said the country had also identified Omar Ismail Mostefai as a possible "terror suspect" in October 2014 and notified the French in December 2014 and then June 2015. France did not respond until after the attacks, when it was too late. Friends told Germany’s Bild newspaper they had informed French security services after becoming concerned at his radicalisation, only to be told they were powerless to do anything.One friend said Mostefai’s father had been involved in the Algerian war and belonged to a military group involved in Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

So as we have seen commonly with these sort of 'terrorist events', those who are alleged to have undertaken them are well known to the security services over a fairly lengthy period, and warnings about them from multiple sources are totally ignored. Note how in this particular individual's case, on at least FIVE occasions over five years, from very credible sources, the French security services were warned. Given the fact that the Charlie Hebdo attack was relatively recent and the terror attack level quite high, how could this possibly be allowed to happen? And after the event not a word of criticism or individuals sacked? How could this be?

The only 'hard' evidence linking him specifically with the Bataclan attack is the rather far-fetched story regarding a recovered 'finger'. Just one finger? So OK if he had a criminal record, the police are likely to have his fingerprints on record all things considered, if as is being claimed he was blown to pieces (apparently as we have already observed without injuring the hostages in the confined room!) what are the chances of finding an undamaged finger in the rubble so quickly and having the information available the very next day?

And why no claim as to a much more reliable DNA match? If they had his fingerprints they would surely have his DNA and they had plenty of body parts we must assume. Yet no scientific DNA match for all those in the Bataclan him included. Instead a rather preposterous story of just the tip of one finger? This surely shouts fabrication consistent with a previously agreed story-line?

We are left asking why the greater secrecy surrounding this person? If he was known to police why, like the others, was there no proper mug-shot? We are left wondering if he was really there and if he was if he blew himself up in the impossible way described? Other question remain in the air as to the abject failure of security services despite multi warnings. Needless to say no criticism has been pointed in this direction. Why?

13.3  Samy Amimour (OKA Abu Hajia), 28

A CNN video of an interview with his alleged sister who cannot believe it was him, can be seen here: "Men came to see him in Clancy" she says. Of course who those men were and who they worked we we do not know.

From the Telegraph: Samy Amimour, one of the three gunmen who killed at least 89 in the Bataclan concert hall, was placed on a watch list of potential terrorists after attempting to travel to Yemen three years ago. The 28-year-old former bus driver was placed under judicial supervision following an attempt to travel to the region in 2012. But French police issued an international arrest warrant the following year, after he went missing and was suspected of having travelled to Syria to join Islamic State. Amimour's father Mohamed travelled to Raqqa in Syria a few months later in an attempt to persuade his son to come back to France. Amimour had been wounded in battle but refused the money offered to get him home and insisted to his father he was going to remain with Islamic State, where he had married and adopted the name Abu Hajia – meaning war. According to friends however Amimour reappeared in Paris in recent months and had undergone a radical transformation in appearance. On Monday friends of Amimour living in the south western suburb of Drancy where he grew up, told The Telegraph that when they last saw him he appeared to have adopted a radical mindset.”

Again this individual was well known by the French judicial and security apparatus yet no steps appear to have been taken to monitor him or reactivate the judicial supervision he had been under when he returned from Syria, now obviously a much greater risk. So great and obvious a failure, yet again no inquiry, criticism or consequences directed at the appropriate authorities. This failure is itself a red flag that all may not be as it appears.

Latest update from here (2015-12-27  

"Samy Amimour, one of the men that massacred 90 people at the Bataclan music venue in Paris, was buried north of the city, local officials said Sunday. The 28 year old was buried on Thursday in Seine-Saint-Denis suburb of Paris, where he grew up and his parents still live."There were very, very few people there," said a source in the local town hall. Amimour was previously a bus driver before spending around two years in Syria, according to family members who spoke to AFP in October, prior to the brutal attacks in Paris.He was one of three attackers killed when police stormed the Bataclan music venue on November 13."

13.4  Foued Mohamed-Aggad, 23.

The Daily Mail has this on him:

"Foued Mohamed Aggad, of Strasbourg, France, was named by police yesterday as the 'third suicide bomber' involved in the killings, nearly a month after the slaughter on November 13.

"And his father Said Mohamed Abbag (sic) told Le Parisien: ‘What kind of human being could do what he did? If I had known he would do something like this, I would have killed him.’

We should note what appears to be a spelling error in the father's name

He said their father-son relationship almost disappeared as he became radicalised, saying: 'It was not him, it was another person with whom I spoke. Someone who had been brainwashed.'

"Some 90 people were gunned down by ISIS terrorists at the Bataclan music venue as they were watching a performance by the rock group Eagles of Death Metal.

"Aggad’s identity was revealed as it emerged that his mother paid for him to return home from Syria before he took part in the attack.

"The 23-year-old is understood to have travelled to Syria with his brother and a group of friends at the end of 2013, according to a source close to the probe. Most of the others were arrested in spring last year upon their return to France but Aggad stayed on in Syria, the source said.

"Aggad's mother – identified only as Mrs Aggad – was last night in custody after her flat was raided by police commandos overnight. She faces a range of terrorism charges.

"Like others involved in the worst terrorist attack in French history, Aggad was known to the police, but was apparently given the freedom to travel where he liked. He was part of a group of young men from a housing estate close to the Meinau football stadium in Strasbourg who were radicalised and then left for Syria in December 2013 to join IS. 

On the 9th December the Guardian reported that Mohamed Aggad had finally been positively identified from DNA. 

"Aggad was identified at the end of last week after his DNA was matched with those of his family members, the police source said. The French prime minister, Manuel Valls, confirmed on BFMTV that the man had finally been identified. “What is important is that the investigation is progressing, that the accomplices are found out, that arrests happen,” he said."  
"Aggad’s identity came to light after his mother received a text message in English 10 days ago announcing her son’s death “as a martyr” on 13 November, a typical way Isis notifies families of casualties. Then she gave French police a DNA sample which showed that one of her sons was killed inside the Bataclan, his brother’s lawyer said.
“Without the mother, there would have been nothing,” the lawyer, Francoise Cotta, told BFM television. Cotta said Aggad had told his family months ago that he was going to be a suicide bomber in Iraq and had no intention of returning to France.
Two members of the group that went to Syria with Aggad were killed. All the others, except Aggad, returned to France in February 2014 after a few weeks in Syria. They were arrested three months later, a judicial source and other sources close to the situation told Reuters.His older brother, Karim, who also visited Syria, is in jail in France, the judicial source said.
The Frenchman believed to have recruited them, Mourad Fares, is also under arrest. All are charged with terror-related offences and face trial."

13.5  Abdelhamid Abaaoud, 27.

From the Telegraph article referred to above: Abdel Hamid Abaaoud is the suspected brains behind the attack, who died as a result of injuries sustained when a woman detonated a suicide belt during a police raid in the Parisian suburb of Saint-Denis. Abaaoud was believed to be the leaders of the Vervier cell of returned Syrian jihadists that was broken up by police in January in a deadly shootout. The name of Paris attacker Ibrahim Abdeslam appears in several police files alongside leading militant Abdelhamid Abaaoud relating to criminal cases in 2010 and 2011, Flemish-language newspaper De Standaard reported. From Molenbeek, he was sentenced to 20 years in absentia along with 32 other jihadists and had earlier been pronounced dead by his family”.

Please note the story that the woman exploded a suicide belt was later specifically denied by the Paris Prosecutor. The story was changed to it being a 'third man'. We cannot be sure this can be relied on as accurate either I'm afraid such was the nature of the assault carried out by the French special forces.

"That night, the witness had several times gone to a car parked nearby, and Abaaoud had been there every time. They described the man as very agitated. When the witness later walked past him, they were able to see his face. Abaaoud's head was shaved and he was wearing layers of loose clothing, but when photographs were later published in the media the witness immediately recognized him and alerted the authorities."

"The witness account was disclosed by French terrorism analyst Jean Charles Brisard in the latest edition of the Combating Terrorism Center's Journal Sentinel. Brisard writes that "the presence of Abaaoud in the immediate vicinity of the attacks provides an indication of his degree of implication in the supervision and control of the plot, and suggests he was giving direct orders and instructions to his team inside the Bataclan."

"Earlier in the evening, according to the Paris prosecutor, Abaaoud's phone records show he was communicating with Bilal Hadfi, one of the stadium bombers, right until the moment the three suicide bombers at the Stade de France started blowing themselves up. Abaaoud was detected on surveillance cameras at a metro station just a few hundred yards away from where one of the terrorists' cars had been abandoned. He then appears to have returned to the scene of the attacks, according to the Paris prosecutor, after analysis of his cell phone signal."

Please note (yet again) that the abandoned car was either not the attack car or throughout was incorrectly identified as a 'black Seat' that the authorities still claim it was.

"The prosecutor, Francois Molins, told a news conference on November 24 that Abaaoud's phone was geo-located in the vicinity of the attacks between 10:28pm and 12:28am that night, including in proximity to the Bataclan before the attack was over. Abaaoud had previously appeared in videos produced by ISIS, and the group claimed responsibility for the Paris attacks the day after they occurred."

Brisard also claims the following: 

"Abaaoud had been plotting against European targets since the very beginning of the year. An earlier attempt similar to the Paris attack was foiled on January 15, 2015 in Verviers, eastern Belgium, when authorities raided a safe house. The ensuing firefight ended in the deaths of two individuals and a third suspect was arrested. The raid disrupted a plot involving ten operatives, most of them Islamic State foreign fighters, possibly targeting police or the public. The suspected leader of the group, Abaaoud, directed the operation from a safe house in Athens, Greece using a cell phone, while other group members operated in several European countries.[15]

Interestingly, at the time Abaaoud was already using deceptive tactics to avoid border controls. He even faked his death to deter efforts by law enforcement officials to track his activities. For that purpose, Abaaoud’s family received a call in late 2014 that he had been killed while fighting in Syria.[16] Several members of the group were also able to freely travel across borders. Abaaoud would boast that he was able to return to Syria after the Verviers raid despite international arrest warrants, according to an interview featured in the February issue of the Islamic State’s Dabiq magazine."

Ok, but Abaaoud is alleged to be the person sharing the Renault Clio on their way to Paris. Take another look at the image. Does this person on the right equate in any way to Abaaoud's image above? Or Abdeslam for that matter. Either the man in the photo is not him. Or he is, and the circulated Abaaoud is someone else entirely. Which is it?

Here he is pictured entering the Renault Clio at the petrol station which was used in the Paris massacre two days later

Salah Abdeslam and Abdelhamid Abaaoud are seen in at a garage on their way to Paris. Unfortunately, try as I may, I cannot detect a physical likeness between the two. What do you think?

Abaaoud, it is claimed met his end in a dramatic shootout at 8 Rue de Corbillon, in St Dennis, five days after the attacks on Wednesday 18th November, 2015. As with the terrorist attacks themselves, the accounts of what took place vary and contradict in important respects. This will require a further article. Just one feature will be referred to here.

It was alleged he was the 'mastermind' of the multi-faceted operation. By all appearances, the intention was, not to capture the individuals concerned - which one might have expected in order to learn more of the organisation, its plans and methods - but from the first to annihilate them. This of itself is suspicious.

In the shootout a female accomplice and cousin Hasna Ait Boulahcen  and another man were also killed. As far as I am aware the identity of the latter has not been revealed. At the scene she is recorded strenuously denying this suggestion. Despite this she was either shot by police or blown up by the third person. Her claim is substantiated to a certain extent by the fact that the official story that she had blown herself up, that is that she was a deeply implicated terrorist and suicide bomber, was later specifically contradicted by the by the Paris Prosecutor.  He announced that in fact another (third) man at the premises blew himself up, probably killing her in the process. 

As with criminal denials, multiple changes in the story line should be treated with considerable caution.

13.6  Fabien Clain

Wikipedia has this: Fabien Clain (born ca. 1977/1978) is known to intelligence services as a veteran jihadist loyal to ISIL. He holds French nationality and is of Réunion Island origin but is described as being from Toulouse, the capital city of the southwestern French department of Haute-Garonne.

Of course once we realise that ISIS is itself a creature and agent of American/Israeli/Saudi policy, we have to view people like Clain and his role in 'terrorist events' in Europe in a quite different light. It is more than likely that he is actually an agent/asset for one of the secret services of those countries, Mossad or Cia being chief suspects. His foreknowledge is significant but contains what appears a mistake in relation to the 18th Arrondissement, where as luck had it, the Renault was discovered. 

What we need to ask is whether Clain's involvement validates the official version or throws extra doubt on it? Note even after conviction in France for terrorist-type offences, he was allowed to return to Syria.

Outed: Frenchman Fabien Clain, 36, is believed to be the man who recorded ISIS message claiming responsibility for the Paris massacres

Wikipedia has this account that contains a crucial element missing from the others. "Clain released an audio recording on the day before the November 13th Paris attacks, in which he personally claimed responsibility for the attacks. This "is only the beginning of the storm and a warning for those who want to meditate(sic) and remove their lessons" (translation of the recording). The voice recording intonation is reported to be not aggressive but soft, rejoicing in the deaths at the 'idolatrous' at the concert hall and other locations. However the recording mentions the 18th arrondissement district of Paris where no attack took place but a car linked to the attacks was found abandoned. 

Note the change of emphasis here from attacking the Bataclan 'because it was Jewish owned', or because of 'Hollande's bombing of Syria' to one of attacking 'the idolatrous'. It demonstrates both inconsistency and invalidity I would say.

In his notes he also adds this cryptic comment: "The fact that Clain in his claim of responsibility wrongly stated one of the areas attacked was the 18th arrondisement also suggests he had foreknowledge of the plans. No attack took place in the 18th arrondisement, but investigators suspect Salah Abdeslam had been tasked with carrying out an attack there, before aborting his mission. Author Interviews with French investigators November and December 2015. For more details on Clain see Soren Seelow, “Fabien Clain, la “ voix “ du massacre de Paris, avait déjà menacé le Bataclan en 2009,” Le Monde, November 18, 2015.

The Mail has this angle on the story (note how the Renault Clio has now become Sal Abdeslam's car as distinct from renting it or it being Abaaoud's.)

"But his message is believed to contain a mistake - and a vital clue about an aborted attack on the city. Salah Abdeslam's black Renault Clio car with Belgian licence plates was found on a pedestrian crossing on Place Albert Kahn in the 18th arrondissement of the city yesterday morning. The audio message praised the killing of 'infidels' at the 'Stade de France, in the 10th, 11th and 18th arrondissements.' But there was no suicide bombing or shooting in the 18th arrondissement - where the black Renault Clio was found - suggesting that one may have been planned but abandoned the last minute." 

The 'idolatrous' has now become the 'infidels' you will notice.  

This account comes from CNN: "The statement claiming responsibility was read by one of them -- Fabien Clain -- who is now thought to be a senior figure within ISIS according to Brisard. The terrorism expert writes that Clain's name "had been associated with a 2009 plot against the Bataclan" theater. Clain was also a friend of the family of Mohammed Merah who carried out a series of gun attacks in the Toulouse area in 2012. Other individuals of interest to French investigators are Salim Benghalem and Boubaker el-Hakim, who are both believed to be senior ISIS operatives based in Syria."

14.  Coincidences and Anomalies

There are some rather strange coincidences with this particular attack that cannot be overlooked. This appears to be a regular feature in such events. It does not prove contrivance on the part of officialdom but it should certainly make us wary as should a crime scene with no fingerprints or indeed if a particular section of the workforce went absent on a day the office collapsed killing everyone else! There are at least three worthy of note in relation to the Bataclan. (There are of course many others in relation to the incident as a whole referred to in previous pieces, not least the fact that the emergency services were on alert yet still spectacularly unprepared apparently) None of the questions raised regarding the coincidences and anomalies referred to have been explained by police or government. Again this is very typical - massive reportage followed by silence.

14.1  Coincidence one: Bataclan Jewish-owned for 40 years sold two months before

The Bataclan Nightclub was owned by the same Jewish family for no less than forty years was sold just weeks before the attack. The Times of Israel (even!) reports that Pascal Laloux the previous owner was, “Devastated because we knew everyone who worked there.” His brother even relates that he took a call whilst the attack was taking place and he could hear the gunfire.

That in the midst of a terror attack someone would bother to ring the previous owners appears strange in itself. Who was this person who had the presence of mind and necessary attachment to Laloux to consider this more important than their own safety and the rescue of others? He doesn't say but it might be interesting.  Despite its unusual nature it isn't challenged by the reporter. This appears to be a common failing of reporters and their agencies in such situations, namely the posing obvious questions. 

The relating of the content of mobile phone calls appears to be a common factor in many such cases almost as if it is part of a prepared script. The account of or reference to a 'hero figure' is another you might have noticed. In the case of the 9/11 event, mobile phone messages were alleged to have happened quite impossibly from aircraft flying at 30,000 ft. A mobile phone message was said to have occurred after MH 370 disappeared. The disputed use of a mobile phone figured large in the Chevaline case. These are only three examples but all of them point to lies being told by someone. (See: )

Of course a sale prior to a major disaster has financial implications whether intended or not. A rather similar fortuitous parallel was the decision to buy and insure the World Trade Centre Twin Towers immediately before their collapse, thus avoiding the huge asbestos removal costs and securing a multi-billion payout by the insurance industry. Very fortuitous indeed! Of course the owners of forty years were not to know of the impending disaster in the Bataclan instance unless someone in the know did in fact 'tip them the wink'? We could not possibly know. The fact that the previous owners felt the need to relocate to a foreign state might in some minds raise questions. There is no indication that either police or press asked them.

14.2  Coincidence Two: New Bataclan Owner

The Bataclan was apparently purchased by Qatar’s media Lagardère conglomerate, that controls Al Jazeera Media Network, ultimately owned by Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani. This information we are told was not easily unearthed. (See: 

Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani (35) and currently the youngest monarch in the world, is the eighth and current Emir of the State of Qatar. He is the fourth son of the previous Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani. He became Emir of Qatar on 25 June 2013 after his father's abdication. He was trained at Sandhurst and filled top security and military posts in the Kingdom. Rather interestingly given the circumstances of the Paris attacks, in 2005 he founded Qatar Sport Investments, which owns Paris Saint-Germain F.C. among other investments. Here he is meeting David Cameron and HM The Queen in 2014.

The suggestion has been made that the Bataclan was chosen because it was Jewish-owned, except as we have seen, it was sold just in time. As all the alleged attackers were French nationals, it is unlikely they would not have known so anti-semitic reasons appear unlikely. Further as it happens, it would largely be filled with non- Jewish French nationals. So we note that neither the owners or victims were Jewish. It suggests the attackers and/or their masters had no intention to target Jews or this was just a fortuitous coincidence. Or maybe the earlier intended target story, was just a ruse to support the idea the later one was a Muslim operation aimed at Jews? Except of course insofar as the reported accounts can be trusted, no mention was made of Israel or Jews by the gunmen. In fact it was all centred on French military involvement in Syria. So we see how confused the official narrative is.

Nor should it be overlooked that Qatar is a major funder of ISIS at the West's behest. From Newsweek we have the following: "Lori Plotkin Boghardt, a fellow in Gulf politics at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy in Washington, D.C., tells Newsweek that private donors across the Persian Gulf are continuing to funnel money to ISIS. “Qatar and Kuwait continue to stick out as two trouble spots when it comes to counterterrorist financing enforcement,” she said. Continued financial sanctions imposed on Kuwait and Qatar terrorist financiers by the U.S. Treasury “suggest the U.S. government continues to be concerned about spotty, to say the least, Kuwaiti and Qatari enforcement of their counterterrorist financing laws.”

So we just happen to find the new owner is an oligarch from a country with recognised financial links to the dreaded terrorist organisation, from which the attackers were said to come. That is not only coincidental, it is paradoxical. Some might conclude it is highly suspicious - but not a whisper of suspicion has emanated from the French authorities.

So just as ISIS has been the West's avatar for its duplicitous activities in the Middle East, so it might have been in Paris, again to throw the blame in the ISIS direction. Perhaps it is also worth noting that the new owner of the Bataclan, Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani also owns huge chunks of the British economy including Harrods and defence industries that I have elsewhere described have benefitted enormously from the decision to attack Syria. Could these be factors in the choice of location for the 'ISIS' terrorist attack?(See: )

Modern London Twist

Former Prime Minister of Qatar between 2007 and 2013, Sheikh Hamad Bin-Jassim Bin Jaber Al Thani, recently featured in a Times article (16.2.2016) headlined "£8bn sheikh immune from kidnap charges". We learn the 56 year old Sheikh who is now Counsellor at the Qatari Embassy in London, has fought off a lawsuit by a fellow diplomat.  Fawaz al-Attiya, ambassador at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Qatar since 1998, claimed he had been kidnapped by him. 

Mr Justice Blake struck out the claim, agreeing the Sheikh had diplomatic and State immunity.

The substance of the claim was that Mr Attiya was kidnapped in Britain and gaoled in Qatar for 15 months on Sheikh Hamad's instructions to enable the latter to steal his land and incorporate into the capital Doha. Mr Attiya's claim was for two hundred million pounds and undaunted, he says he intends to appeal.

Now I cannot be sure what the precise relationship is between said Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani and said Sheikh Hamad Bin-Jassim Bin Jaber. (These things are complicated to complete outsiders!) If I had to hazard a guess I would suggest the former is the nephew of the latter. I hope I shall be forgiven if I have got it wrong.  If I have, someone might like to correct me.

 Wikipedia has this on the latter:

"Hamad was reported to have had strong connections with the US government. He serves on the International Advisory Council of the Brookings Institution and chairs the International Advisory Council of the Brookings Doha Center. He has stakes in many strong businesses such as Qatar Airways and the Foreign Investment Company, Qatari Diar Real Estate Investment Company, the Pearl and Harrods. He is a partner in Project Grande (Guernsey), the developer of One Hyde Park, London. "

Here is an image from his Prime Ministerial days:

However, whatever the relationship and personal involvement in the Bataclan deal, members of this high status family appear to have bought the Bataclan only months prior to an attack by alleged members of ISIS-directed terrorists, i.e. individuals of the same Sunni disposition and beliefs, a group Qatari money has supported, against a nation with whom Qatar has close and friendly ties. All of which leads me to conclude a it is a most unlikely and indeed highly suspicious scenario. If indeed Qatar interests were attacked by ISIS related terrorists one might have expected an energetic response (imagine if it had been Iranian assets) but not a squeak of condemnation from Qatar as far as I am aware!

14.3 Coincidence three: 'Eagles of Death'

I know it is probably not wise to base too much confidence in names, but we surely cannot overlook the name of the group booked to play at the Bataclan event or who apparently arranged it. The coincidences in these events keep coming! They were called the “Eagles of Death” - an American heavy metal band managed and booked apparently by a company – 'William Morris Endeavour' – owned by Zionist Ari Emanuel, brother of Rahm Emanuel, past White House Chief of Staff for the Obama Administration, and current Mayor of Chicago. Chicago. Chicago has with some justification been described as the Mafia capital of America of course! At the time of the alleged attack, the number they were performing was called "Kiss the Devil" which goes like this: 

"Who'll love the Devil?
Who'll song his song?
Who will love the Devil and his song?
I'll love the Devil
I'll sing his song
I will love the Devil and his song
Who'll love the Devil?
Who'll kiss his tongue?
Who will kiss the Devil on his tongue?
I'll love the Devil
I'll kiss his tongue
I will kiss the Devil on his tongue
Who'll love the Devil?
Who'll sing his song?
I will love the Devil and his song
Who'll love the Devil?
Who'll kiss his tongue?
I will kiss the Devil on his tongue
Who'll love the Devil?
Who'll sing his song?
I will live the Devil and sing his song"

Satanic elements have been noted throughout this event, not least with the name of the band, the lyrics of much of its output and the venue itself. Afterwards, religious iconography and remarks by band and others was given high organised prominence with the 'Pray for Paris' logo that swamped the media. Note the parallel with the 'Je suis Charlie' campaign.

Needless to such PR campaigns require forethought and preparation. In the light of all this there is some very suspicious 'seeded' reporting regarding even the explosive used in the Daily Mail: 

"The attackers in Friday night's coordinated, deadly assaults used the explosive TATP, which has been called the 'mother of Satan' because of its volatility, the Paris prosecutor confirmed."  

How can we overlook that it was this material that was blamed incorrectly, for the explosions on the London Underground on 7/7?

I am not sure how far into the song they got before we hear the sound of alleged gunfire. (Some claim it sounds more like fire crackers) Rather miraculously given their prominent location, and speaking words that must fly in the face of Koranic teaching, they were not targeted by the gunmen and they all escaped without injury

Among the victims were the group’s merchandising manager Nick Alexander and three employees of their record label. The group has a 'spanking' new website here . A little under a month later they returned to an 'emotional' reunion concert complete with 'Bono' and U2.

I thought this pre-dating quote was worth reprinting: 

"Violent fundamentalists are not well-positioned to appreciate even the most obvious humor while this band’s humor is subtle indeed: The original Eagles, led by Don Henley and Glenn Frey, were the quintessential soft-rock outfit, who in 1972 unleashed on the world their painfully mellow hit, “Peaceful Easy Feeling.” This music is the natural and total opposite of death metal, and in this respect to be an “Eagle of death metal” is a conceptual impossibility. By its name, the band whose concert was attacked Friday night cloaks itself in oxymoron." 

'Oxymoron' indeed! It adds., "Guillaume Decherf, a critic for the legendary French music magazine Les Inrockuptibles, wrote in his review of the band’s latest album, Zipper Down, that the the album was, among other things, “revisiting Duran Duran in bonkers electro-stoner mode.” 

Sadly Decherf was one of the unlucky ones who happened to be killed in the attack on the Bataclan. The Zipper Down review was his last."

So to summarise, not only do we have a location for the massacre changing hands just weeks before, from Jewish owners to a Qatari ones with deep financial pockets and wide interests in Britain and France, (note the arms  industry has benefitted from Middle East violence) but also having established financial links with the very organisation that was said to have planned and launched the attacks. 

Further that the group playing on the night provide a direct link to no less a person than the current American President's right hand man for many years and current Mayor of Chicago! Neither of these connections you will probably agree, have been widely advertised. The attack, rather shadowing the Charlie Hebdo incident, catapults what had been a fairly obscure vehicle, to overnight stardom on the world stage with very real and practical implications. 

Many have further noted the Satanic aspects of the band and its performance, now probably for commercial purposes rather toned down. It is perhaps noteworthy that the lead singer is quoted as saying in Hollywood he had "to sell his soul to the devil" to get on. Even the choice of the venue called 'Bataclan' has been noted for it's occult associations.

From a Desert Sun interview in 2008: "Wannabe in L.A.," the new Eagles of Death Metal single, on which Jesse "The Devil" Hughes makes his Faustian confession, has been added to MTV's rotation. Radio stations are jumping on it faster than any previous EODM single.

A more detailed analysis of their later interview by aptly named 'Vice', who rather ominously brought us the ISIS 'beheading' videos, is given below. If you have not come across 'Vice' before, it takes a great interest in matters clandestine as you can check out for yourself here: 

This is how they describe themselves: "VICE News is an international news organization created by and for a connected generation. We provide an unvarnished look at some of the most important events of our time, highlight under-reported stories from around the globe, and get to the heart of the matter with reporters who call it like they see it." Some have claimed that the meteoric rise of the company and its access to the corridors of power and influence, suggest American government (and specifically CIA) involvement.

BBC report of recent concert at

15.  Video and Photographic Evidence – Problems

15.1  Video Evidence – Problems

It cannot escape notice, that many of what we may call 'high profile cases', have significant video immediately entering the public domain via the internet. In particular, it happened of course during the Charlie Hebdo attack, the idiosyncrasies of which I drew attention to at the time. There are clear parallels in this case. Filmed from above with an I-phone with questionable aspects. In this case it was done by a journalist with Le Monde. Coincidence?

The images are very dramatic and graphic, purporting to show the evacuation of the hall by about one hundred panicking people, some appearing to be wounded. It was reported there were nearly two thousand in the hall of which eighty nine were killed. This leaves perhaps sixteen to eighteen hundred left inside alive. None of the video from the night would appear to show this many people leaving the building. It also raises the question how and why was such a small proportion killed in such a confined space if the intention was to kill as many as possible. This is a question I have seen raised or adequately answered elsewhere.

Now leaving aside the 'fortuitous' nature of video (note it appears to capture the first people to escape raising a question how and why he was able to capture the action from the beginning - presumably he was inside listening to music or watching TV with windows closed when and if the first noises were heard, if at all and why would anyone put the fire-cracker sound heard on another video to gunfire in a rock concert?) Now those are a whole load of reservations but there are more. 

A third video purports to show a gun battle in the street. Now this is very strange because it is hard to make it fit the escape video. Let me explain what I mean. The firing in the shoot-out scene here ( appears to come from the same side street the people escape from. At least

"Four gunmen, three wearing explosive belts 1500 at concert"

Basically despite there being numerous professional photographers at the event itself, and literally hundreds of video i-phones, only five significant pieces of visual evidence hit the internet. Why this is so, and why many others have not immerged, is itself highly suspicious as is the speed with which they were circulated.

15.2  The five that were widely and immediately circulated, are as follows:

  • A video clip inside the Bataclan with sound of the first shots being fired
  • A video clip of a gun battle outside the Bataclan
  • An I-phone video clip of people pouring out of two side entrances of the Bataclan
  • A still photo of dead bodies inside the Bataclan after the attack
  • An image of one of the alleged attackers wandering around inside.

There are others of the injured outside apparently retreating or being treated to which we might also refer. Not only do we need to test their internal consistency, we need to ask if they can be read together as a whole. Do they fir one another and the official story?

The first general point that should be made is how and why these particular pieces of evidence were made and published when others were not? Bear in mind that at least 1400 people survived the attack, most of whom we may assume carried recording devices. To these we must add all the people in the vicinity outside who became embroiled not to mention presumably those in the police set up and trained to record events. 

The fact therefore that only a very few appeared immediately introduces an element of suspicion that these were in fact either officially set up or perhaps even modified in some way at an earlier stage so that they could be released immediately.

It is not always clear who took them. Only the panic exodus filmer has been identified and he happened to be a reporter for Le Monde. Some might think that was a happy (or unhappy) coincidence for Le Monde and the person involved. No one has explained, given the fact that it was right at the beginning of the incident, he found himself ready and prepared to do so.

Then we also need to pose a question regarding the start and finish of the clips. Why are they the precise length that they are just neatly spanning the actual event. Why not more before? Why not more after? To this we have to add all the other questionable points below.

These clips were definitely used to create impact and elicit shock and sympathy. They helped to establish the official narrative and as such we need to treat them the objective examination they deserve and not be merely swept away by the natural emotion they evoke.

So let us examine them individually.

15.3.  A video clip inside the Bataclan with sound of the first shots being fired

The video clip can be viewed here It lasts for only 41 seconds. This is somewhat surprising as it was surely started well before? Or has it been edited? If so why and by whom? To make it more shocking and impactful?

The sound of bangs which we must assume is gun fire, though some commentators are convinced it sounds more like 'fire-crackers', begins at eleven (11) seconds in. We are aware of the significance of 11 so that in itself is a bit of a coincidence. I cannot be sure, but I counted about twelve (12) bangs lasting in total three (3) seconds! Very mysteriously this clip is actually three repeats of the incident which of course required editing. So the clip has been doctored to provide repetition of that there is no doubt.

The clip is provided with an attached detailed version of events that certainly gives the impression of an 'official' source the name of which is "Hyper Channel". I assume it is the same as this organisation that Wikipedia tells us is based in the Phillipines and was launched only in 2012. 

"Hyper is a Filipino sports and entertainment satellite and cable television channel based in Makati City. It is owned and operated by Media Quest Holdings, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of the PLDT Beneficial Trust Fund through TV5 and Sports5. " The billionaire Chairman is Manuel V Pangilinan."

The accompanying text states the following: "Like most Friday nights, especially those with a “special event”, the Bataclan nightclub and concert hall near Paris’s Place de la République was heaving. More than 1,000 fans had gathered at this popular venue for a concert by California group Eagles of Death Metal. The band had been on the stage for an hour and the music was loud. Heavy metal loud. Not loud enough, however, to mask the sound of gunfire." For good measure a French translation is also provided - a rather unusual feature on a Youtube posting.

'Trending Videos' here contains a numbers of 'stills' - some blurred - around the slogan "Pray for Paris" uploaded only three days after the event on the 16th November. The tenor of the whole video is in my mind highly suspect.

It includes 26 seconds in a picture of a bare-chested man obviously being arrested in black and wearing what appears to be something similar to a leather 'apron satchel' or even an explosives belt.   He is being man handled, bent forwards with arm held behind his back. He wears a black head mask. His clothes appear to be in a pile on the pavement next to the building. Four armed policemen are involved in forcefully apprehending him. Given that we have been told all the attackers killed themselves apart from one who 'escaped', who was this man? Why is he dressed as a terrorist and why is he being treated so roughly if not a suspect? Why is this image so rare?
A still of the event a few seconds later printed by the Daily Mail is shown below:

Taken away: A 'handful' of Britons are feared to have died in the attacks - one of which happened near the Bataclan theatre on Friday

Take a look at this version by 'video lazy facebook' also published on the 15th November, 2015 and then compare it to this one Spot the significant difference?

OK I will help. In the former the bearded right-handed guitarist is playing with his left! How could this be?  The original video must have been reversed in some way. Someone more clever than me may be able to explain why.

On this 'Belgium Images' clip also posted on the 15.11.15, complete with religious choral music (again) the bearded guitarist is back playing right-handed! 

In the same video at 9.00 minutes the statement is made that eight gunmen had been killed, seven with suicide vests and one shot by police. Of course this was inaccurate, but it appears to have been the agreed story (the script?) for some reason because it crops up elsewhere.  Another from 'Web Video' here

What I find strange is that despite the number of fans at the concert, only this one very short clip gets general release. Next strange thing is that said fan appears completely unfazed by the sound of gunfire and remains focused on the band throughout. No 'jump', no 'twitch', no attempt to look in the direction of the noise. Why is the clip cut short but no sign of panic? We might have expected it to have kept running to show what followed. We must assume the person who owned the I-phone escaped uninjured and didn't let go of the phone, despite the scramble and didn't use it again before somehow getting just that brief clip to multiple You Tube outlets. Doesn't that strike you as odd?

Then there are the images themselves. If the bangs are actually bullets being fired at people, why are they not accompanied by screams of pain? There is the contrasting reaction of the band members. Whilst the drummer close to all the percussion noise, decides to duck (why would he?) the bearded guitarist merely raises his instrument and does little more, before according to their statements, rushing for the exit. This is hard to rationalize, as is the fact that the gunmen clearly didn't aim at the band itself despite them providing the most obvious target.

However I have now come across an extended and more authentic audio recording. It can be located here: The attached text states the following: "Audio of the dramatic shootout in the Bataclan in Paris on the night of November 13, 2015. Italian Vincenzo Capuana, Perugia, who has lived in France for several years, was attending the concert and recorded audio when all hell broke loose. The music suddenly interrupted by the winds, the screams of the people, the stampede, the chaos ..... the audio was recorded on phone in the pocket by Vincenzo Capuana and played over the phone to radio show "Trapocoinedicola", a nightly radio news show hosted by Stefano Mensurati" (Read more at Of course audio can be created but this does have a genuine (and terrifying) sound to it.

Now one other curious feature. In this 'You Tube' feature (published on the 25th November, 2015) by 'Vice', a film outfit that provided the world with the shocking 'ISIS' 'beheading' videos and which some have claimed has close connections with the CIA, it is stated that it "worked with the band 'Eagles of Death Metal many times". This alone might give us cause for concern. 

  • Jesse Hughes AKA:  – vocals, guitar
  • Dave Catching (the man with the white beard) – guitar, vocals, slide bass
  • Matt McJunkins– bass, vocals
  • Julian Dorio– drums
  • Eden Galindo – guitar, vocals
  • Shawn London - sound man.

Apparently Dave Catching is the guitarist with the bald head and long white beard. He is he not at the interview and not referred to. No explanation is given for his absence.

 Dave Catching

According to Hughes, they first run upstairs then come back down and exit through the side door. One band member says, he went to a side room with a drinks fridge and a water leak where people sheltered including a woman with a serious injury to her thigh. "The gunfire went on for ten or twenty minutes. An explosion shook the whole building." Julian Dorio, the drummer adds, "immediately the gun-powder hit my nose. I saw two guys out front ... relentlessly shooting into the audience. I crawled over the floor and then ran behind other band members for the door." 

Jesse Holmes the lead singer says that when he ran upstairs to the dressing room looking for his girlfriend 'Tuesday Cross' he opened the "hallway door and that's when I saw the shooter. He turned on me and brought his gun down and the barrel hit the door frame. I headed out and immediately I noticed that everyone was pouring around from the side. No one was coming out of our exit. They were just standing there coming around that alley."

In this connection, the location of the staircases is obviously relevant. Newspaper diagrams show them at the front but there may well be secondary ones at the back as well. No doubt someone is in a position to know. You might have expected an accurate internal plan identifying the various significant locations would have been published. If they have I haven't come across one.

Name Julian you're out there front of house doing sound says "I was at the very back near where the doors were Out of nowhere I heard what I thought were fire crackers directly behind me. They came in the doors and instantly started blasting - two of them. I saw the gun man looking straight at me. He shot at me and missed. He hit the console. I went down on the floor. He stayed there slaughtering and yelling 'Allah Akbar'. That's when I instantly knew whats going on." When his bullets ran out and he heard him reloading that's when he said "Lets go". "Six of us jumped up and set off in the right direction and got away and then the guy started shooting again. We pulled back again the rest of us. We waited for the next thirty rounds after that I noticed he wasn't near us any more he sounded as if he was moving towards the stage thats when we all ran. I picked the girl up As we were leaving he shot at us and the (front) door shattered as we got to it."

They go to the police station where Jesse calls Joshua (Homme who started band in 1998). "When we got to the police station it was still chaos because kids were arriving covered in blood. Joshua says that he immediately went to his office to get started on anything ... everything to do when you are not there to bring them home " In a different interview which is attached he says he "got a text that didn't make sense to me" "They got shot. Everyone got shot. They took hostages. I got blood all over me" "Shared heroism. I think of Nick Alexander (merchandise manager) 

Holmes states as he does elsewhere "Several people hid in our dressing room. The killers were able to get in and killed every one of them except a kid who was hiding under my leather jacket. Interviewer "Killers got in your dressing room?" "Yes. People were playing dead and were so scared. The reason so many were killed they wouldn't leave their friends So many people put themselves in front of people." Homme adds @ 20.40  " It's going to take a long time for anyone ... to know .... what to do and what happened, there is no why for this ... can we take five minutes?"

There are others that have leveled the charge that the members of this band are in fact "crisis actors" repeating a prepared script that in whole or part is unreliable such as the 'pocketsofthefuture' creator of this Youtube site here: Indisputable crisis actor reused. Tha crisis actors actually exist and are used by the agencies that set up these events is perhaps best proved here: v=BqwqcC0Crag&ebc=ANyPxKocw3thT5xU0lBa0sOMpySNQ4x0-obWkWzADeyar8MtKlFOMF0-BIqkqNDeHN5h1tzplL4CiTJcUL3ol3z_sCf8qoK0Pg

Whether you are impressed by the witness statements as to accuracy or genuine emotion is a matter for you. I am in no position to say whether they are true or not, however one cannot but note the inconsistencies. For example if Holmes departed after a brief reconnaissance to his changing room as described, how could he possibly know everyone was shot there, or even more incredibly how and why 'one kid' survived under his leather jacket? At the very least if someone had informed him of the circumstances subsequently, he would have described it as such. It has all the markers of a story told for emotional effect without questioning whether it is credible. Leaving this aside, there is also the question why if he was able to escape from there, those in the room didn't also?

Then there is his very curious description by Hughes (did you notice it?) "I headed out and immediately I noticed that everyone was pouring around from the side. No one was coming out of our exit. They were just standing there coming around that alley."

Now how can that be reconciled with his account that he actually left by that side door? The only way to make sense of it is if he actually left through the front door. "Immediately I noticed everyone pouring around from the side. And for certainty he confirms it - twice! It certainly raises the question which door did he exit from? The sound man 'London' certainly admits to leaving through the front. Did Hughes come with him? If so it of course renders the rest of his account unreliable.

As for the drummer Dorio, at first glance this appears to corroborate the brief video clip but there are idiosyncrasies.  The video suggests that at the very first sound of gunfire or whatever caused the bangs, he drops down. Yet he claims to have immediately smelled the gunpowder. Really? How can this be explained, if as the sound man London positively states the two gunmen were behind him at the back of the hall. Any smell is produced at the point of discharge and although with time, will circulate by convection, it could not possibly be detectable on stage if fired from the back. Of course if he is telling the truth, it could be explained if for example it was a firecracker located much closer to him.

There is another conflict in his description of seeing the gunmen at that point "out front" firing into the audience. How can this be reconciled by either his immediate reaction to fall down or London's definite account of the gunmen being behind him at the back of the hall when the shooting started? 

Next we have Catching's account of how he apparently went to another room where he only had a bottle of champaign to defend himself whilst caring for at least one badly bleeding woman. We are not told when or how he eventually escapes but he says he was in there when one (we assume) of the bombers blows himself up. Therefore we must assume he was there for the duration of the siege? How many hostage rooms were there for we are told one of the bombers blew himself up in one. If the band member was in there to hear the bang we must assume it wasn't in that one that the attacker detonated his vest. This also needs to be explained. At what point did he and his fellow 'hostages' leave the room and building because the police did not enter in force for three and a half hours!

Finally, sound man London as we have said makes it clear he was at the back and left through the front doors, not the side entrances as many else did, being fired at as he went. He only mentions two gunmen. If the sound to the film clip can be relied upon, it was certainly only one weapon firing in that first burst. Yet the official version cannot make its mind up whether three or four took part and were inside. Why this still unresolved discrepancy? Is it possible there were only two, perhaps straight from one of the other attacks, who after the shooting, departed the building, never to be seen again?

It would also help to resolve the appearance of a gunman on the other side of the hall door opened by Hughes and why the gunman didn't pursue him? Or how the location of this terrorist can be reconciled with London's account.

15.4.  Gunfight outside the Bataclan

A still from the video is shown below but it is better to watch the video on You Tube. (See section 5 for this and comment)

15.5  An I-phone video clip of people pouring out of two side entrances of the Bataclan

In the following examination certain idiosyncrasies are highlighted.

The video was taken by Le Monde journalist Daniel Psenny from his flat in a building opposite. He was later injured himself, shot in the arm through his window.  This raises the question of how he was injured when most of the shooting occurred inside or did it happen during the exchange in 15.4 above? Clearly it was fortuitous a member of the press was in the right position at the right time and able, despite his injury to get the footage onto the internet in super-fast time. Why the clip is so short and why he didn't take more as events progressed is not explained.

The most obvious incredible feature of the video clip is the woman said to be hanging from a second floor window sill by her finger-tips. She is there for the duration of the video clip. We do not see how she was able to get there in the first place or if and how she was pulled back in or whether she fell to the ground. Amazingly despite her international notoriety, she has neither been sought out, interviewed or identified. How could have newshounds ignored such a scoop? The mix is somewhat over-egged with the announcement that the woman was actually saying, "I am pregnant. Save me! Save me!" I believe even an experienced climber would find the feat challenging let alone a young pregnant woman made even more unlikely by the fact at one stage she is seen holding on with only one hand!

This event shouts theatrical fabrication for emotional effect but there is another feature that is difficult to explain.  'Winter Watch' draws attention particularly to the 'missing doorway' below and to the left of the woman. It is difficult to put this down purely to poor night time definition. In addition on the moving pictures people actually 'disappear suddenly' proving there is something 'not right' about them. At the very least the image has been 'edited'.

I am indebted to and 'Russ Winter' at 'Winter Watch' for these images. Here is the Google Map image as of the 15th June 2016:

Bataclan passage Google street view

Winter cleverly draws attention to the 'missing doorway' as do others. Nothing in the street view makes anything in the 'hanging woman' more explicable. Of course if the images are fraudulent, the whole thing is fraudulent.

15.6  A still photo of dead bodies inside the Bataclan after the attack

The image below has not been obscured to hide the bodies as many later copies were. Some have argued that it is a staged fraud. I am unable to take that view but it does raise many basic questions relating to the events as described by alleged witnesses. 

First perhaps we should state clearly that several of these accounts conflict in material ways. For example the Australian gentleman, Mr Leader, quoted above, states quite categorically that when the shooting started the lights came on almost immediately after. In this case someone of course had to turn them on - who was that? - but also it would mean that both shooters and victims would have clear vision of one another if in line of sight. This is specifically contradicted by this 'witness' who states clearly that she was protected by a man and escaped over bodies in total darkness. In this video a convincing case that the woman 'witness' ('Emma Parkinson') there is a 'crisis actor'.

In this NBC interview with a man of oriental descent, he claims to have been there at the time of the attack. He states he was in the 'mosh pit' with 'one or two hundred people there'.   This estimate bears no relationship to the fifteen hundred people claimed to be there and cannot be reconciled with it in any way. Miss Parkinson states, "Almost a thousand people were on the floor".

The Daily Mail reported as follows: "It looked like a battlefield, there was blood everywhere, there were bodies everywhere,' Marc Coupris, 57, told the Guardian. He added: 'I was at the far side of the hall when shooting began. There seemed to be at least two gunmen. They shot from the balcony.

'They shot at 'very young' people in the violent attack which lasted around 15 minutes, said Julien Pearce, a journalist at Europe 1. The gunmen, who witnesses have described as young men in their 20s, reloaded three or four times as they gunned down innocent people at random.  

'They fired into the crowd and people tried to escape but the attackers said: 'If you move, we'll kill you,'' said Philippe, 35.  He heard the attackers say: 'What's happening to you, is your fault. We are avenging our brothers in Syria.'

'Three men with Kalashnikovs and wearing flak jackets burst in in the middle of the concert,' another man, a man named Hervé, told the Telegraph after escaping through an emergency exit. He said the men were not wearing masks, adding: 'They just started spraying bullets. I saw a girl hit right in front of me. There must have been quite a few dead.' 

Another witness, Pierre Janaszak, a radio presenter, told AFP he was sitting in the balconies with his sister and friends, when they heard shots from below about one hour into the show. 'At first, we thought it was part of the show but we quickly understood. They were three I think and they were just firing into the crowd. They were armed with big guns, I imagine Kalashnikovs, it was a hell of a noise. They didn't stop firing. There was blood everywhere, corpses everywhere. We heard screaming. Everyone was trying to flee. They had 20 hostages, and we could hear them talking with them,' said Janaszak, who was hiding with several others in the toilet.

Ginnie Watson, a self proclaimed actress says in interview here ( ) that she was in the balcony and saw what was happening before she escaped. Her account, despite it's transparent lack of authenticity, was transmitted without question by Fox News and other outlets.

So we may conclude there a significant contradictions in the witness accounts as they have been reported.

What can be gathered from the image, ghastly as it appears? It shows the central area of the Bataclan - the so-called 'mosh pit' - after the attack. It is taken from the RH balcony when looking towards the front. As a result only the central and left hand side of the floor is revealed. About thirty bodies are revealed which leaves the majority of the 89 killed out of shot. We must assume it was taken either by police or a survivor, although it is possible it was taken by an attacker and later recovered. How this photograph came into the public sphere is itself an interesting question that has not been explained. There is no evidence of living persons specifically and rather surprisingly anyone from the emergency services in view. Presumably as a crime scene, it would have been subject to intensive photography.

The central question that has exercised observers of the photograph is whether it is indeed genuine, or whether it has been staged for effect? It certainly appears genuine as regards venue. Perhaps the most notable feature is the abundant red blood on the floor and what appear to be drag marks made by it. The only rational explanation for the marks would be that people dragged themselves or were dragged by others as they bled profusely. However there are two problems with this explanation. There appears to be no correlation between the marks and the position of bodies and given the quantity of what appears to be blood, there is no evidence of this on the many white t-shirts that appear pristine.  

Then as respects the small group of eight 'bodies' nearest the camera, it is clear that there are no drag marks but there is clear evidence of blood flow in a discreet stream away from them and to the rear of the hall. There is a further difficulty in that a body lies across the route it takes. We must assume that the hall floor is perfectly flat and level. I would suggest this type of marking would only occur if either there was a gradient or if the liquid was poured from above. Many factors influence bleeding depending on the nature and location of the wound. In addition the body has its own clotting mechanisms to stop bleeding. This degree of bleeding and the way it flows and has been spread around is difficult to explain. A prostrate bleeding person would much more likely create a limited pool of blood about the body, not what is seen here.

15.7  An image of one of the alleged attackers wandering around inside.

The footage, captured by Tuesday Cross, girlfriend of Eagles of Death Metal frontman Jesse Hughes, shows a figure dressed head to toe in black with a backpack, making their way through the corridors of the Bataclan concert hall.
Moments later, gunmen shouting 'Allahu Akbar' - God is great in Arabic - began indiscriminately killing those who had crammed into the venue to see the band perform." 

"The corridors of the Bataclan"? How could that be? Where are there spaces like that in the Bataclan and what would Hughes have been doing in them during the concert? And how could it be true if the attackers started shooting the moment they came in Cross left with Hughes immediately after the shooting started? This piece of the evidential jigsaw shouts unreliability.

Interview with the band here by 'Vice' founder and CEO:

justin bieber The 21-year-old singer said Thomas Ayad was one of the 89 people killed when gunman entered the Bataclan theater during the Eagles of Death Metal concert. “Still thinking about Paris and my friend Thomas that we lost in the tragedy,” Bieber wrote. “He was a part of the team for years and I wish I would’ve had more time to thank him.” Read more:

Survivors or Actors?

Brother Nathanael's take on the Paris attack: Mossad's Fingerprints On Paris Attacks, Zionist Pets Unleashed

An interview with an alleged Charlie Hebdo 'survivor' is here:  Note the inappropriate, and some might say 'give-away' smirk at the beginning of it. This is a regular feature of so called 'crisis actor' interviews that appear to have become common.
Interview with survivor  Pierre Janaszak, a survivor of the jihadist attack on Paris, is on Sophie&Co today. here: 

here he is again speaking in his native French tongue:

Jerome Lorenzi describes the Paris attack to CNN's Hala Gorani here

Dammartin-en-Goele printing plant survivor Lilian Lepere describes how he had to hide from the Kouachi brothers under a sink for more than eight hours here: 

Italian businessman Massimiliano Natalucchi was at the Bataclan Theatre with a friend when gunmen opened fire. He survived, despite seeing a gunman looking at him multiple times, but told Phil Williams that he has not slept for the two days since. Read more here: here:


Interesting twist dated 11.3.2016 from the Guardian here:

"Death Metal front-man's suggestion their guards were complicit in massacre.

Jesse Hughes said six of the security team did not turn up at Paris venue on 13 November, and it ‘seems rather obvious that they had a reason’"

In a post to his Facebook page, he said: 'I'm still at the Bataclan. First floor. Badly hurt... there are survivors inside.
'They are slaughtering everybody. One by one. First floor - quickly!'
Police had gathered outside the venue but did not head inside straight away. However, after it became clear the attackers were killing their hostages, they stormed the theater.
All but one of the attackers inside are thought to have blown themselves up when police stormed in at around twenty past midnight. One is said to have been shot by police before he got the chance.
In all, the carnage lasted a total of three hours - though authorities have warned that more gunmen could be on the loose.

Read more:
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Which location is this?

Latest development: Abdeslam arrested in Brussels.


  1. For the Stephane Hache report, see:

  2. More of the same?

  3. Interesting twist dated 11.3.2016 from the Guardian here:

    "Death Metal front-man's suggestion their guards were complicit in massacre.
    Jesse Hughes said six of the security team did not turn up at Paris venue on 13 November, and it ‘seems rather obvious that they had a reason’"

  4. The Independent 21.3.2016 Salah Abdeslam capture.
    Perhaps we should note for starters, he has been described as a drinker of alcohol, a taker of drugs, a frequenter of gay bars and so presumably gay, none of which would go down particularly well in Jihadist circles nor is there any suggestion of the sort military training, skills or mental attitude required for a mass murderer. As such he appears a most unlikely Muslim fundamentalist or assassin. What carefully planned attack would not include escape - presumably back to Syria? Instead he is located (but not killed contrary to policy) only 500 mtrs from his home. Add to this the fact that he was monitored approaching Paris and actually interviewed, identified and followed by police back to Brussels leaving the day following the attacks. He is supposed to drop his brother off at that Comptoir Voltaire to blow himself up (of which there is little or no evidence) before parking up the accused attack vehicle - a black Seat - which in fact proves to be a Citroen C3 or C4, although this has never been admitted by the French authorities! Meanwhile the four people actually shot by police just before ten o'clock at the Boulevard Beaumarchais, have never been identified. These are just a few of the questions posed by the very strange events on Friday 13th. See:

    Less than a minute ago
    People would do well to reserve judgment concerning this individual and his recent 'capture'. There are too many puzzling features to it, for it to be taken at face, replicating the Paris attacks themselves, none of which have been explained by the French authorities. There is not space here to describe them all including direct misinformations. For anyone wishing to pursue them: et al

  5. Here Fox News get their story in a twist. They introduce an interview with their well-known (apparently) reporter Geraldo Rivera, whose daughter they state was in the Bataclan at the time of the attack. He then contradicts this and says she was in the football stadium. It would be physically impossible for her to be at both for reasons of time and distance. For good measure he throws in two patent LIES, namely that "She heard three bombs go off about half time" (The third went off (if it did) more than half an hour after the first) and that "fortunately because President Hollande was there the security was good" which clearly it wasn't as there wasn't even a policeman at the entrance gate the bombers apparently tried to enter. The contradictions are made more explicit here: There are other indications that the story line for Rivera's daughter between being at the Stadium or Bataclan was confused and therefore likely fabricated to present an emotional impact ahead of the events themselves. Then in this a CNN and VICE producer, 'Pierre-Eliott Buet' just happened to be 'outside the Bataclan' at the time of the incident! Apparently one of NINE media people he has identified there at the time.

  6. Here we have the contradictions of two people claiming to be victims of the Brussel Airport 'bombing' exposed:


Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.