Even days after the event, there is still no footage or images of the explosions at the Stade de France.
We are told suicide-bombers detonated devices. But not only are there no images or videos of the explosion, but there are no videos or images of the aftermath.
No images of any damage in or around the Stade de France. All these days later, are we really to believe that NONE of the news agencies or camera crews have bothered trying to film or photograph damage from the explosions?
Don’t you think that, if such proof existed, they would be keen to put those images on the covers of newspapers and in rolling news-channel coverage? But no, nothing.
All we’ve been shown every time is that looped footage of the football pitch and then a loud bang somewhere in the background, which we can *hear* but can’t see anything of.
Match commentators at the time, and later some players, have said they thought the noises from the stadium were “firecrackers”. Who mistakes a bomb for a firecracker?
Seriously, NOTHING HAPPENED at the Stade de France. It was simulated. If anything had actually happened, we’d have seen lots of images of the damage. The rolling news editors love that kind of stuff and would’ve been repeating the images over and over again. But there’s nothing.
And if the Stade de France ‘attacks’ were faked, then why are we to believe the rest of the story? The so-called attacks on the cafes are just as dubious. One of the cafes was said to have been hit with a suicide bomber.
You can see some of the footage of one of the cafes (the Comptoir Voltaire) where the suicide bomber supposedly blew himself up. There’s no damage. Windows intact, no interior damage, just a couple of chairs knocked over. And emergency personnel examining the aftermath are wandering around, looking remarkably casual, some forensics people are smoking cigarettes, some chewing gum and having a chat.
For a cross-comparison, go Google some images of suicide-bombings in Baghdad, Israel, Syria, Pakistan or other places, and you’ll see the difference between a location that actually has been bombed and one that hasn’t.
So we have to consider that, contrary to official claims, there were no suicide bombings anywhere in Paris on Friday 13th. The shootings, on the other hand, obviously did occur, but we have no proof of who carried out those shootings.
And the media fakery is so stupid in places that you wonder why they even bother. Take this example, where a Canadian Sikh man has been Photo-shopped and presented to the world as one of the Paris terrorists. He’s a Sikh! He’s wearing a Sikh turban! He’s probably never been to Paris in his life.
If we have genuine jihadist/terrorists – and we’re told there’s as many as twenty – then why the need to put out fake pictures and claims?
Meanwhile American researcher and historian Dr. Randy Short has told Press TV that the deadly Paris attacks were likely carried out by professional commandos and not a bunch of scatter-brained ISIL jihadists. That is certainly my view of the Charlie Hebdo killings; in regards to these more recent attacks, I tend to believe there were real jihadists involved, though it is unclear in what capacity or to what extent.
And it is also very likely that special forces or intelligent agents were also involved.
I mentioned in the previous post that the tales of “Allahu Akbar” and “this is for Syria” might’ve been fabricated and that journalist Julien Pierce had told CNN that no such words had been spoken by the shooters. I also mentioned some reports that some of the shooters were white-skinned men. Now read this next eye-witness testimony; from an article in The Daily Mirror, listen to this description from a witness to one of the mass shootings. “He was white, clean shaven and had dark hair neatly trimmed. The shooter was aged about 35 and had an extremely muscular build, which you could tell from the size of his arms. He looked like a weightlifter. He was not wearing gloves and his face was expressionless as he walked towards the bar. They looked like soldiers or mercenaries and carried the whole thing out like a military operation.“
That’s a witness to the attack speaking. The same witness describes how the gunmen pulled up in a black Mercedes-Benz and calmly began shooting scores of the innocent diners.
There are also other eyewitness descriptions that describe some of the shooters as having appeared to be ‘drugged’ and in a trance-like state. One witness who saw the attackers hinted to drug use after telling police that before the attack on the Bataclan concert hall, where 89 people were slaughtered, the men ‘were like zombies’.
Now there are two interesting possibilities with that. One is that we already know jihadists and terrorists in Syria and Iraq (and Libya before that) are known to have often been found on drugs, and a report now suggests that drugs paraphernalia was found at the apartment where the attackers were staying, but another is that intelligence agency patsies have also been found in drugged states previously too. For example, the so-called ‘underpants bomber‘, who in fact turned out to be a CIA agent, was described by witnesses as having been in a drugged state when he supposedly tried to set off his explosive device on a plane (he was also described as having been escorted onto the plane by intelligence agency handlers).
The militants are also said to have moved from an attack at Rue de la Fontaine au Roi and then drove around a mile south-east – apparently past the area of the Bataclan concert venue – to then launch another attack, this time on La Belle Equipe bar in Rue de Charonne, where least 19 people died after the terrace was sprayed with bullets at around 9.35pm. But why drive passed the Bataclan theatre just to randomly attack a much less important target and then come back again?
In any case, the picture beginning to form seems to match up with James Robertson’s suggestion of ‘the likelihood of two attack teams, a team of patsies and a team of professionals, some of whom seemingly did not fit the mold of Middle eastern terrorist at all’, also pointing out a witness to the Bataclan attack, who told BFMTV that one of the assailants was white and appeared to be European. “I saw a guy who was pretty small, white and looked like a European. He was just in front of the Bataclan and had a gun resting on his shoulder. Then I saw flashes and heard ‘Bam bam bam.’”
There probably were ‘jihadists’ of some description or another involved, but there were the usual mercenaries or special forces personnel carrying out attacks too. Given the revelation that there was a planned ‘multi-site’ terror drill going on anyway, the reality might’ve been something similar to what happened on 7/7 in London, where Muslim actors were hired to take part in a drill, but then special agents took over and carried out real-life attacks, leaving the hired patsies exposed as the ‘real’ culprits.
That’s just speculation; but this whole story is so problematic that we’ve little choice but to try to make sense of it outside of the official narrative.
A friend of Salah Abdeslam, the man suspected of being the eighth perpetrator, has told The Independent he could “never, ever, ever have imagined” it could be the same person he knew. “We chatted and talked about school and sports – I didn’t see any sign of hatred in him whatsoever”. Other people who knew him in his local area have provided similar statements, painting a picture of someone who doesn’t fit the terrorist or jihadist profile. Of course, that doesn’t mean he wasn’t someone who just hid it well.
The suspected ringleader of the Paris attacks, the Belgian national, Abdelhamid Abaaoud, obviously is or was an ISIL member, one of the many French or Belgian citizens who’d gone over to Syria to wage war on Syrians. He may well have been orchestrating the attack, either from Syria or in France. He may have been enabled to do so by French or international intelligence agencies, or he may just be a convenient scapegoat because he fits the profile so well.
We don’t need to have any sympathy for someone like him, as he is by all accounts a violent jihadist and terrorist; that doesn’t mean, however, that he masterminded these attacks on his own or that ISIL carried out this attack on their own.
What’s almost certain, however, is that there were no suicide-bombers. So if real terrorists were carrying out the shootings, what was the point of faking the suicide bombings?
There were also no Syrians involved, even if one or more of the alleged attackers may have been in Syria at some points. And none were Syrian refugees, despite what a lot of commentators – particularly in America – are trying to suggest.
More? Just as with the Charlie Hebdo attackers, and just as with the Sydney Siege lone-wolf, it emerges that French and Belgian intelligence already knew about the attackers and their jihadist backgrounds. Moreover, it has emerged that Turkey had already warned the French authorities about what was going to happen, just as Australian authorities had been warned by Iran about the Sydney Siege lone-wolf. Iraqi intelligence, meanwhile, warned French authorities of an imminent attack and provided specific details about the operation that the French government has yet to make public.
It is further admitted that the Syrian passport found at one of the bomb sites was a fake and was planted; presumably just to firmly plant the idea in our minds that Syria is the source and the problem.
The language is also very telling. You’ll keep hearing politicians or news organisations talking about ‘Syrian terrorists’ or the ‘jihadists from Syria’; this is all designed to make people view ‘Syria’ as the enemy, despite the fact that ‘Syria’ has had the so-called ‘Islamic State’ imposed upon it by foreign backers and is a victim of the terrorists. ‘Syria’ has been fighting the ‘ISIS’ terrorists for years. But this is all clever mis-use of language intended to paint ‘Syria’ as the villain, when Syria is in fact the victim.
This is to the extent that even Syrian refugees are now being vilified further.
Despite no evidence that the Paris attackers were refugees or migrants (they are all, so far, EU nationals), the backlash against refugees has predictably begun. 26 American states are now opposing taking in any of the Syrian refugees who are fleeing the terrorism that the United States government (and others) imported into Syria.
A CNN journalist has been suspended after tweeting her support for Syrian refugees, while presidential candidate Donald Trump says Muslims should be forced to wear ‘special ID badges’; which quite naturally evokes Nazi treatment of Jews in the approach to the Holocaust. Though this is by no means the first thing in this refugee crisis to quite lucidly evoke the Holocaust. Also predictable, hateful sentiments towards general, law-abiding Muslims, and hate-crimes, are rising, as they always do following terrorist incidents.
I’ve already posted in-depth about the misinformation being circulated to demonise refugees (see here).
At any rate, with or without actual ISIL adherents involved, it is increasingly evident that this has been a stage-managed operation stemming from an equally stage-managed root crisis.
There is also a lot more to it, it seems, involving a discernible push towards an Orwellian state paradigm and an obvious homage being paid to massive occult/esoteric symbolism in Paris, which may be much more significant than you would at first think; I have written a much bigger piece on that larger, more unsettling aspect to the Paris attacks.