The Attempted Airplane Bombing — A Christmas-Day Black Operation!
The military has run a fearmongering black-op right in time for X-Mas!
A Northwest Airlines passenger from Nigeria, who said he was acting on al-Qaida’s instructions, tried to blow up the plane Friday as it was landing in Detroit, law enforcement and national security officials said.
Source
Just like the United 93 tale, the heroic passengers resisted and subdued the terrorist, who was, of course, a Muslim Arab (With an obvious Arab name — “Abdul Mudallad” or “Abdul Farouk Abdulmutallab”, depending on which propaganda news service you subscribe to). Now, he admits that his act was on the behalf of Al Qaeda, and we are inevitably left with the feeling that the “War On Terror” continues. Unnamed federal officials have, of course, announced that stricter screening measures will be necessary at the airports — as if they weren’t Orwellian enough!
So, a suspect with connections to the “Al Qaeda” bogeyman goes nuts on an airplane and is subdued. The day is saved, no one is hurt, the monthly injection of fear has been administered, and the very predictable “tightening of security measures” has been announced.
Thinking individuals, however, are again pointing out that Al Qaeda is, in reality, a CIA front.
The Mujahideen were the seeds that would grow into Al Qaeda. They were heavily financed/supported/supervised/armed/trained/taught by the CIA. Heavily involved in this operation was Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser and the founder of the notorious elite “non-governmental organization” known as the Trilateral Commission.
Source
Source 2
Osama Bin Laden, who is said to be the leader of Al Qaeda, is a long-time CIA asset/operative who, according to at least one insider, worked for the CIA until the day of 9/11, which contradicts official claims that he cut ties with them long before the attacks. He is even said to have met with a CIA station chief at an American hospital in Dubai only two months before 9/11. According to documents, he used the CIA code-name “Tim Osman” to travel throughout the US, to tour US Military Bases, and to visit the White House. He has links to the Wackenhut-CIA “syndicate”.
Source
Source 2
Source 3
Source 4
The CIA continued to protect the Al Qaeda network well after it supposedly “broke ties” with it. Serious researchers maintain that Al Qaeda is still a front for the CIA. Webster Tarpley, an expert on false-flag operations, calls Al Qaeda “the CIA’s Arab legion”.
Source
Why set up a front like Al Qaeda? Well, the Cold War’s “Red Menace” was dying in the early 1990s. In August 1992, an article published by the prestigious CATO Institute stated that Islamic fundamentalism could serve as the new “manufactured enemy”, the new “bogeyman”. Six months after the publication of this article, the World Trade Center was bombed. It was this event that kicked off the “War On Islamic Terror”. It is now known that the bombers had received CIA training, that the “leader figure” (Ramzi Yousef) was a CIA operative, and that the FBI had monitored/supervised the entire operation.
Source
So, when we hear about a failed airplane bombing that is quickly connected to an “Al Qaeda operative” with an obvious Muslim name, and the event works right into the hands of the “scare agenda”, we need to wonder if the event was staged by the same agency that controls Al Qaeda — the CIA.
When one examines the official version, more problems become apparent. Initial reports stated that the man was on the government’s “No-Fly List”. This raised the obvious question of how he was even able to make it aboard the airplane. The stories were quickly changed to state that, while he was in some mysterious “law enforcement-intelligence database”, he was not on the No-Fly List.
Source
According to the feds, the suspect says that the explosive device he used was acquired in Yemen. Interestingly, Anwar Al-Awlaki ran away to Yemen. He was an extreme Islamic preacher and a likely US Intelligence “handler” who had connections to the 9/11 “hijackers”, 7/7 “bombers”, Fort Dix “terrorist plotters”, Toronto 18 “terrorist plotters”, and the Fort Hood “shooter”. Al-Awlaki is said to have been killed in a recent raid by the Yemeni security forces, but it is very possible that his role as a “handler” was becoming to obvious, and that his “death” was really just a retirement. Is it possible that Al-Awlaki provided this new “terrorist” with explosives?
Another issue is the FBI’s presence at the airport when the plane landed:
Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent Sandra R. Berchtold from the Detroit office confirmed that the FBI was at the airport, but she would not comment further.
Source
If all authorities knew was that there were indications of a “fire” on the plane, then why was the FBI already set-up at the airport? From the above article excerpt, you can see that they’re quite tight-lipped about it, so don’t bother asking them.
The government has ignored these problems, and instead has opted to conclusively state that the attack was planned by “Al Qaeda in Yemen”.
Source
They’ve also gone into detail about the explosives, which turn out to have been military:
Investigators say the suspect had more than 80 grams of PETN, a compound related to nitro-glycerin used by the military.
Source
How “Al Qaeda of Yemen” got their hands on military explosives is anyone’s guess. Personally, I would assert that “Al Qaeda of Yemen” is little more than an extension of the military and the intelligence services (CIA).
Interestingly, it turns out that the bomber is the son of a wealthy banker, who is now burying him in the press as a “radical” and a “terrorist”.
Source
The heroic passenger who subdued the bomber turns out to be a “video director/producer” from Amsterdam. Certainly a professional in the art of stagery/drama, right?
Source
We’re left with quite a few questions:
–Why did different news services provide different names for the suspect?
–Why did initial reports state that the suspect was on the No-Fly List?
–Why was the suspect on a “terror” watch list?
–Why was the FBI waiting at the airport when the plane landed and why are it’s officials being so tight-lipped about this fact?
–What contact, if any, did the suspect have with Anwar Al-Awlaki?
–What was the purpose of the suspect’s 11-day trip to Houston, Texas during August 2008? What did he do on this trip?
–Why was his father concerned that his son had become radicalized? Was it his warning, six months before, that put the suspect on the terror list?
–How did the suspect obtain military explosives?
–Is his father connected through the banks to the aristocracy, secret societies, or intelligence community?
–Was there more to Jasper Schuringa’s act of heroism than we’ve been told? What is his history as a video director/producer? Why does his photograph look fake?
I think it’s safe to conclude that this latest event is as fake as the attack on “poor, poor” Berlusconi.
================
- UPDATES
Obama Campaigner Was On Flight
When investigating staged airplane incidents, we frequently find that many suspicious individuals are aboard as “bystanders”. Roey Rosenblith was a passenger on Flight 253 who said “This guy wanted to kill all of us, he had wanted to blow up the plane.”
Certainly, someone like this is a star witness for the official version, correct? Well, get this — he worked on the Obama campaign.
University College London and British Intelligence
According to the newsmedia, the suspect attended University College London. A quick look into this institution and one will find some very interesting connections:
Course advisors include Met Police, BTP, SOCA, ACPO, SO15, MI6, MoD, NaCTSO, and RUSI.
Source
This institution offers counter-terrorism courses in which students are advised by actual MI6/SO15/MOD personnel. Why does every “terrorist” have links to military/intelligence?
The Accomplices
Kurt and Lori Haskell are attorneys who were aboard Flight 253. At the airport in Amsterdam, they saw the suspect trying to get on the plane. He did not have a passport, and, as would be expected anywhere (let alone Amsterdam), it did not look like he was going to be allowed on the plane.
They say that a “sharply dressed” Indian man in his 50s accompanied the suspect. This “sharply dressed” man was tall, around 6 feet in height. His suit was tan. They describe the suspect as being a “short, poor” black man who appeared to be in their late teens. The Haskells thought they were an odd pair. When the ticket agent said that a passport was necessary in order to board, the well-dressed Indian claimed that the suspect was a Sudanese refugee — this was a lie, since the suspect was Nigerian. The ticket agent called for their manager.
The Indian man was able to get the suspect onto the flight, but did not board himself. The Haskells wondered if the manager had been bribed. Amsterdam is known to put a large amount of emphasis on airport security/safety, so the Haskells’ suspicions may have been correct.
When the incident happened, they were kept on the plane for 20 minutes. The Haskells found this strange, as a bomb that was aboard the plane could have gone off while they were being held aboard. The authorities’ strange lack of concern suggests that they knew that there was no threat of a second explosion on the plane.
After Flight 253’s landing, the Haskells saw another Indian man, this one appearing to be in his 30s. He was dressed in orange. Bomb sniffing dogs had detected explosives inside his bag. The FBI confirmed the event to them, telling them that the area was unsafe. This was confirmed by eyewitness Daniel Huisinga. Who was this man and what happened to him?
First, the FBI said that no one other than the suspect had been arrested. Then, they admitted that there had, indeed, been a second man, but that he had been from a different flight. After the Haskells and others pressured them, they admitted that the man was, indeed, on Flight 253. They tell us that this man was questioned, then released, despite the fact that his bag upset the bomb-sniffing dog. Who was he and why was he released so fast after bomb-sniffing dogs were suspicious of him?
When Haskell was interviewed by the FBI, they told him that the man had not been released, and that he was still in custody because of immigration-related issues, which Haskell took to mean that he, like the suspect, did not have a passport. According to all of the current newsmedia reports, the detained man was released after questioning. Why can’t the FBI get their story straight?
Furthermore, the official version is now that the man was not arrested for having explosives, but that he was arrested because his papers were not in order. However, it is known that the man was arrested because the bomb-sniffing dog indicated that he had explosives. It certainly seems like the authorities are lying.
The FBI interviewed Kurt Haskell at his office. They showed him photographs and asked him to identify the people in them. One of them resembled the man who was arrested after the landing. The others were people who he did not know, and pictures of the suspect. In one strange incident, the FBI agents showed him a photograph of the suspect, which he identified, and then showed him another picture of the suspect, acting as if it was a different person, and asking him if he knew who it was? Haskell suspected that the FBI was trying to trick him. If he fell for the trick and said that he did not recognize the man in the second photograph, the FBI could brand him as unreliable.
He asked the FBI if they had the airport security footage, so that he could attempt to identify the Indian man who had accompanied the suspect. They told him that they were there to gather information from him, not the other way around. They appeared to be offended by his question. Why are they so resistant to releasing footage of the event?
To this day, the account of the Haskells has remained the same regarding the Indian accomplices. The government’s account has changed no less than four times. If you were a lawyer, which witness would you consider to be more credible — a witness whose story changed four times or a witness whose account remains unchanged since the day of the incident?
The Haskells complains that the Dutch military’s police force is attempting to discredit his claim of a “sharp-dressed man”.
Why Is The Haskell Account Important?
If the Haskells are telling the truth, then the mainstream newsmedia and federal government are engaging in a massive cover-up of the Indian accomplices at the airport. Kurt Haskell’s description of the interview that the FBI conducted with him is very disturbing — he says that the FBI agents were offended by his request to view security footage, and that they tried to trick him.
If this is true, it not only means that the FBI is not interested in conducting a meaningful investigation, but it means that they are trying very hard to cover up the truth, and to discredit/confuse important witnesses.
Why would the FBI cover up the Indian suspects? Why would they try to fool/confuse/discredit the Haskells?
Are The Haskells Dishonest?
Some people on the Internet are claiming that the Haskells are fake witnesses who are part of the ruling elite. They complain that photographs on their website appear to be fake. Are these people correct in suggesting that they are “simulation” witnesses who were merely created to move the investigation in a certain direction?
The Haskells have gotten promotion from mainstream news networks, as well as suspicious figures such as Jonathan Elinoff, Alex Jones, and Victor Thorn. Because of this, it is possible that their story is part of the cover-up.
After 9/11, many “eyewitnesses” claimed to have seen important things, and said that they wanted to fight the criminals. This was also the case for the JFK Assassination. If we are to seriously investigate the Detroit Plane-Bomb Incident, then we need to be suspicious of all witnesses, as some are part of the military or Papist Crime Network, and are attempting to lead us into a wall.
Asking why the military/intelligence community wouldn’t have provided their “patsy” with a passport is quite valid — they certainly had the capability, so why did they allow this suspicious event to happen?
Is The Controlled-Opposition Attempting To Discredit The Haskell couple?
If the Haskells are telling the truth, then we can expect that many in the “truth movement” would attempt to discredit their information. Serious investigators have realized that the “truth movement” is controlled by the military, and that the “truth leaders” are all frauds.
Take a look at the interview that Alex Jones conducted with Kurt Haskell:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/bombshell-eyewitness-revelations-confirmed-fbi-cover-up-of-flight-253-attack.html
Haskell states at the beginning that he does not want to say anything speculative or opinionated, because he fears that it will provide critics of his story with ammunition. This was a very valid concern. During the entire course of the interview, however, Jones attempted to ‘trap’ Haskell into a situation in which he would say something opinionated. At the end, he read out a quote in which he endorsed the 9/11 truth movement, and asked him to confirm on-the-record that the quote was accurate. Was Jones respecting his wishes?
In the second interview, Jones’ attempts at trapping Haskell become even more obvious, until it gets so bad that, at one point, Haskell says: “You’re putting words in my mouth, Alex.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2f_uSM5VXQ&feature=related
Other mysterious people have been attacking the credibility of the Haskells. Their account was brought up on the message board of the James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF), a fortress for believers of the official versions of just about, well, everything. If you challenge the official line of anything, you are automatically a moron, according to the army of childish, egotistical trolls that have come to be known as “JREFers”. Interestingly, their message board was created only one month prior to 9/11.
As soon as user “Childlike Empress” brought up the Haskell story, a mysterious person named “funk de fino” responded:
“More hearsay. I’m shocked!! His no passport junk has been shown to be claptrap. Anyone who has flown to the US from Schipol knows his story is full of holes.”
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5472057&postcount=149
Another mysterious person called “Carlito” jumps into the post and
Last time I flew from Schipol to the US, they interrogated me for about 30 minutes. Business Class, round-trip. No one is making that trip without a valid passport.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5472091&postcount=150
After these two get their words in, “funk de fino” requests that Childlike Empress “take back” her assertions that the bombing was a conspiracy:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5472171&postcount=155
Obviously, the implication is that he was able to get on the flight because of what the Indian man said/did to the manager, whether it was a bribe or an impressive identity (”I’m top CIA, and I demand that you let this boy on the plane!”). Funk De Fino’s argument is ridiculous, as it assumes that this incident happened under normal circumstances — Kurt Haskell’s account suggests otherwise.
Who are these mysterious liars and why are they so concerned with discrediting the Haskells, and intimidating other users into dismissing their account?
Were The Indian Men Intelligence Agents?
The “sharply-dressed” Indian man at Amsterdam airport certainly sounds like an agent of the intelligence community. It is known that Indian intelligence works hand-in-hand with the CIA/MI6, as well as Mossad. Gordon Duff tells us:
“Israel and India are very close business partners, especially via their military contracts. Also, the Indian intelligence agency (Research and Analysis Wing) works hand-in-hand with Israel. Essentially, the two governments are one.”
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/underwear_bomber__206.html
The Filmer
Coming soon…
