DELTA, NATO COMPLICITY IN 7/22 ATTACKS SUBSTANTIATED

Posted on August 26, 2011 by


ANTI-TERROR UNITS CARRIED OUT A TERROR DRILL ON UTØYA ISLAND THAT ENDED ONLY 25 MINUTES BEFORE ANDERS BEHRING BREIVIK ARRIVED ON THE ISLAND. A POLICE CHOPPER COULD HAVE REACHED UTØYA ISLAND IN A MATTER OF MINUTES, BUT WAS TOLD TO STAND DOWN. SURVIVORS FROM THE ISLAND TESTIFY ABOUT SEVERAL ASSASSINS WEARING POLICE UNIFORMS. THE TIMELINE ALLOWING BREIVIK TO PLACE THE BOMB UNAIDED IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH KEY WITNESS TESTIMONIES. OTHER TIMELINE IMPOSSIBILITIES GALORE, AMID MUTUALLY INCONSISTENT POLICE REPORTS, PROSECUTORS CLOSING ALL ARRAIGNMENTS AND CHERRY-PICKING WITNESSES, A CASE FOR COMPLICITY OF UPPER DELTA ECHELONS AND NATO IS BOLSTERED.

Terror drill using identical scenario ongoing that day

Delta anti-terror units were carrying out a terror drill on Utøya Island that ended only 25 minutes before Anders Behring Breivik arrived on the island. The time, location and scenario of the Delta terror drill was identical to the terror attack on Utøya Island.

News sources:

Delta Had Drilled Setting off Bombs in Same Area in 2010

Another telltale critical sign of a false flag operation is the holding of drills or exercises – allegedly for counterterrorism purposes — by the police or the military at the same time as the terror attack, or shortly before the real terror attack begins. Sometimes, the terror drills or exercises are scheduled to begin slightly after the time when the actual terror attack occurs. For large-scale terror actions, which the Norway attacks were, it is not uncommon for the drills to occur well in advance – 9/11, for example, was the result of capabilities which had been built up over a period of several years, as well as of future drills stretching well into 2002. In these cases, it is often discovered that the self-styled anti-terror drill or exercise contains a simulated action or event which strongly resembles the real world terror attack, the one which actually kills people. The media will then refer to an astounding coincidence or a weird happenstance, but the reality is that the terror drill has been taken live or flipped live in the form of real killings. Once the drill has occurred, the capabilities, hardware, etc., which it has created can remain in place to be mobilized at the desired moment. The secret is that the legally sanctioned drill has been used to conduit or bootleg the actual butchery through a government bureaucracy whose resources are required to run the terror but in which there are many officials who cannot be allowed to know what is happening.

The Norway events provide a very clear illustration of this principle. In Oslo, a powerful bomb went off in or near the building which houses the office of the Prime Minister. Exactly as we would expect, special anti-terror police had been drilling setting off bombs in a nearby part of the Norwegian capital in advance, specifically during 2010. The public had not been informed in advance, but found out what was happening when they began hearing bombs in the opera house district, less than a kilometer away from the prime minister’s office which was attacked on Friday. Here is a report from the newspaper Aftenposten:

“Armed police were seen in the area around the opera house in Oslo, and violent explosions could be heard over large parts of the city. No one knew that this was all a matter of practice. The Information Section of the Oslo police deeply regrets that the public was not made aware of the seemingly dramatic exercise….It was the emergency squad, the national police special unit against terrorism, which was conducting a drill in the cordoned off area at Bjørvika pier. According to a press release from the police, nearly a day after the exercise, the drill consisted of training in the controlled detonation of explosive charges….The exercise will continue for the rest of Wednesday night and a few more explosions are expected….The exercise followed a familiar pattern for all anti-terror forces around the world: The men lowered themselves down from the ceiling and into through the window that had just been blown out, while they fired hand their weapons.”

Peter Power of Visor Consultants told BBC Radio Five in the wake of the London subway bombings of July 7, 2005 that his firm had been conducting an exercise based on explosions going off in substantially the same stations of the London underground at the same times when the real explosions had actually occurred. The Norwegian events exhibit the same kind of strange coincidence.

News sources:

Did Breivik set off the bomb(s)?

Breivik has during interrogations given two different statements about the bomb(s) in Government Plaza. According to his first statement, given just after being arrested, he is a member of one out of a total of three cells and one of the other cells was responsible for the bomb(s). Breivik later changed his explanation and took credit for the bomb(s). If Breivik was indeed responsible for the bomb(s), then he must have driven two cars:

Wednesday, July 20

He first must have driven a Volkswagen Crafter lorry from where the bomb was prepared at Vålstua Farm near Rena in Åmot. This car is large enough to haul the alleged one and a half metric tons of fertilizer mixed with diesel. This car was driven towards Oslo along the E6 and passed Ulven toll gate at 22:18 hours. According to the police, this car then was parked overnight near Breivik’s mother’s apartment in Hoffsveien at Skøyen, where Breivik lived before moving to the farm in the last stages of the preparations.

Thursday July 21

Breivik then took the train back to Rena, where he is driven from the train station to his farm by taxi driver Arild Tangen at about one o’clock pm. Later in evening on that Thursday he must have driven a rented silver gray Fiat Dublo towards Oslo, and this car passes a toll gate outside Oslo at about eleven that evening. According to the police, Breivik also parks this car near his mother’s apartment at Skøyen.

However, an Oslo bartender has given testimony about seeing Breivik out on town on the night between July 21. and July 22. If this testimony is correct, Breivik cannot have driven both cars. According to the newspaper Verdens Gang, the police have chosen to disregard this testimony in order to explain how Breivik could have driven two cars and thus how he could have been involved with the bomb(s).

Is Breivik able to drive a car at all?

In a candid interview Breivik’s step-father Mr. Tore Tollefsen tells of his impression of Breivik from Breivik was age 12 to 24 – the years he was married with Breivik’s mother:

Mr. Tollefsen relates from when he was to teach Breivik how to drive (a stickshift). It was not particularly successful. As Breivik approached an elevated pedestrian crossing he was unable to drive across it. The car choked to a halt three consecutive times and Mr. Tollefsen had to take the wheel.

- I then thought of driving with him at Nesodden peninsula, there isn’t much traffic there. On one occasion he were to turn right, and he signalled right, but turned left. At that point I gave up. We had been driving together for so long that I felt there was no hope for him.

Breivik subsequently enlisted in a driving school and was tought by a professional driving teacher, but then again he flunked the exam as he was driving too slowly.

- You say he wasn’t much of a handyman, but he was able to make that huge bomb?

- Yes, that was exactly why I suspected someone had been giving him assistance.

News Sources:

Why did Breivik alter his statement?

One reason why Breivik may have altered his statement during later interrogations implicating himself in the bombing attack, may be found in this analysis by Professor of psychology, Svenn Torgersen, quoted by Verdens Gang:

He exhibits pronounced narcissistic personality traits and an exaggerated belief in his own importance.

News Source:

One or more perpetrators?

When the first officers from Delta arrived at Utøya Island at 18.25, they were according to Oslo PD met by several young people who came forward with detailed descriptions of what they perceived as several perpetrators. These witnesses described the appearance and what the alleged perpetrators are wearing. The descriptions of appearance and clothing did not match the arrested Behring Breivik.

- We maintain that we have no evidence of Behring Breivik must have had accomplices, says Christian Hatlo, Oslo DA prosecutor.
- Are there still witnesses maintaining that there were several perpetrators on Utøya Island?
- No comment, says Hatlo.

News sources:

Several witness maintain that in addition to that there were several gunmen, they were all wearing police uniforms. According to NRK, several witnesses believe that there were more than one perpetrator. One summer camp participant wrote on her Facebook page “the shooters were dressed as police, so they tricked us to come forward before firing at us.” Others believe there must have been several gunmen as lifeless people were spread over a large area.

News sources:

DA lawyers disagree inbetween themselves about possible accomplices:

We maintain that we have no evidence of Behring Breivik having had accomplices (Oslo DA prosecutor Mr. Christian Hatlo)

We are hunting possible accomplices. (Oslo DA lawyer Ms. Hilde Strand in a letter to bereaved families)

The stark contrast between statements from Oslo DA laywers baffles bereaved familes and the media. Day by day we are more and more convinced he was able to pull this entire thing off by himself. He provides detailed and credible accounts. (Mr. Christian Hatlo in an interview with Aftenposten on August 7.)

The investigators have not concluded if the suspect may have had accomplices during the two acts of terrorism he is charged with and It is vital that possible accomplices do not have access to vital information about the ongoing investigation. (Ms. Hilde Strand in a letter to the lawyers of the bereaved familes dated September 2, quoting a ruling from Oslo District Court dated August 19.)

News sources:

September 2001: The investigators are looking for accomplices.

News sources:

Why were survivors detained?

Several surviving swimmers from the island were arrested by local police and brought into custody, among them one of the witnesses who testified to the press about more than one gunman on Utøya. After the detention of this one key witness testifying about several shooters, police sources make an attempt of character assassination, claiming the witness acted as if he took part in the shooting.

News sources:

Breivik was wearing police credentials when he was arrested

Simen Brænde Mortensen from Hamar was a security guard on the mainland when the alleged offender approached him in a van, he was wearing police uniform and presenting police identification.

News source:

Communication between Breivik and Delta during the massacre

Many details have surfaced that reveal an astonishing degree of communication between Behring Breivik and Delta during the massacre:

News source:

Delta could have reached Utøya in 10 minutes

The Norwegian police “helped” the right wing terrorist Anders Behring Breivik by their incompetence, and strange refusal to acquire a National Rescue helicopter in Oslo. Even the very police helicopter in the capital was told to be kept immobilized, 15 minutes after the massive bomb blasted the Prime Ministers office.

There was a Sea King Helicopter ready to take of in Oslo at the time of terror attack. This helicopter could have taken eight to ten men from the Delta force, and all their arms and equipment.

The police claims they were not sure if they could reach Utøya quicker by using the helicopter, and opted for using car and a boat. Not only did they miss the road, and drove a three kilometer longer rout: The police boat was located 3,5 Km from Utøya, while other boats were available on a harbor 700 meters from the island. The Delta force was informed about these boats.

On top of this, the engine of the police boat stopped in the middle of the inland sea. Civilian’s had to come and rescue the police, and bring the Delta force to the terror site.

Critical voices claims the police could have reached Utøya in 10 minutes using the helicopter. Anders Behring Breivik could also have been shoot from the helicopter. By using car and boat, the Police used 50 minutes to reach the crime site.

The police own helicopter was on the ground, reports the Norwegian private TV Channel, TV2. 15 minutes after the bomb at the PMO’s office was triggered, the police operators reported ready for action. That was 3.40 PM. That was more than an hour before Anders Behring Breivik reached Utøya.

One of the leaders of the police force in Oslo, reported to the Helicopter squad that their service was not needed. Only at 7.33 PM, the counter message was given. Their service was reported to be needed. But the counter order was given after Anders Behring Breivik had called the police, and said: “Mission completed”.

News sources:

Police chopper told to stand down

A police chopper was ready to scramble at 16:30 hours, it could have reached Utøya Island in eight minutes, but the crew was told to stand down and the chopper was airborne at 19:16 hours, four hours after the attack. The chopper was equipped with a 970-millimeter telephoto lens thermal imaging camera that can read a license plate at three kilometers distance from 1.5 kilometers altitude. Oslo PD HQ Chief of Staff John Fredriksen according to Aftenposten claims “it is absolutely unacceptable to use the police chopper in dangerous missions. Neither can it be used for bringin in crews on a dangerous mission, nor can it be used as tool for providing supporting gunfire”. The police chopper has nevertheless on several previous occasions taken part in dangerous missions, and it has indeed trained with Delta snipers, according to both former police chopper systems operator Mr. Finn Jensen and Chief Inspector Mr. Ole Vidar Dahl, head of the Oslo PD Special Unit. Unconfirmed reports have been published to the effect that the chopper crew reported for duty as early as 15:37 hours.

News sources:

Police stood passively and watched kids being shot

Several police reports and survivors’ witness testimonies reveal that the first police officers arriving near Utøya Island ordered civilians in harm’s way while they themselves stood at a safe distance, passively watching kids being shot. An available police boat was left in the garage as a first patrol from Hønefoss PD left the police station for the island at 17:33 hours. At 17:52 the patrol arrived at the ferry port, only 100 meters away from Utvika Camping, where several boats were harbored. Still the police log entry for 17:52 hours reads «Arrived location. Have to wait for a suitable boat.»

News Source:

Police statements mutually irreconcilable

The police officer who first arrived on location handed in his report on August 22, four days after the PD presented their official version of the police movements at Utøya Island. In spite of that this officer thus must have known the story that the PD presented, his version of what happened as delivered four days later cannot be reconciled with the PD’s version. The following questions are answered differently by the two stories:

  • Did the police really try to find an available boat without delay to get to the island in order to stop the massacre?
    • PD. Yes.
    • First arriving officer: No.
  • Did the police suspect that there were three to five shooters on the island or did they assume there was just one shooter?
    • PD: Three to five shooters.
    • First arriving officer: One shooter.
  • Did the police fear there might have been a bomb in Breivik’s shoreside van?
    • PD. Yes.
    • First arriving officer: No.
  • Did the officer first to arrive on location actually force civilians into the line of fire in open unprotected boats?
    • PD: No.
    • First arriving officer: Yes.

A supplementary police report being leaked to the press in mid-January 2012 is even further away from being reconcilable with all previously published police reports. Inconsistencies include the timeline and other details. Says staff writer Mr. Ola Karlsen of ABCNyheter:

Someone not as polite as I am would describe the contents (of the supplementary police report) as a lie. I’ll just say that the contents doesn’t agree with previous reports.

News source:

First arriving officers told to stand down

The first arriving officers were told to stand down in violation of standing instructions for handling live fire emergencies. The standing police instruction on the handling of live fire emergencies states:

«Ved melding om at skyting pågår i tett beferdet område (innendørs eller utendørs) skal politiet gjøre alt for å stoppe gjerningspersonen (-e) så raskt som mulig, slik at uskyldig tredjepart blir minst mulig skadelidende. Politiet må derfor raskest mulig gjøre klar til å gå direkte inn i aksjonsfasen»

«Upon receiving emergency calls about live fire emergencies in populated areas (indoors or outdoors) the police officers are to take all required actions in order to stop the perpetrators as soon as possible, preventing third parties from being harmed. The police officers must prepare themselves for direct action as soon as possible.»

The two first arriving officers were instead given instructions by radio to observe the situation.

News sources:

Bomb making equipment purchased from police lawyer

The blender Breivik allegedly used to mix the explosives was purchased second-hand from a police lawyer.

News source:

Terror analyst: Breivik believed he had inside support

Helge Lurås do not rule out that Brevik felt he had supporers from within the Norwegian government. Mr. Lurås works as an terrorism analyst at Norwegian center for Political science (NUPI).

In reply to why Breivik called the police during the massacre, and reportedly said “Mission completed”, Helge Lurås told this to the Norwegian media:

“I can see two options. This might be a planned statement, to create a aura of mysticism around him self, to get publicity in the media. Or He really believed that he had supporters within the Norwegian government, who are a part of the Templar Knight movement. I guess this is a calculated game from his side, but it is possible I overestimate him”, explains Lurås.

News source:

Breivik’s Facebook profile doctored after his arrest

On July 25, Paul Joseph Watson’s Prison Planet.com article headlined, “Anders Behring Breivik: Manufacturing a Patsy?” noting two different Facebook profiles (before and after July 22) describing him, saying:

“The first one in Norwegian was deleted minutes after (his) identity became public. A doctored English version replaced it, changing his profile to fit the crime. His stated “interest in Winston Churchill and (anti-Nazi resistance) leader Max Manus” was deleted. In addition, his Internet postings characterize himself not as a populist Christian conservative, but as a neo-con pro-Israeli supporter.” The doctored Facebook profile turned a “socially liberal, pro-Israeli neo-con (into) a Christian conservative, white supremacist.”

Why is there a version of Anders Behring Breivik’s Facebook profile not showing Christian / Conservative? Even Google’s cache of the Facebook profile retrieved on Jul 22, 2011 23:52:36 GMT supports this factor.

How was Christian / Conservative added prior to the profile being removed from Facebook? If the PDF of his Facebook profile was printed out/saved at Jul 23 01:39 GMT, and the profile was deleted soon afterwards by Facebook, how was a detained Anders Behring Breivik able to change it?

Who had access to in changing the Profile before it was removed?

News sources:

Proximity to Camp Rena

Breivik’s farm at Vålstua is situated exactly 12 kilometers south of Camp Rena, both in Åmot Township in Hedmark County. The location of his farm (red) and Camp Rena (blue) is shown on this map.

What is the nature of Camp Rena? Camp Rena is one of the largest military installations in Scandinavia, com- prising among others the following units:

Of all these units, Hærens Jegerkommando is perhaps the most interesting. Hærens Jegerkommando is the counter terrorism unit of the Norwegian Army, while Delta is the counter terrorism unit of the Norwegian Police.

International commentators point out inconsistencies

International commentators have these last days pointed out the inconsistencies of the official story. Professor James Petras writes in The 4th Media:

The Lone Assassin: a fascist Superman travels faster than a speeding bullet versus the police moving slower than an arthritic turtle

The case for the “lone wolf terrorist” defies credence. It is a tissue of lies used to cover up state complicity, intelligence malfeasance, and the sharp right-turn in the domestic and foreign policies of NATO countries.

There is no basis to accept Breivik’s initial claim that he acted alone for several outstanding reasons:

- First, the car bomb, which devastated downtown Oslo, was a highly complex weapon requiring expertise and coordination – the kind available to state or intelligence services, like the Mossad, which specialize in devastating car bombs. Amateurs, like Breivik, with no training in explosives, usually blow themselves up or lack the skill required to connect the electronic timing devices or remote detonators (like the unsuccessful ‘shoe’, ‘underpants’ and ‘Times Square’ bombers have proved).

- Secondly, the details of (a) moving the bomb, (b) obtaining (stealing) a vehicle, (c) placing the device at the strategic site, (d) successfully detonating it and (e) then gowning up in an elaborate special police uniform with an arsenal of hundreds of rounds of ammunition and driving off in another vehicle to Utoeya Island, (f) waiting patiently while armed to the teeth for a ferry boat, g) crossing with other passengers in his police uniform, (h) rounding up the Labor youth activists and commencing the massacre of scores of unarmed youth and finally (i) finishing off the wounded and hunting for those trying to hide or swim away – is not the activity of a lone zealot. Even the combination of Superman, Einstein and a world class marksman could not perform those tasks.

The media and NATO leaders must view the public as passive morons to expect them to believe that Anders Behring Breivik “acted alone”. He is willing to take a 20 year prison sentence if it means, as he maintains, that their collective action is the spark that ignites his comrades and advances the agenda of the violent and legal far rightwing parties. Facing a Norwegian judge on July 25, he publically declared the existence of “two more cells in my organization”.

According to witness testimony on Utoeya Island shots from two distinct weapons were heard from different directions during the massacre. The police say they are… “investigating”. Needless to say the police have found nothing; instead they put on a “show” to cover their inaction by raiding two houses far from the massacre and quickly released the suspects.

The most serious political implication of the terrorist action, however, is the conspicuous complicity of top police officials. The police took 90 minutes to arrive at Utoeya Island, located less than 20 kilometers from Oslo, 12 minutes by helicopter and 25 to 30 minutes by car and boat. The delay allowed the right wing assassins to use up the ammunition, maximizing the death toll of young, anti-fascist activists and devastating the Labor Youth Movement. The police chief, Sveinung Sponheim, made the feeblest excuse and cover-up, claiming “problems with transport”. Sponheim argued that a helicopter “wasn’t on standby” and they “could not find a boat” (Associated Press, July 24, 2011).

Yet a helicopter was available; it managed to fly to Utoeya and film the ongoing slaughter, and over half of Norwegians, a seafaring people for millennia, own or have access to a boat. A police force, faced with what the Prime Minister calls the “worst atrocity since the Nazi occupation”, moving at the pace of an arthritic turtle to rescue youth activists, raises the suspicion of some level of complicity.

The obvious question arises as to the degree to which the ideology of right wing extremism – neo-fascism – has penetrated the police and security forces, especially the upper echelons? This level of “inactivity” raises more questions than it answers. What it suggests is that the Social Democrats only control part of the Government – the legislative, while the neo-fascists influence the state apparatus.

The plain fact is that the police did not save a single life. When they finally arrived, Anders Behring Breivik had run out of ammunition and surrendered turning himself over to the police. The police literally did not fire a single shot; they did not even have to hunt or capture the assassin. An almost choreographed scenario: Hundreds wounded, 68 unarmed, peaceful activists killed and the Labor youth movement decimated.

The police can claim “crime solved” while the mass media prattles about a “lone assassin”. The far right has a “martyr” to mask a further advance in their anti-Muslim, pro Israel crusade. (It is reminiscent of the celebrated Israeli-American fascist mass murderer, Dr. Baruch Goldstein, who slaughtered dozens of unarmed Palestinian men and boys at prayer in 1994).

Only two days before the political murders, the head of the Labor Party Youth Movement, Eskil Pederson, gave an interview to the Dagbladet, Norway’s second largest tabloid, in which he announced a “unilateral economic embargo of Israel from the Norwegian side” (Gilad Atzmon, July 24, 2011).

The fact of the matter is that the Norwegian military has no problem promptly dispatching 500 troops to Afghanistan, half way around the world and providing six Norwegian Air Force jets and pilots to bomb and terrorize Libya. And yet they can’t find a helicopter or a row boat to transport their police a couple hundred yards to stop a domestic right wing terrorist – whose murderous rampage was being described second by second by the terrorized young victims on their cell phones to their frantic parents?

Source:

«I wish I could be told the truth.»

Says Mr. Jarl Robert Christensen, father of the victim Birgitte Smetbak: «I wish I could be told the truth from someone in charge at the police.» He adds: «If the police has nothing to hide, then why are they not giving us more information?»

  • Lawyers have still not been given access to hardcopies of the police logs or the paramedics log, showing what kind of information was coming in and what kind of orders were given.
  • Witness testimonies have been classified.
  • Police procedures for live fire emergencies have been classified.
  • All other reports which have been submitted by search & rescue crews, police officers and police departments have been classified.

News source:

«The massacre could have been avoided»

Says Mr. Arne Seland, legal counsel for one of the beraved families: «The police logs show that had the police acted differently, the massacre could have been avoided altogether.»

Eight minutes after the bomb attack on Govt Plaza security phoned the police informing them about a suspect having run from a white van just before the explosion. Three and a half hours passed before the security staff at Govt Plaza was interviewed by the police. Then it was revealed CCTV cameras had caught both Mr. Breivik and the license plate of the white van on tape.

Asks Counsel Seland: «Why was a public warning not circulated? Norway must be the only country in the world where someone carrying a gun, dressed up in a police uniform, a helmet and a bulletproof vest may stroll away from the scene of a terror attack on government buildings without anyone reacting.»

Counsel Seland continues: «Had the CCTV pictures been circulated right away, the security at the ferry port might have reacted differently.» Counsel Seland is firm in his conviction that had the police done their job, the ensuing massacre could have been avoided.

News source:

Evidence stolen from police container

A container where evidence was stored at the Vålstua farm was broken into in early October and some items are missing. The break-in happened in spite of that the container was placed well inside an area sealed off by the police and under police surveillance 24/7.

News source:

story in development

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.