The answer dear spastic or possible hasnara rat kike is thus:
So that no Western media can expose the brainwashed masses to the French's legitimate anti-jew message
Let me put this simpler to you
jews want to hide news of their evil ritual bloodlusting slaughter
jews also want to hide news of mass public protests against their jewish power
What contradicts the other you fuckling retarded hasbara kike?
11:59 The "girl" that has been shot makes a robotic movement into the street. This is some kind of mechanical dummy. Note, we hear "Help me" in a Muslim voice. Come on now. This audio has been dubbed in. Note the placement of the girl/mechanical dummy in front of the red car parked across the street where Tarrant parked his card using the same marker. Note we never see the girl's/mechanical dummy's face. Three suv's two white that appear to be the same and one black, run interference on the street to block traffic even though no cars are stopped in front of them. The two white suv's make it difficult to match up this scene for video fakery if multiple takes were needed as there would be two of the same reference points (white suv).
12:07 Tarrant approaches and shoots the girl/mechanical dummy in the upper torso. However, the blood squib malfunctions this time! Instead of exploding like it did with the blue shirted man at 11:19, the squib not only doesn't explode but it moves to where it is clearly visible at the girl's right elbow (red square). BIG OOPS! Next, Tarrant shoots the girl/mechanical dummy in the head. The expected result is blood splatter from the head like we saw from the blue shirted man at 11:19. This time, however, the blood squib does detonate but detonates in the wrong location under the girl/mechanical dummy. Note that there was also some kind of device used to fling a piece of hair off of the mechanical dummy. I was originally fooled by this scene until I watched it several times.
The fact that this event is a hoax doesn't change much at all from it being a false flag. I understand that many will find this harder to believe but I just look at what the available evidence is. Frankly, I'm surprised I missed some of these things initially. Anyway, it all makes perfect sense now. It's obvious why the New Zealand government doesn't want this video in the public domain because it doesn't add up to careful scrutiny.
One other thing I wanted to add is the little detail about this playing "live" on Facebook. This is a little trick the producers use so that most can't comprehend that it could be a prerecorded performance. How could they edit the video if it was prerecorded? Well, this is the exact trick that was used in the Charlottesville event that I conclusively proved was a hoax. "Eyewitness" Marissa Blair recorded the Charlottesville event live on a Facebook live stream. The only problem is that I conclusively proved her video to be a prerecorded fake. Thus, like the colors/marker trick stated above, the use of mass casualty dummies, etc. the use of facebook live stream to prove a prerecorded video is live is also a little trick that's used. Of course, this fully implicates Facebook itself in the corruption too.
TL;DR
Good man
To be fair, you never read anything. It's part of the reason why you're so uninformed, your retardation being the other.
Books are CGI
What a life huh? You spend all your life studying criminal justice, ace all the Quantico exams, and then fucking bosses have you dropping investigations against pedos and communist infiltrators in favor of trying to convince Zig Forums Tarrant wasn't the real deal.
Look at what you are doing with yourself. How about you defend America against all the domestic enemies holding high office instead of chasing NEETs?
The pinnacle of sadness!
It's just a quote from a book, confirming what has been known about Strassmeier since the 1990s, things McVeigh told his cellmate The Spotlight was right about.
If you don't even have a basic understanding of even the official narrative of the bombing (you'd know who he was if you did), then you shouldn't be posting about it at all.
But "facts aren't facts if the Wall Street Journal gave a book a positive review" is?