About the Orlando Massacre narrative: subsequent oddities and inconsistencies in the story keep cropping up. I said on Monday that the story doesn’t add up; well it’s adding up even less now.
Too many things have appeared in the media or online for me to keep track of, but there are a few specific things that definitely warrant some attention.
For example, now Police Chief John Mina has admitted that some of the victims may have been shot by the police officers‘ gun fire.
What? How many is ‘some’? 5? 10? 48? He doesn’t specify – and most of the media isn’t pushing for answers.
That revelation is made even worse when we note that there is captured news footage of a policeman appearing to laugh on camera during a statement.
I mentioned on Monday the eyewitness saying someone was holding the exit doors closed and preventing people from escaping.
Now there’s this dude being interviewed on Fox News, who is supposedly a ‘survivor’ of the attack, telling a very strange story that starts falling apart when he fully admits he was the one holding the exit door closed so that people couldn’t get out. Oddly, he claims he held the door shut to prevent the shooter escaping. When the interviewer asks him if he had been concerned that he was also preventing people being able to flee, he loses his coherence. He says “yeah, that was on my mind…. there was banging and pushing on the door.”
I don’t know who this person is, so I don’t wish to comment on him as person; it’s possible he reacted in panic and wasn’t thinking straight (which you might do in that terrible situation). But I’m not sure why keeping the shooter locked in the venue (where he was killing people) would take priority over lettingvictims escape. It raises the question of whether the ‘survivor’ speaking here accidentally went ‘off script’ in his interview and then got stuck having to explain something he wasn’t supposed to have revealed in the first place.
But it is also possible that the news channel cooked this guy up in order to counter that previous video of an eyewitness talking about someone having been holding the door closed – a video that I referenced in my post on Monday.
If that earlier video got noticed by those with a vested interest in not having it out there, it might’ve been decided to quickly put out an explanation and have some random, incoherent young guy saying he was the one holding the doors.
Something similar seems to have been done in the immediate aftermath of the attack when there was a girl in the grey dress seen walking out with a little bandage on her knee and no sign of blood on her clothes and she gets into the back of a truck – then she is shown in The Daily Mail with blood over her dress and on her legs, as if someone in charge might’ve decided her initial look wasn’t dramatic enough.
A number of very curious videos have emerged by now. In this one, another eyewitness speaking to a news station confirms that there was someone holding the exit door closed and preventing people escaping: but he also says there were 2 shooters.
In this interview, another witness suggests there were 4 shooters, including possible snipers.
This was known at the time the shooting was being reported, but it was being deliberately omitted by the news broadcasters, as I pointed out on Monday. A Twitter user posted on the ABC News timeline, saying ‘There are bits of information the media aren’t telling us. This is coming directly from a survivor of the attack: there are two others who were in the club last night slaughtering people who have not been caught.‘ The ABC Twitter account deleted the tweet, but observant Twitter users noticed the Tweet had gone missing and someone else re-posted a screenshot of it (see the original conversation here).
Other odd bits of footage always seem to crop up when a major attack with a questionable narrative unfolds. Here, for example, our attention is directed to possible fakers/actors seeming to accidentally give the game away when they think the camera isn’t on them anymore.
Someone (who attends the Utah Valley University and preferred not to be named) contacted me yesterday to also point out something he or she had noticed in some of the video footage of victims being carried out of the venue. ‘The victims they are holding, are ALL being held in positions taught in EMT class,’ he/she said.
‘I attended EMS school, here in Utah (UVU), they taught us certain holding patterns when pulling people out of burning homes or in case of a huge casualty. These people, including the guy with the straw hat and american t shirt, are holding people EXACTLY in those positions. How did they know to do that in such a short time?’ he/she asks. ‘All the people helping the “injured” were doing carry exercises that I did in my EMT BASIC class. They brought us outside, a class of 30 and made us do all these carries back and forth.’
He/she also pointed me to something else particularly interesting; ‘Also, notice the girl who looks like she has a vest on, on the back of her vest, there seems to be a number. I can’t verify, but it looks like there is something on the back. In these casualty mock-ups, certain people would have numbers or colors, so that the commanding officer knew who was dead or needed immediate help.’
That is an interesting observation, because as I noted on Monday, there was an active-shooter drill for emergency medical trainees in Orlando some months ago. It could be speculated that these people we were seeing on video are those trainees putting their skills to use: but we’re told that these are all simply people who happened to be in the club.
I have wondered for a while whether some of these drills or training exercises we see that simulate terror attacks (like this one, due to begin on July 4th) or other disasters provide visual material that can be kept in storage for when a real attack occurs, with some of those images being presented as real-life instead of training simulations. In the case of the Boston Marathon, the drill was literally happening at the same time and place as the supposed real-life ‘attack’ – but in some cases, might footage and images simply be held until the right time?
Now when all of this stuff is taken in unison with the lack of ambulances, the lack of police/security intervention, etc, the narrative starts to crumble.
The stories about Omar Mateen continue to be conflicting, with some seeming conspicuously measured (after the fact) to fit the criteria of the homophobic, hateful killer, and others seemingly contradicting it entirely.
For example, Daniel Gilroy, who worked with Mateen at the security company G4S, has told Florida Today that he was “unhinged and unstable.” He added, “I quit because everything he said was toxic, and the company wouldn’t do anything. This guy was unhinged and unstable. He talked of killing people.”
Another security guard, Eric Baumer, told Newsday; “When I saw his picture on the news, I thought, of course, he did that. He had bad things to say about everybody – blacks, Jews, gays, a lot of politicians, our soldiers. He had a lot of hate in him.”
But then, as previously noted, there are also stories painting him in a different light. This story in The Daily Beast, for example, doesn’t paint a picture of a homophobe. ‘Omar Mateen regularly picked up lunch from a drag queen at Ruby Tuesday. He may have even gone to see a drag show or two… But King saw none of that homophobia. Quite the opposite: He said Mateen knew that he and many of his co-workers at Ruby Tuesday were gay, and didn’t seem to have a problem with it. “That’s the thing that’s pinning me to the wall the most, that it was a gay nightclub,” King said. “Because he would come into the [the restaurant] and laugh with us.’
Now there are mainstream media outlets saying Omar Mateen was himself gay or had gay tendencies.
According to the Daily Mail, ‘A gay man who attended the police academy in 2006 with Mateen said that the pair went out to gay bars and that at one point Mateen told the man he wanted to pursue a relationship. Meanwhile, multiple people are now coming forward to say that they had spoken with Mateen on gay hookup apps including Grindr and Jack’d.’
What’s more, ‘The shooter was also somewhat of a regular at Pulse, the sight of the massacre, with patrons of the club saying they saw him dozens of times at the venue. Mateen’s horrifying attack was initially thought to be a homophobic attack rooted in extremist Islamic ideology, but investigators now believe he may have traveled to the club to keep his sexuality a secret.’
‘He’s a homosexual and he was trying to pick up men,’ says one person, who had talked to Mateen at the Pulse venue before.
If true, it then becomes more likely that he might’ve carried out the massacre for personal reasons relating to deeply conflicted sexuality. The argument is forwarded that perhaps his natural sexual inclinations were at odds with his religious upbringing, causing him to struggle with the issue. If, as seems to be the case, his father was particularly homophobic too, that might’ve affected him even more. His father said in a Facebook video posted on Monday that ‘homosexuals will be punished by God’, which plainly reveals his attitude towards the subject – however, we should note that the father was saying this in the context of his son’s murderous actions being unjustified (because, according to him, it’s up to God to ‘punish’ homosexuals).
If all of this is true, it renders the ‘Islamic terrorism’ issue null and void in this case; and makes the ‘ISIS’ connection meaningless. I highlighted already why Omar Mateen’s alleged ISIS statement was probably not real.
If we assume for a moment that the FBI may have been Omar Mateen’s handlers and enablers (see here), then it is possible they wanted to make sure this was presented as an Islamic terror attack that could be linked to ISIS: and therefore would’ve wanted to downplay any reference to his mental instability, bi- polar disorder or possible struggles with homosexuality.
Mateen’s ex-wife Sitora Yusufiy has also told her fiance Marco Dias that Mateen had ‘gay tendencies’, according to an interview Dias gave with Brazilian media. Mateen’s ex-wife Sitora Yusufiy had told the FBI that he was unstable and that she didn’t believe he was part of a terrorist group – despite him supposedly pledging allegiance to ISIS before the attack.
More curious, Sitora claims she was asked by the FBI not to tell the media about Mateen’s instability.
Sitora’s current fiance told Brazilian media that ‘The FBI asked her not to tell this to the American media.’ Which again, suggests the FBI wanted this to be portrayed purely as Islamist terrorism connected to ISIS – which matches precisely with the Vice report I referred to on Monday, which highlighted how the FBI has been goading ‘mentally unstable’ patsies into carrying out ‘terror attacks’ and advising them to say they’re doing it in the name of ISIS.
In fact, it has already been reported for some time that virtually all Muslim ‘terror plots’ in the United States have been built from the ground up by the FBI.
Where that leaves the issue of Omar Mateen’s alleged sexuality conflict is anyone’s guess.
But if this narrative was already having problems on Monday, by today it has clearly acquired all of the usual problems that accompany other false-flag operations.
A brief aside (which probably isn’t relevant to this case, but is nevertheless interesting): It concerns G4S, the security firm Omar Mateen worked for. Some of the company’s employees have been accused of abusing children in the centers where they work. “I’m amazed at the amount of violence that goes on over there, both against staff and other inmates,” Assistant State Attorney Vicki Nichols, Martin County Florida’s juvenile prosecutor, told the Scripps Treasure Coast Newspapers, referring to one of the facilities that employs G4S guards.
Just a curious side-note I thought was worth mentioning.