Friday, 9 January 2015

False Flag...Again?

“It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”
— Mark Twain

On the 15th of December 2012, I had just arrived back in Toronto after a six-day camping retreat in the Canadian wilderness. As with spending time in Nature, I was feeling rejuvenated and my senses sharp and re-attuned. Then the T.V was turned on and I saw lots of commotion. This was the hours after the alleged Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting.

I remember seeing Obama getting on a stage to address the American public about the tragedy. At a specific moment in the speech — about one minute — when he mentioned the children who had died, we can see him using his left index to wipe the outer corner of his left eye. Though he was looking down, so the camera angle couldn't really show if there were actual tears.

About 20 seconds later while still talking about the lost future of the kids who "were gone," he uses the same index to wipe underneath his left eye. Again, the camera angle could not really show any tears. Another thirty seconds into the speech, Obama was seen this time using his right index to wipe the corner of the eyelid of his right eye.

And finally, after another minute he does it again using the same finger.

OK, so to some of us who had shed tears before, we know that when tears are coming out of the eye and we simply wipe them using a single finger, there is always some moist that remains on the skin...on the face as well as the finger. Usually the skin shines a little, too, especially if in front of light and cameras.

However, in this 3:48-long Video, there was no signs of tears or moist during the speech. See for yourselves.

Another detail, when the person isn't "crying" and tears are not really dripping like the supposed case of Obama here, both eyes are just wet; when a single tear or two venture and start dripping slowly, it is usually from one eye and not both.

So fueled by my observation, I wrote "Did anyone else notice Obama's fake tears during his speech?" on my public Facebook profile. This status initiated lots emotional responses from some of my American friends who attacked me personally for saying that, calling me heartless and crazy, even ignorant. You can see the thread Here.

Of course I was not the only one to notice such obvious sight. The internet was already full of people who had seen the same. It really wasn't that hard to notice. Pause and replay the video all you want, you will NOT see tears. But the sensational topic of kids getting shot at school naturally made many too emotional at the time. They were blinded to the truth. And when I played the role of the messenger, or the guy who points out that they may have been fooled, they attacked me.

It's important to note that I'm in no position to say the initial school shooting did or didn't happen since I wasn't there myself. I am not claiming that Obama didn't feel any pain as a father either, as one of my friends commented. Simply because I don't know of the inner intents of others as much as I don't know if any of the story is real. What I did note, however, is that there were no tears in that specific speech we all watched. And having others notice the same thing strengthens the case even more. As to why would he do this, I still don't know.

Time has passed and we never heard more of Sandy Hook in any mainstream media. Every now and then, I read something strange related to that shady event about being a false flag. But certainly the whole story doesn't add up.

Two years later, we are left with nothing but a quagmire of inconsistencies, false statements, strange facts and lies, and an eerie silence from the authorities to some crucial questions that remain unanswered. I mean, heck, if 60 years after John Kennedy's assassination and we still don't know the details, do you think these recent events will be exposed now? Even the real 9-11 story is till hidden.

One of the beauties of the Internet is that with a few clicks, anyone can find countless number of videos of supposed parents of the Sandy Hook children doing a lousy job at acting devastated. It really does look like bad acting. No genuine sadness, no tears, and an overall strange behaviour.

One "dad" (picture above) is actually caught on camera smiling then hyperventilating for a few seconds before starting to talk to an audience. You know, to get in the mood. Why would you need to act sad in front of the camera if your child had just been murdered in cold blood?

Many of the parents later talked publicly about disarming the American people. Why is that their job? Why would a grieving parent go on live TV and discuss such national hot-potato of a topic if there was no certain agenda to be pushed?

For those who don't know, there is something called crisis actors and they have agencies. They are entertainers, though not very good ones. So that's why they are often caught by the not-so-gullible.

The below video is one about the mourning parents. There is so much more on YouTube and they are all heading in the direction of crisis actors. Just look on the right side of the screen and watch for yourselves if those people look real to you.

But it's the following twist that actually got me interested in the Sandy Hook topic all over again...

Identical photo of Noah Pozner is now used as a Pakistani school boy who was allegedly murdered in Pehsawar

So a photo of Noah Pozner, a six-year-old alleged victim of the 2012 Sandy Hook, showed up again between the photos of the alleged murdered kids of the 2014 school shooting in Peshawar. Ooops. Apparently the same kid had died twice in two different schools in two different countries! This oh-so-mysterious case was all over the news lately and you can find more on Here.

Also, on his website,, Wolfgang Halbig shares these 16 main Questions about Sandy Hook that remain unanswered to this very day.

In addition,
We need to talk about Sandy Hook is a compelling documentary that has all the facts. And as usual, it was removed by YouTube and re-uploaded many times. Actually, I couldn't add it to the article for some reason, so the link is above.

I always think why would they sort of go out of their way and exert an effort as removing something from the internet. Isn't that already a reason for us to doubt? That's what always shows me that whatever has been removed must be of value. It's always the reaction.  


Interestingly, when you Google 'Sandy Hook' now, the first result is 'Sandy Hook hoax'.

But again, there are no simple answers to big topics like these. You have to research yourself to begin coming close. Don't even believe what you are reading here. Dig the truth yourself. Start by the Wikipedia page of False Flags to know that they do exist and to learn about their history. Consider weapons of mass destruction to invade Iraq and 9-11 and Bin Laden to invade Afghanistan as recent examples.

Now let us fast-forward till the day before yesterday, Wednesday January 7th, 2015. 

A friend posted this YouTube Video of the Paris Charlie Hebdo shooting with an angle clearly showing that the shot never touched the police officer who was allegedly "executed" in the video that made it to the media. The footage was later removed from YouTube (Google). A while later it was re-uploaded, then again removed, because "its content violated YouTube's Terms of Service." You can watch it now on Vimeo and see for yourselves. [It might be removed again, who knows].

So, this close with a machine gun in the head and no blood and not a single body reaction to the impact of the shot, then perhaps this "brutal assassination" that was seen live by millions isn't really what it seems to be.

Here is another one I found on YouTube showing that the officer was NOT hit in the head. Also this Report on Occupy Blogosphere offers a more through research with videos and analysis. 

Another clue, the shooters in the video have light skin. One of the witnesses has already said that one of them had blue eyes. So who are the two Arab-looking guys the French authorities claim to have caught?

Then, for the masked killers to shout "Allah Akbar" and "Prophet Mohammed" as they commit their crime is really, REALLY, cliché in this day and age. I mean, come on. Who benefits from tarnishing the image of Islam in the world today? Well, a few entities for sure. And of course for the killers to instantly confess that they belong to Al-Qaeda — or ISIS, it doesn't matter — is rather amusing, because that means the CIA must have been aware and/or involved. 

So cover your face and attack a newspaper that had repetitively published offensive stuff against Islam, then shout Allah Akbar as you shoot, and suddenly you are a Muslim terrorist. OK. When the ones in charge choose to repeat such "findings" over and over in the media and put it in the public's face, they will naturally incite more Islamophobia and xenophobia. Because, you know, the world really needs more fear and hate and division. It all remains a distraction and control game at the end. Remember the magical case of the Malaysian Airlines Flight 370? Remember Ebola? Remember the CIA torture report? Exactly.

One more thing, the French authorities declared that they found the shooters' IDs in the car. Apparently, that what professional gunmen do these days — leave their IDs at the scene of the crime so that they are later identified. Remember the passports found at ground zero on 9-11 which magically survived the fire that was the supposed original cause of the crumbling of, not one, not two, but THREE buildings? Yeah. I would totally buy such stuff...if were five, maybe six, years old. 

Some Americans, like the editor of Veterans Today, Kevin Barret, commented:
"We have seen Zionist false flags before and that's usually how they are."
You can watch Barret talk about some of the inconsistencies in the Charlie Hedbo affair Here.

Also, when Google promptly interferes in stuff like that by taking down content, there is usually a much bigger story with lots of much bigger entities involved. The same reactions were seen during the Sandy Hook, and later with the Boston Bombing. Of course mainstream media only highlights the tragedies, but later reports which often contradict the initial stories are rarely ever mentioned in any of the Rothschild-owned media.

Today, I find more people not really buying the official Paris story. The below video is a thorough analysis [video and written] of yet another angle that shows how the video which made it to the media was edited. With all the technology they possess, errors are still committed as there is no prefect crime.

Besides, if you keep removing a specific video uploaded by many different people, then you are trying to hide something...and something big. Simple. It's always the following reactions that expose.

It has been a while since I wrote about the deceiving world of politics and world affairs. But when I saw yet another event that didn't make sense to me, as well as to others, I thought by shedding some light on what happened in Sandy Hook, and false flags in general, one may learn a thing or two. Faking the death of a police officer — who just happens to be Muslim and named Ahmed — or using his death to tailor a certain political agenda, or even staging and orchestrating the whole event, wouldn't be a big deal.

On the other hand, for those who are easily offended over their religion, if your faith is shaken by the opinions of others ― or their drawings ― then maybe it's time you question that faith. If some buffones think that any form of expression deserves to be killed for, then they are exactly what's wrong with humanity.

Again, I'm not writing about these topics to accuse or defend anyone; nor to prove anything or convince anyone. I was not there, so I do not know what transpired. We're just asking some questions and contemplating some events. I'm simply a curious researcher with a knack for truth. And the implications of all this are not for me to speculate on.
Though to be honest, I actually have no current interest in any of that. Transcending politics again is what I will be doing

In summation, it's wise not to believe everything we are told by the media; for they routinely lie and fabricate a reality antithetical to verifiable facts. All of today's media Big Six are bias because their few owners have their own agendas, so we rarely ever know the truth with them. If you choose to follow the mainstream media, then I would say take what you read and hear with a grain of salt; I would also be skeptical and question everything.

Between lies, deceptions and half-truths, the whole establishment cannot be trusted. Sadly, that's how things have been for the last century. The only way out of this brainwashing is for us to think critically and for ourselves, to be our own researchers, and to look beyond the veil.

The general population doesn’t know what’s happening, and it doesn’t even know that it doesn’t know.
Noam Chomsky

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

No comments:

Post a Comment