The Extremely Odd Paris Attacks Videos from the Cafe

by Scott Creighton

OK. This is strange.

So I finally got around to watching the video that surfaced a couple days ago purporting to show a cafe in Paris that was attacked by some white guy in a baseball cap who apparently can’t hit the broadside of a barn from the inside with an AK.

Yes, he stands over two women and fails to shoot them. That is true. And many claim that’s because his gun jammed, though he doesn’t react to it like you would expect if his gun jammed. He just points the gun at them and turns and heads back to his car where he makes a speedy escape (and of course, the French police never chase them or catch up to them)

So yeah, he didn’t shoot those two women, but I can’t see why that is shocking to anyone considering he didn’t actually shoot anyone in the video from what I can tell.

There is even someone outside standing next to a light-pole or something (you can see em through the door when it’s opened) and the “terrorist” just runs right past em.

The people outside the cafe don’t get shot. The two women on the ground when his gun “jammed” didn’t get shot. The people inside the place didn’t get shot. No one got shot.

And these are the same guys who killed 18 at one location just a few minutes before this?

As odd as that is, what struck me about these two videos (both from inside the cafe on opposite ends of the transaction counter) is the snow-storm that seems to hit the cameras just as soon as the action begins. WTF was that?

The patterns of the snow are almost identical from the two cameras though they are at least 12 feet apart. How is that possible?

And here’s another thing, You would think in the second video, since that camera faces the location of the first camera, you would be able to see the material flying over on the other side of the transaction counter that the first camera recorded but you don’t. Instead all you see is the same effect, the snowy white material rushing past the second camera in the exact same relation to the camera as what was caught on the first camera.

I know people will say it’s glass or some material on the shelves, but the stuff is blowing from off camera on both sides from above and it does that on both cameras 12 feet apart from each other.

I’m sorry, but that isn’t possible from one bullet strike to either the wall, a box of powdered potatoes or a mirror. It can’t make material rain down from two distinct locations in front of the same camera.

As here’s the real kicker… it certainly can’t make material rain down from two distinct locations in front of two separate cameras 12 feet apart in identical patterns.

That’s just impossible.

It’s almost as if someone needed to cover up something in the video so they added this effect post-production. Like it’s supposed to be shattering glass or something but instead it looks more like a blizzard effect. Towards the end you see the stuff then blowing across the screen as opposed to down it. It’s very odd.

Of course, if you added that effect to the first video, the “broken glass” effect.. then you would have to add it to the second one, but the difference is, the second camera is in a different location and thus the effect would look different. Again, I guess they cut corners and decided to just map the same effect on two videos from 12 feet apart from one another.

Some might try to say it’s static, some kind of interference from the wireless feed or something but that doesn’t make any sense as the material blows from one side to the other. Static interference doesn’t do that. It appears and disappears. It doesn’t fly around.

In the second video, you can see the camera from the first one and there is nothing flying around in front of it. Nothing. There’s nothing on the ground under the camera, nothing built up on the transaction counter. Nothing. Nothing anywhere except the huge blizzard of snowy material blowing in front of both cameras at the exact same time in the exact same patterns.

Oh shit… wait a minute… ITS THREE VIDEOS FROM THREE LOCATIONS WITH THE SAME BLIZZARD EFFECT. Oh crap. The third is taken from over the door facing in and again, you can’t see anything passing in front of the other two cameras and the first camera doesn’t show anything passing in front of this one.

Holy crap. The last one is like a snow-globe effect. Like it’s underwater.

There’s a whole lot to wonder about in these videos.

Why does some woman walk in with the urgency of someone trying to get to a checkout line in front of someone else when she’s supposedly being shot at with an AK-47?

And this is ISIS™? The guys Obama says pose the greatest threat to humanity since cancer? Guys who couldn’t hit a wide middle-aged woman as she saunters across the cafe?

Why doesn’t the white terrorist actually hit anyone?

Why does he not even really try to shoot those two women on the ground outside or the person standing next to the pole?

Why does he just walk right up to the window and the door of the cafe without checking to see what or who are in the restaurant first? There could have been an off-duty Paris cop in there with his sidearm. The owner could have had a gun. He didn’t know. And yet he just casually walks up to the door, open door, stands broadside presenting himself as an easy target, points his gun at those women (for the really scary moment in the video) and then casually turns and walks away. It’s almost as if he knew there would be no one with a gun in the cafe to present him with a threat.

(Sometime it’s not what they do that provides you with a clue… it’s what they don’t do)

How cool is that woman who finally makes it downstairs after being attacked by an AK-wielding terrorist and has the where-with-all to make sure she takes her shopping packages down with her?

Bullets are one thing, but she’ll be damned if she loses those new shoes.

Is that guy really trying to hide behind a jacket against that wall like he thinks the terrorist will see this floating jacket and not figure out some dude is hiding under it?

Who is that random dude who just kinda walks in an goes downstairs to grab the bald guy then he goes upstairs to grab someone else? Is that what he does? Runs around after a terrorist strike and tells everyone when it’s safe to come out from under their floating coat disguises?

And more importantly… who is the bald guy who gets dragged up from the basement to do his little “I got my phone and I’m hopping mad” routine? WTF is that? Does he work there? If he does, why isn’t he checking to see if any of his customers who are still on the ground have been hit and need immediate medical attention? Why is he just pecking on his stupid phone and hopping around like Elmer Fudd?

(Sometime it’s not what they do that provides you with a clue… it’s what they don’t do)

And then the random dude who runs around telling people when it’s safe to leave the basement, comes down the stairs and exits camera left…. his job done. Mission accomplished.

Man. There is so much wrong with these videos and this little scene. Do you guys see anything I missed?


Please help keep us up and running if you can.

Speaking truth ABOUT power since 2007

(For my mailing address, please email me at


24 Responses

  1. Were these bullets ‘LHO’ specials, the kind that can zip thru the front windows without making a spectacular show of flying glass? Either the front windows were already shot out, which is doubtful, since they show the cafe in customer/normal mode, or there weren’t any bullets being shot thru the front windows.
    Neither is there any broken glass on the floor in and around the front windows.

    Considering all the ‘glass’ that was flying around, why isn’t there shards of glass on the counter where the two employees/customers are hiding behind?

  2. Daily Mail. eh? Well there’s a reliable, independent source of info if there ever was one.
    It’s also quite lucky no one was even nicked by a sliver of glass … you’d think high-velocity fragments of such sharp material would have at least produced a cut here and there and a few drops of blood …

  3. Never seen glass that floats…….. might be something new…and that woman was more interested in answering her phone than saving her head…..or maybe she was calling the police? or maybe they are just used to this kind of terror in this cafe? Maybe it is a cafe that has constant rages of gun battles going on…..
    or maybe the ‘director’ was yelling out confusing orders to them….

  4. Another «make believe» video, so that people will say how all of these attacks were true.

  5. It doesnt look to me like any glass was even hit by bullets?

  6. BTW, Obama thinks the biggest threat to humanity since cancer is “global warming” not ISIS 🙂

  7. Scott, this is a must see, if you haven’t seen it already. This vid is from French TV and goes into great detail about the drills held that morning. This vid is from the YT channel of Serebra Sana and she seems to be based in France. Everyone please check it out.


  8. Simply judging by the fact that NO real video ever gets released in these false flag psyops, chances are this is a staged shooting to be used for the purposes of corroborating the official narrative.

    The dude comes, shoots a couple of bullets into the cafe, probably high enough to make sure he hits no one. Then he comes and shows himself to the cameras… As Scott, points out, there seems to be zero sign of surprise of frustration at the moment when the official narrative claims his weapon jammed. If I had to read into his body language, it looks either like he was summoned back (or told not to shoot, but I doubt that) or his operation orders was just to create a scene for the cameras, not kill anyone, and move on. Which is plenty good to make most of the TV zombies outer to connect the dots and assume all of the rest of the shootings happened exactly like this one.

    I don’t believe that any of the customers, or at least most of the customers would need to be in on it. In fact, much better to have real people panicking, who would leave the site with a story to tell. I also thought that the woman walking in was a little too nonchalant, but I can expect that as a realistic (albeit incompetent) escape by a woman of a certain age.

    The first time I watched it, Interpreted the flying “snow”, which is definitely being blown around in a very uniform pattern, as if some dust was being blown by an A/C or a fan. The fact that all cameras show the same type of dust is indeed unrealistic.

    Daily Mail is definitely a compromised institution to say the least. In the real world, one would expect such a video to be released by the “authorities”, and not by some tabloid. But, naturally, the fact that the french police to government does not refute the video clearly shows who’s in bed with whom.

    When they show me footage of Bataclan, I might believe them… MAYBE…

    By the way, Daily Mail does not specify the name of the cafe. Has anyone come across where this was meant to be?

    Also, I have not been able to find any articles, witness interviews etc. that corroborates the “jamming weapon” bullcrap… What is the sound that a kalashnikov makes if it has indeed jammed? If there was no sound, then who the f can tell the difference between a “jam” and a “no shot” while the two men are sitting under the tiny table like pheasants waiting for Cheney.

  9. How about…

    The ONE second it took for the first woman outside to get up and run away after the gunman left (after pointing his gun at her). Did he actually tell her to get up and go? Shouldn’t she have been paralysed with fear? I wonder if she fled in mid-foxhole prayer.

    The woman with the hair bun who works behind the counter (with the bald guy, who does appear to be the owner/manager) having the idea to peep round the base of the counter 30 seconds after the attack (and then over the counter). She was probably aware of the imminent release of anti-terror squad “Don’t play dead” guidelines.

    The second woman outside also has the presence of mind to take her shopping bags with her as she flees.

    Plus flee to where? If it was safe enough to get up and flee, it was safe enough to stay right there, safer even. Who’s going to flee into a situation of unknown unknowns, when they’re currently in a situation of known unknowns?

    Also, THREE CCTV camera angles covering that romantic little bistro? What’s that about? Scorcese couldn’t have shot it better. I hope they employ a guy to nightly check behind the toilet cisterns for mob hit weapons.

    The main FF element, as you point out, is the production manager who calmly walks around telling people its time to move on to the “Aftermath” stage of the video.

  10. 03:40. The person at the bottom centre of the screen, upon the attack beginning goes directly back and to the left (no false flag copyright violation intended) and under someone else’s table. That without even looking forward to see what was going on. A normal reaction would be to duck your head down, look towards the trouble, then slide under your own table.

    I’m convinced that the blizzard effect was introduced in this last clip in order to cover up some incriminating stuff the second person coming in from outside was doing while on the floor. He obviously wasn’t supposed to be there (because the gunman was going to look inside and, seeing only stored coats and invisible ostrich behinds, leave without shooting anyone). So, the blizzard probably shields the fact of his dumbly receiving instructions to exit stage (his) right, up the stairs. The blizzard then had to be repeated for all three cameras.

    Also, even though the production manager calmly walks in and down the stairs to fetch the owner, when that pair reemerge, they’re all “Have they gone, yet?” wary.

    Then all the living dead awake from the grave and head off, en masse, down the back stairs (let’s assume they were told to, with absolutely no pointing being employed, except for a cursory wave of the owner’s hand to direct a customer down some stairs that she was already heading towards, along with all the other zombies, after collecting all their coats and shopping bags – I mean, what’s the hurry?), while the production manager, an anonymous hipster and the owner don’t see a problem with exiting by the front door, 2 seconds later.

    Staged, crisis actor nonsense.

  11. I like when Mr Spock scans the planet for life forms using his little geiger-counter. You can almost hear the “Zut alors!” when he does his “Here, hold my beer…” hop.

    Not a lot of people are aware of the order in which victims must be notified that it’s safe to come out, according to European Crisis Actors’ Guild Guidelines. It is imperative that the cafe owner is notified first, followed by any anonymous hipsters, even if that means walking right by loads of people hiding under tables. A good rule of thumb is to notify the people who are hiding off-camera first. Afterwards the owner and any notified hipsters can assist you to notify the others who are right there.

    Note, however, that anyone who has been involved in the initial notification process, whether in the capacity of mood-swinging notifier, or owner or hipster, MUST assume the mantle of rescue operations first responder. That is, such persons must vaguely direct those notified in the second phase towards an emergency exit, perhaps patting them on the back, and then boldly move toward the epicentre of the attack to help the injured, etc.

    In this way, those who managed to get the best hiding places initially may be subjected to an equal amount of danger overall as everyone else.

    • did you also notice the door doesn’t seem to have an automatic closer on it? How many businesses don’t have closers on their doors? how many cafes? I found that odd as well.

  12. The production manager appears to pass the front window on the right before entering (so, not privy to Artie Bucco’s escape trajectory). He then proceeds directly downstairs. Why would he do that? Were the people under the tables actually invisible? Do he and Artie have a mutual prepper plan whereby if they ever need to hide, they’ll hide downstairs, and may be quickly found in such a location in the aftermath of the the tinsel hitting the fan?

  13. At 0:06 a bullet comes through the door on the right, the woman outside is getting up to come inside. At 0:08 another bullet comes through the door just below the first bullet, spraying dust and sparks. Someone the woman coming inside is completely missed! The flying dust seems added to the video, too.

  14. edit: “somehow the woman…”

  15. They just don’t know how to put together a good storyboard…ahem…

  16. Its all about remute controll…you can see the woman just switched the button just bevore she ist entering the room ..look closely! sorry for my bad english..Time:0:08

  17. […] bizarre video from the Paris cafe where an ISIS gunman allegedly shot down civilians appears to confirm that […]

  18. The bottom of the door on the far right seems like it has been masked. When people pass by sometimes it stays masked and sometimes it disappears when they walk by, then the masking returns. otherwise, it looks like a sign on the door. But how can it disappear?

  19. The ‘snow’ you refer to is dust, cctv with night vision capability records dust this way. I’ve two cameras in my home and in low light conditions there is this snow effect, which is more pronounced if someone enters the room and moves around disturbing dust.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: