Farook Family Attorneys Question Veracity of San Bernardino Shooting Event

Development is troublesome for those pushing implausible storyline

Federal authorities seeking to pass off active shooter training exercises as real events may have pushed the stick too far with the San Bernardino shooting. The family of alleged gunman Syed Rizwan Farook has retained two attorneys who are raising important questions and pointing to evidentiary anomalies that neither the federal agencies conducting the “investigation” nor the corporate media “reporting” the shooting want the public to consider. They also argue that the event has nothing to do with terrorism.

Screen Shot 2015-12-05 at 10.46.22 AM
Farook family attorneys David S. Chesley and Muhammad Abuershaid speak to reporters on December 4, 2015

In fact, at one point the attorneys even invoked the Sandy Hook massacre as an example of how recent mass shootings simply don’t add up. Media outlets have been quick to dismiss such comparisons as illogical and baseless.

For example, Mediaite observes:

Syed Farook‘s family lawyer Friday said “there were a lot of questions” surrounding the San Bernardino shootings, at one point floating Sandy Hook conspiracy theories to suggest the crime did not occur as the FBI claims.

In an interview with CNN’s Chris Cuomo, attorney David Chesley iterated reports that the attack had nothing to do with terrorism, saying, “there have been suggestions that it may be something that was related to their work, that somehow he was a disgruntled employee.”

“I mean obviously these things were found there, how they got there we don’t know.”

“There were a lot of questions drawn with Sandy Hook and whether or not that was a real incident or not,” Chelsey added, insisting “there has been a lot speculation about” the elementary school massacre that killed 20 children and six adults. [sic]


This has resulted in tremendous ire from major media and general public outrage, even though the attorneys’ queries are entirely within the realm of sound questioning.

Screen Shot 2015-12-05 at 11.53.34 AM

Prefacing his interview with Chesley and Abuershaid, CNN’s Cuomo expresses his frustration that the attorneys have put their thinking caps on and have thus not readily accepted the utterly sensationalistic San Bernardino shooting narrative presented by authorities and major news outlets.

“They don’t represent the shooters–obviously they’re dead,” Cuomo begins, “but they don’t represent their interests as well.”

This is a fascinating example of misinformation at play. In his enthusiastic defense of the dominant story frame, CNN’s Cuomo contradicts himself by pointing to the attorneys’ judgement and capacity to represent dead people, as strange as that sounds.

What he’s really saying is that Chesley and Abuershaid are venturing in a direction that could reveal this event for what it is. This is a major reason the interview has been downplayed and the interviewees vilified. “They say that the family’s in shock,” Cuomo continues,

They say that the family didn’t know. We have no reason to disbelieve that from the investigators at this point. But they go farther. They question whether or not this is terrorism. They question whether or not this even happened the way we think it happened.

Attorneys, law enforcement officers, physicians, and university professors  are all especially menacing for those seeking to drive home a dubious storyline because such individuals represent and constitute credentialed authority to which corporate news media often defer. Thus an expert cannot be as readily dismissed as an independent researcher with a blog or YouTube channel.

Where have we seen this dynamic play out in recent years? This author can recall at least one instance.

“While it sounds like an outrageous claim, one is left to inquire whether the Sandy Hook shooting ever took place—at least in the way law enforcement authorities and the nation’s news media have described.” – James Tracy, PhD, December 24, 2012

When such institutional authorities cannot be intimidated or humiliated into silence, they are simply ignored and their ideas suppressed. This strategy is on full display with Amazon.com’s recent censorship of Prof. James Fetzer’s edited volume, Nobody Died at Sandy Hook, the lead chapter of which begins with the above observation.


193 thoughts on “Farook Family Attorneys Question Veracity of San Bernardino Shooting Event”

  1. If I were these lawyers, I’d be getting my affairs in order or take the cash payout and shut up.

    I hope these guy blow this apart but when the Govt. and MSM collude, it’s impossible.

    1. It comes down to whether or not the truth is enough to unearth causation for such events. The Fetzer situation with Amazon is case in point. It appears to me that the accumulation of information is going to start to pay dividends quite soon. States involved with these events are under the scrutiny of sleuths such as Fetzer et al, and the agencies steering the events at higher levels must be starting to feel some heat. That said, there is still great danger to those that come out with information that is injurious to those involved in these spider webs of deception.
      It is clear, however, that time is getting short and I’d say that the perps are on a mach schnell schedule to pass various legislation further throttling freedoms in this country. The battle lines are drawn more clearly than ever before. It’s going to get wild, it’s going to get very dangerous for this nation very soon. Do we become a no-name non-sovereign nation or do we stay the United States of America? That, fellow patriots, is the 64 dollar question.

  2. Initial reports stated that there were approximately 75 employees at the alleged Christmas party at the IRC. We are being told (latest reports 12/5) that 14 people are dead and 21 people injured. That would leave approximately 40 other people present at the party. So far, I have not been able to find verified statements by any of those “survivors” regarding what they believe to have witnessed at the event. Bizarre?

    1. That’s a very good point. Maybe they spent so much on LE that they’re economizing on crisis actors.

      There are many “inconsistencies” with the storyline. For example, how did the make their casual drive away? How did the cops know where to go to be waiting at their home? How did they get there ahead of them?

      Patrick may be right, they’re laughing at us. If you sat down to write a story you would be asking yourself such questions as these. You would want it to be believable even if it were fiction.

    2. There’s this, for what it’s worth:
      Note that the speaker is a former-military govt. employee.
      Note, too, the ridiculous statements about a woman with three gunshot wounds walking around wearing a sling made from a sweater. And the casual reference to the people he was sitting with being dead — this before the release of the list of dead vs. wounded.
      Note, too, his reasoning that “they knew” (before being told by the media) S was the shooter. S left the room. Shooters come in and shoot up the party. (He was in the bathroom). They hear that the shooters drove away to Redlands. S lived in Redlands. Therefore, the shooter must be S. He does not consider that S may be among the dead.

  3. “The idea of the woman being handcuffed is simply irrelevant”

    how many times will we see that line repeated? good lord –

  4. Ric..I agree these lawyers should watch their backs…

    I posted about these lawyers yesterday on The Daily Shooter thread after hearing their comments…Chesley in particular is really sticking his neck out, for example, he talks about the condition of the ‘perps’ bodies when they were found next to the SUV… he says:

    ” Where the couple was found, from what I understand, is that they were handcuffed, lying face down in this truck, all shot up ”

    I hadn’t heard that before…


    1. While it is a common practice for them to handcuff deceased victims, there are three scenes. I’m thinking dummies. That doesn’t mean that they didn’t kill anyone.

      As in the others, unless you see a continuous scene you can’t assume that these things happen in sequential order. They are PRESENTED in sequential order.

      In fact, I find that a more apt description. These are presentations. That is why they must control the information from the scene.

      What they seek is to leave impressions, not facts. The goal is to have the observer come away with vague notions of what allegedly happened.

      It is only in the context of story telling that there should be any annoyance displayed toward those who don’t believe the tale. Why would we be obligated to believe?

      They pass out memos for newsreaders to read on air. That’s how we got the BBC talking head reporting the collapse of WTC 7 before the event. Bad timing.

      They are simultaneously measuring the public response to the breathless reporting on these things. They change the story on the fly and measure the reaction. Remember, we’re all supposed to be merely observers. It’s like criticizing a film and someone says, “why don’t you just sit down and enjoy the movie? You’re wrecking it for everybody”.

      1. I understand and agree with all you say about created scenarios…

        As for the handcuffs being put on the deceased? I never heard of that before… I don’t think they do that here in Britain….. I assumed the lawyer was inferring that the ‘perps’ had been detained, handcuffed, then shot….In any event, I still think the lawyers were more ‘ out there’ than we usually see and it will be interesting to see how this plays out…

        1. I don’t remember seeing corpses being handcuffed before Paul Ciancia of LAX shooting fame. It’s right up there with having bombing suspects strip naked…

        2. Recynd, I don’t know if the practice varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction but I know that at least some of them do that. I thought it was ridiculous the first time I heard of it.

          Officer Friendly must be kept safe, at all costs, mostly ours. That doesn’t mean that I have any trouble at all believing in their ability to murder the handcuffed.

  5. If the San Bernardino shooting is another piece of bad-taste street theater, this may be simply a leak in the censorship. Per the experience on 9/11 and other false flags, it is probably being plumbed. Plumbing may be as simple as having a distinguished jurist “advise” the lawyers to study and learn from the Tsarnaev defense manual.

    But who knows? This could conceivably blow up into a little scandal, and theoretically even unmask Plato’s thick worldwide cave. But as always, Building 7 looks like a better and surer bet.


  6. ““While it sounds like an outrageous claim, one is left to inquire whether the Sandy Hook shooting ever took place—at least in the way law enforcement authorities and the nation’s news media have described.” – James Tracy, PhD, December 24, 2012”

    Just so. And exactly why we gather here each day at MHB, like the survivors of a zombie apocalypse.

    James Tracy is a media analyst, and he invites a virtual graduate seminar to participate in dissecting the reporting that goes on each day. The media don’t know how to cope with that.

    It all began with the Columbia University School of Journalism, about a hundred years ago. That vile experiment spawned programs in colleges across America, where future “reporters” are trained not to investigate, but to spew out the talking points the crafters of the New World Order wish for the public to hear. It took a century, but the reporting business has by now been completely ruined. Thanks, Columbia!

    So here is James Tracy. Pointing it all out. Opening it up for conversation. And we (not he) mock the morons who have sold their souls for a bowl of soup.

    These things may “sound like outrageous claims,” but that’s only because the game is rigged; no one who hears the words the Journalism School graduates utter can have any idea how stupid most of their so-called “reporting” is, to an intelligent mind. They have deliberately dumbed us down to the point that asking simple questions about the reporting is supposed to sound “outrageous”–and the “reporters” themselves, self-hypnotized, feel the same way. Doublethink.

    It’s already too late to pull us out of this tailspin.

  7. Were these two actually killed? Do the family have the bodies? Were there death certificates for anyone? These lawyers don’t say anything about this.

      1. The Daily Mail has a close up of the body here:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3346500/Pictured-handcuffed-body-San-Bernardino-terrorist-Pakistani-wife-pledged-allegiance-ISIS-Facebook-slaughter-14.html
        Also interesting is a video of the scene further down on the same link. We see on the street a pair of black shoes with white soles just like the dead guy is wearing. Did they take his shoes off, or are we to believe his wife wore the same ones but they fell off?

        1. Hmmm! “Ole Shoe”, just like in the film. Also like the clog in Jade Helm. Is this a Spielberg production? Naw, probably not.

        2. This Daily Mail article is so cringeworthy I can’t finish reading it. Honestly.

          The ammo shown in the photo doesn’t match the weapons shown. One of the weapons is cocked. He was US-born and raised in Southern CA, but went to pharmacy school in Pakistan to be a restaurant health inspector? He couldn’t go to CSULB? His family lived in Saudi Arabia for awhile? Was that while he was in college?

          The murdurous pair are affiliated with FOUR terrorist groups? She posted her loyalty to ISIS DURING THE SHOOTING?? Make it stop.

        3. Ah,the youth are so fickle these days. Can’t even pick a radical organization and stay with it (sigh!). Now if the family had spent time in Texas or Florida I’d really be worried.

      2. Just like Adam Lanza was found hand cuffed and shot in back of the head and I have yet to see any documentation as to who handcuffed him.

    1. Since they are Muslim, their religion has them buried (I believe) within 24 hours. My own personal opinion is that those two were set up. I have a short 9-minute promotional film put together by a production company called Stu Seagal where you will see more gore and realistic battle medic training that is astounding. Of course, they use prior amputees (veterans) as this is done for military training. They also show how they can easily make automatic weapons, etc. that look absolutely real (and many other props, set-ups to look like an Afghani market for instance within hours). Wait until you see what they can do with what is called a “wet-suit”. I’ve never seen realism like this.

      I would put the hyperlink but I’m not sure if I’m allowed to. Perhaps you can google on YouTube Stu Segall hyper-realistic military training or Stu Segal Production Company. I hope this helps.

      I think they were set up because he worked there and they have had four Active Shooter Drills in this one FACILITY four months in a row. It had become so commonplace that workers would film the jack-booted thugs running toward the building. They also simulate gunfire over loudspeakers and through intercoms. It had gotten so bad for some of these developmentally disabled people, that they were having to seek help from psychologists for anxiety.

      I believe they had the MAN (perhaps his wife too) who worked there be the “active shooter” (using hyper-realistic weapons) and he thought he was just doing his part in a drill. Of course they leave in a Black Government car with GPS and probably were driving back where they were supposed to. How did they find them so fast? It’s called GPS.
      They were slaughtered in cold blood as sacrificial lambs for the hysteria that is now upon us.

      The FBI set up their entire apartment, etc. Have you EVER heard of letting the MEDIA into a “crime scene”; i.e. their apartment??? Hype for the Scripted and Controlled MSM for the sheeple. Trump is having a field day.
      I’m still ticked off that he’s mouthing off about seeing “thousands of Muslims cheering in NJ” and it was SIX MOSSAD AGENTS that were caught doing that. I’m sure everyone here knows “the story” or should. No matter how many times I wrote on MSM feeds that came through my FB feeds to Google, “Six Dancing Israelis”, I doubt that helped.
      They were foaming at the mouth with hundreds and some over a thousand LIKES to practically kill all Muslims. It is insane!

      1. Zevonmanic….I also thought the couple were set up…there was early reports of a third shooter, who seems to have disappeared from the narrative….I think he was the hired gun by the three letter agencies and Farook and wife were the patsies… your scenario sounds plausible to me

        1. Possum… yeah, one guy stabs another guy at a subway station and its immediately on ” Breaking News” on the Sky News 24 hour rolling news channel as a ” terrorist” incident….. apparently because the assailant yelled ” this is for Syria”… he was tasered by police and arrested… this is just surreal, just fear porn… by tomorrow they will be saying he was just drunk or mentally unstable or something….

          oh, and now Obama is saying its ” insane” that people on the no fly list can still purchase guns, lets close that ” loophole”… he doesn’t say, then we will close more loopholes but that’s what he implies..its definitely going down the path of a gun control psy op more than a beware of terrorists psy op…

        2. Thanks Steven, now a days you have to do double check on all news coming out and I thought you might have heard something. Appreciate it!!

        3. Possum… your welcome… I often give the ” view from the UK media” perspective on MHB when I can, its always good to be informed from other angles beyond the domestic US one..

        4. Musings…I disagree with you this time…this event is more complex, more angles,more agendas than SH. I’m sticking with 14 victims did die… and there was an actual hired gun who melted away….Farook and wife were ideal patsies or provoked co instigators…

          Interesting take, BTW, in today’s Brit press… they say the wife was radicalised in Pakistan , met Farook online, maybe ” honeytrapped” him into taking her to America where she radicalised him. It says, he hesitated at the door and SHE fired at the victims first…. as you will probably say… probably more baloney!

        5. It’s far more interesting to focus on the villains – I realize that. But belief is not enough. There has to be some convincing proof that a crime took place, that there really were those victims. All of it is lacking, and the circumstantial evidence of people standing at window at work, noticing the SWAT teams arriving while making no attempt to leave, speaks volumes to me that they never heard gunshots before the police arrived.
          Otherwise, at least one or two of them would have fled – perhaps more than a few. I know I’d head straight to my car and call 9-1-1 from there on my way out. It is the behavior of the bystanders which is telling. Even after the police arrived, and people were led to believe the threat had not necessarily passed, there was a lot of milling around. So both inside the building and outside it, there appeared no air of emergency. Yet with 14 people dead inside, there would be weeping and wailing (California I assure you is not Britain).

        6. Musings… I agree we need clear evidence of the crime having taken place….. maybe I’m too easily swayed by the fact that I’ve seen the names, photos and even brief bios of the 14 alleged deceased…. are you saying that you ( or someone) has researched those named individuals and discovered they are invented, because, if so, I haven’t seen that anywhere as yet?

          What about the video interview I posted ( scroll up) with Sally Abdelmageed, did you listen to it? I think my Link no longer works, but Toni posted another Link to Yahoo Screen and that still works…

          Sally is persuasive because she is or claims to be an eyewitness and yet she does not keep to the official story… she insists she saw 3 gunmen, all big, bulky ,white males…and she saw them firing big assault rifles and she saw victims fall to the ground. She locked herself in an office and called 911… I’m not saying she is conclusive, of course not, just pointing out one little piece that answers your requirement for clear evidence that the shooting deaths occurred… and if she is telling the truth then its evidence pointing to the Farooks being duped, thinking they were part of a drill, or patsies or at most co instigators, or that they weren’t even there at the facility at all..which I now think is the most likely scenario, though I reserve the right to change my mind again as this messy event evolves!

        7. Musings,
          You are correct. The Video Toni posted with the woman describing whats happening. She see’s 3 big white guys dressed exactly like the cops she sees out the window coming toward the building which blows this whole BS story

          She heard no shots and watched them pull this off.
          Also . she said they went into the conference room, Not the Christmas Party area….Done.

          But no MSM can put this together…..right

        8. Maybe what Sally saw was simply a contingent of people involved with the drill – remember these armed men – and there were a lot of them – came very soon, and the reactions of people were to them, not to shots in the building.

          I don’t bother with lists of victims only because I already did that with the scant number of plane passengers on 9/11 – and came up with significant anomalies (the first being four almost empty flights – a very unusual occurrence midweek and something extremely rare in my experience – but four – come on).

          The burden is not on us to verify each of those legends about each of the victims – I also would say that injecting fakery into the record has become far more possible since 9/11, based on the powers assumed by the federal government since that time, and on the very flexible electronic directories that we use.

          I do remember keeping an old-fashioned paper phone book which I had in 2001, and, coming from a suburb near Boston where a lot of the passengers were supposed to have originated — and the neighboring ones — not finding these people in a directory (using an older technology than now) told me quite a lot about their probable non-existence.

          Now it is child’s play to invent people out of whole cloth – or to say someone’s brother has the same name (the brother thing could also have been done on 9/11). The control even over social security records can have been centralized – remember how they did not like it that one department could be a law unto itself?

          I knew one of the pilots on 9/11 – he went to high school with me. He was real, but there was somebody (online) who said he died during the Colombian drug war (under George H.W. Bush) flying missions in a jungle. Given what I remember about his character, I can well believe that his heroism may have been covert – and his later death conveniently staged. His published picture looked years out of date – much too young for the pilot who went down on 9/11 in the Pentagon, a year or two older than me. A tragic end, whichever way he died. He was a cool guy.

          So that’s it – just keep to the facts, and the anomalies that stick out. How interesting ISIS should bite the hand that fed it – twice in about a month.

        9. Also, latest news that I heard about their capture and murder came from their lawyer who says they were found “handcuffed in the BACK SEAT of the car and shot multiple times”. With this scenario, who was driving them to their set-up (police shoot-out) and death. Brave jack-booted thugs take out ISIS militant scum.
          The lawyer also said, “that the wife (sorry, I can’t remember her name) weighed only 90 lbs., couldn’t even carry such an amount of rifles and ammunition and neither (especially the woman) had NEVER had any military training. The relatives are standing firm that they were NOT “radicalized”

  8. I stopped watching this on mainstream 24 hours ago but I hadn’t seen one deceased person being removed from any location and transported for autopsy, etc. Nor have we -as yet- seen even a photo of the person referred to as the wife of the ‘perhaps disgruntled’ employee. The early claim was that this woman had a Pakistani passport, which means they must at the very least, have had access to her passport photo. So why aren’t we seeing that yet? And how does a Pakistani national come to this country by way of Saudi Arabia?

    There is no way that this many oddities, mistakes, call them what you will, cannot be ironed out, or thought of, prior to a large scale operation like this one. So it’s obvious to me that the ‘authorities’ want people to know that there is something rotten in Denmark. Why that is, I can only surmise, is in order to keep everyone constantly guessing at the details and to keep those who are awake to this sort of psy op at odds with the rest of the population who are either ‘going along to get along’ or too brain bombed to pay attention or care.

      1. I think so, Patrick. There are multiple levels at work in these. There is, of course, the superficial story that everyone talks about. Below that is a subliminal level that operates on the psyche.

        When people know that they are being lied to by those entrusted to represent them they feel helpless and despondent.

        For those who are already thoroughly zombified, it is unnoticeable. For those who see it is frustrating. They don’t give a fig about what we think. The more frustrated we become, the better they like it.

        I think the one thing they may worry about is that we will ridicule them to the point where it catches on. If everyone simply laughed at them their schemes would become useless in a hurry.

        Of course in many ways these things are not funny. Nonetheless, given the choice, it is better to laugh at them than it is to despair. Nothing shrinks an ego as quickly as ridicule.

  9. Conspiracy truthers are ROUTINELY stigmatized and marginalized in the media, ever since Mark Lane could not publish his book on the John Kennedy assassination RUSH TO JUDGEMENT in the USA. This occurs because the corporate media, or Free Press, is owned and controlled by the members of the oligarchy, and financed through advertising by other corporations and businesses.

    The oligarchy also controls through financing the two party political system, and initially through the Dulles brothers, the CIA, and other secret police organs. Therefore their story is the authorized truth, often an Orwellian truth, where the Proclaimed or Pretend thesis is precisely contrary to the reality-based truth. But always what the intelligence agencies call a ‘ limited or partial hangout,’ where the revealed truth protects the vital damage to power that the holistic truth would reveal.

    But some of the media Truth is true. I suggest that there were real people killed in this scenario, unlike Sandy Hook.

    1. Suggest all you want. It quacks like a duck, then no amount of sincere concern for all the bodies piling up will convince me since I have seen no evidence of any deaths. What I am concerned about is the wear and tear on those poor crisis dummies.

      How can this suddenly be real when fake works so very well with most people? It’s a traveling medicine show that sells, so why change the product?

  10. Am I the only one who thinks the lawyers might be part of the narrative? Because to have the one on the left state that the family accepts it, and the other then insist that somehow there was no way to ‘know’ seems to fit right into the usual equivocations, except on this specific front it’s about logistics and ‘training.’ There are also lots of articles suggesting ‘mental illness’ motivated especially the woman, along with some unspecified ‘workplace anger.’

    Paul Ryan is busy lying his air-filled head off to the american people and reassuring them that ‘due process will be preserved’


    All we need to do, he insists, is let the authorities take care of ‘the mentally ill;’ no gun rights should be eroded. My question is, why are none of the researchers who work so hard to expose the truth about these shootings paying attention to the narrative they’re designed to promote? Isn’t the ultimate goal obvious and shouldn’t you (Fetzer, Tracy, Smallstorm, etc. etc.) be doing something to prevent that goal from being accomplished? Other than forensic exposes, that is. Why not exhort people to weigh in on the legislation these incidents are designed to get passed? Why not write a letter to Congress asking about issues like the difference between a ‘welfare check’ and a psych screening in California, and about how the process whereby a citizen is ‘diagnosed’ with a ‘mental illness’ can remain answerable to the Constitution and science?

    1. Here is more theater performed to assure us that they, represented by the FBI in the clip, are retaining some discernment between political views/militance and ‘mental illness:’ http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/scott-whitlock/2015/12/04/cnn-stunner-erin-burnett-asks-if-postpartum-psychosis-led

      The FBI guy maintains that post partum is ‘internal.’ Methinks they are also adroitly tiptoeing around the issue of women’s ‘mental illness’ because women are far more astute about how ‘care’ and ‘love’ can be so tyrannical when it’s indirectly – femininely – imposed. We are also the primary political victims of the psych system historically.

      Mostly it’s just more equivocating. And americans are assuaged by it. It’s so pathetic. To believe the FBI would ‘okay’ a media garage sale in a two day old major crime scene is pathetic.

    2. If the lawyers are getting air time on CNN, rather than being forced to sit in an outer office to get the time of day, then they are not “representing the family”.

      In a perfect world (as I see it) you could spoof the hoax with fake lawyers which get the points across you want the public to hear. You can have them say things like “Where are you holding our clients’ son and daughter-in-law” and file writs of habeas corpus. ‘Course they’d probably be prosecuted for impersonation of attorneys and using the courts for a sham. But they’d have gotten publicity for an alternate view. For instance, they could spotlight the fake corpses on the road and demand the whereabouts of their clients.

      1. Absolutely true (about the lawyers). I don’t know if they actually “terminated” anyone. I don’t think they care and sometimes that might be easier for them.

        There does appear to be three duplicate shoot out scenes. So, they had to off six swarthy people or use dummies. I’ll opt for the dummies.

        Of course they could have executed the other two anywhere and inserted them. Remember the witness in the BMB movie? Abandon hope if you’re called for an FBI interview.

        And, of course, EVERYTHING may be absolutely false. Just like the amazing similarity of Tayeep (sounds like Tayip as in Erdogan) name of the third perp, now declared to be irrelevant.

        So, as I understand the current saga, an obscure bureau of local government rents a conference room in a building that has weekly terrorist drills. Being a Christmas party our erstwhile muslims show up, get in a confrontation, drive back to their apartment, collect guns and explosives and jiggy on back to the party.

        At this point they proceed to shoot random victims and casually stroll out of the scene to head home. Of course, this being the world’s center for terror drills there are 1,000 of SoCal’s elite defenders within minutes of the site.

        They are spotted by agents at their home driving an ATF-like black SUV. A slow-speed chase ensues, culminating in summary execution via gunfire. Later the press are invited to see how homicidal muslims live.

        This may actually eclipse the Go-Pro shooter with the non-ejecting semi-automatic.

      2. Pretty sure the lawyer(s) are legit – at least one of them:
        “Clients of David Chesley have often been abused, beaten, discriminated against by corrupt police and law enforcement officials. The firm protects its clients from being attacked by Prosecutors and Judges who are very often mistaken about facts, incidents, and circumstances surrounding their cases. Aside from presenting winning arguments and filing successful motions on a daily basis, Attorney David Chesley is a mentor to other lawyers and frequently is involved in charity work in his local community of Los Angeles providing food and clothing to the homeless.”

        Abuershaid was also saying that the facts aren’t in – before CNN decided to fade back to their idiot squawkers. I thought he was saying that the family was accepting the situation, not necessarily that they were accepting the “facts” as presented by the media?

        RedsilverJ (youtube) thinks Chesley is a setup – he made a video explaining his opinion that the Sandy Hook references are being used to create the impression that anyone who denies this event is just as crazy as those nuts who deny SH (or something along those lines) – it’s one of the few times I don’t fully agree with RSJ. After seeing headlines about the lawyers “disastrous performance” etc., I think they’re the real deal – particularly Chesley, who seems like he knows more than he was saying on air (big difference stating his case in the media vs. a courtroom?)

        I could certainly be wrong – wouldn’t be the first time, won’t be the last 😉

        1. I tend to agree. Chesley operates a large and apparently successful firm, employing many associates.


          Would he jeopardize that substantial franchise by making such an insincere assertion, understanding its consequences? Or would he simply bow out and direct the Farook family to other counsel? QSJ is often on the mark, but we all need to take heart that not everyone on the take. That’s not always easy when many “journalistic” outlets are indiscrete if not fraudulent.

          Another take I’ve seen voiced online is that the Farook family does not require representation since it’s obvious that Farook and his wife committed the alleged shooting. Note that the assumptions underlying such an assertion is exactly those the federal government and corporate media seek to cultivate in the broader public.

          In the wake of Sandy Hook there were YouTube commentators suggesting that I was also “part of the act”–playing a part that ultimately discredited SH skeptics in the public eye. Along these lines I received a lot of flack–even from so-called “alternative” outlets that interviewed me and attempted to undermine my fundamental assertions that Sandy Hook needed to be more closely interrogated–but I’m still here.

          In my view creating discord and confusion among critics is part of a strategy to overall ensconce the preferred narrative, however untenable it may be. Note, for example. the variety of now standard conflicting information that follows such incidents, thereby extending the “Overton Window” a bit further.

        2. Yes James, the lawyers are probably legit although it is a mystery how they became involved. If they are representing the family I’m surprised they haven’t pitched a fit about the home invasion.

          I kept saying in SHES that it would be the “alleged” shooter, etc.., as no one had actually adjudged guilt early on.

          The conflicting information is a standard feature. In simple terms, the Government decides what you are to believe, the media relates that to the public and declares you insane if you disagree.

          In response the only “acceptable” behavior is to gawk and nod our heads. Again, we are not supposed to be participants, only observers.

        3. Lophatt and Regina,
          Your both right. This is a multi-cluster. I laughed at first but this one covers everything from the border to are American’s willing to round up the Japanese again in 1944 or so whenever that happened.

          This is the Red Pill for the sleeping masses and if they buy this, pack your bags, the sky is the limit for these devils.

        4. Hopefully they were retained to sue the pants off the media morons who marched through their house flashing IDs, photos and personal effects of people who were never suspects and had nothing to do with this.

        5. I wonder if their involvement (the attys.) had anything to do with MSNBC’s oddball apology in the Hollywood Reporter? Maybe step 1 in a big-bucks defamation suit brought by the uninvolved parties who had their ID blasted across network news?

        6. It also seems that with this event there’s a dangling carrot of sorts…the plot feeds right into the refugee/terrorist/caliphate threat that so many have latched on to as a pressing national threat. If these “truthers” (for lack of a better term) call it a fake plot, they run the risk of losing credibility in terms of their previous cries to close the border, etc. It’s almost to their benefit to buy in to the official story…a very clever manipulation I haven’t noticed in previous events.

          I’m aware of one major alt-media personality who has been forced to extremes in terms of dissecting and defining his language to avoid alienating his audience – if he calls this event a false flag he’s accused of ignoring the “fact” of embedded terrorists, if he calls SB a terrorist event he becomes a media shill. It’s a no-win…and it’s Very effective in terms of deepening the divide between his listeners.

          Interesting note about people suggesting you were part of the SH show – thanks for sharing that. I had no idea…I thought it was a simple split between those of us who supported your position and those who wrote you off as a heartless bum (hehe).

        7. Regina…for what its worth, I thought Chesley was for real and I’m a retired lawyer myself…I also agree he was being careful and seemed to be holding a lot back….in terms of the ” big picture” on SB, I think this lawyer intervention could prove to be a twist that the choreographers of this false flag may not have anticipated and therefore may produce some interesting outcomes….

        8. thanks for weighing in on that – I’m sure your background has included more than your share of liars (although any parent with more than 1 kid becomes pretty skilled in ferreting out a lie 🙂

        9. Regina… oh yeah, my bulls**t meter is pretty well honed, side effect of the job…

          On where the wife was radicalised…here in England I read The Sunday Times, ” Britain’s best Sunday paper”…. they have quotes from Tafleen’s family and associates in Pakistan… she returned from Saudi, began attending a ‘radical’ mosque, sympathised with Al Awlaki ( remember him, the American muslim preacher who got droned in Yemen), she started praying 5 times a day, blah, blah…

          then the Times theorises that she saw Farook’s dating profile… solid American citizen, good job, enjoyed working on cars and doing target practice.. so she entices him to her.. gains access to the US and draws him into her ” terror” scheme……on the day, he hesitates, she shoots first… its probably all baloney but its also neat because it explains away why Farook just didn’t have any suspicious profile or background

          The front page of the Sunday Times has an ” exclusive” pic of the couple on their wedding day, smiling happily for the wedding photographer… you can probably guess the Times’ caption to the pic…but here it is anyway:

          ” The Smiling Faces Of Terror”

        10. I think what may be lost in all of this is the venality of a lot of law practice. I had a law professor who had a guy who highjacked trucks, pretty much kept on retainer. Then there was the woman who defended Djokar Tsarnaev and several other questionable defendants. The fact that Chesley is presenting himself as the champion of people abused by the police says two things to me: he wants to present himself as the defender of the under-dog in a world of plea bargaining and he is not going to make any money doing it. This makes a government retainer under terms of confidentiality very appetizing to such a person.

          Whether he is a member of the California Bar or not is really not dispositive of the issue of whether he is participating in a hoax or not. There is probably some immunity arising out the Patriot Act or God-knows-what to protect him as he conducts his moot court celebrity appearances. He is too cute by half.

        11. Yes, absolutely. “I think what may be lost in all of this is the venality of a lot of law practice.”

          No doubt you have stories, I have a few myself. It’s also not unheard of for someone to be compromised.

          There may also be “business opportunities” available for the cooperative. As you said, the defense attorney for Djokar is a case in point.

    3. 2nd try posting –
      Chesley is sort of a rockstar defense attorney:

      “Clients of David Chesley have often been abused, beaten, discriminated against by corrupt police and law enforcement officials. The firm protects its clients from being attacked by Prosecutors and Judges who are very often mistaken about facts, incidents, and circumstances surrounding their cases.”


    4. Sue, I understand your frustration about converting forensics to a discourse about consequences. I think one of the effects of throwing these productions at us one right after another is to prevent the time needed for the kind of reflection that would yield a more persuasive rhetoric.

      A lot of everyone’s time and energy is necessarily used just ascertaining the falsity of the event, and then of course in gathering the elements of the narrative and analyzing them. Before it can be assimilated, the next event is launched.

      One event gets sandbagged by the next, which is itself smothered by the next one, which is buried by the next and the next and on and on, until it’s all collapsed under the weight of the various theatricals. It makes the excavation difficult.

      The emotional toll this takes is not often explored. Though we are skeptical of the carnage, we still suffer trauma from these repeated assaults by an implacable government.

      This dynamic is probably especially true for the truth tellers you mention. I think it may be impractical to demand they do more than they do. Look at Fetzer; he’s doing like an interview a day about NDASH. Do you really think it’s reasonable to ask him to sit down after and write some beautiful prose, too?

      But I agree with you that the emotional rhetoric should be turned up and consequences addressed, though maybe it should fall to writers other than our truth-telling heroes to make this effort.

      Perhaps it should be left to the rest of us to take up the slack and try to make that stretch.

  11. Now I’ve seen it All:

    U.S. can’t access NSA phone records in California terror case

    WASHINGTON >> The U.S. government’s ability to review and analyze five years’ worth of telephone records for the married couple blamed in the deadly shootings in California lapsed just four days earlier when the National Security Agency’s controversial mass surveillance program was formally shut down.

    Under a court order, those historical calling records at the NSA are now off-limits to agents running the FBI terrorism investigation even with a warrant.

    We need Section 215 ……unreal…………..


      1. Suppose one of the goals of the SB incident is to show the American people that the NSA isn’t really spying on us? After all, if they were, they’d have stopped this event, right? So speak freely, all! (At your peril, of course.).

        1. It’s like a piñata – each of these incidents has something in it for every taste.

          Don’t just stand there scratching your head – all the other kids will scoop up the goodies. Focus on the goody you want from it, hold it up, and let everyone know that the real meaning of the event is a Mars bar or a shiny penny. Gosh, it is the most fantastic thing for getting us to talk about anything but reality. The American media is so babyish – even the BBC has to find some gravitas in the world. Maybe they are interfering more effectively around the world than we are, but I must say I learn something from them every day, and the American stuff is without any substance. It’s such a waste.

        2. Regina,
          You got it…
          Windows 10 is NSA 2.1 Wide Open to any Govt. Perp. as Apple has always been as the kids flock to it.

          Simply Amazing.

        3. We are riding on a railroad, singing some else’s song.
          We are standing by that crossroad, Pick a side and step along.
          We are sailing away on a river to the sea. Maybe you and me can meet again.
          We are riding on a railroad, singing someone else’s song, sing along.

          There’s a man up here who claims to have his hands upon the reins,
          there are chains upon his hands and he’s riding upon a train.

          James Taylor

        4. Ric,

          Love your whimsical observations and your ‘groovy’ musical selections. They add much-needed levity for these times. Keep on keepin’ on! 🙂

        5. Ric, that’s one of my personal favorites. Hard to hear with a dry eye.

          Somewhat in the same vein, there’s this:

    1. MOTIVE is clear-Patriot Act Sect. 215 renewal needed, terrorism funded needed at all levels of government, nexus to Arabia and the need for more bombing of Syrian infrastructure…

      I still think that most of these cases have real casualties. I think it’s easier to cover up a useful idiot like Lee Harvey Oswald or Jared Lee Loughner than to do a SHES that can and was falsified (test case to see which was a better plan of action). Problem-Reaction-Solution-all of these useful idiots marginalized, workplace mobbed, gang stalked COINTELPRO MKULTRA until they push them over the edge AND GET THE BLOODY RAMPAGE THEY NEED TO JUSTIFY THE POLICE STATE’S EXISTENCE!

      1. Personally, I don’t think it’s an either-or. Simply because its more complex doesn’t rule out the plan, with 9/11/01 being the perfect example(46 separate drills that went “live”). These plans are highly compartmentalized, and ” loose ends” are tied up, swept up because of the control over media/press(Operation Mockingbird). In fact, the common thread tying these events together is that NO INVESTIGATIONS are done, only coverups.

        1. I fully agree. I read some brief background on Webster Tarpley, and my gut instinct is that he is spot on with 9/11 as well as the Syrian conflict and Assange, Ellsberg and others being gullible pawns in CIA limited hangouts of information.

  12. The FBI is taking a different response to a person who may have purchased a weapon later used by Farook. Neither this person’s name nor address was released, and no press gang was allowed to run roughshod through his house even though he is not considered a suspect in the shooting even as an accomplice:


    I read this as confirmation that Farook and his wife were under federal watch, and everything was known and they let it happen. There were strict controls in place and a military “acceptable death count” protocol. I think they greased the rails. They usually use people that they have leverage on (e.g. tax problems) or are natural allies (e.g., Patrick Baccari a former Air Force Reserve medic who survived the shooting and happened to have been a military medic. Mr. Baccari gave an interview to NPR).

  13. Fascinating development! I have Memory Hole Blog as a featured link on my humble little film review site. MHB is at the forefront of stemming the tide of bogus news engulfing the planet. FYI…I also have an excellent article by Daniele Ganser on Operation Gladio as part of my links (menu category “links”). I think it is important to understand what Felice Casson and the others in Italian Parliament found out when they dug deeper. The Wikipedia story on Operation Gladio is the verbal equivalent of a police line (no doubt pruned of significant facts by those with vested interests). Ganser’s article (which appeared in the Journal of 9/11 Studies) shows that there is a documented history of intelligence agencies and governments (including the CIA and US) killing their own citizens in staged terror events to achieve a policy goal. Whoever the CIA has hired to expurgate certain Wikipedia pages (Operation Gladio, Years of Lead, etc.) needs to invest in a thesaurus as their limited diction is suspect. When one encounters (as part of an ad hominem directed at Ganser) the words “scathing criticism” too often it only convinces me that the “cleaner” is both lazy and that their heart isn’t in it. Alternately, said lackey may just simply be insufficiently bright for the deception at hand.


  14. uh-oh Obama to address nation on Sunday at 6pm EST

    “He will provide an update on the ongoing investigation into the tragic attack in San Bernardino. He will also discuss the broader threat of terrorism — including the nature of the threat, how it has evolved, and how we will defeat it.

    He will reiterate his firm conviction that ISIL will be destroyed and that the United States must draw upon our values — our unwavering commitment to justice, equality, and freedom — to prevail over terrorist groups that use violence to advance a destructive ideology.”

    1. He will give the same speech he did at the UN.

      “The Future doesn’t belong to those who criticize the Prophet Moomhaadit….

      Same old sh&t

      1. I hope – while we’ve all been ogling at (probably planted) clues, what’s been happening on the ‘Russia calls out NATO for supporting ISIS front?’

        It was interesting how they opened All military jobs to women this week, and among the first Qs was whether women would be required to register for a draft. On the verge of war, that’s not the kind of news this mom takes kindly to…the last Sunday night address I recall was the “I Got Osama” event, complete with flag-waving college kids lining the streets. Let’s hope this isn’t another opportunity to argue about whether the president has the authority to take us to war without Congress’ approval.

        1. Hey, maybe this is nothing, but the first thing that popped into my mind when I read your comment was the Hunger Games. Girls and boys were both entered into the games, gender didn’t matter. Kids ate those books up, and were in fact required reading in some classrooms. Predictive programming?

        2. I’m the mom of an 18 year old son. I don’t know what I’ll advise in the event of a draft, but it won’t be, “Go fight for freedom and the UN, son.” More like, “How can we make those pre-existing medical conditions work in your favor?”

          Heaven help us.

  15. http://www.cbsnews.com/common/video/cbsnews_video.swf

    View More: San Bernardino mass shooting News|U.S. News|Live News|More News Videos

    .cbs-link {color:#4B5054;text-decoration:none; font: normal 12px Arial;}.cbs-link:hover {color:#A7COFF;text-decoration:none; font: normal 12px Arial;}.cbs-pipe {color:#303435;padding: 0 2px;}.cbs-resources {height:24px; background-color:#000; padding: 0 0 0 8px; width: 612px;}.cbs-more {font: normal 12px Arial; color: #4B5054; padding-right:2px;}

  16. There is a video on CBS News of a phone interview with a female EYEWITNESS who was working in the facility and saw the perps begin shooting… she states clearly that there were THREE shooters, male and white, big guys with big weapons! The news anchor guy sums up by saying ” of course we now know one shooter was female”,directly contradicting what the eyewitness just told him!
    I don’t know how to embed this.. someone else please?


      1. Toni… hi, yes, its that video, a phone interview with Eyewitness Sally Abdelmageed….and the Yahoo Screen link is working….. I think this is very important as she sounds so genuine and so sure of what she saw…THREE shooters, not 2 and all white males in combat gear…

      1. If you could some how download that video to your hard drive it’s a keeper.

        I can’t download it myself.

        Eye Witness, 3 big white guys dressed exactly like the “cops” are right now…….

  17. While the world is in shock (?) over San Bernardino, the main occupant of DC dusting off his teleprompter today and Newtown once again packing their bags for more gun control propaganda in DC, perhaps a glimpse of the real America is in this photo?

    Yesterday more than a thousand people in my neighborhood lined up at the local Oaktree Gun Club for a book signing by Sarah Palin. One would assume that all these people are in favor of the Second Amendment.


  18. I’m not very good with these people searches but parts of this one are interesting. It is so easy to invent identities and life stories that without careful and thorough research it impossible to know the truth.


    We all know that they are painting a picture. As I’ve said many times, we have no obligation to believe. The burden of proof is on them.

    Their proposed responses to these are as ridiculous as their plot lines. Perhaps they think that by focusing on “truthers” and their skepticism no attention will be paid to their plans.

    1. Yes Jerry
      But you forgot the Paris Climate UN Summit to Tax and control everyone on this earth and to form a Global Govt.body so wealthy and powerful no one could stand against them.

      Others have said the say here also. When this distraction is going on..watch the magicians other hand always.

  19. This is from Paramount Tactical Solutions in facebook

    President Obama’s National Address Was A Calculated Assault On Our Constitution!

    Obama: “It’s insane that a person on the ‘No Fly List’ can buy a gun”

    It’s insane that a sitting president would advocate taking away a constitutional right without due process.

    There are a few problems with the No Fly List. First of all, hundreds of Americans have ended up on the list by accident. This was likely due to a mix up of common names and many people have ended up on the list without cause. Meaning they were intentionally put there but they were never told why or given a reason. This list is arbitrarily decided on in complete secrecy without any due process. Once you’re listed, the only way to get off of it appears to spend tens of thousands of dollars and take the federal government to court, and that could take years.. if you win.

    The other problem with this proposal is considering the malevolent, calculated intent of the activist lawyer that is our president. He knows that our justice system is based on common law and “precedence”, meaning if it is established that they can remove or restrict a constitutional right on mere suspicion, then the Constitution could be potentially rendered void in its entirety.
    If they can arbitrarily take your 2nd Amendment right because of suspicion alone, then they can do the same with any right. This administration believes your rights are merely privileges granted by a government.

    I know it’s tempting to think “well, if they’re on the no fly list, it only makes sense that they shouldn’t be able to buy a gun”, is a “common sense” solution, but the problem with this “common sense approach”… is that it is completely unconstitutional! It’s like saying “Since you’re a suspect in a crime and even though there’s no evidence or charges against you.. it’s just a good idea to keep you locked up until we have enough evidence to charge you….Screw habeas corpus!”

    What the president, a constitutional lawyer, just proposed tonight was the greatest and likely the most effective attack on the Constitution that we have ever faced. There are MILLIONS of ignorant Americans stupid enough to nod their heads in agreement tonight. All it took was a sitting president to use a little fear mongering and sprinkle in “common sense” to con millions of Americans to completely abandon their rights and our constitution.

    We’re not just fighting for the inalienable right to bear arms, we’re fighting for every right. If one right can be thrown out, then all rights can. Our country needs to wake up! We are Americans, we do not trade liberty for security!

    Molon Labe!

    “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
    -Benjamin Franklin
    Stay Armed, Stay Informed!
    -Survival Is Paramount-

    1. Thanks for a great summation of the problem inherent in these precedents, set by our government. Based on mere authority, the no-fly list has already proven to be in several instances to target people without any dangerous intent towards the other passengers. It has made public enemies of the innocent and of members of the political opposition. To base your call for limiting gun ownership on such a flimsy government created list shows bad faith. Obama is not unaware of this, nor is the general public. The thing he is doing, is offering a justification for going around due process. He is arguing from emergency. This is an age old tool of tyrants.

      1. Musings….. I agree totally with you and Pedantic on what Obama said…. saw a clip on news channel here and thought immediately…but the no fly list is arbitrary, right? I haven’t heard the speech as it was at 1 AM English time…

        On your other comment ( your response to me about victims’ names)… yeah, I get all you say… I thought I was well read on 9/11 but I never knew the planes were not full or almost full….

        I do remember a few people on conspiracy sites like Above Top Secret, back in 2001 saying ” my uncle, brother, grandpa whoever, was on the flight and he hasn’t been seen since that day… I even checked back on a few and they were long time members, with big posting histories, not new people joined up with one post…

        Don’t you think, on a relatively small facility like this one in San Bernardino, that someone working there would come out and say” that guy named as a victim, I work in that same department and I never heard of that guy!” ? I dunno , I’m on the fence here…

        The pilot you knew from school? Did you contact his family, express condolences, we lost touch but I knew him at school, blah, blah, …? Their response would have been interesting, no?

        I’m not saying your view on the victims is wrong… maybe I’m just hoping it is, because the alternative is so evil…..on the other hand, I can see the ” no victims” argument for Sandy Hook….so, we shall see how this develops….

        1. No, I never contacted his family. You are British so perhaps you understand that formal relations between males and females used to be more closely maintained. I went to school in a conservative community. The pilot was to me a kind of distant privileged male (even respected by his teacher in the class we shared), and I am not sure we ever spoke to each other. I remember my own cousins in Virginia behaved kind of the same way – females were not supposed to be forward or frank with males. So that is my takeaway from the life of the Annapolis-bound future pilot when I went to school with him. I only mentioned that to say I knew he was a real person. I also found his daughter’s subsequent death really strange (as well as her participation in a business pyramid scheme). But be that as it may, you have to start with the fact that the planes only had about 40 passengers apiece, which for cross-country flights is unusual – and for four flights – wow. The pilot’s sister later became a real war hawk, always waving the bloody shirt and calling down deprecations on those who hesitated to fight. She remained in character – not someone I’d be likely to “reach out to”. I never knew for sure the man had already died, nor would his family be likely to claim he had in contradiction of the 9/11 story. The community they come from is very right wing.

          It was someone online who posited that this pilot had died in a drug war in Colombia, working for the CIA or the DEA, perhaps in the crash of a smaller plane. I do not know exactly who said that. Probably it is searchable.

          The “evil” you speak of in an alternative explanation for 9/11 is not necessarily a simple sort of evil in our moral sense of it. There are things done which are regarded as “necessary evil” to achieve an objective. The rules might include never harming civilian Americans in the process, a code of honor or some new kind of Bushido – hey, that’s kind of punning.

          You could view the world’s oil resources as finite and your grip on them slipping because of the fall of communism, where your military stance was justified in the public mind to contain the menace of the Soviets. Now we see things are not so easy. So in order to claim what one man high in the government told me was “the lynchpin” of Iraq, you had to create a fake casus belli. You staged a phony terror attack which immediately caused Americans to go on a war footing. Because we are not a nation of Quakers and Buddhists, we are easily shaken up into a war mode. Even I was taken in for a long time and my husband spoke of turning the Mideast to “glass”. People were very angry and very patriotic.
          But somehow you view no actual victims as evil? Well, whoever planned the thing did not. Most people who do evil (or in this case long-range evil) believe they are saving their own people. I found the best explanation in the oil one, and the supremacy one.

        2. Musings… I do understand about the formalities between female and male, especially in previous generation and in more conservative families and communities … ( I hadn’t known you were female till this post!)
          I also understand what you’re saying about the pilot…. I used to be a lawyer and I’m accustomed to being pushy…I forget sometimes this isn’t a courtroom… lol… its none of my business if you chose to follow up the pilot’s disappearance or not and I apologise if I was impolite in asking about it…

          I view the idea of ” no victims” not as simply evil or more evil.. I think of it as a sick twist on evil… I also think its less complicated, isn’t it, to actually use real shooters behind the patsies, in a Gladio style operation, than to maybe risk being exposed by creating extra layers of fictional victims with all that entails…..
          I’m mostly convinced that they used fictitious victims at Sandy Hook and ” they” must have seen how close that has come to unravelling, so wouldn’t they learn and adapt from that? Or perhaps their arrogance knows no bounds…

        3. Steven thank you for pointing out the obvious (but always overlooked at this site) probability that civilians were indeed killed in many of these events. Aside from Boston, due diligence in researching sites that are antithetical to truthers show a continuous reaffirmation of lives lost via sourced updates of these people and their families. Additionally, patsys and/or the real killers that allegedly die are also reported on over the years as corroborating evidence piles up.

          To the contrary, this site, and many others, deny casualties of any sort without prejudice proclaiming entire events to be drills and hoaxes. Perhaps some or most of the event is distorted, exaggerated, or outright fabricated, but it is imperative to avoid absolutist viewpoints as they discredit the entirety of truther theories. In other words, when people condescend and mock those who question the “hoax” are doing us all a disservice when the msm is able to pull believable evidence that lives were lost.

          The key here I am trying to iterate is that none of us really know. Scoffing at the possibility that children died at Sandy hook is foolish, I don’t care how many donation sites were up and running a day before (which has been debunked), or how many hochsprung lookalike photos you may have acquired. Just because many parts of the event appear to be falsified or pre-planned doesn’t logically follow that nobody died. In fact, the time tested method of inciting fear by terrorism is dependent on actual deaths, therefore the onus is on the truthers to prove otherwise. Sure, actors may be involved, embellishments may be reported, and tears may be lacking, but this does not refute every individual death.

Comments are closed.