First footage of Paris attacks shows diners diving for cover

a reply to: EA006

I guess you have never shot, tracer rounds, to actually see how a bullet reacts after hitting something. Bullets pretty much fly in every direction once they have encountered something somewhat solid, glass would definetly change the direction.

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: raedar


first section look like shooter let a woman with Hijab get up and run.

I just watched it on big screen MSM TV news...that's exactly what I thought, seems pretty convincing the more I repeat it.

originally posted by: grainofsand

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: raedar


first section look like shooter let a woman with Hijab get up and run.

I just watched it on big screen MSM TV news...that's exactly what I thought, seems pretty convincing the more I repeat it.

It's just her hair overexposed. Once out of the light you can see that she has long brown hair, Use the ATS file for clarity.



files.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: HummaKavula
a reply to: DaExpletive

From 3:42 to 3:46 in the video you can clearly see glass fragments on the seat of the chair vacated by the lady. Also at 3:45 you can see that the glass in the door is in fact cracked/shattered.

True, stuff is falling on the chair. So looking at all angles, from what angle was the guman shooting through the door, and where did the bullets impact, visble from which angle?

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: grainofsand

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: raedar


first section look like shooter let a woman with Hijab get up and run.

I just watched it on big screen MSM TV news...that's exactly what I thought, seems pretty convincing the more I repeat it.

It's just her hair overexposed. Once out of the light you can see that she has long brown hair, Use the ATS file for clarity.

Your opinion of course. I see it differently and disagree.
To me the person who the gunman did not shoot (under the table outside) then ran left past the window, was wearing a headscarf of sorts as far as I perceive it.
It is not impossible that she cried something to him regarding Islam and he let her go. We are all speculating but that's how I perceive it, and unless a first hand witness comes forward it's unlikely I'll see it differently.

originally posted by: Dr1Akula
Terrifying moments, and tragic outcome...
Seeing the videos, I think ''concealed carry'' of French citizens could save many lives...

In the meantime more and more ''refugees'' with fake passports are being arrested across Eu
and threats of isis continue...

Its not like the movies you know..

which one of those people were going to pull out a concealed handgun and fire shots at 2 men with aks

typical yanky ignorance

originally posted by: grainofsand

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: grainofsand

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: raedar


first section look like shooter let a woman with Hijab get up and run.

I just watched it on big screen MSM TV news...that's exactly what I thought, seems pretty convincing the more I repeat it.

It's just her hair overexposed. Once out of the light you can see that she has long brown hair, Use the ATS file for clarity.

Your opinion of course. I see it differently and disagree.
To me the person who the gunman did not shoot (under the table outside) then ran left past the window, was wearing a headscarf of sorts as far as I perceive it.

There were two women together outside at the same spot, (click click) first one to get up was brown haired, second was blonde or white haired. There is a need to know then that camera was the only one that was still on colour, but fluctuating between colour and black and white, as it did to B/W as the woman got up, making any white light or reflection of, overexposed in the infra red. The other cameras were on infra red, but any ambient lighting in the restaurant can give the impression of normal black and white, except stuff that is reflecting the lighting like cutlery or tables lamps that have their own light source, which will be overexposed. I have seen all these effects with my own cameras for long enough.

a reply to: smurfy

Interesting speculation, I am pleased you do not assert it as fact.
...I don't know you so I assume you understand why I do not meekly take the opinion of some random stranger on the net though. If any first hand witnesses back your account up I am of course open to change, but I perceive a hijab.
It's a pity neither of us actually know.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: smurfy

Interesting speculation, I am pleased you do not assert it as fact.
...I don't know you so I assume you understand why I do not meekly take the opinion of some random stranger on the net though. If any first hand witnesses back your account up I am of course open to change, but I perceive a hijab.
It's a pity neither of us actually know.

I'm not really speculating, the screen capture I took is from a moving video at the 'Daily Mail' site since their video player darkens out when you stop/start it..no use for my purpose, so I had to hit 'print screen' while the video was in motion, and hope I had the right capture, so I was lucky, but I should have used the start stop Youtube video shown here, it would have saved a bit of time...at that time. You could try it yourself.

originally posted by: smurfy
I'm not really speculating

Yes you are.
You do not know it is not a headscarf, you believe it is not based on what you see, while drawing on prior digital image experience to reach your conclusion.
Still speculation fella, and so long as you present it as such (not asserted fact) then I'll agree to disagree.

What I believe I see here is a mixture of controlled production. Gunmen attacking in coordination with shadow actors, putting lots of witnesses in the crossfire and victimizing hundreds in the process. 99.9% of all testimony possible will be by who had seen the display of violence. The validity of authenticity for this event will be on the witnesses willingness to believe what the had seen Vs what people might assume.

This is video one of the PR control. Action packed, terrorizing and filmed from multiple angles. No one shown to be greatly hurt, two women by the grace of god are granted life, after a fortunate gun jam, which is not even attempted to be cleared.

Terror happened in broad daylight in New York, many witnesses and camera angles. We all know these events really happened. Can we all be certain though, that we are not just seeing what we are intended to? The political conclusion is that you have to lose to win. Ask yourself, what are you losing and to whom?

originally posted by: Agit8dChop

Its not like the movies you know..
which one of those people were going to pull out a concealed handgun and fire shots at 2 men with aks

Somewhat true. Without a training body has no memory of action in a combat situation. Such a guy would find himself without any self confidence. Body becomes disobedient when it knows the brain is just bluffing.
However even one shot of a one gun could make a big difference if a person had nowhere to hide or run.
And even one day at a shooting range can give the body enough muscle memory to use. We have seen this before.
Two guns would be better and imagine the third one suddenly firing from a window above. Now imagine five of them!

Do you actually see any alternative to 15 endless and helpless minutes to the arrival of the first cops?

a reply to: raedar

I saw pictures of that concert venue..it was a bloody scene, definitely not fake IMO..when you see about twenty or so bodies laying cold on the ground it's pretty real.

a reply to: DaExpletive

True, stuff is falling on the chair. So looking at all angles, from what angle was the guman shooting through the door, and where did the bullets impact, visble from which angle?

Pause the video at :04 and start going frame by frame. At the beginning of :04 the blond woman ducks slightly at the first shot. At the beginning of :06 look at the door. Go forward one frame still in :06. Notice the woman getting up, just to the right of her head is a bullet hole in the door. Forward frame by frame. Notice as she comes through the door, the glass is shattered. Also notice that the woman vacating the chair inside is the same woman discussed in my previous post at 3:42. Based on where the attacker is, I would say that his first shot was at :03 to :04 and his second was :05 to :06. His third at :08.

At the start of :08 as the woman is reaching for the door. See the glass from the door heading in the direction of the person standing by the wall? Look at the trajectory as compared to where the attacker is in the red circle. Looks like he is aiming for the woman going inside.

just another false flag. Watch them impliment more laws now as a result. It's all bs

a reply to: EA006

As the terrorist passes from the right to the left on the film footage he appears mid frame, the first round through the glass door hits the back wall? That means he can bend bullets or there was someone else who didn't fire at the girls at the start.

if you watch closely after the glass breaks you see smoke from shots fired from the right drift pass the door the woman runs in mutliple times even as the man runs in the door.

there is someone behind the section of wall to the right of the door and left of the windows on the right.

originally posted by: Agit8dChop

originally posted by: Dr1Akula
Terrifying moments, and tragic outcome...
Seeing the videos, I think ''concealed carry'' of French citizens could save many lives...

In the meantime more and more ''refugees'' with fake passports are being arrested across Eu
and threats of isis continue...

Its not like the movies you know..

which one of those people were going to pull out a concealed handgun and fire shots at 2 men with aks

typical yanky ignorance

Well yea.....its France remember. No ones going to pull out anything and shoot at anybody unless its the terrorist.

originally posted by: grainofsand

originally posted by: smurfy
I'm not really speculating

Yes you are.
You do not know it is not a headscarf, you believe it is not based on what you see, while drawing on prior digital image experience to reach your conclusion.
Still speculation fella, and so long as you present it as such (not asserted fact) then I'll agree to disagree.

Besides we can see clearly that he didn't shoot......and didn't try to clear his weapon.