Filling the vacuum created by secrecy . . .

THIS presentation is the result of my inquiry into the "terrorist attacks" of March 15, 2019, in Christchurch, New Zealand. The page will be updated whenever new material comes to hand, or whenever old material is discounted. I will, however, retain most abandoned theories, as even misconceptions have something to tell us. As I said when I first addressed the issue of the "shootings", I am doing this because I do not trust the New Zealand Government to tell us the truth. The Government's prime aim is to control the narrative, and to silence dissent with threats of savage punishment (See Footnote). If it is now dismayed by all the speculation surrounding the Christchurch events, it has only itself to blame. Secrecy creates a vacuum that speculation will always fill. That's because human beings have an irrepressible desire — and, indeed, a duty — to search and understand. The original website was constructed in April 2019, and was last updated on October 31, 2025. The last capture by WaybackMachine, on June 15, 2025, is here.
 What's new: The layout of the page dedicated to Mohamed Jama has been updated, and another photograph of him standing, apparently uninjured, in Hagley Park, only minutes after the alleged attack, has been added.

The introductory paragraphs immediately below were written in November 2023, and replace the introduction of 2019. By 2022, this had been overtaken by events, and was no longer entirely relevant. I have, however, reposted it here, after retaining the link to the series of pictures of "shooting survivors" with indeterminate "injuries" to their left arms (see here). One of my readers, in a post on Twitter, has noted that I quote Greg Hallett, and has suggested that, in doing so, I have compromised my credibility. But my purpose is not to advance any particular opinion on any aspect of the Christchurch "shootings", but to record all dissenting opinions of interest. I also quote Max Igan, who is not always the most astute observer — as Peekay points out in this video at archive.org. Finally, I would like to reiterate that no conclusions are drawn on the question of whether or not anyone was killed on March 15, 2019, or during the days that led up to that date, since deaths and/or disappearances could have occurred in unknown circumstances. See Why I Now Believe the New Zealand Event Was a Complete Hoax With Zero Dead, by Kurt Haskell, for more information and analysis in this regard. — Basil Throckmorton. Email: nolies (at) chchtruth.com. Messages may be published on the "About" page.  

The past few years have been the most divisive in Western society since the Reformation of the 16th century, even as the banner of "inclusivity" has been hoisted higher and higher. Also noticeable, in this era of "identity politics", is the insidious erosion of middle ground, which has driven even the dispassionate observer to one extreme or the other.

"Fuck white supremacy," the above sign reads, priming the mind for the subsequent assertion (below) that "all white Australians" — and, by extension, "whites" throughout the world — should shoulder some of the blame for the massacre at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, on March 15, 2019.

But was there a massacre, or even a shooting, at Al Noor Mosque? Did anyone die, or suffer more than a scratch, in the event recorded by the GoPro camera of alleged shooter Brenton Tarrant?

The question is even more pertinent in the case of the Linwood Islamic Center event. In a video that has never been officially acknowledged, we see an amateurish simulation of the aftermath
of a terrorist attack. Crisis actors walk around, feign injuries, and wail theatrically, while others watch. It was made with a smartphone and uploaded to a porn site on March 14 — the night before Tarrant's alleged rampage. — Talking about "Rainbow Islam". . .   Check out this cool dude from post-Assad Syria.

Visitors to this website are invited to scroll down and examine the collection of photographs of allegedly wounded worshipers being transported to, or arriving at, the local hospital. There isn't a spot of blood on any of them. Likewise, "shooting victims" supposedly lying in hospital beds are not connected to monitoring equipment, and have no visible injuries. Most are shown smiling happily, surrounded by well-wishers. In one case — that of Mustafa Boztaş — a left arm that shows no sign of injury in hospital is bandaged at a subsequent commemorative event. Like several of the other "victims", he sits in a wheelchair with a blanket draped over his lap — to emphasize his invalid status.

Another prominent "victim", Adeeb Sami, said his experience on March 15 was "like being in a movie". He laughed so much, and so hysterically, one suspects his handlers had to tell him to shut up. At any rate, we don't hear from him these days. There is more about Adeeb Sami in the section below on Al Noor "shooting" anomalies, and on a dedicated page here. Other "survivors" with dedicated pages are Zulfirman Syah, Mohamed Jama, Taj Mohammad Kamran, Tarik Chenafa, Sheikh Hasan Rubel, and Temel Ataçocuğu. The faces of 49 of the 51 alleged fatalities are here, on the cover of the issue of Woman's Day for April 1, 2019. The BBC's list of alleged fatalities is here, and Newshub's list of alleged fatalities is here.

---

So what was the purpose of this subterfuge? The answer, this website suggests, is the same as it was at the time of the incident's precursors — the terrorist attacks of Operation Gladio between the 1950s and 1980s: To maintain a "strategy of tension" and to make people amenable to the loss of their civil liberties.See dedicated page.

Specifically, in the case of the Christchurch "attack", pretexts were needed for:

• The confiscation of semi-automatic weapons, i.e. the means of self-defense. This is the prime aim of the architects of the New World Order, which envisages total control of the population by a technocratic elite;

• The wholesale censorship of the social media (via the "Christchurch Call"). Unrestricted communication between citizens, which leads to the rise of viewpoints at odds with the official propaganda, is anathema to the elite.

The perpetrators of the Christchurch false-flag operation probably also hoped:

• To co-opt the Muslim community. In this regard, it's worth noting that Al Noor Mosque — now portrayed in the press as an oasis of peace and light — has a long history of Salafism (Islamic fundamentalism) and bitter infighting. See also The Massacre Mosque, A Hideout of Al-Qaeda Jihadists, translated from the Italian;

• To catapult the relatively unknown Jacinda Ardern on to the world stage as a new type of "empathetic" leader who espouses "kindness" and demonstratively embraces bereaved widows. Most observers expect her to end up in a sinecure at the UN, which is where her mentor, former prime minister Helen Clark, found her final perch.

The last objective was certainly achieved, though Ardern lost her luster at home after the imposition of lockdown and vaccine mandates during the draconian "Covid response" of 2020-22. During this period, 11,000 health care staff in "critical" health services were granted exemptions from the Covid "vaccine" that lesser mortals were coerced to take.

Don't ask for answers: Lips are sealed in the Garden City

Irecently bumped into an old acquaintance — a retired District Court judge.
"What are you doing these days?" he asked.
"Well, among other things, I'm investigating that mosque shooting hoax in Christchurch," I replied.
"Hoax?" he said, making a face of mock bewilderment that was presumably intended to throw me off balance.
"Yes, hoax," I said. "Just look at their testimonies . . ."
"I'm looking at testimonies all the time," he shot back. But then, before I had a chance to suggest he also look at the "live stream", he changed the subject.

That's about as far as any conversation about the Christchurch "shooting" goes. Any questioning of the official narrative elicits either an embarrassed silence or a spirited defense of it and a suggestion one speak to some of the "survivors" of the "shooting", or to doctors and nurses who treated them. (I have tried to contact knowledgeable people in Christchurch, without success.)

I'm convinced that, even if all the anomalies in the official narrative were publicly revealed, most people would still believe that, essentially, the narrative remained true — just as they still believe a man in a cave in the mountains of Afghanistan did 9/11.

• Another common riposte to any claim of a widespread cover-up is that "someone would have talked". But would they, after signing a non-disclosure agreement and being warned of the severe consequences of letting any secrets slip? In the case of the Christchurch crisis actors, these consequences could include loss of immigration status, imprisonment and deportation, ostracism by family and community, loss of job and livelihood, and loss of the many thousands of dollars that have flowed to the "victims" of the alleged shootings since March 15, 2019. They may have also been assured that the outpouring of sympathy that would inevitably follow the "unprecedented atrocity" would give a tremendous boost to status of Islam in New Zealand. And finally, they may have been told by their imam that their "taqiyya" (sinful act for a pious goal) would be acceptable in the eyes of the Almighty. This, if true, would represent a serious misreading of the tenets of Islam.

• Russ Winter addresses the contentious issue of why “thousands of people don’t come forward” with information after staged deceptions in this article from his news and analysis website, Winter Watch. Elsewhere on his website, Winter writes: "The reason staged deceptions are preferred — meaning not involving real deaths or a limited number of deaths — is primarily because real victims or their survivors go off the rails and can’t be controlled. Real false flags with real death gets very messy, whereas staged deceptions can be precisely directed and manipulated." See here.

News of Nov 1, 2023: Police release Al-Noor CCTV footage

If the police have this footage, and if it's genuine, they must also have footage of the "shooter" entering Al Noor — even if, as researchers maintain, the "live stream" was made in advance of March 15, 2019, and edited before being released. The screenshot shows paramedics being escorted into the mosque on March 15.

Meanwhile, the testimony of Aya Al-Umari, sister of "shooting victim" Hussein Al-Umari, has raised several questions. She claims — in the words of a NewsHub report from December 3, 2023 — she "fought", from "early on", to "see the CCTV of her brother's [heroic] actions inside Al Noor that day". One wonders how many CCTV systems the mosque had installed. Was there a camera in the prayer hall, in addition to the one above the entrance to the mosque? Was there also one in the hallway? Why was Aya so anxious to see this footage, when the "live stream" of the "gunman", which can be viewed on the internet, is purportedly an accurate representation of what happened in the mosque that day? And most crucial of all: If the CCTV footage provides more than a different perspective, and is in fundamental disagreement with the "live stream", how does one account for such a discrepancy? Click to read the article.

Official narrative flies in the face of core Islamic practice

While searching for anomalies in the official narrative of March 15, it's easy to overlook the violations of Islamic practice in the presentation of the drama. So let's put aside the issues of timelines, weapons, ballistics, etc., and examine the story from the perspective of the Sunnah:

1. The service — the main service of the week (Salat al-Jumu'ah) — starts when the imam says, "Dear brothers and sisters..." (According to Adeeb Sami, this is the moment he also hears the first shots being fired.)

2. Less than a minute before the service starts, two members of the congregation (Mohamed Jama and an unidentified woman) are observed loitering on the public footpath outside the mosque.

3. Between one and four members of the congregation are loitering in or near the entrance to the mosque. (See the evidence of the "live stream" and the pre-sentencing summary of "the facts" of the case by Justice Cameron Mander.)

This situation is almost inconceivable. By the time of such a service, all members of the congregation are either:

1. Sitting in rows on the floor of the prayer hall (musallā), having completed their ritual ablution (wudu) and short, personal "prayer of greeting the mosque" (Tahiyyat al-Masjid, which consists of two raka'at or cycles of prayer), or

2. Wasting no time in completing the above ablution and prayer, since no one wants to be left behind.

One simply does not find people hanging around outside the musallā, gossiping or greeting late arrivals with "Hello" or any other similar phrase in English, while the Salat al-Jumu'ah is already in progress. This is not permissible in Islam.

Note, too, that there appears to have been an unusually large number of late arrivals that day, including the two men in the Argyle Motel carpark who are fired at by the "gunman" while he is driving away from the mosque and the entire Bangladeshi cricket team. The cricketers were later described as being "traumatized" by the incident.

Farid Ahmed — the man in the wheelchair — must also be classified as a "late arrival" or non-attendee, as the "live stream" clearly shows he is not present in the musallā. (In a video from March 15, however, Farid claims he was in the mosque, but not in the prayer hall — where attendance is obligatory during Friday prayers. See the section on Farid on the Who did it? page.) This fact immediately raises two questions: (1) If his wife took or accompanied him to the masjid, why didn't she ensure he was safely inside the prayer hall — especially if, as we are told, she was present in the women's room when the "attack" began? (2) If she really did return to the masjid to look for her husband, after assisting the evacuation of women, why was her "body" found some distance down Deans Avenue? This body, dressed in pink, must be her body, as there were officially only two female casualties at Al Noor, and the other "body" has been formally identified as that of Indian student Ansi Alibava. And finally, why does Ansi Alibava's "body", when photographed a short time after the "attack", have only a tube or pipe protruding from the torso, in the place of her head and long black hair? And what is wrong with her right arm, which appears to be emaciated and at a torturous angle?

Left: The "body" of Husna Ahmed, which was found about 20 meters from the mosque compound's side gate. Right: The "body" of Ansi Alibava, which was found in the gutter at the entrance to the alley in which the "gunman" parked his car. Earlier, while the "gunman" was exiting the mosque for the second and last time, he "fired" at two women in black who were walking through the side gate and on to the public footpath. These are, presumably, the two women pictured above, as no other women are seen in the "live stream". One wonders, therefore, why one of them is now dressed in pink. Muslim convert Nathan Smith is seen "comforting" Ansi's "body", after apparently failing to notice it no longer has a head. Needless to say, he would not have been allowed to do this after a real crime, and the police standing around (but not fully visible in this picture) would have immediately cordoned off the area. The fake blood in the gutter is from a blood squib that discharged when the alleged gunman fired at "Ansi" as she pleaded (in a dubbed-in voice), "Help me! Help me!" — while she still had a head. Finally, it should be noted that when Ansi did have a head, she was not wearing hijab — a little odd for a woman who had, one assumes, just left the masjid. Finally, if the above "Ansi" is a dummy, where is the real Ansi?
Note: Ansi Alibava's case is revisited in greater depth below, in the third section on anomalies.

Click here for the remainder of the index page