Good Cop Bad Cop --The Widening Police Rift
The City of Orlando Floor Plan
Orlando Shooting, Continued
I've made several changes (mainly minor) over the past week to the last update as this investigation brings me to a better understanding of things.
Here's an interesting story:
By Edward Griffin (henrymakow.com)
Santa Monica -- Two police officers who wish to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation say that James Wesley Howell, an Indiana man who was found with a car full of explosives and weapons on Sunday morning, told police he was part of a team that planned shooting attacks on gay communities in Florida and California.
Howell told police he was turning himself in because he wanted protection. His story was that he had been assured by his recruiters that he would not be harmed in the shooting but, when he heard on the news that Omar Mateen, the lead gunman in the Orlando group, had been killed by sniper fire, he realized he was being set up as a patsy and would be killed.
Soon after that, the FBI took over the investigation, and information to the public was filtered to remove any facts that might show the Orlando shooting as a planned event involving others. GetOffTheBS 2016 Jun 15 (See Below)
It is important to remember that the police officers who are the source of this story choose to remain anonymous, so it cannot be independently verified at this time, but circumstantial evidence supports it. For example:
(1) After the FBI took charge of the investigation, Police Chief Jacqueline Seabrooks changed her original report that Howell was part of a group of five people who intended to do harm at the gay-pride event in West Hollywood. Her altered report made no mention of anyone other than Howell.
(2) The web site that reported this story (see below) is still carrying the article without triggering legal action against it. That is significant because, if the story is false, immediate legal action would be expected. If it is true, Howell will be killed or 'disappeared' to prevent him from talking, but the last thing the perpetrators would want is a public trial where witnesses can be called to testify.
This news story could be one of the most important reports ever published in the annals of journalism.
That's quite a statement but, when you consider the nature of its content, it is no exaggeration to say that it has the potential to fundamentally change the relationship between the United States government and the American people, and that could lead to a profound change, not only in America, but the entire world.
..."The real truth of the story was released to a former Los Angeles County prosecutor who works for Get Off the BS by two Santa Monica police officers that have been issued gag orders under threat of Federal prosecution for talking further talking about the incident.
...Howell additionally stated that, "everything has gone south. Dan was gone when I got here. They killed the leader of the Florida attack this morning. They are going to kill me. I need protection."
According to sources within the police department's investigation Howell indicated to officers who first made contact with him that Howell claimed he was one of five people involved in a planned Sunday attack on both the east and west coasts.
Howell stated that he was suppose to "hook up" late Saturday night with his contact in LA who was suppose to have more weapons and chemicals to mix with the Tannerite he was in possession of.
..When questioned about the other four people involved in the plot, Howell was only familiar with the first names of three of the alleged suspects, naming his contact in LA - Dan and two of the three contacts in Florida, Omar and Brandy.
Speaking of the suspect killed in the Pulse Bar massacre in Florida, Howell stated, "Omar was not suppose to be killed. They lied to us - Omar and Brandy were suppose to get away."
When Howell was questioned about how he and his conspirators knew each other, he said that, "We were all familiar with each other through an online fundamental Islamic knowledge seminary course - we were recruited through the course and trained together at a camp in Virginia - we were taught how to shoot and make bombs - everyone knew their part - something went wrong...."
Before the officers could further question Howell, agents working for the Los Angeles office of the FBI quickly swept in and took over the case. Santa Monica detectives were never allowed to talk with Howell.
In summary, it appears that Howell was on his way to "hook up" with another conspirator (Dan) to set off explosives and shoot people at the gay pride parade in Hollywood California on Sunday. [dated June 18]
Wow. I need time to take all that in. First, there really are some good cops left. There might be hope for America yet. How does one go about proving that this story is at least with a sound basis versus, say, a story circulated by the Russians or anti-government groups? If the Santa Monica police can't talk, nothing's going to come of it, unless the good cops go to Wikileaks, or something of that nature, and share the transcript of the police interview with, or questioning of, James Wesley Howell (very evil man, let's not make him a hero for talking).
One thing, the FBI need to report on Howell at some point, don't they? They can't just pretend he doesn't exist, or this story will haunt the FBI for years. There will be discussion on this issue in the coming days, if it has teeth. I'm going to search out what others are saying, and find the basement of this story, if I can. It appears that the police chief in Santa Monica is for the good guys, an important ingredient if correct, otherwise, the officers would be silenced by the chief. But now, the chief and the officers can discuss it freely, hopefully start a police movement rolling before FBI and CIA threats can stop it. Imagine how wonderful, good cops versus FBI, CIA, and other globalist-rat societies. Which side do you predict would win?
I've just learned that CNN had part of the Howell story on June 15. It confirms that he exists:
An Indiana man who police said was arrested as he headed toward the LA Pride festival with an arsenal of weapons is being held in a California jail with bail set at $2 million.
James Wesley Howell pleaded not guilty to the charges against him Tuesday at the Los Angeles County Superior Court. A judge set the bail at Tuesday's [June 14] hearing.
...So far, there is no connection to a deadly Sunday attack at a gay nightclub in Orlando, and no conclusive connection to an LA Pride threat other than the man saying he planned to attend the festival, Los Angeles Interim Undersheriff Neal Tyler said.
Officers arrested Howell in Santa Monica, California, about 5 a.m. PT [California time] Sunday after getting a call about a prowler, Tyler said...
...A resident called police with a report of a man knocking on the resident's door and window, the district attorney's office said.
Police found Howell sitting in a car registered in Indiana. A search turned up three assault rifles, high-capacity magazines, ammunition and a 5-gallon bucket with chemicals that could be used to create an explosive device, officials said.
...Early in the investigation authorities had sent mixed messages about whether he admitted planning an attack in the hours after a mass shooting in Florida...
Santa Monica Police Chief Jacqueline Seabrooks said on Twitter that Howell told an officer during his arrest on weapons charges that he wanted "to harm Gay Pride event."
But she provided no specifics and at a press conference later, Lt. Saul Rodriguez [bad guy? or FBI manipulated?] suggested the tweet may have been born from a miscommunication.
In a tweet Sunday evening, Seabrooks said, "Tweet should have read: Howell was going to event. He's now being held on weapons & explosives charges" [sounds like the bad guys forced her to change her story publicly].
Rodriguez said authorities still did not know Howell's intents and motivations.
...The police department is coordinating the investigation with the FBI.
. This Howell monster's arrest was three hours after Mateen's reported death. Doesn't it appear that there's a possible connection?
Next up brings us to June 16 in the Los Angeles Times (probably one of the bad guys?):
[Authorities] also ruled out the possibility that [Howell] was connected to the slaying of 49 clubgoers at a gay nightspot in Orlando, Florida, just hours earlier.
...According to court documents, Howell was in possession of a 25-pound container of "Shoc-Shot," a commercially sold two-component explosive that detonates when hit by a high-velocity rifle round. Santa Monica police said that the container was three-fifths full and that the explosive chemicals had already been combined.
It doesn't specify which authorities ruled out his involvement with Orlando, but it's impossible to rule it out so soon i.e. based on thin air or Howell's comments. The swiftness by which they ruled it out testifies against the authorities. Under normal conditions, the FBI should be spending a long time seeking a connection, just in case there are others. For all they know, there could be other planned attacks elsewhere. Everything screams possible connection, but, so soon, they ruled it out. Red flag. I say, already, that they are lying and covering up.
Let's face it, when the police chief said that James Wesley Howell told one or more of her officers that he wanted "to harm Gay Pride event", she wasn't on narcotics, and the words were not accidental from a slip of her keyboard. She meant exactly that, and she was telling the truth. A police chief doesn't say such a thing if it's not true. It means that Howell was talking. If we ask how in the world Howell would be so stupid as to start talking like that, assuring his jail time, we have a means already: he was afraid for his life from the CIA. He wanted to tell police that the CIA trained him to shoot up the parade. He's only 20, barely out of childhood. He's naive, and wicked, and altogether stupid, and he was hoping the police would understand his bad choice. He didn't need to say that he was going to a parade or any crowded event. he didn't need to speak a word, he had that right, and was told he had that right. WHY DID HE TALK AT ALL?
Let's now go back to that explosive claim, asking if its credible:
Two police officers who wish to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation say that James Wesley Howell, an Indiana man who was found with a car full of explosives and weapons on Sunday morning, told police he was part of a team that planned shooting attacks on gay communities in Florida and California
It sounds credible beside the chief's initial comment, but we might be asking whether he could possibly know, way over in California, that Mateen was killed just three hours before he got arrested on the prowler incident. But let's not go too fast, because the prowler incident may not have taken place, and the authorities who fabricated this arrest story may have given it the earliest-possible time in order to make his knowledge of Mateen's death least likely. On the other hand, his arrest time was Sam Florida time, by which time news of Mateen's death may have hit the Internet. We can assume that Howell was searching for any news of that event; all he had to do was search "shooting Pulse Florida" to get the news. Moreover, he could have had someone he knew, in the same boat as himself, in Florida who was covering the event with whom he may have been speaking. Here is what has been reported as the original source:
It says: "Los Angeles County sheriff's officials said the suspect told police he was going to the Pride parade to look for a friend. Authorities were looking for that individual." The problem here is that the LA sheriff may be one of the bad guys, denying the full story and emphasizing his ratting out on his accomplice. However, to any thinking person, it still appears that he was prepared to bomb the event. Yes, the bad guts are saying, he did talk about the parade with police, not because he wanted to bomb his fellow queers, but because he was wanting to meet a friend there. How naive does that version make the police look? They are not naive, of course, but are passing themselves off as naive because they don't want the world to know he was prepared to conduct a terror act at the parade. It is obvious.
Howell was just discovered to be in trouble with Indiana police for molesting a 14-year old girl, which doesn't suggest he's queer. Yet the Los Angeles Times has already claimed sources concerning Howell's "boyfriend," and his bisexuality. This is not necessarily proof that he didn't plan a massacre at the parade, for I saw reports claiming that Omar Mateen had attended the Pulse nightclub as a customer on multiple occasions. These two men were getting paid a handsome reward by the U.S. government, and probably had some of it up-front. They were going to be rich. They were willing to kill queers for that outcome. Queers do not love queers; they use friendship with one another for obtaining orgasms. The loyalty of their friendships only go so far.
So here is what the silenced police chief said: "Howell was going to the event. He's now being held in weapons and explosions charges." Very nice. She towed the sheriff's line, and the line desired of her by the FBI, but she also added that he was going to the event with rifles and bombing material. Very nice. It's hard for American to get that wrong, happening so soon after the Florida massacre. But the story is not yet getting traction in big media...to be expected until the big media are prepared to double-cross the CIA and FBI. Until then, they allow these organs of the government to manipulate their stories.
The bad guys are wanting to give the impression that a police chief went overboard, jumping to the conclusion that, because he was going to the parade, he intended to do harm there. But a police chief doesn't share such an accusation flimsily. She's not a bimbo whose forgotten who she is. She is well aware that there are court proceedings on the man, and that police etiquette forbids the spreading of rumors or opinions on someone's guilt before the trial. She engaged in this way, however, because this is no small item on her plate. She is convinced that this was a repeat of Florida in the makings, and couldn't resist telling the world, waiting to tell more, but was shocked to be silenced by her superior(s). She was not only silenced, but was expected to give appearances that there is no threat to America.
Here is the near-bottom of the story, yet the problem lies in that the source working for a group not respected by most Americans:
The real truth of the story was released to a former Los Angeles County prosecutor who works for Get Off the BS by two Santa Monica police officers that have been issued gag orders under threat of Federal prosecution for talking further talking about the incident.
According to two department sources, Howell called the Santa Monica police on Sunday morning claiming that he needed protection from the CIA. Howell further elaborated to the dispatcher stating that he "had been set up by the CIA -- they are going to kill me."
It seems clear enough that the LA prosecutor claimed the latter paragraph from the words of the anonymous officers. It's problematic because there are now two stories on how he was brought to the police, one on a prowler situation where unspecified officers (doesn't say Santa Monica police) brought him in, and the one where he turned himself in. They can't both be correct. I can understand that, if the FBI allows the idea to stand that he turned himself in, it plays heavily to the terrorist story, and that amounts exactly to an FBI motive / dire need to fabricate another means by which Howell was caught. There are a couple of issues if true that the prowler story was concocted. It first of all means that the police chief allowed the FBI to manipulate her rudely with no basis. It would be a case of, get in line, or risk your job.
The prosecutor goes beyond the claim that the two officers contacted him with the story; he claims that their is a gag order upon them. Do you think that a former prosecutor working for Los Angeles government can make up a story like that? As a prosecutor, his job was to get crooks jail time. He's now going up against the worst crooks of all, in the U.S. government. It's obvious.
If the prowler story was fabricated, why did the bad guys include explosive material with the story? Well, perhaps there was only so far they could go in denying the true story. The chief's superior may have been willing to cut a deal only so far. The CIA / FBI would have argued to the effect that revealing Howell's story would be shameful because it scandalizes the CIA. The latter was, of course, denying Howell's claims. If the chief's superiors decided to let the public hear Howell's story, the CIA and FBI together would feel betrayed by the police, and, you know, their can be severe ramifications. So, the police department decided not to cause a major CIA scandal. But in order to play this decision, an alternative method of arrest was needed, and the department was willing to fabricate one.
One can perfectly understand that the officer(s) who originally recieved Howell's story, and any other officer(s) who interviewed him, were irate at the department's decision to cover the story. But why did the anonymous officers talk to the world through someone working for Get Off The BS? Why not a sympathetic news media? The story would have taken off much better. Perhaps they did call news media, only to get refused. For years, the media bosses have taken sides with the FBI in mass-shootings, the last thing they want now is to admit they were, not only wrong, but supporters of a killer CIA mafia. This is a glimpse on precisely how the deniers are going to ruin America. Having been coerced into ridiculing the conspiracy believers, they now are unable to accept the truth even when it stares them in the face.
The CIA is, of course, not as powerful as it might like to portray. If a scandal like this were simply released by police, the CIA would fall apart instantly, with internal division, chaos everywhere too much for the bad guys to handle. Howell is in a position to reveal his trainers and associates in the program. But he's now in the hands of the FBI. It is very convenient for the bad guys that be that the FBI gets to have ultimate control in cases like this. It is harder to fight under Obama because he's involved in these mass shootings. He may have weighed in to the Santa Monica police.
If the officers know that what they claim is true, they will be required, by law, to turn their story in to the highest court in the land. If they fall silent, afraid of repercussions, they will betray their own country. It doesn't matter whether they think they can win or lose in a fight against the CIA; the officers have a duty to report the story, if indeed Howell confessed to be trained by the CIA. To be fair, the officers didn't necessarily turn the story to Get Off The BS, but rather to a former attorney who happens to work for / with Get Off The BS. We don't know how the officers communicated to him, or how he verified that it was the Santa Monica officers to begin with. We are supposedly to trust that what the prosecutor says is true.
What do I believe? Already, that James Wesley Howell was headed for a CIA-sponsored massacre in the parade. Did he really turn himself in? There's reason to doubt where conspiracy theorists are desperate for success, and may therefore manufacture their own success. But this is no reason, in itself, to shut our eyes to the apparent facts, or to not bother seeking them. A lot is at stake if the CIA is sponsoring mass shootings.
No matter whether or not the prosecutor is an "extremist," the police chief appears to have been silenced. I'm thankful for this story from Get Off The BS (pro-gun, pro-Trump, martial-law fearing organization), but I am not advocating the group as I know nothing about it.
Put it this way, that Howell was far from home while driving through California, claiming to be headed to Gay Pride, and brought along his arsenal and explosive chemicals. How on earth can he disappear from the news? The country wants to know what he was up to. Explosives are for crowds, and Gay Pride (God-despised) has crowds. How can the big media not be following up on this story? But the big media, when covering mass shootings / terror acts, are typically nothing but tow trucks, towing FBI junk. Media start off by quoting FBI statements, and, as they say, news reporters are not supposed to interpret the statements, nor enter their own opinions on the FBI statements; that's what the Bill O'Reillys of the news people are for. Yet even they are towing the FBI line for fear of losing credibility, etc.
By Googling " 20 dead 40 injured 'June 11' ", as directed by a couple of websites claiming that the news of the event was put out before it happened, I have found multiple articles with a title such as "Police: 20 dead in act of terrorism at Orlando's Pulse ... - UPI.com". But when we go to the article, they report the usual 50 dead 53 injured. How do you think that happened? "Orlando Police Chief John Mina Mina had initially estimated the death toll at more than 20 people." "More than 20" is not good enough. I can understand counting wrong to say, 43 or 44, but 20ish??? If we say that around 20 were dead initially while some 30 wounded souls died later, that doesn't work because there were only 40 wounded initially, and we need that number itself to go up to 53. There are problems everywhere with this story, and the Orlando police chief looks complicit with the murder. How can this possibly be? Surely, there must be a better explanation.
The following "image" (all text) is from a page claiming that the earliest-found article out with the 20 / 40 numbers was from the UK one full day before the shooter went on a rampage. He lists several pages reporting the massacre on Sunday but having "June 11" (Saturday) on Google search pages. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if a Google result shows June 11, that's either the day that Google spidered the article for the first time, or perhaps the one who owns the page entered that date somewhere on that page's html codework so that Google can use it in Google-results pages. As the event occurred in the wee hours of the 12th, as people slept (it was dawn already in England), no Western article should have been out until the morning or afternoon of the 12th. If an American media acquired an article in the UK dated 2am June 12, the American article can automatically adjust its date to late in the evening on June 11, but it's still hours before the shooting because 2am Sunday in England is several hours before the shooting. In other words, I can't see any explanation for the June-11 dating.
How could so many websites have June 11th? There are pages listed (below) from Eastern Standard Time areas so that they had to be plugged with "June 11" before midnight Florida time, more than two hours, at least, before the shooting. There is not supposed to be a media report even one minute before the shooting. Make your own decision, but don't rush to think that there is a rational explanation. It is very possible that media articles were given the green light by the insiders, and created by insiders before the event took place as part of the script. Apparently, they had decided beforehand how many dead and injured would be reported. The method is to have even one media release the article, afterwhich it's picked up by anyone who wishes to carry it. Only the first media needs to be in bed with the insiders.
Page borrowed from Jim Stone:
Even if there is a logical explanation for the June-11 dates, I find it virtually impossible to explain away the 20 versus 50 deaths. A police report does not get it that far wrong. The police go in, with someone(s) is in charge of doing the count, who reports it to the boss, and that number is transferred to the media. How did they get it so wrong? Because they are liars. The Orlando police is complicit with the CIA / FBI in this case. The latter would not have done the false flag had not the local police been complicit. Partnerships like this don't happen overnight. They are a long time in the making.
One can now theorize that the Casiano story, with 30 people stuffed in the toilet stalls, was fabricated to turn the 20 dead into 50. In their official report, they can say they initially missed the dead people in the toilets. But that's nonsense, as there would have been a river of blood from each stall, and feet would have been showing. There were supposedly more deaths in the bathrooms alone than the 20 total first reported. How did they get it so wrong???? The nightclub is not huge at all, the size of a large house.
Well, all that needs to be done now is for the government to release the security-camera views of the Florida event. Actually, no, it isn't needed, because most people trust the government report, so why bother feeding the conspiracy writers exactly what they'd like?
Don't under-estimate what I'm saying, because refusal to share the video is damning. Even if they claim that releasing the video is in very bad taste, they can yet describe the videos in print. No one has any illusions that it was pretty. We all realize the horror. The problem is that, if the FBI was willing to release the dead / injured numbers before the shooting took place, the FBI knows beforehand that it will have full control of the building and the events that will be played out. If they decided beforehand that no one gets to see anything, they can make up just about any story they wish. And they have time before committing to an official story, because they always say it's under investigation until they are ready for the announcement. They are claiming 300 people in this small place, which plays heavily to their scheme, because the public expects many witnesses to contradict their official story if indeed their story is untrue. But the 20-dead story, and my calculations on the maximum number of tables in the place, can suggest that the place had less than 100 people on that night. In fact, some of the people would have left by 2am.
A CNN article comes up when searching " orlando '20 dead' ", and the results includes "20 dead in Orlando nightclub shooting." Clicking to the article, that sentence has disappeared. When updating the article, Why didn't CNN mention the reason for large gap between 20 and 50, and why didn't it make it an issue? At least, CNN could have kept the fact before the public, yet it was made to disappear, as can be expected in a cover up. While the original article was likely dated the 12th (or even the 11th), it has, "Updated 11:05 AM ET, Mon June 13, 2016," explaining the results page like so:
13 Jun 2016 ... Forty-nine people were killed at Pulse, a gay nightclub in Orlando, in what marks the deadliest mass ... 20 dead in Orlando nightclub shooting.
In the following piece (June 12), the report of some 20 dead can be gleaned as a number provided, not in the infancy of the aftermath, but after 40ish people were already in hospitals:
Up to 20 people have been killed and more than 40 have been taken to area hospitals...
The attack began at approximately 2:20 [2:02?] AM...As other law enforcement officers responded, the terrorist retreated back inside the club and took hostages.
That's not the first time that I've read of the shooter being outside, then being forced back in. The problem is, none of the story, if it is derived from the police, can be trusted. However, one can still seek holes in the police version of events. The article reads: "Posted at 8:23 am on June 12, 2016 by Bob Owens". That was 5:23 California time. But Bob Owens wasn't likely the first to have the story up. Howell could therefore have read the story for himself by 5 am. Owen's story reads like others: "SWAT units raided the club approximately three hours later, where nine officers engaged and killer the terrorist." The page also has this: "Police: #PulseNightclubShooting witnesses asked to go to police department". Sure, that way, all the "wrong" witnesses can be dealt with before they get to the media.
How long, after Howell discovered this killing of Mateen, did he take before turning himself in? Is it logical to believe that he turned himself in? He could have driven back to Indiana, quit the CIA, and gone on with life, right? Well, no, he couldn't. He would have been hunted down with great priority. He trusted the Santa Monica police, but Lt. Rodriguez let him down. On June 16, there was Santa Monica's second killing on 2016:
Several news outlets on Wednesday identified Krah as a Navy SEAL, but Rodriguez would only confirm that the suspect is "an active military member with the Navy."
...An investigation revealed the victim [in his 50s] had been involved in a fight with Krah that took place approximately one hour earlier on the Santa Monica Pier, Rodriguez said.
"No one desired prosecution," Rodriguez said.
"Prior to the altercation, from what I know, they didn't know each other," he said.
Rodriguez declined to state how the men met at the scene of the second altercation, saying the investigation is ongoing.
This article probably wouldn't have brought to topic here if not for, "No one desired prosecution." What does that mean? Why would no one desire to arrest and charge a man who just killed another? What kind of a thing is it to say that no one wanted the arrest? Who is the "no one"? Did someone(s) call Rodriguez to urge him not to arrest the man? Is Rodriguez reaching out to the world, hinting that high-level goons were keeping him from doing his job properly last week? Was the so-called SEAL trying to silence someone involved with the Howell plot? We can imagine that the CIA has a long track record for silencing police departments. It's not learning that curve for the first time right now.
Look at how quickly some are willing to ignore the Howell connection to Orlando:
Given the timing -- authorities were still counting bodies in Orlando, Florida, where Omar Mateen had opened fire in a crowded LGBTQ nightclub -- Seabrooks' tweet sparked worries that Howell's plan was somehow related to Mateen's. It now appears as though it was not, and that Howell may not have been targeting the L.A. Pride event in the first place.
Later Sunday, Santa Monica police announced that Seabrooks was misinformed and that Howell never actually said that the festival was his target, only his destination -- a clarification that has circulated far less than the original claim [not a wonder]. "He did indicate that he was planning on going to the Pride festival but beyond anything as far as motives or his intentions that statement was never made nor did any officer receive that statement," Lt. Saul Rodriguez said.
For now, then, it remains a mystery exactly what Howell planned to do with the cache of weapons.
I ask you. Why would someone with explosives in his vehicle confess to the police that he was going to a crowded event? Under the arrest-scenario (i.e. no CIA-related confession made) advanced by Rodriguez, Howell could have said that he was just coming down to take a look at California, anything but going to a crowded event where police expect a terror act with a bomb. That's why Rodriguez is not going to convince me of his version of the story. Let me ask another question: why would anyone, having read this story, try to dissuade the reader from believing that Howell was planning to bomb and/or shoot up the parade?
Under the arrest-scenario created by Rodriguez, Howell was not supposed to know about the Florida shooting and its queer-lesbian setting, but here he is confessing to being in California to see Gay Pride. Doesn't it behoove Rodriguez and the FBI to at least tell the people that a Florida-Howell connection is being looked into, just in case it exists? Instead, the people are being told IMMEDIATELY not to worry about any-such connection, and all the quasi-rats whom have been supporting the official line in previous mass-murders are going to help get that message out. Is this an intelligent, safe way to proceed on this matter?
Here is from a media article:
A car enthusiast, Howell posted numerous photographs of the Acura along with a couple of videos taken from inside cars. Another 10-second video includes gunfire, with shots striking grass. The site includes political posts, including one in which he compares Hillary Clinton to Adolf Hitler. In another, he repeats conspiracy theories that the government was behind notorious terrorist attacks, including Sept. 11, 2001. That post shares a video claiming that last year's terror attack on the Paris offices of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo was a hoax and attributable to the "New World Order"..
...One [Facebook] post says he's signing a petition to legalize marijuana."...An anti-Clinton, pro-Bernie Sanders photo was posted in February.(article above)
How do we know whether Howell wrote all of these things, for as he was likely being watched by NSA, they would have had his passwords, and can therefore enter his Facebook account to add anything they might need. Right now, they need to portray him as one who opposes CIA plots to commit mass murder, and, voila, there you have such a portrayal above. He was probably picked up by CIA elements after they spied on him. He is a gun-loving thug type, perfect for use by CIA rats. If WARS (white supremacists) are still in Indiana, he may have been flirting with them.
They say that the Facebook entry above has been deleted. Why? How? "Howell, of Jeffersonville, Indiana, was arrested around 5 a.m. after residents called police to report suspicious behaviour by a man who parked his white Acura sedan facing the wrong way. When officers arrived, they saw an assault rifle sitting in Howell's passenger seat, Santa Monica police Lt. Saul Rodriguez said." You can't sit a rifle in a passenger seat unless it points up to some degree. How could Howell do something so dangerous to himself while on a mission to conduct a terror act, or while driving to some place that served as preparation for it?
In the first case, someone called the police because Howell was snooping around some house, but in the case above, it's because he parked his car the wrong way on the street. Does this indicate that the police changed the facts because they don't want us to know what house he was at? Why would the police want to keep the identity of the house a secret from the public? By now, they should have visited the house, and the FBI / CIA has spied on the emails and phone calls of everyone in it, if they were not spying already. They probably were because this house was likely that of his accomplice. Shouldn't the people of the neighborhood know this? You don't need three rifles to do a terror act or murder unless there are accomplices.
The rats can now manipulate Howell into signing a confession that has nothing to do with Gay Pride.
Gay Pride, by the way, is an event to reinforce the sexual perversion rather than try to fix it. Queers are being convinced that they are this way naturally, nothing wrong, nothing to fix, jump in with both feet and do it, make converts, despise all who despise them. The governments are to be on their side. Things didn't get like this as an accident. There are manipulators. Remember, these guys are not gay, they're sick. "Gay" is not the right word to use. They are homosickuals.
Infowars has a story of Omar Mateen's queer lover. If Omar can shoot up a queer bar, Howell can bomb a Gay Pride event. For all we know, these guys were involved in the Boston Marathon hoax. In that event, they didn't kill the perpetrators. And that's probably what the rat authority does first. It give these goons a hoax job, pays them off well, then follows it up with a real shooting spree where they get murdered by police, relieving the authorities of watching them lest they talk too much to the wrong people. The fact that they got a lot of money in the hoax convinces them that the rats can be trusted to save them from the shooting spree. So, they could have said to Mateen beforehand that the plan was to break through the wall with the armored vehicle, which will be his cue to come get saved. We don't know whether he was saved or shot.
The Telegraph quotes Mateen's queer-box friend (both met in hotels 15-20 times, sick) as saying Mateen didn't do this for ISIS, but because he got an AIDS virus and was wanting revenge. In any case, we can trust that this friend is not a CIA tool due to this message. I wonder how much AIDS spreads through nightclubs like Pulse. I wonder how many bisexuals are spreading it into the normal community. I wonder how little the government cares. I know this, the queers don't care, and the government supports queers. It's not a good mix for this society, and I'm the bad guy for bringing it up and using the "queer" word. I'm full of hate, they will say, because I hate what's wrong.
On June 20, the FBI came out with an update on Orlando. Before I even begin to read it, I'm certain that the official record is for the dissemination by big media, and so just watch how the big media allows itself to be used as an FBI tool. No one in the world knows better, on Orlando, than the FBI, according to the media. But I predict that God will ruin that relationship when the FBI slips and falls. "Out of respect for the victims of this horrific tragedy, law enforcement will not be releasing audio of the shooter's 911 calls at this time, nor will law enforcement be releasing audio or transcripts of the calls made by victims at the Pulse nightclub during the incident." That way, they can hash out how best, with more time, to deny the world anything that reveals their criminality:
2:02 a.m.: OPD call transmitted multiple shots fired at Pulse nightclub.
2:04 a.m.: Additional OPD officers arrived on scene.
2:08 a.m.: Officers from various law enforcement agencies made entrance to Pulse and engaged the shooter
2:18 a.m.: OPD S.W.A.T. (Special Weapons & Tactics) initiated a full call-out.
Okay, so it took two minutes only for "additional" police to start arriving, suggesting at least one officer there already before that time, and four minutes more for police other than the Orlando police to join in; these were at the scene looking at and guarding the bathroom door for some three hours, and they could see all the victims all that time, and talk to many injured ones, and they counted some 20, maybe 22 dead persons, and this is what Orlando announced in the morning, only to change the number to 49, and finally 50 later that day. Is this police force anything that you will trust? Note that the number of officers in each case is not given.
Note "engaged the shooter." That can mean anything. Did they holler, shoot, or just watch the door? It's best for the FBI not to give details in case they need to change the story later. Recall Patience carter, as she told us what the caller was doing and saying while in the bathroom. She said that Omar left the bathroom for a time and returned, which is impossible with officers outside standing guard, ready to shoot him the second he walks out. But police are not going to report that he walked out, and the media are not going to beat up on Carter for this blunder because she has become the media darling. Besides, it may not be a blunder at all. She may be telling the truth, that he walked out and started to fire on the people. You don't forget things when you're gripped with fear. She said she saw the man leave.
"Ms Carter said the gunman said: 'If the police come in, they're going to attack. But it's OK, we've got the snipers outside.' The gunman walked out and they [people in the bathroom] heard more gunshots. Over the next long minutes, people texted loved ones and tried to call 911 themselves." Now, look at the FBI report below:
2:48 a.m.: First crisis negotiation [with shooter] call occurred lasting approximately nine minutes.
3:03 a.m.: Second crisis negotiation call occurred lasting approximately 16 minutes.
3:24 a.m.: Third crisis negotiation call occurred lasting approximately three minutes.
So, while in the bathroom with Carter, Mateen was speaking with police over his phone. As surreal as it may seem, he may have walked out because they convinced him that the police on-site were all insiders. And they allowed him to go back into the bathroom, or maybe they shot him at that time, to explain the gunshots that Carter heard as he walked out. What else could he have meant by snipers outside but that the police said to him, before the shooting, that they would put snipers in there to protect him from the wrong authorities, as a method to convince him to do this massacre. And one of the officers may have joined him, in the beginning, shooting some of the people. Yes, it sounds surreal, but he's crazy, and there were no ISIS snipers outside, just police snipers. From Carter's words, it seems he walked out just as he spoke about the snipers, which may have been at exactly 3:27, the end of the third "negotiation." Someone in that exchange convinced him to go out.
If Carter is a sincere person, not an insider, then Mateen was allowed to go back into the bathroom: Her words: The man came back into the bathroom and ordered all to silence their phones. [Carter] watched as his feet backed into the stall where she was lying. At that point, the gunman entered the stall and shot three people... I can definitely see the police telling him that he should silence the phones in the bathroom. He did take their phones, she said. And, perhaps, the police asked him to kill a few more when inside because the numbers of dead were only around 20 at that time. The insider object was to make this a great media story. As long as Carter is telling the truth, I envision the police assuring Mateen that they would come for him as planned, by breaking through the wall.
But there is a problem with Carter's testimony, for she also said, "At one point, she said, Mateen stopped shooting [in the bathroom] to fix his jammed assault rifle [remote-control break-down?] Hours passed. The gunman would not leave the bathroom." But in another statement: "At one point, he seemed to have trouble with his rifle, Ms Carter said. 'He was like, "Damn, (it) jammed,"' she said...The gunman walked out and they heard more gunshots." CONTRADICTION. Was she lying all along? I suggest that her first statement was the latter one, where she said he walked out, and later, after the police asked her to fix it, she said elsewhere that he never left the bathroom. On the second occasion, she was lying for the police, right? Was she an insider all along, or was she merely manipulated into lying?
This scenario that I'm painting here was already developed in the last update, before finding the Howell story. His confession to the police, if it did take place, speaks exactly to the surreal situation now under discussion.
Did you notice that the FBI didn't disclose any communications except what's important to them, that Mateen called 911 and spoke about Allah, etc....just part of the script, right? Of course. From the very start, that's the message that insiders wanted out to the public. The third communication with him, he supposedly mentioned the terror attack in France, meaning that the insiders wanted to make it appear that Mateen was a part of that effort, and that it was spreading far and wide, just as ISIS promised.
The third communication is said to end at 3:27. Here's from the last update:
Then you have the fact that Broadcastify, the world's largest source of public safety, aircraft, rail, and marine radio live audio streams, just so happens to be missing the three hours of police scanner audio from midnight through 3 a.m. on June 12, the exact window the shooting took place in...
Broadcastify claims the reason the audio of that particular channel for those particular hours is missing is due to a "server outage".
It's not a wonder that communications were being covered up; police were speaking with the shooter on his cell, suggesting further that other authorities were listening in on radio and likely talking back and forth. The world is never to know what was really said.
There are people who, though they are unwilling to go as far as I do, have the same thoughts. There is no way not to have suspicions when looking at the above. The FBI thinks that, just because people come down on the side of the authorities, the FBI bosses are safe. But by now, people are barely coming down on the side of the authorities, and these sentiments are ever moving in the direction of suspicion. The best conspiracy teachers are the screw ups in every single mass-murder since Obama has been the president.
Here is a strange and suspicious claim in the FBI update: "4:21 a.m.: OPD pulled an air conditioning unit out of a Pulse dressing room window for victims to evacuate." Ok, let me get this straight. It's over two hours since a small army of police officers had arrived at the nightclub; by now there should be a large army. There is only one shooter, and he's trapped in the bathroom...and the police tears out an item from a window to help people escape??? Is this a joke? Why couldn't they just walk out the front door under the protection of the police officers and SWAT teams??? In other words, why, really, did they tear out that air conditioner? Here is the FBI update:
I suppose that the dressing room is that small room beside the stage. As it's beside one of the bathrooms, tearing out the air conditioner acts as an excuse to take an armored vehicle to that part of the building. It's not necessarily true that they took it out at 4:21. It may have come out at 5:02, the time that they claim for the explosives to get holes into the bathroom wall. It makes more sense that they cleared the dressing room of people, using he explosives for the air conditioner, than to use them at the bathroom wall, risking injury to people still inside. A hole through the bathroom wall probably didn't happen because they went to the trouble of providing the public a fake photo of the bathroom wall.
So why couldn't the people hiding out in the dressing room have walked out the door? You won't get an answer from the FBI because there isn't one. The people were already coming out of that room as early as the gunman stopped shooting in the bathroom. That is an absolute no-brainer.
Eight minutes after ripping out the air conditioner, the FBI claims: "4:29 a.m.: As victims were being rescued, they told OPD the shooter said he was going to put four vests with bombs on victims within 15 minutes." The gunman was already over-weighed with a suicide vest (I don't think he had one), his extra bullets, a rifle and a handgun, but now he's got three or four extra vests in his back pocket. The FBI appears to be toying with America, seeing how far it can be fed garbage yet believing it. The FBI can get away with this vest joke because they are claiming that Mateen said this crazy thing, not the FBI. Yes, the FBI manufactured this line, but we can't prove it.
So, after the air conditioner entry, the finale has arrived. They have Mateen getting shot at 5:14, a little later now than was the case earlier. Did they take him away alive? Perhaps they took out the air conditioner to give him a hole at the back to leave the building unseen. His wife got away, I was reading, and perhaps he's with her now. If they kill all their killers, no one will take the killer jobs in the future. If Mateen is alive, he can go to the next killer to say he's alive and rich to boot.
I have found an intelligent / thought-out article (Craig McKee no date), and it even has the floor plans taken from the city of Orlando. But before getting to that, let's quote from the page: "Somehow, more than 100 people are shot -- about half of those fatally -- while police are not able to help at all. We don't hear about more police entering the club apart from those three (at least not in reports I've seen)." The floor plan has the bathrooms much larger, and seating capacity much smaller for that, and other reasons.
CNN reports it this way: "Shooting erupts at Pulse, a gay nightclub in the heart of Orlando, as some 320 people enjoy the club's 'Latin flavor' event. An officer working extra duty IN FULL UNIFORM [caps mine] at the club responds. He and two officers nearby open fire on the shooter, and a gun battle ensues. The shooter goes inside the club, where a hostage situation develops. Some 100 officers from the Orange County Sheriff's Office and the Orlando Police Department respond to the chaotic scene."
According to the Orlando Sentinel two more officers arrived and entered the club: "Lt. Scott Smith and Sgt. Jeffrey Backhaus arrived a couple minutes later and rushed into the club. There was another flurry of shots between them and Mateen."
It sounds from these reports that the rest of the 100 officers remained outside after Mateen entered the club.
Okay, so, now, the FBI fails to mention the original gun battle prior to the gunman's entry. Was that part of the story a fabrication from the start? It seems highly unlikely that a gunman would by chance be found entering a place with his rifle while officers are in the parking lot or on the street (in their cruisers?) in uniform, but the insiders may have had a reason for fabricating it this way; it's what got the 100 officers to the place right away. But the FBI has come out with an update that causes everyone to just wipe this event out of the picture, never mind and just go on with life like it doesn't matter that the story made it to CNN in the first place. For my part, I had never found what CNN writes above until now. It was apparently wiped clean from related articles. Where is CNN's retraction of the story? The plain clothes officer isn't mentioned either (by the FBI); he was the one who first engaged the shooter according to another story.
A motive for a concocted gun battle from the start is to provide explanation for the report from some witnesses that more than one shooter was at the scene. I have covered many stories from the first two or three days, and not one witness speaks to a police officer in that bar, or anyone else, firing a gun.
The question: did an army of officers arrived at 2:08, the FBI time for them? The FBI needs to be asked this question. How many arrived at that time, etc., etc. The writer has the same questions as I do:
How could critically wounded people inside the club be left without help for that long, and how many died because of it? Were all the wounded rescued while the shooter was in one of the bathrooms with hostages? Police do claim to have removed "dozens and dozens" from the club at that point. But we hear stories about the gunman moving around, not simply sitting in the washroom for the whole three hours. Police explained that they could not move against the shooter more quickly because they had to "get armored vehicles on the scene and make sure they had enough personnel."
Yes, but that doesn't mean the army of officers were not permitted to go in and start helping people while other officers kept their guns pointed at the bathroom door. The FBI says NOTHING about a rescue operation beginning at 2:08 or minutes afterward. This is the crux of the story, whether the official version is credible, whether the police acted as we would expect them too, under normal circumstances where they truly cared about the lives of those people. But even if they didn't care, the Orlando police chief was DUTY BOUND to start helping those people at 2:08 at the latest. Yet, according to the FBI, the window-installed air conditioner was taken out at nearly 4:30 to rescue some of the people. This is more ridiculous the more that there were officers at the scene. One hundred officers against one shooter trapped, and we are supposed to believe they needed to get a window open for the people in the dressing room. Come on, world, know that this is an insider murder, and know it fast. Stop looking for "logical explanations" when you can see that there is a contradiction at every curve of this event. Here is the article by Craig McKee, who says he has journalism background"
The City Floor Plan, or Is It?
"According to a floor plan of the club filed with the City of Orlando, there were five exits that opened onto the parking lot and another three that gave access to the patio. That's eight ways to get out and just one shooter." Probably, as fire precaution, most of these doors were unlockable from the inside by hand. My shock is that there is no door shown at what I call the mystery door. Mystery solved? I have an incredibly hard time with no door at that location. The other floor plan claims a dance floor, suggesting a patio out back, and the satellite image shows something back there. It is completely expected that a door would open out to it. Here is the Orlando Floor Plan from my files:
When McKee speaks on three doors to a patio, he speaks to the front patio and it's adjacent alley. However, what I thought was Burbano's alley in the beginning can now be the walkway at the top of the image, where two doors lead out. Both of those doors can be construed as having short hallways. There is no longer a door behind the bar because the bar's shape / location is different than in the previous floor plan discussed. The alley-view satellite image shows a SMALL white door, faintly, exactly where the floor plan has one at the top-right, but the one or two windows beside it are not on the floor plan (windows on the floor plan are shown in grey). These windows are smack behind the bar, but, of course, they may have been covered over with a wall. Still, one would think that the windows should still show on the floor plan submitted to the city at the time of building / renovations.
This floor plan has much more showing than other one, making for significantly less floor space. There is an exterior door at the top-left into a small room that has no access from the inside. This room has a round circle as soon as one needs to walk in, looking like a water tank. It can be a utility room, therefore, yet this is not where the electrical panel can be because it needs to be accessible from the inside in case someone needs to turn power off in an emergency. Why is there no door shown between the back yard and the building??? Did Orlando allow this floor plan to be manipulated by the insiders prior to release? Note that both bathroom doors are as close as possible to the back wall, with roughly four feet only between bathroom walls, and therefore four feet only for a door to the back yard. The way they have this shown argues for no door there to the backyard, but it only makes me suspicious.
Just look at the center of the backyard on this roof-view satellite image; you can clearly see an extension of the roof that is a canopy over that central area. And we are to believe there is no door to it??? Note how they have the men's door opening out into the back wall where it's the only place for the back door to be. You can bet a good bet that this bathroom door opens inward in reality.
The two bathrooms are now marked one each for men and women, as expected, and the writer has added red arrows as well as a blue star and what looks like a lightning bolt overtop of the star, at the men's bathroom door, to indicate where police claimed their wall explosives. Apparently, the writer had reason to believe they got Mateen in the men's bathroom. Perhaps the insiders screwed up on this too; later, I find that the New York Times had the explosion in the woman's bathroom.
The two sinks in the woman's bathroom are about six feet apart, according to my calculations, perfect for the two pipes on the back wall. In my area, I have never seen a public bathroom with a sink dedicated to one toilet inside the toilet stall. In this case, it creates a sink on both sides of one toilet stall, begging the question of why the sink drains were not connected at their middle and then fed down into the toilet's drain pipe. It would have been easy to do. Instead, they have the pipes running out the wall, and, furthermore, they run away from the men's washroom. As it turns out, the floor plan has a sink and toilet in that direction, in the dressing room. Yet, it does not make sense to run the pipes to the dressing-room drain when there is a major drain pipe at the toilet between both sinks. I am therefore still suspicious that that the wall-hole image (below) is not a true picture for the nightclub.
There is something suspicious: a shape just like the urinals, as soon as one walks into the men's bathroom. This is odd because women walking by, or anyone else, could easily see the man taking a leak through the door opened by another man. This one urinal can be correct only if the door can be locked, but then no one will be able to use the toilet while someone is taking a leak and washing hands. It's not an acceptable design because men who first enter to use the toilet are bound to exit just as another man is taking a leak. Note that the woman's bathroom has a privacy wall so that people outside cannot see women through an open door. It makes far more sense to have the urinal moved over, allowing room for a privacy wall. There is not a lack of space for that. It seems feasible that this single urinal was located falsely there so that the men's door needs to open out, contrary to the woman's door. Can you grasp why they would have the men's door open out falsely?
The urinal at the door measures about three feet from the sink so that the bathroom design shown does not match the two pipes in the wall-hole image. In the last update, in a duh-moment where I multiplied 16 x 4 = 48 inches, I wrongly measured the pipes at nearly five feet apart; it should be 4.75 blocks = 76 inches = little more than six feet. If the city permitted the mystery door not to appear, they could have permitted the urinal to be there when in fact it wasn't. That single urinal could have been placed in the other room with three urinals, where there is room for at least three more easily.
Before going on, I should probably show my math for arriving at six feet between the two sinks in the woman's bathroom. There is not much in the floor plan to use as a reliable measuring stick; all doors are shown the same size even though the alley-view image has one door much larger than the other. It looks like one can measure the building only approximately by things shown outdoors, like vehicles or width of parking spaces. A typical SUV or family van is about 14 or 15 feet long and five to six feet wide. The floor-plan image shows parking spaces and a blue vehicle near the building; the vehicle looks on the thin side, or five feet, and the parking space measures thereby to seven feet in width, which provides a to a 60-foot length for the building.
As Wikipedia says that "compact parking spaces" are 7.5 feet, you can use that figure to estimate the length of the wall in front of the vehicle. That wall measures 3.25 times one parking space, or about 24 feet (common building length). You can verify this math in the roof-view satellite image. One can compare this wall in the floor plan with the remainder of the building's length (to the back yard), and the remainder measures 1.8 times the length of the 24-foot wall, or 24 + (24 x 1.8) = 67 feet.
Using the latter figure, one can calculate the feet per inch or centimeter, and then measure the distance between the sinks.
One website worried me with this: "The Orange County property appraiser has Pulse's gross indoor area as 4,853 sq. ft...." That's a lot larger than my estimates. This helped: "Also, the entire bldg. is 4,853 sq ft, which includes 2 floors (6 rooms)." There may be an upper level as living quarters and/or office space. My calculations based on 7.5-foot parking lots: 67' x 50' = 2940 square feet on first floor. One can bank on two floors in the middle area with high roof. I measure the second floor of that part as 50' x 14.5' = 725 sq ft. The combined total is still off by about 1,200 feet from the property appraiser; I rule that the 4,853 figure is wildly incorrect, and not truly from the property appraiser. Wall Street Journal says "County property records show Pulse had around 4,500 square feet of interior space..." Why the inconsistency? Who's the original source? What if someone falsely claimed that "property records show," and Wall Street just echoed it?
Below is a clearer view of the building, on the morning of the shooting, with the same vehicle in the same parking space. That parking space is quite small. Or, check out the length of the white car under the Pulse sign, which I measure to be 55 percent the length of the wall. I would therefore predict that car to be 13 feet, about what it looks like it should be. In fact, it may be less than 13 feet long. (You can't use the measurement of a car on the street to measure the wall because it's significantly closer to the camera.)
There are problems with the city floor plan. With the bathrooms larger in this plan than the one shown previously, floor space for patrons in the back section is less than previously estimated. There is about three feet of space shown between the bar counter and the walls, making it difficult for people to walk behind the stools when coming and going, but if the bathrooms were smaller in reality, it provides more space. Note how much wasted room there is in the urinal section, which wouldn't be the case if the bathrooms were not shown that wide. There can be two motives for enlarging the bathrooms: 1) to provide enough room in the stalls in catering to Casiano's story; 2) to reduce the space between bathrooms so that one gets less the impression of a door to a back-yard area.
Look at how large the circles are in each toilet stall. Are they four-foot tables? Why? Are they diaper-change tables? Who brings a baby to a loud bar? There are three such circles, one per bathroom, each one large enough to change three babies at a time. ??? Did they make these tables larger than the reality as an excuse to increase the size of toilet stalls? These stalls are huge (8' x 6' my calculation), and significantly larger than they need to be. Why waste space? Look at how far a sink is from a toilet, both in the same stall. Perhaps the tables were thrown in to argue that some people were on top, others beneath, allowing more people per stall.
SO, if the bathroom stalls were re-drawn falsely, larger than we expect them, what would be the motive? Let's also ask why the one sink in the woman's bathroom is taking up five massive feet. It wouldn't be the case if the true bathrooms were not as long as shown, allowing more room between bathrooms for a more-pleasant walk to the back-yard patio / dance floor. There is a motive for drawing the bathrooms this large: they needed to find a way to get two sinks six feet apart so that the two could match the phony hole-walls image. The shorter the bathrooms in reality, the less distance between the two sinks. If any past customer / employee sees that the floor plan is not accurate in any regard, the insiders know that there will not be a federal case made of it. Besides, the insiders own the federal police.
From a New York Times article,
this diagram was obtained showing where the five holes broke through the wall, and the largest one in the center, it is being claimed, is between the two bathrooms, PROVING WITHOUT DOUBT (so they may think) that there is no door between bathrooms. But I still reject this. I still accuse the insiders of lying. If anyone in Orlando knows that there is a door between bathrooms, yet sees this image in the NEW York Times, and if that person complains to the city of Orlando, the city might say it's not their problem; go fix it with the NY Times. But it is Orlando's problem when this diagram appears in such a large media. One expects Orlando to complain to the Times, but not before someone significant complains to Orlando. Usually, the customers / employees at the Pulse are not significant people.
The Times floor plan repeats the urinal problem immediately inside the door, and leaves out a door to the back yard / patio. If the Times floor plan disappears, see it here:
The NY Times article says: "The officers then used an armored vehicle to punch a hole in the wall. The hole was off the mark and put them in the hallway between the two bathrooms. At first, they do not see the gunman. The police threw several distraction devices in the hallway and 2 tried to create more holes in other locations along the same wall. The gunman engaged in a shootout with the police. He had entered the hallway and was 10 to 15 feet away from the officers." Apparently, those officers are very poor shots, hitting the wall all around the hole, missing the hole by as much as feet. This might be explicable if the shooter was outside the hole moving around, but if he was inside the hole, forget it, the officers are not going to miss by that much. There is a motive for switching stories to having him inside: significant people complained about no blood on the outer wall, and, probably, there was no blood on the ground either.
The diagram's holes are neither drawn to a correct shape, nor placed at the correct height, nor spaced correctly, for matching the photo. We can measure (16 inches per block) between the photo's center hole and the one directly above the pipe. Center to center, I count 5.5 blocks = 88 inches, or little more than seven feet. That distance on the floor plan makes the larger hole centered about 18 inches from the outer wall of the woman's bathroom. I still have a major problem with this even though that happens to work. They could have done the math as easily as I just did to claim a center hole between bathrooms, but that makes them look like dummies for missing the bathroom entirely. I don't think they missed the bathroom at all because I don't think they did what they claimed they did. The police were on the inside for hours prior to this wall-break act, and they couldn't measure the distance from the one outer wall to the middle of the woman's bathroom??? Come on. That's simply beyond reality. They didn't need a tape measure; they could pace it off by their own steps.
By all reports, the central hole is the one where they took explosives to the wall for the initial break, and it's where they also rammed the armored vehicle.
Below is yet another wall-hole image; this time, it shows further to the right, including another pipe exiting the wall from sink-drain height. This pipe measures slightly more than 7.5 blocks from the center of the largest hole, and that's a little more than ten feet. But when we measure 10 feet from the center of the large hole on the floor plan, it arrives midway between the sink and toilet, no good at all, a miss by one foot or more. That's a big deal because blocks do not lie.
Three blocks over from the pipe in the image above, there is another drain pipe that can be seen better in this wall-hole image. There are four blocks between each pipe, a distance of four feet, yet the distance between the sink and urinal is three feet. It's another miss, as expected because there should not be a urinal there directly beside the bathroom door. One might argue that the floor plan has these fixtures off by a little, which was my argument from the start.
Moreover, why would they make a hole directly above the urinal, if indeed there is a urinal there? The hole is four feet high at its lowest point. Were they expecting the victims to high-jump it out of the hole? What's that tin-foily substance in the hole? Why wouldn't they make the holes beside the pipes so that they wouldn't be directly at a urinal / sink? Were they that clueless? The large hole at the extreme right is directly above a plumbing fixture. We need to ask whether this was someone else's bathroom area, and whether they pasted in the bullet holes.
Where is the back door??????????????????????????????????????
How can there not be a back door?????????????????????????????
The Times article above has another floor plan, in case you didn't load the page.
Behind the front bar, there is a room (has sink, no toilet) that might be drawn as a kitchen (I can't read the print in the image I have). Note the large rectangle (freezer location?) in the lower-right corner of that room. It cannot be there in reality because the door is there (see alley-view image). They have moved the door so that it's central between walls. Why? Apparently, to be able to draw in that rectangle. When we ask why they would want to have the rectangle, it begs the question on whether this room was packed with items not truly there. Perhaps they are wanting us to think that this was not the location where Burbano forced the door shut. He didn't speak about a kitchen crammed with 20 people. Certainly, one doesn't hang a curtain on a kitchen door. The room shows as 11.5' x 6 ', which, if it was an empty hall, would fit a lot more than 20 crammed. By showing the room filled with potential items, one better imagines 20 crammed. Note the large rectangle, that it too has dashed lines i.e. the item (grill?) was not there at the time of submitting the floor plan.
If the other floor plan is correct, with the first door into this small room directly behind the bar counter, then the bar in the city floor plan needs to be made longer, in which case there would be more room between each of 12 bar stools. That makes sense. But why would they shorten the bar just to make the door exit outside the bar? This perhaps plays to our viewing the room as a kitchen rather than an empty room for empty beer bottles, etc. If the latter is correct, then a curtain in front of that door makes sense because it's behind a classy bar, where a door subtracts from the look. Otherwise, we need to come up for a good reason in having this curtain in front of another door.
The floor plan includes seats and tables fixed to the floor only, but not movable tables and chairs for open spaces. The front section shows seating with tables for which I count about 38 persons. The 16 bar stools increases the number to 54, but look at how close they squeezed them in, with no elbow room. How can people get in and out of them if they are fixed to the floors? They are too close to swivel. One needs to be a monkey to get in and out of them. It appears that they are trying to artificially increase seating capacity. The two tables in the upper-left corner are way too far (about a foot) from the continuous seating area, which may suggest they made the tables smaller (measure about 18 inches square) to give the impression that the building is larger than it truly is. Depending on how small the dance floor was made to be, this room has space for perhaps a dozen three-foot tables around the dance floor for an additional 48 persons, probably 100 max for this area.
The bar (about 17 feet long) with movable bars stools, in the rear section, appears to have room for 14 bars stools (allows 2 feet per stool), and a few tables, for an estimated total of 30 people, far less than estimated with the other floor plan. This could change my mind on the gunman's spending most of his focus on the rear area. However, I came to that conclusion as per witness claims; I'll need to go over that again with the alternative floor plan.
My estimation for seats in the patio, with moveable tables and bar stools combined, is 25 max. I therefore ask how 300 people could have been at this place, at closing time, where it sits roughly 150. Imagine 150 people without a place to sit. Where would they stand? Crammed on the dance floor? No, because witnesses say some were dancing. They can't stand behind the bar stools in the rear section for lack of room. If the official report sticks to 300 people, we can now argue that claim. The story may change now that this new floor plan has come out. Isn't there a law to restrict the number of patrons too far above seating capacity?
It's a beer joint, and beer drinkers take a leak every 20 minutes; did the guys all take leaks at the front gate when the bathrooms were lined up? Four urinals only for 300 people, mostly men??? If we estimate on the conservative side, a leak every hour for 200 men, that's 3.3 per minute (one per 18 seconds). As it takes a minute or more to take a leak and wash / dry hands, the four urinals and one toilet are often going to be insufficient, because 200 men don't time their leaks so that there can be a smooth one-man-per-18-second flow through the doors. All three toilets elsewhere would be dedicated to the 100 women and others who might need one for roughly five minutes. With a man walking into a bathroom every 18 seconds (more if they can't go an hour between leaks) on average, I see the sink and hand-drying method problematic (only two sinks for the 3.3 men per minute), yet the city wants all men to rinse hands.
It's doubtful that many in the patio got shot as there would be a concrete wall between it and the inside, though two large windows can be seen between the two areas, albeit on the back wall of the patio bar. Yes, another bar. Unless the patio gate to the parking lot was permanently locked / blocked, the people in the patio, and others from the dance floor, could have made a relatively fast get-away. It all depends on where the shooter started firing. The alley-view image shows what looks like two fence posts 24 inches apart exactly where the floor plan has a patio gate.
One of the most compelling arguments for the floor plan not manipulated by the police is where there are double doors right beside #4 in the floor-plan image. They claim they put a hole through the building right at/beside these double doors, in other words...so ridiculous now that we see these doors that I find it hard to believe they allowed the doors to remain in the floor plan, if indeed they altered other parts of it. These double doors are not showing in the other floor plan, however, very suspicious. I think it is very blatantly obvious now that the police department is lying about the #4 wall entry.
Here is a comment on McKee's page: Like the Floor plan you used Where'd you find that wink wink.. One thing that you left out is the Scrubbed 911 call center audio, Archive.com Backs up all the emergency radio chatter, the hours 12 am - 4 am have been scrubbed and the Archive Site Says Its a Server Issue.. False Flag Exposed ! McKee responds, "Wow, I had not heard that! Huge red flag," but that's all he says, doesn't tell where he got the floor plan. I assume Achive.com is a different system than Broadcastify, in which case two systems were blacked out to keep some details of the true shooting event from the public.
The next comment is a good one: "Omar's father, who is parading on TV talking about his dead son, is billed as the head of the provisional Afghan government, has photos of him having meetings at the State dept back in April, and has a radio show in some Afghani station that is an arm of the Voice of America propaganda outfit...Omar Mateen himself, is listed on IMDB as having appeared in two Afghani movies and in a US made documentary about the BP oil spill as the guardsmen of the site where the cleaning crews are stationed." It's true that the father ran for the presidency of Afghanistan, and that he has a radio show. Obama was in Pakistan for some time in his youth, for a period that he won't own up to, where many accuse him of working for the CIA at the time...probably how he got to become the president. One imagines that Obama was used in Afghanistan when Osama bin-Laden was supposedly on the loose there, and in Pakistan. One of the bouncers at this Pulse nightclub, on the night, of the shooting, was a worker with the U.S. marines in Afghanistan. Obama, they have said, was a bisexual who had frequented queer bars / parlors.
One can make the case that Mateen felt confident that they wouldn't betray / kill him, depending on how close the CIA / military relationship is with his father.
Another comment on the page: "So let's see. For a start: 320 people in there? In a rather small building?? With at most 11 parking spots outside??? " Good point. Imagine how far the cars would have been parked on the streets. Do the videos show that? They report no ambulances seen at the scene, or at least insufficient numbers. The greater the number of people in the bar to begin with, the greater the dozens of videos taken by dozens of cell phones on the outside are expected to be. With only 70 shot as the original numbers, and with a gun that could spray bullets, that's not a picture of wall-to-wall people over the course of about a six-minute shoot-out. "Officials also said they would not make public the content of any calls made by patrons inside the club during the attack" How convenient and absolutely necessary for the insiders.
It's hard to imagine a greater master of deception than the people who run this false-flag organization. Obama could continue on in CIA circles after he's gone from Office. The world needs to understand that this is not merely about a group conducting hoaxes, so that we should take a who-cares-anyway attitude. This group promises some sinister agendas where all peoples will be affected. The signs are visible. This is like an eerie vapor enveloping the nation, moving slowly between our feet, odorless and invisible but toxic. Unless Americans nip this thing now, it will be too late. This is but a step toward a larger agenda run by lunatics who pride themselves in wicked schemes well done. The thrill of evading detection is what they live for. No one understands the inner workings of the real world as do government-spy organizations. There is psychology involved at their end for the purpose on people manipulation. It is in the interest of national leaders to manipulate the mind. I'm doing my part to warn of this snake.
This floor plan allows one to assess the witness reports, and create a storyline alternative to the one that the FBI will dish out. Late in the last update, I was using witness testimonies to figure out where the shooter(s) first entered the nightclub. So far, it appeared to me that the gunman came in through a door at the rear section of the building, but while the last update was eyeing the mystery door between the two washrooms in this floor-plan image, the floor plan found this week suggests that the double doors make more sense. My purpose in highlighting the mystery door can no longer be on whether people actually used it majorly for an escape, but for pointing out that a bathroom killing spree, as reported, cannot be likely. The double doors, some 20 feet or less from the bathroom hall, work to make the bathroom killing spree all-the-less likely.
Here is the city floor plan for comparison. Since the last update, the city floor plan has revealed three other doors to an alley, a total of four for the Luis-Burbano story. There are two doors in employee areas leading out to a thin alley; we might guess correctly that these had either an "Employee's Door" or "Emergency Exit" sign on them to keep customers from using them. As the thin alley doesn't appear to be a place for employees to exit when coming and going, I would suggest that at least the door nearest the employee door had an Emergency-Exit sign. I'll call this the emergency exit. We most-definitely don't imagine a curtain on either, as these doors are not part of the bar's main area.
The only reason for a curtain, if it was always on the door, is to keep the door from spoiling the look of a classy part of the place, speaking to the other two doors. But if there was a curtain on that door continually, the area behind it was not used constantly. Perhaps the door at the bar was used once nightly, at closing time, for removal of empty beer bottles and such, and once or twice daily for full beer bottles (there may be a cooler in the small room). I'm going to call the door at the bar the employee's door.
Other witnesses and reporters used "back" or "rear" door, but in every case it was left up in the air as to what those terms referred to, whether the mystery door, or the employee's doors. As you can see, the employee's exit is opposite the building from the so-called entrance so that some might consider that exit to be the rear door. The bouncer, a Mr. Yousuf, said he opened a latch on a back door and allowed 60-70 people to escape through it. I could not conclude whether he was referring to the employee's exit or the mystery door. "Back door" does not describe very well the one in the corner, as it's near the sign out front. I was at first leaning with the mystery door for Yousuf's story, but then I became suspicious, wondering whether he was trying to re-write the script for the Burbano story at the employee exit.
Guessing the Movements on the Inside
I am assuming that police know where the shooter entered the building. Note #1 on the floor-plan image: "2.02am Omar Mateen arrives at the Pulse nightclub..., an officer fires at him but he manages to make it into the club." The person(s) providing the floor plan has #1 in the larger alley next to the front patio, outside the employee's door. Why did that person assume that Mateen entered there? Wouldn't the exterior door in this alleyway be locked so that a person couldn't walk in and, for example, take the beer?
Some beer halls ask for money up-front when the beer is provided at the table. This may not have been the case here because one can make out a cash register, in the city-floor plan, at the front entrance. The diagram calls it a "RECEIPT COUNTER." If this place kept tabs on peoples' orders, then it would be concerned that customers not walk out any of the doors without paying, while no one's looking. An ideal place to walk out that way is between the bathrooms. It would be a good place for the owners to use a lock that cannot be opened without the key. However, if there is a secondary dance floor out there, and perhaps more tables, then the mystery door needs to be left open. The low-quality floor plan has "Secondary dance floor" printed in the back yard opposite the two bathrooms. We expect a door between bathrooms, therefore. In this scenario, the man's bathroom door, opening out and blocking the mystery door, has got to be wrong. If it's wrong, someone tampered with it. If it belongs to the city, someone in the city may have tampered with it.
Comments supposedly from Mateen's wife or ex-wife are not to be trusted; they could be words from the FBI put into their mouths. For example: "Police are also investigating the suspect's vehicle, a van parked outside the nightclub, Mina said. Mateen rented a car and drove to Orlando to carry out the attack, a law enforcement source told CNN." What does it mean, "outside the nightclub"? It doesn't sound way down the street. If the place had over 300 people, it doesn't sound as though Mateen, arriving at 2:02, would get a spot in the small parking lot, or anywhere out front. If he entered the employee's door, his vehicle is expected near it, and so the insider rats might try to say that his vehicle was parked there. The reality may be that there was no rented van, and that police drove him to the place in an unmarked car. The alternative seems to be that Mateen parked his rented van many car lengths down the street, and then walk that distance with a rifle, and bullet magazines on his body.
But I have found an image claiming to be Mateen's rented van, and it happens to be parked on the neighbor's parking lot smack up against the large alley. It's parked cozy under one of two blue canopies. What do you think? Reality, or feigned by the police? Above the image, from where I borrowed it, it says: ".@wftv reports this is the vehicle belonging to #Pulse shooter, Omar Mateen, parked outside the club". One question is whether the neighbor's parking lot was jammed with cars already, making Mateen unable to pull up like that. If the neighbor's parking lot were not filled with cars, Mateen would not have parked under the canopy. Was he really the first driver to get the idea that he could fit under the canopy? Look either on the floor-plan image (the van is still there in the daytime) or the street-view image to see that there would have been cars, with 99-percent certainty, on both sides of the canopy, blocking his van from being able to park as we see it, if the place had 320 people, or even half that.
If one knows the make and year of Mateen's van, one can discover its length to the inch. One can then discover the width of the blue canopy in this roof-view image. One can then use the width of the canopy to measure the width and length of the roof/building. For this and a rim-method of calculating the building's dimensions, see my page here:
The rim method got me a building length of 68.3 feet, and a width at the rear-most part of the building of 52.9 feet.
The testimony of Luis Burbano can counter the idea that Burbano entered the employee's door. He says that, as soon as he heard many gunshots, he left the bar counter and headed for the employee's entrance. He said he did not turn back to look at the shooter. That in itself tends to deny the shooter's entry at the employee door. Luis is not going to head to that door if that's generally where the shooter was when he started firing.
If indeed an officer had fired on him, which sounds like garbage, he had no time to spare if he was intent on shooting people. We imagine the officer following him in, very close behind, hiding himself behind a wall or table, waiting for the opportunity to shoot him as soon as possible, or moving around the place trying to get a good opportunity. This officer may have been fabricated so that people would believe the shooter entered where the insiders say he did. Why would the publicized, particular entry point be important to the insiders? The police is compelled to draw up a scenario according to witnesses, and, probably, they had a false scenario worked out in advance of the shooting. This officer, if they keep him in the story, becomes a prime witness as per how the inner event unfolded.
A few witnesses report about thee shots initially, followed by a longer string of rapid fire. A witness, Brandon Wolf, convinced me that the shooter was not in the dance-floor half of the building: "Wolf told ABC News that he was dancing and 'having a great time' before telling friends that he was going to the bathroom. He heard 12 to 20 gunshots fired when they were in the bathroom and so they just ran for the front door." The patio door is immediately outside of the front-bathroom door so that no running for the door can be envisioned. There is no front door between the patio and the parking lot, so far as one can make out on images in my possession. If, therefore, Wolf ran out the front entrance, the gunman was either in the rear area, or near the employee's door at the time. Chances are, he was still in the rear area, but approaching the center-wall door that leads to the dance area, and thus following in the tracks of Luis Burbano. Here's Wolf with another version: "Om. Shooting at pulse. We hid in the bathroom. And we can't find our friends. - Brandon Wolf (@bjoewolf)" Can he be trusted?
As the gun sounds were becoming louder, and while heading to the employee's exit, "[Burbano] said he didn't turn back to look at the gunman". This cannot allow the gunman to be entering the employee door regardless of which bar Burbano was sitting at. Therefore, Burbano appears to be saying that he was at the bar in the two-bathroom area, in which case the shooter entered from the mystery door or the double doors. People at this bar are all expected to have moved toward the thin alley, some exiting the center-wall door into the dance-floor area.
It is completely unexpected that the witnesses I read in whole days of initial investigation did not locate Mateen at any particular spot. Burbano's words can help with that mystery, yet his words are not reliable. He does say that he fled with a friend to the employee's door. Shortly afterward, he and an accomplice would be the ones accused of holding the employee door shut from the outside in order to allow the shooter(s) to kill as many as possible. They would not have needed a door blocker if their original plot was to kill 20ish only, with 40ish wounded, if the place had 300 people. But if the place had 50-75 people, I can see the need for door blocking, though I expect 65-ish shot being an exaggeration.
If the place didn't have many customers, then, possibly, Mateen was able to park under the canopy. But it's not a great place to park if he wanted to make a get-away. He'd need to climb or circle that brown fence. If he did rent a vehicle, one needs to argue that he wanted to make a clean get-away, not being identified by having his own vehicle there.
Not many people are able to sit in the rear area. The shooter is predicted to have come up one side of the bar, with others ducking under the bar on the opposite side. The far end of the bar area would have cleared very fast out the door leading to the employee's door. This would have been the door of choice for most, as they knew that door existed. They then had the choice of going into the patio, but by then, everyone in the dance-floor area had to chose which door to use, and some would have looked toward the door into the patio. If it was jammed with others trying to get out of it, the first ones from the rear area would have seen the emergency door at the end of a short hallway. They could have streamed out of it one per second easily. Burbano could have too, yet he tells us he went for the "employee's door." Is that logical? Not if he truly wanted to escape as a normal person.
While some might view the employee exit at the rear of the building, the fact is that the nightclub's sign is in front of the patio so that, technically, the two side-by-side bathrooms and the mystery door represent the rear of the building, while the entrance is at the side. It's slightly important that the door unlatched by Yousuf was called a "a LONE DOOR [caps mine] in the BACK hallway." Unfortunately, the employee exit has a small room that can be construed as a hallway. The mystery door has a hallway in the city floor plan, and what one can view as a foyer in the other floor plan. A foyer is sometimes called a hallway.
"Lone door" may indicate the mystery door. First of all, taking the employee's door requires two doors to the outside. Secondly, the use of "lone door" may be to differentiate between it and the double doors in the same area. I very much wish to conclude the Yousuf was not an insider seeking to falsely create a better story for Burbano than he himself painted, and I very-much want to conclude that his unlatched door was not the employee's door, in which case I would have no reason at all to suspect him as an insider. He recently worked as an electrical engineer for the U.S. Marines in Afghanistan (some would see this as a red flag).
Luis Burbano made very clear, and a couple of images clarified, that the alley was surrounded by a fence. Yousuf says nothing about a fence. Here is part of the report: "'As soon as people found that door was open they kept pouring out and after that we just ran.' Mr Yousuf estimates there were 'probably over 60, 70' people trapped in the corridor before he got them out." CBS called it a "hallway," and Yousuf used "hall." The people are in the hall before flowing out to freedom, but there is no hallway on the inside of the employee's door.
When Burbano was holding the employee door shut (he admitted to it), Gonzales, his accuser more or less, claimed about 50 people on the opposite side of the employee's door from Luis. The latter claimed 20 on his side of the door for a total of 70. This was one reason that Yousuf may have used 60-70, in an attempt to reconstruct the event at the employee's door. That is, he now has the door closed due to a latch rather than it being held by Burbano, which can take Burbano off the hook with the public. But wait, there is insufficient evidence that Yousuf is referring to the crowd at the employee's door. Most people will get this impression if they view the floor plan with most doors not shown.
Note that the door into the patio is not shown on the low-quality floor plan. It gives the impression that the place was naturally blocked by lack of exits.
If the 50 plus 20 in the Gonzales-Burbano account is correct, along with the 60-70 in the Yousuf account at another door, we seem to have as many as 140 blocked people not counting those in the patio area, bathrooms, other rooms, under the bars, and others escaped through other doors. But wait. The 50 in the Gonzales account may have moved over to the lone door of Yousuf thanks to Burbano holding the door closed. Yousuf, if he's reliable, didn't know because he claims he was near the door i.e. unable to see what was happening at the employee door.
So, the 50ish packing around the employee door, as they heard the shots coming nearer through the center wall, ran elsewhere, we may assume. They were not about to be shot without at least running away. It is predictable that they would have run to the opposite side of the room, where they could exit the front door. They had the choice of running to the patio too, unless it was blocked. They had the choice of going out the front door, unless it was blocked. They had the choice of going out the double doors, unless they were blocked. And they had the choice of going out the lone door, but Yousuf says they were unable to do so due to being locked.
Everything outside of the floor plan, in the floor-plan image, is a satellite view of the grounds. The area outside the mystery door can be seen to be a long area of about six or seven feet in width. I can't be sure what the border represents, whether bushes and/or a fence. There could be a gate there to the street. If the mystery door was latched closed, it may have been so, not because that area wasn't in use that night, but because it was 2 am, closing time. What I don't understand is the use of "latch." One expects a door knob in a modernized bar.
So far as I've read his account, Yousuf doesn't give the timing of his escape. It could have been two minutes in. It's possible that the Yousuf event was earlier than two minutes, and that it was at the emergency exit, meaning that Gonzales' crowd at the employees door is the same crowd as Yousuf's crowd. While Burbano blocked the one door, Yousuf unlocked the neighboring door. Same crowd, different door.
"'People on the dance floor and bar got down on the floor and some of us who were near the bar and back exit managed to go out through the outdoor area and just ran,' [Ricardo Almodovar] wrote on the club's Facebook page." Which door did they exit? Can just anyone write the above on the nightclub's Facebook page? How does Almodovar relate to the club, anyway?
"At least 20 people have been killed and some 42 injured in a shooting at a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, police say.
...We heard rapid fire go off. In the room I was in, people went down to the floor. I wasn't able to see the shooter or people get hurt," Ricardo Negron Almodovar told the BBC.
"At some point, there was a brief pause, and a group of us got up and went to the exit that leads to the patio area outside. We found an exit and after that... I just ran."
I'd like to know what he meant by, "we found an exit" in the patio. Did people really escape from the patio, or was Almodovar used by insiders to create the illusion of massive escape? If there was a gate in the patio, virtually everyone there should have escaped. He was in the main-dance-floor area to begin with, and his inability to see the shooter, while everyone went down, argues for the shooter on the other side of the central wall. One would think that the shooter killed 20 alone at that time, but, as you can see, BBC reports little more than 20 dead total, according to the Orlando police.
I'll get to that 20-dead story later in this update, where you can see six articles having that phrase all dated June 11, the day before the shooting. One of the six is from Reuters, having a time, 0:45, on June 11, more than 24 hours before the shooting. How does that happen? Well, us idiots think there is something untrustworthy with the report-job, but, after all, we are stupid. Reuters needs only to say that it was an honest mistake, and everyone will believe it. Even if Reuters says nothing, people will still think it was a mistake. The only mistake, apparently, since six or more webpages had the 11th date, was that the story got released one day too early.
I can't trust the 20 people that Burbano speaks of. With the shooter firstly in the rear-section bar room, it is not predictable that a crowd of 50 or more people would gather at the employee's door, so close to the center-wall door, unless they thought the gunman was coming out at the opposite end near the front entrance. If they thought he was coming near to the center-wall door, they would not have pushed up against the employee's door area, for it's very near the center-wall door. But if Wolf made it out the front door, Mateen didn't come that way right away, and perhaps not at all. How long would it take 60-70 people to flow out the emergency door? Thirty to forty seconds? More? Did they get out in time before Mateen entered the dance-floor area? Was Mateen shooting people at the bar, and then needing to step over them as he approached the center-wall door? It is feasible that the 60-70 had to run from the emergency-door area, to the opposite side of the place, and then finally into the two-bathroom where they all could have filed out safely with Mateen in the dance-floor area.
No matter which scenario, no one in his right mind would have gone into the two bathroom doors if the rear door between them was open. That's what I'm getting to. That's what spoils the official story. And that's why the city needed to keep that back door from showing in the floor plans.
Luis Burbano: "Nearby, he saw people moving through a small 'employee's only' door hidden behind a curtain, and followed after." He makes it sound as though he was not the first person through, and we are to imagine that he went out with the 20 he speaks of. Remember, "Luis Burbano and his best friend ran to an employee access door after they realized the gunshots were 'getting closer and louder and louder.'" He knew the door was there, behind the curtain. Never mind how he knew, for we realize it's because he was an insider. The question, for those who don't believe that this event was rigged, is why Burbano and the 20 others wouldn't have used the emergency door instead.
Not only is it unlawful to cover an emergency door with a curtain, it's unlawful to lock it from the inside. There needs to be sufficient doors acting as emergency exits in any bar situation. On this particular wall, the one I'm calling the emergency exit is the most logical choice. Especially if the patio was surrounded with a gate-less fence, this door was likely an emergency door. But as Yousuf says it was locked, it doesn't sound as though his 60-70 went out through it. The mystery door can be locked because that entire area has the double doors to act as emergency doors.
Gonzales: "In a moment of desperation we were all crawling on the floor trying to find a place to exit. I looked to my right and I could see people going through some curtains. We were digging through the curtains and we finally see a door. Fifty people were trying to jump over each other trying to exit the place. There was a guy holding the door and not letting us exit. Hes like 'Stay inside, stay inside.' As he is saying that, the shooter keeps getting closer and closer and the sound of the bullets is getting closer." Does it sound like he and 50 others are crawling behind a bar counter when they found the door behind the curtain? No, it does not. While the city floor plan doesn't have the employee's door behind the bar, it begs the question on why it should have a curtain at all.
The city floor plan shows a hole through the wall, to the immediate right of the employee's door. The hole is behind the counter, and, on the inside of the room, directly at the hole, a counter can be seen that may act as a food counter, the hole being for transferring food to the bartenders. If this was the case, I cannot fathom a curtain covering both the door and the hole. But if the place was built to house a kitchen in that room, though never used as one, I can see a curtain drawn from the door clear across the hole, a distance of almost eight feet. This can make sense of Gonzales' statement, where he has people digging through the curtain, finally finding the door. Where he says, "I could see people going through some curtains," it sounds as though their entire bodies were penetrating the curtains, not merely poking around in vein on one side of them. So, yes, some people apparently went into the kitchen / stock room (whatever it was), and the rest were on the other side with this curtain in their way...unless they drew the curtains or yanked them down.
The other theory is that the curtains were a relatively new item to the bar, hung purposely for hiding the door on this night. Was there something set up on the other side of this door that witnesses were not supposed to see? Was there someone(s) else in the room, before the shooting began, that allowed only insiders to get through? When Gonzales saw people getting through the curtains, was it only Burbano and his "friend"? If they were intended as door blockers, why wouldn't they have been inside the room already when shooting began? Why enter after the shooting starts only to alert others to that door? Perhaps the curtain was hung to keep the others from seeing Burbano's entry through that door. Was Burbano a scout inside the bar, communicating with the plotters preparing the invasion from the outside? One can assume at least one such scout to be a good idea in their eyes.
"On the other side of the door was a narrow hallway where Burbano estimates about 20 people were crawling over each other to get to the exit at the other end." This is the part tending to clinch the employee's door as the one under discussion. There is no other door in the place that has what can be termed as a hallway to its inside. However, Burbano himself spoke of an "alleyway" outside the employee's door, but, again, his words are not to be trusted; they could have changed with any insider need as their story evolved. It was the reporter, not Burbano, who mentions the narrow hallway. If we go by Burbano's words alone, he's holding the exterior door to the alleyway, not the employee's-only door. This makes Gonzales' words more acceptable yet, for when he says they were digging through the curtains, they FINALLY SEE a door, as though the door was not immediately behind the curtains. Now, with the exterior door being blocked, there is no issue on having a curtain between it and the people. This makes sense.
The following statement was not appreciated by me in the last update: "There does seem to be at least one major discrepancy between Burbano's story and those that were locked in the club. Witness Janiel Gonzalez told ABC News that it was the exit door to the outside, and not the 'employee's only' door that someone slammed shut." I had never seen Gonzales' words making that claim, and therefore could not trust ABC for the claim. It seemed that ABC was seeking to make Gonzales a non-credible witness. But it can work in reverse, if Burbano is the liar, and Gonzales' claim may be the correct version after all.
After Gonzales exposed him, Burbano needed a publicized story for justifying his closing the door. ABC carefully said that the door was slammed, though Gonzales makes it clear the door was being held closed too. Burbano needed to hold the INNER door closed because there was no way to justify holding the outer door closed. He argued that he was seeking to protect 20 people between the two doors, yet one cannot fathom why they couldn't all have walked out the exterior door. That's why it's hard to believe that there were 20 people in there to begin with. They are required only for his story, and even if as many as 20 were there to begin with, they would have been out the door like lightning. And so would Burbano, if he had been a normal person. Burbano appears completely guilty, and the number of people defending him online is about right for the number expected from the insider rats.
But look at how Burbano puts it, keeping in mind that not all parts of his statement are to be trusted: "We just started pushing and pushing and then when we got that 10 second break we went to this alleyway which led for only employees and we tried, me and this random guy, tried blocking the door". When Burbano calls an alleyway "for only employees," he's indicating that either of the two doors can be considered the employee-only exit. In this version, Burbano is pushing and pushing to exit the exterior door, unless by "alleyway" he is referring to the area between the two doors. Perhaps the statement above was the original, but as it didn't sit right with the people, he evolved it to blocking the interior door.
Why block the exterior door to freedom? Anyone sees that as suspicious, yet the bulk of the United States appears willing to see the blocking of the interior door as OK. But wait; no one really knows what the bulk of America thinks on this matter. Millions the nation over may be having second thoughts on the claims of conspiracy writers. If they would only dig through the curtains that the FBI has hung over their eyes, they might find the door to freedom.
Here is another statement, not from Burbano, but by a reporter: "In his interview with Megyn Kelly [major CNN time slot], Burbano explained that he only shut the door for a few seconds, and to give the other 20 or so people in the narrow hallway room to move and exit safely." Burbano may never have used "hallway". It may have been the assumption, or deception, of media reporters. Burbano said the 20 were moving through a hole in a fence, and, of course, there is no fence in a hallway. "'We went to this alleyway which led for only employees and...me and this random guy tried blocking the door, cause at that point, like I said, the bullets were getting louder and closer so we blocked this door,' Burbano told ABC News. '...at that point there was about 20 people in front of us crammed in this little alleyway with a big hole in one of the fences and just trying to topple over, just trying to...escape, just run." It seems clear enough that he was speaking to the outer area, not the inner between both doors. He had the 20 in the alleyway, no doubt about it. The man is guilty of accomplice to murder. I have not heard that the city has arrested him, nor taken him in for questioning.
I did not hear from bouncer Yousuf that the 300 figure in the news, as apparently semi-confirmed by the police, was not the reality. But then it may not have been a priority in his mind when he was being interviewed. We should also wait for the official report on the numbers originally in this place. The higher the numbers claimed, the better the insiders can claim any scenario they wish, no matter how false. That is, the higher the numbers claimed when in fact a very few escaped, the more they can lie unobstructed because there will only be a few problematic reports versus the silence of the greater numbers. That silence tends to counter the problematic accounts of the few. We need to allow a certain number of witnesses to be prepared beforehand. A dozen or so insider witnesses is not out of the question for the first week, but as time goes on, they will fabricate many more if they stick to 320 people to begin with. They may sow contradictions and confusion in the witness reports, as they did with 9-11, so that people throw up hands in futility and failure trying to figure what really happened.
We are to believe that Mateen was able to move around in the building for six minutes before police forced him into the bathroom. That is a very long time considering the speed by which the place was predicted to empty, and with one armed officer, at least, chasing him into the bar before he had fired even one shot on the inside. What happened to that officer? Will he be reported dead / injured?
Notice the #5, not at the correct spot in the low-quality floor plan. It's in the dance-floor room. How could they make such a blunder? In the description part of the image, #5 reads: "5.05 am Mateen emerges from the [bathroom] hole and is shot dead..." What can explain this mistake? They have the same mistake in the left-side image. It appears that they didn't want to commit to one bathroom versus the other, or perhaps to either bathroom. I was of the opinion that the wall-hole image was a fake i.e. from another property altogether.
Plus, they have #4 ("SWAT team blasts hole in the wall") as a police-made hole in the wall, and it's not at a bathroom neither, nor can anyone come up with a logical explanation for making that hole in the first place...unless the police wanted to deceive onlookers on the outside into thinking this was the spot where they killed the shooter. But when it comes to the low-quality floor plan, if indeed it was sanctioned by the FBI, they were unwilling to show #4 as the place he was shot dead. They have #4 very near the men's bathroom, but it's also where there are two windows and double doors, canceling the need to blow the wall apart (why not just break the glass?). This aspect can argue for the city-floor plan not being tampered with at all, for had they, they would have removed the two windows and double doors...unless they were prepared to retract the #4 event. They can retract many parts of their story because the masses think there is a logical explanation (no sinister plot) in every case.
Probably, the city did not allow anyone to have the city floor plan until someone with weight forced it out with legal action. Court proceedings were not necessarily needed because the very threat of court action causes the city to give it up; otherwise news of resistance will look bad. So, perhaps the city had a tampered copy, hoping that it would not get out. Google can do much of the rest to keep it from coming up. "One Twitter user said he was with three other people hiding in the club in the dressing room. Half an hour later he tweeted to say he was 'finally out, safe'. " But if you look at the city plan, it has an exterior door right beside the dressing room. No one in his right mind would stay roughly 30 minutes trapped in a room if there was a choice to take three steps to freedom. Plus, they tell us that a small army, at least, of police officers, arrived at the 6th minute to force the gunman into the bathroom. How possibly could this Twitter post be reality? It can't. Either the one who made it is an insider, or the police were part of the terrorizing, not acting as we would expect good cops to act.
The dressing room is smack beside the toilet stalls that Mr. Casiano claims for a massive shooting of some 30 people. Anyone in the dressing room would have known that opening the door to freedom was assured at that time, for they would have heard the gunshots directly beside them. There must have been at least one person with the smarts enough to know the gunman was in the bathroom. Yet, the official story has the dressing room barged into (from the outside) at nearly 4:30, more than two hours after Casiano's claim. The gunman, to fulfill Casiano's claim, had to be in the woman's bathroom before the 6th minute. There was no need for anyone to enter the dressing room after the 6th minute, if the police had command of the nightclub from that time.
When you get right to the bottom of it, there is only one reason that conspiracy writer's are stupid lunatics. It's because they don't trust the massive report-job. The beginning of intelligence, for the rest, is to trust the report-job. If you can't even do that, you are labeled an idiot. But the idiots, and me a very big idiot included, are trying to convince all that the report-job is closing its eyes to the very things that create mistrust. It seems that the masses are riding on trust, the beginning of all light, wisdom and intelligence. The new definition of "imbecile" or "low life" is not to trust the report jobs. Everytime there is a mass shooting, there are unreliable reports, and we just keep on getting stupider and stupider because of them, hopelessly unable to see the trust-light. Forgive us almighty masses for not having faith.
Was there some sort of secret latch at the mystery door, that the people were unable to see? Yousuf claims that the people at the door were too frightened to open the door. I realize how bogus that sounds, but those who have the light will explain it, don't worry. So Yousuf to the rescue; he worms his way through a few people, unlocks the latch, and voila! The guy beside the door says, "Why didn't I think of that? Yousuf, my darling, carry me out the door, Blissful One."
I may be rushing to a faulty conclusion here, but I think suspicious things need to be pointed out. If the only problem was the sliding latch, or the circular lock on a typical dead bolt, I tend to think that anyone of drinking age knows how to work these things. Call be dim and hopeless for lack of faith, but that's my story. I have faith in the people to open a locked door, and I have not much faith in Yousuf's story; I realize I haveit backward, and backward is what we stupid conspiracy theorists is. We are on a mishion to shout "fire" in a crouded movie house, and should all be put in jail until we have been recoopertated, or however you say it.
I'll give Yousuf some slack, and allow for a good / logical explanation for the people not unlocking their own latch. I'll resist from claiming that he was definitely an insider based on this particular story.
My argument that the mystery door is left out of the floor plan is wild for one reason only. Admittedly, it may turn out to be the truth, due to something I'm unable to see at this time, but neither is it a wild theory that there should be a door at that spot. It's wild only because the authorities have said there is no door there. Don't argue for a second that they haven't made the claim; they have. Two floor plans, at least, not showing that door, and, so far, no one has corrected this??? I hadn't googled " 'floor plan' orlando pulse " until now. It should provide other floor plans, and discussions thereon, right? Yes, and when the city gets wind of this, it has a duty to report anything not right with the floor plans, if it's of major importance to the discussions. The city has the absolute responsibility to correct the city-provided floor plan, right?
The NY Times Angle
I'm glad that I wrote all the above before discovering the official story as told by the NY Times: "The gunman started shooting in the main room. He exchanged fire with officers / Some people escaped through the emergency exit / The gunman most likely entered through the front door." The start of shooting in the dance-floor area is where I see the start least likely. I don't expect Burbano to go to the employee's exit if the shooting started in the dance hall. The claim that MORE THAN ONE police started to shoot inside the building has seemingly been discontinued (why why why ask all the backward stupids), and I see this claim birthed in trying to explain the testimony of some that more than one gun was firing. The fact that the Times doesn't report a police injury is troublesome for the official story, as we expect the police officers to shoot Mateen if he doesn't get them first. Please forgive me for my ignorance; I'm just a nut expecting what I think is natural.
If the gunman exchanged bullets with officers, and if one officer was firing on him outside, how can we explain that the New York Times doesn't know for certain which door Mateen entered? If we assume that the New York Times called Orlando police to inquire, why wouldn't Orlando answer the known questions? Surely, no one knows better than the Orlando police which door Mateen first entered. Yet, the Times isn't sure in the article above. Nobody seems to know, meaning that the Orlando police are not answering this simple question. Why not?
The NY Times won't let me see the floor-plan images at the article above (below) because my IE browser is not updated. But my Firefox has got it, and the floor plans not identical
Same article: "2:02 a.m. Multiple shots were reported at the nightclub. An off-duty officer working there responded and exchanged fire with the gunman near one of the entrances." And there was also a dressed officer with a rifle that engaged him outside. So, what door did he enter? "2:04 a.m. Additional officers arrived on scene." What happened to them? Did they all miss Mateen? Did Mateen get them? Why do none of the first-week witnesses mention these cops? "After the shootout, the gunman retreated to the women's bathroom, where, police believed, he was holding hostages." Awe, shucks, they all missed him. They need more firing practice. None of them were killed or shot either; Mateen needs more firing practice too, and, golly, he even had an automatic gun spitting bullets out faster than officers can brag about their deadly shot. This does not look real, but, of course, for those who believe, anything is possible.
The Times article claims that Mateen held out in the woman's bathroom; it's not what I concluded, but I reasoned that Mrs. Carter was not in the same bathroom as Casiano's group. The Times is suggesting that Carter was in there too, in which case she had to be in the same stall as Orlando. A man named, Orlando, that is, who says he was standing on the toilet (with toilet-stall door closed), seems to be speaking on the Casiano story: "Orlando said the gunman burst into the bathroom, went straight to the stall next to theirs and shot the people inside." It's exactly the claim of Casiano, but as this requires two toilet stalls in one bathroom, it had to be the woman's bathroom, according to the way the floor plan shows.
I have found a third helicopter image of the nightclub on the morning-of. This time, some yellow markers are showing in the backyard that appear to be the same as seen in this wall-hole image. However, the markers may have been pasted into the latter. What I would like to see is a full shot of the backyard wall from the helicopter. I think that the FBI typically asks / demands all media to check with it before images can be approved for distribution on well-covered cases like this, which can explain why we have yet to see the back wall along with the rest of the building. The canopy that was once over the very area where they have the yellow markers is now gone. The canopy can be seen without doubt in this roof-view image. Why would there be a canopy there if there wasn't a door beneath it? Why would the owners eliminate that door if it could provide some storage space out back, if nothing else?
The FBI would have a think tank. Question: how best to make the public believe that the wall holes in the image are actually on the building. Answer: put some items down on the ground, choose a helicopter photo that shows these items while hiding the wall, and then paste the items into a wall-hole image. The viewer of the wall-hole image above might say that the FBI isn't going to try that in this case, because everyone driving by can see that there are no holes in the building, yet this ignores the fact that the wall can be covered with paneling with the simple excuse to keep people and animals out of the interior.
I have not see a close-up of the ground well enough to make out whether an armored vehicle was tearing up the lawn at that location. It would have been easy for the helicopter to get a perfect close-up of view of this wall area, and yet, I figure, the FBI will not approve the release of such a photo on the hot spot of the "investigation." One of the helicopter images has taken a clear view of the building, showing no evidence of an explosive event at #4, but if the glass at that area was smashed with explosives, isn't that dangerous?
Plus, as I said, the #4 explosion was reported well after the police had control of the entire place, making me think that the official storyline was not to have this be the case in the news. Somehow, they had planned to argue that the shooter was still in charge of the entire interior, which can now explain why they feigned the large hole between the bathrooms, so that they can say they were able to shoot the killer through this hole. That is, in the original storyline, prepared in advance of the shooting, they were not going to have him holding hostages in a bathroom, but hold them generally in the entire building, with police unable to enter any part of it without some method. This can argue for something gone wrong in the plot, and that could be one single officer who wasn't supposed to be there, who got inside the building, and wouldn't come out, requiring a change of the storyline i.e. to the reality that the one or more officers caused him to take refuge in a bathroom.
This explains things like the witness above who claimed falsely a 30-minute or more play-dead act, or the false witnesses in the dressing room until about 4.30. These witnesses just went ahead with what they were paid to do, and, I suppose, no one of the insiders was able to contact them in time to tell them that this part of the storyline had been canceled.
Now that I know that Patience Carter is being placed by the New York Times in the same bathroom as Norman Casiano, I've got to re-deal with her claim that the gunman exited the bathroom after some time, though on another occasion she said the shooter never left the bathroom, making her suspicious too. I am not at all convinced that the original story was to have her in the same bathroom. As was said in the last update: "According to the escapee, Norman Casiano, all other 30 people in the bathroom with him were killed. The gunman supposedly entered the bathroom and mercilessly sprayed them all while they were crammed into the toilet stalls." This didn't allow Carter to be in that bathroom. He told ABC News, about 20 people were crammed together in one stall where Casiano went. About 10 or 15 more people came after he arrived. As they all hid together, they could hear the shooting getting louder and louder...
There is not much time for Mateen to do all that Casiano and Carter said they did. He has got to get it all done by 2:08, six minutes after he started to shoot. Much of that time is needed for him to shoot up some 50-70 people, with the rest shot in the bathroom during those same six minutes. He then needs to leave the bathroom, according to Casiano, and shoot the place up some more, before being chased into the bathroom again (at 2:08). But that could not have happened if one officer in the place was a good guy with his gun trained continuously on the bathroom door. His own life depended on keeping his gun on the door, and we have word that there was more than one officer in there at that early time. Casiano, clearly a liar, claims he escaped while the gunman left temporarily. In order to make Casiano's escape possible to tell this story to the world, the FBI needed the shooter to leave the bathroom temporarily, but this requires that all officers in the place were shot. In the last update, I viewed Carter's words as meaning he left the other bathroom well after 2:08, then returned, but with her now said to be in the woman's bathroom, I need to see him leaving at the same time as Casiano's claim, assumed to be before 2:08.
Here's from the last update: "We do not read [in Carter's report] that some 20 people filed out, followed by the gunman blazing. Why not? Was it old news by then? The article is dated the 14th. The guns-blazing, and the image of the wall holes, was out by the 14th." As the NY Times now has the gunman shot inside the building, I assume that the guns-ablazing on the outside was the original storyline, but as Carter didn't mention it, we might assume that the storyline was changed by then. Now look at the following ridiculous claim, yet it makes sense if the original storyline was to have the shooter control the entire building until 5 am:
The only person to escape from his hiding place in an Orlando gay club bathroom has revealed how crazed gunman Omar Mateen laughed as he slaughtered his victims.
Norman Casiano, 26, was shot in the back four times by the shooter, but he managed to climb over his friends' dead bodies to safety. Just one day after the attack at Pulse nightclub, Casiano has been released from hospital and has spoken of his terrifying ordeal...
Mateen killed as many as 30 people inside the bathroom, but Casiano crawled over his friend's bodies at made it out with four gunshot wounds.
Deyni Ventura, a local pastor, said that Casiano had a miraculous escape.
How did he escape? According to the Daily Mail, which put out the quote above:
...[Casiano] had to crawl over the bodies of his best female friend and his male friend to get to safety.In this picture, the original storyline seems to have been that Mateen controlled much of the entire place until after 5 am (they say they killed him at 5:14/15), and that he didn't shoot up the people in the woman's bathroom until after 5:02 am, i.e. after the claim of a hole blasted / rammed into the wall. Of course, when this storyline changed, they canceled the report that Casiano got out through the hole in the wall. We probably won't get Casiano back in the news, right?
When he emerged - through the same hole in the wall which Mateen was then to crawl through and die in a hail of gunfire - he was confronted by armed police.
'He said, 'I'm not the shooter, I'm a victim, I'm a victim' and he put his hands up in the air and then they went to him,' Ventura [reported as a fellow survivor by some] said.
The hole in the wall was crawled through later by Mateen himself as he tried to escape, leaving four or five hostages in it, police said.
We find in the quote above that police were willing to share the information early that "four or five hostages" were left in the woman's bathroom, though the New York Times article (quoted from above) points to that washroom saying, "The gunman hid here with at least five or six hostages." What happened to the 20 in the original version of the story? That was changed, right, because the 20 had walked to the outside in the same story where the gunman himself walked outside, and therefore the 20 had to be removed from the story because it would keep bringing to outside version of the story to peoples' minds.
Why would the gunman choose to keep hostages for hours in the bathroom with toilet stalls packed with dead, blood all over the floor and draining to the lowest point? Why not choose the other bathroom, much cleaner? The NY Times says, "About 10 to 15 people were hiding in this [men's] bathroom." Yet, the storyline has him in the woman's bathroom, though they may change this too.
Carter claimed a flood in her bathroom due to a pipe broken by the creation of the original hole, but with that hole now said to be between bathrooms, her claim has a serious problem. The two holes that the Times drawing has located in the men's bathroom are higher than the water pipes, which can explain why Carter (claims to have been in a toilet stall) is now being placed in the same bathroom as Casiano. In this wall-hole image, one can make out a water-supply pipe coming from the ground almost to the little round hole (about 2 inches) in the wall. This pipe rises higher than would be needed for a sink, perfect for a urinal, and from there we imagine, probably correctly, that the pipe branches off inside the finished wall to the sink and toilet. I'm not disputing that the image is of a bathroom wall, but that it may not be the wall at the nightclub. The insiders needed to have this urinal in the floor plan, and so they added it inside the door of the men's toilet room.
I suggest that Carter's story that came with a flood was part of the second storyline, where she was moved from the men's to the woman's bathroom. The insiders decided that she was going to be one of the survivors (not problematic) in spite of Casiano's claim that all were killed. One can see that the woman's side of the hole-walls image has what can be construed as a potential flood due to a hole directly over a sink. "Carter said she heard three blasts [explosives on the bathroom walls]. She could see the gunman's feet and hear officers telling people to move away from the walls. A broken pipe started to flood the bathroom, the water mixing with pools of blood...A SWAT team member lifted Carter [out the large hole, we must assume], who had a bullet wound in her leg, onto the street and dragged her to safety..." The two holes in the men's bathroom are too high to lift a body out of a hole.
However, I still say that the original storyline had her in the large toilet stall of the men's bathroom, for as her story doesn't allow her to be in the other large stall with Casiano, she would need to be in the small stall not large enough for her report:
Amid the frenzy, she and others ended up in a bathroom stall. As a man in the group tried to lock the door, the shooter entered and fired. Ms Carter was hit in the leg and fell to the floor, partially pinned under another person...
..."He said, 'Are there any black people in here?'" Ms Carter said. "I was too afraid to answer, but there was an African-American male in the stall...He said, 'Yes, there are about six to seven of us.'"
That locates them in the large stall of the men's bathroom. Clearly. Even though the reported black man may have been lying with the six or seven number, he would not have done so (unless he wanted to die for lying) had they been in the regular toilet stall (woman's bathroom) about two feet wide and four-to-five feet long. Carter's stories puts roughly ten people, at least, in her stall. With the response of "six or seven," one expects more Hispanics than Black men in that stall, suggesting more like 20 total. But as Carter's report is expected, by me, to be phony to begin with, it explains why the shooter didn't shoot up this toilet stall much, for Carter had to survive to tell the 911, ISIS-related call. This call was the crux of the insider plot. How did the NY Times know that "About 10 to 15 people were hiding in this [men's] bathroom"? An estimate from Carter's report?
Let's go back to the claim in the NY Times that the gunman likely started at the front entrance. People in the rear section hear his gun, and have the choice of moving to wherever they think is safest. They see the huge glass wall at the double doors. Burbano illogically moves from the bar to the employee's door, putting himself in view of the gunman (with people sprawled on the floor) not more than 30 feet away across the dance floor. Gonzales says he was sprawled at the employee's door, hearing the gun shots coming closer. There is no other way for the NY Times to interpret the movement of the gunman but from the front door toward the employee's door. In that case, everyone in the rear section (in front of the two bathrooms) are expected to flow out the double doors, least of all to go trap themselves in toilet stalls. The official storyline has a huge problem here, but if we ask how the plotters would be so dumb as to create that storyline, the answer seems to be that they didn't. They did not have the bathroom hostages as part of the original story, The plotters were forced to use the bathroom scenario due to a complication or two.
Again, I want to make this clear. If you were in the rear section, and you heard the shots approaching the bar in the front section, you would see a clear path to freedom out the double doors, even if there was not a rear exit between bathrooms. If the two or three officers had followed him into the front door, he would probably have gone through the door in the central wall, into the rear area. But by that time, the double doors would have been penetrated by the entire room, for it doesn't sit that many. The double doors are able to handle two people per second, all filled with adrenalin. The floor plan in the NY Times page does not have the bar designed as does the one from the city floor plan.
How fast was the shooter moving across the dance floor in the NY-Times scenario? Remember, in any case, that this was not likely the way it happened. I'm just pointing it out to show that it, too, leads to problems for the storyline as told by witnesses. Depending on where you place Yousef's 60-70, and Gonzales' 50, they need to be part of the picture for an initial front-door entry. If the "emergency door" (my phrase) is the one I claimed it to be, then, assuming it didn't have a latch, we still need to find Yousef's door. I don't think the insiders would have been dumb enough to use "latch" at an emergency door. His door was said to be "a back hallway and a rear exit". One might suggest the hall and exit across the dressing room, but this then kills the official story of people holed up in the dressing room. As I said that the dressing-room account was definitely part of the original story, note that the earliest floor plan I found had no door at the dressing room. In other words, if Yousuf was an insider, he's not expected to have taken his 60-70 out the dressing-room area.
If he wasn't an insider, Yousuf might possibly have used the dressing-room area. I can definitely see a latch on that door. But if this is the correct door, then the lone shooter was not in the dance-floor area at the time, for 60-70 people would not have exited the dance-floor area through the center-wall door, only to cram up helplessly at this private door when they could clearly see the large glass wall with double doors adjacent to it. It would have been lit up on the outside, making plain the best way for escape. The same applies if we say the Yousuf door was the mystery door; why cram up there with the double doors within sight just 20 feet away? If we eliminate both latch-able doors in the rear section, then it starts to appear that Yousuf was an insider telling mainly a fable pertaining to the employee's door. If you're thinking that it's unreasonable to peg every grand witness as an insider fake, think again. Why were they grand witnesses to begin with?
If we assume that the gunman entered the rear section first, through the double doors, for example, and made his way across the rear section first, then the Gonzales 50 and/or the Yousuf 60-70 at the employee's door area makes some sense, yet, as the shots got closer, we expect the pack to run across the dance floor, with the patio door, front exit and the double doors all becoming choice escape routes. They would not have headed to the bathroom area, that's for sure. With the original storyline being 20ish dead and 40ish wounded, this would not have been a problem for a lone gunman regardless of whether twice that many escaped. Those escaping were not supposed to be a problem (for the plotters) at first, but were to be of benefit in simply telling what took place in the first few minutes. The sooner that most were allowed to clear the place, the sooner the rest of the story could be put into motion: the task of getting in to get Mateen while he held the remaining population hostage.
Recall that the low-quality floor plan has #5 at the dance floor, and that #5 concerns the killing of Mateen. If the insiders put #5 there as the original storyline, then they either planned on getting him on the dance floor, or #5 is at the dance floor because it happens to be central to the building. That is, #5 was placed generally on the floor plan, not to indicate any particular place. Yet it's glaringly not at the bathrooms; that's a point for yet another proof that the bathrooms were not part of Storyline A.
Note that #5 is between both sole exits, giving the impression that Mateen could be guarding the entire joint by standing there. The insider plot may have been to crash through #4, then get a gun around the nearby door opening (no swinging door), and shoot Mateen exactly where we see #5. But something didn't allow Mateen to have access to the dance floor, and I think we can guess right that one or more good cops, and perhaps another armed man or two, was the reason. In the city floor plan, the center wall shows concrete behind the finished wall, in which case officers in the dance-floor area were well protected. The shooter would probably not try to barge through either doorway that brought him into the dance-floor area. The result was Plan B: in the bathroom. The other floor plans (with many exits) clearly emphasize the bathrooms, storyline B.
Why didn't the insiders just "take out" the problematic officers? Perhaps a lack of time. Within six minutes, SWAT arrived, and with that, good cops may have shown up to complicate matters. Too late to go on with A; the shooter was run into a bathroom already. The bad guys couldn't go in there and tell them, "no, you can't do that, you can't guard the bathroom door, go do something else." It may seem like a minor change in the story, but it gets difficult because the plotters need to explain how Mateen got his hostages in the bathroom, with officers in there from the start, protected by that big concrete wall. The officers had the ability to shoot from both doors, and Mateen would not have had the opportunity to go about gathering hostages. With the double doors so near, and with the expectation of the mystery door's existence, it seems unrealistic to expect people to inadvertently make themselves in-bathroom hostages...because they would never have thought to go inside them.
This is where the mystery door plays the largest part, for if the people remaining in the rear area were unable to get out the double doors, for any reason, they would never have gone down the hall between bathrooms, entering either one, with a door to freedom out the mystery door in front of their noses. I envision Mateen in the rear area firing toward and through the two doors, to send the officers a message not to come through them. In the meantime, he would have fired at the people who, at anytime, could have rushed him. I don't dispute that he managed to get a few hostages into the bathrooms, but the high numbers of people reported in the bathroom stalls were of phony stories, which are in themselves sufficient to prove this mass-murder as an inside job, under the condition that people were much more prone and able to using the exterior exits rather than trapping themselves in the bathrooms.
If we ignore the Yousuf account altogether, Gonzales' story remains. He seems definitely not to be an insider. He is like the one grand witness who slipped through the system. He has a pack of peoples at the one side of the bar, and he got out that door in spite of the door blocker. He got out with others, suggesting that the shooter was unable to keep them from escaping. That can be explained if he was being trapped by police in the rear area. Perhaps the only problem with Gonzales' report is that he mentions neither a uniformed police nor a plain-clothed man with a gun. However, he says he was on his knees with the employee's door to his right, which puts his head between a wall and the center-wall door (i.e. he couldn't see that door). He had many around him, and then says he headed to his right through the curtain, now with his back toward the other central-wall doorway, or which reason he may never have looked toward the two doors, where I'd expect the police officers to be holding out.
I would suggest that this place did not have 100 people at 2 am. As it seems the original story was aiming for 20ish dead, the 50 number may either have been artificially increased to make a larger media splash, or the complication in their plot forced Mateen to shoot far more than was the original plan. I think he knew he had an upper hand with an automatic gun, and may have been able to point it out one of the two doorways for brief seconds before retreating back. He may have repeated this until he saw SWAT.
We find a story (shared my some major media) told by Felipe Marrero, a liar who claims that the shooting started at the front door, where he was at. We can know he's lying because he said he played dead for 30 minutes or longer. Impossible. The police had control of the place within six minutes. Therefore, one can glean that the police want or wanted to advance a story with the shooter entering the front area. It appears that Marrero's story was of storyline A. We then read: The next day, lying in his hospital bed at Orlando Regional Medical Center, Marrero says he saw Mateen's picture on television and immediately recognized him. "I said 'This guy was right next to me buying a drink,'" Marrero said. If this goon is the FBI source for proving that Mateen was in the bar, forget it. This is a scam, with the FBI wanting us to think, for a reason, that Mateen was there earlier, wherefore he was likely the shooter. This witness comes out just as the opposition is spreading the news that no witness has claimed to see Mateen during the shoot-out. "The FBI declined to comment [on Marrero's comments] and has not provided a timeline accounting for Mateen's movements that night."
One reason to explain the few still alive who saw him is that he killed nearly everyone remaining in the rear section, and didn't enter the dance-floor section at all. At first, I thought that the report of police firing on him as he first entered the place was rigged, but I'm open to it now because it's explaining things acceptably to me. If there was a mix of good cop - bad cop from the very first, it can explain why the insiders don't use the report of the bad cops to claim which door Mateen entered, because the good cop might tell otherwise.
The authorities have caused more suspicion to circulate than conspiracy trackers could have dreamed of on their own initiatives. The FBI won't even commit to where he first entered the door. Ditto for Orlando police. It may serve their interests to be able to change the story; sorry world, they can't commit to Mateen's movements just yet. Ultimately, the FBI story is not for Americans, anyway, but for the courts and lawmakers when the government's invisible players globally seek to increase their Middle-East and "Homeland Security" agendas. The only importance for the FBI is to create a document proving that an ISIS pawn created the worst mass-murder ever on U.S. soil. I say the West is preparing for war in the Middle East, willing to go against Russia. If they can keep up this terrorist trend for a few years, Americans might be seduced again into accepting a large and over-riding Middle-East war presence. A few dozen dead in Orlando's Sodom and Gomorrah is like peanuts to them. The more that conservative Christians support war in the Middle East, the sooner the next terror target will be a protestant church. That way, the American devil will hope to mobilize Christians against ISIS. If the first terror act on a church works, expect more attacks on churches.
You may think it ridiculous to suggest that the FBI would put out a list of dead and injured that included phony names. But if no addresses are shared, they can indeed be phony. If you don't think you can go check every person on the list, even if most addresses are shared, to discover whether they are real people, neither can others. The CIA and FBI have, surely, been reporting false people since their inception. They have learned a little something on how to do it, and how to take care of snoops. If you were to try anything, you would eventually come up against a household that is an insider household; it would report you to the FBI, and you would be taken care of by the FBI in whatever way it thought best, depending on the danger level that you pose. Perhaps a mere warning might be enough to send you packing. In other words, publicized lists of the dead, injured, or witnesses will be jam-packed with addresses to insiders who will work to silence snoops. The address for some of the dead will be loaded to online directories by the FBI, and a snoop may go to some of these addresses to discover whether the dead person lived there, but it's the home of a secret CIA agent, and not even the neighbors know it. You knock on the door to ask whether such-and-such once owned or rented the place, and the CIA agents asks why you want to know, and who it is that wants to know. The rest is fairly predictable (evasive one way or another), and you are discovered as a dangerous snoop.
Look at the page below to see some Bearcat armored vehicles, the type claimed for ramming the bathroom wall. You can make out that the bottom of the front bumper is below the level of the tops of the tires (by the way, all "bumper"s in the last update were automatically changed to "bumber" by the spell-checker, my mistake; I really do know how to spell and pronounce the word). The tires look to be about 20 inches, meaning that the bottom of the bumper is a few inches lower yet. Yet, in the wall-hole image, three of the holes show the third row of blocks completely undamaged, removing only the blocks starting at the fourth row. Blocks, including their joint, are eight inches tall, simply meaning that the third row is expected to be smashed if indeed a Bearcat were to ram that wall.
We'd like to see an image showing more of the grass to prove tire marks, but the FBI won't let us have one. If we ask to see the blood on the ground, or on the pipe on the ground, the FBI will say they shot him inside the hole. If we ask why some bullet marks are as many as eight feet away from the hole, they probably won't answer but to say it's under investigation. The pipe on the ground is assumed from the explosion, which they say occurred before the Bearcat operation, yet the team left the pipe on the ground in the way of the Bearcat, meaning the Bearcat drove over it??? Does that sound reasonable? Wouldn't the men have removed the pipe from the ground before ramming the wall? Doesn't the central hole look as though it was made by the same method as the other holes? I know a hole knocked out by a sledge hammer when I see one. How else would they make those holes if not by a sledge?
The following just adds confusion. Confusion upon confusion upon confusion makes everyone unable to come to solid conclusions, wherefore the police are kept safe from online writers all coming to the same conclusions:
According to a description of the events by USA Today, the shooter entered through a side door and then shot a doorman and numerous others before exiting from the main entrance on the other side of the building. He encountered an off-duty police officer in the parking lot who was working for the club, and they exchanged gunfire. In a disastrous turn of events, this exchange forced the shooter back inside the club.
Here is from World Net daily on the Orlando shooting: "Police originally said around 20 people were dead, but Orlando Police Chief John Mina said once authorities were able to get into the club, many more victims were discovered. Mina called the attack "one of the worst tragedies we've seen." My claim is that the insiders had originally planned on using 20 dead, but changed their story for whatever reasons. In order for Mina to explain his error, he must have told reporters the above, that 20 was a guess-timate before they entered the building. It sounds reasonable and acceptable. However, it's a lie, because the FBI report has multiple officers inside the building within a few minutes of the start of the shooting, and Mina is not expected to have announced the 20 dead for a long while after that.
The FBI: "2:02 a.m. Multiple shots were reported at the nightclub. An off-duty officer working there responded and exchanged fire with the gunman near one of the entrances...2:04 a.m. Additional officers arrived on scene. 2:08 a.m.: Officers from various law enforcement agencies made entrance to Pulse and engaged the shooter." What are we to believe, that the officers at 2:02 and 2:04 just waited outside while the gunman filled bodies with bullets over the next minutes? Whatever the story will happen to be for those officers, the FBI has other officers entering six minutes after the shooting begins.
Mina is now trying to say that his report of 20ish dead was before 2:08. But he could not possibly have made this report to the press before 2:08. It was too early to state numbers at that time. Nor can he claim, as his statement appears to claim, that there were 20 dead outside. If the officers were not yet in the building, how could they report a certain number? Was someone going around looking through the glass to count the dead? Of course not. Then where did his 20 figure come from? Were there 20ish dead outside before 2:08? No, that was not the story. We expect police to give the press a report on the numbers only when they have a good count of them. Until then, they don't give numbers. No one is going to go around counting the 40ish injured prior to 2:08. The shooting is still in progress at that time. If the news media were doing its job, it would press Mina for exact details. Who gave the 20 figure to him, when, and how was it arrived at? If the news media finds it suspicious, say so. Otherwise no one will trust news media again.
The death toll went very quickly from 20ish to 49. After the announcement of 49, the number went up only to 50, and remained there. This is unexpected because some of the injured are expected to die in the coming days. No one expects 49 dead immediately after the shooting, with only one of the injured succumbing after that. The obvious problem for the insiders, in announcing days-long injuries that result in death, is that feigning them creates complications and risks. It's safer to announce deaths at the scene, with no hospitalizations for a good number of them. I'm not suggesting that all deaths were feigned, but that as many as 30 were.
It can be reckoned that Mina announced the more-than-20 dead, not before police arrived, but after they got inside. As these officers ran Mateen into the bathroom, the opportunity arose to increase the numbers to 50, and, supposedly, they were going to claim that 30 of them were in the bathroom. But, finally, they were unable to make the claim for that high of a number, and so the story remains problematic, yet the media isn't willing to tackle these questions. Can anyone imagine CNN doing a story that has, as its core purpose, the creation of mistrust in the Orlando police? For a major news organization to go against the police of one city, no other police department might ever speak with it again, making police-related news gathering difficult. In this way, a news media becomes compelled to tow the police report as fact.
Especially for new or confused readers
MYTH CODES 101
shows where I'm coming from.
For serious investigators:
How to Work with Bloodline Topics
Here's what I did when I had spare time on my hands:
Ladon Gog and the Hebrew Rose
If you have received emails supposedly from me, and they look like advertisements
or anything unflattering and unexpected from me,
they were not from me but by someone using my email box to send it.
Table of Contents