Evidence Indicates Staged Attack on Detroit Flight
CNN Airs Eyewitness Testimony that ‘Well-Dressed’ Indian accomplice helped Abdulmutallab board without passport and that man on plane filmed entire flight and bombing attempt
December 29, 2009
Evidence is emerging that clearly indicates Abdulmutallab was more than just a Nigerian extremist carrying out his anger through an ill-conceived plot to ignite a powdery explosive substance on-board a flight to the United States. Eyewitness testimony pointing to a man helping the accused terrorist board without a passport, along with an unusual cameraman documenting the attempted attack on board the plane raise more than red flags– they point towards an intelligence operation, run as a drill, meant to conjure up public support for a number of fronts in the continuing ‘War on Terror.’
CNN interviewed key flight witnesses during their Dec. 28 program who raised these very points, making clear that the full story is still emerging and that wider-connections to intelligence handlers is evident.
THE SHARP-DRESSED MAN
Kurt Haskell and his wife, who were witnesses on board Northwest Airlines Flight 253 saw Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab receiving assistance from a well-dressed, wealthy-looking Indian man at the boarding gate in Amsterdam. Haskell told CNN that the accused bomber appeared strikingly ‘poor’ next to the well-dressed man. According to Haskell, that man did the talking for him, explaining to the flight personnel at the gate that Abdulmutallab needed to board without a passport, claiming that he was a Sudanese refugee. Haskell told CNN:
“Laurie and I were sitting near the boarding gate, sitting on the floor, there weren’t any seats to sit in. And I saw two men. They caught my eye because they seemed to be an odd pair. One was what I would describe as a poor-looking black teenager around 16 or 17, and the other man, age 50-ish, wealthy looking Indian man. And I was just wondering why they were together– kinda strange. And I watched them approach what I would call the ticket agent, the final person that checks your boarding pass before you get on the plane. And I could hear the entire conversation. The only person that spoke was the Indian man, and what he said was: ‘This man needs to board the plane, but he doesn’t have a passport.’ And the ticket agent responded, ‘Well, if he doesn’t have a passport, he can’t get on the plane.’ To which the Indian man responded back, ‘He’s from Sudan. We do this all the time.’ And the ticket agent said, ‘Well, then you’ll have to go and talk to my manager.’ And she directed them down a hallway. And that was the last time I saw the Indian man, and the black man I didn’t see again until he tried to blow up our plane hours later.”
The gate attendee referred the odd-couple to the manager. Haskell said that was the last he saw of the wealthy man, but later recognized Abdulmutallab after the incident occurred on the plane. That’s when he says he put two and two together about the unusual connection.
His wife, Laurie, said she found it ‘odd’ that authorities have not yet followed up on their witness account, as they were the only ones known to have witnessed Abdulmutallab with the ‘Indian’ man prior to boarding the flight.
If he had help getting on the flight with no passport after having been reported to U.S. authorities by his own father, what is the true explanation for the man seen filming the entire flight? Another witness on board the flight, Richelle Keepman, said she noticed the mysterious cameraman at the beginning of the flight, believing the man might have been simply excited about a first flight, or etc. Later when the ‘bombing’ incident took place, she says the cameraman was the only one standing up, and intently filming the entire incident.
ADDULMUTALLAB AND THE WIDER WAR ON TERROR
Put this together with new focus on Yemen ‘in the fight against Al Qaeda’, including calls from Sen. Lieberman to pre-emptively attack, the media’s immediate hype of the event, and the ready-made Body Scanners and other ‘enhanced’ Airport security, it is clear that this is a contrived incident intentionally unleashed to goad renewed support for ever-expanding terrorism-related warfare in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sudan and now Yemen.
Just like after 9/11, airport travelers are again prepared to accept greater violations of their liberties and privacy for supposed security. Yet patsies and watchlist-subjects alike have repeatedly been allowed to bypass security clearance and been proven to have ties to the intelligence community.
The latest accused ‘terrorist’ Abdulmutallab was very likely the fall-guy in a pattern-drill– handled by wealthy, mismatched associates, allowed to board without required credentials, and videotaped by a cameraman with an unknown connection. Was Abdulmutallab involved with these figures through a drill which ended with an intentionally-failed bombing meant to incite great fear of terrorism?
This would fit closely with other elements of CIA-concocted “terrorism.” Many of the 9/11 hijackers and other known extremists were revealed to have participated in ‘dry run’ drills, shared addresses with intelligence handlers or lived on military bases, were allowed to pass through the border despite being on one or more watchlists, and were given VISAS/Passports through execptions and/or special clearance.
Similarly, David Headly, named in the Mumbai attack, has been exposed as a CIA-double agent.
FBI/CIA provocateurs and exaggerated accounts of extremists groups have continued to emerge from the phony stories given to the public in the cases of many would-be plots, such as in Toronto, the ‘plot’ to bomb the Sears Tower, the Transatlantic liquid bomb plot, alleged plans to ‘blow up a Jewish temple and shoot down military planes’ in New York and more.
We see a similar pattern here, the emerging evidence strongly suggests. How long will we allow deliberately-provoked terror incidents to frighten us to death, invade our privacy, erode our liberties, restrict our travel and perpetuate an ever-expanding string of wars?
COMMENTARY: BODY-SCANNERS AND THE SECURITY-SWINDLE
Benjamin Franklin long ago warned us that “If we restrict liberty to attain security, we will lose both.” And that those willing to make that bargain deserve neither their liberty nor security.
This adage, frequently used by Benjamin Franklin in a body of work, with many variations in the freedom vs. security theme. On the most basic level, government is established only for the common security of its people. Thus, it is no surprise that government tends to test the line between the government and the governed on grounds of “security.”
It is no coincidence that Franklin and fellow compatriots like Thomas Paine laid down principled reasons for an individuals’ rights in respect to government.
Today’s advances in technology do not diminish the principled reasons for keeping government’s power in check with the people’s essential, as per Franklin– freedom. The ‘War on Terror’ is a shining example of Franklin’s principle gone awry. You cannot fight against an existential, shadowy “enemy”, on a fishing expedition for evidence, avoiding certainties and “evidence”, and employing such unprincipled tactics as torture, rendition, widespread wire-tapping– going against the very spirit of the law established by the Constitution, while hoping to maintain that opposing spirit in the nation.
There is a limit to “security”– in other words, there are limits to what government, set up to protect the rights of the governed, can do in the line of duty. The People have Constitutionally protected rights to privacy, probable cause before inspection or search, security in personal belongings and property, due process and other related safeguards against the tendencies of government ( 4th and 5th amendments), and a government must avoid violating these rights. But even this is not the point.
The people, for reasons of “security” and stripped and searched in every increasing contraptions of detection– losing privacy, dignity and basic freedom of travel. All the while, the rare, real perpetrator, identified as a terrorist, never goes through the database checks, security screening or passenger tracking schemes set-up by Homeland Security. The people do. Mothers with breastmilk. Business men with laptops. Shoes, belts, nail clippers, tooth paste, underwear, but not terrorists.
They evidently are whisked through by contacts who may or may not work directly for the FBI, CIA or etc. Databases make exceptions for its most-important targets while people with commonly-confused names are kept from flying or subject to secondary screening. Any ordinary person without proper documentation is subject, at the least, to alternate verification and likely quite a few intense questions. For this would-be bomber, it is apparently the matter of a handshake with the manager, and a high-level contact to vouch as sponsor.
It’s a bait and switch. It’s not security, Constitutionally-sound or not. It’s a scheme to tightly-control the travel of ordinary Americans while co-opting that fear to generate support for various overseas operations. It is textbook problem-reaction-solution.
The Body-Scanners, next in line of the wratched-up security measures being put forward by TSA, along with newly hailed restrictions, such as banning blankets, electronics and on-board bathroom use during the final 60 minutes of flight, are heavy-handed measures set up by Homeland Security and waiting for the right excuse to put them into place.
Though the Body Scanners have already been phased in throughout the U.S., only with this latest incident is it been publicly introduced. It directly mirrors the TSA’s shoe fetish, which was sold on the lie of the preposterous shoebombing-attempt purported by Richard Reid.
The heroic, but also practical actions of the passengers in thwarting this attack is a sane reminder in the fog of the ‘War on Terror’ that people can actually fend for themselves in many situations, particularly in the face of danger. Though real, big scale dangers do exist for governments clearly play a role, we cannot shriek in the face of danger, handing over to government all that we hold in the balance. There are ways of detecting crimes, preventing attacks and ’saving lives, for the children’ that don’t involve a dragnet combing over the whole of the population.
The game is surely rigged if the criminal it was meant to catch walks right through the proverbial back-door, which was held open for him by the archetypal inside man. The trading of liberty for so-called security does not balance favorably, but transfers power duly held by the people to the government, the more dangerous by the loosened-chains of the Constitution.
Supporting links and further info:
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.