Where are the links to the things this guy said from the beginning? And where are the links to the things that the government first said, and the links where they changed their story and admitting the guy was correct? From legitimate news agencies ONLY please.

 

Just because the government changed their story on other parts, if they did (Which very well could have been kept quiet at first due to security or investigation reasons), does not mean that tomorrow the government is going to turn around and say he is correct on any remaining issues.

 

I am also waiting for links (again from legitimate news agencies) on what the others on board the plane had to say, and what they are saying now. There were 289 people on that plane, and there is only one that is upset about what was said, and being said by the government?

 

It's in the Genral discussion forum on here right around Christmas, but I don't know how to put them in this thread. There are no legitimate news agencies anymore. They're government puppets.

It's in the Genral discussion forum on here right around Christmas, but I don't know how to put them in this thread. There are no legitimate news agencies anymore. They're government puppets.

 

There is no way that both the right and the left news agencies would not let out some type of cover up, if there was one. I actually applaud the legitimate news outlets on keeping stuff like this quiet, again, there are just some things we do not have the right to know!

 

The qoute below was in the morning paper today:

 

"FBI officials continue to question Abdulmutallab, working in collaboration with CIA and other intelligence authorities, the official said.

 

Authorities had hoped to keep Abdulmutallab's cooperation secret while they continued to investigate his leads, but details began to trickle out during testimony Tuesday on Capitol Hill."

 

The FBI, CIA and others wanted to keep things quiet during the investigation! But because of pressure from Congress they were leaked. People need to understand, during an ongoing investigation things need to be kept quiet, otherwise it would jeopardize the investigation. But then you get some people who will scream that there is some type of cover up, like 9-11 for an example.

 

Just remember, what the public knows, Al-Qaida knows.

 

I still don't understand what you are trying to get at here?

Even more very nice! :clap:

 

I recently purchased the first six seasons on DVD and my wife and I have been watching them non-stop.

 

We're currently nearing the end of Day 5. I didn't start watching the show until the fourth season. I saw the first three seasons for the first time, but I'm amazed at how little I remember from the ones I had already watched.

 

Great show.

I recently purchased the first six seasons on DVD and my wife and I have been watching them non-stop.

 

We're currently nearing the end of Day 5. I didn't start watching the show until the fourth season. I saw the first three seasons for the first time, but I'm amazed at how little I remember from the ones I had already watched.

 

Great show.

You and I have very different opinions on what "Great show" means.

 

I can't stand that show.

There is no way that both the right and the left news agencies would not let out some type of cover up, if there was one. I actually applaud the legitimate news outlets on keeping stuff like this quiet, again, there are just some things we do not have the right to know!

 

The qoute below was in the morning paper today:

 

"FBI officials continue to question Abdulmutallab, working in collaboration with CIA and other intelligence authorities, the official said.

 

Authorities had hoped to keep Abdulmutallab's cooperation secret while they continued to investigate his leads, but details began to trickle out during testimony Tuesday on Capitol Hill."

 

The FBI, CIA and others wanted to keep things quiet during the investigation! But because of pressure from Congress they were leaked. People need to understand, during an ongoing investigation things need to be kept quiet, otherwise it would jeopardize the investigation. But then you get some people who will scream that there is some type of cover up, like 9-11 for an example.

 

Just remember, what the public knows, Al-Qaida knows.

 

I still don't understand what you are trying to get at here?

 

 

How many times to I need to say it has already been proven that he didn't lie about what he saw? The government has admitted to multiple lies. His story is the actual set of events that the government is now claiming are the official events. This is no longer a theory. They are confirmed facts.

 

If the government let the bomber in b/c they wanted him that is totally different than what they were originally saying happened. If they did that I applaud them, but I would be unhappy if I were on that plane.

I recently purchased the first six seasons on DVD and my wife and I have been watching them non-stop.

 

We're currently nearing the end of Day 5. I didn't start watching the show until the fourth season. I saw the first three seasons for the first time, but I'm amazed at how little I remember from the ones I had already watched.

 

Great show.

 

Best show on TV. :thumb:

How many times to I need to say it has already been proven that he didn't lie about what he saw? The government has admitted to multiple lies. His story is the actual set of events that the government is now claiming are the official events. This is no longer a theory. They are confirmed facts.

 

If the government let the bomber in b/c they wanted him that is totally different than what they were originally saying happened. If they did that I applaud them, but I would be unhappy if I were on that plane.

 

And how many times does it need to be said that he just needs to "go away"? And the fact he could very well be compromising an ongoing investigation? SOMETIMES they NEED to lie as they are investigating! It's already been said that the Feds had wanted to keep everything secret during the investigation and that the bomber was cooperating, but now that has leaked out.

 

Sometimes you go after the "bigger fish", and you need information that will help you go after them, that may very well be compromised a bit because this guy wont shut up.

 

Just because some information this guy has said is true, doesn't mean everything he says is true, he could slip anything in there now and people will believe him.

 

Maybe, just maybe, this guy needs to think! Maybe the sharp dressed man was captured and the Feds don't want anyone to know it yet as they are questioning him? Maybe they don't want people, Al-Qaida, to know we are tracking his every move, in efforts to find the bigger fish, and therefor are trying to play it off that they did not see anyone helping this guy in Amsterdam, or did not see anyone on the video tapes?

 

Maybe, just maybe, the man in orange was detained, but the Fed's don't want anyone to know about it for the same reasons as mentioned above? Maybe the man in orange was a person the feds planted, and they do not want anyone to know who he is as he is undercover?

 

Why in the world does this guy in Michigan think that he has the right to see a video tape from the events in Amsterdam? It is possible that there is loads of information they could use on any tape, if there are any tapes, and perhaps there could be information on any such tape that is valuable to Al-Qaida if any such tape is released. Therefor they need to keep things quiet! There may not even be any tapes that show what went on as well, as we do not want Al-Qaida to know that either, there are a lot of possibilities.

 

The guy was on a list of over 400,000 names, a watch list, not a no-fly list, just because his family was concerned about him does not mean he is automatically placed on the do not fly list. Maybe the system did fail, and fail big time, but why in the world should we let Al-Qaida know exactly what part of the system failed? Again, they are testing the system for something big, we can not let them know everything, and that means keeping the information from the general public, I am fine with that! And I fly overseas quite a bit now.

 

Remember back during Gulf War I? It was the fist war that the entire world could watch live in their living room. But there was one huge problem with showing certain events live, by showing the live events in Israel during the Scud missile attacks, they were letting Iraq know if their missiles were on target in real time, that was a GOLD MINE of information to Iraq, too much information, which is why we started to not show everything. My point is, by the feds letting out certain information on this case about the bomber, we are giving too much information to Al-Qaida, I just don't see why a small number of people don't see that as well.

 

It is well known that Al-Qaida is trying to test our system now, and it was released within the past two days that we expect Al-Qaida to try a major attack within the next 6 months, we need to focus on stopping those attacks, which I believe we are!

And how many times does it need to be said that he just needs to "go away"? And the fact he could very well be compromising an ongoing investigation? SOMETIMES they NEED to lie as they are investigating! It's already been said that the Feds had wanted to keep everything secret during the investigation and that the bomber was cooperating, but now that has leaked out.

 

Sometimes you go after the "bigger fish", and you need information that will help you go after them, that may very well be compromised a bit because this guy wont shut up.

 

Just because some information this guy has said is true, doesn't mean everything he says is true, he could slip anything in there now and people will believe him.

 

Maybe, just maybe, this guy needs to think! Maybe the sharp dressed man was captured and the Feds don't want anyone to know it yet as they are questioning him? Maybe they don't want people, Al-Qaida, to know we are tracking his every move, in efforts to find the bigger fish, and therefor are trying to play it off that they did not see anyone helping this guy in Amsterdam, or did not see anyone on the video tapes?

 

Maybe, just maybe, the man in orange was detained, but the Fed's don't want anyone to know about it for the same reasons as mentioned above? Maybe the man in orange was a person the feds planted, and they do not want anyone to know who he is as he is undercover?

 

Why in the world does this guy in Michigan think that he has the right to see a video tape from the events in Amsterdam? It is possible that there is loads of information they could use on any tape, if there are any tapes, and perhaps there could be information on any such tape that is valuable to Al-Qaida if any such tape is released. Therefor they need to keep things quiet! There may not even be any tapes that show what went on as well, as we do not want Al-Qaida to know that either, there are a lot of possibilities.

 

The guy was on a list of over 400,000 names, a watch list, not a no-fly list, just because his family was concerned about him does not mean he is automatically placed on the do not fly list. Maybe the system did fail, and fail big time, but why in the world should we let Al-Qaida know exactly what part of the system failed? Again, they are testing the system for something big, we can not let them know everything, and that means keeping the information from the general public, I am fine with that! And I fly overseas quite a bit now.

 

Remember back during Gulf War I? It was the fist war that the entire world could watch live in their living room. But there was one huge problem with showing certain events live, by showing the live events in Israel during the Scud missile attacks, they were letting Iraq know if their missiles were on target in real time, that was a GOLD MINE of information to Iraq, too much information, which is why we started to not show everything. My point is, by the feds letting out certain information on this case about the bomber, we are giving too much information to Al-Qaida, I just don't see why a small number of people don't see that as well.

 

It is well known that Al-Qaida is trying to test our system now, and it was released within the past two days that we expect Al-Qaida to try a major attack within the next 6 months, we need to focus on stopping those attacks, which I believe we are!

 

And that's why I said if they let him on a plane w/ a bomb they knew wouldn't explode I applaud them. I would be upset if I was on that plane though.

 

I hope what you are implying is what is actually going on here. I have my doubts, but I hope that is the case. It is documented that parts of the US government wanted to stage an attack on the US and blame it on Cuba to start a war. I hope that was the only time a plan like that got that far. I believe it is. I just hope I'm right and it stays that way.

One more thing. They knew this guy was going to keep this up. Why not admit to him he had some things right but his safety was never in jeapordy and have all of this end? Do it off the record and tell him he was hampering the investigation.

 

Actually another one more thing. Is/was the media in on this hush hush plan of letting a terrorist come to this country w/ a bomb? Why did they not investigate this guys claims? Were they told of the master plan by the government? It's a great story to sit back and say this was the master plan, but it doesn't all add up IMO.

One more thing. They knew this guy was going to keep this up. Why not admit to him he had some things right but his safety was never in jeapordy and have all of this end? Do it off the record and tell him he was hampering the investigation.

 

Actually another one more thing. Is/was the media in on this hush hush plan of letting a terrorist come to this country w/ a bomb? Why did they not investigate this guys claims? Were they told of the master plan by the government? It's a great story to sit back and say this was the master plan, but it doesn't all add up IMO.

 

There is no way we purposely let someone on board with a bomb.

 

Maybe they did investigate this guys claims, maybe they did tell him to calm down, the Feds did come to his house, we do not know what they said to him. We also don't know what the Feds know, neither does this guy, he told them what he thought he saw and knew, he should end it.

 

The Fed's don't have to tell us of any plans, nor do they have to tell this guy of any plans.

 

Perhaps they found out that there was another person on board who may be of interest, the man in orange, perhaps an observer to see what exactly happened on the plane, the bomber wouldn't be able to report back to Al-Qaida, they needed another person to do this? Whatever/whoever the man in orange was, the Feds may have wanted to have an excuse to hall the guy away, maybe to avoid his cover? We just don't know, and we don't have to know considering this is all highly sensitive stuff going on here.

 

I have said this all along, we need to be more like El-Al on all international flights coming into the USA.

There is no way we purposely let someone on board with a bomb.

 

 

I have said this all along, we need to be more like El-Al on all international flights coming into the USA.

 

I'm not so sure of that. If this was truly Al-Qaida how did they let this guy get on a plane with a bomb that didn't have a detinator? Usually if the plan is this organized and the bomb is that sophisticated they would have a detinator IMO.

 

I totally agree. We could use a lesson in keeping an eye out for oursleves from the Isralies (sp?) as well. Not just in airline travel, but in all around general awareness and safety. Even more so now that the government is warning us about lone wolf attacks.

I'm not so sure of that. If this was truly Al-Qaida how did they let this guy get on a plane with a bomb that didn't have a detinator? Usually if the plan is this organized and the bomb is that sophisticated they would have a detinator IMO.

 

I totally agree. We could use a lesson in keeping an eye out for oursleves from the Isralies (sp?) as well. Not just in airline travel, but in all around general awareness and safety. Even more so now that the government is warning us about lone wolf attacks.

 

I have never been to the Amsterdam airport, but I have been through Pairs many times lately, as well as a five other cities in Europe, and I can tell you, it is possible for anything to happen, Heck, it's possible over here too, maybe a lot harder though. Someone on the ramp, anyone who works at that airport, or anyone with an airport ID, real or fake.

 

As said before, they are testing our system, I kind of feel that this guy and the shoe bomber were used in more ways than they think, while Al-Qaida sat back and took notes on what worked and what didn't work.

 

At the Paris airport you have military walking around with their guns out, and we are not talking handguns. But, when you have an El-Al flight, you a lot more security every step of the way in that terminal, from the front doors to the gate, and even on the ramp near the plan, and their guns are not hanging over their shoulders either, they are ready to fire.

 

Then you have the security screenings and questions with El-Al, well they are not questions, they are interrogations. Very impressive compared to what we are used to in the US.

 

But for now, we have to rely on everyone on board the plane to act as they are security, and question anything they see as odd at the time.