Published: May 8, 2024
A new look at the likely staged Moscow concert hall attack.
On March 25, SPR published a forensic video analysis providing initial evidence that the March 22 Moscow concert hall attack was a staged event run by Russian security services. On March 29, SPR published an updated analysis that provided additional evidence supporting this conclusion.
The evidence in brief
The key videos and snapshots are provided in the annex below.
To recap, most video footage of the event is of unusually low video quality; not a single execution by gunfire can be seen anywhere; shattering glass doors were due to people, not gunfire; several people miraculously survived close-range gunfire unscathed; the gunfire showed an unusual, movie-like “sparking effect”; not a single victim could be seen up close and in high resolution; many “bodies” exhibited postures that are very difficult or impossible to explain physiologically, but are typical of simulation bodies; the supposed “beheading video” shows no beheading at all, but does show multiple anomalies indicative of a simulation body and video editing; and the video supposedly showing the severing of an ear of a “terrorist” does not show the “severing” of the ear.
In addition, it has been noted that the entire building burnt down in record time but no large-scale arson could be seen; no CCTV footage of the event has been released by Russian authorities; and Russian security services were stationed close to the concert hall but didn’t intervene.
Moreover, a Belarusian media outlet spotted multiple plain-clothed “men in blue” who appear to have coordinated and filmed the event. The next day, one of them seems to have participated in the arrest of a “terrorist” near the Ukrainian border; another one was presented as a “hero” by Russian media; and a third one has been linked to the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR).
Finally, SPR highlighted that at least two other staged terrorist attacks previously took place on a March 22: the staged “Brussels bombing” on 22 March 2016 and the staged “Westminster attack” on 22 March 2017, both of which were run by Western security services. In fact, SPR published a brief reminder of these two staged events just one hour before the Moscow event.
No counter-arguments
To date, not a single point highlighted in the initial SPR video analysis has been explained or invalidated by anyone. Instead, French news agency AFP chose to debunk “social media posts of an old clip from the making of a Russian music video that falsely claimed it proved deaths during an attack at a Moscow concert hall in March 2024 were staged.”
Three hypotheses have been proposed to explain observations made in the initial SPR analysis: 1) The impossible body postures might be due to “rigor mortis” (no: postmortem rigidity is a gradual process that begins only four hours after death); 2) the movie-like “sparking effect” might be due to defective guns or ammunition (theoretically yes, but no real-world footage of such an effect has been found anywhere; moreover, the knife showed a similar sparking effect); 3) the video quality is too low to reach a conclusion (no: the low video quality is itself an anomaly that needs to be explained, but it is still sufficient to identify the many anomalies discussed above).
Some readers invoked the victims reported by Russian authorities and media, but such victims are reported after every staged “terrorist attack”. Previous events showed that victim identities can be real or virtual; if they are real, they may or may not have died; if they died or were injured, it occurred in other circumstances. Severely injured victims are often played by so-called amputee actors (e.g. in Boston). In some cases, bodies of actual dead people were used in staged events (e.g. in Sarajevo).
Any serious assessment of the Moscow incident has to either explain or accept the anomalies discussed above. As long as they aren’t explained, the available evidence suggests that the Moscow concert hall attack was in fact a staged event. If indeed it was a staged event, one may add that the staging was not very sophisticated compared to some other staged “terrorist attacks”.
Possible motives revisited
In the initial analysis, SPR discussed the possibility that Russian security services staged the Moscow concert hall attack – five days after the Presidential election – in order to escalate the Ukraine War (similar to the Chechnya War in 1999) or ramp up domestic anti-terror measures.
To some limited extent, this has indeed occurred: in the wake of the “concert hall attack”, Moscow officially blamed it on the Ukrainian leadership (though without providing any verifiable evidence) and for the first time started systematically destroying not just electric substations, but entire thermal and hydroelectric power plants in Ukraine (which is likely a war crime).
However, the reality is that Russia does not currently have the manpower or means to substantially escalate its “special military operation” in a conventional (i.e. non-nuclear) way. This may only change if Ukrainian front lines and air defense completely collapse.
Thus, it appears possible that the Moscow “concert hall attack” – supposing that it was in fact staged – was primarily a psychological operation aimed at both the Russian and Western populations to paint Ukraine as a reckless terrorist aggressor and Russia as an innocent victim.
Another possibility is that someone planned a real terrorist attack but Russian security services intercepted it and “replaced” it with a simulated attack. Similar operations were performed by Iraqi intelligence during the war against ISIS (e.g. the staged 2016 “ISIS car bombing”).
As previously noted, Western governments cannot expose such a Russian operation because they themselves routinely use staged terrorist attacks to justify wars and other interventions. The most they could do was try to divert the blame from Ukraine to the synthetic “ISIS” terrorist group, which had the additional advantage of reviving fears of “ISIS” in Western populations.
In this regard, one may even wonder if there was some high-level coordination between Russian and Western security services. There is no compelling evidence of this, but it remains a possibility: Russia previously contributed to staged terrorist attacks in Western countries and it remains unexplained how the dubious “Amaq news agency” was able to publish the doctored “beheading video”.
The motives behind a staged terrorist attack can be multifaceted and complex. At any rate, the discussion of possible motives is always independent of the analysis of the event itself.
“Has everyone been fooled?”
A Greek reader posed the following question: “Your latest article really nailed it, at least in my view. But why has no one else challenged this ‘terrorist attack’ narrative? Has everyone been fooled or are some people suspicious but remain silent and go with the mainstream explanation?”
Generally speaking, there are four main reasons why even among independent journalists, few question staged terrorist attacks: one, they don’t know (lack of evidence or expertise); two, they don’t dare (censorship, sponsorship, reputation); three, they don’t care (agreement with the official narrative); or four, they simply aren’t as independent as assumed (controlled opposition).
In the case of the Moscow incident, people who did not already know that many “terrorist attacks” are in fact staged obviously didn’t think of a staged event (or cannot even imagine such a scenario). People who support Russia or President Putin had no motivation to question this particular event (even if they could). Other people may have been suspicious but feared repercussions (ranging from YouTube channel deletion to FSB assassination). Many Western analysts of staged terrorism focus mainly on events in Europe and the US, as well as occasional events in Australia and New Zealand.
Nevertheless, a few authors did in fact question the reality of the Moscow incident. This select group included an American-Greek journalist; an American journalist and former RT editor currently living in Russia; a Russian expat and war blogger; a Danish analyst; two American analysts; and even one pro-Putin website, which deleted its article within an hour, though.
Different authors will provide different perspectives, but any serious independent journalist should be aware of the fact that many modern “terrorist attacks” are indeed staged by security services. It currently looks like the March 22 Moscow “concert hall attack” was one such case.
***
You have been reading:
Moscow concert hall attack: “Has everyone been fooled?”
An analysis by Swiss Policy Research
***
Previous articles
- The Moscow Concert Hall Attack May Have Been A Staged Event
- Moscow “Terrorist Attack”: New Evidence in Favor of a Staged Event
Video clips of the event (18+)
- (18+) Videos of the attack (SouthFront)
- (18+) “Beheading video” (SouthFront)
- (18+) “Severed ear video” (Telegram)
- (18+) Patient in helicopter (Telegram)
- (18+) Bellum Acta (Telegram channel)
The “men in blue” (Nexta)
The “men in blue” identified by Belarusian-Polish media outlet Nexta. Sources: A, B, C.
Two “calmly chatting” men (ES)
Two men apparently “chatting calmly” next to the mass shooting. Source: ES
Key video snapshots (SPR, 18+)
The following images show some of the key video snapshots of the Moscow concert hall attack. All of the images use the highest resolution currently available to the authors of this analysis. Most images have been enlarged, some have been brightened. (18+)
Video: Miraculous shooting survivors (18+)
A group of people apparently surviving close-range gunfire unharmed (Source)
Simulated wounds in staged terrorist attacks
Silicon sleeve wounds (i.e. moulage) used during the staged 2013 “Boston Marathon bombing”. Source: The Boston Unbombing (2016 documentary)
Photorealistic simulation bodies (18+)
A photorealistic manikin used during the staged 2013 Kenya shopping mall attack. Right-click on the images to enlarge them. Sources: video analysis and newspaper article.