also see Part 2
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?
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.