49 victims in shootings at 2 New Zealand mosques

The article posted above from Disobedient Media also says:
...But footage and photos that have emerged along with early reports of other suspected locations where incidents occurred indicates that the number of attackers was likely larger...

Without knowing, a team (5-6) perhaps is possible.

So what was going on at the highschool then, and who are those guys with guns?

Interesting, can that be authenticated and date stamped I wonder?

This would be significant because the video supposedly shows the scene where Tarrant's car was rammed and he was apprehended, so was Tarrant unconscious at the moment, or was that someone else?

Perhaps it was the Balaclava-man injured or dead? I'll get to this.

So, had a watch of the show on SOTT with Joe and Niall and had only caught snippets up until now on this tread and in SOTT articles, so thanks guys for laying it out even with more data to come.

Couple things (2 cents) and I may be way off here;

1. Tarrant is at the first Mosque this is clear (I did catch the mind numbing horrific video a number of pages back of this guys rampage).
Note: for the following I'm going to assume Tarrant was alone here (and he may not have been).
2. As shown on Joe and Niall's show discuss (slowed down), indeed Tarrant seemed to communicating with someone, like he was electronically connected while driving down the road after the shooting - it is not easy to hear, yet there is something.
3. At the same time the second Mosque has a shooter who, by witness accounts, wore a Balaclava (let's say that this was accurate).
4. The second shooter does his evil deeds and is then tackled as was stated (by the hero).
5. The same wittiness states that there was another in the vehicle as Balaclava-man runs to the car and jumps in. Had the vehicle just arrive to pick Balaclava-man up? What side of the car did the shooter get in is not detailed (right or left would make a difference).

Okay, so further positing that while Tarrant was on his fit of craziness at the first Mosque, a timed coordinated strike was taking place.

6. Here we come to the man from a different car later then seen with a Silenced type shotgun being arrested (eyes blanked out and later erased from the narrative, as was said). Had this man earlier been the guy who had dropped Balaclava-man off at the Mosque (they are in contact perhaps with Tarrant) that is timed very closely to when Tarrant might be scheduled to arrive (it's a timed event - so give this window 5 minutes before Tarrant arrives)? If so, Balaclava-man does his murder in the second Mosque (perhaps a horn is blown as a signal for Balaclava-man to leave with the arrival of the car), and he is then tackled and then runs and jumps into the car with Tarrant - thus the witness looks and sees someone else already in the car (this being Tarrant). The assumption is to focus on Tarrant as the second Mosque shooter, the lone-wolf, so no wonder his camera goes off just before arriving, no wonder Balaclava-man is masked (I'm sure the Mosque has video cameras these days) as it would not hep the narrative if unmasked, which begs the question why would Tarrant even bother to hide his identity? I don't think he would based on the first video. As for the Balaclava, agreed, this does not sound like the witness made this up.
7. Following along this alternate narrative I don't know where they (Tarrant and Balaclava-man) then drove off to, yet in this there might now be three active operatives now close together.
8. At the same time or earlier (assumed) IED's are said to have been attached to multiple vehicles, as was reported. Who did this? Another team of one or two? Did that team start calling it in, possible calling in other places to create confusion along with letting off shots here and there as was reported? Was this the diversion team? Joe and Niall brought up Vegas as example.
9. Now, where exactly those two hours went after the last Mosque shooting (assuming the original timeline narratives are quoted correctly in print), I just don't know. As Joe and Niall said, the press/authorities then pruned the narrative down into a tight window (37 minutes or something) in which it all was suppose to have gone down (start to arrest).
10. So, Balaclava-man, Tarrant, and the Silenced shotgun-man seem to all be in close proximity - one later appears to be limp on the sidewalk as Windmill knight cites. What's with this, was he now an injured or dead Balaclava-man or was it just Tarrant?
11. Then there is the School guys with the guns in the video above walking around, which is another factor if correct, which also could possibly have been a rendezvous spot or an operations spot, yet they did have guns and that may have been part of where part of the the two hours were spent while waiting for something like an extraction timeline to come together - it's an outlier, a suggestion at best.

So, possible a team of 5 or 6 split 3/2 or 3/3 with Tarrant, now wound-up psychologically in some way, to be let loose and either shot or gathered up for the fall. Something happens to Balaclava-man (if that was him and not Tarrant on the sidewalk now without his mask), and Silenced shotgun-man just evaporates. Note: this last scene could revert back to just being Tarrant on the sidewalk because I forget, did a witness say near they end (the arrest time) that they spotted two people in the car or just one that got rammed?

Furthermore, I must say the Manifesto is just out of this world silly, as was the white writing on his guns, his very words, the Facebook uploads, the lawyer being canned and so much more I probably know nothing about (and all this said above may also off the mark). Maybe the guy will live out his days behind bars and maybe he will meet an end; man oh man this is a tough one for his family and friends - you have to feel for them.

Synopsis: Officialy, ballistics and autopsies will confirm and match the guns to Tarrant there is no doubt. Witness statements will be massaged and follow-up articles will show new routes. The other suspects will disapear into a neverland and detailed time markers and further background will cement the outcome... Thus the above is for the dustbin.
 
I assume this was not mentioned before.

Netanyahu 'told New Zealand backing UN vote would be declaration of war'
Israeli PM reportedly warned that support for motion on settlements would ‘rupture relations’ between two countries
Relations

The Past is a clear indicator of what you can expect in the Future,

King David Hotel bombing
USS Liberty Attack
and the deeply buried story of Malaysia sticking its head out for the Palestinians
Why the Kuala Lumpur Tribunal’s genocide verdict against Israel sets a key precedent
 
Very well summarised Ryan, thank you. What more could we expect from the Murdoch owned media here in Oz?
Thank you Arwenn; you're welcome! Disappointingly, that article was from the ABC (via The Conversation), which is supposedly independent. As a fellow Aussie though, I'm sure you know all about how Murdoch has been waging 'proxy warfare' on the ABC via the Liberal party!
 
A few developing bits from today
ISPs in AU and NZ start censoring the internet without legal precedent
Several websites including Voat, ZeroHedge, Archive.is, LiveLeak, and others have been blocked in Australia and New Zealand in direct contravention to civil liberties that citizens are supposed to have. The biggest of these internet providers, Telstra, has published a blog post defending their censorship action – even acknowledging that free speech has been sacrificed by company decision:
“We appreciate that it is necessary to ensure free speech is carefully balanced against protecting the community – but with these sites continuing to host disturbing content we feel it is the right thing to do to block them.”

In fact, some of the blocked sites have been unfairly lambasted in mainstream media as “refusing” to take down offending material. Let’s be clear, each and every one of the blocked websites operates lawfully – that includes removing illegal material when requested. These internet service providers (ISPs) in Australia and New Zealand have taken it upon themselves to play judge, jury, and executioner in their condemnation of these websites and their visitors just for exercising free speech.

In New Zealand, mobile internet service providers take it upon themselves to enact censorship

Starting over the weekend, Spark NZ, Vodafone NZ, and Vocus NZ were the three New Zealand ISPs that have taken it upon themselves to block these sites. On their part, the ISPs and smartphone network providers are claiming that these are only temporary blocks. Temporary blocks that have lasted multiple days – more than long enough to change people’s’ browsing habits. Even the perpetrators of this censorship are aware how unprecedented it is. Geoff Thorn, a chief executive at New Zealand Telecommunications Forum (TCF), commented to CIO:
“This is an unprecedented move by the telecommunications industry, but one that they all agree is necessary.”

CIO additionally confirmed that the ISPs are working together to ban the same sites.

In Australia, censorship also happens at the whim of the internet providers

Unsurprisingly, the over-reactive censorship has even started spreading around the world. Starting Monday the 18th, Telstra and Vodafone in Australia have also implemented these blocks network wide – that means even the many Australians using Vodafone reseller networks are affected by Vodafone’s censorship decisions. Of course, Facebook is not one of the sites that has been blocked.


Are these blocks due to legal request, or is Telstra now censoring entire sites due to internal policies? Setting a very dangerous precedent
— James Franklin (@James23235689) March 18, 2019

Vodafone has even confirmed that they were told to place the blocks, and they will remove the blocks when they are “advised” that the illegal content has been removed.

Censoring free speech is never “the right thing to do”

The internet providers in Australia and New Zealand are sliding down an incredibly slippery slope against free speech. Previously, in Australia and other parts of the world like Russia and Philippines, ISPs would not censor access to websites unless clearly told to by the government. The precedent that internet providers can decide when to start blocking sites seemingly arbitrarily has now both been set and abused… All in the name of “doing the right thing.”

Simply put: It’s not the right thing to do. Free speech is an absolute concept and by that virtue alone – this is not the right thing to do.


A full list of blocked websites can be found below:



Please let us know in the comments below if any blocked websites are missing from this list.
 
I find it very enlightening that they did not censor Facebook or Twitter for not shutting down this guy. I'm sure they both have a "Situation Room" to monitor major events taking place.

Tech consortium flags more than 800 versions of New Zealand attack video

A consortium of global technology firms has shared on its collective database the digital fingerprints of more than 800 versions of the video of New Zealand’s mass shootings that killed 50 people, it said on Monday.

Last Friday, social media users intent on sharing the mosque shooting video were said to have used several methods to create a new version with a digital fingerprint different from the original, so as to evade companies’ detection systems.

“This incident highlights the importance of industry cooperation regarding the range of terrorists and violent extremists operating online,” the grouping, which includes Facebook Inc, Alphabet Inc’s Google and Twitter Inc, said of the attack.

Facebook, the world’s largest social media network with about 2.3 billion monthly users around the world, said the original video on its service, a live broadcast of a gunman firing in and around a mosque, was seen fewer than 200 times.

An archived copy drew about 3,800 additional views on Facebook before the company removed it, Facebook said in a blog post on Monday, but a user on online forum 8chan had already copied the video and posted a link on a file-sharing service. “Before we were alerted to the video, a user on 8chan posted a link to a copy of the video on a file-sharing site,” it added.

No users had filed complaints with Facebook about offensive content in the livestream, it said, adding that its first user complaint came over the archived copy, 12 minutes after the 17-minute broadcast ended.

Late on Saturday Facebook said it had removed 1.5 million videos within 24 hours after the Christchurch attack.

The Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism (GIFCT) was created in 2017 under pressure from governments in Europe and the United States after a spate of deadly attacks. It shares technical solutions for the removal of terrorist content, commissions research to assist its efforts to fight such content and works more with counter-terrorism experts.
 
But now the official story is that Tarrant did it all by himself, from one mosque to the other, and the guy in camo aprehended at the school was just a dad who likes to dress like that, right? So what was going on at the highschool then, and who are those guys with guns?
Hi WK, that video is suspicious. The phone that is doing the screen recording shows a time of 7:36pm on the 14th March - the day BEFORE the shooting. According to the world's time zones, only the regions in the US Midwest westwards (at least UTC-5hrs) could have been places where that video was filmed. The account from where the video was shared (@levimacd) no longer exists, and multiple people make reference in other tweets to the account as looking fake:


I suspect that footage may have been lifted from somewhere else and presented as happening in relation to the shootings. The strange synchronicities around the claimed & real events at the school point to it as being a probable distraction.
 
Last edited:
I suspect that footage may have been lifted from somewhere else and presented as happening in relation to the shootings. The strange synchronicities around the claimed & real events at the school point to it as being a probable distraction.

Thanks Ryan. The place where the video was taken, though, does look exactly like the highschool if you compare on Google Street View, so presumably it was taken there but at some other time. Or someone bothered to insert the images of the two guys with guns in front of the school. It does look suspicious that the video is just a couple of seconds long and no context is presented.
 
Joe and Niall make a good point in their latest NewsReal episode about the guy in the video of the shooting; the guy in the video appears to be talking to someone while being in the car. Either to someone with him in the car or to someone through and ear peace. It is hard to tell though, but it indeed could be that there is a second person talking in the video to which Tarrant is responding. It also appears to me that way.

 
Last edited:
At the beginning in the video, before Tarrant goes out the first time from the car, there is a significant portion in the video where the sound appears to have been turned off completely and/or erased later. You hear absolutely nothing. How and why? It starts at around 03:06. You even see Tarrant saying something with his mouth, but the sound is gone. If someone was sitting with him in the car, that person must have been behind him in the backseat, since at one portion you see him turning to the left side inside the car and the passenger seat was laying flat on the backseat. Also at 03:06 he turns back the camera, showing his face and nobody appears to be sitting in the backseat behind him. He is saying something right before that point, which isn't understandable. If somebody was sitting behind him, maybe that person crouched down at the point Tarrant turned the camera to his face (so that he can't be seen) and they then had a short conversation?
 
Last edited:
Unsurprisingly, it would appear this latest false flag has been committed by 'the usual suspects'. The NZSAS snipers could have made up the shooting teams w/ the whole operation geared to make it appear that Tarrant was the only assassin. I don't give VeteransToday a lot of credence, but the part of the video in which the ejected shell casings just disappear does make a case that either part or all of the video was shot w/ a green screen. Not ever having been a soldier or witness to any gun killing, I don't know what or how the victims would act or look like. VT is saying the video depiction of victims is not realistic. It could be the video itself is a false presentation whereas the real assassins were murdering the people in the mosque. It was pointed out that 5 Palestinians were killed at the first mosque - were they preselected for death? This was most likely an elite team of killers that carried out a well-planned attack that is going to achieve all the goals intended - already happening.
NZ anti-mosque terrorist: False flag? Hypnotized to kill?
By Kevin Barrett - March 15, 2019

Was the the New Zealand mosque terrorism incident a false flag operation? It’s interesting that this horrific event happened just a few days after scholarly books by Professor Kevin MacDonald, the so-called intellectual godfather of white nationalism, were banned by Amazon.

The New Zealand massacre has obvious beneficiaries:

(1) Those pushing for more censorship. (2) Those pushing for more censorship. (3) Those pushing for more censorship. (4) Those seeking to enflame the (post)Christian-vs.-Muslim “Clash of Civilizations.” (5) Those pushing for gun control.

Note that all five of the above groups answer to the term, “the Zionists.”

It’s also interesting that these events usually happen to nations that Bibi Netanyahu is mad at. “Breivik”‘s massacre of the young anti-Zionist wing of the Norwegian Labor Party was obviously Israeli retaliation against Norway for its anti-Zionist actions. Likewise the Charlie Hebdo massacre happened after Bibi repeatedly threatened that France would be hit by terrorism if it didn’t stop siding with the Palestinians. And now New Zealand—the current target of Zionist rage due to its official statements sympathizing with the people of Gaza.

Whether or not Zionists directly orchestrated the New Zealand massacre, they are still responsible for it. Maybe they hypnotized the neo-Nazi killer(s) MK Ultra style and unleashed him; or maybe they just let the 9/11 mass hypnosis operation do its work implanting intergenerational Islamophobia into the Western unconscious. Either way, THEY DID IT.

Read more:
The above article continues at:

An excerpt:
It is telling that Benjamin Netanyahu’s father Benzion wrote a book about Abarbanel highlighting the plan to trigger an apocalyptic Christian-vs.-Muslim war to usher in a one-world state ruled by the Jewish Messiah (who would of course be called Antichrist by Christians and Muslims). Indeed, the plan to trick (post)Christian civilization into launching a global war against Muslim civilization, rolled out on 9/11/2001, is something of a Netanyahu family business.
51CQDFcbygL.jpg

And so the show goes on . . .
 
Thanks Ryan. The place where the video was taken, though, does look exactly like the highschool if you compare on Google Street View, so presumably it was taken there but at some other time. Or someone bothered to insert the images of the two guys with guns in front of the school. It does look suspicious that the video is just a couple of seconds long and no context is presented.
We are well into the point where being sure a video is real is a real problem.

Deep Fake
 
From what I've seen so far, unless a person crunched down every time Tarrant's camera was turning towards the backseat behind him (there are about three occasions of this I could find so far), the most likely possibility would be that he talked with someone via ear plugs somewhere else, assuming he did. It could also be, as Joe and Niall pointed out, that the video was cut afterwards and at some point someone was sitting with him.
 
don't give VeteransToday a lot of credence, but the part of the video in which the ejected shell casings just disappear does make a case that either part or all of the video was shot w/ a green screen. Not ever having been a soldier or witness to any gun killing, I don't know what or how the victims would act or look like. VT is saying the video depiction of victims is not realistic. It could be the video itself is a false presentation whereas the real assassins were murdering the people in the mosque.
I have not seen the video, so this is just guess work. Having seen stills of the video I can say the quality/compression looks fairly low. Meaning small objects could easily 'disappear' simply because the image is such low quality.

F_27_15.gif

I'd be careful of anyone claiming it's fake because of the slide into 'actors' territory, which discredits any exploration of a conspiracy.

Surely if there where actors involved, they'd all have to be killed off anyway just to stop them from talking?
 
From what I've seen so far, unless a person crunched down every time Tarrant's camera was turning towards the backseat behind him (there are about three occasions of this I could find so far), the most likely possibility would be that he talked with someone via ear plugs somewhere else, assuming he did. It could also be, as Joe and Niall pointed out, that the video was cut afterwards and at some point someone was sitting with him.
FWIW I didn't notice any point from where he got into the car after the shooting that showed signs of a cut. It's a continuous shot, if you watch the roads out the window. (And BTW, the video I saw had sound from the beginning.) It DOES sound like two voices later on though. I wonder if he had a phone on speaker or something. When I first watched it sounded like he was just talking to himself under his breath, then louder. But it does sound like there's another, quieter voice. Either that, or he's got MPD and is talking to himself!

The first time, it's barely audible and it sounds like there's a 'should' in there. Tarrant laughs and says, "Mags dropped out instantly" (he comes back to talking about how his ammo magazines were falling out and he had to retrieve them). Then after a bit the quieter voice says, "Ahh, [you?] got out too quick, should've stayed longer." And Tarrant says, "There was time for the fuel." Quieter voice says something like "[should've?] burned that f***ing mosque to the ground." Tarrant says, "Uhf, s**t happens" and goes on to talk about the magazines again.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom