The Norwegian expert on false-flag terror is Torstein Viddal, and he came over and gave a fine speech to our ’911 Keeptalking’ group (October 2011), now up on his website.
He obtained the terms of reference for Norway’s ‘inquiry’ into the event, and found: ‘it is clearly stated there is only one perpetrator – ‘the perpetrator’ – and that the Commission shall not determine legal responsibility or other judicial responsibility concerning the events, and neither judge the police and the prosecutor’s own investigation of the attacks‘ – i.e. it is banned from asking any important questions about the event. That is in itself evidence for the thesis here examined: that, it was an inside job.
Fabricated terror in Oslo
Norway’s post-war history does not give it a context for evaluating the recent assault upon its government and its political youth. The ‘Breivik attacks’ is best evaluated by comparison with the several major ‘false-flag terror’ events of this new century, mainly 9/11 in America and 7/7 in London. This article has developed through dialogue with Torstein Viddal, who lives in Oslo near the site of the bomb blast – he was right there when it happened.
The official narrative for the attacks is the usual one of an independent ‘lone nut’ who did it all, alone and unaided.
here, we consider these aspects of the Norway terror-attacks one at a time:
1. The bomb blast in Oslo was not a car bomb: we may not know what it was, but do not rule out exotic technology.
2. A very strange crater and a blast site which seems to have moved about.
3. The police terror-drill that very morning, which mirrored the actual event.
4. A lack of evidence placing Breivik in Oslo, and fabrication of the CCTV released.
5. The failure of police to follow their proper or normal protocols in the aftermath of the attacks.
6. An extraordinary delay in police response.
7. Breivik’s accomplices?
8. Destruction of crucial evidence by the police.
9. Political overview: Who benefits? Did Israel/America want to teach Norway a lesson? The history of these countries working together in such ‘covert operations.’
1 – Doubt over Car Bomb
The massive damage caused to several government buildings was not produced by Anders Breivik’s (AB’s) ammonium-nitrate bomb – if indeed that ever existed. Fires were burning mainly at the 6th floor of the government building near its roof helipad. The next day, people started writing into newspapers about how they could not see any bomb crater or remains of a car in the road where AB’s VW van had supposedly been parked – then, a crater magically ‘appeared’ five days later, a bit of a distance from the original alleged bomb site; along with a bit of old car engine!
Two early diagrams are here shown, indicating the position of the alleged parked VW car that exploded. It was supposed to have been near the road between the main Government buildings. Figure 1 appeared in the Wikipedia article about the Norway bombings, for a few weeks – it has since been removed, because once the alleged CCTV images were released (on 16 September) a rather different new van-blast position appeared. It was now parked under the main government building, quite a way from the road (in foreground of picture). This was near to a zone of maximal damage (figure 3). Shortly before this ‘van CCTV’ was released, an old fountain near to the earlier-assumed blast position, a helpful reference-point, was removed.)
If the blast crater is positioned as now shown, by the position of the white van in a photo, then how could the original images released, in the first week, have put it elsewhere?
The new van blast position is hardly compatible with the damage to the front of the H-block SMK building, surely caused by something quite a way in front of it, rather than directly underneath it; nor with very severe shattering of the Energy-Department building, about 80 yards away, mainly to its upper storeys which were burning: a car bomb in that a position could never have caused such damage.
Can experts find evidence that a bomb consisting of aluminium powder and ammonium nitrate, exploded there? Can they show credible physical remains of that VW, eg remains of its number-plate? Can they show metal fragments of that van with traces of the explosive mix fused to its side? Or, can they even just produce a witness who will testify to having seen that white VW van in town that afternoon?
No, in fact, they cannot. Instead, they have only shown an absurd chunk of some metal engine (see image) on the ground, which could have come from anywhere.
If the official story puts the white van adjacent to or even inside the Government’s building, then embedded remains of that white van – with traces of fused aluminium explosive – will have to be found inside that building. If they cannot show any such remains – then IT DIDN’T HAPPEN.
When Norway’s 22-July Commission came to inspect the crater, they were not allowed inside the building, allegedly because of the ‘asbestos’ danger (8.9.11, report by ‘VG News’). That is where they need to go, maybe with gas masks: It is likely they’ll find the whole area reconstructed. It is, of course, normal for criminals to try and destroy the scene of their crime.
2. A Very Strange Crater
A witness spoke of ‘an almost 3 m2 large hole just beside the entrance doors of the H-building in Grubbegata.’ What made this clean, white hole, first reported on 28th July? The walls of the tunnels below it – under the surface crater – are all white, why should that be? It’s a very strange crater-hole, too clear-cut and bright, it lacks burns, soot and the usual raggedness. The ban that apparently exists on the publication of photographic images of the hole is hardly designed to bolster public confidence.
A fertilizer bomb would not leave a white, clean surface after the blasts, it would not cut cleanly through solid steel/iron tubes – as here appears – it wouldn’t knock out and break windows over a radius of 2 km in downtown Oslo.
The pictured VW remains, from a single photo credited anonymously, by ‘Foto: Tipser,’ stops short of showing the crater – which should be only a meter away: but, this person must surely have photographed it? The only photo of the ‘crater’ is a still image from Johan Christian Tandberg’s mobile phone video. The «Tipser» and the «Vitnet» (tipper & witness) appear to be the same anonymous person. This anonymous tipper and photographer – and ‘expert’ analyst – appears as one of these suspiciously well-informed types who, typically, immediately rushes out to shape the official story.
This ban on taking and/or publishing high quality photos of the crater is very similar to the US ban on photographers at Ground Zero after 9/11.
3 – Terror-Drill and Fake ‘Breivik’ images.
Politicians are told that the purpose of terror ‘drills’ is to make the country safer by carefully preparing for possible catastrophe. Alas such drills often serve another purpose. To serve as cover for ‘anti-terror squads’ who themselves allow the atrocity to happen or else make it happen. Only a few disloyal, renegade elements concealed within them are needed to do this.
Consider the incredible sequence, whereby Anders Breivik (AB) dressed as a lone policeman, in uniform and equipped with a gun, helmet and visor, gets out of the white VW van (wrongly parked), right next to where the Prime minister works Oslo, strolls over into the car-park, then gets into another civilian car – a few minutes before the bomb blew up. He would have been viewed on CCTV cameras, as well as by other policemen in that area, and accosted: would not the police have wanted to checkout a lone, unscheduled policeman with a visor, helmet and gun? And, who gave him all that police equipment?
Had AB really been planning all this alone, he would have had to expect to be accosted by the police after thus strolling across a high-security area, looking like a policeman but doing something no policeman could ever do – walk with a gun between two civilian cars. He could only plan such a thing, had he been somehow assured that it would be OK. His high-powered gun was stored in the grey car he walked over to, so any police check of that car would have terminated his whole plan.
False-flag terror is often perpetrated with a terror-drill that shadows the real event, with the terror drill echoing what happens shortly after. Several of these were ongoing in the days prior to this event: in one of which, a lone assassin is going on a killing spree and has to be apprehended – ON THE SAME DAY, mere hours earlier.
In fact, the ‘man in black’ with visor, gun etc. walking past government offices was spotted just fifteen minutes after that terror-drill had finished – at 3 pm. He may have been the actor playing the part of the ‘lone assassin’ in that ‘terror drill’! For comparison, the Madrid bombings of 2004 (on 11 March) followed on from five days of NATO ‘terror drill’ game-playing in European capital cities (March 4-10, ‘CMX 2004’). It only takes a very few disloyal elements to work through the ‘terror drill’ and make it go live.
As a helpful background, on how Euro-terror has been fabricated over several decades, there is Daniel Ganser’s opus, “NATO’s Secret Armies: operation Gladio and terrorism in Europe.”
4 – Fabricated CCTV
Two months after, the world was finally shown a few strange images allegedly of AB in Oslo, but none of the explosion: reminding us of the London bombings of 2005, where the authorities had great difficulty in producing any credible CCTV images of the alleged bombers for that day, it took them several years to do so. Five weeks after the event the police released a couple of images of the ‘Man in Black,’ looking like some extra from a Star-Wars opera. I suggest he is not Anders Breivik. This figure appears far more blurred than anything else in the image.
5 – No normal protocols followed
Who can seriously believe that a huge van could be parked right under the Prime Minister’s office, without permission, and then a ‘man in black’ could get out of it, with a gun, and walk away – with no-one taking any notice, without witnesses?
Norwegians are also faced with the haunting question – as Americans likewise found themselves asking after 9/11: how was it possible, that all standard operating procedures had somehow been set aside on that day. It appears that everything the national emergency response unit had worked on for years was not put into practice when Norway was hit by terror.
At what time, if at all, were the roads out of Oslo closed after the blast and why was air traffic not suspended that day – a normal response to a terror attack? Can the police show that they did anything at all in response to the Oslo city bombing? What caused the paralysis, whereby their helicopters only arrived at Utøya island two hours after a news helicopter went there – to film the police arrival by boat?
For at least 2 hours no one closed borders, airports, subways or roads out of Oslo, or alerted helicopter pilots for almost 4 hours – instead it appears that offers of help were turned down amounting to a virtual stand-down order. This is extremely suspicious behaviour.
6 – police delay
While appreciating that July is the holiday season, I suggest that the unbelievable delay in police response – such that the two perpetrators (Anders Breivik probably with an unknown accomplice, as reported in the Norwegian newspaper VG) enjoyed AN HOUR AND A HALF killing spree with no interruption – was something other than mere bungling incompetence.
It is reported that police helicopter pilots were phoning in for duty to the central police station at around 3.40 pm, but were told NOT to come. That does not square either with the huge blast next to government ministries, or with the news of the killing spree of which the police were multiply informed from 5.02 pm onwards. Why was helicopter assistance from the Armed Forces nearly as slow as the police?
Frantic parents and children started phoning the police from 5.02 onwards – it is unacceptable to state that the police were first informed of the event at 5.27 pm, as widely reported. As for the tragic episode of the police drifting in a leaky rubber boat while children were being exterminated, please allow yourself a few minutes to view the video if you have not done so already. Examine also the diagram showing the huge detour taken by these ‘police’ – what on earth were they playing at?
Quoting from the newspaper Aftenposten which carried the story (25 August) “All of the officers from the anti-terror unit that took part at the bomb site, and later went out to Utøya, had been training on the exact same scenario earlier the same day and in the days preceding.” This tells us that the ‘police’ team that dithered around getting to the island, was the same as had been participating earlier that day in the anti-terror drill. These would not have been normal police officers.
7 – Accomplices working with Brevic
Somebody rang up the political gathering on Utoya island at around 4.50 pm, telling them to gather around because a policeman was coming. The plan would hardly have succeeded without that phone call. It caused the youngsters to gather together, and made them trust him. Here is survivor Adrian Pracon’s comment: the young folk “gathered together to hear shocking news about the Oslo bomb … they were very, very happy to hear that one policeman is on his way to supervise us and to help us.” Who phoned the children to say that “one policeman was on his way?” Breivik was fortunate that someone had prepared the ground for him by psychologically rendering his quarry defenceless.
8 – Destruction of crucial evidence
The police performed a ‘controlled explosion’ at AB’s ‘bomb factory’ in his farm, on Tuesday 26th, thereby destroying the main forensic evidence for however his bomb had been constructed. Police have a duty to collect evidence relevant to a crime – not to destroy it. Now no one can ever be sure that the bomb which went off in town was made in AB’s farmhouse because police have destroyed the evidence. (In the London bombings of 2005, there were similar patterns of police behaviour)
9 - US Intelligence penetration
Traitors are here involved, i.e. people not loyal to Norway. A traitor is the worst enemy of the State. The ‘patsy’ AB may not be aware of this, and believe that it is all happening for the reasons given in his Manifesto. The US expert on false-flag terror Webster Tarpley commented:
United States intelligence agencies had been conducting a large-scale program of recruiting retired Norwegian police officers with the alleged purpose of conducting surveillance inside the country. This program, known as SIMAS Surveillance Detection Units, provided a perfect vehicle for the penetration and subversion of the Norwegian police by NATO.
As to the motive:
A motive for the attack is also present: as part of its attempt to mount an independent foreign policy, including the imminent diplomatic recognition of a Palestinian state as part of a general rapprochement with the Arab world, Norway was leading the smaller NATO states in dropping out of the imperialist aggressor coalition currently bombing Libya. Norway was scheduled to stop all bombing and other sorties against the Gaddafi forces as of August 1 at the latest.
Norwegian security analysts need to study this Tarpley critique. It continues:
In early November 2010, the Oslo television channel TV2 exposed the existence of an extensive network of paid assets and informants of US intelligence recruited from the ranks of retired police and other officials…. The official name for the type of espionage cell which the United States was creating in Norway is Surveillance Detection Unit (SDU). The SDUs in turn operate within the framework of the Security Incident Management Analysis System (SIMAS). SIMAS is known to be used for spying and surveillance by US Embassies not just in the Nordic bloc of Norway, Denmark, and Sweden, but worldwide. The terror events also raise the question of whether SIMAS has an operational dimension. Could this apparatus represents a modern version of the Cold War stay behind networks set up in all NATO countries and best-known under the name of the Italian branch, Gladio?… A memo written in 2008 shows how the US felt that Norway was not awake to the possibility of a potential terrorist attack. The cable reads: “We repeatedly press Norwegian authorities to take terrorism seriously. We will seek to build on this momentum to fight the still-prevalent feeling that terrorism happens elsewhere, not in peaceful Norway.
That language can be interpreted as meaning, that there was an intention in certain quarters to give Norway a terror-event, to assist it in ‘taking terrorism seriously’ and perhaps to underline the dangers of opposing the imperial US/UK/Israeli will.
The 22-July Commission needs to discover who Breivik’s accomplices were. It needs to ask the police involved in the anti-terror drill that day about their actions, especially around 2-3 pm; to ask the helicopter pilots by what time they would normally expect to be up in the air after a huge bomb went off in the city centre at 3.25 pm (ask this to both police and army helicopter pilots); see if they confirm, that they were only asked to go on duty at 7 pm, and did not reach Utoya island until 9 pm. To ask police who went to Brevic’s farm, why they destroyed his explosives laboratory, and who told them to do so? To ask those who were on the island, about the second assassin.
It needs to ask Johan Fredriksen, Chief of Staff at Oslo Police Department, concerning his helicopter stand-down order: why did no Army helicopter get airborne until 6.55, three hours after Norway’s biggest-ever terror attack? (from Rygge airport) To ask Anders Snortheimsmoen, Delta Force Commander, also located at the Operations Centre in Oslo, why did he put out a request for support from faraway Trondheim airport – which he claims to have done at 15.37 pm – but did not request support from the much nearer Rygge airport until an hour later? (There are some deep analogies here with the 9/11 event). Can he comment upon the army helicopter finally arriving at Utoya island at 7.15 pm, or the police helicopters only arriving two hours after that, at 9.16 pm? To ask the Chief of Security at the Ministries Jon Ivar Mehus, who had all the CCTV needed but failed to alert guards or police: how come he told NRK reporters on August 11th that an unknown parked car outside government HQ was not a ‘potential terror threat’? These people need to be grilled in public so the people of Norway, especially the families of the dead, get to hear the evidence.
Breivik wrote in his Declaration: “So let us fight together with Israel, with our Zionist brothers …” – and Norway had become, after all, a kind of number one Enemy of Israel, on account of its criticisms and calls for trade boycott etc. of Israel. There could be a moral here, that any nation opposing Israel should take careful steps in self-protection, not have a whole island of youngsters calling for anti-Israel measures, with not one security-guard to protect them. The 22/7 date was an anniversary of the blowing up of the British King David Hotel in Jerusalem by Zionists in 1946.
There will be forces in Norway strongly opposed to the holding of an open inquiry into these issues. The pretext of ‘National security’ will be used to control the information and, hence, the outcome.
If the Norwegian government fails to get to the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth of these attacks then a spiritual darkness will descend upon Norway.
The bond of trust will be broken. The long-term reputation of the state and the police is at stake. The people will, in time, find the truth one way or another. This is a defining moment for Norway’s police, its government and the proud and decent people they supposedly serve.