Thursday, December 31, 2009

DAMAGE CONTROL BEGINS: Customs Says Second Man from Another Flight

Chief Detroit U.S. Customs officer Ron Smith is now saying that the second man taken into custody at customs was not related to flight 253.

However Kurt Haskell has pointed out how unlikely, if not impossible, that is since the flight passengers were being held separately and investigated by the FBI inside of customs. His own words say it best:

"This time, Mr. Ron Smith of Customs, says the man that was detained "had been taken into custody", but today tells the news the person was a passenger on a different flight. Mr. Ron Smith, you are playing the American public for a fool. Lets take a look at how plausible this story is (After you've already changed it twice). For the story to be true, you have to believe, that:
1. FBI/Customs let passengers from another flight co-mingle with the passengers of flight 253 while the most important investigation in 8 years was pending. I have already stated that not one person who wasn't a passenger or law enforcement personnal was in our area the entire time we were detained by Customs.
2. FBI/Customs while detaining the flight 253 passengers in perhaps the most important investigation since the last terrorist attack, and despite not letting any flight 253 passenger drink, eat, make a call, or use the bathroom, let those of other flights trample through the area and possibly contaminate evidence.
3. You have to believe the above (1 and 2) despite the fact that no flights during this time allowed passengers to exit off of the planes at all and were detained on the runway during at least the first hour of our detention period.
4. You have to believe that the man that stood 20 feet from me since we entered customs came from a mysterious plane that never landed, let its passengers off the plane and let this man sneak into our passenger group despite having extremely tight security at this time (i.e. no drinking even).
5. FBI/Customs was hauling mysterious passengers from other flights through the area we were being held to possibly comtaminate evidence and allow discussions with suspects on Flight 253 or to possibly allow the exchange of bombs, weapons or other devices between the mysterious passengers from other flights and those on flight 253.
Seriously Mr. Ron Smith, how stupid do you think the American public is?
Mr. Ron Smith's third version of the story is an absolute inplausible joke. I encourage you, Mr. Ron Smith, to debate me anytime, anywhere, and anyplace in public to let the American people see who is credible and who is not.
I ask, isn't this the more plausible story:
1. Customs/FBI realized that they screwed up and don't want to admit that they left flight 253 passengers on a flight with a live bomb on the runway for 20 minutes.
2. Customs/FBI realized that they screwed up and don't want to admit that they left flight 253 passengers in customs for 1 hour with a live bomb in a carry on bag.
3. Customs/FBI realize that the man in orange points to a greater involvement then the lone wolf theory that they have been promoting.
Mr. Ron Smith I encourage you to come out of your cubicle and come up with a more plausible version number 4 of your story."

He continues in a separate statement to defend himself very effectively.

"For the last five days I have been reporting my story of the so called "sharp dressed man." For those of you who haven't read my account, it involves a sharp dressed "Indian man" attempting to talk a ticket agent into letting a supposed "Sudanese refugee" (The terrorist) onto flight 253 without a passport. I have never had any idea how it played out except to note that the so called "Sudanese reefugee" later boarded my flight and attempted to blow it up and kill me. At no time did my story involve, or even find important whether the terrorist actually had a passport. The importance of my story was and always will be, the attempt with an accomplice (apparently succesful) of a terrorist with all sorts of prior terrorist warning signs to skirt the normal passport boarding procedures in Amsterdam. By the way, Amsterdam security did come out the other day and admit that the terrorist did not have to "Go through normal passport checking procedures".
Amsterdam security, please define to the American public "Normal passport boarding procedures".
You see the FBI would have the American public believe that what was important was whether the terrorist in fact had a passport.
Seriously think about this people. You have a suicide bomber who had recently been to Yemen to but a bomb, whose father had reported him as a terrorist, who supposedly was on some kind of U.S. terror watchlist, and most likely knew the U.S. was aware of these red flags. Yet, he didn't go through "Normal passport checking procedures." What does that mean? Maybe that he flashed a passport to some sort of sympathetic security manager in a backroom to avoid a closer look at the terrorist's "red flags"? What is important is that the terrorist avoided using normal passport checking procedures (apparently successfully) in order to avoid a closer look into his red flags. Who cares if he had a passport. The important thing is that he didn't want to show it and somehow avoided a closer inspection and "normal passport checking procedures." Each passport comes with a bar code on it that can be scanned to provide a wealth of information about the individual. I would bet that the passport checking procedures for the terrorist did not include a bar code scan of his passport (which could have revealed damning information about the terrorist).
Please note that there is a very easy way to verify the veracity of my prior "sharp dressed man" account. Dutch police have admitted that they have reviewed the video of the "sharp dressed man" that I referenced. Note that it has not been released anywhere, You see, if my eye witness account is false, it could easily be proven by releasing the video. However, the proof of my eyewitness account would also be verified if I am telling the truth and I am. There is a reason we have only heard of the video and not seen it. dutch authorities, "RELEASE THE VIDEO!" This is the most important video in 8 years and may be all of two minutes long. Show the entire video and "DO NOT EDIT IT"! The American public deserves its own chance to attempt to identify the "sharp dressed man". I have no doubt that if the video indicated that my account was wrong, that the video would have already swept over the entire world wide web.
Instead of the video, we get a statment that the video has been viewed and that the terrorist had a passport. Each of these statements made by the FBI is a self serving play on semantics and each misses the importance of my prior "sharp dressed man" account. The importance being that the man "Tried to board the plane with an accomplice and without a passort". The other significance is that only the airport security video can verify my eyewitness account and that it is not being released.
Who has the agenda here and who doesn't? Think about that for a minute."

Here is the link to the full statement.

Wednesday, December 30, 2009

Invasion of the Terror Snatchers? Second Witness Talks of Handcuffed Indian Taken Away

Besides witnessing a sharp dressed Indian man help the underwear bomber get on his flight without a passport, Kurt Haskell also witnessed the FBI take away a second Indian man in handcuffs after the plane landed and the passengers where at a customs area.

Now a second witness from the flight, Daniel Huisinga, reports also witnessing the Indian suspect handcuffed at customs. Here is his interview on MSNBC. Please note how the correspondent interviewing him quickly tries to dismiss what he saw as...someone who has now been released.

Oh dear, well apparently the FBI still have him in custody according to what they told Kurt Haskell who was interviewed today here. (The part about the FBI admitting they have another person in custody is about seven minutes into the interview.)

Tuesday, December 29, 2009

Sharp Dressed 'Indian', Additional Indian Handcuffed at Customs Says Kurt Haskell

Kurt and Lori Haskell, the witnesses of the sharp dressed man who helped the recent underwear bomber through security have been doing now countless interviews. More details emerge such as the detail that the sharp dressed man appeared to be an Indian man. Also another witness reports on a cnn clip that the whole incident was strangely videotaped by someone aboard the plane. One thing which however seems to be left out of some of the mainstream media coverage is an incident Mr. Haskell reports that happened in customs after the plane landed where a second Indian man from the flight was taken into an interrogation room after a bomb sniffing dog didn't like his carry on bag. The Indian man was later handcuffed and taken away. Instead of reporting important details like this, which might lead us to the real culprits, sadly but not surprisingly many corporate news outlets are instead seeing only a green light for new military attack plans and added airport security measures.

I'll tell you a security measure that needs to be implemented immeadiately. FINDING THOSE WHO ARE REALLY RESPONSIBLE!...that would be the way you could insure safety as opposed to using this new incident as a political football. Of course...if the whole incident was designed as a political football, it's not hard to understand if those responsible remain hidden. Bring on the body scanners, shock bracelets, yemen drone attacks and bombing runs, and landing hour restrictions. Just don't explain who got this guy through security without a passport. Wouldn't fit the agenda would it?

Monday, December 28, 2009

The Sharp Dressed Man (and his friend the underwear bomber)

Ok, maybe you believe we are in danger from all those angry crazies out there. Afterall, they are upset about our freedoms, they don't have a girlfriend and they might bring a plane down with you on it. True. They also might have a better chance if a "sharp dressed man" helps them.

or if you find UK news more appealing...

Of course this witness must be mistaken right? Otherwise that means someone was helping this guy on a terror watch list get on a plane without a passport, obviously someone who COULD help someone get on an international flight without a passport. Not something your average angry islamo-fascist can do, right? Even if he did just buy some rad clothes.

7:09 PM, UPDATE:

This has now been taken up by some more main stream media sources and the witness has been interviewed here:

and here: