Last Sunday, eyebrows were raised – not just raised, but lifted right off people’s faces to hover three feet overhead – when BBC News apparently published a story reporting evidence that the Charlie Hebdo shootings were a false flag attack. The story looked and felt real, with none of the clumsy giveaways of your average hoax (think Sorcha Faal) or the outrageous giveaways of your average parody (think Kevin Barrett).
The embedded “BBC” TV news report looked professionally produced and featured yours truly reporting for False Flag Weekly News, also referencing my 9/11 truth movement colleague Dr. Paul Craig Roberts. It discussed evidence that the Charlie Hebdo shootings were fake, including the ballistics evidence presented here at VT by Gordon Duff.
Watch the latest False Flag Weekly News – the show that scared someone into creating a fake BBC website and story…and get the links to all the stories we covered here.
The fake BBC report presumably cited Roberts and me because our work on the Charlie Hebdo false flag had gone viral and reached more people than anyone else’s. My stories and reports tallied reads and views well into the six figures, meaning the actual audience (including reposts) was over a million – despite cyber-criminal efforts to stop it, including a multiple hacks here at VT that removed my story from circulation during the most critical period shortly after the event. Roberts’ stuff also went viral; together, we reached millions of people with the message that Charlie Hebdo was a false flag. Was the bogus BBC report a reaction to our success?
The fake BBC story went up late Sunday and stayed up just long enough to start going viral Monday morning. (That’s Sunday the 11th a.k.a. 1/11 for all you illuminati fans out there.)
Someone with access to expertise and resources spent a considerable amount of time and trouble to produce this high-grade hoax. Who would do such a thing? And why?
Let’s take the Cartesian approach and break the problem down into manageable sub-units by listing possible suspects and motives, and then rating their plausibility.
*Suspect #1: A rogue truther. Frustrated by the mainstream media’s failure to report evidence of false flag operations, our rogue truther, who happens to possess the resources and expertise to create a plausible fake BBC website and news video, acts on the slogan: “If you don’t like the news, make some yourself.”
Plausibility rating: negligible. The operation was too professional. Also, spreading hoaxes doesn’t help the truth movement’s credibility. Like 9/11 from the point of view of radical anti-imperialist Muslims, anyone smart enough to pull it off wouldn’t want to. And if the purpose of the hoax was to publicize the suppressed truth about Charlie Hebdo, the hoaxer would have immediately gone public, claimed credit, and explained his or her motive.
Suspect # 2: A malicious hacker spreading viruses just for fun. This is the hypothesis entertained and investigated by a purported cyber-security outfit called OpenDNS.com. But according to their investigation, it appears that no viruses or malware were spread. So OpenDNS falls back on the theory that the hoaxer was simply doing a trial run to find out how many people would click on this kind of story…market research, as it were. Gosh, who would do something like that? Which leads to the third and most plausible theory:
*Suspect #3: An anti-truth disinfo agent working for the organization(s) that orchestrated the Charlie Hebdo attack, namely the Gladio 2 network involving pro-Zionist elements of Western intelligence services and their organized crime partners. These are the folks who would be interested in doing “market research” on how fast “conspiracy theories” spread in the wake of false flag attacks. They might also be interested in what would happen if a major news outlet such as BBC somehow evaded the control of the censors and reported honestly on a false-flag event like the Charlie Hebdo shootings. This kind of scenario, in which a fit of honesty somehow seizes people at a big mainstream outlet, is their worst nightmare. In order to plan for such a worst-case contingency, they would want to know how fast the story would spread, who would be spreading it and how, and so on. With this knowledge, they would be in a better position to keep such an event from blowing up into a social-stability-threatening scandal.
Such a cointelpro-generated “false-flag false-flag story” would be a clear example of Cass Sunstein’s “cognitive infiltration.” Sunstein, an ardent Zionist and former Obama Administration Information Czar, has argued that “conspiracy theories” represent a threat to society, and that some day the US government may have to ban them. But since that is not yet possible (the frog being as-of-yet insufficiently boiled) the government should “disable the purveyors of conspiracy theories” and engage in “cognitive infiltration” of the truth movement.
The fake BBC story certainly did “cognitively infiltrate” the truth movement. It may have allowed the Gladio B operators, using raw NSA data provided to Israel, to see exactly who was spreading the “conspiracy theory” and in what manner.
The phony BBC story also promoted what Sunstein calls “beneficial cognitive diversity,” meaning that it muddied the waters. By revealing that the “BBC story” was a hoax, Sunstein’s minions promote suspicion of news reports presenting evidence for false-flag events.
The clear implication: By figuring out who created the BBC hoax, we can nail suspects in the Charlie Hebdo massacre.
In the same way that suspicion has fallen on the cameraman who “just happened” to be in position to film the fake shooting of the policeman, questions arise about the cyber-security firm OpenDNS.com, which published a misleading, propagandistic story about the fake BBC report. OpenDNS, which has very little public track record and looks like an intel-agency cutout, displays “guilty demeanor” by vilifying Paul Craig Roberts in an apparent Cass Sunstein style attempt to “disable” one of the “purveyors of conspiracy theories” by attacking his reputation.
So…Which intelligence agency or “national interest” would likely be lurking behind the OpenDNS cut-out?
Here’s a clue: They’re trying to muddy the waters even further by (ludicrously) blaming Iran:
“One might conclude that, given the recent events surrounding Charlie Hebdo in Paris, the posting of disinformation on the bbc-news[.]co[.]uk site, and links to an Iranian state-sponsored news agency corroborating the same disinformation, that this was a State-executed, State-ordered, State-integrated, or State-rogue-conducted activity backed by Iran.”
Now which country has a government that is always trying to smear Iran, and is even on record pushing for all-out war?
I think we have identified, in rough outline, the probable perpetrators of the BBC Charlie Hebdo false-flag hoax…and the Charlie Hebdo massacre itself.
Now all that remains is to bring them to justice.