The 9/11 Deception and False Flag Terror - Terence Smart (best short novels of all time .TXT) 📗

Many of you may not be aware of the Port Arthur Massacre in Tasmania, Australia and many may not understand that what happened that day led to many questions being asked which remain unanswered to this day.

The Port Arthur massacre of 28–29 April 1996 was a mass shooting in which 35 people were killed and 23 wounded. It occurred mainly at the historic Port Arthur former prison colony, a popular tourist site in south-eastern Tasmania, Australia. It was the deadliest mass shooting in Australian history.

For thirty nine days 28-year-old Martin Bryant was in solitary confinement before his interrogation on the 4th July 1996. When he refused to plead guilty at the interrogation, he was returned to illegal solitary confinement for a further 120 days until, finally broken, he quietly answered "guilty" to seventy-two charges read to him in the Supreme Court and was given 35 life sentences without possibility of parole.

Following the shooting spree, the Prime Minister of Australia, John Howard, introduced strict gun control laws within Australia.

But yet again the story does not add up when you scrutinize it, there is too many anomalies which make me suggest that the intellectually impaired Martin Bryant cannot have been the killer and definitely did not have the shooting skill, speed and accuracy of a Special Forces soldier to carry out this deadly shooting.

The shooting started at the Seascape guest accommodation at about 11.45 were Bryant supposedly shot two people. He then moved on to Broad Arrow Cafe, Port Arthur were we are told he killed 12 people and wounded 10 in 15 seconds using 17 shots, not possible from an intellectually impaired registered invalid man with an IQ of 66 with no shooting skills. Then we are told he moved to the gift shop and killed 10 more and wounded 2 more in a further 60 seconds. 19 of the dead so far were accurate head shots. The killer scored 19 head shots with no missed shots, from the right hip, in 90 seconds! There are only about 20 shooters that good in the Western World. Bryant was actually left handed. The killer would have to of been an expert professional. He then supposedly shot 4 and injured 6 at the car park and killed 7 more at a Toll booth and carjacking.

“It is hard to kill quickly under such circumstances for a number of unpleasant practical reasons, including the fact that shot people tend to fall against other people, shielding the latter from subsequent bullets. Targets must therefore be shot in a careful sequence with split-second timing to maximize kill rates. Whoever was on the trigger in Tasmania managed a kill rate well above that required of a fully trained soldier, an impossible task for a man with Martin Bryant's mid-sixties IQ and his total lack of military training, which is an interesting but largely unimportant observation because we have already proved in absolute scientific terms that Martin Bryant was incapable of doing the job. Whoever was on the trigger that fateful day demonstrated professional skills equal to some of the best Special Forces shooters in the world. His critical error lay in killing too many people too quickly while injuring far too few, thereby exposing himself for what he was: a highly trained combat shooter probably ranked among the top twenty such specialists in the western world”, - Joe Vialls an investigative journalist.

As a comparison to the Port Arthur shooting if we look at student Kip Kinkel who murdered 2 people and wounded 25 at Thurston High School Café on May 21, 1998. Despite firing fifty one rounds, nearly twice as many as those fired in the Broad Arrow Cafe, Kinkel killed only two and wounded another twenty one. Of the two dead, only one was hit in the head.

So in the Broad Arrow Cafe the shooter scored an incredible inverted killed-to-injured ratio (KTIR) of 1.66 to 1, on a par with the best Special Forces counter-terrorist marksmen in the world. In the Thurston School Cafe, Kinkel scored a KTIR of 1 to 10, entirely in accord with random shootings worldwide.

The real witnesses all agree that the shooter was younger and not as tall as Bryant. He had longer hair which looked like a wig (made to look like Bryant who had long blond hair) and most importantly he had a pocked complexion suggesting acne scars which Bryant does not have. Besides there were other witnesses who had seen Martin in other places at the time of the Broad Arrow shootings.

With this in mind it was obvious to the authorities that Bryant could not be allowed identification by credible witnesses. These people, and others with similar stories, were not even put on the witness list, essential for a trial, and yet they were the only ones who had seen the killer up close. The only way out was to make up the ridiculous story of saving the victims further trauma by not having a trial at all denying Bryant his sovereign right to be heard and railroading him with just a hearing, thus having no need for witnesses or declarations.

Below are some findings by other authors and experts, including the police themselves, which upon reading may cause you some concern.

Some more questions that need to be asked:

1. Fake Meeting.

On the Sunday morning, two hours before the murders, ten of the senior managers of Port Arthur were taken to safety many miles away up the east coast, for a two day seminar with a vague agenda and no visiting speakers.

Was the timing of this trip a mere coincidence?

2. All Policeman removed.

Just before the shootings the only two policemen in the region were called away on a wild goose chase by an anonymous caller. They were sent to the Coal Mine at Salt Water River, to investigate a heroin drug stash which turned out to be soap powder. This was 30 minutes drive away from where the shooting started and the shooting started 4 minutes after the Police arrived at Salt Water River. This was too far for them to get to the Broad Arrow Cafe in time to be of any use. Had the policeman remained at Dunalley he would have closed the swing bridge to prevent the killer(s) from escaping from the peninsula.

Did Bryant, IQ 66, organize this decoy? I think not.

3. Big Mortuary Truck.

Before the massacre, a specially-built 22 person capacity mortuary truck was built. It just happened to be in Port Arthur at the time of the shooting and was used to take bodies away. What a coincidence?

After the massacre it was advertised, unsuccessfully, for sale via the internet, then converted for another purpose.

4. Martin Bryant has never been properly identified as the gunman.

A young woman who ate her lunch near the gunman just before 1.30 said he had a freckled face. Graham Collyer, the wounded ex-soldier, who had the best opportunity to observe the killer, said he had a pock-marked or acned face. Neither description fits Bryant who has a beautifully smooth complexion. Graham Collyer says that it was not Bryant who shot him in the neck.

5. Illegal Photo.

On 30th April the Hobart Mercury printed an old photo of Martin Bryant on the front page. This was illegal because at that stage some of the witnesses had not yet been asked to identify the killer, and the photo would have become fixed in the minds of the witnesses. When one witness was asked to describe the clothing worn by the gunman, she described the clothing on the old photo instead of what the gunman had worn. The Mercury newspaper was not prosecuted for breaking the law.

6. Why did it take 6 hours for the Police to arrive?

Mrs Wendy Scurr, nurse, tour guide and Ambulance Officer, rang the police at 1.32 pm to report the shooting. She and other medics then cared for the injured and the dead without any police protection for six and a half hours. Who ordered the armed police to stop at Tarana where they had a barbecue? Even the police who arrived by boats and were a stone’s throw away from the main crime scene in the cafe, also failed to come in to see what was going on. Wendy Scurr was not required to give evidence at the trial of Martin Bryant, Why?

7. Three more shots were fired at Port Arthur at 6.30 while Bryant was at Seascape. Who fired those shots?

8. No Evidence linking Bryant. At a Forensics Seminar in Queensland where Tasmanian Police forensic gun inspector, Gerard Dutton, gave a lecture, the first question came from Mr. Ian McNiven. He asked if there was any empirical evidence to link Martin Bryant to the Broad Arrow Cafe. Dutton immediately closed the 15 minute question time and would not reply. When McNiven managed to say “I have here Graham Collyer’s police statement”, Sgt Dutton threatened him with arrest and called for security agents to escort McNiven out of the building. When Dutton was asked the same question in America by a Doctor at a seminar, he replied truthfully – “There is no empirical evidence to link Bryant to the cafe”.

9. DNA Examples Ignored.

A police video tape exists which proves that the police had an excellent opportunity to get DNA samples and finger prints of the gunman. The video briefly shows the blue sports bag on a cafe table. The gunman had carried his 3 rifles in this bag and left it right next to his drinking glass, his Solo soft drink can, knife, fork, plate, etc. Why did the police fail to take DNA samples and finger prints? Probably because the fingerprints would not have been Bryant’s.

11. Proof of other gunmen in Seascape Cottage.

While Bryant was calmly talking to police by telephone in the cottage during the ‘siege’ and the conversation was recorded, someone else fired an SKK rifle 20 times. In the transcript the gunfire is recorded as ‘coughs’ but an electronic analysis of one of the ‘coughs’ shows that it was an SKK shot.

12. Two Very Handy Seminars.

On the Sunday morning, some 25 specialist doctors (Royal Australian College of Surgeons) from all over Australia had attended a training course in Hobart, and their last lecture was on Terrorist Attack and Gunshot Wounds. They stayed on to take care of the wounded victims. Also, more than 700 reporters from 17 nations came to a seminar in Hobart. They were asked to arrive during the week-end as the seminar was due to begin early on Monday morning. How handy to have 700 reporters on the spot, churning out their anti-gun and disarmament propaganda to the whole world!

14. Prophecy or Planning?

“There will never be uniform Gun Laws in Australia until we see a massacre somewhere in Tasmania”, said Barry Unsworth, NSW Premier, December 1987 at a conference in Hobart.

15. They want rid of our guns

“If we don’t get it right this time (gun laws) next time there is a massacre, and there will be, then they’ll take all our guns off us”, said the deputy prime minister, Tim Fischer in May 1996. Who is the “THEY” who would order the removal of our guns? Did Fischer let slip that gun confiscation has been ordered by someone other than the Australian Government?

16. American tourists targeted

It is evident that the massacre was planned to happen on the ferry which sailed to the Isle of the Dead every day. The victims were to be eighty elderly American tourists who had come in two coaches. But the plan went awry because the sailing time of the ferry had changed from 1.30 to 2.00 pm.

17. Gun Laws brought in quickly

The Howard government confiscated all guns held by Australians just 2 weeks after the shooting. Moreover, the legislation was debated in Parliament within days of the massacre despite the fact that such legislation takes many weeks and probably months to prepare. (Shades of the Patriot Act being brought into congress five days after 911!)

Terry Hill was the manager at the "Guns and Ammo" store in New Town, Tasmania and he sold Martin Bryant three boxes of Winchester double-x magnum shotgun shells four days before the shooting. But at no time before or since did Terry Hill sell Martin any weapons, or ammunition of .223 Remington or .308 Winchester calibers, as used in the mass murder on 28 April 1996. The Australian authorities tried to force Mr. Hill to own up to selling Bryant the weapons and ammo used in the shooting which were a Colt AR15 Assault Rifle and a Belgian FN FAL. Even in a Police interview with his lawyer Hill maintained he had not at any time sold weapons or rifle ammunition that was used in the shootings to Martin Bryant. Hill was told if he did not admit to selling weapons to Martin Bryant, the police would try to find sufficient evidence to charge you with some offences. Terry Hill's gun dealer's