Q3165
[They] thought it was coming last Friday.
Ammunition spent.
Q
Once they realized that they had been tricked, they tried to 'get the ammunition back'. That way, they could use it when the Mueller report really came out.
They wasted all of that emotional video material, all of those talking points from that huge manifesto... They could have cherry-picked from that manifesto for weeks, and never hit the same point twice. (Meanwhile burying the Mueller report.)
They didn't hit the manifesto too hard right after the shooting, because they were hoping to 'recover their ammunition'. But they can't use it now. You can't suddenly start talking about the manifesto more than a week after the shooting. For the ruse to work, the 'outrage' must be immediate.
The sheep have been programmed that way.
Q is brilliant.
view the rest of the comments →
17614706? ago
https://www.bestgore.com/murder/livestream-video-deadly-shooting-attack-mosque-christchurch-new-zealand/
Anyone that believes this video is fake watch from 10:40 onward. Youll see all of the things people are saying dont happen 1 shell casings on the floor 2 blood on floor 3 blood on people 4 bullet impacts 5 brain matter exploding from heads
Watch it and tell me how you dont see any of that
17615327? ago
I haven't watched and am not interested in watching the video of this event. From what I have read, there do seem to be some strange happenings surrounding it, so I think it would be safe to conclude that this is not a case of one crazy guy independently seeking to create mayhem.
But for all of the claims that this and other mass shootings were staged events, I just cannot believe that this is how business is done. If the attack was staged but people believe it was real or if the attack was actually real - the end result is the same: the massacre is used to further someone's agenda.
So which is easier to pull off? Getting actors to stage an attack (who just might spill the beans afterwards) or blowing 50 innocent people away? If killing innocent people is not an issue for you (and I don't believe it is an issue for the DS), then killing the people just seems like a much tidier way to go with.
No need to gain access to the mosque, No need to keep away people who are not in on the ruse don't accidentally wander onto the set. No need to worry about someone blabbing after the fact. Just activate your asset, let him mow down the innocents, and then spin the story to further your desired outcome.
Until someone can explain to me why staging a mass killing event is more efficient than actually committing a mass killing event, I can't buy the staged event claims.
17620038? ago
More can go wrong if it were real. i.e. Possibility of people having weapons and firing back, or simply attacking shooter from behind and grappling to ground. Or one of dozens of other unplanned eventualities.
17620651? ago
I don't live in New Zealand and have never been there, but I suspect that the chance of a person attending a mosque while armed with a gun would be quite low.
Even if something unexpected happens to disrupt the attack, that is less serious pulling off the attack only to have it later revealed that the whole thing was staged.
If the NZ attack was staged, how many people would have to be involved? Not only people from inside your organization, but people connected to the mosque who are not part of your organization as well. How do you control them? How do you keep everyone from talking?
Compare that to actually massacring innocent people: only your own people need to be involved. It's much smaller and easier to contain than the staged option.
Now the 'survivors' who get interviewed after the attack, I think that it is entirely possible that some/most/all of them could be actors controlling the narrative.
I just think it doesn't make much sense to stage the attack.