Flight 253 Bomber

[Dick Splash]

I'm sure by now you've all heard about the Nigerian 'underwear' bomber. What the mainstream media has presented to the world is that a twenty three year old Nigerian man, called Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, attempted to destroy a Northwest Airlines aircraft as it was about to land in Detroit. The chemicals he had intended to use were sewn into his underwear. The attempt failed, there was a small fire and burnt himself in the process. He was quickly overwhelmed, the fire was extinguished and the aircraft landed safely. Soon after, on the strength of his name, an expensive flat was searched in London. His identity has been confirmed, his Father had warned the security services about the fact his son posed a potential threat and his son has now been charged.

What doesn't seem to be covered by the mainstream media is the well dressed, wealthy looking Pakistani/Indian man in his fifties, witnessed by passengers and staff in Holland, that escorted the bomber to check-in, explained that the bomber was a refugee from the Sudan and didn't need a passport. The man was advised to see the check-in staff's manager, and the pair then walked down a nearby corridor to where the staff member pointed. Whatever happened next hasn't yet been reported, but the bomber was allowed on the aircraft. There are also reports of a passenger that filmed the incident on the aircraft and nothing has been seen of this. Also, rather than evacuate the aircraft after landing, the passengers were kept on the aircraft for a further twenty minutes. Then they were allowed to take their hand luggage off with them and the witnesses were detained for a further two hours plus for questioning. Whilst the passengers were waiting to be questioned a security official and a dog walked amongst them. The dog then sat down next to a young Pakistani/Indian man's bag. The man and his bag were then taken into a room for questioning. The passengers were then moved into another part of the airport.

I understand the FBI denied the existence of the second passenger at first, but have now admitted that he's been detained for reasons unrelated to the bomber. Has anyone else heard about any of the above and of a similar potential bomber in Somalia in November?

DS

[Dick Splash]

This doesn't seem to be a conspiracy as here's an interview with a U.S. passenger and his wife that witnessed the above;

A more in-depth interview with him.

DS

[WhiteKnight77]

The biggest thing that was asked of those who were on the Sunday morning news shows is why was he allowed to get a lawyer? It's about time the mainstream media asked the right question.

[Dick Splash]

It's about time the mainstream media asked the right question.

Absolutely. Kurt Haskell is actually a lawyer and both he and his wife were returning from holiday in Africa when this happened. I think because of his profession, he's been very careful how he words things and answers questions. He's been very consistent with his story and has not profitted from it either, unlike the Dutch bloke that tackled the terrorist. Apparently he's been doing interviews for money! Kurt Haskell seems to have been pro-active in getting his story out there too and has stated that the FBI has changed their official story five times now!

Here's an

he gave yesterday.

DS

[WhiteKnight77]

I wasn't referring to those on board the plane being asked the question, but Deputy National Security Adviser John Brennan in his visits with Fox News Sunday and This Week With George Stephanopoulos. He was asked why the bomber was allowed to lawyer up and thus shut his mouth.

[Parabellum]

The answer to that question ought to be simple, WK. The BHL, my friend.

@ DS: I read a bit about the well-dressed man earlier in the week. I wonder if he's someone that the kid duped, or if he was a facilitator or sorts.

[Dick Splash]

@ DS: I read a bit about the well-dressed man earlier in the week. I wonder if he's someone that the kid duped, or if he was a facilitator or sorts.

I'd say so. The bomber could have had a passport, but maybe there were some stamps in it that would have been questioned, so by not presenting it and using the 'refugee' angle it might have avoided being questioned. The whole event seems to be being played down and I'd like to think that that's due to an ongoing investigation and the FBI don't want to compromise it. If that's the case, then all will be revealed at some point. However, if alphabet agencies aren't sharing intel, then maybe not. Haskell states he's being ridiculed in some media circles. He is sticking with his story and as he says, unless Schiphol CCTV shows otherwise, then his story can't be disproven.

Haskell also states that whilst the passengers were held at Detroit airport an Indian/Pakistani man [not the 'Schiphol' man] was also questioned for an hour and then handcuffed and escorted away. Soon after, the passengers were then moved to another part of the airport. The FBI first denied the existence of that man, then changed the story and said he was off another flight. According to Haskell, the only passengers in the area he was in were off his flight and the only other people there were security! What's the big secret?

DS

[Rocky]

What I found absolutely incredulous, is that in a situation where aircraft terrorism is a top priority and is subject to more new procedures and safety drills than we could probably imagine as "outsiders", that the best the AT/FBI squad on the ground could think to do, is let every passenger off that plane WITH their hand luggage, and walk them right into the airport terminus. Does anyone want to count the number of assumptions that have just been made there?

Then, according to the lawyers account, one of the passengers and his bag is signaled by the bomb squad dog, and after a short interview led away handcuffed, and the passengers are advised they will be vacating the area double time!

That sounds really bad, little wonder the FBI are having trouble coming up with a consistent account of their own.

[firefly2442]

The biggest thing that was asked of those who were on the Sunday morning news shows is why was he allowed to get a lawyer? It's about time the mainstream media asked the right question.

I haven't been following this but, why wouldn't he be allowed to get a lawyer?

[WhiteKnight77]

If he was treated as a combatant instead of just a criminal (which is how he is being treated instead of the former), we have more avenues to interrogate him (not saying physical torture mind you) to find out who else may try this. You can bet there are others trained as he was and he knows about him. Treating him like a criminal and allowing him a lawyer means he can plead the 5th and not say a damned thing without his lawyer present and you can bet the lawyer will not let him say word one about anything he knows or did.

[Dick Splash]

Did you hear the part about the FBI demanding all photos and video of the incident from the passengers and nobody came forward. Despite the FBI repeating this. Haskell gave four seat numbers to the FBI which had to have belonged to the man filming both the flight and the incident, and the FBI have as far as we know, not acted upon that information! It's a circus out there!

DS

[Dick Splash]

The story continues, but it's obviously not newsworthy enough to be at the top of the hour.

DS

[Fletch]

"Haskell's EyeWitness Account Was True"

Put in to Google and not a single real news site comes up on the scope, only the bloggers and conservatives sites. News like that would sell a lot of papers.

I wonder why that is?

[Dick Splash]

"Haskell's EyeWitness Account Was True"

Put in to Google and not a single real news site comes up on the scope, only the bloggers and conservatives sites. News like that would sell a lot of papers.

I wonder why that is?

I've slowly come to believe that mainstream news is controlled by governments or corporations. It's as though real journalism is backing down because it doesn't want to walk a tightrope. Check out Calius's post about TV.

DS

[Dick Splash]

A docudrama aired tonight on BBC2 called How Safe Are Our Skies? Detroit Flight 253. A few of the passengers were interviewed, including a girl that was interviewed in Detroit on Christmas day. This really was a big deal, yet it was overshadowed in the media by Christmas. The program covers the failure of intelligence, the route the terrorist took and what would have happened if the bomb had exploded as was intended. It ends with coverage of the body scanners deployed at some airports and an interview with a behavioural profiler. The latter are employed at some airports to observe peoples' behaviour.

What happened at Schiphol is nothing like how Kurt Haskell describes it though!

DS

[calius]

Its simple really its a stunt hes an asset it was a dupe for the media and the public to justify full body scanners and all the rest of the "its anyone" security crap. The "oswold" if you will for another jump in bringing in measures predominantly on the public.

Much like a lot of "that other events" oddities.

Just thought Id say the obvious than beat around the bush as it were

I really do hope people start to get the message here that nearly all events you have witnessed since 2001 and all the laws etc off the back of it were not exactly as was told/sold. its one massive dupe and hiding behind "conspiracy" and "need evidence" and trusting the official line all the time means you will be the last to realise.

Psy-Ops and trickery on steroids since the millennium.

Just remember that when your being body scanned .. well, stripped searched every time you want to fly in the world of the free and get pulled over for looking nervous it was all because of an event that again doesn't justify itself ... welcome to the future of obedience (unless you think for yourself a little more than be spoon fed crap).

Whjy people aren't at airports boycotting this ###### is beyond me but that's the power of the lie. "Well im ok with it, better to be safe than sorry" ... yes if it was actually that unsafe and done on purpose you un-questioning fool.

Just think about the late 1930's in black and white and what happened then.

Fun times ahead.

[Dick Splash]

... welcome to the future of obedience

There's plenty of people on the streets that could do with some obedience. It's a pity those behind the technology can't target those people. The world I live in would be a safer place.

DS

[calius]

Hehe true,

But that's the thing, people will obey being duped, but no one corrects anyone in the situations you speak of. Perfect really becuase a broken society is better to control, they don't question anything, too busy in-fighting etc.

Meanwhile all the other threat craps rolls on and most take it a gospel.

Another example, people will shop you in for being noisy, issues with bins etc, they wont sort out any anti social things, nor be witness if someone gets murdered ... when you really "think" about it, its crazy. Or, perfect, you have everyone policing themselves on things the government love you to police, while turning a complete blind eye where ... oddly enough the government actually want you too as well (but wont let you know that)... win win!

Off topic a bit and a broad statement, clearly its not so "simple" but as a pattern you can see the madness. Then again I guess this is the ramblings of a conspiracy riddle crazy tin foil hat wearing odd ball ... which is completely true, if you have been brainwashed *dribble*

[Dick Splash]

I've spoken to the production team and they informed that they did interview Haskell, but as his story wasn't backed up by other witnesses they interviewed, nor by facts that the production team were presented with, they chose not to include him. They interviewed more people than they included in the documentary and were only tasked with making a one hour documentary about airport and airline safety.

DS