Development is troublesome for those pushing implausible storyline
Federal authorities seeking to pass off active shooter training exercises as real events may have pushed the stick too far with the San Bernardino shooting. The family of alleged gunman Syed Rizwan Farook has retained two attorneys who are raising important questions and pointing to evidentiary anomalies that neither the federal agencies conducting the “investigation” nor the corporate media “reporting” the shooting want the public to consider. They also argue that the event has nothing to do with terrorism.
In fact, at one point the attorneys even invoked the Sandy Hook massacre as an example of how recent mass shootings simply don’t add up. Media outlets have been quick to dismiss such comparisons as illogical and baseless.
For example, Mediaite observes:
Syed Farook‘s family lawyer Friday said “there were a lot of questions” surrounding the San Bernardino shootings, at one point floating Sandy Hook conspiracy theories to suggest the crime did not occur as the FBI claims.
In an interview with CNN’s Chris Cuomo, attorney David Chesley iterated reports that the attack had nothing to do with terrorism, saying, “there have been suggestions that it may be something that was related to their work, that somehow he was a disgruntled employee.”
“I mean obviously these things were found there, how they got there we don’t know.”
“There were a lot of questions drawn with Sandy Hook and whether or not that was a real incident or not,” Chelsey added, insisting “there has been a lot speculation about” the elementary school massacre that killed 20 children and six adults. [sic]
This has resulted in tremendous ire from major media and general public outrage, even though the attorneys’ queries are entirely within the realm of sound questioning.
Prefacing his interview with Chesley and Abuershaid, CNN’s Cuomo expresses his frustration that the attorneys have put their thinking caps on and have thus not readily accepted the utterly sensationalistic San Bernardino shooting narrative presented by authorities and major news outlets.
“They don’t represent the shooters–obviously they’re dead,” Cuomo begins, “but they don’t represent their interests as well.”
This is a fascinating example of misinformation at play. In his enthusiastic defense of the dominant story frame, CNN’s Cuomo contradicts himself by pointing to the attorneys’ judgement and capacity to represent dead people, as strange as that sounds.
What he’s really saying is that Chesley and Abuershaid are venturing in a direction that could reveal this event for what it is. This is a major reason the interview has been downplayed and the interviewees vilified. “They say that the family’s in shock,” Cuomo continues,
They say that the family didn’t know. We have no reason to disbelieve that from the investigators at this point. But they go farther. They question whether or not this is terrorism. They question whether or not this even happened the way we think it happened.
Attorneys, law enforcement officers, physicians, and university professors are all especially menacing for those seeking to drive home a dubious storyline because such individuals represent and constitute credentialed authority to which corporate news media often defer. Thus an expert cannot be as readily dismissed as an independent researcher with a blog or YouTube channel.
Where have we seen this dynamic play out in recent years? This author can recall at least one instance.
When such institutional authorities cannot be intimidated or humiliated into silence, they are simply ignored and their ideas suppressed. This strategy is on full display with Amazon.com’s recent censorship of Prof. James Fetzer’s edited volume, Nobody Died at Sandy Hook, the lead chapter of which begins with the above observation.