Breaking: Dutch Authorities Claim No Accomplice in Airport; Contradicts Eye-Witness Account

Breaking: Dutch Authorities Claim No Accomplice in Airport; Contradicts Eye-Witness Account

biggove rnment.com

According to Reuters, Dutch authorities have announced that Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab, the terrorist who penetrated the Dutch security system on Christmas Day on Flight 253 to Detroit, acted alone with no accomplices at the Amsterdam airport. This directly contradicts the first-hand, eye-witness account from Kurt Haskell, a lawyer from Taylor, Michigan who was on board Flight 253. We have reported Mr. Haskell’s account here at Big Government as well as his interview with Andrew Breitbart on The Dennis Miller Show, the nationally syndicated radio program on Westwood One.

Mr. Haskell tel

(visit the link for the full news article)

www.reuters.com...

[edit on 5-1-2010 by jibeho]

Well, I guess we were all expecting this type of response sooner or later. So the nation that is responsible for this terrorist bypassing current protocol, is the first to throw up the chaff.

I just hope that Haskell has the wherewithal to make through the coming onslaught of doubt and inquiry.

Apparently, neither the FBI nor the Dutch authorities have asked for his help in identifying the alleged accomplice by having him view any surveillance video. I suppose the authorities are currently scrubbing the tape to make Haskell look crazy. I'm sure they will let him have a peak when the tape is clean.

biggove rnment.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 5-1-2010 by jibeho]

[edit on 5-1-2010 by jibeho]

Originally posted by jibeho
I just hope that Haskell has the wherewithal to make through the coming onslaught of doubt and inquiry.

He's pretty solid so far and knows what he's doing. You know there are people behind the scenes trying like hell to dig up some dirt on Haskell and destroy his credibility. If he's clean, TPTB have their hands full on this one.

Just show the video/s! Where have we heard that cry before?

Peace

[edit on 5-1-2010 by Dr Love]

I just happened to hear that interview and was struck by how untrustworthy the guy sounded. Call it a hunch, but I did not believe him. BTW, he is a former employee of the federal government.

Let the character assassination of Haskell begin.

^_^

So, who you going to believe, eye witnesses, or federal governments? That's what I thought. Now go be a good little citizen and don't rock the boat, or else.....

reply to post by Grumble


If Haskell is full of spit, he is taking a huge risk here that could ruin his life forever. My first impression is that he is a straight shooter. The men behind the curtain will certainly stop at nothing to make Haskell look like a turd in a punchbowl.

I wonder how many other potential eyewitnesses have suffered from sudden amnesia in this case??

I too heard the interview, his wife was with him and seemed supportive, although she did not see what had occured. It's the story which includes the passport,(or lack of one) which begs all the questions, if it is a made-up story, why include the passport at all? he had already said that he had seen the poorly dressed? would-be bomber earlier with this well dressed man, and that alone had already caught his attention--- no need to mention about any passport, unless in fact the whole story is true.

reply to post by smurfy


One theory suggests that the bomber actually had a passport but it was only given a visual check as opposed to being scanned into the computer.

Eh.. Who knows at this point? I don't think we will ever see the bottom of this barrel anytime soon.

reply to post by jibeho
That's true of course. The funny thing is I don't recall Mr Haskell saying that the "Well dressed man" was an accomplice merely that the two were seen together. Mr Haskell is really not being contradicted by the airport authorities at all, although it's easy to assume that, as Bigov have done. Although Bigov is being supportive to Mr Haskell, they don't seem to have the airport statement in full which would be nice.

[edit on 5-1-2010 by smurfy]

Silly us we should no eye witness testimony is never considered credible unless the account is in the favour of the government or what have you. If the eye witness raises troubling questions then their testimony is laughed at.

I suppose this could all be nothing more than a security breached caused by security personnel who didn't want to be at work that day but then I wonder what all the money spent in the last eigth years on airport security was for?

The only interviews I've watched regarding Haskell have been the Alex Jones ones. He's been very careful to say what he saw with his own two eyes and not make assumptions based on that. The guy knows the tactics. Like Jibe said, if he's lying he's got to know he's destroying himself. The ball's in the court of the authorities, just show the video/s.

I know........national security and all.

Peace

There are a few more twists to this story.The airport authorities have had 11 or 12 days to study any videotape, a bit on the slow side I would have thought, then there is this quote from Alan Johnson, home secretary,

[ Britain's home secretary, Alan Johnson, said he suspected Abdulmutallab may not have been working alone. "We don't know yet whether it was a single-handed plot or [there were] other people behind it – I suspect it's the latter rather than the former," he told BBC Radio 4's Today]

Edit to add the above was on the 28th December, three days after. It's all getting a bit stinky!

[edit on 5-1-2010 by smurfy]

reply to post by Dr Love
I agree with you, especially as the story on the face of it, is a strange one in itself. Any video is not going to help I don't think. But you can see where detractors of Mr Haskell's story will start the nit-picking, like why should the son of a former diplomat be poorly dressed, there was no "Well dressed man". The fact is that the would be bomber was known..reported by his parents and should not have been allowed to board a plane to the US, in fact Obama is banging heads right now about this incredible cock-up, if that is what it was.



[edit on 5-1-2010 by smurfy]

hmmmm
200+ hours of video
This new clip it was just posted at 2pm today
so between dec 26th to jan 4 is how many days?
investigation would of taken 24 hours to start at least
26, 27, 28, 29 ,30 ,31, 1, 2, 3, 4
so 10 days
x24 hours in one day
is 240 hours so they had 240 hours to view 200+ hours of tape

thats seems a little fishy to me


A good investigation would have more then 1 person looking at the footage
what i mean is like
a team of 8 people together viewing footage from hour 1 -200+
which would mean they got less then 20 hours of sleep over 10 days

Speeding up video would screw up investigation we could miss important info

What's the worst kind of witness? AN EYE WITNESS.

Now if there was material evidence to support an accomplice, then that would be news worthy

Originally posted by smurfy
The airport authorities have had 11 or 12 days to study any videotape, a bit on the slow side I would have thought

Originally posted by blankduck18
hmmmm
200+ hours of video
This new clip it was just posted at 2pm today
so between dec 26th to jan 4 is how many days?
investigation would of taken 24 hours to start at least
26, 27, 28, 29 ,30 ,31, 1, 2, 3, 4
so 10 days
x24 hours in one day
is 240 hours so they had 240 hours to view 200+ hours of tape

thats seems a little fishy to me


A good investigation would have more then 1 person looking at the footage
what i mean is like
a team of 8 people together viewing footage from hour 1 -200+
which would mean they got less then 20 hours of sleep over 10 days

Speeding up video would screw up investigation we could miss important info

Jeebus, which one is it? Is anyone ever happy?

reply to post by jibeho


So OP, do you conclude that all the eye witness 1st responders on 9/11 which provided contrary info were CRAZY like this fellow or credible like this fellow, given their "eyes on" and professions?

I believe the eye witness in this case BTW, it stinks



[edit on 5-1-2010 by Janky Red]

In the end, it doesn't matter. It's the Dutch word against Haskell's word.

Even if the Dutch were to release the video, there will always be that suspicion about it being edited.


This incident will soon be forgotten and we will be debating the next incident.

reply to post by Janky Red


Why does it stink? Furthermore, what would there having been a second person accomplish? If true, would it blow all of the gubment conspiracies out of the water? Or would it just show that they had a person of interest and didn't want the outside world knowing about it? Hmmm...