The massacre in Paris is reported to have occurred at 21:16 CET.
By 23:06 Wikipedia had an article up that is extremely detailed, containing statements from a former French President and a complete outline of events at several locations, matters that the press I read had not by then reported.
It piqued my interest that an article would be up on Wikipedia within two hours of the event happening. So I went there.
I began reading the current version of the article and then decided to read a much earlier version. I chose the 23:18 version for this article, not overly consciously. At that point I did not understand very much.
By the time I got myself organized here, I saw that the earliest versions of the article had just been erased from Wikipedia’s change record. Everything before 00:00 was erased from the record, preventing access to the originals of the story. That aroused my suspicions immediately.
(That list of deleted versions was gotten again by going to the user page of the person who wrote the article, known only by his number 82.45.236.70. The list appeared there and the articles proved linkable and recoverable. You can reach them, until they’re taken down, by clicking on the list given in Footnote 1.)
The 23:18 version includes discussions of the hostage-taking, complete with an approximate number of hostages involved (60), as well as detailed accounts of events at several locations. It even has a detailed bibliography. How could your average Wikipedia author have done this incredible piece of work and in less than two hours? Obviously this was not your average Wikipedia author.
You’re invited to read this early version of the Wikipedia article, which appears at the bottom of this post.
Revisions were subsequently made to the article. But the storyline it established, which is undoubtedly why it was written in the first place and gotten into Wikipedia so quickly, did not change through any of those revisions. It’s the storyline that the article is designed to make stick in the public mind.
As yet (00:41 PM CET), the newspapers are reporting simply bullet lists of events which they’re aware of only very sketchily. But Wikipedia has extensive coverage. within a couple of hours. That just did not sit with me and I continued to investigate.
In some cases, reports on the cabal’s handiwork have been posted and time-stamped before the event. That has not happened in this case. The black-ops people seem to have gotten better at their handiwork. Nonetheless such full reportage only roughly two hours after the event, for me, still pointed to collusion.
Or did they?
On closer inspection, after this article was initially written, I’ve found a comment so implausible that it closed the case for me.
In the 23:06 version is this comment:
“In a televised statement at approximately 23:58, French President François Hollande declared a state of emergency and closing of borders for the whole of France.[7]”
How could the writer report what President Hollande did at 23:58, as if it’s a fait accompli, when he’s writing at 23:06, before it happened? Does this not remind us of the BBC reporting the fall of Building 7 with Building 7 still in the background?
The fact that it was dropped from the change record also makes the article difficult for the researcher to retrieve. Was it dropped to cover their tracks?
I find this circumstance to be so implausible as to establish the lack of credibility of the Wikipedia article.
I furthermore cite this as evidence that the event was pre-planned.
The reason for mounting such an article to places like Wikipedia (I assume there are other similarly-located articles as well) is to “fix” their version of events, on influential and accepted Internet information sources. The public trusts Wikipedia. Who would ever think it was being used to sell a black operation?
Some people may remember the New York pedestrian on 9/11 who, immediately after the “planes” crashed, was interviewed and said that the bombings were probably the work of terrorists. He was later shown to be a plant. And the television commentators who right away attributed 9/11 to Osama bin Laden? Also plants.
It was in fact their own government who engineered 9/11. But these accomplices were used to establish the storyline of terrorism in the public’s mind from the outset. Once a theme has set in the public’s mind, officials can use it to label an investigator a conspiracy theorist.
Here are indications that the intent of the Wikipedia article was to establish the Muslim/Arab storyline.
The Wikipedia article states:
“One report stated that there might be six gunmen.[10] French radio network Europe 1 reported that as many as three suicide bombers were also involved in the attacks.”
Suicide bombers are usually associated in the public mind with Muslims and Arabs.
“Someone who escaped the attack told a journalist that the attackers mentioned Syria and that there were five or six attackers.”
How did this writer gain access in less than two hours to “someone who escaped the attack” while listening to radio broadcasts, reading as many articles as he says he did, and writing such a detailed piece? This statement is for me not probable.
The work that this comment does is that it introduces a second element to the storyline: association with Syria. Watch for the Illuminati to say that ISIS has established itself in France and that these events were their calling card.
The storyline is further developed later:
“French President François Hollande issued a statement, saying the French people must remain strong in the face of terrorism.”
We’ve now had it “established” that the attack was by terrorists, probably from Syria, including some suicide bombers.
One element that was dropped from the 23:18 version, that is present in the 23:06 version, (2) is the statement: “The terrorists shouted ‘Allahu Akbar’ and ‘This is for Syria.'” I’m not sure why they dropped this item. Surely it was a clincher, but they did.
The fact that this comment was dropped from accounts after 00:00 may explain why the earlier accounts were deleted from the change record. I think they feared being seen as stage-directing if the picture of terrorists shouting “Allahu Akbar” was left in. Being dropped from the change record, the statement was henceforth not available to the researcher. Or so it may have been thought.
Conclusion from all of this? Obviously. It was the Muslims and Arabs.
Now what I consider to be the fear-mongering began:
“Former French Prime Minister François Fillon also issued a statement, saying that ‘war is among us.’[22] Authorities urged residents throughout Paris to remain indoors for their own safety.[7]
War is among us! Is that not designed to raise fear in people? If that doesn’t get them going, the hostage-taking will.
“In response to the attacks, France’s borders were closed, and the national military was called in.[23] The country was also placed in a state of emergency.”
The country is under a state of emergency. Civil rights have been curtailed. Many people have lost their lives. A great deal of fear has probably been generated both by the attacks and the reportage. And we have an ongoing hostage drama to keep the public’s attention rivetted.
I can’t think of circumstances that would be more compelling.
Will this false-flag operation work? Will it fool the French people?
Many people have lost their lives in this latest act of state terrorism. Others are being held hostage. We owe it to all of them to expose the true nature of this false-flag attack on the French people and the world. And then to remain calm.
I urge the people of France to enact a campaign, whose motto is simply: “Stop.” And then explore all the possibilities that simply getting people to stop may bring.
Stop acts of state terrorism. Stop attacks on people’s civil rights. Stop demeaning Muslims and Arabs by falsely representing them as the culprits when it’s our own governments who are behind these acts of violence and massacre.
I request that others take another piece of this story and continue the unravelling until the whole black operation is laid bare.
I don’t think an operation like this could have been staged without leaving plenty of clues about its fabrication.
