Kurt Haskell : Remaining Questions

Remaining Questions
THE REMAINING QUESTIONS FROM FLIGHT 253 AND A DISCUSSION OF THE POSSIBILITIES -by Kurt Haskell

January 31, 2010

The following questions are those that we do not have adequate information (In my mind) on in order to make a final determination.

1. Who is the Man in Orange?

2. Did Mutallab know the Sharp Dressed Man?

3. Was it intended that the bomb explode?

4. Did the U.S. Government know that Mutallab had a bomb when it allowed him to board Flight 253?

5. Why is the U.S. Government seeking a plea deal for Mutallab?

6. Why did a fellow passenger call me to discuss changing my story?

7. Why are the important questions being ignored by the mainstream media?

1. Who is the Man in Orange?

The story of the Man in Orange has been previously discussed at length, so I will not state it again in this article, but who was he?

The following evidence supports the theory that we know the identity of the Man in Orange:

The Detroit Free Press released an account of Flight 253 passenger Samuel Pappy on January 29, 2010. It stated the following:

"Two bomb-sniffing dogs named Jordi and Brenda checked out hundreds of bags and carry-ons that had been deposited in Customs. They cleared every bag except one: The dogs keyed in on a soft-sided black carry-on belonging to Pappy, the Indian born man who said he helped calm other passengers during the flight.
Pappy, who lives in Georgia, said he was hand cuffed in front of other passengers, which he said he found humiliating. A police report said his bags were searched and cleared. He was released with other passengers later that afternoon".

The Free Press account verifies the following aspects of the Man in Orange:

1. Indian Man
2. Bomb-sniffing dogs were alerted to his carry-on bag and no other bags.
3. He was taken away and questioned.

There is further evidence that Pappy may have been the Man in Orange. When a fellow passenger called me in an apparent attempt to get me to change my story, he did not attempt to change my story in regards to the Man in Orange. He actually concurred with my account.

While the evidence indicates strongly that Pappy was the Man in Orange a few questions are raised in my mind.

The following evidence supports the theory that we still do not know the identity of the Man in Orange:
1. Ron Smith, spokesperson for U.S. Customs, changed the official story of the Man in Orange 5 times. Each story appearing after a public statement from myself, which discredited the official version. Why?
2. My account of the Man in Orange indicated that he was NOT handcuffed when he was taken away, but he was handcuffed after he emerged from questioning. This appears to not correspond with version 6 of the official story, which appeared in the Free Press.
3. As he was exiting Flight 253, Mutallab indicated that another bomb was on the plane.
4. How often do bomb-sniffing dogs indicate a false positive?

2. Did Mutallab know the Sharp Dressed Man?

The story of the Sharp Dressed Man has previously been discussed at length and his identity has been proven(To my satisfaction) as an agent of the U.S. Government. However, did Mutallab know the Sharp Dressed Man?

The following evidence supports the theory that Mutallab did know the Sharp Dressed Man:

1. The two men approached the final ticket gate together.
2. The Sharp Dressed Man did all of the talking.
3. The Sharp Dressed Man indicated that Mutallab was from "Sudan", which was an obvious lie.
4. The Sharp Dressed man advocated for Mutallab to board without showing a passport.
5. The U.S. Government is now admitting that Mutallab may have had help in making sure he did not get cold feet when boarding.

The following evidence supports the theory that Mutallab did not know the Sharp Dressed Man:

1. Mutallab was nervous and fidgety as he stood by the Sharp Dressed Man.
2. The account of Shama Chopra, the Montreal passenger who also saw Mutallab before boarding, also described Mutallab as being very nervous as he went through security.

3. Was it intended that the bomb explode?

The only reason I am here today is that Mutallab's bomb did not explode. We have to ask whether it was ever intended to explode?

The following evidence supports the theory that the bomb was intended to explode:

1. Mutallab went all the way to Yemen to obtain the bomb.
2. It was stitched into his underwear.
3. The quantity of explosive was enough to blow up the plane.
4. Mutallab purchased a one-way ticket without luggage (except for one small carry-on bag).

The following evidence supports the theory that the bomb was not intended to explode:

1. The bomb required a detonator to explode. This bomb did not have (Or had a malfunctioning detonator) a detonator.
2. It is difficult to believe that Mutallab would plan for this event in such great detail, but not assure that it would work.
3. A camera man filmed the entire attack from before it started until after it ended.
4. The U.S. Government allowed Mutallab on the plane in order to track him in the U.S. and catch potential accomplices.

4. Did the U.S. Government know that Mutallab had a bomb when it allowed him to board Flight 253?

This is possibly the most important question to be answered.

The following is evidence that the U.S. Government knew Mutallab had a bomb when he boarded Flight 253:

1. The U.S. Government had pre-purchased body scanning machines.
2. The U.S. Government had already begun bombing Yemen.
3. The camera man on the plane. Although, this would indicate that the U.S. Government knew Mutallab had a defective bomb.
4. The extensive evidence over the months leading up to the flight, which included wire tapped intercepts indicating that someone named "Umar Farouk" would be attempting a terrorist attack.
5. Michael Chertoff's ties to the company that produces the body scanning machines.

The following is evidence that the U.S. Government did not know that Mutallab had a bomb when he boarded Flight 253:

1. It is almost incomprehensible to believe that the U.S. Government would intentionally allow it's citizens to be blown up (Although, this would not be the case if it knew that Mutallab's bomb was defective).
2. The bomb was in Mutallab's underwear and may have been difficult to find.

5. Why is the U.S. Government seeking a plea deal for Mutallab?

One has to wonder why the government wants a plea deal when the U.S. Government has plenty of evidence to convict Mutallab.

The following evidence supports the theory that the U.S. Government has a legitimate reason for seeking a plea deal:
1. To seek additional evidence from Mutallab to catch accomplices.
2. To spare the cost of a trial (However, this trial would be very short and not too costly).

The following evidence supports the theory that the U.S. Government does not have a legitimate reason for seeking a plea deal:

1. There is plenty of evidence to convict Mutallab.
2. His crime was particularly heinous and he does not deserve a lenient sentence.
3. Anything less than a life sentence without the possibility of parole would be ridiculous.
4. Mutallab could have been treated as an enemy combatant and denied a court appointed attorney, which could have had the same result as a plea deal, as far as obtaining additional evidence. The U.S. Government already admitted that Mutallab was telling all until his attorney arrived.
5. The truth of the story would be known when evidence was presented at trial.

6. Why did a fellow passenger call me to discuss changing my story?

Approximately one week after Flight 253, and after I had been telling my story to the media, I received a call from a fellow passenger. The important parts of the conversation were as follows:

1. "Kurt, I think you should stop telling your story about the 'Sharp Dressed Man'. It was an unaccompanied minor that you saw. I am sure of it. He was escorted on the flight by an airline employee. I saw him after we landed with the employee. You will look stupid when the truth comes out".
2. "Remember when we took the buses from the plane to the terminal"?
3. "I thought you were crazy when I heard you in the media, but yesterday(One week after the flight) I had a revelation and remembered what happened".

Lets look at the reason this call was made and the importance of the above statements.

The following evidence indicates that the call was made from a concerned fellow passenger:

1. The caller was pleasant and appeared to be concerned.
2. My wife verified that he was, in fact, on our plane.
3. Maybe he did see something, but was something different than what I saw.
4. He did not say that he saw the Sharp Dressed Man before boarding.
5. He provided, on its face, a seemingly believable story.

The following evidence indicates that the call was made from someone trying to "shut me up".

1. The call was made after the caller had a revelation one week after the flight. This would be a highly unlikely event.
2. I have since discovered that the caller has ties to the U.S. Government.
3. U.S. Customs has indicated that there were no unaccompanied minors on our flight.
4. To have an airline employee as an escort, the minor must be age 11 or younger. Although Mutallab looks young (15 or 16 by my estimation), he does not look 11.
5. Why the call out of the blue to me?
6. The statement that we took buses to the terminal was not true. This statement could have been made in an effort to make me believe that the plane landed far away from the terminal. This, if true, would cover up the post-landing gaffes indicated in the January 29, 2010, Detroit News article.
7. Why indicate that he thought I was crazy? Possibly as a subliminal put down to me to make me not talk to the media.
8. Although I have since spoken to many passengers, none have indicated that they saw an unaccompanied minor either before or after landing. One passenger, however, did indicate to me that she saw Mutallab escorted by another individual to the final ticket counter.
9. The numerous amount of evidence that has since come out and now indicates that the U.S. Government intentionally let Mutallab on Flight 253.
10. The U.S. Government knew at that time, that I could not be intimidated by a government official and knew it had to try an alternative means to stop my story from getting out to the public.
11. The caller has since made the following peculiar statement (Which may not be an exact quote but it is close), which is odd considering that it is coming from a victim of a recent terrorist attack:

"The American public should forget about Flight 253 and focus on health care and the economy".

This statement appears to be a statement more attributable to a government official then a passenger of Flight 253.

7. Why are the important questions being ignored by the main stream media?

It would seem that in a free country the press would be investigative on all important questions, including those that may show corrupt/grossly negligent activities by its own government. However, as often has been the case, the mainstream media is all too quick to put the "official" story out to the public and not ask the difficult questions. As I am finding out, it is very difficult for a normal everyday citizen to have his concerns heard in the media. Any official statement from the government, however, is immediately reported worldwide. One has to wonder whether the ties between the large corporations that run the media and the U.S. Government itself, have become so tight as to jeopardize the freedom and safety of the U.S. citizens. It has come to the point that some are calling my wife and I heroes for insisting on the truthful reporting of this story. That is a very sad statement, because we are not heroes, but only eyewitnesses. The belief that we are heroes, speaks of the current sad state of affairs in this country. Those that have something to say are scared to come forward with the truth. The United States of America is no longer a free country.

I look forward to hearing the responses to this post. I know some of you will feel strongly in support of one side or the other on each of the above questions. However, I take no position on these questions at this time. I also look forward to hearing any other questions anyone would like me to blog about, as this is a very involved story and I acknowledge that I may have missed some further unresolved questions.

Kurt Haskell : Remaining Questions

Remaining Questions

Kurt Haskell | January 31, 2010

THE REMAINING QUESTIONS FROM FLIGHT 253 AND A DISCUSSION OF THE POSSIBILITIES -by Kurt Haskell

The following questions are those that we do not have adequate information (In my mind) on in order to make a final determination.

1. Who is the Man in Orange?
2. Did Mutallab know the Sharp Dressed Man?
3. Was it intended that the bomb explode?
4. Did the U.S. Government know that Mutallab had a bomb when it allowed him to board Flight 253?
5. Why is the U.S. Government seeking a plea deal for Mutallab?
6. Why did a fellow passenger call me to discuss changing my story?
7. Why are the important questions being ignored by the mainstream media?

~~~

1. Who is the Man in Orange?

The story of the Man in Orange has been previously discussed at length, so I will not state it again in this article, but who was he?

The following evidence supports the theory that we know the identity of the Man in Orange:

The Detroit Free Press released an account of Flight 253 passenger Samuel Pappy on January 29, 2010. It stated the following:

"Two bomb-sniffing dogs named Jordi and Brenda checked out hundreds of bags and carry-ons that had been deposited in Customs. They cleared every bag except one: The dogs keyed in on a soft-sided black carry-on belonging to Pappy, the Indian born man who said he helped calm other passengers during the flight.
Pappy, who lives in Georgia, said he was hand cuffed in front of other passengers, which he said he found humiliating. A police report said his bags were searched and cleared. He was released with other passengers later that afternoon".

The Free Press account verifies the following aspects of the Man in Orange:

1. Indian Man
2. Bomb-sniffing dogs were alerted to his carry-on bag and no other bags.
3. He was taken away and questioned.

There is further evidence that Pappy may have been the Man in Orange. When a fellow passenger called me in an apparent attempt to get me to change my story, he did not attempt to change my story in regards to the Man in Orange. He actually concurred with my account.

While the evidence indicates strongly that Pappy was the Man in Orange a few questions are raised in my mind.

The following evidence supports the theory that we still do not know the identity of the Man in Orange:
1. Ron Smith, spokesperson for U.S. Customs, changed the official story of the Man in Orange 5 times. Each story appearing after a public statement from myself, which discredited the official version. Why?
2. My account of the Man in Orange indicated that he was NOT handcuffed when he was taken away, but he was handcuffed after he emerged from questioning. This appears to not correspond with version 6 of the official story, which appeared in the Free Press.
3. As he was exiting Flight 253, Mutallab indicated that another bomb was on the plane.
4. How often do bomb-sniffing dogs indicate a false positive?

2. Did Mutallab know the Sharp Dressed Man?

The story of the Sharp Dressed Man has previously been discussed at length and his identity has been proven(To my satisfaction) as an agent of the U.S. Government. However, did Mutallab know the Sharp Dressed Man?

The following evidence supports the theory that Mutallab did know the Sharp Dressed Man:

1. The two men approached the final ticket gate together.
2. The Sharp Dressed Man did all of the talking.
3. The Sharp Dressed Man indicated that Mutallab was from "Sudan", which was an obvious lie.
4. The Sharp Dressed man advocated for Mutallab to board without showing a passport.
5. The U.S. Government is now admitting that Mutallab may have had help in making sure he did not get cold feet when boarding.

The following evidence supports the theory that Mutallab did not know the Sharp Dressed Man:

1. Mutallab was nervous and fidgety as he stood by the Sharp Dressed Man.
2. The account of Shama Chopra, the Montreal passenger who also saw Mutallab before boarding, also described Mutallab as being very nervous as he went through security.

3. Was it intended that the bomb explode?

The only reason I am here today is that Mutallab's bomb did not explode. We have to ask whether it was ever intended to explode?

The following evidence supports the theory that the bomb was intended to explode:

1. Mutallab went all the way to Yemen to obtain the bomb.
2. It was stitched into his underwear.
3. The quantity of explosive was enough to blow up the plane.
4. Mutallab purchased a one-way ticket without luggage (except for one small carry-on bag).

The following evidence supports the theory that the bomb was not intended to explode:

1. The bomb required a detonator to explode. This bomb did not have (Or had a malfunctioning detonator) a detonator.
2. It is difficult to believe that Mutallab would plan for this event in such great detail, but not assure that it would work.
3. A camera man filmed the entire attack from before it started until after it ended.
4. The U.S. Government allowed Mutallab on the plane in order to track him in the U.S. and catch potential accomplices.

4. Did the U.S. Government know that Mutallab had a bomb when it allowed him to board Flight 253?

This is possibly the most important question to be answered.

The following is evidence that the U.S. Government knew Mutallab had a bomb when he boarded Flight 253:

1. The U.S. Government had pre-purchased body scanning machines.
2. The U.S. Government had already begun bombing Yemen.
3. The camera man on the plane. Although, this would indicate that the U.S. Government knew Mutallab had a defective bomb.
4. The extensive evidence over the months leading up to the flight, which included wire tapped intercepts indicating that someone named "Umar Farouk" would be attempting a terrorist attack.
5. Michael Chertoff's ties to the company that produces the body scanning machines.

The following is evidence that the U.S. Government did not know that Mutallab had a bomb when he boarded Flight 253:

1. It is almost incomprehensible to believe that the U.S. Government would intentionally allow it's citizens to be blown up (Although, this would not be the case if it knew that Mutallab's bomb was defective).
2. The bomb was in Mutallab's underwear and may have been difficult to find.

5. Why is the U.S. Government seeking a plea deal for Mutallab?

One has to wonder why the government wants a plea deal when the U.S. Government has plenty of evidence to convict Mutallab.

The following evidence supports the theory that the U.S. Government has a legitimate reason for seeking a plea deal:
1. To seek additional evidence from Mutallab to catch accomplices.
2. To spare the cost of a trial (However, this trial would be very short and not too costly).

The following evidence supports the theory that the U.S. Government does not have a legitimate reason for seeking a plea deal:

1. There is plenty of evidence to convict Mutallab.
2. His crime was particularly heinous and he does not deserve a lenient sentence.
3. Anything less than a life sentence without the possibility of parole would be ridiculous.
4. Mutallab could have been treated as an enemy combatant and denied a court appointed attorney, which could have had the same result as a plea deal, as far as obtaining additional evidence. The U.S. Government already admitted that Mutallab was telling all until his attorney arrived.
5. The truth of the story would be known when evidence was presented at trial.

6. Why did a fellow passenger call me to discuss changing my story?

Approximately one week after Flight 253, and after I had been telling my story to the media, I received a call from a fellow passenger. The important parts of the conversation were as follows:

1. "Kurt, I think you should stop telling your story about the 'Sharp Dressed Man'. It was an unaccompanied minor that you saw. I am sure of it. He was escorted on the flight by an airline employee. I saw him after we landed with the employee. You will look stupid when the truth comes out".
2. "Remember when we took the buses from the plane to the terminal"?
3. "I thought you were crazy when I heard you in the media, but yesterday(One week after the flight) I had a revelation and remembered what happened".

Lets look at the reason this call was made and the importance of the above statements.

The following evidence indicates that the call was made from a concerned fellow passenger:

1. The caller was pleasant and appeared to be concerned.
2. My wife verified that he was, in fact, on our plane.
3. Maybe he did see something, but was something different than what I saw.
4. He did not say that he saw the Sharp Dressed Man before boarding.
5. He provided, on its face, a seemingly believable story.

The following evidence indicates that the call was made from someone trying to "shut me up".

1. The call was made after the caller had a revelation one week after the flight. This would be a highly unlikely event.
2. I have since discovered that the caller has ties to the U.S. Government.
3. U.S. Customs has indicated that there were no unaccompanied minors on our flight.
4. To have an airline employee as an escort, the minor must be age 11 or younger. Although Mutallab looks young (15 or 16 by my estimation), he does not look 11.
5. Why the call out of the blue to me?
6. The statement that we took buses to the terminal was not true. This statement could have been made in an effort to make me believe that the plane landed far away from the terminal. This, if true, would cover up the post-landing gaffes indicated in the January 29, 2010, Detroit News article.
7. Why indicate that he thought I was crazy? Possibly as a subliminal put down to me to make me not talk to the media.
8. Although I have since spoken to many passengers, none have indicated that they saw an unaccompanied minor either before or after landing. One passenger, however, did indicate to me that she saw Mutallab escorted by another individual to the final ticket counter.
9. The numerous amount of evidence that has since come out and now indicates that the U.S. Government intentionally let Mutallab on Flight 253.
10. The U.S. Government knew at that time, that I could not be intimidated by a government official and knew it had to try an alternative means to stop my story from getting out to the public.
11. The caller has since made the following peculiar statement (Which may not be an exact quote but it is close), which is odd considering that it is coming from a victim of a recent terrorist attack:

"The American public should forget about Flight 253 and focus on health care and the economy".

This statement appears to be a statement more attributable to a government official then a passenger of Flight 253.

7. Why are the important questions being ignored by the main stream media?

It would seem that in a free country the press would be investigative on all important questions, including those that may show corrupt/grossly negligent activities by its own government. However, as often has been the case, the mainstream media is all too quick to put the "official" story out to the public and not ask the difficult questions. As I am finding out, it is very difficult for a normal everyday citizen to have his concerns heard in the media. Any official statement from the government, however, is immediately reported worldwide. One has to wonder whether the ties between the large corporations that run the media and the U.S. Government itself, have become so tight as to jeopardize the freedom and safety of the U.S. citizens. It has come to the point that some are calling my wife and I heroes for insisting on the truthful reporting of this story. That is a very sad statement, because we are not heroes, but only eyewitnesses. The belief that we are heroes, speaks of the current sad state of affairs in this country. Those that have something to say are scared to come forward with the truth. The United States of America is no longer a free country.

I look forward to hearing the responses to this post. I know some of you will feel strongly in support of one side or the other on each of the above questions. However, I take no position on these questions at this time. I also look forward to hearing any other questions anyone would like me to blog about, as this is a very involved story and I acknowledge that I may have missed some further unresolved questions.

Kurt Haskell : AN INTERESTING NOTE TO TODAY'S CNN ARTICLE ON FLIGHT 253

AN INTERESTING NOTE TO TODAY'S CNN ARTICLE ON FLIGHT 253

Kurt Haskell | January 28, 2010

A few days ago, CNN contacted all of the known flight 253 passengers by email. The email stated that as the Haiti earthquake story had calmed down, CNN wanted to write a new article on flight 253. The email listed a series of questions that CNN wanted the passengers to answer about flight 253. This is the first major media organization to contact Lori and I after the hearings took place in Congress. These hearings provided the statements from Patrick Kennedy and Michael Leiter that led to the obviously conclusion that the Sharp Dressed Man was a U.S. Government agent (Please scroll down below and read previous blog posts if you are not informed as to these comments and this conclusion). Therefore, I expected CNN to address these issues, as they are now, in my opinion, the most important part of the flight 253 story. When I provided my answers, I informed CNN that it could only use my answers if it intended to discuss the Sharp Dressed Man in its article. I heard nothing further from CNN. Lori, however, got another email that said, since we can't use Kurt's answers, can we at least use yours? This was not a surprise to me since it is obvious that the major media is furthering the U.S. governement's flight 253 propaganda. Lori's take on all of this is that we should keep flight 253 in the media no matter what. My take is that it is time for the media to step up to the plate and ask the hard questions. Until that happens, don't bother wasting my time to further the U.S. Government's agenda. You can read the article below as Lori posted a link in her most recent blog entry. Notice that I am not mentioned in the article. At least the media is showing its true colors.

Kurt Haskell : THE TRUTH ABOUT FLIGHT 253 HAS BEEN REVEALED

THE TRUTH ABOUT FLIGHT 253 HAS BEEN REVEALED

Kurt Haskell | January 28, 2010

***Please note that in the article that follows, I am not claiming that the U.S. Government knew Mutallab had a bomb or intended to hurt anyone on Flight 253 when the U.S. Government let him board.

THE SHARP DRESSED MAN WHO AIDED MUTALLAB ONTO FLIGHT 253 WAS A U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENT.

Since our flight landed on Christmas Day, Lori and I have been doing everything in our power to uncover the truth about why we were almost blown up in the air over Detroit. The truth is now finally out after the publication of the following Detroit News article:

http://detnews.com/article/20100127/NATION/1270405/Terror-suspect-kept-visa-to-avoid-tipping-off-larger-investigation

Let me quote from the article:

"Patrick F. Kennedy, an undersecretary for management at the State Department, said Abdulmutallab's visa wasn't taken away because intelligence officials asked his agency not to deny a visa to the suspected terrorist over concerns that a denial would've foiled a larger investigation into al-Qaeda threats against the United States.

"Revocation action would've disclosed what they were doing," Kennedy said in testimony before the House Committee on Homeland Security. Allowing Adbulmutallab to keep the visa increased chances federal investigators would be able to get closer to apprehending the terror network he is accused of working with, "rather than simply knocking out one solider in that effort."'

Now it all becomes apparent. Let me detail everything we know about the "Sharp Dressed Man" (SDM).

1. While being held in Customs on Christmas Day, I first told the story of the SDM.

2. My story has never changed.

3. The FBI visited my office on December 29, 2009, and showed me a series of approximately 10 photographs. None were of the SDM. I asked the FBI if they brought the Amsterdam security video to help me identify the SDM, but they acted as though my request was ridiculous. The FBI asked me what accent the SDM spoke in and I indicated that he had an American accent similar to my own. I further indicated that he wore a tan suit without a tie, was Indian looking, around age 50, 6'0" tall and 250-260 lbs. I further indicated that I did not believe that he was an airline employee and that he was not on our flight.

4. During the first week of January, 2010, Dutch Military Police and the FBI indicated that over "200 Hours" of Amsterdam airport security video had been reviewed and it "Shows Nothing".

5. The mainstream media picked up the "Shows nothing" story, which slanders my story. After visiting my office twice for a flight 253 special, Dateline NBC and Chris Hanson indicated that my story was "Unsubstantiated rumor dispelled as myth" and our story did not air during the tv special.

6. On January 2, 2010, I receive a call from a flight 253 passenger who indicated to me that it may be in my best interest to stop talking publicly about the SDM because he believes I am "wrong" in what I saw. He did not make any claim that he saw the SDM boarding gate incident at all. This call was made out of the blue after he made a "revelation" of this event on January 1, 2010. I later discover that this caller has ties to the U.S. Government.

7. On January 20, 2010, current Director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), Michael E. Leiter, made a startling admission. Leiter indicated that: "I will tell you, that when people come to the country and they are on the watch list, it is because we have generally made the choice that we want them here in the country for some reason or another."

8. On January 22, 2010, CongressDaily reported that intelligence officials "have acknowledged the government knowingly allows foreigners whose names are on terrorist watch lists to enter the country in order to track their movement and activities."

CongressDaily also reported, citing an unnamed "intelligence official" that Michael E. Leiter's statement on January 20, 2010, reflected government policy and told the publication, "in certain situations it's to our advantage to be able to track individuals who might be on a terrorist watch list because you can learn something from their activities and their contacts."

9. On January 22, 2010, ABC News published an article that showed a change of position in the government's official story. Please see the following blog post for more information:

http://haskellfamily.blogspot.com/2010/01/initially-discounted.html

The U.S. government provided no explanation for the reason my story was initially discounted.

10. The SDM could not be from Al Qaeda. When speaking at the counter in Amsterdam, the SDM said the following "He is from Sudan, we do this all the time". Who is "we"? If it is Al Qaeda, you surely don't make such a statement to an airport security official.

11. The SDM could not be from airport security. The SDM did not dress in any security uniform and did not appear to have any security badge. The SDM did not speak with a Dutch accent. The SDM dressed in a suit coat and pants. If the SDM was a higher up security official, he would not have to convince the ticket agent to let Mutallab on the plane without a valid passport. Instead, he would just order her to do it.

12. Could the SDM have been a U.S. Government official? He dressed in a suit and not a security uniform. Check. He indicated we do this all the time. Could "we" be the U.S. Government? Check. He spoke Enlish with an American accent. Check. Would he need to convince the ticket agent that this was a normal procedure to allow boarding without a passport? Check. Would he have the ability to obtain such clearance? Check. Could he enter this security area even though he wasn't a passenger? Check. Would the ticket agent likely refer this request to a manager? Check. Would the U.S. Government not want this information public and try to hide it? Check.

13. The Amsterdam security video has not been released. A much more minor airport security violation occurred at the Newark New Jersey airport several days after the flight 253 incident. That video was released shortly thereafter.

14. Senators Levin and Stabenow, as well as Congressman Dingle, all refuse to discuss the matter with me.

With the information we already knew and the admission from the above referenced Detroit News article, we have evidence and claims made by government officials that the U.S. Government wanted Mutallab to proceed into the U.S. in order to obtain information on other terrorists involved with him. Once we take this statement and add it to my eyewitness account of a "Sharp Dressed Man" escorting Mutallab through the boarding process and allowing him to board without a valid passport we can make the connection that the "Sharp Dressed Man" was a U.S. Government official/agent.

The reasoning behind the following events now becomes very clear:

1. The reason Mutallab got through security despite the numerous warnings for months before our flight.

2. The reason why there have been so many lies from the U.S. Government attempting to discredit my eyewitness account.

3. The reason why the Amsterdam airport security video is being hidden from the public.

4. The reason why the government is proposing a "Failed to Connect the Dots" account of the failure. The truth is too damning.

5. The reason why Mr. Wolf of the Obama administration indicated on the Keith Olberman Show that the White House was investigating a possible "intentional act" from within the U.S. Government as the reason for the Christmas Day attack.

6. The explanation for the cameraman and why he hasn't been identified (Obviously, he was another U.S. Government agent) whose job was to film Mutallab for some governmental purpose.

7. The reason for the lax security after landing, which can be attributed to foreknowledge of the possible suspects involved.

8. The reason for the failure to search or secure the plane and passengers after landing, which can also be attributed to foreknowledge of the possible suspects involved.

9. The corporate media's attempt to bury my eyewitness account.

10. Carl Levin's, Debbie Stabenow's and John Dingle's intentional avoidance of my story and failure to return my calls/emails.

11. Janet Napolitano's statement that "The System Worked". From her point of view it probably did as this WAS PART OF THE SYSTEM!

This article is the big center piece of the puzzle that has been missing and was needed to finish the entire puzzle.

Lori Haskell : Initially "Discounted"

Initially "Discounted"

Lori Haskell | January 24, 2010

OMFG. Cannot even believe the article below. I think I may have fallen over if I had been standing when I read this article. A woman posted a link to this article in comments on my blog, and I clicked on it. Most of the article has nothing to do with Flight 253. Which is interesting too. Why is this not total breaking news????? The part of the article that is incredible, I will post below.

I think we now know WHY the video is not being released. Because IT SHOWS WHAT KURT SAID!!!!!! I mean, where is his apology? Where? They come out in the media, basically calling Kurt a liar, then they take it back, but it is in the bottom of another nonrelated article. Ridiculous. And still, to date, no authorities contactinig KURT to ask him to look at the freaking video and help identify the guy. It's so insane to me. We have an eyewitness to this, and they just don't care.

"Federal agents also tell ABCNews.com they are attempting to identify a man who passengers said helped Abdulmutallab change planes for Detroit when he landed in Amsterdam from Lagos, Nigeria.

Authorities had initially discounted the passenger accounts, but the agents say there is a growing belief the man have played a role to make sure Abdulmutallab "did not get cold feet."

Click here to read the entire article

Kurt Haskell : UPDATE ON FLIGHT 253: A CONVERSATION WITH A FELLOW PASSENGER

UPDATE ON FLIGHT 253: A CONVERSATION WITH A FELLOW PASSENGER

By Kurt Haskell | January 02, 2010

Today I received a phone call from a fellow passenger, Bo Taylor (Bo indicated that I could identify him). This was the first contact I have had with any other passenger (besides Lori) since we left customs on Christmas Day. The conversation was very interesting because we both saw different things and were able to compare notes.

In the interest of obtaining the truth, which has always been my goal, I am posting the following account of Bo Taylor that differs from mine:

"After we landed in Detroit I saw an older looking teenager who was African and looked NEARLY IDENTICAL to the terrorist bomber. Since he was a minor, and travelling alone, he was accompanied by an airport employee at all times. Kurt, this could have been the guy you saw in Amsterdam before we boarded." I have no reason whatsoever to dispute the veracity of Bo's statement. I also have no reason to not believe what I saw.

Two different people can see two different things. However, I am not sure that it matters that much. You see, if Bo is correct, than we have a possible future airline security breach since the teenager was allowed on the plane without a passport(apparently) due to coming from Sudan (apparently). This may be a common airline policy that is potentially problematic. If I am correct, well, we have an entirely different and much larger problem. Either way, there are concerns. Either way we need an open, honest, and thorough investigation. There is one way to conclusively determine who is correct, and that would be for the Amsterdam Airport to RELEASE THE CLOSED CAPTION VIDEO FOOTAGE! Seriously, the attack happened 8 days ago, the relevant video is probably 2-3 minutes in length and has(apparently) already been viewed by airport security personnel. So why hasn't it appeared anywhere? Within 24 hours of any bank robbery or gas station hold up, the video of the perpetrator is played all over the news and posted on the internet. If the video really is not related to the terrorist incident, release it and let us move on. If it is related, release it, place it on the internet and let the world attempt to identify the "sharp dressed man". I suspect that due to the potential problems I indicated above (regardless of which account the video supports) federal law enforcement will likely never release the video.

Bo went on to emphasize the numerous amount of gaffes he saw (Many of which I did too) AFTER our plane landed. Bo cited the following as major problems he saw with how the investigation was handled:

1. We were left on the plane too long after landing, which caused unnecessary risk to the passengers.

2. We should have never been allowed to take our carry on bags into the terminal since they were not searched until we had been held for approximately one hour. This also caused unnecessary risk to the passengers.

3. Even though there was a no cell phone policy, Bo observed many people making cell phone calls and believes this was also an unnecessary risk to the passengers.

4. He was particularly concerned that according to him, "law enforcement in customs was not even notified that there was a bomb on our plane until we had been held for quite awhile". He informed me that an officer he spoke to in customs was clueless that there was even a bomb on our plane. Therefore, law enforcement WAS NOT EVEN AWARE of the risk our carry on bags presented while we were held in customs!

5. He indicated that he informed law enforcement that a man videotaped the entire terrorist incident and he gave the following possible seat numbers for the "camera man", seats 31A, 31B, 32A or 32B. However, law enforcement did not verify who was in such seats. Further, law enforcement could have confiscated each camera, but instead let this lead slip away when they let the passengers leave without ever finding the video.

It was very nice to compare notes with a fellow passenger even if his account was somewhat different than mine. My goal is not to prove that what I saw is correct, but only to pose the questions in order to obtain satisfactory answers. An open, honest, and complete investigation is vitally important to the future of all airline passengers. We must all continue to ask the questions until all of our concerns are satisfied.

By the way, the very important questions I posed at the conclusion of yesterday's post continue to remain unanswered.

Kurt Haskell- A Flight 253 passenger and a concerned American Citizen.

Kurt Haskell : Latest Story

Latest Story

By Kurt Haskell | January 1, 2010

-The Man In Orange and the Merry Go Round of Ron Smith/U.S. Customs-

As many of you know, my wife Lori and I were passengers and innocent victims of Northwest Flight 253 (Flight 253). We have repeated our story many times to various reporters, television and radio stations ,both across the country and abroad. Our story has never changed. What I would like to emphasize in this article is that not only did we almost lose our lives in the air, but we also almost lost our lives after our plane landed. Let me explain.

When Flight 253 landed, the passengers were forced to stay on the plane on the runway for 20 minutes. We were forced to do this despite not knowing whether there was a further bomb on our plane held by another passenger, in a carry on bag, or in the cargo hold. This action taken by law enforcement further endangered the lives of every passenger on flight 253.

After we were removed from the plane all of the passengers of flight 253 were taken to an empty baggage claim area of an airport terminal. We all had our carry on bags with us and we stood together for nearly one hour until bomb sniffing dogs arrived. Three dogs arrived, one lab, and two German shepherds. The dogs were split up and one German shepherd sat next to a bag of “the man in orange” who stood 20 feet from me the entire time until he was detained (see my post yesterday for more detail). This man in orange was immediately taken into a room for questioning. He was not handcuffed at this time. After approximately one hour, the man in orange was taken out of that room, handcuffed, and led away. At this exact time, a law enforcement person came up to the group of flight 253 passengers and said the following (approximate quote) “You are all being moved to another area because this are is not safe. You all just saw what happened and I’m sure you are smart enough to read between the lines and figure out what is going on.” We were then escorted out of this baggage claim room and taken to a long narrow hallway. While we were being held in this area, an FBI agent announced the following to us 253 passengers “We have those (Plural) we believe are responsible for this in custody we will now be doing interviews with each of you and then you are free to go.” He went on to state two further references to more than one person, which I cannot specifically quote. I have repeated this exact story hundreds of times since flight 253.

The “official” story regarding the man in orange has now changed numerous times.

Version 1: This was the official story from 12-25-09 to 12-30-09. This version was that only Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was involved or detained.

Version 2: After some of my fellow passengers supported my claim in media accounts, this version 2 was released and became the official story on December 30, 2009.. This version was that, yes, another man was taken into custody, but he was being held indefinitely on “immigration charges”.

Version 3: This version came out late in the day on December 30, 2009. This version provided that yes another man was taken into custody, but he was from another flight. This story was the most ridiculous version to date and made myself write the current article on Mlive.com.

http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2009/12/flight_253_passenger_kurt_hask.html

Let me explain.

Ever since the passengers of flight 253 got off of the plane, we were “quarantined”. By this I mean that nobody was allowed on our floor of the terminal or anywhere near any of us passengers. As a matter of fact, we never saw anyone except law enforcement personnel the entire time we were held by customs (6 hours). To say that the man that was being held was from another flight, and is the same one I saw 20 feet away from me the entire time, defies logic. We were in such tight security that we were not able to drink, eat, use our phones, or go to the bathroom by ourselves (without a law enforcement officer). However, this version tries to make the American public believe that passengers from other flights were by us commingling the entire time. This did not happen. To think that law enforcement would let anyone else near the passengers and crime scene of the biggest terrorist attack in 8 years is simply beyond comprehension. Further, every plane that landed for quite some time after we did, held its passengers on board for a long time. The man in orange was taken away one hour into our detention period (during which, I do not believe any other flights allowed their passengers to get off of). Most certainly however, no other passengers were on the baggage claim floor that we were. When I wrote the above Mlive article I predicted that I would soon see version 4 of the “official story”. I was overwhelmed to find not only a fourth version, but a fifth version.

Version 4: Shortly after 6PM eastern time on December 31, 2009, Ron Smith of U.S. Customs sent an email to various reporters across the country. I received my copy from a reporter that I have been corresponding with. Here is a copy of the email:

All,

Good Evening,

Thank you for your patience and accuracy in reporting the events of December 25 at Detroit Metropolitan Airport. Everything we have talked about has been accurate concerning these events

That being said I have just received a piece of information that I did not previously have and hope it will clear up this matter.

As I have explained, there were no other passengers from flight 253 arrested or detained. The eyewitness accounts coincided with a separate issue concerning a passenger from a separate flight arriving at the airport. That passenger was escorted from the arriving plane to the CBP area. He was handcuffed at that time and could have been observed by the passengers from flight 253.

This still remains true; however, I now know that a passenger from flight 253 did have a canine alert to his carry on baggage in the baggage area of the CBP facility. He was placed in handcuffs and escorted to an interview room where he was interviewed and searched. There was nothing found during that search. Following the negative search results he received an explanation of why he was searched. He thanked the officers for doing their job and departed the facility along with the other passengers from flight 253.

I can not provide any other information about the individual because again, he was not arrested or detained and we have to protect his privacy.

This information is consistent with the eyewitness accounts.

I accept full responsibility for this information not being made available to you. I did not access the correct report that contained this information. I take pride in providing my media contacts complete, accurate information and I did not accomplish that this time. Please accept my apologies for any difficulties this may create.

I am sending this as an email because I will be traveling this evening and will not be available by phone until first thing in the morning.

Respectfully,

Ronald G Smith
Chief CBP Officer
Public Affairs Liaison
US Customs and Border Protection
Office of Field Operations

Mr. Ron Smith now claims the following:

1. “He just received some information he didn’t previously have”. Seriously.

2. “The eyewitness accounts coincided with a separate issue concerning a passenger from a separate flight arriving at the airport”. Please see above where I explain that we were “quarantined” which makes this statement impossible.

3. “He now knows (as if he didn’t before), that a passenger from flight 253 did have a canine alert to his carry on baggage in the baggage area of the CBP facility. . . There was nothing found during the search”.

First of all, does it seem plausible that Mr. Ron Smith didn’t have and know all of this information before? Also, please see my account of events above, where I explain that the man in orange was taken away not in handcuffs, but was HANDCUFFED AFTER HE WAS QUESTIONED/SEARCHED FOR AN HOUR! Remember, we were then moved to a new “safe” area at this time and damning comments were made by a law enforcement officer(see above).

4. “This information is consistent with eyewitness accounts”. Not mine Mr. Smith.

5. “He accepts full responsibility because he did not access the correct report that contained this information.” Mr. Smith, are you sloppy and incompetent or something else? This is the most important story in 8 years and a spokesperson for U.S. Customs just cannot come out in public and make an incorrect statement of this magnitude.

6. “Please accept my apologies . . . “ Where is my apology Mr. Smith? Oh wait, I don’t get one because the purpose of this bogus story was to discredit me…………….

Version 5: I was pretty shocked to see version 5 come out this morning in The Detroit News. It seems that Mr. Smith works really hard at this. Of course it would be much easier to just put out one correct story.

http://www.detnews.com/article/20100101/NATION/1010354/1020/rss09

This is my second favorite version besides version 3. Now Mr. Smith claims the following:

1. “My account is a composite of two events at the airport around the time passengers got off flight 253. Both events were unrelated to the suspected terrorist incident.” One of these events involved a passenger from flight 249. Come on Mr. Smith, we both know that our flight was completely “quarantined”. Please see above for a further explanation.

2. “A sniffer dog reacted to agriculture or food products inside the bag of a third man who was off yet another flight”. OK, passengers from other flights DID NOT COMINGLE WITH OUR FLIGHT!

Funnier yet, Mr. Smith is proposing that a dog sniffing for food from another flight was the same as the dog sniffing for a bomb in the carry on bag carried by the orange dressed man on flight 253, who stood 20 feet away from me the entire time until he was taken away. Oh boy is that ever a stretch.

3. “Officials did attempt to segregate flight 253 passengers but the entire baggage area was not cleared”.

Think about this one for a minute. You have the biggest crime scene in 8 years. You don’t know if there are further bombs. Federal law enforcement is involved. You don’t know if there are accomplices. You need to find evidence Yet Mr. Smith proposes that law enforcement was unable to segregate the passengers of Flight 253 and let others trample through our “quarantine area”. Mr. Smith you should become a comedian.

Please answer a few questions for me Mr. Smith before I accept the apology you have yet to give to the passengers of flight 253:

1. Why were the passengers of flight 253 detained on a plane for 20 minutes not knowing if there was another bomb on the plane, in the cargo hold, or on another passenger after the “terrorist” had admitted that he had an explosive device in his pocket to a flight attendant, tried to detonate it, and set our plane on fire? Was it gross incompetence or something else?

2. Why were the passengers of flight 253 taken WITH their carry on bags and held with them for one hour before bomb sniffing dogs arrived in the baggage claim area of the terminal, all the while not knowing if any of the bags contained a bomb? Was it gross incompetence or something else? Did law enforcement intentionally risk the ENITRE AIRPORT TERMINAL TO AN EXPLOSIVE DEVICE or was it something else?

3. Why did you indicate to a well respected reporter that our carry on bags were searched ON THE PLANE, when in fact they were never searched (except for sniffer dogs), until she told you that my wife and I adamantly disputed your claim? Then you suddenly changed the official position to, yes, the carry on bags were not searched? (This was relayed to me in confidence)

Mr. Smith, I think if you honestly answer the few questions above, we will have our answer as to why the “official” position regarding the man in orange has changed 5 times. I suspect that all of the above is tied in together. Draw your own conclusion.

By the way, I look forward to version six of the official story.

I am not going away.

---A concerned American and a victim on multiple fronts, Kurt Haskell