So I finally got around to watching the video that surfaced a couple days ago purporting to show a cafe in Paris that was attacked by some white guy in a baseball cap who apparently can’t hit the broadside of a barn from the inside with an AK.
Yes, he stands over two women and fails to shoot them. That is true. And many claim that’s because his gun jammed, though he doesn’t react to it like you would expect if his gun jammed. He just points the gun at them and turns and heads back to his car where he makes a speedy escape (and of course, the French police never chase them or catch up to them)
So yeah, he didn’t shoot those two women, but I can’t see why that is shocking to anyone considering he didn’t actually shoot anyone in the video from what I can tell.
There is even someone outside standing next to a light-pole or something (you can see em through the door when it’s opened) and the “terrorist” just runs right past em.
The people outside the cafe don’t get shot. The two women on the ground when his gun “jammed” didn’t get shot. The people inside the place didn’t get shot. No one got shot.
And these are the same guys who killed 18 at one location just a few minutes before this?
As odd as that is, what struck me about these two videos (both from inside the cafe on opposite ends of the transaction counter) is the snow-storm that seems to hit the cameras just as soon as the action begins. WTF was that?
The patterns of the snow are almost identical from the two cameras though they are at least 12 feet apart. How is that possible?
And here’s another thing, You would think in the second video, since that camera faces the location of the first camera, you would be able to see the material flying over on the other side of the transaction counter that the first camera recorded but you don’t. Instead all you see is the same effect, the snowy white material rushing past the second camera in the exact same relation to the camera as what was caught on the first camera.
I know people will say it’s glass or some material on the shelves, but the stuff is blowing from off camera on both sides from above and it does that on both cameras 12 feet apart from each other.
I’m sorry, but that isn’t possible from one bullet strike to either the wall, a box of powdered potatoes or a mirror. It can’t make material rain down from two distinct locations in front of the same camera.
As here’s the real kicker… it certainly can’t make material rain down from two distinct locations in front of two separate cameras 12 feet apart in identical patterns.
That’s just impossible.
It’s almost as if someone needed to cover up something in the video so they added this effect post-production. Like it’s supposed to be shattering glass or something but instead it looks more like a blizzard effect. Towards the end you see the stuff then blowing across the screen as opposed to down it. It’s very odd.
Of course, if you added that effect to the first video, the “broken glass” effect.. then you would have to add it to the second one, but the difference is, the second camera is in a different location and thus the effect would look different. Again, I guess they cut corners and decided to just map the same effect on two videos from 12 feet apart from one another.
Some might try to say it’s static, some kind of interference from the wireless feed or something but that doesn’t make any sense as the material blows from one side to the other. Static interference doesn’t do that. It appears and disappears. It doesn’t fly around.
In the second video, you can see the camera from the first one and there is nothing flying around in front of it. Nothing. There’s nothing on the ground under the camera, nothing built up on the transaction counter. Nothing. Nothing anywhere except the huge blizzard of snowy material blowing in front of both cameras at the exact same time in the exact same patterns.
Oh shit… wait a minute… ITS THREE VIDEOS FROM THREE LOCATIONS WITH THE SAME BLIZZARD EFFECT. Oh crap. The third is taken from over the door facing in and again, you can’t see anything passing in front of the other two cameras and the first camera doesn’t show anything passing in front of this one.
Holy crap. The last one is like a snow-globe effect. Like it’s underwater.
There’s a whole lot to wonder about in these videos.
Why does some woman walk in with the urgency of someone trying to get to a checkout line in front of someone else when she’s supposedly being shot at with an AK-47?
And this is ISIS™? The guys Obama says pose the greatest threat to humanity since cancer? Guys who couldn’t hit a wide middle-aged woman as she saunters across the cafe?
Why doesn’t the white terrorist actually hit anyone?
Why does he not even really try to shoot those two women on the ground outside or the person standing next to the pole?
Why does he just walk right up to the window and the door of the cafe without checking to see what or who are in the restaurant first? There could have been an off-duty Paris cop in there with his sidearm. The owner could have had a gun. He didn’t know. And yet he just casually walks up to the door, open door, stands broadside presenting himself as an easy target, points his gun at those women (for the really scary moment in the video) and then casually turns and walks away. It’s almost as if he knew there would be no one with a gun in the cafe to present him with a threat.
(Sometime it’s not what they do that provides you with a clue… it’s what they don’t do)
How cool is that woman who finally makes it downstairs after being attacked by an AK-wielding terrorist and has the where-with-all to make sure she takes her shopping packages down with her?
Bullets are one thing, but she’ll be damned if she loses those new shoes.
Is that guy really trying to hide behind a jacket against that wall like he thinks the terrorist will see this floating jacket and not figure out some dude is hiding under it?
Who is that random dude who just kinda walks in an goes downstairs to grab the bald guy then he goes upstairs to grab someone else? Is that what he does? Runs around after a terrorist strike and tells everyone when it’s safe to come out from under their floating coat disguises?
And more importantly… who is the bald guy who gets dragged up from the basement to do his little “I got my phone and I’m hopping mad” routine? WTF is that? Does he work there? If he does, why isn’t he checking to see if any of his customers who are still on the ground have been hit and need immediate medical attention? Why is he just pecking on his stupid phone and hopping around like Elmer Fudd?
(Sometime it’s not what they do that provides you with a clue… it’s what they don’t do)
And then the random dude who runs around telling people when it’s safe to leave the basement, comes down the stairs and exits camera left…. his job done. Mission accomplished…
An AK47 had a jam?
…Created for use in the severe climates of the Soviet Union, the AK-47 possesses relatively loose tolerances and is able to function even if its components are fouled by debris…
At this time, the tragedy of the Paris terror attacks has one unanswered question. Was it a “false flag operation” or “blowback”? Some historians and political scientists who understand Western intervention in the Middle East may point to the latter. The late Chalmers Johnson wrote a book titled ‘Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire’ where he defined‘Blowback’ as “unintended consequences” of foreign policies conducted by U.S. Intelligence agencies (CIA) “that were kept secret from the American people.” Johnson wrote:
The term “blowback,” which officials of the Central Intelligence Agency first invented for their own internal use, is starting to circulate among students of international relations. It refers to the unintended consequences of policies that were kept secret from the American people. What the daily press reports as the malign acts of “terrorists” or “drug lords” or “rogue states” or “illegal arms merchants” often turn out to be blowback from earlier American operations
France’s foreign policy during the reign of their colonial Empire since the 17th Century ruled parts of Africa, North America, Southeast Asia, India and the Caribbean. France has experienced social upheavals and faced resistance from various populations they oppressed. Haiti, Vietnam and Algeria come to mind. France along with the U.S. and the U.K. had foreign interventionist policies for centuries resulting in acquiring territories that they still occupy today. Many would say that the Paris terror attack was a long time in the making.
Yes, it is true in a sense that the terror attacks could be retaliation for the current US-NATO interventions of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria which did create the refugee crisis in Europe in the first place. But with evidence that the U.S., Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Israel arming, training and funding “moderate rebels” since 2011 to topple Assad, the dynamics do change. Washington armed and funded the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan which became “the base” known as Al-Qaeda originally managed by Osama Bin-Laden (Deceased in 2001). So were the Paris terror attacks a “payback” from centuries of oppression? Not so sure.
Is There a Possibility of a False-Flag Operation?
The Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL) declared that it was responsible for the latest attacks in Paris as did Al-Qaeda who also claimed responsibility for 911. Terrorist organizations usually do claim responsibility for their actions. However, the question still remains whether the attacks were a false-flag operation or not? That still remains to be seen. However, there are similarities between the terror attacks in Paris and New York City on September 11th…