Monday, 4 April 2016

Thirty-Four Good Reasons why the Official Account of the Paris 13th November, 2015 events cannot be Trusted

"Beware the Ides of March." Belgian 'Terrorist' Shoot-out 15th March, 2016.

Artist Jean Jullien tweeted this poignant image as the news about the terrorist atrocities in Paris unfolded

(Since I wrote this we had the highly suspicious bombing of the Brussels Zaventem Airport and Metro on the 22nd March, 2016! See:

Given that much of the official story relating to the Friday 13th November, 2015 does not stand up to detailed examination, in fact evidences a whole range of deceit and disingenuousness, this latest incident in Belgium and involving French special forces, needs to be treated with a great deal of caution - indeed scepticism!

Without even knowing what precisely happened, there are familiar tell-tale signs of carefully crafted deception for essentially propaganda purposes. Please note I am not in a position to definitively state this is the case, only that familiar features of false flag events certainly are.

Latest development Abdeslam arrested in raid on property only 500 metres from his Millenbeck home. 'Shot in the leg'.

For those not familiar with my earlier six articles on the subject, perhaps I should reprise the unadorned factual reasons for this rather startling assessment. They are listed below.

  • There is limited or no physical or physiological evidence for four suicide explosions at the Stade de France and the Comptoir Voltaire cafe.
  • Two loud bangs are recorded inside the stadium but there is no evidence of a third outside the McDonald's despite multiple film and recording crews in the vicinity.
  • Despite the media being present during the Stadium explosions (according to an interviewed witness, neither noise or images were caught on camera or any shots of the after effects.
  • The stories from two interviewed witnesses (there were apparently none to the third) are simply too far-fetched to be believed: One, that he was next to the bomber when he exploded his vest but is neither emotionally or physically injured; two, that he was saved by deadly shrapnel only by virtue of his Samsung phone held to his head!
  • The story that despite the early Charlie Hebdo attack and intelligence warnings; with the police and emergency services on high alert that very day; and despite the fact that nearly 80,000 people were gathered at the stadium to watch two national teams - in the presence of no less a person than President Hollande himself - security on the entrance gates was limited to a few (unarmed) volunteers,  left to identify and turn back determined, fanatical Jihadists, is implausible in the extreme. The notion is preposterous. If accurate, it must surely have resulted in swathing sackings of top officials in Government, police and army. The fact that there was not even a word of criticism confirms the lie.
  • Then we have the reaction, or lack of it, following the 'explosions'. Someone whispers to Hollande in his ear (apropo George Bush on 9/11!) but he is not as would be standard operating procedure, removed from potential danger (as is reported) but just to the glass-fronted commentary box in full view of any potential sniper in the stadium. Again quite extraordinary and unlikely. Again with parallels to 9/11, images of bravery and control (even if fraudulent) were more important than real or imagined danger. Incidentally, it appears no precautions were taken for the other VIPs surrounding him (the German foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, remained at the stadium throughout) confirming that their respective secret services were confident there was NO real danger to them.
  • In fact the whole security preparation and response could only be described as utterly shambolic, unless those in charge knew in advance, this was not a real terrorist attack. If people outside had blown themselves up, what guarantee was there that there were not more such inside, ready to do the same, or indeed snipers ready to shoot the very man it was claimed they blamed for bombing their comrades in Syria? Can you imagine any Risk Assessment or Emergency Evacuation Procedure (as required by law for such places and eventualities) allowing the football match to continue and the pitch to be invaded (as indeed happened) rather than a stoppage, announcement and controlled evacuation? Nor is there any evidence of armed police entering the stadium in case the 'terrorists' were also inside. This again indicates total incompetence or certainty that a danger did not exist.
  • The whole Stadium incident was theatrical and propagandist in the extreme, with pictures of frightened children, disorganised milling crowds, even people leaving singing nationalistic songs. Many of the photos of individuals have the suspicious appearance of being staged for effect. Had it been a genuine unanticipated murderous attack, the reaction of all concerned would have been very different.
  • Then we are expected to believe that three desperate men, intent on killing as many as possible, could not have organised themselves better, to at least ensure they had the appropriate tickets and arrived with everyone else; not as they did, to attempt to enter when the game was underway and the gates shut.
  • How the three bombers got to the Stadium has not been explained and is a problem for the official narrative. The gunmen in 'the black Seat' (which I have shown was not the car recovered as such - a Citroen C3 or C4) is ruled out unless they somehow dropped them off much earlier as the two attacks are roughly simultaneous at 9.20 pm. If they did, why the late arrival at the gate and why were they not spotted and apprehended? Surely there must be CCTV cameras at such an important venue, yet strangely nothing produced to clarify how and when they arrived? Nor for that matter could they have been dropped off by the Bataclan attackers, who it is said arrived in the black Polo abandoned at that scene. There would not have been enough room inside for six or seven. So it remains a suspicious mystery how they got to the stadium wearing their rather obvious 'suicide vests' unnoticed and unaccosted.
  • Despite being blown to pieces, with suspicious dexterity and speed, principal terrorists are identified from body fragments revealing either matchable DNA or finger-prints.
  • In two cases (  ) it was claimed the assailants carried Syrian and Egyptian passports that were helpfully found  undamaged near their bodies, replicating the impossible circumstance at 9/11. This is exceedingly unlikely and in addition  Egyptian authorities said the passport belonged to a victim, Aleed Abdel-Razzak, and not one of the perpetrators. Explanation required!
  • A passport-holder claiming to be a Syrian refugee with the name of Ahmad al-Mohammad (25) was registered on Leros in October upon his arrival from Turkey. The dead attacker's fingerprints matched those taken at the registration on Leros.
  • There is the very puzzling circumstances of the only claimed death at the stadium - a Portuguese taxi driver named Manuel Colaço Dias (63) Puzzling because he was instantly killed at the scene by the first blast. So how would a taxi driver who had just dropped of his paying fares find himself next to the exploding bomber, when the official story states the latter had first approached the gate and been turned back? Why did the person claiming to have witnessed it not mentioned him or his taxi? Why would he be killed instantly yet the witness be uninjured? Why after dropping off his fare would he remain parked in presumably a no waiting zone? 
  • From the Guardian report here ( more highly suspicious elements to this story are revealed. Apparently he had retired three years previously, but still took the odd fare when passengers 'specifically requested him'. His son Michael Dias is quoted as saying, “Last Friday, a group of people who wanted to watch the match specifically asked for my father to take them, despite another different driver already being assigned. He did not want to work that night, but nonetheless agreed to the job. He rang his wife at nine o'clock and said he was going to have a coffee". 
  • How is this reconcilable with the late dropping off of his fares? Who were those passengers and were they related to the explosions? The Guardian reports, 'the family called his employer, which sent someone over to the stadium to look for him. They found his car, but there was no sign of Dias himself." So where was he and why was he killed when no one else was? The question has to be posed as to his injuries in order to settle the cause of his death. This has never been explained as far as I am aware. This is one of two civilian deaths that raise serious issues, the other being in a flat opposite the Bataclan.


  • In all, six such premises were attacked (Le Carillon, Le Petit Cambodge rue Bichat; Café Bonne Bière and La Casa Nostrarue de la Fontaine-au-Roi; La Belle Équipe on the rue de Charonne; Comptoir Voltaire, boulevard Voltaire.) Unfortunately for the official version it is hard if not impossible to reconcile it to various accounts and reports.
  • First throughout the police claim a black Seat was used with two gunmen inside. This cannot be true on two counts:
  • The car claimed by police to be the black Seat retrieved later in the night from Montreuil was not. From photographs, it can be seen to be a pre-2008 Citroen C3 or C4! The fact that this has not been corrected is in itself highly implicating.
  • It was claimed that kalashnikovs and ammunition were found in it. Apart from the unlikelihood of this, given that attacks were continuing at the Bataclan and it is claimed Abaaoud returned there from abandoning the car, no evidence has been produced linking weapons to attacks or identified accused.
  • If the abandoned car was used, as is claimed by police, the attack car could not have been a 'black Seat', as is still claimed to be the case. This renders the whole official account, unreliable.
  • It is almost impossible to reconcile reports of the restaurant attacks with the two (or three) alleged attackers (Now claimed to be: Brahim Abdeslam, 31; Chakib Akrouh, 25; Abdelhamid Abaaoud, 28) Only two are ever mentioned by witnesses.
  • The latest accounts leave out the central, or any, significant role for Salah Abdeslam, who was originally said to be the 'mastermind' and is now 31.3.2016 said to be extradited to France as a 'super-grass'! On the one hand he is said to have been 'preparing more attacks' on the other that 'he is helping police' and 'denies any involvement'.
  • The timings do not allow the official version to be true as insufficient time exists for the same car to get from the first four shooting sites to the fifth and sixth, there being over a mile between them. A bar-worker even states on camera that the Belle Equipe attack started "at 9.30 pm" which was actually before the same attackers were said to have departed Casa Nostra over a mile away! Clearly impossible.
  • Throw in the observation from one witness that the car "drove away slowly" from the Casa Nostra site. They weren't in a hurry to get anywhere let alone another target location over a mile away!
  • An eye-witness description of the attack car at Belle Equipe is specifically not a black Seat but a black Mercedes, two cars that are  unlikely to be confused.
  • The attackers as described are a far better fit to trained and unemotional mercenaries than the accused, despite a concerted attempt to describe them as such. Rather conveniently, all the persons said to have carried out the attacks either killed themselves or were killed by police - except Salah who has apparently turned 'super-grass', the arrest of whom was highly theatrical and contrived.
  • The 'Mercedes' departing Belle Equipe, is said by witnesses to set off in the opposite direction to that claimed, i.e. north west (Bataclan) rather than north-east (Montreuil).
  • There is fairly reliable evidence of fabrication at Casa Nostra and Belle Equipe. In the former in the video strangely obtained by the Daily Mail with a time-stamp one hour later than the claimed time; and in the latter with an account from someone with a theatrical background.
  • Stated deaths at the different establishments appear genuine but the confusion and French Government's reaction to the Casa Nostra attack suggests something very fishy. At first the five deaths were said to have occurred there but it turns out they actually occurred at the Cafe Bonne Biere. The two were claimed to be adjacent that might explain it, but they are in fact some distance apart. All these factors raise a serious question mark as to the reliability of the Casa Nostra cafe where unbelievably, no one died.
  • Despite the emergency services being on high alert, in not one of the claimed attacks, including an alleged high speed car journey for over a mile between attack sites, there was no engagement by security or police - no chase, no exchange of gun fire, no locating of car until the early hours despite CCTV cameras en route? Quite amazing. It's almost as if the intention was not to intervene.
  • The almost complete absence of structural damage and personal injury at the Comptoir Voltaire does not support the account of a suicide bomber.
  • At the latter, the accounts of what happened differ to such an extent, (outside or inside? immediate explosion or served coffee? etc.) that it becomes unreliable and suspect.
  • A videoed account by a claimed witness is also highly dubious for a number of reason that I have explained elsewhere.



CNN played a significant part in the reportage of the Paris events as they unfolded. Very conveniently it already had a camera crew on location in precisely the right location where it managed to interview a number of 'witnesses' to the explosions. It however failed to record any of them itself or details of the aftermath, despite the time spacings." 

Charlie Hebdo Report here:

Being wholly a government propaganda machine, an organ of the CIA, and indeed as claimed by many in the right as well as left, extraordinarily influenced to the point of near subservience to a Zionist political agenda (more so than any discernible American agenda), CNN is in charge of faking out the American people and tricking us into thinking there is support for the government, Bush and the war. CNN, Fox and the other government propaganda channels are clear warnings of what these New World Order types have in store for us - lies, war, death, slick 3D graphics, fraudulent polls, fraudulent elections, ominous theme music and dumb newsreaders. CNN - the masters of the televisual lie."
The claim is made that Anderson Cooper, a reporter with CNN is actually an asset of the CIA here: Unsurprisingly he acted as a front man at the Paris attacks. Why was CNN, an American based network there reporting on the France/Germany football game at the time?

The Hollywood Reporter tells us: "CNN's Anderson Cooper also was scheduled to arrive in Paris over the weekend after anchoring his 9 p.m. program from Los Angeles on Friday night. The network had a team of correspondents already in France and other countries in Europe including Christian Amanpour, who was in the city earlier Friday on a different reporting assignment before turning around and returning Friday evening. All told, CNN executives expect to have a crew of 70 people on the ground in Paris by the end of the day on Saturday while additional New York-based anchors including Erin Burnett and Chris Cuomo were en route over the weekend.

"This is a huge story and it's not going away," Michael Bass, CNN's executive vp programming told The Hollywood Reporter on Saturday. Bass added that CNN's anchors will remain in Paris through at least the beginning of the week; Cuomo and Burnett will anchor their respective programs, New Day and Out Front, from Paris on Monday. "We have a small group [based in] Paris and they immediately reacted on Friday night. One of our Paris producers was within 40 or 50 yards of the concert hall," added Bass, referring to the venue where the worst of the attacks took place on Friday night."

The CNN report on the Belgium incident is here: Note the high profile given to this most convenient advert. Also question why in an operation around an 'empty building' the police were so well armed including marksmen on roofs? Nonsensical. He doesn't answer her pertinent question. Then the 'escape through the roof by two' and person shot by marksman? How possible if building surrounded. And how did marksman get a line of sight? And shot through the door yet only lightly injured? None of the story holds up!

Paul Cruickshank has reported extensively on al Qaeda, ISIS, and other Salafi Jihadi groups. He regularly appears on air as CNN's Terrorism Analyst and is the Editor in Chief of 'The Sentinel' the independent flagship publication of the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point.

In a chilling warning, CNN terrorism analyst Paul Cruickshank said he had spoken to an unnamed 'senior European counter-terrorism official' who received intelligence that ISIS is 'aiming to hit the United Kingdom next'.
Read more:

Ken O'Keefe's take on the West's active support of ISIS and treasonous involvement in fraudulent 'terrorist events' on European soil here:

From elsewhere: "False Flag does not mean real people don't suffer." This is so true. Nor should we forget that real fatalities and injuries do not rule it out. In fact this is the difficulty and intentional deceit, mixing the real and contrived. At the first level, it is an event that is organised by a group, usually located in the secret military corridors of power, intended to be blamed on an innocent party, for clear propaganda and/or policy purposes. For this to work individuals must either be conjoled or deceived into playing a part, that will probably be disguised as something else, such as a mock exercise. Of course actors have to be used for the latter (of which there are many examples) so it is only a small step to use them for the, paradoxical, 'real' fraud. In false flags there may be 'real killers' but they are seldom the people that are blamed as in the Paris attack. Nothing about their descriptions or mode of operations matches the accused. The killers were obviously trained mercenaries probably ex military still under the control and protection of their respective governments. MI5 and 6 must know this. How else could Boris Johnson announce with certainty that intelligence KNEW London would not be targeted? Yet Cameron and Government play along with the fraud because it forms part of the overall western strategy, to demonise Muslims, heighten fear and antipathy, and secure additional money for the secret services and extended powers to spy and control. Both Paris and Brussels are highly suspicious with clear Israeli links (as with 9/11 and 7/7) although sadly many had to lose their lives to make it credible. However whether all of the victims equate exactly with the claimed victims, or whether 'crisis actors' and other theatrical/visual techniques were employed has yet to be definitively revealed. Is anyone doing it or are the masses to be carried on a bore of deceit?

No comments:

Post a Comment

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