The conspiracy concensus is that the Charlie Hebdo attacks were an inside job.
We disagree. In this post we set out to debunk the cornerstones of fledgling false flags.
The pro-conspiracy conviction comes, as always in these mass-surveilled times, largely through the “analysis” (i.e. repeated re-veiwing) of the few available albeit ever-present grainy Internet video clips. Particularly those that show people getting killed.
Back and To the Left
Especially if the victim’s head moves back, and to the left.
Conclusions drawn from the perceived ‘evidence’ (not enough blood, disrespected victim’s screams not chilling enough, dying man’s head movement all wrong, etc) are then elevated to proof that it was not only a false flag, but the Mossad’s fingerprints are all over it.
All other evidence can be ignored, except if and only if it dovetails with the conspiracy theorists’ immutable conclusions. None of the so-called analysts – the usual suspects – who claim it is “incredulous” that one of these guys would drop his ID seem to have noticed that in the video he loses his sandal, then picks it up and carefully places it into the getaway car, towards the back and to the left.
All we will say about the gunshots seen in at least three different albeit grainy Internet videos, is that they were a) accurate, and b) not using military-grade ammunition.
Although they were wielding AK-47s, a gun is not powerful by itself. The power of the weapon is derived from the type of ammunition it fires. We conclude that they were not using military ammo from the lack of tracer fire. Enough shots were caught on film to justify this opinion.
The ammo they were using, if it was not home-made, most likely came from a consignment intended for a consumer-grade shooting range and thus lacked the power to provide all the gory splatter that any good conspiracy theory demands.
We, at the skankworks.net, concede that the incident does have the classic elements of a false-flag attack:
- The perpetrators left survivors with specific messages about who did this and why.
- An identification document was left at the scene.
- Diversions took place.
- All the alleged attackers were killed.
- Twitter campaign in support of state organs.
- The attacks play into the hands of pre-existing government policy.
#1 Government Policy
In reverse order, isn’t it a fact that our governments will respond to any tragedy, regardless of their culpability, and claim that it vindicates their policy, only to be challenged by an opposition who will disagree and say no it vindicates ours, even though there’s no difference in policy between them?
What else would you expect? Like they are going to say sorry and resign en masse? Which of course they should, if for no other reason than it happened on their watch.
#2 Twitter Campaign
The development of the #jesuischarlie hashtag was interesting. In French it can mean either “I am Charlie” or “I follow Charlie”, a duality of meaning likely to resonate on social media.
The early involvement in promoting the hashtag by the US Embassy in Paris is to be expected. They are the world’s pre-eminent experts in abusing social media to shape public perceptions, not to mention the world’s quickest bandwagon-jumpers onto anything trending.
With the media being the focus of the attack, it would be surprising if they didn’t promote the keywords – after all it brings in millions of clicks on their google-ads.
More importantly it focuses debate on free expression. On the grounds that attacking people for what they say can never be justified, as if there is any need to express that obvious truth.
Whereas, ipso-facto, Western attacks on Arab nations can be ‘justified’, as they frequently are, on the surpisingly unoriginal grounds of them ‘hating our freedoms’. Just don’t let-on that Press-Tv, Dunya-Tv, and Al-Manar-TV, just to name a few of the more professional news organizations, have been banned from broadcasting in the West. On the grounds that what they publish might ‘provoke violence’.
Also, if you’re in the West and you’ve been looking at Inspire magazine at anytime, your ass is likely in jail already and not reading this.
Unfortunateley the gathering of crowds on social media is one thing, but when they spill-over onto the streets it becomes another. Especially if these crowds are angry, bewildered, and frightened. It is a duty of government to control such gatherings, and with the police still engaged in the ongoing manhunt simply breaking up the demos with tear-gas and batons was out of the question. And besides, these demonstrators were largely middle-class whites.
The #jesuischarlie motif was taken up, to our minds, as an effective electronic corral for the mobs. It was something the demonstrators had already bonded with, and could, in skilled hands, be used as a thought-leash to keep them under control.
We can’t say we approve, but it was effective and nobody on these demos got hurt. Just made to look a little dumb. Reason enough for the authorities and their lackeys in the media to take control. Then a whole bunch of hypocritical Western puppet leaders can be flown in to be adored by the mobs.
#3 Suspects Deceased
If you are planning a false-flag involving your own men shooting the crap out of a bunch of folk, escaping, and putting a targetted minority in the frame, it is a good idea to ensure that those you want to be suspected of commiting the crime are found dead. That way a trial is avoided where embarrasing details, such as they didn’t do it, might come out.
This is why we have public inquiries in these cases. To get to the bottom of things in lieu of a criminal trial.
The suggestion that killing the suspects avoids an inquiry is nonsense. In the first instance it implies that a captured perpetrator is going to repent and tell all. Sometimes they do. Frequently they do not.
Top conservatives on twitter inform us that if these guys were tortured for long enough they would tell us everything we want to know. Which is true, but as the infamous CIA Torture Report makes clear, they won’t be telling us the truth.
Doubtless the French will hold their own inquiry in the fullness of time, but they haven’t exactly got a track-record of efficiency in these things. Ask any Princess Diana Conspiracist about that.
But, just like the debunked “improbability” that the attackers might have inadvertantly dropped anything in the car, the suspects bodies were found with their weapons on them – in at least one case broadcast live.
If the forensic analysis of these weapons conclude they were not used in the attacks, we’ll be prepared to reconsider. If they do match, then you’re going to have to involve the entire GIGN in the conspiracy, and thousands of others, probably inclduing much of the world’s media, to explain how that gun could have been planted during a shoot-out on live Internet TV.
A ballistics match-up, as will likely occur, will remove reasonable doubt as to whether or not the people seen shooting in the Hebdo attack videos are the same people who were themselves shot at the siege locations.
A false-flag, by it’s nature, must pin the attack on people who were uninvolved in the first shooting. If they are the same guys, then either they flew in from Manchuria, or the conspiracy collapses.
#4 Diversionary Attacks
Conspirary theorists often overlook these. You get them in the JFK tales, but largely because they’ve had fifty years and all other JFK conspiracy yore has been long debunked since decades. Shortly after the attack on the Hebdo office, a car similar to one the attackers were seen driving away in, caught fire. Ominously close to Charles de Gaulle Airport.
A convenient place to dump a get-away car, perhaps. The burning of which would destroy any evidence inadvertantly left behind such as DNA or, say, an ID card.
But the attackers had already abandoned their first car by that time and car-jacked another. And the cops knew this since during the car-jacking yet another cop had been shot at and a pedestrian run down GTAIV-style. Nonetheless, a burning abandoned car at such an intense moment will always be a distraction.
Even if resources are not physically redirected to the diversion, the mind still is. However, it appears to be unrelated, an inadvertant diversion. At least that is what everybody believed until the Coulibaly video – brazenly made during the comission of the crime – testifies that a car was indeed blown up in Paris as a coordinated element of the attacks.
There were still inadvertant diversions. The hapless thief, shortly to become known amongst his fellow inmates as France’s dumbest prisoner, who chose to hold-up a jewelry store during the country’s biggest ever criminal manhunt. Or the non-diversion of the fleeing borthers sticking-up a gas-station. In the heat of the moment, with uncontrollably vast volumes of full-spectrum data streaming in, it takes time to seperate the related from the unrelated.
Diversionary tactics were certainly in play when third attacker opened-up on, or to use the US military vernacular, lit-up a random police officer in another part of the city. Then drove across town, blew his car up, and went to his hide-out to make an Internet video about it.
Then he went and took the hostages in the allegedly “Jewish” store (we’re not entirely convinced that a grocery store can join a religon, but that’s what we’ve heard). The store’s beliefs notwithstanding, it’s the kind of additional problem in an already busy day that likely caused many a French police officer to ask WTF is going on.
If the two brothers had been set-up, as false-flagists demand, then why would this third guy spontaneously go on a kill-crazy suicidal rampage for them? So now we have two false-flags to contend with, or we have to throw more of the inevitable manchurian candiate(s) into the mix.
#5 Planted ID Card
We’re about half-way through our self-imposed list of false-flag factors, and already we have a burgeoning number of people involved in the conspiracy, manchurian candidates popping-up all over Paris, confessing Shakeeds, magic ID cards, grainy YouTube videos, and can feel ourselves being drawn inexorably into 911 Lalaland as the alleged conspiracy unravels.
What we need is Larry Silverstein to come on TV and confess: “And the wife and I watched him drop his shoe at the scene. Then the wife said it’s a sandal. No, it’s a shoe I told her. Don’t be daft Larry it’s a sandal. It’s got freaking laces woman, I says to her but she won’t have it. Anyway, I did it. I ordered them to pull the damn footware and the wife and I watched him buckle it back on and drive-off at free-fall speeds“.
#6 Back, and Left to Tell
The great-great-great-grandfathers of today’s takfiri lived in Afpak, were just as bloodthirsty, and were well known for leaving behind a hapless and frightened Private Charlie Widdle of Britain’s Royal Army the only man unharmed and alive. Left back to tell the tale of how his comrades-in-arms were slaughtered.
Sergeant: What happened here Private Widdle?
Pvt Widdle: Everybody got their heads cut off, suh.
Sergeant: I can bloody-well see they’ve had their heads cut off you moron. By whom?
Pvt Widdle: They said they were from Al Qaeda up the Khyber, suh.
Similar tales were told by the attack survivors. However, what was actually said by the Paris attackers, apart from the snippets caught on video is thus far hearsay and of no more use than speculation.
The skankworks.net has determined that the available evidence indicates the Charles Hebdo attacks were not a false-flag.
We find it ironic that over time Rue de Ahmed Merabet will become a common sight in French towns and cities. This will help weave muslim cutlure into the fabric of France in ways too subtle for the takfiris and far-right alike ever to comprehend.