Oliko Nizzankin isku lavastettu hyökkäys? Oliko sen tarkoitus estää kansannousu?
16.7.2016 19:30 Jari Virtanen
Ylläpidon kommentti: Nizzan iskussa ihmetyttää ensimmäisenä se, ettei käytännössä kukaan ole julkaissut videomateriaalia, joka luotettavasti osoittaisi että kuorma-auto todella ajoi ihmisten päälle tappaen heidät. Rantabulevardilla on tuhansia osakkeita parvekkeineen, ja suurimmalla osalla paikalla olleista todennäköisesti oli kännykkäkamera. You tubessa ei ole tällä hetkellä tietääksemme yhtään videota, joka osoittaisi tapahtuman "aidoksi" terrori-iskuksi. Syyskuun 11. päivän terrori-iskussa vuonna 2001 viranomaiset takavarikoivat kaikki 84 videotallennetta, joissa näkyi mikä Pentagoniin törmäsi. Yhtäkään kunnollista videota noista 84:stä tallenteesta ei ole tähän päivään mennessä julkaistu. Miksi viranomaiset salaavat totuutta?
Wikipedia käsittelee termiä lavastettu hyökkäys näin:
Lavastettu hyökkäys tarkoittaa itse tehtyä operaatiota, jonka tekijäksi lavastetaan jokin vihollinen. Kyseessä voi olla aseellinen hyökkäys, terrori-isku, sabotaasi tai salamurha, mutta myös sanallinen hyökkäys. Tarkoituksena voi olla esimerkiksi saada aikaan vihollisuuksia, hankkia oikeutus tai kansan suosio omalle toiminnalle, tai mustamaalata poliittista vastustajaa. Wikipedian artikkeli tässä. Myös toinen maailmansota alkoi lavastetulla hyökkäyksellä ja lisää kuuluisia lavastettuja hyökkäyksiä löydät täältä.
jimstone.is kirjoittaa Nizzan iskusta seuraavaa:
NO BULLETS WERE EVER FIRED AT THE TRUCK.
INSTEAD, BULLET STICKERS WERE PUT ON THE TRUCK, AND I CAN PROVE IT. ALSO: If there really were dead bodies at the scene, they were thrown out the back of the truck, which was empty and inexplicably a refrigerated truck, "inexplicably", of course, unless you needed to keep bodies fresh.
TAKE A LOOK AT THIS AND EXPLAIN IT:
UPDATE: The next day they smashed the windshield, because people pointed out the lack of cracks. Do not be fooled by this, the photo above shows with perfect clarity how it really was.
July 15 2016
UPDATE: The truck driver rampage in France story has multiple gaping holes which I will briefly mention here: 1. No second party cell phone coverage despite 40,000 people present. Also nothing from people on balconies who were far enough away from the action to cover it with real cameras. 2. No first responders, relatives or anyone else with the dead bodies more than a half hour after the carnage started, with the truck sitting there with windows shot. NO FIRST RESPONDERS FOR OVER A HALF HOUR? NO POLICE MOB? EVEN LONG AFTER EVERYTHING WAS COMPLETELY SECURED? Just photo op bodies laying there. YEP. STAR WARS HAPPENED. It looked so real. I never saw an ambulance in Star Wars either.
In some of the much much later videos and photos they show ambulances, but if it was a truck attack happening over a mile, then even a quarter mile away, where the people were hit, there should have been mobs of ambulances while this was going on. Yet there was not even one. How would bystanders or ambulances even know it was a terror attack? They would not have stayed away, they would have responded like normal. First responders should have been at the beginning of the scene in minutes, not over an hour later, especially since this supposedly happened at a major event, where first responders are staged and ready to go, EVERYWHERE. So they got blankets to cover the bodies, but no paramedics? HOAX!
My original post follows. It is different from what other people said, so I am leaving it as is to provide perspective in addition to discoveries others have made.
Truck driver rampage story has a glaring hole
Here it is: Supposedly this guy went on a 40 MPH rampage for 30 minutes. But he only went 1 mile. Common core failure. COMMON CORE BREACH! 40 mph for 30 minutes equals 20 miles. To cover only one mile, he could have only been going two miles an hour.
So we have a glaring problem with this story already.
If this story actually happened, something else makes a lot more sense: The truck was taken over via remote control, the people remote controlling the truck caused a malfunction in a little less than a minute and a half, and the driver sat inside the disabled truck in shock for 28 minutes and 40 seconds until the police arrived and shot him. Gun thrown in to add spice, he probably did not have one or he would have shot bystanders. "Allahu Akbar" line added for spice (yes, he "shouted that" the moment before the final bullet hit him, even though he'd already been shot at for a while.) How would he know RIGHT WHEN THE RIGHT BULLET WAS COMING SO IT WAS TIME TO SAY THAT?
Lots 'O bullshit here already, if they want REAL NEWS to be believable, they can't spike it with this B.S. if it is real to begin with!
Ok, let's line item this:
1. He went 40 mph.
2. He went one mile.
3. It took him a half hour to do it.
4. He had a gun, and already "demonstrated" with the truck that he wanted to kill people. But he shot no one.
5. He conveniently shouted Allahu Akbar.
Yep, that all makes sense to me. How about a little more sense than that even?
REAL PROBABLE SCENARIO 1:
1. His truck was taken over via remote, as all vehicles sold in the U.S. are required to have after a little known law passed in 2005 mandating that some form of cell network linked control had to be in all new vehicles from 2005 onward. This probably became law in Europe also.
2. They sped it to 40 mph, went through the barricades and started mowing people down with it.
3. After a mile or so and in less than 2 minutes, they caused a malfunction in the truck and it stopped, probably by ripping an air line loose (which would lock up the brakes)
4. Mo sat there in shock, with the doors locked because they locked them via remote, for (according to the requirements of not-so-common-core math,) 28 minutes and 40 seconds (until police arrived). That is how you can explain why he did not get out and run during all that time, and why he shot no one despite "having a gun" which would have allowed him to get out and run.
5. Finally armed police arrived and shot him through the glass, and they made up an excuse that he had a gun.
6. "Allahu Akbar" was added to the story for spice.
Probable scenario 2:
It was a drill and they killed the patsy.
One way or another, real or not, they have spiced this story with enough B.S. to wreck it's credibility entirely. Who knows - maybe the guy did flip out and start mowing people down, but if the story is sewn with obvious patent bullshit, it's a fat chance I am going to believe any of it.
AS USUAL, PATSY DEAD. This time (obviously) because if they did remote control his truck, they could not have him in court saying that. The same tired story we have seen far too much: dead men tell no tales