Sydney Siege lies told

a reply to: hellobruce

Yeah, how weird that someone would come to a CONSPIRACY forum and share observations of something not adding up. The nerve!

originally posted by: lavenlaar
Valid points Mortex. I wondered about the cop coming out too... they 'escaped' but was seen strolling out as you say.
I know the Opera House was in lockdown for around 2-3hours. A large building that had a bomb threat. You would like to think it would be closed for days until all searched including the multi multi multi level carpark below it.

Im just hoping nothing will come of it, but around 1 million people will be around Circular Quay > Mrs Macquarie's Chair on NYE for the fireworks. I was going in with my kids, but i think i'll stay on the north side instead.

Not necessarily closed for days. Depends how many people/teams they have that go through and do a sweep, and how confident they are that there's no threat. A team of half a dozen bomb detector dogs can sweep a 40-50,000 seat stadium in 4-5 hours.
I'm no expert and I don't know the exact letter for letter way they'd do it, but in my line of work I know enough.

2-3 hours seems rather short though. Depends what the threat was. On the news that I was watching they didn't say why, just that it and the bridge was in lock down. I'd assume it was a bomb threat..but given what was unfolding in Martin Place they could have been worried that there may have been a wider threat and similar events were possible. The bridge and Opera house are the two most iconic images of Sydney and Australia. So it might be that in all the planning they've done for responding to a terrorist incident, shutting down iconic sites is part of the procedures they will follow.

I think the Carols in the Domain and NYE events will be fine. They had already planned a massive police operation for the NYE events particularly, that's now going to be increased significantly.
Security nationwide was increased in more places then you'd imagine and places you wouldn't expect or even think of since the terror alert level was raised, and from what I've heard security is being reviewed by a lot of places again, and they've already said in Sydney lots of places have increased security.

The way I look at it is like this..We've had major sporting and other events go on without an incident. Why? Because they are too high profile and there's too much security, especially now and even more so as a result of what's happened.

What happened may or may not have been planned(I don't know I haven't been watching the news since or reading the papers). But it happened in an ordinary place, where people were going about their daily lives as they normally would Monday to Friday all year round.
And that's the scary thing right there. You don't have to be a NYE fireworks display or the AFL Grand Final(there was a plot a few years back to attack the MCG during the finals), to be caught up in a terrorist attack.
You could simply be going out for lunch or breakfast or to grab a coffee and meet up with some friends. And bam, you're smack bang in the middle of it.
It's like the threat/plot to snatch a random Aussie in the street and behead them and upload the video online.
Seemingly random places and attacks.

originally posted by: raedar
a reply to: hellobruce

Yeah, how weird that someone would come to a CONSPIRACY forum and share observations of something not adding up. The nerve!

Hahaha, I know right.
I was only pointing out the oddities, and I even said I don't know since this is basically the first such incident of it's type in Australia so we aren't used to this sort of stuff, so maybe it's the norm.

But I guess some people, or fake profiles, think we should basically just sit down keep quiet and accept whatever rubbish is filtered our way through the idiot box in our lounge room.

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: Hecate666
I thought that with breaking news you shouldn't really put too much weight on initial news as most reporters or news outlets are just speculating [thinking aloud] until they get more evidence?
I am sure they often get it it wrong without being part of a conspiracy.

why would we want to do that? everybody knows that the very first report that comes out on Twitter 60 seconds after something kicks off is 100% accurate and factual.

total sarcasm there. but it's a recurring theme here: seize on inconsistencies in reporting in the first hours of a crisis (and yes I know this is on day two, but lets be honest: the investigation is in it's infancy and people are still recovering from the shock of what they saw and heard) as some sort of "proof" that there's something shady going on. doesn't seem to matter what the scenario is, we're going to jump on a difference between a statement made in hour 20 and a statement made two weeks after the fact as "evidence."

So in a perfect world the public should not rely on media, but instead just wait for the "official report"

Are we heading towards a Sandy Hook style media model where FAQ sheets are handed to reporters with instructions not to ask any questions? Because hey! That would weed out any of the confusion with initial reports. But as a side effect it would give state complete control over information. It's different than the Nazis though because the public demands it this time after being duped and misinformed by the media too many times.

Is this operation 'now we have you bent over a barrell' or something along those lines?

In a perfect world people should understand that initial reports are often not 100% accurate and factual. That initial reports from two sources who are three blocks apart can vary wildly because they can only see what's in front of them. That reports during a fluid situation in its early stages are likely to not be 100% accurate. That people are people and color their comments with their own viewpoint, because people are not perfect. That people, the media specifically, will report rumors and speculation because they'd rather be first and wrong than last and right.

Did I say sit around and wait for the official report? Nope, sure didn't. Early reports help paint an overall picture. But a reporter live-tweeting from a crisis is putting out what they can see in front of them, what they're "hearing reports of" from others. So if you and I are walking by a reporter and I say the word "bomb," it is entirely possible and plausible for that reporter to state they've heard reports of bombs.

There's a difference between things not adding up and somebody sucking at math.

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: Hecate666
I thought that with breaking news you shouldn't really put too much weight on initial news as most reporters or news outlets are just speculating [thinking aloud] until they get more evidence?
I am sure they often get it it wrong without being part of a conspiracy.

why would we want to do that? everybody knows that the very first report that comes out on Twitter 60 seconds after something kicks off is 100% accurate and factual.

total sarcasm there. but it's a recurring theme here: seize on inconsistencies in reporting in the first hours of a crisis (and yes I know this is on day two, but lets be honest: the investigation is in it's infancy and people are still recovering from the shock of what they saw and heard) as some sort of "proof" that there's something shady going on. doesn't seem to matter what the scenario is, we're going to jump on a difference between a statement made in hour 20 and a statement made two weeks after the fact as "evidence."

So in a perfect world the public should not rely on media, but instead just wait for the "official report"

Are we heading towards a Sandy Hook style media model where FAQ sheets are handed to reporters with instructions not to ask any questions? Because hey! That would weed out any of the confusion with initial reports. But as a side effect it would give state complete control over information. It's different than the Nazis though because the public demands it this time after being duped and misinformed by the media too many times.

Is this operation 'now we have you bent over a barrell' or something along those lines?

In a perfect world people should understand that initial reports are often not 100% accurate and factual. That initial reports from two sources who are three blocks apart can vary wildly because they can only see what's in front of them. That reports during a fluid situation in its early stages are likely to not be 100% accurate. That people are people and color their comments with their own viewpoint, because people are not perfect. That people, the media specifically, will report rumors and speculation because they'd rather be first and wrong than last and right.

Did I say sit around and wait for the official report? Nope, sure didn't. Early reports help paint an overall picture. But a reporter live-tweeting from a crisis is putting out what they can see in front of them, what they're "hearing reports of" from others. So if you and I are walking by a reporter and I say the word "bomb," it is entirely possible and plausible for that reporter to state they've heard reports of bombs.

There's a difference between things not adding up and somebody sucking at math.

In this globalized day and age they'd be under pressure to come up with exclusives before others, so I'm sure they'd be overlooking the usual investigative aspect of journalism and reporting, and simply looking to report and 'sex up' what they hear and see.
Ratings is everything these days. Higher ratings, more sponsors, more money, more profit.
Nobody is really going to care if they get it wrong at the start, people will be glued to the TV or radio for the immediate time frame during and after the event trying to find out what's been happening. So they'll have plenty of time to correct any mistakes or over 'sexing up' of the facts.

The media are distorting how the situation unfolded, but imo its to cover the stupidity of one of the hostages.

There telling us that a shoot went off then 5 hostages came running out, followed by another hostage from the door where the police were lined up. But I was watching it live on sky news and that's not what happened.

What actually happened was, that one guy just came running out of the building from the door where the police where lined up, 'then' a shot goes off (remember the gunman had warned he would kill hostages, if anymore tried to escape). Then after that 5 people came running out of the other door and then the police went in firing.

So basically imo, it was that one hostage being incredibly selfish trying to escape that got those 2 hostages killed and the police actually did an incredibly good job ensuring no one else was killed.

Another very important factor there not telling us is what kind of shootgun he had. Since if it was a pump action, it means it was illegally obtained. But if it wasn't a pump action, then it means he probably legally obtained it (since its been revealed he either had, or used to have a gun licence) and the NSW police have stuffed up by not ensuring it was confiscated. Considering he was on bail for some very serious charges.

CNN are also using propaganda to make our extremely effective gun laws look flawed, by claiming all shotguns are illegal, which simply isn't true.

Also, it's been revealed that the gunman had been recently posting on twitter, pledging his support to ISIL, I mean Jesus Christ! Are they just to busy monitoring teenagers posting on twitter about smoking a little something or what? How could they let a person of his character posting pro ISIL comments just slip though the cracks?

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

NBC news is reporting that your PM has ordering a "sweeping review" to find out why this guy was out on bail and how he was able to "obtain a shotgun despite tough gun laws." That's an article quote not a PM quote.

That makes me think either a) it was an illegal shotgun model or b) he obtained it recently, and shouldn't have been able to get it anyway, or both.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Yeah, that's what I mean. The fact there keeping such a tight lid on the type of shotgun it was, gives me the impression it was legally obtained.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

This article should answer your question:

AFP admits misinforming PM over siege gunman firearms licence
abc.net.au...

a reply to: Subaeruginosa


It's actually been confirmed that he DID NOT have a gun license. The Federal police have take responsibility for misinforming the PM.

It doesn't matter where he got the gun. What matters is what he used it for.

Someone like him with such a criminal history would not be given a gun license.
If he had one before it would have been canceled and any firearms he had legally would have been confiscated as a result of convictions for violent crimes or even charges.

Getting a gun legally in Australia is not easy or quick.
You aren't going to go through all the headaches and delays to get get a gun to commit a crime. Not when you can easily get many types of guns illegally everything from assault rifles to pistols. Even rocket launchers can be found. All It takes is money.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
a reply to: Shamrock6

Yeah, that's what I mean. The fact there keeping such a tight lid on the type of shotgun it was, gives me the impression it was legally obtained.

Or maybe there's more important facts that need addressing in the immediate aftermath.

originally posted by: mortex
a reply to: Subaeruginosa
It doesn't matter where he got the gun. What matters is what he used it for.

I completely disagree.

As far as I know and as far as customs have claimed, there are only two (significant) sources of illegal weapons in this country. The first is from stealing weapons from citizens that have legally obtained them. The second, is from army stockpiles.

Now as far as I know citizens are not legally allowed to own pump action shotguns. So if the weapon used was a pump action shotgun, then (to me, at least) it is very important to find out if the source was from the army and to then establish exactly who stole this weapon and released it to the public.

Fact is, customs have claimed with great confidence that guns are not being illegally imported into this country in any significant numbers. So if this weapon is found to have been illegally imported into this country, then I for one want them to be publicly held accountable.

The public deserves to know what type of weapon this was and where it came from, so we can then establish who's not doing there job properly and hold them accountable!!!

a reply to: weirdguy
He was doing both,

They were in there for what.. 16 hours or something?
I don't believe this man had a bomb, I'm guessing in his rucksack he had a tripod, camera, food, phones and some kind of amphetamine.

During the time they were inside, he was having them stand in front of a fanatical flag and make statements to a camera.


Each person stood up in front of the camera/tripod, said a statement and sat down. This would have required a lot of walking back and forth across the room.

He had multiple people on their phones posting updates to social media. Posting prepared statements making demands etc etc all the while he was dialing the radio stations and making the hostages talk. quite clever!


As for the few that escaped early, I'm guessing he was busy setting all this stuff up and unpacking his bag with his back turned - they saw the open door and ran for it!

He was pissed, but he knew if he started shooting in anger they'd storm the place. So he just got nastier, saying nastier things, pointing the gun at them a little more feverishly while still demanding they stand up, say their statements and keep posting.

the Cops watched and stayed vigilant, but didn't act as it was pretty stable inside. By this time they knew who he was, they knew where he was in the hours before the event and they knew every single thing he'd posted online. He wasn't an Islamic bomber, he was a nutcase with a gun who thought he wanted to be an Islamic bomber. the cafe is on the ground floor and its on a corner, its a survelience dream for the feds. So many windows and access from above!

This is the best RAW video I can find of what happened here.




(1) @00:02 it was silent, then a single shot ran out, it startles the police and they walk forward.
(2) @00:04 people made a run for it - I'm guessing the gun men was wrestling someone in the back room they heard the commotion took off and the shot rang out as they made their first few steps.

15 minutes pass, then police close in on both walls.

(3) The police sneak up the wall, then you hear another few shots go off, semi-automatic maybe?
to me it doesn't look like the 2 coppers have a fired a shot yet, the sound and the light reflection doesn't look strong enough for their weapons, they disappear into the building

(4) @00:32 something smashes out the windows on the opposite corner, you can see cement of glass smash out.
@00:35 you hear the cops that went in the back door start shooting their automatics
(5) @00:53 you see a soldier fall over

@00:59 the response dude comes out and does a hand signal, does anyone know what this was? There was still shooting going on, I’m guessing that the fanatical Iranian was dead within the first few bullets at the back, but in the chaos of the team moving in from the north wall didn't realize and kept shooting, kept throwing flash bangs.

Here’s the footage of the team moving in from the north


adding the first footage in you get an idea of how they went in.



(1) @00:03 you see the curl around the wall and start shooting through the door and enter
(2) @00:29 you see the silhouette of a soldier - who is inside the cafe - facing towards the west



(3) @00:31 you see the angel the police are throwing the flash bangs, they’re throwing it into the furthest corner along the outer wall to the west.

(4) @00:34 a hostage runs out the back

I'm guessing, the nutjob was hiding in the corner behind a large table the first cop that went in @00:06 got shot with the shotgun grazing his face @00:10, as soon as the soldiers behind him saw where he was, they opened up!

Over in a few seconds...

He probably panicked, he'd just killed a man most of his hostages had left.. he saw the helmets poke around the corner so he shot.

What have we heard about him?
He fled Iran - and Iran asked to have him back to be prosecuted.
He wasn't really a sheikh and he was considered a bit of an outsider by the local Muslim community.
He was on bail for being an accessory to manslaughter, or something of the sort?

He was nothing close to a Muslim terrorists. I mean for crying out loud he was asking for an ISIS FLAG!

He wanted to make a name for himself but all he did was ruin lives.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: mortex
a reply to: Subaeruginosa
It doesn't matter where he got the gun. What matters is what he used it for.

I completely disagree.

As far as I know and as far as customs have claimed, there are only two (significant) sources of illegal weapons in this country. The first is from stealing weapons from citizens that have legally obtained them. The second, is from army stockpiles.

Now as far as I know citizens are not legally allowed to own pump action shotguns. So if the weapon used was a pump action shotgun, then (to me, at least) it is very important to find out if the source was from the army and to then establish exactly who stole this weapon and released it to the public.

Fact is, customs have claimed with great confidence that guns are not being illegally imported into this country in any significant numbers. So if this weapon is found to have been illegally imported into this country, then I for one want them to be publicly held accountable.

The public deserves to know what type of weapon this was and where it came from, so we can then establish who's not doing there job properly and hold them accountable!!!

If those were the only two sources of illegal guns in Australia there wouldn't be millions of illegal guns out there.

Here's two more sources of illegal guns, and one of these sources is also the source of many other things that are illegal in Australia.

First, there's many people out there in the community, or perhaps in the outback and rural areas, who are capable of making firearms. There's even more people who are able to make ammunition, but that's another story and it's not entirely illegal anyway.
Some of these people who have been caught making guns, were making submachine guns. Now keep in mind these are the people caught because the police have been tipped off and gotten intelligence. Where there's smoke..

You see, not everyone agrees with the gun control measures. Because not all of us are criminals. Not everyone who wants to own a gun or owns a gun is a criminal or potential criminal, and shouldn't be treated as such.
Do you think these people who are secretly making guns, were doing that before the gun control laws came in after Port Arthur? 99% weren't, guarantee it.

Second, there's many ports around Australia, small ports outside of the major cities. That's all I'll say about that, but use your imagination.

Here's a sort of clue..fireworks are illegal in Australia. How is it that kids and bogans in every state and territory have access to them?


It's not illegal to own a pump action shotgun in Australia. You just need to have a valid reason for it. Here;

Category C: Self loading rimfire rifles holding 10 or fewer rounds and pump-action or self loading shotguns holding 5 or fewer rounds. Category C firearms are strongly restricted: only primary producers, occupational shooters, collectors and some clay target shooters can own functional Category C firearms.


All that these gun laws did, was make it of a headache and more costly for legitimate law abiding citizens to get a gun license and a gun.
These laws have done nothing, not a damn thing, to get guns out of the hands of criminals. And they never were designed to prevent criminals from getting guns. Because a criminal wont apply for a gun license(which you do at a police station), and wont buy a gun from a gun store(it gets registered before you take possession and there's like a month long wait before you can go back and take it home).
They'll go to the nearest criminal they know who can source a gun for them and buy it or swap something for it.

And anyone who thinks gun laws will reduce crime is delusional.

Since stricter gun laws were introduced we had the Melbourne gang land war, and an explosion in gun violence across Sydney, that has even spread to other cities.
Australia has become a more violent and dangerous society since 1996.
What exactly have gun control laws done? Besides create another revenue stream for governments by hitting law abiding citizens up even more.

That's the sad joke in all this. And people are still too dumb, naive and ignorant to see the cold hard facts in front of their face.
Nobody is trying to cover it up, nobody is trying to deny it or spread another truth. Governments don't even bother because they know just how apathetic and lame the Australian public are when it comes to their rights.

The fact that this debate has even shifted focus to how he got a gun, is pretty sad and pathetic.

What the focus should be is WHY he did what he did.
The police should obviously investigate and trace where he got the gun.
But the national focus should be on why this man did what he did, what could be done to prevent something like this happening again, and what the present dangers are to us all.

This isn't a gun control related topic. But sadly tools like Tony Abbott have turned it into one with ill informed comments.
Do you think the AFP actually made an honest mistake by misinforming the PM on whether the guy had a gun license or not?
Of course they didn't. It's just a load of BS sold to you and I. The point was to shift the focus to gun control, because they want to introduce tougher laws. Not just about guns either mind you.

It's amazing how he became PM. What were the Australian public thinking voting a tool like him in?
Then again, at the next election unless Labor changes leaders again, what's our choice? Abbott or Shorten?
Both are as bad as each other, but I reckon Shorten will be the worse choice. Abbott, as bad a he is, is the lesser of two evils at the moment.

a reply to: mortex

If those were the only two sources of illegal guns in Australia there wouldn't be millions of illegal guns out there.

Well authorities have estimated there's under half a million illegal guns circulating, not saying that makes it fact. But claiming there's millions is just a blind guess.

Also, if there are guns being imported or made in any significant number then customs and the AFP are not doing there jobs properly and have been lying to the public and need to be held accountable.

And anyone who thinks gun laws will reduce crime is delusional.

Anyone who claims banning automatic weapons hasn't been incredibly effective in stopping mass shootings is delusional or just purposely ignoring the clear facts for a political motive.

Since stricter gun laws were introduced we had the Melbourne gang land war, and an explosion in gun violence across Sydney, that has even spread to other cities.

No one ever tried to claim our gun laws have completely stopped organized criminals and there associates from obtaining weapons. But I can guarantee you it's seriously restricted the type of weapons available to them. For the most part, Automatic weapons are far to expensive for your average want to be crim to even bother with when obtaining a weapon to commit a crime, unless they want it for novelty purposes. Besides, organized criminals (and associates) tend to use them on each other and don't usually go around just randomly shooting innocent bystanders.

The strict gun laws where enacted for the purpose of stopping socially isolated & mentally ill individuals from obtaining automatic weapons and then using them to randomly shoot innocent citizens. In other words, the type of people that are far more likely to get ripped off if they went waving large amounts of money in front of the type of people you would usually need to see to buy an illegal weapon.

That's the sad joke in all this. And people are still too dumb, naive and ignorant to see the cold hard facts in front of their face.
Nobody is trying to cover it up, nobody is trying to deny it or spread another truth. Governments don't even bother because they know just how apathetic and lame the Australian public are when it comes to their rights.

You know what I find a sad joke? When I'm camping out bush and I'm woken in the middle of the night by some (probably drunk) dumb, naive and ignorant fool who's just randomly firing off rounds in my direction like a psychopath, without giving the slightest thought to the fact that there could be somebody camping out there. People are stupid irresponsible fools, imo! If it was up to me I would have all weapons that a capable of firing more than 2 rounds without reloading made highly illegal.

The fact that this debate has even shifted focus to how he got a gun, is pretty sad and pathetic.

Yet, you've gone to all that trouble to write out that long post, totally manipulating the facts to support your little pro gun argument, how ironic.

What the focus should be is WHY he did what he did.

We already know why he did what he did. He was mentally ill, was about to be sent to jail and had access to a gun! So I think that how he got the gun and why he was on bail in the first place is a very relevant & significant conversation to be having.

This isn't a gun control related topic. But sadly tools like Tony Abbott have turned it into one with ill informed comments.
Do you think the AFP actually made an honest mistake by misinforming the PM on whether the guy had a gun license or not?

It's actually the first time in the history of his political career that I have ever totally agreed with Abbott. Also, I think the AFP's only mistake was allowing that information to be revealed to the public, screwing over there little NSW police mates.

The NSW police are the most corrupt police force in Australia, nothing but a bunch of common thugs & criminals. I am positive there has been some serious incompetence on there part in this and they need to be held accountable.