Shooting at Sikh Temple – Official Lies

As with the shooting in the Aurora, Colorado movie theater, the Official Story of the Sikh temple shooting is a Lie. It’s clear that the shooting in Colorado was government-created with the intent of instilling “proof” in the minds of citizens that citizens with guns -“domestic terrorists”- are a major problem requiring immediate action — a solution. The shooting in the Sikh temple, as well as other incidents in the US, are a part of this same manufactured “proof.” Once enough “proof” resides in the minds of citizens, action toward the solution is taken by government. The solution the government is after is gun control.

Example of the typical reports coming from the mainstream media:

7 Dead at Sikh Temple in Oak Creek, Wis.; Officials Believe ‘White Supremacist’ Behind ‘Domestic Terrorism’
http://abcnews.go.com/US/sikh-temple-shooting-oak-creek-wisconsin-domestic-terrorism/story?id=16933779#.UCAiK6C_ild

Now, take a look at the evidence disproving the Official Story:

http://youtu.be/9ecdSKi9_fs

The News banner says “3 gunmen involved.”
Read the ticker @ 0:24 of the video: Reports: 1 gunman still inside the temple, many held hostage. That’s more than 1 shooter, when you count the 1 said to be “taken down” @ 0:40.

*A day after the shooting, the my local News showed an interview of a lady who was there in the temple. The reporter asked, “… did he say anything …?” and the lady answered, “… no, no, they didn’t say anything ….”

Quote: Reports of multiple shooters were received by police, though they have no evidence there was more than one suspect involved, said Brad Wentlandt, chief of the nearby Greenfield Police Department. Wentlandt, also speaking to reporters today, said reports of more than one shooter are common when people experience a crime from different “angles” at the scene.
Source: http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloomberg/article/Seven-Die-in-Wisconsin-Sikh-Temple-Mass-Shooting-3764575.php

Quote: The first 911 call to police about the shooting was received at 10:35 a.m., Wendlant said. Three hours later, police were searching the temple to determine whether the gunman had an accomplice. Eyewitnesses had offered conflicting accounts; several said they believe there was more than one gunman.
Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57486965/shooting-at-sikh-temple-in-wis-at-least-7-dead/

Did they say they “believe,” or did they say they “saw”?
Were they asked, “Do you believe …?”?
This all matters greatly.

What sets off an alarm about the statement is the use of the “trick word” “believe.” The one problem with this is that most Americans, and almost everyone who watches and listens to this stuff, don’t know about this word, or others like, or how they’re used. The use of the word “believe” in this type of statement says to the reader/listener, because of what the word “believe” means to those reading and listening, that the witnesses were possibly uncertain = untrustworthy; and that’s after saying the eyewitnesses “offered conflicting accounts” = untrustworthy. The end result is that there’s some doubt in the minds of the reader/listener about the testimony of the eyewitnesses regarding the number of shooters.

*They wouldn’t let a sentence like the previous one be released to the public. Why? Because of the use of a plural — “shooters.” Even that will lead to a percentage of those consuming this information to believe there’s more than one shooter. This is exactly how this stuff is scrutinized before being released to the public.

Take a look at the difference:

What they said: “… several said they believe there was more than one gunman.”

One of the many other things they could have said, which would have been more logical and reasonable to say: “… several said they saw more than one gunman.”

Do you see/feel the effects?

Sikh temple shooting police briefing

1:56 – 2:25 – “… we have not identified …” He’s choosing his words like a very good liar, or a very good liar chose them for him. “… it’s possible that those multiple reports were of the same person.” Multiple reports about the same person, one person, would mean there was one person, so how could that lead to dispatchers or whomever believing there was more than one person? In other words: Several different reports of a shooter, one shooter, in a temple led highly trained professionals to believe there were several shooters in that same temple? If the people taking the calls didn’t know what they were doing/how to do their job properly, this would happen all the time in America. How many people are shot in the US each day? What percentage of those shootings do “multiple” people hear the gunshot/gunshots? What percentage of them successfully relay the information? That’s how many times this, alleged confusion, would happen each day. If this was true, police departments wouldn’t even be able to function!
*For a little fun, watch the video again, listening to his words, how he says them, and how he moves; while thinking about the “Men in Black” movies and the scenes where citizens got “flashed” with the “flashy-thing.”

Surveillance Cameras Turned Off During Sikh Temple Shooting
Friday, August 10, 2012
http://www.infowars.com/surveillance-cameras-turned-off-during-sikh-temple-shooting/

Other “domestic terrorism” used to further goals

Please view 6:08 – 9:24