It has been my contention that the majority of these terror or senseless events are fake or hoaxes. Since the term “hoax” seems to get a pejorative reaction similar to “conspiracy theory,” perhaps a better term is “staged deception.”
By some coincidence, mass shooting deceptions have become epidemic during the Obama administration. This may have to do more with certain advantages that staged events possess more than a sick ethic. But that’s not to say that real false-flag terror (like 9/11, the London bombings) won’t make a comeback under a Trump or Clinton administration.
The reason for staged deceptions not involving real deaths or a limited number of deaths is primarily because real victims or their survivors go off the rails and can’t be controlled.
Secondly, owning the victimhood franchise or “victim stance” is extremely effective and valuable for four reasons:
1) Phony and controlled “victims” can more aggressively beat back those who question the oddities and anomalies using the one-trick-pony, “you’re crazy” accusation
2) Maximizing and controlling charity frauds and loots of government funds
3) Demonization of target groups or peoples
4) Controlled victims can aggressively push problem-reaction-solution control agendas
Although gun control is often put forth as a primary objective of these staged deceptions, that argument is a bit of a misdirection. One of the latest gambits is “control of the Internet” and “radicalization”.
In my article “10 Reasons for Hoaxes Other Than Gun Control” I explained a host of motivators for staged deceptions. The following video explains well the staged victimization hoaxes as a criminal ploy.
The first tip off of a staged deception is cui bono, or who benefits. The patsies or alleged assassins/criminals/terrorists do not benefit in any way. They usually — somehow, someway — end up dead. Their families don’t benefit either because they are harassed to no end. In fact, more often than not the causes these individuals profess to believe in are harmed or damaged. No real fanatic would give up their life to hurt their own cause.
An excellent article is offered here and goes down a 14-item detection checklist in more detail. The following is a summation of a repeated formula to which I’ve added four more (Nos. 15-18) to the list:
No. 1: A staged drill for a similar type of event happening at the same time and/or nearby place
No. 2: Foreknowledge of event appears in social media
No. 3: Eyewitnesses provide conflicting accounts of what happened
No. 4: Mainstream media quickly name and demonize the perpetrator (patsy)
No. 5: Patsy has no military training and yet can achieve mass casualties extremely fast and shoot accurately
No. 6: Patsy gets killed, drugged or “suicided”
No. 7: Shooter leaves behind a “manifesto” or incriminating Facebook page.
No. 8: Evidence gets conveniently destroyed
No. 9: No obvious motive for the mass attack
No. 10: Immediate calls for gun control
No. 11: “Victims” appear to be staged (crisis actors)
No. 12: “Victims” get killed twice
No. 13: Families of “victims” have elite or acting backgrounds
No. 14: Families of “victims” receive millions in federal payoffs and charity contributions.
No. 15: Grainy, obscured or non-existent photos or videos (circa 1963 Dealey Plaza) of the alleged violence or bodies. Often cameras are used of a genre that never existed even in the past. Compare images released around these events to night tests using 2012 cell phone filming technology. Most people have even more current cameras, but to be ultra-conservative 2012 is my litmus test. If it doesn’t look close to this low light test or better, it is likely a fraud.
Classic example of fraudulent imagery. Location of this “filming”, a lit atrium at about 9:30 AM in the morning during spring time.
No. 16: Wounds do not correlate and match the weapons used (Hollywood effect)
No. 17: A pronouncement is made by a stooge that the scene is too awful and graphic to show to the public. The victimization stance is employed to deflect clear examination of “death scenes,” autopsies, interviews by those other than the MSM, and proof of real deaths. CCTV footage often never shows up.
No. 18: Families of “victims” show little to no emotion, and sometimes even snicker and laugh (crying without tears). Duping delight is common.
An classic example of #18 is shown in the following video.