by Scott Creighton
One way you can tell a mass casualty psyop event is when the MSM deliberately gloss over inconvenient details of the official story like they’re not even there. It’s kind of like when the 9/11 Commission Report made the statement that they didn’t really care who financed the operation because “ultimately it’s of little significance”
Keep moving folks. Nothing too see here.
In the case of the San Bernardino shooting spree, there are a lot of inconvenient details. Glaring inconvenient details which scream to be flushed out by the phony “journalists” making big bucks working for the usual suspects… but they wont be.
1. Who bought the rifles? – First and foremost of these is the fact that the two guns that did the most damage in the attack were not owned by or purchased by either of the two
“Farook purchased the handguns in California, police said. Someone else bought the rifles. Local and federal authorities haven’t elaborated on the purchases.” a “reporter” for the Huffington Post
One would think that if the desired outcome would be to keep assault weapons out of the hands of the “wrong” people, it would be important for the media to figure out just how these weapons got in those dead hands. But of course, one would be wrong.
The article written by the “reporter” for the Huffington Post goes on and on about high capacity magazines and armor piercing .223 rounds used at the scene. All of that is from those assault weapons. Which means the most crucial question to be asked might just be “who bought them the weapons and gave them to them?”
What reporters at the press conference got instead of answers to these important questions was the corporate run-around:
“San Bernardino police didn’t immediately respond to request for comment on whether the attackers possessed the weapons legally in California. ATF declined to provide details about the weapons, referring inquiries to local police.” a “reporter” for the Huffington Post
It seems to me to be a rather important part of the story and for now all we are being told is the
patsies suspects had these weapons and we don’t need to know the details about who owned them or how they ended up killing all these people.
2. Patsies Suspects Hid Their Crates of Bullets, Boxes of Bombs, Tactical Gear (and training?) and Killer Intentions from Family? – Like Adam Lanza and James Holmes before them, Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik seemed like peaceful, normal folks just trying to live their lives before they suddenly turned into psycho killers… for no apparent reason.
“At the Islamic Center of Riverside, where Farook had worshipped until about two years ago, mosque director Mustapha Kuko described him as quiet, private and devoted to Koran study.
“He knows that we believe that to take one life is to take all life. So for him to do the opposite of what we as Muslims believe … I don’t know,” Kuko said.” some “reporters” from the LA Times
Over at the LA Times, a whole pile of “reporters” write about how the Muslim Bonnie and Clyde successfully “hid” all their weapons and bad intentions from family, co-workers and friends and never once do the “reporters” seem to come to the conclusion that maybe they “hid” all these things so well… because they never had them until after the Gladio-styled event.
“That Farook’s own mother had apparently sensed nothing wrong underscored a feeling among investigators and acquaintances Thursday that the couple responsible for the massacre at a holiday party inside the Inland Regional Center scrupulously concealed their views, plans and a cache of weapons and explosives.” some “reporters” from the LA Times
Ah. See that? Since they obviously “hid” all of these things SOOOO successfully, that means they MUST have done it because it proves how “scrupulous” they are.
Talk about convoluted logic.
Not only did they hide their bad intent from family members, apparently they hid them pretty well from the FBI and the whole of Homeland Security as well.
“After a background check by the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security, she was granted a conditional green card last summer.” some “reporters” from the LA Times
The couple seemed very well adjusted to life here in the states and it makes sense seeing as how he was born and raised here.
They did all the typical things like wedding celebrations, baby showers, attended religious meetings every week… they were the picture perfect young married couple just living their lives in sunny California.
“The couple held a walima, a celebration after the wedding, at the Islamic Center of Riverside for people who couldn’t attend the Saudi ceremony. Ali said a few hundred people attended. The couple’s daughter was born in the spring and co-workers at the San Bernardino County Public Health Department, where Farook worked for five years as an inspector, said some of them had thrown him a baby shower.
An online baby registry in Malik’s name listed a large box of Pampers, Johnson’s safety swabs, a car seat and baby wash.” some “reporters” from the LA Times
This guy was so Westernized, his brother served in the Navy in the “Global War on Terrorism”
Farook got a bachelor’s degree in environmental health from Cal State San Bernardino in 2010. His older brother, Syed Raheel, who also attended La Sierra, joined the Navy immediately after high school. He served from 2003 to 2007 and was awarded two medals for service in the “Global War on Terrorism.” some “reporters” from the LA Times
The fact that none of this appears to serve as a red-flag to those “reporters” at the LA Times is quite remarkable. As was the case with both Lanza and Holmes, this is not a profile of mass murderers we are seeing develop and these reporters don’t seem bothered by that obvious fact in the slightest.
True to form, the glaring contradiction, the one thing that makes absolutely no sense to anyone even a war-mongering congress-critter, holds no sway on their near-religious faith in the official stories they are being told:
“The idea of a new mother helping carry out a mass murder perplexed many. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who had a classified FBI briefing on the shooting Thursday, said leaving an infant for a suicide mission was “not something a woman would easily do.”
“So it’s going to be very interesting for me to see what her background was, what level of animus she had, because she had to have a considerable level,” Feinstein said.” some “reporters” from the LA Times
“Perplexing”? Uh… I don’t think “perplexing” quite covers it.
We are expected to believe that this couple, with this background, left some party they attended with people who attended their wedding celebration and threw them a baby shower… went home, kissed their brand new baby one last time, got suited up with their hidden cashe of weapons and tactical gear, WITH MASKS MIND YOU, and returned to destroy them all and then go out in a hail of bullets?
Absolute, unadulterated, industrial strength bullshit.
The reason they choose people like this for events like these is BECAUSE they would be the LAST people you would expect.
Why is that important?
Because when they start rounding up folks, it will always be the peaceful ones, the neighborly ones, the ones you would never suspect of being aligned with “ISIS” or whatever the boogieman is called when it starts.
They aren’t going to round up Bubba down the street with “Go ‘MERIKA!” bumper stickers on his NASCAR special edition Ford F-150. Bubba is what they want him to be. One of those guys who would be sitting around planning the shooting of the president, if they allowed him, back in 1963 because the damn “sooOoooOooocialist” was giving into Castro and had to be killed in order to save “Merika!”
3. What About Those Three Tall Athletic White Guys the Witness Saw Shooting People? (H/T dougross) – CBS News did an interview with a witness, Sally Abdelmageed, via the phone right after the attack. What she described was:
“three men, dressed in all black, military attire with vests on holding assault rifles and one of them opened up the door to building three… and he… opens up the door to building three and … he… starts to spray, shoot all over into the room… I couldn’t see a face, he had a black hat on (mask) and uh, from my view all I could see was a black hat (mask) and long sleeve shirt… black cargo pants with zippers on the sides, big puffy pockets, he had a huge assault rifle and extra ammo… I just saw three dressed exactly the same…. their skin tone looked white. They looked like they were athletic build. They appeared to be tall” Sally Abdelmageed
If you go to the CBS “News” website to view the interview, you may be out of luck. The video doesn’t appear to be working anymore. What a shock.
However, I found it on Youtube. You might want to download a copy of it since it seems destined for the memory hole.
Some might try to claim the “fog of war” effected Sally’s memory of the events. But she seems very specific in her description of the events and her story matches the official version in many ways.
We know a third individual was arrested after “fleeing” the scene. And we also know initial reports told us it was three assailants who attacked the center.
Her description of the “very large rifle” also fits the narrative.
The official story says the assailants wore black tactical gear and masks, what she describes as “hats” that kept her from seeing their faces.
However, aside from the fact that we are told it was two shooters and not three, what also doesn’t fit is this:
That is reportedly the body of Tashfeen Malik after it was dragged from the vehicle post shoot-out.
Notice she is neither male, athletic nor tall. Compare her body to those men standing nearby. Compare the length of her arms.
She is slight of build and short. Compare her body to the tire on the SUV. Compare her foot to the handles on the doors. She almost child-like in stature.
She is in a word… tiny.
How would the “fog of war” transform two people into three?
How would the “fog of war” transform this hobbit into a “tall, athletic man”?
It could not and would not.
Fact is, were Malik to have been one of the shooters, her miniature stature would have stood out. It would have seemed odd and out of place, the kind of thing that your memory would certainly hold onto.
Expect her witness testimony to be dropped down the memory hole. Expect Sally’s credibility to be attacked in public if it isn’t allowed to be forgotten by those of us out here still trying to get to the truth.
4. Logistics? – So we know the assault rifles, very military looking by the way… did not belong to the
patsies suspects… and no one seems to care.
We also know the house they fled to “may or may not” have been where either of them lived and “may” have simply been a staging house for their big attack.
We also know the black SUV with Utah plates was a rental.
The guns? Someone else’s.
The hideout? Someone else’s.
The vehicle? Someone else’s.
You think that might raise some flags of interest in the MSM? Everything associated with this event seems to belong to someone other than the
5. What if?
What if (just saying now)… what if it was three guys shooting up that privatized business in California just like the witness said? They seemed to look military to her and it just so happens that the weapons used were military grade and don’t track back to the
patsies suspects. After all, everyone admits they were wearing masks, right?
What if the shooters were able to escape the scene somehow (miraculously considering there was a drill taking place when this went down and the suspects were still able to leave without being chased by law enforcement) and went back to that house where they got out of the car, stuck a drugged up couple of
patsies suspects in the car and made an anonymous call to authorities telling them where they could be found?
What if one of them, waiting for the cops to show up, drives by the police outside the residence and guns the engine in order to make sure the SUV registered to someone other than the
patsies suspects was followed?
What if after arriving at the predetermined location (where the thousands of police cars are waiting) the driver of the SUV jumps out, raises his hands, and “flees the scene” being arrested by authorities, later to be released due to demands from higher up?
And what if the drugged
patsies suspects stirring around in someone else’s car with someone else’s guns and dressed in someone else’s tactical gear get shot up in a hail of bullets just as soon as that third man is out of the way?
Seems to me that the “what if” scenario I just presented makes a lot more sense than the newly wed first-time parents and well adjusted couple deciding out of the blue to kill their long-time friends and co-workers because they were “radicalized” on the internet by having a few contacts with low-level FBI suspects.
(food for thought: did they contact the FBI low-level suspects (i.e. FBI informants) or did the FBI informants contact them and get told to get stuffed by the couple? Just some food for thought)
If you take the time to look at the inconvenient details of the case, a vastly different picture emerges, doesn’t it?
As a side note, take a look at this:
In Paris, we had reports of 3 tall athletic men dressed in military tactical gear, shooting up the streets and killing scores of people before somehow getting away from the scene in a black vehicle. Rented vehicle mind you.
Officials then killed a couple in a town house not that far away.
Radicalized people linked to “ISIS” was the story.
There had been a drill conducted that day.
In San Bernardino, we have a report of 3 tall athletic men dressed in military tactical gear, shooting up a building and killing scores of people somehow getting away from the scene in a black vehicle. Rented mind you.
Then officials kill a couple in the street not that far away.
The claim is that they were radicalized on the internet.
There was a drill taking place at the time of the event.
Is it just me, or does anyone else see a pattern?
Please help keep us up and running if you can.
Speaking truth ABOUT power since 2007
(For my mailing address, please email me at RSCdesigns@tampabay.rr.com)