This is a reconstruction of local media: link. Why attack the main entrance?
This article provides a good summary of the overall story presented to us: link.
“Saturday at approximately 15:33 a perpetrator shot, with an automatic weapon, towards participants in a debate at the Culture House “Krudttønden” in the area of Østerbro in Copenhagen.” (link). [33 minutes past 3]
An automatic firearm continuously fires rounds as long as the trigger is held pressed and there is ammunition. Automatic weapons tend to be restricted to military and police organizations in most developed countries that permit the use of non/semi-automatic firearms. These are not small weapons to carry and require training to use properly. Where/how would a petty crime guy like Omar get this kind of weapon and training and not get noticed (in the weeks just after Charlie Hebdo had taken place)? According to media sources, he never went to a jihadi training camp.
The height. Here the description of the gunman as given the day of the shootings. He is assumed to be 1.85cm based on CCTV footage. Shooting with an automatic rifle would make the posture 1.65cm or so? This type of weapon usually is fired with the gunman standing with his feet wide and head low. It is a posture that decreases a persons height.
The pictures above show the bullet holes. On both sides of the glass these are numbered by policemen or CSI, of which a picture is taken. We see how they label the holes both on the inside and the outside. Those labelled on the inside show a marker with no number (it can only been seen on the inside), while those with a numbered marker are labelled from the outside. What do we notice…
- The holes marked from the outside are presumed fired by the attacker. This is confirmed by the pattern of shooting from left to right (see numbers). The shots fired from inside are fired by different security personnel with handguns, so they should show less of a consistent pattern.
- The holes marked from the outside, actually show visible holes, while those marked from the inside, show no actual holes. It is as if the bullets fired from inside do not go through the glass, while the bullets from the automatic rifle do.
- The average height of Swedish women is 1.70cm and men 1.80cm. An attacker of 1.85cm in shooting position is about 1.65cm (smaller then the average Swedisch person). The weapon would be positioned at shoulder height (1.35cm is my rough estimate). Unless all the policemen in these pictures are very small, the gunman aimed in a slightly upward direction.
- The odd thing is this: The bullets fired from the inside (that did not go through the glass, so never would be able to hit the gunman), were aimed lower towards the gunman, presumably because the guards kneeled down. Why didnot the attacker aim at the guards on the ground? He aimed higher! Depending on the distance he fired from, the attacker perhaps even aimed too high if the security guards would stand-up straight!
- Why didnot the guards see this man coming? He looks a bit arabic and his face was well hidden or masked…. Why were security officers not chasing this guy outside afterwars? While he is fleeing the scene, they had the best opportunity to shoot him down (outside there is mainly empty space).
Now let us review the reconstruction video. It shows: the attacker should have!
This is a very irrational attacker. He attacked the cultural centre through the glass doors, firing at the Foyer Bar. In the Foyer, there were at least two guards or security men (according to the above video). To be able to shoot Lars Vilks, the attacker had to kill both security men, then walk in and attack Lars Vilks (who by then is likely hiding/running). Why? While he had the opportunity to kill both guards (they were inside, visible to the attacker), he did shoot at them, but did not kill them.
What else could the attacker have done as an alternative attack strategy? The room where the debate took place (Stalden room), had 2 outside doors with windows, as well as several windows at street level, all with views of the podium. It seems there were no (why not?) guards outside, which makes it easy to directly aim at Lars Vilks through one of the windows. He had visited the premise before and knew the lay-out.
Again, why would professional security men, a few weeks after Charlie Hebdo, agree on a free speech event in a room with windows at street level, with no place to run to… and no security agent to guard the walls outside around the premises?
ps. I am somewhat surprised. Lars Vilks did videotape his Uppsala lecture a few years ago, before ‘free speech’ debates were mainstream news in Europe. Why isnot there any video footage of this particular debate in Krudttonden on 14 February 2015? It was just weeks after Charlie Hebdo and there were several international high-profile guests. There is only a voicerecording (link).
pps. I am no expert. A few years ago I went to a shooting range 5 times to learn how to handle a gun, but never went back (they started stalking me terribly, as they are former Dutch militairy and police men). So I know more than the average Dutchman, but by no means am I an expert. I can only hope readers who are more experienced in this area, do study the facts with me and support me with their knowledge.