Tuesday, January 12 2010 - Editorials
Is Another False-Flag Provable?
Following is an editorial from James Hufferd about the Christmas Day Underwear Bomber attempt, speculating as to possible reasons for what he considers another false-flag "terrorism" attempt by unknown parties. Factually, however, he draws attention to the testimony of one courageous passenger, Kurt Haskell, whose information bringing into question the government's absurd story-telling has been summarily dismissed by corporate media amidst the massive (and tiresome) fear-mongering as they try to convince Americans (and Brits, now also being subjected to scanners at Heathrow) why we must willingly submit to full-body scans revealing our detailed-image, naked bodies and otherwise - yet again - "give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety" ... (Ben Franklin).
January 12, 2010
Barely two weeks ago, on Christmas Day, 2009, a young Muslim man from Nigeria with a multiple-entry visa to enter the United States was reported to have attempted to blow up a Northwest Airlines jet bound from Amsterdam preparing to land at Detroit International Airport by igniting a bomb hidden in the crotch of his underwear. Passengers aboard the plane prevented him from succeeding, and potentially from killing all 278 passengers, plus crew. He was subsequently reported to have trained or received instruction in Yemen and taken inspiration from an al-Qaeda-connected Islamic mullah who is an American citizen living in that country and implicated in other terrorist events.
Thus, the incident was construed as a new major case of radical Islamic terrorism against the United States. Disturbingly, the plot apparently almost succeeded, for reasons now hotly debated, even though the terrorist's name and profile were already in U.S. security service files and on watch lists. Superficially, it was widely reported as an open-and-shut case of anti-U.S. Islamic extremism, necessitating a new round of "security measures" for air travel.
However, almost from the beginning there was another credible source of information that, when considered alongside other information being reported, substantially alters the picture and the implication of the collective evidence. Doubtless for that reason, this second, partially corroborated source has not been thoroughly exploited or widely examined, but instead has been almost universally ignored and shunted aside without comment by U.S. officials and the corporate media. The source is Mr. Kurt Haskell, 39, a successful former U.S. government lawyer, currently a practicing attorney in greater Detroit along with his wife, Lori. Together, they were returning from a vacation in Africa on that day on that same flight from Amsterdam.
The relevant additional sequence that Mr. Haskell apparently alone reported as an on-site witness occurred in an area near the Amsterdam airport boarding gate prior to boarding the flight. He told first the FBI, then the Detroit Free Press and other news outlets, in addition to blogging at mlive.com, that he first saw the young African man who turned out to be the bomber arrive in the pre-boarding area somewhat disheveled, accompanied by a well-dressed man who appeared to be Indian. The Indian-looking man went with the young African up to the airline representative in charge of boarding access and explained to him that the young fellow didn't have a passport, but had to get on the plane bound for Detroit. The agent replied, in Haskell's telling, that if the fellow lacked a passport he would not be permitted to board. In answer, the well-dressed Indian-looking man averred that the young African man had to board the plane because he was a Sudanese refugee and added, "This is done all the time." The two of them, Haskell tells, were then escorted into a back room to talk to the airline agent's supervisor. That was the last Haskell saw of the African until near the end of the flight, when his failed attempt to detonate a bomb in his crotch drew the attention of everyone on the plane.
Added to Mr. Haskell's aberrant testimony the next day were reports from several of the passengers that another apparently Indian man on board the plane had curiously videotaped the young Nigerian from the beginning of the flight to the end. And there were some reported oddities having to do with the bomber's being subdued, etc.
What could the significance be of these discordant eyewitness reports that would, if given due credence and not simply dismissed, throw into serious doubt the official conclusion that a Muslim terrorist plot was being played out on December 25?
First, and most glaringly, a passenger without a passport cannot display as a prerequisite for boarding the multiple-entry visa the official version alleged because a visa appears as a stamp on a passport. And no passenger, as an elementary tenet of procedure, is ever permitted to board a commercial flight without a passport, with one notable exception: When a stand-down order has been issued. And, where could such an effective stand-down order have come from? It could, conceivably, have been delivered by the well-dressed Indian, in words such as, "they do this all the time."
So, if the young Muslim "terrorist" was sponsored not by al Qaeda, but by some operative country's "security" services, why would they not have him arrive fully documented? Elementary -- In order to get him into the final boarding area and onto the plane without having to go through the usual search process required for boarding that would surely have found his explosives, to involve in the plot as few personnel (potential eyewitnesses) as possible.
Is such really what happened? Who knows? Is it what the actual eyewitness testimony of the courageous Kurt Haskell, who put his life squarely on the line to report it, implies? Absolutely. And, why does it really matter? The answer: Full-body scanners and continued propaganda smearing, threatening, and intimidating Muslims anywhere and everywhere to forward a genocidal agenda.
As I said, Mr. Haskell's perhaps 95%-certain-to-be-accurate testimony, straightforward and unembellished by him, is understandably ignored and forgotten by U.S. officials and the corporate media. Even the 9/11 widows (Casazza, Gabrielle, Kleinberg, and Van Auken) in their statement responding to this incident do not site Haskell's testimony or the vast conceptual difference that it makes. (Even though, strangely, enough, they do state that the bomber was without a passport, something he claims overhearing). These individuals are, owing to their tragic identity, influential, and, in my opinion, they need to take stock and perhaps recalibrate their statement.
So, how can Haskell's testimony ever be corroborated or refuted with
certainty? It is my understanding that international airports are full of 24-hour
security cameras. Why not show us the tapes?
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author, who is solely responsible for its content, and do not necessarily reflect those of 911Truth.org. 911Truth.org will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article.
|home | about us | contact | research | grassroots | calendar | links | search|