http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/26/norway-killer-breivik-surprised-stopped
"
The man behind Norway's terror attacks has told his lawyer he was surprised he was not stopped straight after he bombed Oslo city centre, and that he expected to be killed before he reached the island where he shot dead 68 people.
Anders Behring Breivik was a "very cold" man who had taken drugs to keep himself awake during the shootings, the lawyer, Geir Lippestad, told a press conference yesterday.
Breivik, who has confessed to killing 76 people in the atrocities in Oslo and on Utøya island, told Lippestad he was at war with the world, and that killing was justified in a war. "He was a little surprised he succeeded – in his mind succeeded," Lippestad said. "He was expecting to be stopped earlier by the police or someone else during the actual day. He was surprised that he reached the island.
"He thought he would be killed after the bombing, after the action in the island, and he also thought he would be killed at the trial. He believes someone will kill him."
Breivik also claimed that he was part of an anti-Islam network that has two cells in Norway and "several" more abroad."
The really "funny thing" is that the cops took very long to arrive at the island simply because all helicopter pilots from the police were on vacatiion, ALL PILOTS.
Hooray the state!
That's worse than the post office, where half the employees take their lunch breaks during peak time.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
I heard it took more than an hour for the police to respond and they had to ask for permission to get the guns to stop him
Vitor: The really "funny thing" is that the cops took very long to arrive at the island simply because all helicopter pilots from the police were on vacatiion, ALL PILOTS. Hooray the state! Consider this. A chap I know was riding through Norway when he was buzzed and forced to stop (through loudspeakers) by a chopper of the Norwegian police. Of course he had been speeding. Though he was so far off the speed limit he expected to be hauled off to jail and/or to be given a huge fine given the show of force. He was fined the equivalent of 25€ and let go immediately since he paid in cash. I suspect only the fuel needed for this stupid stunt far exceeded what the police got in return... Together we go unsung... together we go down with our people | Post Points: 5
Vitor:The really "funny thing" is that the cops took very long to arrive at the island simply because all helicopter pilots from the police were on vacatiion, ALL PILOTS. Hooray the state!
Bill:I heard it took more than an hour for the police to respond and they had to ask for permission to get the guns to stop him
Gun control strikes again.
The cops said yesterday that ABB did not have a license, and the off duty cop on the island, did not have a gun.
Van Creveld is right: abysmal failures of state-monopolized security services such as the mess in Norway, will slowly take legitimacy away from the state and toward actor who can protect against nuts such as this a***ole. Terrorism (or guerilla warfare, its more honored sibling) is the end of territorial monopoly of violence, in turn the need of the state(at least of the huge state as it exists today). Of course, It’ll be getting worse before it gets better.
Johnny Doe:The helicopter the police has is a surveillance helicopter, not transport.
So a surveillance helicopter can't be used as improved transportation in a extreme emergency without going thru the typical bureaucracy?
It couldn't transport a whole squad, but a couple of armed cops there could have made the difference.
do you have a source for this?
Vitor: Johnny Doe:The helicopter the police has is a surveillance helicopter, not transport.So a surveillance helicopter can't be used as improved transportation in a extreme emergency without going thru the typical bureaucracy? It couldn't transport a whole squad, but a couple of armed cops there could have made the difference.
John James: Bill:I heard it took more than an hour for the police to respond and they had to ask for permission to get the guns to stop himdo you have a source for this?
Let me guess and all the victims were unarmed, partially because Norway has very strict gun control legislation.
Torsten:Let me guess and all the victims were unarmed, partially because Norway has very strict gun control legislation.
I saw a source on that one from Yahoo -Norway police arrive 90 minutes after firing began
"When firearms are needed, they typically have to call and get permission from the police chief." Source
And yet, they'll use it to make it even more difficult.
The delay in response has been a spawn for some conspiracy theories.
There was a conspiracy. Watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFx5C7btaOA
Where he got a truckload of money from, who allowed him to put his rhetoric out before the event and consealed his identity, what motivations he had to do it and to whom...
Vitor: The really "funny thing" is that the cops took very long to arrive at the island simply because all helicopter pilots from the police were on vacatiion, ALL PILOTS. Hooray the state!
Another "funny thing" is that a supposed defense lawyer is allegedly releasing statements to the media that implicate his own client. Sure smells "funny" to me.
An even funnier "thing" [to me at least] is that you have high profile "libertarians" such as Lew Rockwell and Justin Raimondo, completely disregarding the principle[s] of " innocent until proven guilty , beyond a reasonable doubt " and all of that inconvenient baloney, and instead unapologetically presuming Breivik's guilt, in order to make it more convenient for them to write their own little knee-jerk defenses of "libertarianism" for their own accolytes.
For example, Mr Rockwell's piece starts with these words: "The violence perpetuated by Anders Behring Breivik in Norway ....."
Thank you, Mr Rockwell, for once more reminding me of exactly why, after 9/11, I disassociated myself entirely from the "libertarian movement"!
Regards, onebornfree.
For more information about onebornfree, please see profile.[ i.e. click on forum name "onebornfree"].
Another "funny thing" is that a supposed defense lawyer is allegedly releasing statements to the media that implicate his own client. Sure smells "funny" to me. An even funnier "thing" [to me at least] is that you have high profile "libertarians" such as Lew Rockwell and Justin Raimondo, completely disregarding the principle[s] of " innocent until proven guilty , beyond a reasonable doubt " and all of that inconvenient baloney, and instead unapologetically presuming Breivik's guilt, in order to make it more convenient for them to write their own little knee-jerk defenses of "libertarianism" for their own accolytes. For example, Mr Rockwell's piece starts with these words: "The violence perpetuated by Anders Behring Breivik in Norway ....." Thank you, Mr Rockwell, for once more reminding me of exactly why, after 9/11, I disassociated myself entirely from the "libertarian movement"!
Dude, there was video shot on that day of that psychotic shooting people who were begging for thier lives in the water. Literally, in praying position in knee deep water. Do we have to wait for a judge to verify a videotape?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/8657491/Norway-attacks-July-23-as-it-happened.html
Is that not proof enough? There are better (not better, but clearer) photos as well.
EDIT: https://coto2.wordpress.com/tag/anders-behring-breivik/ - look at the man in the red (lower left hand corner), probably seconds before he was murdered...
The whole case about Osama Bin laden seems to have died down in comparison. No one cares for DNA evidence or Photographic evidence- or any evidence at all that it was indeed him who was killed in a town where every single pakistani would recognize an outsider arab family.
The osama thing was obviously a fabrication...he's been dead since tora bora...the establishment had always planned to roll that out on us. My guess is that it was done as a counteraction to the Raymond Davis incident.
Marky Mark: Dude, there was video shot on that day of that psychotic shooting people who were begging for thier lives in the water. Literally, in praying position in knee deep water. Do we have to wait for a judge to verify a videotape? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/8657491/Norway-attacks-July-23-as-it-happened.html
While I actually believe that they are having the shooter in custody and that it is really Anders Behring Breivik, I'd know a couple of people that could pass just as good as the shooter on the pictures.
Marky Mark: Is that not proof enough? There are better (not better, but clearer) photos as well.
Yes, the clearer photos were even on his facebook page right. But it isn't about the the proof, it's more about the sub judice rule. Now, if a journalist bends it a bit, I can still live with it. But, if his own lawyer doesn't assume innocence before the trial, I find that seriously more funny.
That said, I am not that devasted that it actually did strike members of the Norwegian Labor Party. They were supporting the ANC/SACP alliance morally and financially, while their henchmen (MK) were planting bombs and land mines in SA targeting innocent civilian or necklacing dissidents (ask me for more details on this, if you want to know). I am just sorry that they had learn the taste of their own medicine the hard way and most of those biting the dust were only born after what I just mentioned.
Torsten: Yes, the clearer photos were even on his facebook page right. But it isn't about the the proof, it's more about the sub judice rule. Now, if a journalist bends it a bit, I can still live with it. But, if his own lawyer doesn't assume innocence before the trial, I find that seriously more funny. That said, I am not that devasted that it actually did strike members of the Norwegian Labor Party. They were supporting the ANC/SACP alliance morally and financially, while their henchmen (MK) were planting bombs and land mines in SA targeting innocent civilian or necklacing dissidents (ask me for more details on this, if you want to know). I am just sorry that they had learn the taste of their own medicine the hard way and most of those biting the dust were only born after what I just mentioned.
"Yes, the clearer photos were even on his facebook page"
Yes, but those photographs are clear candidates for "photoshoppery", yes? For example, the white background is a dead giveaway [or, if you prefer , "highly suspect" ].
"But it isn't about the the proof, "
Just as with 9/11, the released Oslo/Utoya photos/videos and reported "eye-witness testimony" in reality "prove" nothing at this stage.
Anyone who does not have his/her head buried in the sand [or stuck up you know where] ,knows these days that both still photos and "live" video can easily be digitally manipulated to "prove" anything you want.
There is even face-morphing software available to change any face into any other. It's all been around for at least 15 years.
Until the photos/videos are subjected to rigorous analysis for fakery they are all nothing more than hearsay "evidence" [i.e. non cross-examined, unsubstantiated "witness testimony"] that can be taken either way, depending on the pre-existing mindset of the viewer, as is hearsay "evidence" all of the reported aural, claimed "witness testimony" quoted by the press to date.
"But, if his own lawyer doesn't assume innocence before the trial, I find that seriously more funny."
I assume you mean "funny", not in a good way [i.e. it stinks]. This "should" ring " alarm bells" [but for L.Rockwell and J. Raimondo, apparrently not].
It sounds to me as if the Breivik persona [if it is even a real, living person and not an artificial construct] is being deliberately set up as the undisputed perp. Or do defense lawyers in Norway routinely give statements to the media admitting to their clients guilt, pre-trial?
"That said, I am not that devasted that it actually did strike members of the Norwegian Labor Party. "
I believe that a good question to ask here is :" who benefits?".
Could it possibly be the Norwegian Labor Party itself [or some other part of the Norwegian government]?
If so [and I'm not saying it is -I don't know at this point], then it seems reasonable to suspect them as being at least partly behind this affair. And if so- who else benefits?
It could even possibly be a US financed/run offshore psy-op that directly benefits the US government in some way - who knows?
pretty sure the US didn't plot that, onbornfree. My guess is Israel and the Moussad
What??? All the pilots were on vacation? Why didn't I hear of that before? Was that a joke? I'm confused....??????
Yeah!!! Why haven't I read about this? I think these are just rumors just to worsen out things.
onebornfree: "Yes, the clearer photos were even on his facebook page" Yes, but those photographs are clear candidates for "photoshoppery", yes? For example, the white background is a dead giveaway [or, if you prefer , "highly suspect" ].
I was actually being a bit sarcastic, when I said the photos on facebook are better. That this isn't all hard proof isn't in dispute from my side. And some things are really a bit odd, but that isn't hard proof either. It's also not odd for the initial owner to fotoshop either. And, if that would have been really part of a conspiracy, it most certainly would have been done more professional.
onebornfree: There is even face-morphing software available to change any face into any other. It's all been around for at least 15 years. Until the photos/videos are subjected to rigorous analysis for fakery they are all nothing more than hearsay "evidence" [i.e. non cross-examined, unsubstantiated "witness testimony"] that can be taken either way, depending on the pre-existing mindset of the viewer, as is hearsay "evidence" all of the reported aural, claimed "witness testimony" quoted by the press to date.
Again that's not in dispute, but the same rigour should be applied to any "conspiracy theory", shouldn't it?
onebornfree: "But, if his own lawyer doesn't assume innocence before the trial, I find that seriously more funny." I assume you mean "funny", not in a good way [i.e. it stinks]. This "should" ring " alarm bells" [but for L.Rockwell and J. Raimondo, apparrently not].
onebornfree: It sounds to me as if the Breivik persona [if it is even a real, living person and not an artificial construct] is being deliberately set up as the undisputed perp. Or do defense lawyers in Norway routinely give statements to the media admitting to their clients guilt, pre-trial?
onebornfree: "That said, I am not that devasted that it actually did strike members of the Norwegian Labor Party. " I believe that a good question to ask here is :" who benefits?".
onebornfree: Could it possibly be the Norwegian Labor Party itself [or some other part of the Norwegian government]?
They've gained lots of sympathy by being the victims and it helps them also against competing right-wing parties. Not to forget that this is a useful joker against anyone critical of multiculturalism, islamization, immigration. Issues that have become more pressing for people in Europe recently, especially when they had the dubious pleasure of being culturally enriched by criminals so diversely different from them. In Oslo for example, all reported rapes during the last year were committed by non-Norwegians with almost all the victims being Norwegian girls or women. It's not illogical to expect many Norwegians may consider changing their stance on multiculturalism.
onebornfree: If so [and I'm not saying it is -I don't know at this point], then it seems reasonable to suspect them as being at least partly behind this affair. And if so- who else benefits?
http://praag.co.uk/columns/joseph-secreve/759-an-inspector-calls-in-norway.html
onebornfree:It could even possibly be a US financed/run offshore psy-op that directly benefits the US government in some way - who knows?
According to the "Manifest" Breivik is said to have prepared the attacks for 9(!) years, while having no regular income and assets that are a mystery for someone in his twenties whose financial records don't add up. There is reasonable doubt in the claim that he acted all alone.
Police harrassment of the blogger most quoted by Breivik:
The following message just came in from Fjordman, who adds that he intends to keep a low profile in the near future. I am shocked by the hostile treatment I received at the hands of the police. Lars Hedegaard heard my story and commented that he had never known of any witness who has been treated in this manner in any Western country, except for totalitarian societies such as the Third Reich. My lawyer, who is experienced and has seen many tough cases before, did not expect anything like this to happen. He assumed this would be relatively easy, and even suggested that I might get by without a lawyer. I insisted on having one present just in case, which most likely helped a little bit. Things would have been even worse had that not been the case. My lawyer later said that in my case they operated at best at the very fringes of what could be considered legal. I was never accused of doing anything criminal, obviously because I had nothing to do with the terror attacks and they know this. Yet without the slightest hint of proof of any lawbreaking, I was treated as a murder suspect. To my total surprise I had to go to my flat, where for several hours half a dozen police officers went through all of my DVDs, searched through my old printed travel photographs from years back, searched through all of my (many) books, checked my kitchen equipment, went through all of my clothes, and confiscated a suitcase that contained nothing more than clothes and some books. They also confiscated several digital devices, including my camera and my laptop. It is quite clear that they wanted information about non-violent Islam-critical networks in Europe that they suspected might be contained in my PC, even though they denied this to me. Please remember that the police and the Police Security Service (PST) apparently had no clue who I was until I literally knocked on their door of my own free will, even though I knew full well that I would have to give up my anonymity after doing so. I had very little information about Breivik since I have never met him, something which he himself has admitted, yet I still handed over what little information I had. I also answered their questions honestly, even though, technically speaking, I did not have to do so. If you believe the mass media, the police were still not sure that I really was Fjordman until a couple of hours after I had turned up at the police station. As soon as they understood that this was indeed the case, they rushed through a quick decision to search my flat and confiscate my computer equipment immediately. They must have realized at this point that I had nothing at all to do with the terror attacks. I personally suspect that this was mainly a political decision. http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2011/08/fjordman-my-afternoon-with-police.html
The following message just came in from Fjordman, who adds that he intends to keep a low profile in the near future.
I am shocked by the hostile treatment I received at the hands of the police. Lars Hedegaard heard my story and commented that he had never known of any witness who has been treated in this manner in any Western country, except for totalitarian societies such as the Third Reich. My lawyer, who is experienced and has seen many tough cases before, did not expect anything like this to happen. He assumed this would be relatively easy, and even suggested that I might get by without a lawyer. I insisted on having one present just in case, which most likely helped a little bit. Things would have been even worse had that not been the case. My lawyer later said that in my case they operated at best at the very fringes of what could be considered legal. I was never accused of doing anything criminal, obviously because I had nothing to do with the terror attacks and they know this. Yet without the slightest hint of proof of any lawbreaking, I was treated as a murder suspect. To my total surprise I had to go to my flat, where for several hours half a dozen police officers went through all of my DVDs, searched through my old printed travel photographs from years back, searched through all of my (many) books, checked my kitchen equipment, went through all of my clothes, and confiscated a suitcase that contained nothing more than clothes and some books. They also confiscated several digital devices, including my camera and my laptop. It is quite clear that they wanted information about non-violent Islam-critical networks in Europe that they suspected might be contained in my PC, even though they denied this to me. Please remember that the police and the Police Security Service (PST) apparently had no clue who I was until I literally knocked on their door of my own free will, even though I knew full well that I would have to give up my anonymity after doing so. I had very little information about Breivik since I have never met him, something which he himself has admitted, yet I still handed over what little information I had. I also answered their questions honestly, even though, technically speaking, I did not have to do so. If you believe the mass media, the police were still not sure that I really was Fjordman until a couple of hours after I had turned up at the police station. As soon as they understood that this was indeed the case, they rushed through a quick decision to search my flat and confiscate my computer equipment immediately. They must have realized at this point that I had nothing at all to do with the terror attacks. I personally suspect that this was mainly a political decision.
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2011/08/fjordman-my-afternoon-with-police.html
Torsten: Again that's not in dispute, but the same rigour should be applied to any "conspiracy theory", shouldn't it?
This is really the only point that you make that I have any disagreement with, and then only a slight one.
I would ask: as the government "conspiracy theory" is the only version of any real consequence at this time, is it not sufficient for now to merely hold all [and I mean all!] of it's purported evidence in support of its own theory to that "higher standard of proof"?
Therefor I do not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that my version [should I have one] of what really happened is the real version [except perhaps to myself], nor any other version - all that is necessary is for me to seriously question/"disprove" the governments version if "doable", surely ?
The Oslo "car bomb facts" in particular ring hollow to me, [car bombs can not cause the extensive damage seen in the photos/videos, and suspiciously, the government buildings damaged were apparently scheduled for demolition ] , as does the extraordinarily high kill to wounded ratio [i.e where are all of the wounded?], as does the "my client is guilty " type statements from his supposed defense lawyer, as do the various photoshopped pics of Breivik, as do his supposed finances that you mention.
P.S do you have any links to Breiviks in camera court appearance, or are those filmed appearances before the judge not released to the public but only reported as having occurred, by the media?
onebornfree: Torsten: Again that's not in dispute, but the same rigour should be applied to any "conspiracy theory", shouldn't it? This is really the only point that you make that I have any disagreement with, and then only a slight one. I would ask: as the government "conspiracy theory" is the only version of any real consequence at this time, is it not sufficient for now to merely hold all [and I mean all!] of it's purported evidence in support of its own theory to that "higher standard of proof"?
onebornfree: Therefor I do not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that my version [should I have one] of what really happened is the real version [except perhaps to myself], nor any other version - all that is necessary is for me to seriously question/"disprove" the governments version if "doable", surely ?
That depends on what you'd like to do with your version and what status you'd like to assign to it.
onebornfree: The Oslo "car bomb facts" in particular ring hollow to me, [car bombs can not cause the extensive damage seen in the photos/videos, and suspiciously, the government buildings damaged were apparently scheduled for demolition ] , as does the extraordinarily high kill to wounded ratio [i.e where are all of the wounded?], as does the "my client is guilty " type statements from his supposed defense lawyer, as do the various photoshopped pics of Breivik, as do his supposed finances that you mention.
Take for instance the church street bomb it ultimately 19 people and injured more then a hundred. http://www.afriforum.co.za/english/background-information-church-street-bomb-20th-of-may-1983/It was planted by the ANC, which BTW was sponsored by the Norwegian government at that stage. Note the hike it took in 1983, when the car bomb was planted.
Table VII Official support to the liberation movements in South Africa -----------ANC---------PAC 1977 2 000 000 650 000 1978 3 000 000 1 000 000 1979 3 000 000 500 000 1980 3 000 000 500 000 1981 3 500 000 900 000 1982 5 000 000 500 000 1983 32 700 000 / 14 750 000 1984 28 800 000 3 300 000 1985 32 000 000 1 400 000 1986 39 100 000 1 300 000 1987 46 000 000 2 000 000 1988 41 500 000 2 600 000
www.liberationafrica.se/publications/91-7106-447-8.pdf
onebornfree: P.S do you have any links to Breiviks in camera court appearance, or are those filmed appearances before the judge not released to the public but only reported as having occurred, by the media?
That "in camera' was tmk without camera. So no other info available, except press releases. I got somewhere a chronology and would have to look it up.
http://www.newsinenglish.no/2011/08/04/ut%C3%B8ya-helicopter-response-scrutinized/
Torsten: Car bombs can cause extensive damage and kill a lot of people. It al depends on circumstances. Take for instance the church street bomb it ultimately 19 people and injured more then a hundred. http://www.afriforum.co.za/english/background-information-church-street-bomb-20th-of-may-1983/ It was planted by the ANC, which BTW was sponsored by the Norwegian government at that stage. Note the hike it took in 1983, when the car bomb was planted. Table VII Official support to the liberation movements in South Africa -----------ANC---------PAC 1977 2 000 000 650 000 1978 3 000 000 1 000 000 1979 3 000 000 500 000 1980 3 000 000 500 000 1981 3 500 000 900 000 1982 5 000 000 500 000 1983 32 700 000 / 14 750 000 1984 28 800 000 3 300 000 1985 32 000 000 1 400 000 1986 39 100 000 1 300 000 1987 46 000 000 2 000 000 1988 41 500 000 2 600 000 www.liberationafrica.se/publications/91-7106-447-8.pdf
Car bombs can cause extensive damage and kill a lot of people. It al depends on circumstances.
Take for instance the church street bomb it ultimately 19 people and injured more then a hundred. http://www.afriforum.co.za/english/background-information-church-street-bomb-20th-of-may-1983/
It was planted by the ANC, which BTW was sponsored by the Norwegian government at that stage. Note the hike it took in 1983, when the car bomb was planted.
1] The Oslo bomb was supposedly a fertilizer bomb, a la OKC/ McVeigh[or whomever]. Are you saying that the S.A bomb damage was caused by a fertilizer bomb also?
2] Are you 100% sure that the bomb was planted by the ANC?If so , why?
3] "That depends on what you'd like to do with your version and what status you'd like to assign to it." .
Why? What does it matter [to you, or anyone else] what my version is [if I have one] and what status I might "assign" it? Am I , and everyone else, not free to theorize any version we choose to and and to "assign" any status we wish? I'm not sure I understand your point here.
onebornfree: 1] The Oslo bomb was supposedly a fertilizer bomb, a la OKC/ McVeigh[or whomever]. Are you saying that the S.A bomb damage was caused by a fertilizer bomb also?
onebornfree: 2] Are you 100% sure that the bomb was planted by the ANC?If so , why?
It's as certain as it can get that they or rather the military wing MK they shared with the South African Communist Party (SACP) planted the bomb. There reasoning was that the bomb was planted close to offices of the South African Air Force (amongst many others). It was part of their campaign to overthrow the South African government and replace it with a socialist one party state under their leadership. They later applied for amnesty on that:http://www.justice.gov.za/trc/decisions/2001/ac21003.htm
onebornfree: 3] "That depends on what you'd like to do with your version and what status you'd like to assign to it." . Why? What does it matter [to you, or anyone else] what my version is [if I have one] and what status I might "assign" it? Am I , and everyone else, not free to theorize any version we choose to and and to "assign" any status we wish? I'm not sure I understand your point here.
You just assigned a purpose and status to your version: Personal theorizing, just opinion. If you'd like it to be believed by others or make a charge, standards applied would be stricter IMO. That would of course also account for the government version, which claims a status of officiality
Torsten: onebornfree: 1] The Oslo bomb was supposedly a fertilizer bomb, a la OKC/ McVeigh[or whomever]. Are you saying that the S.A bomb damage was caused by a fertilizer bomb also? The Oslo bomb was apparently made of ammonium nitrate won from fertilizer. I am not sure of exactly what explosive the church bomb was made, but take a guess that it was a military grade explosive. From what I've read ammonium nitrate explosives can actually reach something close to military grade explosives, but I would have to consult the literature on that.. If you disagree, perhaps you could point me to a reference in the literature on that?!
onebornfree: 1] The Oslo bomb was supposedly a fertilizer bomb, a la OKC/ McVeigh[or whomever]. Are you saying that the S.A bomb damage was caused by a fertilizer bomb also? The Oslo bomb was apparently made of ammonium nitrate won from fertilizer. I am not sure of exactly what explosive the church bomb was made, but take a guess that it was a military grade explosive. From what I've read ammonium nitrate explosives can actually reach something close to military grade explosives, but I would have to consult the literature on that.. If you disagree, perhaps you could point me to a reference in the literature on that?!
http://physics911.net/generalpartinreport
regards, onebornfree.