By now most people reading this already know that there are a number of unanswered questions surrounding the Colorado theater shooting, so I just want to quickly point out a few things and maybe make a few connections along the way.
Apart from the fact that the DHS and the FBI released a memo in May this year to security and emergency services to be on the alert for a ‘terrorist’ attack at a movie theater; apart from the fact that on the same day as the Aurora massacre, Rocky Vista University College of Osteopathic Medicine was holding an identical drill 17 miles away that simulated a shooter in a movie theater; apart from the fact that the FBI is officially known to have set up ‘terror attacks’ that included creating the plan, providing the weapons and equipment, preparing the location of the attack and even driving the vehicles to pull it off; APART from all that, there is the also the problem of the eyewitnesses to the Colorado shooting who stated that the gunman (James Holmes) seemed to have an accomplice.
Here’s what eyewitness, Corbin Dates, reported (start at minute 1.15):embedded by Embedded Video
The guy sounds pretty sincere and appears to be just reporting the facts, which were corroborated to some extent by the many other eyewitnesses who stated that the gunman came in through the emergency exit. Emergency exits in theaters are usually locked and can only be opened from the inside. It is possible of course that Holmes first came in to the theater without his weapons and opened the door himself, left it ajar, walked back out to his car and then came back in. Whether or not this was the case could perhaps be answered by an eyewitness like Corbin Dates. On the other hand, there is this guy, who also comes across as pretty sincere, who thinks that Holmes had someone with him because “the second can of tear gas didn’t come from his [Holmes'] side“.embedded by Embedded Video
Next up is another eyewitness to the Aurora shooting. There were, obviously, many eyewitnesses, but this guy is especially interesting because he makes a point of saying precisely the opposite of what Dates and others have said or suggested – that “there was only one guy [shooter]“. In addition, the way that he says it, out of the blue with no prompting and prefacing it with “for the record”, makes his comment seem out of place and forced, as if that was a point that he definitely wanted to make. Have a look:embedded by Embedded Video
When I first heard him make that comment, I knew I had heard something similar, in a similar context, before. Then I remembered:embedded by Embedded Video
So there ya have it, 90 minutes after the towers were pulverised (literally), this alleged ‘Fox News freelancer’, ‘Mark Walsh’, somehow managed to get the official story down pat. That’s pretty amazing for an ordinary guy in the street, not so much for a CIA agent who was part of the CIA’s 9/11 crew. Just listen to his obviously scripted segment of “and then I witnessed both towers collapse, one first and then the second, mostly due to structural failure because the fire was just too intense“, and tell, does that sound false or WHAT? I mean, REALLY? Normal people don’t talk like that about a major disaster. Normal people don’t describe the mechanism of the disaster and define how it happened in the immediate aftermath. But Mr ‘Walsh’ doesn’t sound like a crazy person, so what does that make him? A plant, no doubt.
Speaking of 9/11…. for some reason or other, a few days ago, I happened across that famous picture of the alleged explosion of Flight 93 in Shanksville Pennsylvania, taken by local resident Val McClatchey. You’ve probably seen the picture before, but if not, this is the picture that was used, officially, by the US govt. as evidence that Flight 93 crashed in a specific location in Pennsylvania.
My memory must be working over time these days, because when I saw this picture again (after many years), I suddenly remembered I had seem similar images somewhere else before. And I had.
The above image is of an IED (a relatively small quantity explosives (like TNT for example). Such explosions have undoubtedly been seen many times by many people over the course of the 20th century in particular. For example, here’s an image of a shell going off on Utah beach during WWII.
So what’s the problem? Well, Flight 93 had at least 50% (and probably more like 75%) of it fuel left when it allegedly crashed. That’s about 20,000 liters or 5,500 gallons of jet fuel. Jet fuel, like gasoline or kerosene or diesel, burns black. Here’s what you’d see if you happened to witness an aircraft (and its fuel) bursting into flames:
I suppose the point has been made. What you definitely wouldn’t see is that relatively small puff of dust in the alleged Flight 93 crash/explosion image.
I also suppose that if James Holmes was really a ‘lone shooter’ eyewitnesses would not be sharing information that strongly suggests he had accomplices and there would be no need for Holmes’ handlers to plant actors in front of the cameras.
One year ago this week a similarly horrific mass shooting took place in Norway that gave a psychopathic right-wing nut the platform he sought to spout his deranged views. James Holmes’ first court appearance was an altogether more muted affair:embedded by Embedded Video
I don’t know if it’s drugs, sleep deprivation or psychosis – or some combination of all three – but whatever this 24-year-old’s role in the atrocity, he doesn’t appear to be in any fit state to have planned and executed it alone.
More to the point, is the guy in the courtroom even James Holmes? I know drugs can do things to your eyes, but, really?
Maybe he had a nose job, and an ‘Adam’s apple job’ (if such things exist.)Share