Multiple Witnesses Reported Three White Men Shooting
Now that the government’s narrative on the San Bernardino shooting has been put into place by the corporate media previous eyewitness reports contradicting the official storyline will be assigned to the memory hole.
As the event unfolded last week early reports indicated there were three people involved in the shooting.
“The hunt for one to three suspects was taking place near a San Bernardino center where as many as 20 people were shot Wednesday, authorities said,” Fox News in Sacramento reported an hour after shots rang out at the Inland Regional Center, a facility for people with developmental disabilities.
Fox News in Los Angeles also reported the existence of a third person involved in the shooting:
These tweets were followed by one that indicated police apprehended a third person:
This is reminiscent of the man police apprehended in the woods following the alleged shooting at Sandy Hook. At the time, CBS reported that “a potential second shooter is in custody and that SWAT is now investigating the home of the suspect.” Moreover, audio recordings of police radio reports stated there were two shooters involved at the school.
An eyewitness account by Sally Abdelmageed, a worker at the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, reported “three men dressed in all black, military attire, with vests on they were holding assault rifles. As soon as they opened up the doors to building three… one of them… started to shoot into the room.”
Abdelmageed said “I couldn’t see a face, he had a black hat on… black cargo pants, the kind with the big puffy pockets on the side… long sleeve shirt… glove… huge assault rifle… six magazines… I just saw three dressed exactly the same.”
“It looked like their skin color was white. They look like they were athletic build and they appeared to be tall,” she told CBS News.
Abdelmageed’s story contradicts the official version put in place later in the day that an Arab couple, Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, were the perpetrators.
Another witness backed up Abdelmageed’s story. Juan Hernandez told a local NBC affiliate he saw “three white men in military fatigues” leaving the scene:
Although these eye witness accounts cast doubt on the official narrative, they were subsequently ignored and the radical Muslim jihadist angle predominated.
“To boot it also appears as if the suspects’ legal team believes their clients may have been made out by authorities and/or the media to be patsies further allowing for gun control narratives to be pushed onto the public,” writes Shepard Ambellas.
“The suspects’ legal team also questions the validity of the Sandy Hook shooting which some believe never took place and may have been a live active shooter drill, using crisis actors, perpetuated by the establishment media as a ‘mass shooting’ as covered heavily by Intellihub in the past.”
Other details have also either been ignored or swept under the carpet. On December 3 Infowars.com reported on a comment made by Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina during an appearance on the Morning Joe Show.
“If you listen to your reporter earlier, what he said is the ATF believes that someone purchased this gun on behalf of the police department and somehow that gun ended up in the hands of this guy, so it actually does not sound at all like this man purchased a firearm,” she said.
This oddity was subsequently excised from the official story when “CBS News’ Paula Reid reported that two of the guns were purchased by someone who is already known by investigators” and the weapons were “legally transferred from a friend.”
Now that the official version predominates, alternative explanations on what happened in San Bernardino will be denounced as “trutherism” and crackpot conspiracy theories.
On Monday, Dr. Steve Pieczenik told Alex Jones he is skeptical of the official narrative.
“You had a woman who was supposedly a Pakistani who went to Saudi Arabia, was less than a hundred pounds being able to wear a vest at the same time carry guns and at the same time shoot and twitter, absolutely impossible,” Pieczenik said.
He said the incident transposes Sandy Hook and its underlying predicate is gun control for Obama. “His last wish, his dying wish… is that we have gun control in the United States.”
The SUV Problem
How did the San Bernardino black SUV so-called getaway car park so perfectly parallel to the fence with no skidding? How did the trash can magically get there? As Intellihub reports, why were the 2 shooter patsies already dead and hand-cuffed before getting out of the black SUV? We have eyewitness reports that the San Bernardino getaway driver was a “regular white dude“! Even the San Bernardino shooters’ family attorney David Chelsey has stated that it just doesn’t add up:
“There’s a lot of disconnects, and there’s a lot of unknowns, and there’s a lot of things that quite frankly don’t add up or seem implausible … she was never involved in shooting, she’s probably about 90 pounds, so it’s unlikely she could even carry a weapon, or wear some type of a vest, or do any of this … they were handcuffed lying face down in this truck, shot up; there’s a lot of things that just don’t make sense. No one has ever seen Syed with any of these things found at at the scene (pipe bombs) … it just doesn’t make sense for these two to be able to act like some kind of Bonnie and Clyde – it’s just ridiculous, it doesn’t add up for these two to have the military skills to carry out something like this … it doesn’t make sense … (The FBI) couldn’t find (any motive) … everyone was totally stumped, frustrated and totally clueless.”
There have been nine different photos of the bullet riddled black SUV. Each picture is completely different and is pictured in at least three completely different locations. With the slightest bit of scrutiny, we can see with our own eyes different “scenes” where these pictures were taken.
There were also numerous pictures taken from unusual angles that indicate that the camera person was already staged to take pictures. One scenario reports that the black SUV was surrounded by numerous police cars and that 36 officers fired over 350 rounds into the car, yet not one police car camera caught a single image. Even the two videos from witnesses showing the “slow speed” chase of the SUV and were not from law enforcement. There have been no videos released of any shoot-out(s) of the SUV.
Who took the pictures of the various SUV “end results” of the so-called shoot-out? Especially since the photos have hundreds of incongruities between them that cannot be rectified. For example:
In the first photos released, two bodies were in street clothes, with no apparent weapons near or on their bodies. Only one victim seemed to have a single bullet wound. Then another picture surfaced where one victim has been handcuffed, but with examination, one can see that it does not correspond to other pictures of the victims. The victims are clearly in two different ground locations.
In one of the first photos of the SUV, it is parked next to a large blue trash can that is in front of a fence the length of an empty lot. (Really? How many readers take their weekly trash can out that far beyond their driveway?) The trash can seems to be a “marker” of sorts for picture staging.
Other photos show the SUV next to a driveway, or a fire hydrant, or next to another gray SUV. In one photo the black SUV seems to have crashed into gray SUV near a street that was close to an overpass, just slightly beyond a street corner. At least three of these locations were separately named, described, and identified by the dispatcher. So, at the very least, there were three different black SUVs that were intercepted and then subsequently “shot-up.”
If we just look at the black SUV photos, we can see that in some pictures the hood is up and in others it is down; different windows are shot out; different tires are flat; some pictures have white police cars around them; and others have black police cars or multiple armored vehicles.
By simple examination of the photos, the press is either blind, stupid or happy to release evidence that is completely incoherent, misleading and a clear statement that they are complicit in reporting the story line they are given and not concerned with investigating the truth.
In two other videos of the black SUV, its emergency lights were flashing as it slowly pulled up to what seems to be a designated spot. You can hear the police report on the dispatcher channel that they are in pursuit of an SUV. Whereupon the driver “jumped from the vehicle and ran off.” This element was reported for two different SUV’s, one was at the scene near the blue trash can and the other was reported to be at an intersection.
In yet another incongruent picture of the SUV, we see a police officer standing near a black SUV that has not been shot up. He is bending over and looking in the front passenger side of the vehicle. He has his hand on his gun but it is not drawn. So clearly he isn’t feeling threatened about the situation at hand.
Active Shooter Drill Going on Simultaneously with the Attack
The exercise or drill – at the same time, at the same place – has became the sine qua non or indispensable element of the recent false flag operation. Sometimes there are slight variations on this when the Government plans a drill nearby (a few miles away) rather than at the exact place, or plans a drill earlier on in the day, so it can just coincidentally “go live”.
There was a twist in the case of the recent San Bernardino shooting: the Government planned regular drills in the building where the shooting took place every month! (Think about it – what are the chances of a real mass shooting occurring in a building used for mass shooting drills?)
As Captain Eric H. May, a former US Army military intelligence officer, stated:
The easiest way to carry out a false flag attack is by setting up a military exercise that simulates the very attack you want to carry out.
The Biggest Non-Motive Ever
Just before we get to the question of whether San Bernardino is a false flag hoax or not, take a moment to consider the bizarre official narrative the lamestream-mainstream media is trying to convince the public of. The story (again) is that the shooters were crazy Muslims – more demonization of Islam, Islamophobia and giving the American and Western public another boogeymen to fear and hate. However, this time, there’s a twist. There was a woman shooter – and a young MOTHER at that. That’s right: the MSM wants you to believe that a 27 year old mother, with a newborn baby around 1 year old, dropped her baby off at the grandmother’s house, strapped on some military-grade body armor (despite being 90-100 pounds) and went off to kill 14 people! She supposedly did this knowing there must have been a huge chance she would either be caught and jailed for life, or killed, and in either scenario potentially separated from her baby forever. And who were these people she needed to kill so desperately that she was willing to give up ever seeing her kid again? People helping disabled individuals and local San Bernardino government health officials?
Seriously? Is this the biggest non-motive ever in the history of mass shootings? If you believe that, I have some beachfront property in Colorado and Switzerland for you.
Were the “terrorist attacks” in Paris and San Bernardino false flag operations? Most of this book’s 26 contributors say “yes.” Though the government, academy, and mainstream media are afraid to explore the evidence, these 26 leading public intellectuals – including former high-level government officials, professors, and journalists – fearlessly explain how and why our own governments are slaughtering us in horrific terror events set up to be falsely blamed on “radical Muslim” patsies. From the Pentagon’s “Operation Gladio,” a US military program which orchestrated almost all of the high-profile “terrorist attacks” during the Cold War, to the post-9/11 era, abundant evidence indicates that most terrorism is created by governments and falsely blamed on their enemies.
The motive: Roll back freedom, promote authoritarian leadership, and prepare the public for war. In this book, former CIA counter-terrorism officers Philip Giraldi and Robert David Steele, leading economic advisor to President Reagan Paul Craig Roberts, and two dozen other top analysts question the official stories of what happened in Paris on 11/13/15 and in San Bernardino on 12/2/15. This book was published on the first anniversary of the Charlie Hebdo attacks. It follows on the heels of We Are NOT Charlie Hebdo! Free Thinkers Question the French 9/11, which garnered praise from 9/11 researcher leader David Ray Griffin, international law professor Richard Falk, and former Canadian Defense Minister Paul Hellyer, among other luminaries. ANOTHER French False Flag, and We Are NOT Charlie Hebdo, have pioneered a new genre: “Open-Source Intelligence” projects that expose big false flags shortly after they happen. Why is this necessary? Normally, false flags are designed so that the Official Story is hammered deep into the public mind in the immediate aftermath of the event, when people are in a state of shock and susceptible to mass hypnosis. If critics wait too long to express a skeptical view, it will fall on deaf ears. So if we want to win the “infowar” by spreading the truth, we need to act as quickly as possible. These books do that. ANOTHER French False Flag is a monument to free speech in a time of cowardice and censorship (especially self-censorship).