Home War/ Terror Elias Davidsson’s Questions Regarding the Paris Attacks of 13 November 2015

Elias Davidsson’s Questions Regarding the Paris Attacks of 13 November 2015


elias paris

by Mary W Maxwell

Yesterday was the first anniversary of Australia’s “hostage incident” at the Lindt Café in Martin Place, Sydney. Few people have raised questions about it, such as: Why did the government wait 17 hours before taking action? or How was it that ricocheting bullets from police gunfire ended the life of Katrina Dawson?

When the Bataclan incident occurred in Paris a month ago, human rights scholar Elias Davidsson came up with sensible questions, straightaway.  He posted them on November 15, 2015 at his website, juscogens.org.

Here are the questions Davidsson has raised

  1. The Bataclan attackers came by car they left outside. What became of that car?
  2. When did police and special forces arrive to the Bataclan?
  3. Why did it take more than two hours to assault the attackers at the Bataclan?
  4. What did the police do in these two hours?
  5. How many forces participated in the assault on the attackers?
  6. How long did it take to overcome the attackers?
  7. Did any independent person witness the police’s assault?
  8. Why did they insist that three attackers blew themselves up and one was shot dead, if the next day this figure has changed?
  9. What was the role of the woman seen with the attackers? Who is she?
  10. Who witnessed the circumstances in which the attackers of the Bataclan died?
  11. Why has the situation at the Bataclan been described as “hostage taking”?
  12. Why did the attackers fail to kill their “hostages”?
  13. Did the attackers speak French without accent, as claimed by witnesses?
  14. Who from the police negotiated with the attackers, as mentioned by witnesses, and about what was negotiated?
  15. Did anyone really blow himself up outside the Stadium? Are there any independent witnesses?
  16. Who issued bomb threats earlier in the day?
  17. Were some of the attackers 15-18 years old, as estimated by the Institut médico-légal?
  18. Who was shooting from the window of the Bataclan on the outside, as experienced by Le Monde journalist Daniel Psenny and witness Carole Massemba, and why?
  19. Who left a car related to the attack in Montreuil?
  20. Why were weapons left the car in Montreuil?
  21. Will the police release the CCTVs from the attacks, that it is currently examining?
  22. Did the alleged attackers shoot at the police in Bataclan in self-defense?
  23. From where did the attackers obtain weapons, explosives and cars?
  24. How could the police immediately identify the type of explosives used?
  25. What did the Procureur de Paris mean when he said that five terrorists had been ”neutralized”? Were they killed?
  26. What was the origin of the IS communiqués?
  27. From where were they sent?
  28. How is it possible to authenticate these communiqués?
  29. What is the telephone number and email address of the Islamic State’s government (It is assumed that a government ruling over a huge territory has a fixed location, uses telephones and has access to internet)?
  30. How was President Holland able to announce a state of emergency, the closure of borders and designate the attacks as an “act of war” before consulting his government and before the attacks had ended?

Elias Davidsson’s website is a website that will engage your brain in a most pleasing way. It is unique in carrying articles published jointly in English, French, German, and Icelandic.

Davidsson named it “juscogens.org” after the term in international law that means a peremptory norm. According to The Legal Information Institute at Cornell University, the term jus cogens (from Latin: compelling law) “refers to certain fundamental, overriding principles of international law, from which no derogation is ever permitted.”

Note: Gumshoe published my interview with Elias Davidsson concerning his meticulously documented book “Hijacking America’s Mind on 9-11: Counterfeiting Evidence.” That Gumshoe article starts with the sentence:  “Since the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, it has been officially known that Todd Beamer’s cell phone made many calls AFTER the crash.”

Is that enough to hook you in?

— Mary Maxwell is the author of “Fraud Upon the Court” and can be found at her Youtube channel: “Mary W Maxwell.”


  1. Mary, as a former barrister I have a little bit different approach to looking at evidence than the average citizen. Sometimes when a potential line of cross-examination isn’t working out, it is time to move on to another point. – I only worked with what I could PROVE or a combination of circumstantial evidence that is compelling in its conclusion.

    On that last point, many people will take ‘short cuts’ in logic to arrive at their conclusions. Try doing that in Court and you can quickly end up looking like a fool.

    I mention this to perhaps help some people to weave through the mine field of the internet. There are not just a lot of uninformed speculators of information, but real disinformation being sown by the manipulators.

    Take your time to work it through and don’t make the mistake of just jumping for the first ‘theory’ that suits your preconceived idea of what you THINK you know. Here’s a very helpful hint, if you run into a paradox – you made a mistake. You have to go back and run through your chain of reasoning to find out where you made an assumption or error. The vast majority of people when confronted with a paradox will not go back through their chain of reasoning – they will make the fatal mistake of discarding the piece of information that doesn’t fit with their ‘theory’.

    People don’t like ‘cognitive dissonance’, but it is a very valuable ‘red light’ to get you to stop and start thinking.

  2. Mary, I should clarify. I am not condemning the questions that Elias asks. Elias asks open ended reasonable questions that should be addressed.

    However, there was another site on the Paris attack that was just one long series of assumptions that sometimes weren’t even backed up by the available objective evidence. Such sites have little credibility in my view and are quite possibly the subject of ‘disinformation’. – Sort of like the ‘no plane’ theory at the Pentagon.

    • Funny you should mention it. I think there was no plane at the Pentagon. Surely not the commercial airliner attributed to it. And surely not one piloted by Hani Hanjour at a beaut angle.

      I also don’t really think we have to spend time demolishing stories that are obviously false. Of course I don’t mean that YOU don’t have to do it, Terry. In court the barrister does have to pick apart all the garbage proffered by the other side.

      (Unless the “defense team” is actually working for the prosecution. Not mentioning any names, Tsarnaev.).

      If the Adelaide Advertiser comes up with a story that looks to be a mockery of the reader, I am hardly going to invest several hours saying why I take it as false. Fie on them. Just fie. Nuf said.

      NOte: Gotta give Rupe credit for one thing. When he named his first paper in Adelaide “The Advertiser,” he was being perfectly honest.

      • Mary, your comment about ‘no plane at the Pentagon’ is exactly the disinformation that I am referring to. People have to be careful about the information that they are willing to process and to also to re-evaluate their theories when other evidence becomes available.

        If I had you in the box, I could show you pictures of the black soot that rolled up the Pentagon walls from the wing tanks. I could show you pictures of the length of the scaring on the wall that is consistent with the wingspan of a 737 (not a 757). I could show you pictures of the JT8D engine from the Port side that failed to penetrate the outer wall.

        I could produce air frame and power plant mechanics that would identify and give evidence that the JT8D engine was used on the ‘stretched’ version of the 737-200 series.

        I could produce multiple witness that saw a ‘commercial aircraft’ fly into the Pentagon.

        I could produce aviators that would give evidence about the flight characteristics of the 737 being more consistent for the aircraft that flew into the Pentagon than those of a 757.

        The 737-200 was the most logical aircraft for the attack. The longer and thinner engines gave the most ground clearance for the final run. I could show that those aircraft are still available in the aircraft boneyards in Arizona.

        So what objective evidence could you produce for a ‘missile attack’. – Zip, nothing – There’s a reason the FBI will not release any films of the attack, it would show a 737-200 inbound on the Pentagon.

        What I am trying to illustrate is that people must be careful about taking the bait of some disinformation campaign.

        • Terry, do you think the plaintiff’s pleadings in Gallop v Cheney are a disinformation campaign?

          You say you can provide witnesses of a commercial jet at the Pentagon, but I can provide witnesses that it was Martin Bryant that did Port Arthur. I just phone Central Witness Casting and order three stooges.

          And you may indeed have a photo of soot, but do you know how quickly Dee can photoshop?

          OK, OK, Terry, I would not want to be your opposite number on the dance floor. I mean the courtroom. Remember, I have read the zillion-page transcript of your egg-farmer case, which Parliament had to hasten, legislatively. to avoid the consequences of.

          But who is going to cash Hani Hanjour’s $5745 certified check?

          How ’bout me? I’m certifiable!

    • Terry, I would love to see the evidence you base your belief beyond all reasonable doubt that there was a plane at the pentagon, evidence that shows conclusively, that American Airlines Flight 77, not a 737, a 757, against all odds flown by someone who couldn’t even pilot a cessna, who was able to pull off manouvers that defy an airforce pilots ability, and the actual capabilities of such a plane according to the planes manufacturers.. through this hole…


      I have scoured the interwebs for the past decade plus, and found absolutely none, zero, zippo, zilch, that can withstand the slightest scrutiny. saying there is no evidence it was a missile, does not make the offical account correct. If only they would produce the scores of CCTV footage the authorities secured within minutes of the attack from anywhere that may have caught the action on film, or their own footage from the most heavily protected building on earth.. that actually showed a plane.. that might help put an end to the doubt that a plane hit the pentagon.

      While youre at it, perhaps you could show me where I might find the plane that buried itself at Shanksville, you know the one, the only airliner to ever crash, and then tidy up after itself.

      Thanks so much.

      • and i understand you are saying that it wasnt flight 77, it was “another” plane. It would still need to fold its wings back to get in that hole, or leave them outside.

        • Well Fair, I’m a former Army aviator. I’ve seen heaps of crashes and the results after the crashes. You would be surprised at how small a footprint a crash can make when an aircraft goes in vertical (the side of a wall is essentially a vertical impact). The sizes of the pieces from the aircraft are also very small (and very much compacted). Perhaps you remember the pictures immediately after the crash of the people policing up all the parts and hiding them under tarps.

          It may surprise you, but an aircraft is designed very lightly, that’s because its main job is to fly. It is not designed like a car or truck which can take some damage. The WHOLE PLANE did not go through that hole. I already mentioned the Port engine not penetrating.

          And who in the Hell said that it was flown by someone that couldn’t fly a Cessna. The main actors in this drama had access to sophisticated remote control resources to fly the aircraft without a pilot being on board. In my opinion, besides the computer programming of the approach, I expect that someone was ‘painting’ the impact point on the Pentagon and there was targeting equipment on the aircraft to track the ‘paint’ and make sure it impacted where they wanted it.

          Here’s something else, remember the story about ‘strengthening’ that very wall just before the attack. Well, I saw pictures from inside the Pentagon and the ‘contractors’ had created a GAP (about 18 inches) between the outside wall and the floor structures. In other words, they WEAKENED the support for the wall. It appears they wanted the wall to collapse onto the aircraft on impact – BUT IT DIDN’T!

          Go back and read about the first Fire truck on station and how it put out the fires (most of the fuel burned in the fireball outside on impact). They were sent away and the fires were restarted. There are also reports of further explosions and the smell of ‘cordite’ (not actually the correct substance, but the smell of explosives). It took another 45 minutes from the time of impact before they could bring down the outer wall – LOL!

          And as far as your sarcasm and know it all attitude….GF!

          • May I referee? I didn’t think Fair was being a know-it-all.
            I thought Fair was being an ask-it-all.

            So thanks for the terrif info, Terry. i would like to know more about those damned “contractors.”

          • “And as far as your sarcasm and know it all attitude….GF!”

            yeah, not the kind of evidence that proves beyond all reasonable doubt that any plane hit the pentagon i was hoping for, but pretty much what i was expecting considering there is nothing that proves beyond all reasonable doubt that any plane hit the pentagon.

            I take no offense that you tell me to GF Terry, if i were a professional wordsmith I might have been more able to convey my thoughts into writing a little more coherently, but obviously thats not my forte. Thanks Mary.

            “And who in the Hell said that it was flown by someone that couldn’t fly a Cessna”

            the people responsible for the official account said that.

            You say the small impact hole is common, and most of the plane was smashed to pieces.. and yet those smashed pieces can carry on to penetrate another couple of rings of newly reinforced building.. oh but that was the engine? then why not two punch out holes? I know all about how long it took for the wall to finally come down, and i know all about remote control possibilities.. but why bother changing planes? can they remotely control planes into twin towers, but need a smaller one for the pentagon?

            My main point is – the official account, according to all available evidence, is obvious bulldust. whatever hit the pentagon, if it was what they say, it would seem there would be plenty of evidence to support it, as there is none, that they have produced to prove their story, i say they are lying. Not only did they fail to show us THE plane, they failed to show us ANY plane.

            you say talk of a missile, is disinformation, i say, talk of another plane, a smaller one, is equal disinformation, especially when you have no more evidence to support that theory than those that say it was flight 77.

            mis information, disinformation, obfuscation and bald faced lies, the only way we are going to know the truth beyond the fact that the official account is bulldust, is through a proper investigation, and the chances of that are probaly zero, and any and all speculation about what it could have been, doesnt really help at all.

          • I don’t like the idea of “another investigation.” That would take a lot of time. i would like us to grow up real fast and recognize our counterproductive tendency to protect the powerful. We DO do that, even though we think we don’t.

            Fie-aroonie on them all. But maybe first offer an amnesty if they will tell us how to avoid the next attack.

          • well really, a proper transparent unfettered investigation, wouldnt really be “another” investigation, as anything that has occurred previously can only be described as a cover up. A proper investigation, could very quickly conclude beyond all reasonable doubt that the official account of events is impossible.

            Until the point is reached that no more attacks are necessary, that is to keep enough people afraid and believing that even more drastic measures are needed to keep us safe, until the final goal is reached, whatever that is.. global control of all resouces, people included perhaps.. then I suspect there will be more of the same, based on the nightly “news” reports.

            it seems they dont even need to try too hard to get their stories straight, they can be as sloppy as they want with their false flags, and the public eat it up. maybe its the fluoride.. why would anyone care about an amnesty when the chances of them being held to account without one are as slim as they are?

            there is an investigation being held into building 7 now.. http://www.wtc7evaluation.org/ – while we still can, prove beyond all reasonable doubt that we are being lied to, and those that continue to lie, just put them up against the wall and get rid of them. that is as lenient as Id be prepared to be with them.

  3. Terry, good to have a trained lawyer who can think and advocate by addressing facts.
    Now how many failed
    ‘lawyers’ amongst our Federal politicians and even commentator shock jocks can do that?
    The answer: None!
    Hello Mr Faine, Mr Turnbull, Ms Bishop and the rest.
    Some citizens could not hope to cope with a trial by jury examining evidence and facts and should be automatically excluded from service. They would adulterate our system of justice and bring it into disrepute.
    Fancy: Not a Federal politician or media BS artist worthy of jury service.
    So, for our democracy, freedoms and an impartial legal system.
    So for our country.

  4. Terry, a barrister and an airforce aviator
    must look good on you resume !?!?
    Ned, please write like a normal person, you were doing so well
    in the debate/ argument?
    Mary ???

C'mon Leave a Reply, Debate and Add to the Discussion