Clerk Note: Rabbit-hole warning. This article is long and has not been vetted; it might very well contain disinformation. However, this does not absolve earnest seekers of truth the task of mining it for nuggets of truth.
A Truck Attack in Nice, France – July 2016
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.
About the possibility of a second man
* One witness – a young girl – is very clear. She says on video (in French) that she was only 2 meters away from the truck when it stopped… The girl says 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, first police reports mentioned FAKE WEAPONS and grenades found inside the truck, along with a two real guns. Why would the killer bother with fake weapons and fake grenades? In later reports it was said these weapons were suddenly real… found in a “cache” somewhere inside the truck (not near the driver). Maybe the fake weapons were forgotten here by mistake but it is not very likely… Maybe they were added here by the perpetrators thinking they would be reported as real ones by the press. Maybe it was part of the “script”… It adds an extra scary touch and doesn’t cost much: “A cache of dangerous weapons including grenades were found in the truck!”
* 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 – a 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 of 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”) asking them to FULLY 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 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.”
* 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 event which started at 10:33) saying: “Bring more weapons, bring 5 to C.” Referring to the initial of a person. (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 this is what they think they saw.
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!
* 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.
* His brother Jaber Bouhlel, 19, who still lives in Tunisia, told the newspaper that on the day of the atrocity the killer “sent a selfie and told me he was happy and everything in his life was normal”. 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 father gave a different account. He said his son was not in regular contact with his family in Tunisia since he left about 10 years ago. He added his son was 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.” This is a very old story… All of this happened more than 10 years ago, when he was 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?
* 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.
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.”
* 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 witnesses 4 police vehicles had previously barricaded the road to protect a military parade, but they vanished before the attack commenced.
* On July 17, the French press reported the ban from theaters of a movie titled : Bastille Day. 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 elements in the French government. (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.)
* 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 France.)
* It was reported the driver screamed “Allah Akbar” while driving over the people… It is not clear WHO reported this. It seems to be pure propaganda introduced by a couple of media outlets.
* Many people noticed 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.
* 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.”
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?
* Among the victims, an 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!
* There was an alert about multiple bombs around the Negresco Hotel. The police never said where this alert came from… In practice, it resulted in an urgent and general evacuation of everyone from the scene right after the rampage… This COULD have helped set up fake victims in addition to real ones.
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. Also 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. 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. About this episode 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. But he immediately abandons, gets back on the ground and the trucks accelerates and goes away… The man gives up… This “scooter man” is wearing a gray top and dark pants. (It most probably is the same guy who gets arrested below in the Ynet video.)
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 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.
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.
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 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.
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… But hero 2‘s testimony is not compatible with him being the man in gray in the videos…
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?
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 watching TV. He did not specify why. 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 (firstname.lastname@example.org).
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 also part of the staff at Ariel University (where Lia Ling studied) in 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 study the feed back and measure how effective these events are on the people. Or is this suggestion too paranoid?
The article is reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.