Other Hoaxes Zionist Terror — 04 July 2015
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Hard Absolute Proof Charleston Church Shooting was an Active Shooter Drill

The Internet truth-seeking movement is right about the Charleston shooting issue, which is the fact that it was a sophisticated drill, all pre-arranged and that it didn’t happen. In other words, it is a hoax. This means that no one died and no one was injured. It also means there was no real shooting. This means that all deaths have been faked, which makes sense when viewing the speech, behavior,and aptitude of the crisis actor fake relatives.

Give Redsilverj, among others, credit regarding this arch-fake for maintaining the momentum for the truth-seeking movement. Never once has he waved; God bless him for that.

Nevertheless, it would take the full power of all federal agencies to achieve this. Every level of manipulation and corruption is required. Moreover, all the prominent federal agencies were there. Too, some heavy-hitting individuals were in-placed, including Hillary Clinton, who was in Charleston on the day of the hoax shooting, campaigning for President. Jeb Bush was scheduled to be there, too, the day after, but he reportedly in what was little other than a PR stunt “cancelled.”

The entire appartus of the so-called New World Order was in place. Who could find that this was a coincidence?

It is not plausible that Clinton would be there coincidentally or that it was a mere chance issue that Pinckney was campaigning on her behalf. That alone confirms the hoax.

So, the drill started on Jun. 15 and included the day of the 17th, then lasting longer than even that. The acclaimed shooting occurred on the 17th, which coincides with the date-line of the drill:



The drill is clearly listed on the federal website as a means of informing all relevant agencies. The Website deems it “Federal Law Enforcement Training…”, therefore, federal agencies were already on site by the 17th for purposes of participating in the drill.


This was slightly before 1:00 a.m. EST, some 2 hours and 40 minutes after the local police supposedly responded to a ‘shooting.’ Yet, in a 2 and one half hour or so time span at least two federal agencies, Chief Mullen reveals more, in fact, fully demonstrating that they were already there? How did they get there so fast. The reporter that asked him about the FBI noted that they were already there and wondered why this was the case, querying it in regard to ‘hate crime’ status.


OK, he said, Chief Mullen himself, both the ATF and the FBI were already well in-place prior to the 12:50 a.m. or so press conference. This confirms the active drill status as published on the federal Website. Yet, too, what does he mean by these “many other” federal agencies? Surely, the Secret Service, among others, was also there. Are there federal moulage moles on-site? What about federal associates who are experts at maxing wax figures?


A furtive glance and a smirk result when he says there was established such a command. The man in the middle responds with a smirk just as Mullen reveals the drill, as does the man to the left. Yet, this is inconceivable that they would all be there merely as a reaction to a spontaneous shooting. It would many hours, in fact, a number of days to achieve such coordination. It couldn’t have happened in the two-hour or so time span after the purported shooting.

“The FBI is here,” notes the reporter, which the Chief confirms, while acting somewhat sheepish about the revelation. How is that possible? There is no field office in Charleston. Agents would have to come from considerable distance from Columbia:


They would have to be contacted, then, activated, then mobilized. Then, they would have to drive the length of the journey:


It would have taken them some 2 hours or perhaps less. That’s true, if they could have mobilized themselves immediately, which is highly unlikely with a call that late at night. Moreover, the Police Chief seemed defensive when asked about the FBI’s presence, that is when the reporter said, “…the FBI is here,” saying, “…the FBI would be here, regardless.” How else could this be interpreted? “Be here” means they were already there.


Do any of these people look compelling – do any of them appear to be dealing with a massacre of some 9 people gunned down in the inside of a church? This is less than 3 hours after such people have been supposedly brutally murdered. No one is showing the slightest bit of emotion; no one is in a reactionary mode. Why are none of these people in shock? Instead, they are all calm and collected, as if they are conducting some kind of transaction.


There is no field office anywhere near Charleston. Officers would have to be notified, then mobilized from Columbia. Why would they arrive at 13:30 or so in the morning? How would that aid the investigation?


Caption: An FBI agent walks across the street from the Emanuel AME Church following a shooting Wednesday

“The ATF is here.” Yet, the agency was there as part of the federally mandated drill, not in response to the purported shooting.


Why is the ATF needed for a local shooting?



It would take at least three and one-half hours for the ATF to arrive, if the agency agents could have been mobilized immediately upon being called. Plus, who knows what issues there would be in regard to traffic and other issues.

Says the Chief “at 9:05 we received a call” about the purported shooting. Then, would cops really call the FBI and ATF before arriving on and evaluating the scene? That is simply not plausible.

It’s not that the Chief is new to hoaxes. Here is one he and his cohorts committed in April 2015:

Live5News.com | Charleston, SC | News, Weather, Sports


Regarding the fact that it is a drill these images are revealing. Shouldn’t those emergency responders be responding to something? What are they doing standing around with their hands in their pockets? Wait a minute, finally they do jump into action, making a fake rush with a man on a gurney to the ambulance.


One of the arenas for the drill was the Marriot Courtyard. Here, it can be seen that the road was blocked-off. Yet, there was no crime scene investigation which coincided with such a blocking off effort. Notice that staging zone, the Marriot Courtyard, in the background. The Marriot, in fact, is a major player in arch-Zionist Illuminati-style hoaxes.


The entire region is blocked off. This is part of the active shooter drill. No traffic of any kind is visible.

Note the pillar. That motel was a key zone for media moles, as well as the crisis actors themselves.


Clearly and categorically, this was staged. Who can demonstrate otherwise? There is no traffic on the street. All was cut-off for the hoax.

There was another bizarre element of staging which was seen at the Courtyard. This was the wheeling about on a gurney of a supposedly wounded or even dying victim:



Notice the police tape. What was the purpose of putting that around the Marriot entranceway? It can only be explained by the fact that this was a strategic site for the drill, where the media congregated. Surely, EMTs wouldn’t roll the dying person all the way from the so-called church just to get a picture taken.

There was yet another staging center. This was the Embassy Suites on Meeting St., a Hilton entity. Let us not forget what purportedly happened there:









About Author


(28) Readers Comments

  1. Twitter would not let me send this to my followers.I guess they do not want low info people know it is a DRILL.

  2. 10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
    A useful guide by Donna Ferentes

    1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always “sheep”, patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.

    2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say “no thanks”, you’ll be called a “sheep” again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.

    3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they’re pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.

    4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero’s “cui bono?” (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle’s “once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth”. What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply “eliminate the impossible” (i.e. say the official account can’t stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on “cui bono?” (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.

    5. Inability to employ or understand Occam’s Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.

    6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have “open minds” and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.

    7. Inability to withdraw. It’s a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by “swamping” – piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.

    8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the “official” account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the “official” account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.

    9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it’s “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.

    10. It’s always a conspiracy. And it is, isn’t it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.

    For a group of like-minded paranoiacs obsessed with the truth, they certainly don’t appreciate being confronted with the truth about themselves. LMAO.

    • You obviously have an issue with the truth to post the drivel you just did. Rethink your life and understand this; the mere fact you posted on this website suggests that your feeble and paltry mind still has the ability to be shaken. That’s a good thing.
      Perhaps you can’t fathom the multitude of photoshopped pictures/evidence, not just in Dylan Roof’s case but Adam Lanza’s too.
      Your first reaction is to lash out and label people like us (who have had our eyes opened) nut jobs.
      People do that. It’s ok. It’s instinctive. You’re angry and confused. You refuse to believe that as far back as 9/11 you have been fed lies. Cognitive dissonance – look it up.
      Be a man. Don’t be afraid to research and find the truth about all these events yourself.

  3. Keep unveiling their creepy tactics, doc….

    • You all may have been right about both Gray and Scott. Am re-looking at the Scott thing. But for now, onward we go!!

  4. 2 more superhoaxes for u doc, coming from the US of A and Israhell. Heres the first one. Woman (Jewish name, Steinle?) killed out of the blue by an immigrants’ stray bullet (anti-gun pattern) while walking with her dad. Im sorry?



    • He never quite acquires any tears to shed. His voice goes in and out of character. For example when he says “its just not fair” it is quite obvious that this is a rehearsed line. Not that something like this is beyond happening in San Francisco but a no-tears loving brother makes me almost certain of yet another hoax.

  5. 3th picture:
    There are 3 persons in the background: one can see only 1 eye of these 3 persons. The 4th person has a camera with 2 artificial “eyes” in front of his head which reminds me to the Terminator-movie.
    Very strange.

  6. And back to the Tunis hoax. Like in most such cases, we have “heroes”, “miraculous survivors” and so on. Here’s one, Matthew James, holed by bullets but still managing to say goodbye and crawl to safety, yeap, sure…..



    • The man is a fraud.

  7. Others like Matthew James and more


  8. Absolute truth…? A lot more fact finding and fact checking is needed before making such statements and asserting conclusions. Has critical thinking left the house?

    • So, why don’t you prove any of the assessments in error? Are you implying that the ‘shooting’ is real?

      • We do NOT have to proof that the incident was a hoax, but the main-stream-media have to profe that something realy happened / the incident was real / not staged. In short: they (and not we) have the burden of proof according to Western law-principles (these principles are logical and approved for 2000 years / since the ancient Roman law).
        Plus: If the main-stream-media is a serial liar or errormaker, then it canot be trusted / believed anymore until profen otherwise.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *