A large truck ran into a crowd on France’s independence day (July 14) in the city of Nice on the Mediterranean sea. It killed about 80 people in about a minute… and the “terrorist” was shot. The act is obviously a terrorist act that echoes recent Islamic terror events. But as in many of these events, there are numerous facts that are hard to explain.
The timing of the event is immediately suspicious. In the following days, the French president was supposed to lift the exceptional security measures (“état d’urgence”) that were imposed on the French people since the last terror attack in November 2015. The event in Nice happened just in time for the president to be forced to announce the security measures will be extended for at least another 3 months.
In the USA, on the very next day – in the morning of July 15 – the infamous and long classified “28 pages” about the 9/11 attack were declassified and released very quietly. The Nice attack totally overwhelmed this huge event. The “28 pages” officially admit to the implication of Saudi Arabia officials, to very specific intelligence operatives such as Prince Bandar who is closely related to the Bush family. (Soon later, the Turkey coup d’état overwhelmed the Nice attack… and then the shooting in Munich… not to mention Orlando and Dallas before Nice… and Hillary Clinton’s emails… It is hard to keep up!)
About the possibility of a second man
* One witness – a young girl – is very clear. She said on video (in French) that she was only 2 meters away from the truck when it stopped… The girl said she saw an armed man get out of the truck… and run away with the crowd… She does not describe him. She does not describe his weapon. She insists she saw him very clearly and states she is certain about it. She has no reason to lie. From what she says it seems the man got out from the back of the truck. She also saw victims and organs and says it was very traumatizing.
* According to The Telegraph, early police reports mentioned fake weapons and grenades found inside the truck, along with a two real guns… AFP was more precise. They reported only one inoperative grenade and fake long guns in the truck… and only one small gun in the cabin. In later reports, these weapons were falsely reported as real and found in a “cache” somewhere inside the truck (not near the driver). Why would the killer bother with fake weapons and a fake grenade? Was it to scare people who would try to get to the driver? No because it would have been easier and more efficient to get real weapons… Maybe the fake weapons were forgotten by mistake, which is hard to believe since the operation was planned in advance… Maybe they were added by the perpetrators thinking they would be reported as real by the press, like an extra scary touch that doesn’t cost much: “A cache of dangerous weapons including grenades were found in the truck!” Maybe it was part of a different “script” that did not happen… In general, fake weapons are used in movies. Maybe the whole thing was intended as a movie scene.
* According to early reports, the truck was rented three days earlier (in St-Laurent-du-Var, about 3 miles outside of Nice) and the police was suspecting accomplices – possibly second gunman – based on CCTV cameras. Amazingly, any mention of an accomplice was later dropped by French police and media… The city of Nice is rigged with surveillance cameras. In January 2015, after the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris, Estrosi – the former mayor of Nice – declared that his city was equipped with 999 cameras… 1 for each 343 citizens… whereas Paris has only 1 for 1532 citizens… He also bragged that terrorists could not cross 3 blocks in Nice before being stopped… It would be interesting to have a look at those CCTV videos… for the possibility of accomplices… but also to know exactly where the truck came from before it appeared like magic on the big avenue. (In theory – if a serious investigation is going on – the French authorities have access to the footage. So they are able to know as much as they want to know.)
* The newspaper Le Figaro reported that on July 20th, the French authorities (“la police judiciaire” and “la sous-direction anti-terroriste”) sent an official and urgent request to the agents in charge of the CCTV cameras (“le centre de supervision urbain de Nice”) ordering them to delete footage from 6 specific cameras and from ANY other camera that was able to capture the truck attack… everything from 10:30 pm when the rampage started until the next day at 6:00 pm… for “security” reasons… The Nice authorities received the request with panic and misbelief. They said it is the first time they are asked to destroy important evidence in this manner. They said they never experienced a leak before. They added this order might not even be legal. UPDATE: on July 22 it was reported the Nice authorities turned down the request!
* Sandra Bertin, the officer in charge of Nice’s CCTV control room, told the Journal du Dimanche newspaper (in English) on Sunday – and repeated in a press conference later – that an unnamed interior ministry official contacted her after the attack and pressured her into altering her report. Bertin claims she was heavily and aggressively harassed and ordered to lie about the presence of national police officers at different points on the avenue where the carnage took place. “The national police were perhaps there, but I couldn’t see them on the video,” she said. She also added the person from the ministry told her to email her report not in PDF but in a “modifiable form… so they didn’t have to type it all out again.” She first refused and ended up sending both versions. France’s Interior Minister Bernard Cazeneuve has dismissed the claims and has even sued Bertin for defamation! On social networks, Bertin has previously been very critical of the present socialist government (she is a supporter of Estrosi the former mayor of Nice).
Bertin added she saw the truck attack live on the CCTV cameras on that night, driving fast without lights. She evaluated the speed at 90 kmh (55 mph). She said the truck was immediately reported at 22:33 and it was stopped at 22:34. It took another half hour for the cops to close down on the truck because they were afraid of explosives (they had to wait for specialists) and suspected other accomplices inside. She said she was able to see the driver for 3 seconds on the camera but it was very stealthy… According to her, it was one man alone driving the truck, with brown hair and an outfit… She did not describe the outfit… (“Cet individu, je l’ai vu trois secondes sur nos caméras couleur. C’était très furtif, mais j’ai vu clairement que c’était un homme seul au volant, ses cheveux bruns, sa tenue… J’ai tout de suite pensé à une attaque terroriste.”)
* According to François Molins, the “procureur de la République de Paris”, who released the official account on behalf of the French government… only one man was “found dead on the passenger seat.” (It would be interesting to know what he was wearing.) It was also reported the police found the ID card of the suspect next to the body. (Why not in his pocket?) The bullet impacts on the windshield of the truck are all grouped on the side of the passenger seat. (This was explained by saying the cops were shooting at the driver from the side – in a diagonal.)
* Nader El-Shafei, an important Egyptian witness (who shot a video discussed below) said something important in an interview. It was “censored” by the French translator. The witness said the driver who stopped the truck JUST in front of him was wearing a blue police-like uniform… In his interview with Alain Marshall for BFM TV (a channel owned by French Israeli citizen Patrick Drahi) the witness said the driver was “moving nervously” before reaching for his gun and shooting at the cops… The cops told the witness to move away immediately… The witness added: “He was wearing the uniform of them… a blue uniform like the police… or the drivers [of trucks].” Alain Marshall translated immediately in French: “The driver was dressed like a truck driver.” That same interview was later aired on MSNBC but the part about the police uniform was removed. (The witness repeated his testimony in English on at least one other channel. More about this witness and his video below.)
* According to a Russian victim there were TWO terrorists in the truck… On the following day (July 15) Izvestia a Russian daily paper published the testimony of Baï Parchoev, 28, who survived the attack. It was translated and published on the website of Courrier de Russie on July 19… The victim says the truck was driving very fast. He says: “Thankfully, the terrorists arrived a little late – people had started to disperse. By the way I do not understand why people only mention one terrorist? They were two! One who was driving and another one on the passenger seat, he is the one who shot.” The existence of this victim should be double-checked. How could he see the drivers, since the truck came very fast behind him?… He said he was out alone on that night. He also said he looked under the sheets covering the bodies to check if he knew people among the victims.
* An eyewitness of the attack claimed that the majority of those who died in front of him had been “killed by machine gun fire.” The English café owner who witnessed the attack from 20 to 30 metres away, insisted many had died from gunshot wounds because he saw dead bodies on the ground far from the path of the truck, on the sea side… He said the street itself was not so crowded in front of the truck. The man, known only as Andy, told LBC Radio that the driver must have fired a gun into the crowd on the sea side – the side of the passenger seat – all the way as he was driving.
“About half past ten just after the firework display had finished, we heard these noises and there was this white truck, literally sort of sped past us and was firing a machine gun into the crowd on the other side and had been doing so all the way along the promenade, so he was firing into the sea side of the promenade, and people just dropped like nine pins, it was just unbelievable.”
“There were people on the side that he was driving but not in great numbers, not like huge crowds,” he said saying that this indicated to him that the majority of victims were killed by gun fire.
“It was impossible to be any other thing because the bodies were on the other side of the promenade from were the truck was, so the truck will have hit people but they would have been able to move out the way.”
“The people who were killed and died in front of us were killed by machine gun fire.”
This other witness confirms someone in the truck was shooting all along the rampage.
* On July 17, French police authorities transmitted via Dominique Rizet (on BFM TV) that the terrorist sent a last text message from his personal phone on the day of the attack at 10:27 pm (about 5 minutes before the attack started at 10:33) saying: “Bring more weapons, bring 5 to C.” Referring to the initial of a person? or a place? (In French: “Amène plus d’armes, amènes-en 5 à C.”) According to the commentator Dominique Rizet, this means he did not act alone. (French authorities gave no information about who this message was sent to.) On July 18, Nice Matin reported about a different text message saying: “I have the equipment.” (In French: “J’ai le matériel.”) Why release the information this way? Why don’t they release a clear report with all the text messages?
* Two musicians on stage – who were on the sea side – reported that according to them there was more than one guy. They said they could not be absolutely certain, but they insist this is what they think they saw.
* According to Press TV – video at 1:40 onwards – a female driver who drove alongside the lorry said the driver “seemed uncertain.” He was “stopping and starting multiple times” in a restricted zone. “She said it was very, very bizarre.” (Not very discrete for a man on the verge of executing an attack planned 3 days in advance.)
* The same report above says someone else described how the driver “jumped out of the lorry”… “looking panicked.” Numerous early reports also mentioned the driver had exited the truck… and was killed in an exchange of gunfire with the police… but a video of the truck stopped – with cops still shooting around – quickly dismissed those reports (see the “Ynet video” below, shot by Benouaich an ultra-Zionist with links to a known Mossad agent).
* A few early tweets from the first couple of hours…
Who was the alleged terrorist?
* Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel, the man accused of the crime, was born in Tunisia in 1985. He was a Tunisian national and a French resident. He was NOT religious at all. He loved girls and Salsa music. He dated women and men as well. He was a divorced father of three children, described as a good looking loner. A bit weird and a bit rude.
* “A police source has told The Telegraph that Bouhlel might have been motivated more by a desire to commit suicide than by an Islamist ideology.” But this is not how people commit suicide… Bouhlel was not suicidal at all. He was not sad. He was a young happy healthy loud party man.. who liked all sorts of drugs and who dated both men and women! More than one reliable source reported he had a 73 years old boyfriend or “lover”. He worked out in a gym every day at the same time after work (around 4 pm).
* He needed money. It was reported he had financial problems. He had a small criminal record. He was never convicted or sentenced. He was known to the police for domestic violence, threats and robbery. He had no link to terrorism and was not on a terror watch list… Investigating sources said his last appearance in a criminal court was as recent as March for assault with a weapon. It was a fight he had with another driver. The weapon was a piece of wood he threw at the driver… He was sentenced for the first time of his life in May to a suspended prison term. According to BFMTV he once caused an accident after falling asleep at the wheel while working as a delivery driver, and was taken into custody following the incident.
* Cazeneuve, the French interior minister said the killer “appears to have become radicalised very quickly,” while a neighbour of his ex-wife added: “Mohamed only started visiting a mosque in April“… Since he was known to authorities (he was in their database) he could have been used as a confidential informant or to coordinate an operation in an intelligence entrapment event… This is a common practice employed by security services in both Europe and North America. When criminals are approached for this kind of “job”, they are given two choice: either work with the police, or go straight to prison.
* He rented the truck 10 days earlier (July 4th). According to this news report he was filmed on CCTV cameras on the same avenue driving his truck twice (on the 2 preceding days). They suppose he was scouting the area. The report also says he sold his car the day before the attack… and withdrew three times EUR 500 (almost USD 1700)… It was also found he applied a few times for some sort of government loan (credits à la consommation) for amounts between EUR 1000 and 5000, but it didn’t work out.
* His brother-in-law Chokri Amimi told the Sunday Mirror that he moved to France around 2005 and “married his aunt’s daughter, who lived in Nice.” His brother Jaber Bouhlel, 19, who still lives in Tunisia, said on the day of the atrocity his brother “sent a selfie and told [him] he was happy and everything in his life was normal”. He told Reuters: “Why would my brother do something like this? (..) We’ve been calling him since yesterday evening but he’s not responding.” He said they were very close and talked often. He told him he might soon come back to Tunisia… He said he regularly sent them small sums money (around USD 300) and cell phones.
* His father gave a different account. He said he had no contact with his son since he left Tunisia about 10 years ago. (This must be wrong since the “terrorist” last came to Tunisia in 2012 for a family wedding according to the brother.) The father added his son was violent and mentally ill and had suffered a nervous breakdown. His sister confirmed the mental problems in an interview with Reuters, but she said it was before 2005. A psychiatrist who saw the suspect in 2004 told L’Express that Bouhlel had come to him because of behavioural problems and that he diagnosed him as suffering from”the beginnings of psychosis.” He said he had issues with his body image and was becoming aggressive towards his parents. He added: “I just gave him some pills to calm these behavioral issues and this aggression.” Since when do psychiatrists give pills to people after seeing them once? Also this is a very old story… BBC falsely wrote: “a few years ago.” But all of this happened more than 11 years ago… when he was 19 or 20 years old…
* “Mohamed sent the family 240,000 Tunisian Dinars ($108,000) in the last few days,” Bouhlel’s brother told MailOnline. “He used to send us small sums of money regularly like most Tunisians working abroad. But then he sent us all that money, it was fortune. “He sent the money illegally. He gave cash to people he knew who were returning to our village and asked them to give it to the family.” He probably did that to avoid loosing half of it in income taxes… Where does this money come from? If he was an Islamic fanatic why would he be paid so much? Also… why would the brother tell a journalist they had received all of this money in illegally untaxed cash? from a mass murderer? Why is the brother so “talkative”? Does that make sense?
* The TV channel TF1 released two selfies from his cell phone taken on the same day or in the last couple of days… They show him next to a white truck similar to the one used for the attack with people who’s identity was not revealed. Official government sources commented these pictures were a proof he premeditated the attack.
* Corentin Delobel presented himself as the court appointed former lawyer of the “terrorist” (back in March, when he was convicted for a street fight). On the next day (Jul 15) he started giving all sorts of interviews in the big medias where he insisted he came to know the “terrorist” quite well and that according to him he was (1) not religious at all and (2) not crazy at all. He added he was not very smart and did not have the profile of a potential terrorist or a psychopath… and he insisted. On July 20, it was reported in the mainstream media that the lawyer was expected for an important meeting and did not show up… because he tried to commit suicide… It was also reported he had lied about being the lawyer of the “terrorist”… Old articles and videos of him saying otherwise were removed from the Internet! It was reported the lawyer was very sorry but he made a mistake: his client was another guy with a similar name! One sentence said the “real” lawyer – whose name is not made public – first reported the “scam” but refuses to be contacted… The “fake” lawyer himself never reappeared in the media after July 20. Although it was reported he gave another interview on July 21 still pretending to be the real lawyer… which does not make much sense! Other articles appeared in the following days vilifying the lawyer. He has a little handicap and it was used to pretend he was “fragile”. He was shamed harshly by people who accused him of profiting from a horrible tragedy.
About awkward witnesses who “predicted” the attack
* Olivier Rafowicz, a colonel in the Israeli army who speaks French like a French man declared on French TV ( channel I24 ) that he came to Nice with a team of Israeli agents a few of months before the event… to evaluate the security of the city… and advise the mayor about what could be improved… The Israeli colonel said France is doing the wrong things and “must change” without specifying what exactly could be improved… In November 2015, just a 5 days before the attack in Paris this same guy declared (in French on a Jewish website) that he “does not believe in pacific coexistence with Muslim Arabs in Israel.” In March 2016, 5 days after the Brussels bombing, he wrote an article (also in French on the same Jewish website) full of very hateful and pure propaganda. He wrote terrorists of the Islamic State choose Brussels because it is the capital of the European Union which for many years has been opening its doors to thousands of super radicalized Muslims… who hate Western values, prosperity, freedom, human rights, Christians and Jews… He added “these people” (Muslims?) have been allowed to complain about islamophobia and profess their ideology of death freely on TV. (This is not true.)
* On July 15, the website Breitbart published an article titled: L.A. Dentist Saved by Israeli Girlfriend’s “Sixth Sense”… Tzur Gabi, a dentist living in L.A. was in Nice on that night. He said he survived thanks to his girlfriend Meital Azulay, an Israeli choreographer. After the fireworks around 10:30pm while walking back to the hotel, she heard what she thought was gunshots, but he did not agree. She insisted and started getting really anxious. She said, “We gotta run.” He said, “All right.” And they RAN back to the hotel. He added: “I’m fortunate that my girlfriend trusted her gut feeling, and said: ‘Something’s about to go down. We have to get out of here.’” They both grew up in Israel.
* A man did not attend the celebration after his father “predicted” there would be an attack… It was reported by Lydia Willgress in The Telegraph – who also posted about it on Twitter – that Damien Zamon, 25, who lives in Nice, said he was planning to watch the fireworks… until his father, Israel Zamon, pointed out there had not been an attack during the Euro 2016 celebrations… and that “it would be tonight.”
* Mark Krikorian the director of an American anti-immigration think tank, was a witness and he declared: “I actually had researched whether there were gonna be large-scale crowds events, here in Nice, as the kind that would attract terrorists… and the European soccer events had just finished: several of the matches were held, here. But that was weeks before we got here and I figured, ‘Well, that’s OK… I completely overlooked the idea… Bastille Day, of course, is their big 4th of July, so, so, Yeah, I was actually not all that surprised once I had found out what happened.”
* Kevin Motamedi, an American doctor from Denver Colorado on a tour through Europe told NBC he was on the scene and “ran for his life” and “can never forget.” His testimony does not sound personal. It sounds very dry and pre-written… (a) He said he talked with people “earlier in the day” about how “it was such a perfect set up for a terrorist attack“… (b) He added the truck was “a tactic that no one had ever used before.” How did he know? Did he go through the history of terrorism in a few hours? (c) He said the truck went on for 2 km. If he was running in the chaos how did he manage to observe that? This is not a personal experience. He is obviously repeating what he/we heard in news reports… (d) He said he now suffers from terrible “survivor remorse.”
About disinformation and secondary remarks
* Fireworks at Paris’s iconic Eiffel Tower caused a blaze with billowing smoke as a truck had a “technical incident,” French police said… The fire triggered massive panic as it closely followed the attack in Nice… The blaze in the midst of fireworks was caught by thousands on cameras. The footage showed the Eiffel Tower covered with heavy smoke, partially obscured… ISIS propaganda released a video taking credit for the blaze. The group had threatened the Eiffel Tower in the past. This parallel “accident” looks like a typical Psychological Operation added in order to increase the emotion generated by the event in Nice.
* It was reported by witnesses that 4 police vehicles had previously barricaded the road to protect a military parade. They vanished before the attack commenced.
* A crisis actor has been caught acting in a fake video filmed in a studio for CNN… He also posted a few small videos of people running and escaping the scene. He tried to protect his copyright and make money out of this. His name is Paul DeLane. This is one of his videos. Check the negative comments and the negative votes.
* Johnny Prevost, the owner of the restaurant Bellote (a few meters only after the Westminster Hotel) said in an interview that night at 1:25 am (less than 3 hours after the attack) that the entire event happened in front of his place, 100 meters before, 100 meters after… about 3 minutes after the end of the fireworks (around 22:30). He owns 4 shops on the avenue and he said people were rushing inside to take shelter. He ran outside right after the attack for a short moment and saw about 30 corpses on the floor… over about 500 meters… He said the truck was running slow enough for people to avoid it. He said it could have been much worse. According to him it started with a general panic and people screaming and running in different directions… back and forth… then the avenue was completely deserted… Followed by a complete lock down of the area by the police and the special forces… It took about 30 minutes for the first medical responders to arrive which was long he thought… He said now the bodies are gone… Although he clearly admitted having seen nothing of the attack himself, he added something weird at the very end of the interview – as if he was answering a question the reporter did not ask him – he said: “Hum… after there was no… there was no… for what we know there was one person… there was only one person at the wheel of the truck. – Did you see that person?” asked immediately the reporter. “We cannot say much more than that,” he replied, “it was quite terrible,” putting an end the interview.
* The owner of the place (La Cane à Sucre?) in front of where the truck stopped says the truck was driving slowly and stopped 50 meters before where all the real big crowd was gathered…
* On August 4 at 14:21, Le Figaro reported the company in St-Laurent-du-Var where the truck was rented – 2 days before the attack – has received an order from the French Interior Ministry NOT to communicate with journalists… in order “not to interfere with the ongoing investigation.”
* On July 17, the French press reported the ban from theaters of a movie titled : Bastille Day. Out of respect for the victims in Nice… This US, British and French production came out on July 13 and the topic is a terrorist attack planed for July 14… The attack is a false-flag terrorist attack organized by select members of the French Interior Ministry. (An official report from AFP and TF1 was misleading about the plot of the movie: it reported it was just a terror attack by a French woman.)
* About two years ago Stephen King released his novel – Mr. Mercedes – about a thrill-killer who mows down people in a crowded parking lot with a V8 Mercedes sedan.
* The Mirror published an article with the following title “Bono rescued by armed police after being caught up in Nice terror attack following ISIS lorry slaughter”… The U2 singer had no reason to be rescued by armed police or by anyone… There is no evidence ISIS was involved… Although based on a real event, this article is phrased like propaganda. It also adds an extra fear about possible bombs in a Hotel. (Bono was in a restaurant with a group of friends among which Estrosi, the former-mayor of the city.)
* BFM TV (owned by Patrick Drahi, a French Israeli who advocates Israel) featured a “terrorist expert” who made a false claim reporting witnesses heard the driver scream “Allah Akbar” while driving over the people… Typical propaganda which was repeated in many media outlets. They also interviewed an alleged witness who spend 3 minutes describing the attack and finally confessed: “Well, to be honest, I haven’t seen a thing.” i-Télé showed shocking images without warning and dubbed the event an “Islamist terrorist attack” without evidence and very early – a full hour before municipal police transferred the case to national police’s anti-terrorism cell.
* It was remarked there was no blood (not a single drop) on the truck… after it killed more than 80 people and injured many more… From various witnesses we know a great number of victims were not rammed by the truck but were shot by bullets… Also the truck had already lost its bumper and front body part in the Gutjahr video… probably the damage from hitting people…
* A man with the same name as the suspect, also from Tunisia and who lives in Nice as well… and who very vaguely looks like him… was harassed on social media… He declared he had nothing to do with the killer. The name is very common is Tunisia… They do not have the same face.
* Among the 84 reported deceased victims, about 30 of them are Muslims – mostly French Tunisians, according to the “Conseil régional du culte musulman.”
* On July 21, it was reported by the mainstream media by official sources that the “terrorist” planned his act many months and maybe even more than a year in advance. To prove this, they gave two pathetic arguments… probably the worst arguments ever in the history of propaganda… (1) They said they found one of his text messages from January 2015 – after the Charlie Hebdo attack – where he says: “Je ne suis pas Charlie” (I am not Charlie). And (2) they found pictures of the same event one year earlier on July 14, 2015, at the fireworks.
* This tweet from Tom Berman of Associated Press (@tombermanap) is typical propaganda with expression such as “I will never forget” and the false information about the truck “loaded with weapons and hand grenades.” (They found one fake grenade and 2 fake long guns.)
* Of course Mossad asset Rita Katz and her S.I.T.E. organization had to post something… She is the one who found all the fake Bin Laden videos… and the ISIS execution movies… before ISIS had even released them!
About the possibility of fake victims
* At least the picture of one alleged victim turned out to be fake… A girl noticed here face in an article published by The Daily Mail (MailOnline) in a plea to find missing children. She was one among 16 faces. The real girl complained about it on her Instagram account. Her nickname is “prettyxgirlswag” and her real name is Adamara Ajuzie. She is a teen model with more than 72,000 followers on Instagram. She is not French and she was not in Nice.
The Daily Mail article calls her “Léa” with no other information. She was reported missing less than three hours after the event on a bunch of Twitter accounts dedicated to the missing victims… One account RECHERCHES NICE (@nice6recherches) tweeted at 1:50 am local time… The original tweet was posted by Recherches Nice (@SOSPostAttacks) three minutes earlier at 1:47 am. This account was created by an anonymous person on November 14 2015 at 4:24 am to look for victims of the attack in Paris on November 13 and was inactive since then. The first post from this account asked for random people to send their requests.
The last post was on December 13 – exactly one month later – by someone saying he was taking over the account from now on. Seven months later, the account was suddenly renamed at 1:43 am for the event in Nice. It immediately started posting about a lot of missing people. The post about “Léa” was the first one! How many of those calls were fake? What kind of person would find it funny to send calls for fake victims after an event like this?
* And this one below is another fake spotted by a user… It seems most of the twitter “calls” were fake… It was a flood of calls for missing people… We know very well social networks are NOT the place to look for a potential victim… As in previous event (Brussels for example) social networks and Twitter in particular were used to spread panic and stir the emotion…
* Among the victims, a Jewish American dad and his son – Sean and Brodie Copeland from Lakeway, Texas – were named in the medias very early and “confirmed dead by their family online”… At the same moment, all other victims were still unknown. People were considered “missing” but no one was declared dead yet… Haley Copeland wrote on Facebook: “By now many of you have heard about the 80 people that have died in Nice, France today from a terrorist attack driving through a parade. 2 of those 80 people were American and those 2 people happen to be uncle Sean  and 11 year old cousin Brodie. They were there on vacation with my two other cousins and aunt celebrating a birthday.” (This is pure speculation from experience studying other similar events: these two victims COULD be fake… created to move the American public.)
A donation account to receive money was set up on July 15 within hours of the tragedy. It is asking for $100,000 and it is almost there (on August 1). It was close to $50,000 a few days after the attack… This reminds of Brussels and other similar events all proven to be false flags… For the Copland family we are even dealing with multiple pages. This is a fraudulent clone of the original page set up by someone else who is using the same photo!
* Laura Borla, a 13 years old victim… was the subject of a TV news report… Laura has a twin sister. Her name is Audrey Borla. According to experience from other similar event this is highly suspicious. Laura maybe does not exist. She could have been “forged” using Audrey… The TV channel filmed the family very early: they show them making calls to hospitals searching for Laura… They said they were out that night with their 4 kids. Jacques the father works in a hotel in Monaco. The mother Marie-Claude was holding Laura’s hand when the truck hit her. She pretends she disappeared at that moment. This is ridiculous… Laura was not reported on the list of the dead victims… Only later they say the father has announced her death separately… The family looks extremely “lower class.” The kind of people who would do a lot of things for money… (Laura’s oldest public post on Facebook is a cover photo on July 25, 2014. Audrey’s oldest post is also a cover photo on October 17, 2014.)
* Tahar Mejri, a Tunisian father claiming to have lost his wife (Olfa Ben Souayah Khalfallah) and his 4 years old son (Kylian) was filmed and interviewed (by France 2) sitting on the sidewalk next to the dead body of his wife (at approximately 92 Promenade des Anglais). A man close to him says his son is at the hospital in critical conditions. People immediately criticized the channel’s ethics for filming him like this… On the following day the channel pulled the interview and apologized… Other reports in the media showed him on a desperate quest for 36 hours to find his “missing son”, calling hospitals, posting on social media… until the son was confirmed dead 48 hours later… As demonstrated in detail in this video both victims, the woman and the boy, seem to be fake. The father has two different facebook accounts. His wife is 31, has a facebook account but is not even friend with her supposed husband… And the boy’s photos look like professional studio photos.
* One early image from the scene shows no bodies behind the truck. It is from a low resolution video showing many alleged victims before they were covered and also cops running around with their gun out around the closed truck. (It must be very soon after 22:35 and way before 23:00.)
Compare with images below taken later, showing many bodies behind the truck. (After 23:00.)
* Among all the images we have of the event, we saw not even one victim being hit… And among the images of bodies on the floor, not a single one can be seen clearly enough to confirm it was real… On the contrary, some images seem to prove at least some of the bodies were fake! The left arm of the body in the photo below is obviously fake. (It is a snapshot from the low resolution video mention above. The fake arm is more clear in the video.) The arm is pale, neatly cut and with no blood on it. (Also the bottom of the foot has sharp angles for a real foot.)
* There were multiple alerts about the possibility of bombs and other terrorist attacks on the avenue… apparently around and maybe in the Negresco Hotel… The authorities never said where the alerts came from… It was confusing and chaotic… People told other people to run, adding to the panic… Hugo Lavigueur-Blouin, a doctor from Quebec on holiday with his wife, reported a group of tens of people yelling “There is a bomb, run away!” Another witness said : “We were thinking there was a bomb alert (..) many people were knocking on doors to take shelter inside homes.” Many witnesses said the police were telling people to take shelter inside. The Mirror reported: “The police were clearly very worried that terrorists might still be at large, and everybody was under suspicion. There were fears at the time that the nearby Meridien hotel might be under siege, and that bombs were set to explode.” On many pictures we see policemen guiding people away from the avenue with their hands up on their heads. Very soon the avenue was deserted and the police locked down the area. All of this could have made it easier to set up fake victims in addition to real ones.
* Very soon, one hour after the attack around 23:30, the local police was posting alerts asking people on Twitter to avoid posting pictures and video of the event!… Supposedly out of respect for the families in case victims were represented… As if this was an urgent security measure… Other messages from the police encouraged people to report picture in order to “force social media websites to remove them”… One message tells not to spread rumors and to rely only on official government website for pictures and information… So much effort invested by the authorities to censor unofficial information is annoying and very suspicious. It is very convenient to contain leaks… People automatically commented criticizing these alerts or recommendation and calling them bullshit.
* This is an article in Le Figaro attempting a list of the alleged 84 dead victims.
Another (uncensored) video compilation of the event.
About the Gutjahr Video
A witness called Richard Gutjahr shot a video of the truck attack which was used all over the mainstream media to illustrate the event.
Gutjahr is a German journalist who also happens to be married to Israeli Knesset member Einat Wilf. During her national service in the Israeli Defense Forces she was an Intelligence Officer in Unit 8200 (Israel’s equivalent of the NSA). She served as foreign policy advisor to Shimon Peres. In 2007 she ran for the presidency of the World Jewish Congress. She was a member of Ehud Barak’s political party for a while, himself a former Israeli chief-of-staff and head of military intelligence.
Einat Wilf is presently involved – listed with the title of “Baye Foundation Adjunct Fellow” – in the Washington Institute of Near East Policy (WINEP). A think tank similar to the infamous PNAC that called for a new Pearl Harbor on America in 2000… Kissinger is in it. As well as 9/11 suspects such as Richard Perle and Condoleeza Rice. The organization has been criticized for having strong ties to the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC and for being founded by a former AIPAC employee. In a December 2003 interview, Rashid Khalidi, director of Columbia University’s Middle East Institute, sharply criticized WINEP, stating that it is “the fiercest of the enemies of the Arabs and the Muslims”, and describing it as the “most important Zionist propaganda tool in the United States.” This is a video of Patrick Clawson at the WINEP speaking (in September 2012) about the use of false flags as a necessary way for instigating a war with Iran.
Einat Wilf describes her activity in the bio section of her Twitter account: “Ever since leaving the Knesset, I have been serving as Roving Ambassador for Israel and Zionism, telling our story to a wide variety of audiences.” She is in many videos online advocating Israel. This is a talk where she argues the United Nations should not recognize the Palestinian state.
Her last tweet before the attack was in May. Then on July 22 (a few hours after her husband reported about the Munich terror attack) she tweeted: “In a world gone mad, the insane asylum that is the sate of #Israel appears now like an oasis of calm rationality… #NoPlaceLikeHome”
Richard Gutjahr – her husband – is a “new media” journalist. A sort of childish video blogger. He has a YouTube channel with at least one video reporting from Israel. This is an interview of him after the attack. And this is his famous Nice video used “everywhere around the World”.
This is a longer low-resolution version of the same video.
From the balcony of his hotel, Richard Gutjahr managed to catch the truck coming. He was ready to film with his camera “on”… He was filming in the right direction before anything happened. This is a remarkable coincidence.
As soon as he finished filming the truck, he says “terrorist attack! it’s a terrorist attack!” Two voices are heard from behind him in the hotel room. A kid and woman who replies “really?”… Probably his wife and their kid. (These voices were reported by Panamza.com but I was not able to hear them myself in the video.) What is peculiar is that other witnesses – who were much closer to the truck such as Nader El-Shafei – thought until the last minute it was an accident. That the guy maybe lost control of the truck. But Richard Gutjahr knew right away.
In the video we can see the white truck slow down very conveniently – right when it gets to Gutjahr’s position! – and then accelerate again right after the scene. According to most people this film has been edited: the video has been ACCELERATED in the end to make us believe it was driving fast enough to be dangerous!
About the scene he filmed and watched, Gutjahr declared later “it was like in the movies.” There are no people on the street in front of the truck and no apparent victims in this video. A cop and a few other people are seen running behind. The NY Times reported it was shot from the Hotel Westminster, (about 250 meter from where the truck stopped). Gutjahr reported hearing gunshots.
A man riding a motorbike (a scooter) catches up with the truck. When he gets close to the driver, he stops his bike abruptly and falls in the process. He gets up right away and continues running on foot. This “hero” manages to climbs on the side of truck – a little too far behind the driver’s door. He immediately gets back on the ground and the trucks accelerates and goes away. The man gives up… This man – the “scooter man” – is wearing a gray top and dark pants.
Replying to a German journalist Gutjahr said the truck was driving very slowly and he heard people screaming… He said the scooter scene “was like in a movie… At the crossroads policemen opened fire, then the driver accelerated and run over the first humans. Whether because of the shots or whether he planned it exactly, I can not judge. That would be speculation.” (Note: According to other testimonies – see hero 2 below – the truck made no victims after the scooter scene.)
In this interview, he said he started filming at exactly 23:07 which is very weird, because we know from a very reliable source (the Nice CCTV people) that the truck drove for a 1 or 2 minutes and was completely stopped at exactly 22:34… more than 30 minutes earlier!
UPDATE… The scooter man’s name is Franck, 49, he was later interviewed on TV. It was a professional, official and very skillfully edited interview intended for a vast mainstream audience. Frank (we do not know his last name) is one of three “heroes” who tried to physically stop the driver. He is the most important hero. The one who took the bigger risks and gave us a show with his scooter… We will call this scooter man: hero 1. He says he continued to run and tried to climb on the truck again. How did this 49 year old man catch up on foot with the fast truck? On the video we see him giving up when the truck accelerates… He says he managed to get back on the truck later and hit the driver multiple times… He said the driver hit him back on his head with his gun… and then pointed the gun at him… which was not working or maybe was not charged – but he said it worked a few seconds later… because the driver shot at him at point range… but he was not wounded… (Was it a fake gun? This is possible. Fake guns were found in the truck.)
Most of what he says is not visible on the Gutjahr video. It might have happened later during the 250 meters that were left… Hero 1 added that when the truck stopped he slid under the wheel of the truck… Before the attack, he said he was riding with his wife and their sons were in the area. They all survived.
Hero 1 admitted he was also the man who is seen arrested and brutalized by the police on the Ynet video (see below).
UPDATE… Richard Gutjahr was in Munich – where he resides – on the scene of another terror attack just a few days later on July 22… He tweeted right from the scene of the shooting at a shopping mall. He was also interviewed about it on German TV. He declared is was “like a bad movie.” (A few days ago he had said the Nice attack was “like in the movies.”) He posted many pictures and at least one videos of the scene in Munich. When asked about it online by a journalist, he stated they were taken 30 minutes before he posted them. A little later he tweeted: “Made mistakes today. Could not believe, that I fell once again into such a situation. The images are now gone.”
He deleted his tweets and the attached images! This is a video on Youtube documenting what was removed. And this is another one… One of his deleted tweets said “I am standing in front of #OEZ” (“Stehe vor dem #OEZ”) and it had a picture attached to it. This is a snapshot that was retrieved via Google Cache.
Maybe he removed the tweets because the pictures exposed something? Or more probably was it to avoid the nasty comments that poured on him about being at both the Nice and the Munich attacks?… It was reported elsewhere that it was the German police who asked him to remove them pretending the images could help the shooter. To which he first replied it could not be the case because the attack was over and his images were 30 minutes “old” already… After they insisted, he deleted the images from his account and tweeted he admitted he “made mistakes”… So it seems he have been ordered to remove his stuff by the German authorities. Although it is very obvious his images could NOT have helped the shooter in any way!… It looks as if insiders (the perpetrators and/or the German police) realized that he was being exposed all over the Internet for being at 2 similar terrorist events… So maybe they asked him to stop what he was doing and back off for a while.
A few hours later, he tweeted he was back in Nice… He also posted a picture of a sunset on the shore – in case people would not believe him… His last tweet, a little later, is quite ironic. It is a re-tweet from a post he wrote in September 2015:
HAIRDRESSER: What do you do?
ME: I am a journalist.
HAIRDRESSER: For what?
ME: I often ask myself this question.
UPDATE… Gutjahr has a grown up daughter called Thamina Stoll… who normally lives in North Carolina. She also filmed the attack in Munich and was interviewed on TV.
About the Ynet video
An amateur video of the aftermath of the event shows a man near the truck being arrested alive on the ground and taken away.
The video was first published by Ynet News – an Israeli website managed by the daily newspaper Yediot Aharonot – early on the following day at 8:40 am Paris time. It is also present in this article with the Gutjahr video mentioned above. This is it on the Facebook page of Ynet News.
תיעוד דרמטיישראלים שהיו מטרים ממקום הזוועה בניס צילמו את הירי במחבל מהמשאיתhttp://bit.ly/2aeH2jP
Posted by ynet on Thursday, July 14, 2016
The person who shot the video – according to Ynet – is Silvan Ben Weiss, an Israeli tourist. Jerusalem Online describes him as an Israeli living in France. The French website Panamza identified him as Sylvain Benouaich. He used his Facebook account to post his video. He shot it from the restaurant La Canne à Sucre.
On his Facebook wall, many of Benouaich’s posts are hardcore Israeli propaganda. Very hateful anti-Muslim propagada. He does not hide his sympathies for the far right in Israel, and also in Britain. He posted a video filmed in the subway of the city of Marseille showing Arabs and he commented with his pretty poor grammar: “Marseille a garbage of France I have lived I know something about it.” (In French: “Marseille une poubelle de France j’ai vécu j’en sais quelque chose.”) His posts are not public anymore. It seems he recently changed the privacy settings to avoid people picking on him… This is one very shocking post he shared:
Benouaich seems to be not very literate/educated. He was a security agent for the wine company Baron Edmond de Rothchild. According to his LinkedIn profile, he later worked for 12 years for the Israel Export Institute, a governement agency managed for a good while by Rafi Eitan, a notorious Mossad operative.
Later on the same day (July 15) around noon, the same video was posted on YouTube via Twitter by Morsmal, a Norwegian NGO related to the UNESCO. Morsmal is managed by On Elpeleg, a man originally from Tel Aviv, who promotes Israel online. His page on Linkedin describes him as an editor in chief involved in media production, also as a “Middle East Commercial Attaché for Somalia,” a teacher and a lay judge in Norway… On Twitter, Elpeleg told someone asking about the video that it was shot by an Israeli tourist. (The video had almost 1/2 million views when it was suddenly removed by YouTube alleging it was spam or misinformation.)
On this video we can see policemen holding a man on the ground, hitting him twice and then carrying him away harshly in an extreme hurry (running). This “hero” is obviously treated like a suspect, not like a victim. The police did not give an explanation about it to the press. The newspaper Le Monde published a poor article about the video very early only to dismiss conspiracy theories. (The article is by Adrien Sénécat, a very young “journalist” already exposed as a liar and a desinfo agent in the past. For example in this article in French.)
UPDATE… It was confirmed later. He man they arrested was indeed hero 1, Frank the scooter man we first saw in the Gutjahr video above (with a gray top and dark pants).
Before the cops start hitting and arresting hero 1, another man is already over him. He has a light dark beard and he is wearing a dark shirt. He lifts his head and speaks to the policemen while hero 1 has his head against the floor. This man looks like Gwenaël Leriche – hero 3 – who’s testimony will be discussed below.
Also note the man in gray sportswear, short pants and dark sneakers who is walking around undisturbed by policemen while they are arresting and brutalizing hero 1… This man in gray COULD very well be Alexandre Migues – hero 2 – who was never arrested… or not… We will discuss this case below.
About the El-Shafei Video
On a video shot by Egyptian banker Nader El-Shafei (the tourist who also testified the driver was wearing a blue police-like uniform) we see the same moment that we see in the Ynet video above, but filmed from the other side.
Another version of the video that is longer and pasted with other videos.
At the beginning of the video, a man in gray sports wear is seen his back against the truck moving carefully towards the rear side of the truck… while cops are shooting at the driver… What is he doing so close to the truck? Why are cops ignoring him?
He looks very much like the man walking freely close to the one who gets arrested in the Ynet video discussed above. Why didn’t they arrest him? Policemen can be seen systematically pushing everyone away. Why didn’t they at least push him away like everyone else?
Why is this man in gray ignored by policemen and left alone so close to the truck in the danger zone? Specially when our witness El-Shafei – who stated he was standing 1 or 2 meter in front of the truck when it stopped and the shooting started – was immediately asked by the police to move away! Like everyone else!… This is how he ended up at the spot where he started his film… with many other people who were ordered to clear the area… except the man in gray…
This man did not leave the scene. This man in gray with short pants and dark sneakers with not socks can be seen later assisting moving the injured in this video at 0:55… Why is he doing this? He is not a doctor… Is he a cop in plain clothes?
About a second hero
Alexandre Migues – hero 2 – came forward to offer his testimony. He was the first “hero” to come out… His body posture and his clothes are very similar to the “man in gray” in the videos… But if it is him, it means hero 2 lied. Because his testimony is not compatible with him being the “man in gray”. Hero 2 said he left the scene early before the truck even stopped.
Alexandre Migues was interviewed once (in French). Our man – hero 2 – is a local guy from Nice, more or less 30 years old – who stated he was alone on his bicycle on the high ground in the middle of the avenue, trying to cross from the side of the Hotels to the sea side… when he noticed the panic and saw the truck coming… running over one lady.
He quickly decided to throw his bicycle on the ground and run on foot. (Why drop the bicycle?) He said he reached the driver’s door and grabbed the handle and tried to open it 2 or 3 times… The driver looked at him “very coldly” and seemed to search for something and finally aimed a weapon at him… Giving him aggressive looks to scare him and make him understand he was going to shoot – but he did not shoot. (It seems the driver was using a fake gun.) He said this scared him and made him drop the handle and leave the scene… He said he was not hero. He said the true hero who really risked his life was hero 1, the scooter man.
He said at this precise moment, from his left, he saw the scooter come and hit the truck. (The scooter did not hit the truck!) He said the scooter man – hero 1 – threw himself with his scooter in front of him… under the front wheel of the truck. (But this did not happened as he tells it.) He then heard two gun shots (probably from policemen that can be seen in the Gutjahr video above). After this, he said he turned his back and left… He found his bicycle and went home riding the other way… He insisted the gun scared him and made him leave.
Alexandre Migues added something weird. He said he wished he stayed a little longer to try to pull on the door handle again, to deviate the truck a little more (out of the street) into the high ground… I guess he meant “turning the driving wheel” to deviate the truck.
He said he was lucky he did not see any victim… because it would have haunted him. (If he went the other way as he said, he should have seen some of them!) He said he saw no victims over the next 150 meters after himself and hero 1 – the scooter man – started to challenge the truck… We know the truck continued only for another 250 meters after the scooter scene (that took place in front of the Westminster Hotel). It seems the truck did not hit anyone in those last 250 meters.
Hero 2’s testimony is disturbing… (1) The truck was driving very fast. Why did he drop his bicycle and chose to run on foot? (2) He said he left the scene very early, when hero 1 “hit” the truck with his scooter… So if we believe him, he cannot be the man in gray (who is seen walking around the truck after it had stopped, in both in the Ynet video and the El-Shafei video, and also later helping medics). (3) In the Gutjahr video, in the scene where the scooter falls, we do not see him at all… This is not normal. He should have been visible at this stage… (4) His account about how the scooter fell is not correct… (5) He has the body and the hair cut of a soldier. In the video of the ceremony where he receives a medal, his posture – very straight with hands behind his back – is a military posture.
If hero 2 is the man in gray… then hero 2 is lying… And he might very well be involved in the attack…
If hero 2 is not the man in gray we see in the videos… two questions emerge… (a) Why isn’t hero 2 visible in the Gutjahr video? He should be there… As opposed to the 2 other heroes, hero 2 this one has nothing to back up his account… (b) Who the hell is this man in gray? This man is highly suspicious. Identifying him and interviewing him should be a priority for the media and for the police a well. Could he be a cop undercover? That would explain why the other cops did not arrest him or even tell him to move away… and why he is even seen later helping medics attending the victims.
It would be nice if scooter man – hero 1 – who sounds relatively genuine, could tell us if he saw hero 2 on that night… This would help us understand exactly who did what and hopefully make hero 2 less suspicious. (Ideally they should have been interviewed together.)
About a third hero
The newspaper Nice Matin introduced a third hero… On July 17, the paper published a short article (confusing and very badly written with typos/mistakes) reporting that a 26 years old delivery guy named “Gwenaël” – hero 3 – was with his friends on the beach. The young man said that when he saw what was going on, he left his friends and courageously ran towards the truck!
He said he managed to catch up with the truck when it slowed down (the truck was reported driving from 30 to 60 mph!). He said it was horrible as he ran over corpses (“cadavres” in French) to reach the driver. (This means he started running earlier than the others, before the Westminster Hotel.) Corpses is a weird word to use at this stage, since the victims were hit only a few seconds ago and did not have the time to die… He says he managed to climb on the truck and punch the driver!… Who supposedly replied with gun shots… but did not get him… (It seems the gun was fake.)
The report specifies the gun was a 7.65 millimeters. How did he know that? The end of the story is confusing… “Gwenaël” says he found himself behind the stopped truck holding a knife (!?) and heroically jumped on some other guy (it was hero 1) to “protect him from the bullets” coming from both the driver and the police… He says that right at this moment other policemen arrested him thinking he might be involved with the killer.
Adding to the confusion, this fishy report tells two other “heroes” climbed on the truck to try something and were detained and questioned by the police. They were all freed sometime later. (This is not accurate: hero 2 said he was never arrested.)
On July 18, the Daily Mail referred to him with his full name: Gwenaël Leriche. They wrote he was armed with a pocket knife. They reported him saying a second man grabbed the driver’s door when the truck slowed down (which hero was it? was it hero 1?) and this allowed him to catch up and try to punch the driver through the window!
Gwenaël – hero 3 – actually appears in the Ynet video… He is the man who brought hero 1 to the ground just before their arrest… We can see him on the floor over hero 1, lifting his head and talking to the policemen…
It seems hero 1 – who was interviewed many times on TV – never spoke about Gwenaël who jumped over him… and about the details of his brutal arrest. (Why not?) We know his interview was highly edited and produced by the mainstream media for a large audience.
It seems Gwenaël – hero 3 – was never interviewed on video. (Why not?) He said he saw corpses, so he must have started before the scooter scene… before the other two heroes… and he continued all the way until the final scene… So hero 3 should be visible in the Gutjahr video… Both hero 2 and hero 3 should be visible in that video… and they are not.
UPDATE: The city of Nice rewarded them later… All three heroes – Frank, Alexandre Migues and Gwenaël Leriche – received a medal in an official ceremony on French TV. Why is Frank hiding his last name?
UPDATE 2: Gwenaël Leriche – hero 3 – was arrested on Sunday August 7 and detained (until September 12) for physical violence against his ex-girl friend and her boss. He was armed with a pocket knife. (In 2014, he had already been convicted for beating his girlfriend.)
About a popular photo of the event
The photo above was all over the mainstream media. News outlets such as The Independent decided to even zoom on the doll and reported it was an image of “a doll lying next to the covered body of a young victim“… Although, if one zooms out, the body is too big… obviously the size of an adult. And the doll is quite big, almost the size of a real baby. The photographer Eric Gaillard said:
Given its size, I don’t think it was a child. I don’t know why the doll is there. Was it a parent who was with a child – hence the doll? Did someone put the doll there at some point, for some unknown reason? Everyone is asking me.
It looks a bit like the fake baby exposed at the Brussel airport bombing in March 2016. There was also a fake baby spotted at the Boston Marathon bombing in 2013…
Eric Gaillard is a 58 years old professional photographer who covers events related to war and terrorism – among other things. He happened to be in Nice because he lives there. He had just covered the Euro 2016 soccer championship. He reported he was not working that night. Around 9 p.m. his wife suggested they pop outside to see the annual fireworks, but he persuaded her to stay in and watch TV. (He did not specify why he did so.) Soon after the attack, he received an alert on his phone from the authorities and jumped on his motorbike. He covered the aftermath of the event showing the truck with bullet holes, the police, the passersby and the bodies on that night.
Gaillard worked for Reuters for 31 years. His pictures are bought by prestigious news outlets to illustrate articles… One of his pictures was used to illustrate the Brussels event in March 2016… He documented a bomb found days after the Paris attacks in November 2015… and another of his picture was used for an article about the Charlie Hebdo attacks in January 2015… Although it seems he was NOT present on the scene of these events, he was called at the scene for the bomb alert in Paris. He is allowed to enter the French National Assembly and get very close to political figures. He is a reliable “state photographer” who works in harmony with the French government.
The relationship between the governments of France and Israel
On June 3, about 40 days before the tragic event in Nice, The Guardian reported:
France has hosted senior diplomats from the west and the Arab world to work on organising a peace conference by the end of the year that would launch long-dormant Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, despite slim chances of success.
France has said it felt compelled to act because the opportunities for setting up a Palestinian state alongside Israel are slipping away while the situation in the region is deteriorating. (..)
The Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, has rebuffed the French initiative and said a deal can only be reached in direct negotiations.
Although French people consider their president Hollande and prime minister Valls as overly pro-Israel, many Israelis – specially the far right and people like Netanyahu – consider them dangerous pro-Palestinians… The groups and people ruling Israel since the murder of Rabin in 1995 are neocon radicals who consider the United Nations and the European Union as hostile pro-Palesitinan peaceniks.
Netanyahu wrote Hollande wishing to express his sorrow after the attack:
The horrific terrorist attack on Bastille Day was a clear but futile attempt to undermine the very foundations of the French Republic.
It is imperative for all civilized nations to come together to defeat the forces of medievalism while defending and maintaining our values and freedoms. Israel is your close partner in the fight against Islamist terrorism. We stand ready to provide any assistance you require in our common effort to put an end to the deliberate targeting of innocent civilians.
A psycholgical survey posted by an Israeli “research team”
On July 22, in a Facebook group recently created for and about the Nice attacks (by supposed “human right activists” with 85 subscribers) an Israeli who writes in Hebrew on her profile – Lia Ling – posted a link to a survey or questionnaire for “a study regarding the psychological effects of a terror attack on the general population.” She must have posted it in other places online. She says the study “will help us (Israel?) to learn [sic] more about civilian reaction to terror attack and to devise [sic] new ways to identify civiliants [sic] at risk.”
What does it mean? First, how can one identify “civilians at risk”? And second, how does identifying these social categories of people – if that was possible – can help? In what way exactly can her team – or anyone – help these people they pretend to be able to identify!?
This is a PDF copy of the questionnaire: Psychological effects of the Nice – FR – terror attack. And these are the 24 questions asked:
1. What is your age? (18 and up)
2. What your gender?
3. What is your marital status?
4. How many Years of study do you have?
5. Where do you live?
6. What is your religion? (choices include Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Other, No Comment)
7. How willing would you be to have a non-muslim (If you are a Muslim) or how willing would you be to have a Muslim (if you are not Muslim) as a:… (choices to evaluate your degree of islamophobia)
8. Please circle the number that best describes how often you had this feeling since the terror attack in Nice:… (choices of various negative or morbid emotions)
9. List of problems and frequent symptoms following recent terror attack in Nice: (a choice of post traumatic stress, dreams and fears)
10. How much do you think about your own death?
11. To what extent have the recent terror attack in Nice changed how you think about your own death?
12. How much do you agree with the following statement: The recent terror attack in Nice led me to change my political view: (6 degrees to choose from “not at all” to “extremely”)
13. How much do you agree with the following statement: “France will not be the same”? (6 degrees to choose from “not at all” to “extremely”)
14. What is your opinion regarding the following statement: “The recent terror attack in Nice led me to change my political view”? (choices about “moving to the left” or “to the right” or no changes)
15. Do you think that France has changed following the recent terror attack? (6 degrees to choose from “not at all” to “extremely”)
16. If France was changed due to the recent terror attack, it changed: (for the worst… or for the better… or not at all…)
17. A fair coin turns up Heads 5 times in a row. Which is more likely to happen on the next toss? (head or tail or neither… to evaluate your optimism)
18. The recent terror attack in Nice led to a debate of the importance of civil right vs. security measures. In your option which should take priority: (3 choices… one or the other or none…)
19. How much time did you spend using the following media in the week after the attack – Since the day of the attack on Thursday the 14th of July, 2016 – 168 hours in total? (8 boxes, to enter the hours for each media)
– TV hours out of 186 hours
– Radio – hours out of 186 hours
– Newspaper – hours out of 186 hours
– Internet (not news websites)– hours out of 186 hours
– Social Network (FACEBOOK) – hours out of 186 hours
– News Websites – hours out of 186 hours
– Twitter – hours out of 186 hours
– Youtube – hours out of 186 hours
20. Please choose the option that describes the degree of control that you felt you had over your media consumption (e.g. exposure to news, social media, cellular applications etc.) in obtaining information relevant to the attack: (5 choices about the degree of control… from very controlled which goes alone with only relevant information… to no control and overconsumption of “useless” information)
21. How safe do you feel in your daily life? (6 degrees to choose from “not at all” to “extremely”)
22. Please rate the following statements. There are no right or wrong answers. (Each sentence below requires a choice from “agreeing” to “not agreeing”. They are about feelings of injustice.)
– I should have more than what I get
– The awful things that happen to me are unfair
– Things generally do not work out in the end
– Those who are unkind often have the most friends
– People who do evil things get away with it
23. How much do you agree with the following statement: “Able to adapt to change”: (5 choices from “not true” to “true all the time”)
24. How much do you agree with the following statement: “Tend to bounce back after illness or hardship”: (5 choices from “not true” to “true all the time”)
Thank you very much for participating in our study. Your contribution can help to learn more about civilian reaction to terror attacks. Our study aims to test theories about the ways people’s react and cope, and their political views may become pronounced during times of peril. We are also novel testing ideas about the relationships between media use, values and anxiety. If you have any further enquiries relating to this research, or wish for some more literature on the subject. please do not hesitate to contact Dr Michal Mahat-Shamir ([email protected]).
Lia Ling posted similar links on her profile for surveys about other terror events. She posted a questionnaire in Hebrew about a bus attack in Jerusalem on April 18 (she posted the survey on the next day). She also posted a questionnaire about the Brussels bombings (also a false-flag full of Israeli finger prints) which happened earlier on March 22 (she posted the link on April 1). The English questionnaires are IDENTICAL, although created on different survey websites. Lia Ling lives in Petah Tiqva, Israel. In 2015 she graduated from Ariel University located in the Israeli settlement of Ariel in the West Bank. Since February she started working for a sort of youth motivational program in Petah Tiqva (185 members on Facebook).
Dr Michal Mahat-Shamir – the author of the questionnaire – is a Phd in social psychology. She gave lectures about the trauma of mothers who lost their children, among other topics. She is part of the staff in a M.A. program in English titled “International program about Crisis and Trauma” at Tel Aviv University. She is also part of the staff at Ariel University (where Lia Ling studied) for a very similar M.A. program. It is fair to assume she was Lia Ling’s teacher.
This survey looks like an evaluation of the efficiency of the Psyop. It seems like the perpetrators are trying to gather feedback and measure how effective these events are on the people… or is this suggestion too paranoid?
[ Tiny url for this page: http://tinyurl.com/zswhhel ]
35 Replies to “A Truck Attack in Nice, France – July 2016”
The terrorist was sure lucky he encountered such cooperative policemen!
Yesterday, he was stopped by police just hours before he crushed scored of people …
He told officers that he was delivering ice-cream to the area and was allowed to park on the waterfront for several hours.
…eyewitnesses revealed that police vans which were parked to block off the promenade in Nice were moved just hours before the lorry driven by Bouhlel carried out his attack. … French authorities withdrew four police vans which blocked off the Promenade des Anglais, reports the Sunday Telegraph.
Excellent article! I think, the most important gap in the whole story is the timeline of the event!
The german journalist Richard Gutjahr told live on TV, that he filmed the truck “around 23h00” and the next morning he said it was “at exactly 23h07”. In an interview with a german newspaper he stated, it was “around 22h45” and in another interview he stateted that the fireworks started at 22h15 and ended 45 Minutes later. So the most important eyewitness gave wrong testimonies and the question is why.
Hero No. 1 statet also, that he drove at “around 23h00” near the Centre Universitaire Médit. when he saw the truck in the mirror. But we know from the report of Sandra Bertin, that the police reports the truck on that spot on 22h33. So why is hero 1 lying? And why does no one in the media bothers to correct the wrong statements of both, Gutjahr and hero 1?
In my opionion this is the smoking gun. Because, you can tell the whole world that the pix and the videos from Nice have an unreal feeling and seems fake, but nobody would believe you. But two important eyewitnesses who lied can not be ignored by media nor by police.
100%… I think the most reliable time is 22:34 for when the truck stopped, the attack starting a minute or two earlier as confirmed by Sandra Bertin from the CCTV team… I found another witness (Johnny Prevost the owner of a restaurant called Bellote a few meters after the Westminster Hotel) who also confirms this time… He said the fireworks ended around 22:30 and the attack happened 3 minutes later. (I have added his testimony to the article even if it is not very important.)
So all the people saying 23:00+ would all be lying. It must be the time in the “script” they gave everyone… This is pretty cool because it makes it easier for us to immediately spot all the jokers… Gutjahr of course – exposed to the bone in Nice and Munich already – who was not precise about the time probably on purpose… not really knowing what he was supposed to say… the truth or the script… He was very precise once when he stated he started filming at “exactly” 23:07… So I suppose this is the hour they had set in the script.
Hero 1 would be more of a surprise because he is really good. If he is an actor he deserves an award… Where did you hear him say “around 23:00”?… The other “heroes” are more fishy than him. There is a good chance the 2 others were “control” agents… Hero 2 is very suspicious and has the profile of a paramilitary agent or a cop in plain clothes. In his interview his face and his eyes do not look sincere… Also hero 3 (who was never interviewed on audio or video! why not?) might have jumped on hero 1 to control him… because hero 1 would have been too close to the last scene for an “outsider”… Hero 3 pretended he jumped on hero 1 to protect him from bullets… But it could very well be to allow for the driver – or people in the truck – to escape without letting hero 1 fucking things up… (It would also explain the excessive aggressively against hero 1 and the speed and panic in which they carried him away.)
If we really had to suspect hero 1, these are a few points:
* He is in great shape for a 49 years old. He did pretty crazy stuff with no serious injuries. Maybe he is a professional stuntman? It could make sense. (He was also hit one or twice by the police who arrested him.)
* It is interesting to note the truck slowed down exactly where Gutjahr was waiting with his camera. So the scooter scene “might” have been set up.
* The other 2 “heroes” gave their full names and hero 1 did not… “Franck” decided to hide his identity… Why? For privacy? For modesty? What is he afraid of? People checking his background and his real job?… He said he was with his wife on his scooter and his 2 grown up children were somewhere in the crowd…
* His interview was very professionally produced and edited. It was sent to most media channels in France and around the world in a typical “news package”. The way it works in the mainstream media. While hero 3 was not even interviewed once on audio (maybe they had reasons not to expose him). It would be interesting to find Franck’s real name and check his background.
By the way, do you have some media accounts that “there was an alert about multiple bombs around the Negresco Hotel”? I could not find any with a google search. Thank you.
Good point… I have improved the “bomb alerts” paragraph you are referring to with a few sources (eye witnesses) and more precision. I am sure there is even more but I do not remember where. It seems there was a lot of contradictory information spread by the panicking crowd… and also by the police… who probably started these rumors… The Mirror wrote: “The police were clearly very worried that terrorists might still be at large, and everybody was under suspicion. There were fears at the time that the nearby Meridien hotel might be under siege, and that bombs were set to explode.” (Who would invent this sort of threat and why? It sounds like a pretext to clear the area… whether for safety reasons or fakery reasons.)
“it sounds like a pretext to clear the area …” Exactly my thoughts. Thanx for the update.
There is a video on youtube with a timeline of the event. The filmer stated that on 23h12, the Promenade is already deserted, that means cleared by police.
Also interesting this photo, taken by an Israeli, you can see, that during the fireworks, two policecars with flashing blue lights are driving down the Promenade des Anglais. Perhaps the Police tried to get the people off the street during the fireworks. By now I am not entirely sure, if the fireworks really started at 22h00 and ended 20 min later. There is so much contradictory information out there. But that’s the usual stuff for events like Nice.
Thanks! The video with the timeline is a great “undeniable” document. (Other fireworks started later and could be seen from Nice but they were a few kilometers away such as St-Laurent-du-Var.)
In the german newspapers and magazines, the story of Hero 1 is told over and over again. In German it reads: >>Es ist der 14. Juli, gegen 23 Uhr. “Wir wollten zum Feuerwerk.” Zu seiner Frau sagte er: “Gehen wir erst ein Eis essen am Platz Cours Saley.”<< In English: It is the 14th of July, around 23 o'clock. "We wanted to see the firework" – to his wife he said: "Let's get an icecream first on Place Cours Saley".
So the story is unbelievable, because, the firework ended well before 22:30 and he should know that, because each year, the firework starts at 22:00 and ends between 22:20 and 22:30 (I asked a guy on twitter, who made pictures of the firework that day). And the time, 23:00, as we know it, is also wrong. Maybe the german journalists wrote that part in, but the whole story sounds (in german) like a fairytale to me.
Ah, I see. In the french Version of FRANCE 24 it says:
“We wanted to go see the fireworks, but we left too late. So I told my wife ‘it’s not a big deal, let’s go eat some ice cream’… Everything was going fine. We passed people starting to go home,” Franck told Nice Matin.
Looks like the german journalists changed the story and set the time to 23h00. Perhaps to bring it in line with the (wrong) statements of Gutjahr?
The point is, Gutjahr must have given the wrong statements with approval of the french police, because, they must have known it at once, when the truck arrived at the Westminster Hotel. Or there was and is no surveillance footage – I read the last day that Sandra Bertin is somewhat close to Estrosi.
Yes “23:00” was probably a contamination from Gutjahr and/or other official sources… Also, it would be OK if hero 1 was not accurate because of what he experienced.
It is hard to understand why Gutjahr would lie. With such confusion AND with such precision when he said 23:07… Why not just say the real time? There is no advantage to lie, only troubles knowing many other witnesses will tell the truth.
Was it just a mistake from his own stupidity?… The hour must have been visible on his video file, on his phone or camera… Or was it a “glitch” related to the script… It is a difficult question…
It would be interesting to find out exactly what other witnesses also said 23:00+
Gutjahr’s function was central in the communication of the event… like that Georgian woman in the Brussels bombings whose job was to take “the pictures of the day.” At least her pictures were good.
Bertin is indeed VERY close to Estrosi. Who is an open critic and political enemy of the present socialist government. Bertin saw the CCTV images. As bad as they might be in the night and with the speed, she must know more than we know. She – and Estrosi – must know a lot more about what actually happened in Nice.
This might very well be the reason why they are so bold and outspoken, knowing the government would not dare to really bother them. (They did not want to expose the government, they just wanted to defend their city and staff from the false accusation of incompetence. And keep the CCTV footage as an asset against the gov and to defend their autonomy.)
One (important) eyewitness are the Goldsmiths:
When the fireworks finished about 11pm, the family went inside to pack as they were leaving the next day. “We could still hear the music, all the bands were playing,” she said. “And then it went a bit quiet, a bit eerie. I just noticed ‘what? why has all the music stopped?” She went out onto the balcony again to have a look. ” [I] heard a few little screams,” she said. “And then a truck was coming down the promenade and I thought ‘that’s weird, there’s no cars allowed because of the celebrations’. “Then I realised what the truck was doing.” Ms Goldsmith said it was obvious it was no accident. “It was a big truck, a semi-trailer,” she said, “everyone was scrambling, like little ants running away from something.” “It was like a sea of people scrambling … parting, every which way.”
Sasha Goldsmith took the most famous picture of the event: the damaged truck riddled with bullets and surrounded by policemen, the photograph taken from a high angle.
See here: http://www.haaretz.com/world-news/europe/1.731212
Perhaps all the stage is set for the strong man to come: Sarkozy.
If you look at the twitter-feed for “camion” and “foule”, the first message is from 22h42 and reads a little strange. Then at 22h55 @zainshallah tweeted “un mec il a foncé dans la foule avec un camion et personne en parle????????”
So that means, a truck plows through a crowd of thousands of people at approx. 22h34 and not one eyewitness is there to warn/inform the others via Social Media? All we get are vague infos and wild guesses via Twitter. And only at about 23h00 the whole event – via Social Media – gets bigger and bigger.
So, for me, it looks like that the Promenade was cleared after the firework – via panic, via police, via bomb alerts – and then, the truck was brought in. I guess that in the script, the truck should be stopped at around 23h00. Remember, in the beginning, the media told us, that the whole thing took half an hour to enfold. Later on, this was changed.
The Goldsmith’s seem to be planted just like Gutjahr, only less stupid. The article you quoted is typical propaganda. A compilation of terrifying stuff… and the last sentence “it will never end” is ridiculous. It is overdone. It is terrorizing – which is the whole point of these operations. (I think the use of the time 23:00 in the article is also suspicious as discussed above.)
I agree social networks were VERY QUIET during the first half hour after the truck attack (ending at 22:34)… and suddenly went mad and loud at 23:00+… I did not search well but the earliest tweet I found was at 23:05.
Nevertheless I am skeptical about your interpretation that the truck came later around 23:00. Videos show otherwise. And if the event had started with the panic only – with no truck – we could have heard about it on Twitter… but we did not either. I think you are going too fast to make sense of this 30 minutes delay. There must be another explanation.
(a) Before posting one needs to have SOMETHING to post about. The rapidity of the event (about 1 minute) and the (artificially augmented) panic did not help people see much… and inform others quickly… with something that made sense… It took some time for people just to understand WHAT happened so fast in such a chaotic environment… (According to the Israeli who was not happy about it and who complained in the tweet you mentioned… it took people on Twitter too much time! It seems he figured it out before everyone else.)
(b) We know the flood of posts on Twitter was not “100% organic”. Twitter was manipulated for Nice exactly like for Paris Bataclan (nov 2015) and Brussels (mar 2015). Many accounts were calling for “missing people” and were re-tweeting each other. As if this was normal. As if people were “lost”… and as if calls on twitter could help find them! The logical behaviour is to call embassies or hospitals or police authorities. The twitter accounts were too numerous to be genuine… related to each other… and some of them “recycled” from previous events. It has been proven these accounts posted tons of pictures they stole from random people online… Only generating distress and stirring emotions.
(c) The propaganda GO TIME for the media and social media was probably 23:00+. It was probably the time fixed for everyone “on the script” to start posting… We know it was the case for Gutjahr who told “exactly 23:07”. It could be when he uploaded his video (or was given the OK to do it). But why wait 30 minutes? Why have the “media team” not post too soon and wait? Those 30 minutes were planned. They badly needed them to do certain things. What things?
(d) 30 minutes was needed to clear the area “for security” and from unwanted witnesses… and to set up the scene with fake bodies… and take the good photos… and then remove the bodies as fast as possible (because as long as fake bodies are on the ground, the operation is still ongoing for the perpetrators)
(e) 23:00 is also when we were told the first responders or firemen arrived near the Bellote restaurant (not far from the Westminster Hotel towards where the truck stopped). Maybe they came “late” on purpose… to give them those 30 minutes… before picking up the bodies… just in this particular zone where fake body are suspected.
+ It is very possible that on the last 250 meters of the trajectory (the distance between the Westminster Hotel to where the truck stopped) the bodies were fake. According to the owner of the Bellote, who said he counted about 30 bodies and said it could have been much worst, the truck was driving slowly in that last section for most people to get away. (On the Gutjahr video the truck accelerates. But if hero 1 is real, it must have slowed down again just after.)
Sereba found a very interesting interview which aired live on French TV iTele around 14.07./23h50:
She wrote: “A restaurant owner whose restaurant is located on the Promenade des Anglais, right near where the truck ‘was stopped by police’. The eyewitness tells the journalist that the police stopped the truck by shooting at it, stopping it just 50 meters from where all the people were amassed (!) to watch the fireworks. Although he has a first hand view of the scene, he makes NO mention of the truck running over people.”
So it seems (of course, pure speculation), that a part of the Promenade (Street) was cleared beforehand, the truck rolled in (filmed by Gutjahr?) and stopped approx. 50 Meters before the crowd, who watched the fireworks. Then, after the fireworks ended, shots were fired, the panicked crowd left the scene, the police blocked off the area and the crisis actors did what they usually do: acting. 30 min later, around 23h00, the stage was set and the medical responders were allowed on the scene [Prevost: “It took about 30 minutes for the first medical responders to arrive”] You described it pretty well in Point (d). At around 1h30 the first part of the show was over: “All members of the public have now been cleared of the area” – see this tweet: https://twitter.com/AlbanMikoczy/status/753733682821787649/photo/1
I wonder why there is not one interview with the driver of an automobile. The traffic on the Promenade was blocked on Boulevard Gambetta. According to an eyewitness, there was “traffic jam everywhere since lunchtime”, because “the roads were blocked since lunchtime”. So the drivers in the traffic jam should have seen the truck, entering the sidewalk of the Promenade. But not one interview – as far as I recall – with the driver of a car. That means – Beware, speculation ahead! – the Promenade must have been closed off before or during the fireworks – or, if this was not the case, there was no truck on the sidewalk to be seen.
You are absolutly right, that twitter (and social media as a whole) was and is manipulated. It’s hard to find relevant twitter accounts or tweets for that (and all the other) events that are (100%) genuine. But despite the manipulation, the twitter-timeline of the event gives us crucial information – as long as you can find a certain pattern.
I looked through a lot of pictures. And it’s really tough to spot the difference between a drill and a real event. Of course the pictures look fake, but a feeling is no proof. You see a blue blanket on the street and you have no idea, is this a real dead body or a dummy or something else. The only thing you know is, that your feeling says that something is wrong on the picture. On the other hand, the videoclips of “dead bodys” looked fake from the very beginning. Especially the poor quality and the short duration of the clips but also the bad “camera work” gave it away. But in the end, it’s all about believing, it’s all about who to trust (the media, the police, the government).
* At this stage, I think it is safe to assert that at least a few bodies were fake. Because if one is proven fake then we must expect at least a few more. This is based on a snap shot from a video (added in the article above) where it is obvious – despite the low resolution – that one “detached” arm is 100% fake. This is also re-confirmed by zooming out and looking at other anomalies in other pictures… In addition, among the list of victims reported in the news, too many of them are suspicious. The accumulation of many coincidences is NOT a coincidence. The 4 year old boy Kylian is definitively fake and his “father” Tahar is a crisis actor. This is not debatable. (And of course many victims in the “desperate calls” for missing people on Twitter were proven to be fake – including the very first one that was posted.)
* We find the same patterns/methods in other similar events since Boston Marathon 2013. The manipulation of the entire event including the “terrorists” and the presence of fake victims are a CERTITUDE. The incertitude we are left with, is not about whether an event is fake or not, it is about trying to find out if SOME elements are real… For example it is hard to tell if anything is real in Sandy Hook (NewTown) 2012, San Bernardino 2015, Orlando 2016. (For Sandy Hook, the killer himself Adam Lanza was a pure CREATION based on his brother Ryan Lanza.) In the Brussels bombings in March 2016 (there is a detailed article about it on this blog, check it out!) fake elements are mixed with real elements. Brussels is a hybrid event for sure because (1) we know many real people died, particularly in the subway, and (2) we know at least one dead person was a pure creation (based on a real person) AND at least half a dozen injured people were actors.
* Serebra made many good points about Nice. One thing I had missed was Me Corentin Delobel, the former lawyer of the “terrorist”. After being interviewed many times after the attack, a few days later on July 20 it was reported he tried to kill himself… The same media reports pretended he lied and they removed the articles and videos of him. They pretended he confessed he made a mistake because his client had a “similar name.” (I have added a paragraph about this story in the article.) This is called “damage control.” It is an undeniable proof of a cover up. The lawyer was repeating everywhere on TV that he knew the terrorist for having been appointed to defend him back in March… and that (1) the guy was not religious at all and (2) he was not mentally ill or depressed at all… He added he was a bit thick and not so smart and insisted he had no reason to do what he supposedly did. (They must be afraid of suiciding too many people since the horrible murder-suicide of policeman Fredou… that happened only a few hours after the Charlie Hebdo murders in January 2015. There is also a detailed article about Charlie Hebdo on this blog.)
No, there is no way, at least in my opinion, that a staged event is mixed with real deaths. The risks, the operators have to take is too great. It’s like a drill gone live. In a drill (or a movie production), you would not expect, that someon from the cast will be injured (except by accident). So, for me, there is only the one way or the other way, but nothing in between. Maybe the cabal decides to get rid of one relevant person in that staged event, but I doubt it.
Of course, we, the skeptics, we will never know what happened in all these events – but it’s bizness as usual for media and governments.
I went through the eyewitness accounts and what I heard is mindblowing in two ways. First, the operators seem to have no problem to hire the worst actors and give them a lousy script and second that everyone is buying it. That’s the reason you don’t need real deaths. The general public was and is gullible.
By the way, did you see this longer version of the showdown, the “Nader-Clip”:
The capture reads: “filmed by a freelance journalist” (Gutjahr). Was that a mistake?
And here a video I found with the Sasha Goldsmith view but it’s not him:
P.S.: Serebra did two Videos on the french Lawyer who (allegedly) tried to end his life. Check it out.
P.S.: I will definitly check your other stuff.
I will reply about the mix of reality and fiction in a second comment! It is a very interesting and important topic.
* I would not say “we will never know”. It is the whole point of doing these investigations. Even armchair detectives (like Freud) have a chance against the weirdest and most well hidden demons. Even with limited info and a lot of noise we are able – through collective intelligence (the web) – to reconstitute the pieces. Beyond politics and activism: for the sake of History. A secret cannot be kept completely. It always leaks somewhere somehow. From JFK to 9/11, most things labeled “conspiracy theories” are actually solved. Solved for the few who take the time and want to know. It is a minority but it real and strong. The World is too “busy” for the truth anyway. As you say people are gullible.
* The video you posted seems to be from the roof or the last floor of the building were the Goldsmith’s (if they exist!) were. The guy speaks in Arabic (Tunisian). He comments about what happened. He is not very accurate he says the truck drove over 4 km. He is very demagogic with too much information. He says the victims were an indiscriminate mix of all religions and races and so on. (How would he know that from where he was? Was he some sort of Tunisian Gutjahr?)
* In this video there is something that looks like a pile of white bodies near the groups of people standing… Can you see it? The resolution is bad. What do you think it is? (I wonder what time it was at this moment. The victims on the ground are not here anymore and the street looks clean.)
* Yes I had seen the longer version of the Nader El-Shafei video… The way the cop force everyone to go away is interesting. Specially in contrast with the “man in gray” who is left alone to walk around (as I commented in the article above, the guy I pretend looks like hero 2, Alexandre Migues)
* About the Ynet video… I tend to think that hero 1 (Franck) was not planned and freaked them all out… Hero 3 (an agent) jumped over him to “control” him. This explains why they took him away so harshly and so fast… keeping his head down and looking away from the truck when he was on the floor… and why they left hero 3 alone (I think the video is cut and hero 3 is just not here anymore)
* Yes I have seen Serebra’s videos. The good points she makes are in this article.
About mixing reality + fiction. Let me explain before we disagree… Indeed it is unpractical to have fake victims and real ones next to each other IN THE SAME SCENE. I surely agree about that, but some events are composed of MULTIPLE SCENES… Also we must follow facts, not opinions. If we can confirm a real AND a fake death in one event, the challenge is to find a narrative that fits the facts. (a) Sometimes the “terrorists” are killed later at a different location. For Charlie Hebdo we have many events taking place at many locations! (b) Also in one same location, it is possible to set up two scenes… on one side of a building you can have a real scene, and on the other side a staged set. (c) Also, there is a difference between a fake body on the scene and the “list of victims” usually issued later. You can have a real event and extra fictional deads added later in the news (with crisis actors as relatives)… Conclusion: We have to take the events one by one. For Newtown, Boston, Orlando, I would tend to agree with you: we have one location and one scene, and since we know for sure many elements are fake, we can go ahead and assume the whole event was fake and nobody died (except the patsies for Boston and maybe Orlando)… But on the events I call HYBRID they set up different scenes!
The idea is to augment the visual shock with powerful pictures and multiply the number of death without having to kill people. IDEALLY IF THEY COULD DO IT ALL FAKE THEY WOULD. Because (a) they are afraid of the families of the victims. If they are western and “not too poor” they will become truthers and harass the government for ever. Or (b) require to be paid something big (around 1 millions) with a contract where they agree not to sue. Whereas crisis actors are paid usually less than 100,000… In remote countries they don’t care. They make it all real, it’s “easier”. Also sometimes real blood is important to give the event more reality which people cannot deny. This is very important. It has to be real sometimes.
I can only speak for the few events I have studied in depth, among which Charlie Hebdo and Brussels. Brussels was a “multisite” event. One bomb in the subway that killed about 20 and two bombs (3 seconds of each other) at the airport that killed about 12. Those 2 locations are very far from each other. (LOCATION 1) At the subway we have at least 2 real deaths among the 20 (I know for sure because they were friends of friends). And in that same location (next to a real event) a small scene with crisis actors was spotted – outside of the subway somewhere only covering 20 to 30 meters on a small street. (LOCATION 2) At the airport, many fake injured victims where ALL OVER THE PLACE inside and outside (many small scenes). We saw no dead bodies on pictures or videos. We know for sure that at least one reported death at the airport is a fictional character (with an emotional crisis actor on TV). It is hard to tell if the 12 victims are fake. Half a dozen are very suspicious but other could be real. There were 2 bombs at the airport. One of them might have been real in one very limited area. And the other might have been fake (harmless explosion with a lot of dust).
And although the Nice truck attack was not a typical multisite event, it moved over a long distance – thus allowing multiples sites.
The thinker Baudrillard calls our world HYPERREAL. A blend of fiction and reality that cannot be told apart. Like sugar in water is hard to “locate”. From photoshop to holograms to internet, we live in a hyperreal world. Most of these terror events are hyperreal. They contain big chunks of reality inside a mostly virtual cake.
Let me quote Philip K. Dick from his speech How to Build a Universe That Doesn’t Fall Apart Two Days Later, given in 1978. It’s remarkably spot on:
“But the problem is a real one, not a mere intellectual game. Because today we live in a society in which spurious realities are manufactured by the media, by governments, by big corporations, by religious groups, political groups—and the electronic hardware exists by which to deliver these pseudo-worlds right into the heads of the reader, the viewer, the listener. Sometimes when I watch my eleven-year-old daughter watch TV, I wonder what she is being taught. The problem of miscuing; consider that. A TV program produced for adults is viewed by a small child. Half of what is said and done in the TV drama is probably misunderstood by the child. Maybe it’s all misunderstood. And the thing is, Just how authentic is the information anyhow, even if the child correctly understood it? What is the relationship between the average TV situation comedy to reality? What about the cop shows? Cars are continually swerving out of control, crashing, and catching fire. The police are always good and they always win. Do not ignore that point: The police always win. What a lesson that is. You should not fight authority, and even if you do, you will lose. The message here is, Be passive. And—cooperate. If Officer Baretta asks you for information, give it to him, because Officer Beratta is a good man and to be trusted. He loves you, and you should love him.
So I ask, in my writing, What is real? Because unceasingly we are bombarded with pseudo-realities manufactured by very sophisticated people using very sophisticated electronic mechanisms. I do not distrust their motives; I distrust their power. They have a lot of it. And it is an astonishing power: that of creating whole universes, universes of the mind.”
I recommend that you read the whole stuff here:
Excellent. Yes I know this text 🙂 In the world we live in”What is real?” is the question.
“Even with limited info and a lot of noise we are able – through collective intelligence (the web) – to reconstitute the pieces.”
Nope. I don’t think so. Maybe you can find answers to your questions, but who in the world is able to see the whole picture? We only see fractures of a mosaic and try to interpret the vague picture. In the end, it’s all interpretation, especially in history. Some quotes from the book “The Lessons of History”, written by Will and Ariel Durant:
“The historian always oversimplifies, and hastily selects a manageable minority of facts and faces out of a crowd of souls and events whose multitudinous complexity he can never quite embrace or comprehend.”
“[…] do we really know what the past was, what actually happend, or is history “a fable” not quite “agreed upon”? Our knowledge of any past event is always incomplete, probably inaccurate, beclouded by ambivalent evidence and biased historians, and perhaps distorted by our own patriotic or religious partisanship.”
“Most history is guessing, and the rest is prejudice.”
The events (let’s say puzzles) we are trying to solve are more or less part of the modern history. Almost one month after the event in Nice, you can’t find not the smallest article in the newspapers. The deal is done. The official narrative is set in stone (and Wikipedia). That’s it. Some weeks oder months later, with the next event, all the Estrosis will tweet again, that we should remember #Nice06 and that Europe is at war. That’s it. History is reduced to a Hashtag. But it works. Ask people what happened in #Bruxelles and everybody will tell you: “Yeah, a bomb went off. Terrible. I have seen it. Lot’s of dead bodies.” and so on and so forth.
So, I am not pessimistic, when I say, “we will never know”, it’s realistic. Because, we will never know for sure. That’s the crucial point. The murder of JFK is unsolved for how long? Despite the huge impact of that killing and all the power of the Kennedys. Sure, we know, that the official narrativ is a fairy tale (with magic bullets), but what else? Only speculation. Only hypotheses.
You wrote, that you know, that someone died in Bruxelles. Don’t get me wrong, but I don’t know you and you don’t know me. Perhaps we are both two paid shills who try to distract people. That’s the sad point in all our conversations on the web – we will never sure whom we can trust.
If this is your conclusion yes it is pessimistic! Of course I agree with every word… but for me what you describe is only the background, the introductory chapter. You describe very well the decor. Indeed “historiography” is a task that is set to fail. This is where we start.
Also knowledge about human history is different from pure knowledge about the nature of things and the Universe. We might never know if Alexander died from sadness, from a moskito bite or from poison… but we can potentially know everything about the nature of things and the evolution of life on Earth.
And even in “history” never say never… Jack the Ripper was identified recently. And the Turin shroud has been carbon dated. Tomorrow we might travel in time or find some sort of new forensic thing we have no idea about. The “sky” has no limit. The limit is us.
Ultra skepticism, if you push it to the end of its logic, becomes autistic. Or paranoid like a Ph. K. Dick character who thinks the world only exist around him as stage and everyone is a shill… Take “flat earthers” for example. They have been traumatized by so many lies, that they refuse to believe in anything they have not experienced. And since for human (on Earth) the planet looks flat, they decide to stick to that.
We are not able to “grab” reality but we have language (narratives, story telling, realms, ideologies, worlds) as a substitute. And a few of us also have logic (logos) when they make a little effort… Language can be used to brainwash and also to make sense of things. Humans try to investigate their condition. With fictions… mythology, theology, ontology… but also with science/logic… Science is knowledge and it is “divine”. It looks fake or like magic when it is too advanced – for people do not know the trick.
The investigation about our existence is still ongoing. What we have learned in the past couple of centuries is “miraculous”. Dinosaurs are not a hoax – even if we do not have the full picture. But how does science (knowledge) work? I am not talking about people who “like” and read about science (they relate to it like a fetish), I am talking about researchers and the process of scientific research. It has points in common with art and fiction making… It works a bit like historiography. From a set of experimental facts we come up with theories (narratives, hypothesis, fictions) and we keep on top of the pile the most “rational” or consensual ones. We replace one with another only if it better fits the facts.
Theories (narratives, hypothesis, fictions) are not the opposite of “real”… Virtual reality is not “fake”… It is not “pure speculation”… We are not lost in a dark cloud of incertitude. The cloud is potentially understandable. Everything is by definition potentially understandable.
Also some fictions “work”. Not only for the bad… They have a practical quality. One can heal through faith is Jesus or Santa Clause. It is a fact we need to register.
Criminology is a little different from metaphysics and from other forms of science investigating the World, nature or the gods… It focuses on a context and real people who are also human and limited. People make mistakes. Sometimes they are very stupid or pathologic (insane) so they make even more mistakes (Freud would say lapses). The art of the investigator is to reverse something (a riddle) made by humans. And by animals as well of course: the hunter gatherer art of tracking animals is fascinating… from almost NOTHING one is able to tell exactly what happened.
I think JFK is pretty much solved by now. It was the Chicago Jewish mafia. With the blessing and the cover up of the government (the CIA and a network of insiders who hated him). I think 9/11 is entirely solved (case closed except some secondary details of the HOW) because it happened in the face of the WEB. The web is a new entity on the scene. It never existed before 15 years ago. It is a brand new monster of collective intelligence similar to “God”… I test it everyday. I experience it. I live in it. It is the topic of my work. You can throw in the hardest riddle (that would normally take weeks or months for a smart person to solve) in a forum of “armchair” detectives (who one by one are very weak) if they are a few thousands, they will fuck the hardest riddle in a couple of hours.
The challenge of the new historian/journalist is to navigate on the networks, among those wired brains and all of the noise… and write the narratives they give you. YouTubers are usually very smart and very stupid as well. But as a community they kick ass and do an amazing job that can ridicule the best Sherlock.
In the end, with our hands tied behind a screen, with no access to “hard science” and with the toolbox of Freud and literary critics (repetition, contradiction, metaphors and all the figures of linguistics)… we – collective intelligence – can read the leak, solve the darkest crime and expose the darkest demons… Even if it is not as tangible as hunter gathers analyzing a broken leaf or the excrements of an animal… Even if it is not like hard science (which by the way can now reconstitute the impossible and potentially build a real Jurassic Park!) “soft science” can take us very far into the invisible… and achieve the impossible.
This is the theory! In practice we need people… people-of-good-will… people who are not afraid… people who do not loose their mind in the process, among the brainwashed cows… Heroes like Galileo, Freud and so on… And who are we today?… Who are we when we are riding the Web? I am not a tourist.
Your last paragraph says it all: “In practice we need people… people-of-good-will… people who are not afraid… people who do not loose their mind in the process, among the brainwashed cows… Heroes like Galileo, Freud and so on…”
The problem is, what if Galileo and Freud and Alexander were frauds or didn’t exist at all? Check out the articles of Miles Mathis. He (I think he is real, but who knows?) has some wonderful and strange and paranoid insights and questions almost everything (in history and the news). But it’s only his opinion (as stated in the beginning of each article) and I appreciate it, when someone goes beyond the usual conspiracy theories.
Back to Nice.
So did somebody die on that day in Nice? I don’t know. Maybe. Maybe not. But more important are the inconsistencies of the narrative, i.e. the official timeline of the event and the eyewitness reports. In the next days I want to write the epilog of that event, with a detailed analysis regarding the timeline and some bogus eyewitness reports and how the event unfolded in social media. That’s all I can do. By the way, you did a great work 🙂
Excellent. Let me know. I am not done either. This post has been updated almost everyday for a month. When it gets “ripe” I might also try a narrative that fits the facts… The hard and impossible task of the historiographer 😉
Did somebody die in Nice? I have seen (I haven’t seen everything!) no evidence of one real victim yet. On the contrary, I found evidence of at least a couple of fake ones. And all sorts of things confirming the fabricated aspect of the event. I would certainly not exclude the possibility of real victims, but this would be pure speculation. At this stage I would say THE UNREAL IS CERTAIN AND THE REAL IS UNCERTAIN. We have the certitude the cake is fake, but what is real inside the cake? To move forward, one should look up the victims one by one. I have not done this (and the few I have looked up I consider fake). I spent much more time on the 32 victims of Brussels (see related post).
About a time line of the event and the trajectory, it is very hard… It happened so fast… With this augmented semi-fake panic… With “planted” videos and pictures promoted everywhere, and not enough authentic stuff… I would not spend too much time there… We do not have access to the CCTV footage. We know they do. And we know they are not sharing. (Early news reports said other men were suspected due to CCTV cameras… so they might have seen something and later told to shut up.)
Great detailed analysis of some of the timeline-contradictions can be found here (strangely enough no commenting is allowed):
I guess your french is way better than mine, but I tried to find out, what’s going on with the surveillance system: Centre de supervision urbaine, CSU. Who is in charge of it (and Sandra Bertin)? What I find odd is the fact, that she gave an interview in her office. So that menas, her supervisor, her boss must have given the okay for that interview. But who is her boss and who ist the boss of that boss and so on. So who is on the very top of that Centre de supervision urbaine?
In an Paris Match article about the CSU in Nice from 2010, you can find the following interesting points:
“Tout est pensé pour que ça ne s’arrête jamais. Des logiciels ultraperformants permettent de rentrer les paramètres qui, en déclenchant des alarmes, attireront l’attention des opérateurs : la violation de certains lieux fermés au public la nuit, comme les cimetières ou des jardins publics, des gestes violents, un individu stationné trop longtemps à un endroit suspect.”
So, one can guess, that the system should be able to detect a vehicle on the pedestrian zone – especially when it drives very fast. So the system should have alerted the officers as soon as the truck enters the pedestrian zone of the Promenade des Anglais, near Hospital Lenval. But there is no report on that.
“Dans la salle suivante, un système de géolocalisation permet de visualiser en temps réel la position de chaque patrouille, de chaque véhicule, de chaque policier. Tous sont équipés de radio avec GPS. En cas de problème, plus besoin d’appeler pour savoir qui peut se rendre sur place. Les plus proches du lieu sont envoyés immédiatement.”
So, there is no need to make visual contact on the CCTV-Screen regarding the location of the (local/municipale) policemen and cars, because they are all equipped with GPS-senders. And if I understand that paragraph correctly, the police officers would be given instructions by the system, where to go to stop the incoming vehicle. So the instructed policemen could have tried to stop the truck by the Westminster Hotel by parking their police car on the street. But nothing is said about that GPS in the media or the Bertin-Report.
“Comme le prévoit la loi, ces images ne sont pas gardées plus de dix jours. Stockées sur l’équivalent de mille ordinateurs, elles ne peuvent en être extraites que sur réquisitoire du procureur de la République.”
So, Bertin is not allowed to give away information regarding the information she saw on the CCTV-footage. They only thing she is allowed to do is to hand over the footage to the prosecutor (as long as the prosecutor is given authorisation to do that)
“Sylviane Casanova, commissaire divisionnaire de la police nationale et directrice de la police municipale depuis mai 2008.”
I couldn’t find any information on that fact. My understanding is that there is a strict separation between national and municipale police. So how come that Madame Casanova is (was) head of the two police units in Nice?
But the most interesting point is made here: “Un policier municipal est détaché auprès du centre de commandement de la nationale. Une unité spécialisée, la brigade de répression des actions violentes, ainsi que le SRPJ, peuvent regarder en direct les images des caméras.”
So some special units of the national police are able to see the CCTV-footages.
In an other document I found about the usage of CCTV in different european cities, you can find the following statement regarding the city of Saint-Herblain in France:
“The city’s CCTV images are transferred in real time to the National Police Information and Command
Centre (Centre d’information et de commandement de la police nationale). The images can be consulted only when requested by the national police, in the case of a citizen’s complain, or specific requests by state security.”
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2010/sep/cctv-publication.pdf (page 103)
Conclusion: The Police Nationale (or the Interior Ministry) didn’t need a Report from Sandra Bertin and the local authorities in Nice, because, they should have had their own CCTV-footage, which was transferred in real time. So, to me, it looks like that the whole Bertin-Affair is a smoke screen.
And I am sure, that the truck was never going 90 km/h on the sidewalk, zigzaging, running over dozens of bystanders and the driver shooting out of the window. Ask someone who drive a truck for a living and he will tell you, that this feat is not possible. So, the Bertin-Report doesn’t make sense.
* Great arguments. I agree the Bertin story is a smoke screen. Maybe not orchestrated, but it surely feeds the cover up. It coins the government narrative (whatever the truth was) by a woman who had first hand access to the cameras in real time – and who is perceived like a sort of whistleblower.
* The articles you cite confirm how advanced the local CCTV system was already 5 years ago. Every city seems to be different in Europe and Nice was an exception. Nice had apparently one of the most advanced CCTV networks in the World, for a city of this size. Cameras with a proactive operating system and hi-resolution images… Nice is like a laboratory city. On July 14, they must have been focusing on the crowded avenue and reacting very fast. AND THEY MUST KNOW EXACTLY WHERE THE TRUCK CAME FROM before it reached the avenue.
* Interesting how a team of Israeli agents came to study the cities’s security just a few months before… and apparently were critical and recommended changes! Without specifying what changes. (They just studied the security of the city probably to find out leaks and see what kind of attack could be done.)
* Bertin said the man was alone and I think this is highly unlikely. Too many reliable testimonies converge towards 2 or 3 people in the truck. (So I would not agree with your last paragraph.) Due to the quality and sophistication of their camera system, it is obvious she saw much more and is not allowed (and not willing) to tell. So her testimony is not reliable. It must be disinformation (a mix of truths and lies). She would never expose a false flag… her motivation is political and limited to her “team”. She acted only to expose the pressure from the central government and defend the city’s autonomy.
* I think she is one of the heads of the city’s CCTV system, but she is not speaking for herself. As you argue very well she is not allowed to say what she wants to say. We know for sure (from her posts on facebook and twitter) she is very close to Estrosi politically and maybe even personally. They are like a gang of proud locals and they love the autonomy of their city versus the gov. Specially versus the present gov. The municipal (local) police do not want to carry the blame (on behalf of the national police) specially over a false-flag. The Nice people don’t want bad advertising for their city or for their police work… or for their super CCTV system they are so proud of. So they reacted aggressively and fast… to insist the Nice police did their best and made no errors. (Knowing both sides have access to the footage and both are respecting the secrecy, they know the gov cannot really annoy them without risking a much bigger scandal.)
* So we can surely learn things from the “Bertin Affair”, but not from her account as truth. We can learn about the insecurity of the central government versus the local police (the order to erase the footage) and so on. In France it is not like the USA (Federal versus State). It is all one state. The local city powers are very tiny and cannot keep secrets from the central gov. (As you argue, the central gov might have direct remote access to the CCTV system.)
* We – the public – are missing so much information versus the real police investigator (if they exist). I wish we knew what the alleged suspect found dead was wearing… Also the fake guns and fake grenade have been mentioned but it was not enough. I don’t think it was supposed to be public. They did not insist on it and sort of buried this detail in the reports. For sure the driver himself was using a fake gun (as per testimonies of the heroes – in particular hero 1).
Interesting and strange find – Machine gun fire from the truck, which didn’t mow down anybody:
Perhaps you can understand, what the guy is acutally telling us. I am confused with the phrase “in the other direction”: does it mean, when you are standing on the Promenade des Anglais, that the people run from south to north (to the restaurants; they crossed the two lanes) or from east to west (all along the Promenade in the direction of the airport)?
Actually this witness “Andy” is quoted extensively in the article 😉
“In the other direction” means opposite the driver side… that is the right side of the truck (the passenger seat) looking towards the sea… This is confirmed by other witnesses. Someone was shooting all long the rampage from the passenger seat on the people, in the direction of the sea. According to this witness about 50% of the victims were not on the street (they were out of the trajectory of the truck) and closer to the sea.
I think the weapons were fake and nobody was shot. (All 3 heroes confirmed the driver’s gun was not working. And we know they found 2 or 3 fake long guns and one fake grenade.)
I have added recently a few pictures of the back of the truck where it stopped… One picture JUST after it stopped: it shows the street without bodies… to be compared with other pictures of the same scene taken later… showing many bodies covered.
Actually I lost control of all the witnesses. I rember, that I wrote about the russian guy and the guy with machin gun fire, but I didn’t look into that storys in detail. Today, I heard for the first time the interview of Andy. So, is this witness a credible source? How do you know that he is a café owner?
I doesn’t make any sense. The official version is “the driver mowed down the people and fired his pistol from the cabin”; Andy told us, that nobody was struck by the truck, but instead was hit by bullets from a machin gun (and I would conclude: the machin gun was fired from the passenger seat – interestingly enough, Andy told us only from the driver, not from a second gunman. Perhaps he thought, that the driver fired the machine gun – but that’s ridiculous. By the way, to fire a machine gun in a cabin means you will almost lose your hearing for a while, if you don’t protect your ears 😉
But the two Assault Rifles, which were found in the truck, not in the cabin, as far as I remeber, were fake. So, might it be possible, that somebody on the passenger seat fired blanks in the crowd to distract them? Or was the script changed (because the second guy did not show up?!) and Andy was left in the dark?
What a mess this is 😉
Hehe… Yes it is mess… A soup of info + bullshit… which is the definition of disinformation… It is not easy to navigate in a soup of 100% unreliable and unverifiable information… But with the accumulation of dots (never removing always adding) an image slowly appears… I think the article shows this… Some things are floating and some thing converge very well and can be confirmed… There is no doubt it was a manipulated event.
* Excellent argument about how it would NOT be realistic for the driver to shoot towards the other side while driving. Too much noise inside the cabin. It adds to the first section of the article which demonstrates there were 2 or 3 people in the truck shooting all along. Because too many witnesses reported it… A young girl who was NOT in the media insisted she saw very clearly – a few meters from her – a man getting out (with a weapon) and disappear into the crowd (more about this girl with a link to her video at the very beginning of the article). Also too many UNRELIABLE people insisted “excessively” and much later after the event, that the driver was alone (when no one had asked them to, like Sandra Bertin… and also other witnesses who admitted they did not SEE the truck but nevertheless felt obliged to add that he was alone! As if they were kindly asked to say so.)
* Maybe they shot with real bullets. But I doubt it. We did not see bodies far from the truck trajectory… Maybe the truck really wounded and killed people. It remains a possibility. It is easy to confirm many things are fake but it hard to tell what is real… At least for me – and for the moment – I did not find enough proof of real victims. (It sounds horrible but I wish we had a video of people being mowed or hit by the truck. The truck MIGHT have hit people BEFORE the Westminster.) We know from other events that they like to add fake victims to real ones to advertise a higher death toll.
* Andy is one possible witness. He only saw what he could see from where he was. Because the truck was moving, for any witness on the promenade, the whole thing was super fast. Like 2 or 3 seconds! It seems his name is Andy McArdy and he worked at Le Queenie, a restaurant at 19 Promenade des Anglais, one bloc after the Westminster Hotel. (In the zone where almost everything seems staged.) Andy did not talk to the French media, only the English media, like CNN – which does not make him super reliable. But I believe him when he says he heard gunshots while the truck was driving because it converges with other reliable witnesses… http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/14/world/nice-attack-witness-accounts/
* What Andy also tells us ( which confirms OTHER witnesses mentioned in the article!) is that the truck was too slow to kill people at this point in its trajectory… This further confirms the truck slowed down right after the Gutjahr video (Westminster Hotel).
* About the bodies he said he saw were shot by bullets, I think he might be trying to explain to himself or to us… why so many people died since the truck was going so slow.
One question: Do you have a link to the video, where Gutjahr stated: ‘It’s a terrorist attack!’ – I can’t find any link, but I am sure, it was on the website from a foreign (non-german) newspaper.
I was not able to verify this myself on the video I saw. I read it on French source that is usually reliable… https://www.facebook.com/panhamza/photos/a.259863080821062.1073741827.258337060973664/691006684373364/
The source says the next morning after the attack, an Australian company called Fairfax Media obtained the full version of Gutjahr’s video and diffused it. The source adds that just after the truck drove away Gutjahr can be heard saying “Terrorist attack! It is a terrorist attack! Below!” It seems two other voices can be heard behind him in the hotel room. A child and a woman (probably his wife) replying “Really?”
Maybe all of this can be heard if one rises the volume at the end of the video… or maybe it is on another (longer) version I have not seen… I don’t know.
I have seen it with my own eyes, but sadly, I can’t find it anymore. But thanx for your answer 🙂
Now I published my detailed analysis of the event in Nice – it’s almost 50 pages (A4) long. For now there is only the german version online. Perhaps I will translate it, I don’t know, it depends …