PREFACE to REPORT: The video was a "drill film" not meant for release (see Note 1 below). In 2003, German historian Wolfgang Eggert sounded the alarm about the Cabalist doomsday cult whose thinking now pervades the Trump Whitehouse. Today he says it is vital that the Christchurch massacre fraud be exposed.

He says: "The Christchurch „massacre" is our chance to destroy the power of mainstream media narratives. Although in most cases I usually reject the classification of terror attacks as hoaxes, this one seems to be such a false flag non-incident. And it threatens all of us truthers. The looming threat for us to be muzzled by increasingly rigid internet legislation is now spread by the mainstream media on a daily basis since 15th March.

We have to fight this shutdown. We do that best by eventually (!) once (!) clarifying/solving one - THIS "terror" case completely."

The "Forbidden" Christchurch Video - 22 Discrepancies
by Wolfgang Eggert
transl. by Laura Kölsch
(henrymakow.com)
March 31, 2019

[snip]

CONCLUSION

The fact is that those who point out the possibility of a faked attack have a number of points in their favor:

• 52 shots from a 30-shot magazine
• Self-dissolving cartridge
• Missing ammunition effects on walls and car windows
• A barefoot victim with socks

All these are real killer arguments against the credibility of the video and thus against the official narrative.

Furthermore, there is clear evidence that the video was "produced" and processed in two rounds, and this before the crime. The first round is a pure video recording of only the car drive and the mosque. In the second round, the hoax-community says, the shocking action scenes were subsequently layered on top of the plain drive-location video, partly with the help of blue box / green screen effects and Photoshop, possibly even with the use of dolls and so-called crisis actors, the latter typical for training scenarios.

The question is: who then was the political director? The mosques operators and the New Zealand government, together with the subordinate investigating police would be the first to suspect because they 'behaved' according to the - supposedly fictional - narrative. But the reason for them to make such a dubious evidence video remains puzzling. It may have been a pure training movie, designed for internal drill use, on this day. But New Zealand may have pursued further external intentions with the film.

Anyway, there is the suspicion that this very product was seized by third parties and modified in a way that literally produced their own movie and put New Zealand's government under pressure. We probably will never know the whole truth.

---

Note from Eggert 1 -To understand what might have happened you have to know more about the triangle new zealand-muslims-israel. NZ has been in close cooperation with the Muslim cause in regards to the near east, may it be on the topic of Gaza, Jerusalem or even the boycott&sanctions-movement bds. israel was close to a diplomatic war with nzl on this. too you have to know, that the al-noor-mosque was used for hot-bedding Islamist terrorists and the so-called 5eyes-intel-nations (nzl is part of) were into that, as they were behind/in the knight templar order "tarrant" and "breivik" were "visiting". there was a good possibility to blackmail the nzl government on both of these points.

there are a lot of clues implicating that "Tarrants terror movie" was badly made. Why then was it produced AT ALL? there is a solution: it was a "drill film" - it was only meant to be seen and being analyzed by the agents of the drill-team training on the 15th of march, for a virtual terror incident against 2 mosques in Christchurch. Israeli intel should have learned what was being prepared and decided to saddle up this virtual action, as they did it during the 9/11, 7/7, Oslo-utoya, berlin-Christmas-market-drills, in this special case using it to balance accounts with some Islamists. by doing so they had both mosques by the balls.

were these victims confidential informants of the nzl intel community, then Mossad had THEM over the barrel as well. and they achieved it through additional points, which all relate to our drill movie: 1. in the eyes of uninformed viewers this film - being unveiled as a kiwiproduction- indicates, that nzl´s security authorities were "planning" a terror incident against the Muslim community. 2. the original film highly probably shows a member of the nzl-drill-team. 3. by setting brenton terrants face over the face of this agent, the 5eyes community was smeared again, because the attacked nation(s) knew then, that the film producers knew about a (their!) ongoing operation within the Islamist community - which could be disclosed whenever Israel wants it being disclosed.

the most problematic point in the whole story is one of its results: it is the propaganda, being set up by the mainstream media now, that it is not legitimate any more to question the official narrative when a false flag or hoax happens. (exactly in this point, in my eyes,it is not a sheer coincidence, how jake morphinios is being exploited in these days). the solution, being presented upon us, is: we have to establish censorship against the unconformist faction, may it be prison, may it be new algorithms. this "crazy opposition" must be eliminated now and forever. this implicates, that there some real big hoax incident to come.

Note from Eggert 2- Guide to Investigation

Please send these search instructions to friends, readers, followers, ex-Muslims etc. (ideally in NZ) to move things forward and find people to investigate in Christchurch. In view of the increasing persecutions (possession and distribution ban regarding the Christchurch shooting video), the volunteers are well advised to obtain press accreditations from alternative media.

Groups worth investigating

1.Problematic because potentially ‚part of the game':

⦁ Members of forces conducting the exercise
⦁ Members of conventional police forces
⦁ Members of emergency medical care
⦁ Hospital staff

2.Partly problematic because potentially (already) included:

⦁ Residents with views on the mosques

⦁ Muslims (Questions, e.g.: does the time of crime match the Friday prayer time window? Were the mosques on 15th March accessible for usual worshippers traffic? Did family, friends or the like visit the mosques on the day/time of the crime? Who knows the victims portrayed in the media? https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2019/03/16/13/11074574-6816117-image-a-21_1552743767140.jpg)

3. Unproblematic

⦁ Investigations in nearby shops, offices

⦁ Identify and locate people who were near the ‚crime scene' on 15th March (e.g. by publishing still images of people /cars taken from the shooting video, combined with interview requests/search queries)

Facts, unproblematic to check

⦁ Were the streets shown in the shooting video accessible to the public on 15th March? Did they appear as in the video or were circumstances/objects noticed which contradict the video's narrative (e.g. construction sites, traffic signs, billboards)?

⦁ Technical forensics: The suspected greenscreen shooting video should be reviewed in depth. Possible starting points are the audio track, the camera move on the suspects face, the disappearing cartridge cases, the gunshots on the car's windscreen, noticeable cuts.