WeedWhacker

Senior Member
The comments suggest that the only way to get the muzzle flash is by using blanks, thus proving hoax.

Just as a "passing comment"?

I think that "MOST" so-called "conspiracy theories" rely on such tactics....the "TACTIC" of .....

"THROWING BULLSHIT at the wall, and seeing what sticks".

Just my two cents (or, "tuppence")...and I am just posting as I "pass by" this thread. Others certainly might chime in, with more experience.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
Muzzle flash is due to the propellant charge still burning when the projectile exits the barrel - it is axiomatic that it happens, because that way the projectile is still being accelerated all the way along the barrel.

For a given charge the shorter the barrel the greater the muzzle flash as there is more propellant still being burned when the projectile clears the barrel - I remember firing a Mosin-Nagant carbine a decade ago - it used the same cartridge as the full-length rifle, and the muzzle flash was a meter long if it was an inch - the owner called it his flamethrower!!

this video shows slow-motion shotgun muzzle flash in daylight.

Edit - it doesn't like liveleak video :/
Edit again - I cant' even enter the link as text - the system automatically turns it into media tag that doesn't work - so let's try this
 

Redwood

Active Member
While bored with TV tonight, I was strolling through various videos on different conspiracies. I came across one for this conspiracy where some of the comments talk about the muzzle flash. At least that is what they believe it is. The comments suggest that the only way to get the muzzle flash is by using blanks, thus proving hoax. I don't believe this was a hoax, but not being a gun person at all, I was wondering if there was another explanation for this? This is around 7:28 in the video, and slightly after.


The flashes in the video are from flash-bang grenades, not from firearms. Most modern cartridge loadings do a good job of suppressing flash, but with short-barreled firearms you can get quite a lot. I have a short-barreled .44 revolver that can be absolutely dazzling with some loads.
 

Hevach

Senior Member.

Good compilation of lots of guns firing in slow motion. Not all of them have a visible flash, but the first one in the series has enough muzzle flash to cook a steak (and a really awesome fire smoke ring effect), and the bullet is clearly visible.

I'm pretty sure Redwood is right, though, that the flashes aren't from guns to begin with.
 

derwoodii

Senior Member.
flash bangs used for dynamic beeches designed to dazzel and stun the multiple dets may have been a pre set devices or ones dropped from windows roof as SWAT chaps would have had the whole room bugged and set ready to go.

 
Last edited:

Whitebeard

Senior Member.
I'm not a gun person either, but your right, they don't look like muzzle flashes. More like stun grenades to me

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/25793549/snipers-call-ignited-hostage-battle/
Police stormed in both sides of the cafe, firing about 90 rounds to Monis' five.

A volley of stun grenades were used to disorientate and the assault rifles killed the 50-year-old self-styled sheikh.
Content from External Source
http://matzav.com/cops-sydney-hostage-situation-over
Police firing automatic weapons and lobbing stun grenades stormed the cafe in central Sydney early on Tuesday where a gunman had been holding more than a dozen hostages, bringing a dramatic end to a siege lasting more than 16 hours.
Content from External Source
http://www.evoke.ie/evoke/sydney-siege-ends/
Police fired automatic weapons and lobbed stun grenades before storming the Lindt cafe in Martin Place in the heart of the city’s central business district.
Content from External Source
In fact, I've just spent 20 minutes checking news reports of the storming, and ALL mention use of stun grenades. Not suprising really, as stun grenades are often used in these situations.

I know there is at least one regular here with SWAT training, so he will be of more help
 

derwoodii

Senior Member.
infiltrated without being seen?

yes as above, listen look wires up pipes focus mic's on widows where can personal in roof under floor, the gear known is amazin the stuff kept sly would be trick,
in vid you do see a few chaps throw i suspect is flash bangs wot surprised me was how many concussion in a row likely multiple detonation which makes sense. A shame the whole thing went so pear shaped guess hostage took a chance to run and it went sour from then the sad detail are yet to emerge.
if some CT claims false flag in sad sad Cairns today.........
 

occams rusty scissor

Senior Member.
Most likely the majority of flashes seen are flashbangs, "9 bangers" which - as you guessed, give off 9 regularly spaced bangs, accompanied with a flash.

If you watch below, you'll see at about the 20 sec mark where the entry team has gone in, there's three guys standing on the cordon, chucking in about 4-5 (presumably) 9 bangers one after the other:

They're fairly loud, comparable to at least a .223 round going off, which is what the Tac Unit seen were using. You'll note the regularly spaced bangs one after the other, dead giveaway.

There's no way the entry team was firing that many rounds, or there'd be nothing left of the bad guy and a whole lot of questions when the coroner comes knocking.
 

Heather S.

Member
Thanks everyone for commenting. I had wondered if what was seen in the video was flashbangs and not muzzle flash, but I wasn't sure.

I think that "MOST" so-called "conspiracy theories" rely on such tactics....the "TACTIC" of .....

"THROWING BULLSHIT at the wall, and seeing what sticks".

I agree WeedWhacker. I don't plan on leaving a comment on the video that I posted, but it was a question I didn't know the answer to. It didn't really make sense to me that it was blanks being fired just because I wasn't sure if it was really muzzle flash. I like having answers to throw back to them even though I know most of them wave off said answers. I guess it comes from working in the forensics field, wanting to know answers.
 

BombDr

Senior Member.
How would they have done that if they weren't in the room? Or do you mean they would have infiltrated without being seen?

There are many ways of getting audio from that room, including activating all the devices with microphones already in there....;)
 

occams rusty scissor

Senior Member.
Will all details about what methods were used be available or are they kept secret? Sounds interesting.
It is interesting, but not likely that we will hear much more about their methods as they like to keep away from general knowledge for obvious reasons. There's plenty of SWAT demo stuff on YouTube, as well as MOUT tactics if ur interested in that line.
 

BombDr

Senior Member.
Will all details about what methods were used be available or are they kept secret? Sounds interesting.

I imagine the surveillance details will be kept quiet, but for an idea of what I am talking about read 'Spycatcher' which even though written in the 1980s, gives a pretty good overview of eavsdropping.
 

Libertarian

Banned
Banned
It's funny that the gun laws have been raised quite a lot since this incident (and I understand that bombDr wasn't referring to this, just caught my eye again) Many in the US (mostly CT) have suggested that if the populace hadn't been "disarmed" then such an event wouldn't have happened. For starters, the Australian public have never been disarmed, just restrictions placed on what types of firearms can be owned and how they can be used. Secondly, the general public had access to and owned plenty of guns prior to the auto/semi auto bans, however this didn't prevent the massacres that lead to the ban in the first place. There were no armed citizens, guns blazing, heroically fighting off Martin Bryant when the pt Arthur shooting kicked off. Because Australia has never had the same gun-centric culture when it comes to self defence.

This post didn't seem to be on topic. But the australian ban certainly met the very definition of "disarm", which I got by typing "definition of disarm" into Google:


dis·arm
disˈärm/
verb
  1. 1.
    take a weapon or weapons away from (a person, force, or country).
    "guerrillas had completely disarmed and demobilized their forces"
    synonyms: demilitarize,demobilize
Content from External Source
My uncle had every single one of his semi-automatic firearms confiscated. Even his rabbit guns, such as his Breakdown Browning (a beautiful little .22). He knew lots of fellows who did not turn theirs in, and whose residences were raided by police. The police knew where to look because Australia had a "registration" program prior to the ban on semi-auto.

I apologize for the continuance of this little divergence from the OP. But I thought that this notion that Australians were not disarmed deserved correction. Because they were indeed disarmed by definition.
 

Libertarian

Banned
Banned
My only point was that Australians were indeed disarmed. I thought that was clear.

Obviously this guy didn't turn his gun in. Nor do the gangs in Chicago.

Whether attempting to disarm everyone actually works is a much larger subject, is most definitely off topic, and perhaps has already been covered in a "ramble" somewhere.
 

Whitebeard

Senior Member.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Australia

A common misconception is that firearms are illegal in Australia and that no individual may possess them. While it's true that Australia has restrictive firearms laws, rifles and shotguns (including semi-automatic), as well as handguns are all legal within a narrow set of criteria
Content from External Source
.

State laws govern the possession and use of firearms in Australia. These laws were largely aligned under the 1996 National Firearms Agreement (NFA). Anyone wishing to possess or use a firearm must have a Firearms Licence and, with some exceptions, be over the age of 18. Owners must have secure storage for their firearms.

Each firearm in Australia must be registered to the owner by serial number except firearms manufactured before 1 Jan 1901 which in some cases are exempt from a serial number or exempt from registration all together. Some states allow an owner to store or borrow another person's registered firearm of the same category.

Firearms categories
Firearms in Australia are grouped into Categories determined by the National Firearm Agreement with different levels of control. The categories are:

  • Category B: Centrefire rifles (not semi-automatic), muzzleloading firearms made after 1 January 1901. Apart from a "Genuine Reason", a "Genuine Need" must be demonstrated, including why a Category A firearm would not be suitable.
  • 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.
  • Category D: Self loading centrefire rifles, pump-action or self loading shotguns holding more than 5 rounds. Functional Category D firearms are restricted to government agencies and a few occupational shooters. Collectors may own deactivated Category D firearms.
  • Category H: Handguns including air pistols and deactivated handguns. Neither SA nor WA require deactivated handguns to be regarded as handguns after deactivation. This situation[when?] was the catalyst in QLD for the deactivation and diversion of thousands of handguns to the black-market[vague] – the loophole[which?] shut since 2001) This class is available to target shooters and certain security guards where your job requires possession of a firearm. To be eligible for a Category H firearm, a target shooter must serve a probationary period of 12 months the first 6 months using club handguns, then in the remainder of the last 6 month probationary license, an application may be made, permit to acquire for one air pistol OR one rimfire pistol. A minimum number of matches yearly to retain each category of handgun and be a financial member of an approved Pistol Club. [2]
These categories – A,B,C,D and H were those determined by the NFA. The others listed here are determined by the states that have implement them at their own discretion.

Target shooters are limited to handguns of .38 or 9mm calibre or less and magazines may hold a maximum of 10 rounds. Participants in certain "approved" pistol competitions may acquire handguns up to .45", currently Single Action Shooting and Metallic Silhouette. IPSC shooting is approved for 9mm/.38/.357 sig, handguns that meet the IPSC rules, but larger calibres are not approved for IPSC handgun shooting contests in Australia.[3] Category H barrels must be at least 100mm (3.94") long for revolvers, and 120mm (4.72") for semi-automatic pistols unless the pistols are clearly ISSF target pistols: magazines are restricted to 10 rounds. Handguns held as part of a collection were exempted from these limits.
Certain Antique firearms (generally muzzle loading black powder flint lock firearms manufactured before 1 January 1901) can in some states be legally held without licences. In other states they are subject to the same requirements as modern firearms.

All single-shot muzzleloading firearms manufactured before 1 January 1901 are considered antique firearms. Four states require licences for antique percussion revolvers and cartridge repeating firearms, but in Queensland and Victoria a person may possess such a firearm without a licence, so long as the firearm is registered (percussion revolvers require a license in Victoria).
Content from External Source
From wiki for clarity, more details as to the exact legislation from state to state can be found here...
http://web.archive.org/web/20080719...g.au/newssaa/securitylegislation/lawindex.htm
 

occams rusty scissor

Senior Member.
But I thought that this notion that Australians were not disarmed deserved correction. Because they were indeed disarmed by definition.
I think you're fully aware of what I'm saying - the general idea of being "disarmed" is to remove all weapons. The public can still legally own firearms, there are just imposed restrictions on what can be owned. Therefore if a person still has a firearm/firearms, irrespective of whether they have had some taken away, then they are "by definition" still armed. Bolt, lever, pump actions and handguns (semi auto and revolver) are still very much available and widely owned. The gun that was used in Sydney during the Lindt siege was probably a black market gun, sadly enough these are easily obtained as they're usually stolen from licenced owners or from "back in the day" when a whole bunch of them went "missing" during the seizure/buy back phase.
 
Last edited:

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
Bob Ellis (left-wing media pundit of some note, known for his grumpy demeanour) has some questions...

https://independentaustralia.net/life/life-display/the-secrets-of-the-lindt-cafe,7207

We don't know yet whose bullets, or stun grenades, killed Katrina Dawson. We don't know yet whose weaponry wounded four others. We don't know the others' names.

We don't know why there were so many shots fired; and whether, in the dark, they knew who they were shooting at. We don't know why this has not been revealed.

We don't know why the police forebade the hostages to give any detailed media interviews. We don't know why the prime minister refused them help when two of them begged for it. We don't know why a Muslim cleric was not allowed to talk to the 'terrorist', as has happened in similar situations, hundreds of times, thousands of times across the world.

We don't know much about anything. And we can only surmise an enormous cover-up is taking place.
Content from External Source
But presumably that might have something to do with this...

A number of different bodies will undertake formal investigations. An inquest by the NSW state coroner is mandatory whenever people die in a police operation.[119]Commissioner Scipione announced on 16 December that a "critical incident" investigation will be undertaken by NSW police,[120] to be headed by Detective Inspector Angelo Memmolo.[121] The Australian Federal Police are conducting another inquiry into the event. Finally, a joint review has been announced by the federal and state governments, to be led by Michael Thawley from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and Blair Comley of the New South Wales Department of Premier and Cabinet.[122]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Sydney_hostage_crisis#Investigations
Content from External Source
(well except for the one about a Muslim cleric not talking to the hostage-taker, or the 'refusing help when they begged for it', which I don't know what is about)
 

occams rusty scissor

Senior Member.
Bob Ellis (left-wing media pundit of some note, known for his grumpy demeanour) has some questions...

Content from external source https://independentaustralia.net/life/life-display/the-secrets-of-the-lindt-cafe,7207

We don't know yet whose bullets, or stun grenades, killed Katrina Dawson. We don't know yet whose weaponry wounded four others. We don't know the others' names.

We don't know why there were so many shots fired; and whether, in the dark, they knew who they were shooting at. We don't know why this has not been revealed.

We don't know why the police forebade the hostages to give any detailed media interviews. We don't know why the prime minister refused them help when two of them begged for it. We don't know why a Muslim cleric was not allowed to talk to the 'terrorist', as has happened in similar situations, hundreds of times, thousands of times across the world.

We don't know much about anything. And we can only surmise an enormous cover-up is taking place.

Not certain, but I reckon what he means is that due to his laziness/ignorance/paranoia and personal belief that EVERYthing is a "false flag" unless proven otherwise, he hasn't wanted to find anything that contradicts his laziness/ignorance/paranoia.

A quick google search shows that Katrina Dawson died when several shotgun pellets entered and severed her aorta. And we know that prior to the entry team going in, a sniper gave a "hostage down" sitrep, which kicked off the emergency action. That hostage was Tori Johnson, who according to witnesses was attempting to wrestle the gun from the offender and was shot in the head for his troubles.

Does he honestly expect a specific statement from police to say "Just so people are aware, we did know who we were shooting at - the bad guy with the gun - and we fired exactly <number> of shots."? What would be the purpose of that? And if they did, is he going to believe it?

Police tactical groups (PTG's) fire tens of thousands of rounds per year, using personally issued firearms that they become very familiar with. And they train in all kinds of scenarios - remember the anti terror drills that the CT's love so much? If you watch the youtube videos above you can see the entry team is wearing night optic devices attached to their helmets, so not firing blindly into the dark. These guys train hard and are very skilled, there's no way that they are not going to verify what they're shooting. If you YouTube "CQB room clearing" you can see that room clearing is a very particular skill and done in a methodical manner, not just smashing a window/door/opening and rushing in guns blazing. Again, probably due toEllis not doing enough of his own investigation, he's confusing stun grenades going off with shots fired.

As for the PM conducting hostage negotiations - what world leader would do that EVER?
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
Not certain, but I reckon what he means is that due to his laziness/ignorance/paranoia and personal belief that EVERYthing is a "false flag" unless proven otherwise, he hasn't wanted to find anything that contradicts his laziness/ignorance/paranoia.
I don''t think he's a false-flagger, he's a life-long old-school journo so he wouldn't be that far gone I hope. But as a left-winger full of disgust for Tony Abbot's government I think he just *really* wants there to be some gross-misconduct involved to lay at his door.
It's just an appeal to emotional bias, which if you read the comments is successful as virtually no-one discusses the claims but just how awful the liberal party is.
(I personally agree they are awful human beings who may well be destroying Australia as we've known it, but the lack of critical thinking here is disappointing)
 

occams rusty scissor

Senior Member.
I don''t think he's a false-flagger, he's a life-long old-school journo so he wouldn't be that far gone I hope. But as a left-winger full of disgust for Tony Abbot's government I think he just *really* wants there to be some gross-misconduct involved to lay at his door.

Perhaps I misunderstood what he was referring to by "massive cover up". That line and the thread title gave me tunnel vision!
Pretty bad piece for an old school journo. Could prob get a job with Alex jones though?
It's just an appeal to emotional bias, which if you read the comments is successful as virtually no-one discusses the claims but just how awful the liberal party is.
(I personally agree they are awful human beings who may well be destroying Australia as we've known it, but the lack of critical thinking here is disappointing)
The comments are pretty whiny, but typical. So Not a tony fan either, Pete? ;-)
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
No, he creeps me out.
This is useful - http://stoptonymeow.com

Are you someone who likes to keep up to date with the latest news, but can't stand the sight of Tony Abbott's weird looking face? This is the browser extension for you.

Stop Tony Meow does what it says on the box: Replaces any image it can identify as Tony Abbott with a cute kitten.
Content from External Source
 

Hevach

Senior Member.
Doesn't sound like a flase flag claim to me, but a "maybe the police botched this and shot some of the hostages themselves," and that the lack of definitive answers on that suggests they're covering their asses because that really is what happened.

To be fair, that IS something that usually gets looked at in the aftermath of a police action like this, because it can and does happen. So it's a normal question to ask, but it's way too early to start thinking the lack of answers is significant. The fact that we don't have positive answers yet is because forensics doesn't happen instantly in the best of times, and I'm guessing Australia can't be that much different than Europe or North America with forensic backlog and waiting lists.
 
Last edited:

occams rusty scissor

Senior Member.
Doesn't sound like a flase flag claim to me, but a "maybe the police botched this and shot some of the hostages themselves," and that the lack of definitive answers on that suggests they're covering their asses because that really is what happened.
The balistic reports so far that have been listed in the media, as above, state that two of the hostages died as a result of being shot by the offenders gun. The first was seen by the police sniper being shot, hence the 'hostage down' call, the second from a shotgun pellet rupturing her aorta. Police on scene were not using shotguns, the offender had a shotgun, seems fairly clear cut.

The other two - one was a cop, were also wounded by pellets, although they sem to be minor. The info is there, it just needs to be searched.Unfortunately nothing is stamped as official yet.

To be fair, that IS something that usually gets looked at in the aftermath of a police action like this, because it can and does happen.

The coronial policies in all states are pretty much the same - if it's a police involved shooting (termed "death in custody") there's a full investigation, no details are officially released until the coroner is done with it.
 

BombDr

Senior Member.
https://independentaustralia.net/life/life-display/the-secrets-of-the-lindt-cafe,7207

We don't know yet whose bullets, or stun grenades, killed Katrina Dawson. We don't know yet whose weaponry wounded four others. We don't know the others' names.

We don't know why there were so many shots fired; and whether, in the dark, they knew who they were shooting at. We don't know why this has not been revealed.

We don't know why the police forebade the hostages to give any detailed media interviews. We don't know why the prime minister refused them help when two of them begged for it. We don't know why a Muslim cleric was not allowed to talk to the 'terrorist', as has happened in similar situations, hundreds of times, thousands of times across the world.

We don't know much about anything. And we can only surmise an enormous cover-up is taking place.
Content from External Source

Going back to my media gripes from before, why does Mr Ellis expect the answers to his 'questions' to be made available so swiftly?

Why does he think anyone could be killed by stun grenades?

Why does he expect a live investigation to begin releasing shot-by-shot details?

Why is he surprised that the Police do not want witness testimony contaminated with hearsay from other witnesses and news pundits?

Why does, in his head at least, does this amount to a 'cover-up'?
 

Whitebeard

Senior Member.
Why does, in his head at least, does this amount to a 'cover-up'?
May be because we live in a modern world where thanks to information technology we can get so much instant information; we can watch new breaking as it happens, watch play by play sporting events from the other side of the world in real time and have almost instant access to vast amounts of information; some people expect everything to work that way. So therefore if the siege and resolution was instant and live, any investigation and inquiry that isn't 'as it happens' must therefore, to the paranoid CT mind mean something is being covered up.

'They aint telling us straight away... WHAT ARE THEY HIDING?'
 
Last edited:

TWCobra

Senior Member.
I suspect one CT from Melbourne is busy as we speak furiously putting together his thoughts on this as a false flag

As sure as night follows day. Or in this case, a two week ban by YouTube.

I won't post the link here as I do not want this man to get any more attention than he deserves. He has the arrogance to believe his ban happened to shut him up over this siege.

Everything is faked apparently.
 

occams rusty scissor

Senior Member.
Going back to my media gripes from before, why does Mr Ellis expect the answers to his 'questions' to be made available so swiftly?
I agree 100% - I guess it's as Whitebeard said, we're now living in an age of instant gratification and the public are used to getting it NOW. Even so, that still doesn't answer the question of why they're entitled to that information. It's a perfectly natural thing to want answers and hold people accountable for their actions, but that doesn't mean they get to be inside the cafe the instant the smoke clears. There are always going to be some things that can't or won't be released, I just can't see how they stretch this out to mean it's a cover up.

As sure as night follows day. Or in this case, a two week ban by YouTube.

I won't post the link here as I do not want this man to get any more attention than he deserves. He has the arrogance to believe his ban happened to shut him up over this siege.

Everything is faked apparently.


Yeah I just saw he's popped back up again. There's a few more YouTube vids openly calling this a hoax now, none of the claims I've seen so far are especially clever or difficult to see through. Funnily enough, none of them bother putting forth a reason as to what this apparent hoax achieves, aside from clickbait for their view ratings.
 

Jonathan Teatime

New Member
As sure as night follows day. Or in this case, a two week ban by YouTube.

I won't post the link here as I do not want this man to get any more attention than he deserves. He has the arrogance to believe his ban happened to shut him up over this siege.

Everything is faked apparently.

Permanently removed, as he is apparently far too truthy for Youtube/Google :confused:
 
Top