Another case of someone who saw something, said something, and continues to speak...
Where did this whole recent push for airport body scanners and other nonsense from the TSA come from?
Kurt Haskell Blows Whistle On Underwear Bomber: Given Bomb By US Government To Boost TSA Budget & Implement Body Scanners
We Are Change/Infowars
Jan 28, 2011
I contend that this story is just the tip of the iceberg into the US government’s black operations to further the Patriot Act, funding for Homeland Security and the TSA, and to keep intensity up for the so called War on Terror. Respected lawyer and community leader, Kurt Haskell, has nothing to gain from pointing his finger at the federal government. He witnessed the underwear bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, being whisked past security and led onto NorthWest Airlines flight 253, by a well-dressed man with an American accent- all without the passenger’s proper visa and passport documentation. What the news piece doesn’t mention is that the State Dept did indeed put Mutallab on the plane, at the behest of “an unnamed US intelligence agency.” Undersecretary Patrick F. Kennedy (Detroit news article was removed from web!).
THIS is why we are being groped, molested, and body scanned at the airport by the TSA! Because the government claims the underwear bomber is a real threat! Stand up America- the politicians say our rhetoric is dangerous. Maybe the government itself is terribly dangerous….
These video clips may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes only. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law.
News piece aired January 25, 2011 – FOX 2 WJBK Detroit, Michigan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoDqUyqsxgg
I've paid very close attention to this story from the moment it broke, and all the details that slipped through the cracks (or were, more truthfully, willed into darkness by the controlled mainstream media), but have procrastinated in posting about it, but since alot has happened in this case since the so-called Underwear Bombing attempt in Detroit over the Christmas holiday in 2009, it goes right along with this entire subject.
The lawyer/passenger/potential victim, Kurt Haskell, was very quick to come out with his eyewitness account of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab being escorted through security by an unknown man in an expensive suit, who claimed something to the effect of,
"He doesn't have a passport, but he needs to be on this plane, we do this all the time."
Mr. Haskell says the "Sharp Dressed Man" (who appeared to be of Indian descent, but had an American accent) argued briefly with the personnel at the gate, and then heard one of them say that he would have to talk with a manager.
Apparently that discussion was successful, as Abdulmutallab was on the plane later, "detonating" a device that did nothing more than cause burns to his body.
Haskell recounted also that it took nearly a half-hour for an evacuation of the plane to be initiated after the incendiary device went off, which he said was a little suspicious, especially if there were a possible second bomb on the plane, which they searched for, if I recall correctly, after the fact. I'm not able at this time to find that info.
Once in the lobby, some bomb sniffing dogs checked out the passengers and luggage, stopping at a black bag owned by an Indian man, who Haskell said appeared to be the same ethnicity of the Sharp Dressed Man who escorted Mutallab through security. The man (who he called the Man in Orange) was taken into a room by security, and he was told by an FBI person present that "You all saw what just happened, so I think you know for your safety you need to evacuate this area."
Later, when FBI interviewed him at his law office, he said they did their best to deny certain things, especially about the Sharp Dressed Man. Amsterdam airport officials claimed that over 200 hours of security video showed nothing, which is very typical to anyone who follows cases like this. I find it highly unlikely that there was no pertinent footage of that boarding gate. In fact, it sounds really laughable.
BREAKING NEWS--Well Dressed Man Story Backed Up by Second Passenger
Kurt just had contact with an individual from our flight. This person, who wishes to remain anonymous, has backed up his story on the well dressed man, however, this person does not want to come out in public and tell their story, as they are worried they will suffer some sort of backlash as we have. How sad is that? They have read people talking badly about us online, and they don't want the same thing to happen to them or their family.
The FBI seemed to shy away from the Man in Orange, as well, although they later admitted he was arrested, but not that it had anything to do with bomb-sniffing dogs stopping at his luggage.
They also appeared to want to confuse Haskell with some photos of possible suspects, which he thought, after all the other suspicious actions and denials and runarounds, that maybe they were intentionally trying to discredit him and his recall.
He commented at the time that while his story, which was corroborated by several eyewitnesses on various details, had not changed, the FBI had changed their story several times. Which again, is very typical to those who watch events like this unfold.
http://haskellfamily.blogspot.com/2010/01/latest-story-by-kurt-haskell.html
While we were being held in this area, an FBI agent announced the following to us 253 passengers
“We have those (Plural) we believe are responsible for this in custody we will now be doing interviews with each of you and then you are free to go.” He went on to state two further references to more than one person, which I cannot specifically quote. I have repeated this exact story hundreds of times since flight 253.
The “official” story regarding the man in orange has now changed numerous times.
One other mysterious thing was an eyewitness on the plane (or possibly two or more, but many have not come foward) about a man with a video camera who allegedly taped the entire flight from Amsterdam to Detroit, and as if on cue, had turned around to film in the direction of Mutallab, possibly before any of the scuffle had even begun.
One would think that video evidence, as with the airport's "nonexistent" boarding camera footage, would be in high demand.
I wonder very seriously if that person was in on something.
If I recall (it's been a while since I heard some of these testimonies), at least one eyewitness account said that not only was Abdulmutallab trying to put out the fire, but he seemed confused, like maybe he didn't expect it to happen? Other accounts said as he was escorted away that he appeared in a trance or drug-induced stupor.
It is officially admitted he was allowed on the plane...
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17505
Washington --The State Department didn't revoke the visa of foiled terrorism suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab because federal counterterrorism officials had begged off revocation, a top State Department official revealed Wednesday.
Patrick F. Kennedy, an undersecretary for management at the State Department, said Abdulmutallab's visa wasn't taken away because intelligence officials asked his agency not to deny a visa to the suspected terrorist over concerns that a denial would've foiled a larger investigation into al-Qaida threats against the United States.
That story I believe originally was reported in Detroit News, but has now apparently disappeared from their archives. Which, again, is very typical. Nonexistent camera footage, FBI denials, and important details in stories that have a tendency to vanish from servers after a short while.
Now, as of late, the Underwear Bombing trial is in its preliminary stages, complete with a lack of other eyewitnesses interested in it; Haskell says that at the pre-trial hearings, he is not only the other passenger present, but that all his contact information with other witnesses is no longer valid. I also recollect him saying that at least on the persons was scared of coming forward, and that another passenger had contacted him and apparently was trying to get him to recant or change his mind on certain aspects.
I will continue in a second post.
