If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!

EYEWITNESS SAYS CHRISTMAS BOMBER DID NOT ACT ALONE

by Sharon Rondeau

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, suspected of trying to destroy Flight 253 on Christmas Day, 2009

(Jan. 31, 2010) — According to eyewitnesses, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the alleged Christmas Day “underwear bomber,” had an accomplice who  attempted to help him board the airplane without showing a passport.

Attorney Kurt Haskell and his wife Lori were passengers on Flight 253 from Amsterdam to Detroit on December 25, 2009 when Abdulmutallab detonated explosives in an attempt to incinerate the aircraft shortly before landing in Detroit.

After the ordeal, Haskell claimed in several media interviews that he had witnessed a tall, well-dressed man accompanying Abdulmutallab to the ticket counter, trying to convince the ticket agent to allow Abdulmutallab to board the plane without documentation.  Haskell and his wife stated that the suspected accomplice did not board the flight.

Haskell described the possible accomplice as a “sharp-dressed man” who “was trying to bully or convince this ticket agent she needed to let this man on.”  He said he overheard the man, whom he described as  wearing “an expensive suit,” tell the ticket agent, “He’s from Sudan. We do this all the time.”

Haskell, who was seated seven rows behind Abdulmutallab, heard an airline attendant say that she smelled smoke  at approximately the same time that the pilot announced an impending landing in ten minutes.  According to Haskell, “that’s when I saw the flames.”  He said that Abdulmutallab didn’t put up much of a fight.; “two passengers jumped on him and hauled him away”  after the fire quickly spread up one side of the plane.  There were almost 300 passengers on the flight.

Haskell and other eyewitnesses waited approximately six hours after the plane landed to be interviewed by FBI agents after Abdulmutallab was arrested.  In an interview with MLive.com, Haskell stated that after bomb-sniffing dogs reacted to a bag belonging to an Indian man on board the plane, the man, who looked to be about 30 years old, was escorted to an interrogation room and later emerged in handcuffs.  Haskell claims that he was  not the same individual who had allegedly tried to help Mutallab gain entry to the airplane in Amsterdam.

According to ABC News, “the accused suicide bomber told the FBI he was trained for more than a month in Yemen” to carry out the attack by smuggling explosives sewn into his underclothes on to the aircraft in order to “hit the enemies of God.”

Join the Conversation

5 Comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. I had gotten into an argument with a Freeper about security at Amsterdam airport. He contended that there was secondary security checkpoints and I disagreed. Now it may be an airline thing but in flying back and forth from Boston to India it was a simple connection at Amsterdam. Just like going through Detroit or some other hub. I even asked a colleague who had made several trips through Amsterdam as well and he had the same experience. Now that was with NW Airlines/KLM but one trip I made using Air India, (never again), and we went through London, we didn’t change planes but there was no secondary security. There is in Japan and Singapore and other places but I just don’t recall any in Amsterdam…

    So it is even possible that this jihadist had gotten through the original security check and then changed underwear at the Amsterdam airport aided by this “well dressed” man. If the “well dressed” man was an employee of the airport in Amsterdam the security check is less thorough for employees, at least they are here in the states.

    ————————–

    Mr. Charlton replies: Ironically, I recall going through Amsterdam Airport in the 90’s, and how much time they spent double sreening everyone, even us US citizens returning to the States. They made one old man infront of me recall his luggage from under the plane, simply because he declared 52 pairs of shoes as personal use!

    Of course he was not a muslim; just an old Italian man trying to restock his small store in Cleveland.

    So much for all the hype about security after 9/11.

    The shpeel about not profiling Muslims has become just the opposite: aiding and abetting Islamic terrorists….It angers me that innocents, even old men and ladies, from European and Christian backgrounds are inconvenienced and harasssed in the meantime, as they pose no security threat at all.

  2. What happened to the man seen video taping during the entire flight, seated a few rows behind the bomber? … Who is that camera man — and where his video tape? … Did the FBI question that man — or take his tape — or fail to do so? … And why is the media not telling us?

  3. I’ve been hearing this same story since the day of the attempt. It could all be resolved with security camera footage of the airline gate in Amsterdam, either the man was there or he was not. the footage would prove it. The footage continues to be withheld. kinda damning, isn’t it.