Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

What was fishy about the Richard Reid "shoe bomber" story?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-17-05 04:36 PM
Original message
What was fishy about the Richard Reid "shoe bomber" story?
I remember seeing huge "controversial" threads about this story back in 2001, but I was to busy reseaching 9/11 to read them at the time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-17-05 04:49 PM
Response to Original message
1. I can't remember but they said he was Jamaican
but he never once visited this place. One parent was Jamaican but he was English born.

The Jamaican born 'bomber', Jermaine Lindsay, left the island at four months. Most interesting in the Mirror report is that "Yesterday, it was claimed that Lindsay was tracked by FBI agents when he visited relatives in America.

British officials had asked the US to keep tabs on him while he stayed with family in Cleveland in 1994 and 2000."

Now he is 19 yeas so are they really telling me he was being watched at 9 - seems beyond strange.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=15742957%26method=full%26siteid=94762%26headline=exclusive%2d%2d58%2d%2dprize%2dfighter-name_page.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
watrwefitinfor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-17-05 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Jamaica - Interesting
Edited on Sun Jul-17-05 05:55 PM by watrwefitinfor
Remember how the Washington Sniper shootings were used to whip the country into a frenzy during the weeks leading up to the election in 2002? Until the arrests on September 24, 2002 no one was paying much attention to WMD claims, or to Dems caving in Congress. All news and all eyes were on the sniper.

News stories at the time stated that John Allen Muhammad had converted to Islam in 1985, about the time he joined the army. Malvo was said to have come with his mother from Jamaica.

Wat

(Edited because I type faster than I think.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
malaise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-17-05 08:08 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Malvo was Jamaican
really sad story of neglect by the mother. He actually lived in Antigua with the mother for some years and then went to the US. She virtually handed over the kid to Muhammad to do with whatever he chose.
That was fascinating diversion although they did have people terrified.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-18-05 12:39 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. He's 19 going on 29
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1693739,00.html puts him in his late 20's.

Doesn't seem like it would be that hard to get his age right.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
StrafingMoose Donating Member (742 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jul-19-05 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #1
11. LOOL


"Now he is 19 yeas so are they really telling me he was being watched at 9 - seems beyond strange"

Yes it is. I had to say this one made me smile. Quite funny if you ask.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-18-05 03:52 PM
Response to Original message
5. Here is a good essay on Reid
Recent events on American Airlines Flight 63 from Paris to Miami indicate that if you try any such thing, you will be beaten to the floor by a bunch of furious passengers, tied to a seat in row 27, then  be heavily “sedated” by two doctors who just happen to be on the same American Airlines flight.
      This is exactly what happened to a man on board Flight 63, despite the fact he did not suddenly shout “I have a bomb and you’re all going to die!” In fact the man did not say anything until long after he was wrestled to the floor, whereupon he apparently muttered “You’ll see. Just you wait and see.”  Despite the FBI trying to attach all kinds of sinister implications to this statement, a more likely explanation is that the man was probably referring to the legal suit he intended to take out against the barbarians who suddenly mishandled him.
        The man, identified far too quickly by the FBI as Richard Colvin Reid a.k.a. Tariq Rajah a.k.a. Abdel Rahim, boarded Flight 63 quietly enough at Paris Charles de Gaulle, took his seat and later ate his in-flight meal. Then Richard (let’s call him Richard for now), lit his sulfur-based match and the sky suddenly fell on his head. Why? From the passenger viewpoint there was absolutely no evidence  that Richard was a potential “suicide bomber”, nor any visible evidence that he was armed with anything more dangerous than a sulfur-based match.
     Ask yourself a simple question here. Would you as a normal passenger on a normal airliner recognise a covert terrorist weapon concealed in someone's shoe, then raise the alarm? Of course not. Most airline passengers are not anti-terrorist specialists and would have  no idea what they were looking at. Perhaps the man had some chewing gum stuck to the sole of his shoe? Few travellers watching the free in-flight movie would take it any further than that. 
      We know from his fellow passengers that Richard said nothing at all, which means that in order to generate the required and resulting extreme level of activity and panic, someone else sitting near him must have quietly told the cabin crew that Richard had a bomb. There is no other possible explanation. The next question is whether or not Richard actually knew he had a bomb in his shoe, and whether or not the alleged bomb was actually armed.
      Remember, all we know for certain at this stage is that Richard allegedly had a bomb in his shoe, and the FBI has stated that the bomb in question was an “improvised” device consisting of a combination of det cord and C-4 grade plastic explosive, where the det cord was the “fuze” and the C-4 the “main charge”. But how could the FBI have possibly known this so quickly? Det cord looks very much like the white plastic washing line you hang in your garden, and C-4 plastic explosive looks and smells very similar to the less powerful C-3 and Semtex varieties. To be sure of the materials, a full chemical analysis would be required, or the FBI must have known the exact chemical composition of the materials in advance of the incident.
      The most critical point here is that neither Richard nor his assumed minder had a detonator cap. Thus for the following reasons, there was less than a one-percent chance of the alleged bomb exploding. As already stated, det cord (known to most as “Cordex”), looks like white plastic washing line with a black core. Though a high explosive in its own right, Cordex needs a detonator to initiate an explosion. If you light the end of a piece of Cordex with a match it will start to melt, and eventually drip all over the floor. A welding torch might have more disastrous results, so please do NOT try this at home!
      The C-4 plastic explosive, known intimately to everyone who has ever watched a Steven Segal movie, is one of the most overrated explosives of our time. Sure it is far more powerful than C-3, and sure only limited stocks are allowed to be kept at individual US military bases, but it does not possess the magical powers sometimes attributed to it by  filmmakers.  For example, 334 grams of its Czech equivalent “Semtex H”, packed in a Toshiba radio, is supposed to have destroyed Pan American 103 at Lockerbie in 1988. Rest assured this is impossible
      The primary reason C-4 is so prized is because it is easy to shape and relatively hard to set off by accident. C-4's main ingredient is RDX, which is also used in fireworks. The puttylike substance can be easily molded by hand. Its shape can dictate the force and direction of its blast. It is relatively insensitive to impact, friction or fire.
     Could simple Richard with the sulfur match have located and acquired the Cordex and C-4 unaided? Doubtful, unless he had some very useful contacts, especially for the C-4. And remember that any expert setting the device up for Richard in advance, would certainly have included a proper detonator and discreet trigger. Believe me, those with direct access to C-4 know how to make bombs that work…
     Media reports that Richard was travelling on a "forged" passport are completely untrue and deliberately misleading. Our pretend "suicide bomber" was travelling on a valid British passport in the name of Richard Colvin Reid, issued on 7 December 2001 by the British Embassy in Brussels, Belgium.
      The British are very fussy about issuing passports, and normally require reams of supportive paperwork, signed photographs and so on, proving the applicant is who he claims to be. True it is possible to obtain even a British passport by deception, but it is a job requiring considerable expertise and access. As with the "designer" high explosives in the dummy bomb that could not possible have been detonated on the aircraft, this attention to detail points towards the direct involvement of a person or persons who knew exactly what they were doing.
     With the hard evidence available to date, it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that the entire incident on Flight 63 was set up as a psychological reinforcer, designed to re-sensitize Americans and others to air travel, especially over the Christmas period and in the run-up to the Winter Olympic Games.  This conclusion is supported by the choice of an American Airlines Boeing 767, one of which also ripped through the Trade Center in New York. After this, who would travel "American" or to "America"?
      If this is the case then repeat incidents, lethal and non-lethal but always different, will take place during the next few months. The American Economy is already on its way down to rock bottom, a process that can only be accelerated by incidents such as these.
Update 27 December 2001
      Discreetly ignored by the establishment media, the Metropolitan Police in London has confirmed Richard Colvin Reid is indeed British. "Tariq Rajah" is complete fiction and "Abdel Rahim" might (or might not) be the name he used to allegedly worship at the Brixton mosque in south west London.
     In a rare and quite extraordinary "coincidence", Mr Reid is now alleged to have "known" Zacarias Moussaoui, a Frenchman of Moroccan origin who lived in Brixton, and who has been charged in America with conspiracy over the September 11 attacks, and suspected of organising the hijacks of the planes (sic) which destroyed the World Trade Center.
      Well now! Here we are with the American Government furiously trying to convince a skeptical public that physical "Arab Hijackers" flew the remotely-controlled jets into the World Trade Center, when along comes a convenient nutter loaded up with C-4 and Cordex, conveniently "proving" a link between Arab Terrorists and American Airlines, and between Zacarias Moussaoui and American Airlines. This is the sort of "lucky break" that intelligence officers have wet dreams about...
      This fantastically convenient link was made by Abdul Haqq Baker, 35, chairman of the Brixton mosque in south west London, who " issued his warning" two days after Briton Richard Reid appeared in a Boston court. Mr Baker said: "If they have got the likes of Rahim, there are a lot more and we are very concerned about that."  Mr Baker added "Mr Reid may have known another worshipper at the mosque, Zacarias Moussaoui."  He said there was a period at the end of 1998 when the two men attended the Brixton mosque and may have come into contact with each other.
      The entire Flight 63 incident now bears all the hallmarks of a fumbled CIA black operation, in this case aided and abetted by its junior subsidiary British MI6, located on the south bank of the River Thames in London. It is no big trick switching someone's shoes for another similar pair, either on the aircraft while the passenger is asleep, or earlier in his Parisian hotel room. Then all you have to do is strike a sulpur match, shout "he's got a bomb", and your unwitting Patsy is in the bag. The FBI would do well to check the passengers seated in the immediate proximity of Richard Reid on Flight 63.

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:LcrYrRBmnfwJ:www.geocities.com/mknemesis/grenade.html+richard+reid+lighter+matches+shoe&hl=en&start=5&ie=UTF-8
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-18-05 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. The facts on Reid's bomb are wrong...
Edited on Mon Jul-18-05 04:40 PM by hack89
The bomb did not need a detonator cap and it was not made of C4. The writer has an impressive grasp of the facts :sarcasm:


In Reid's case, there was a small thread of TATP running through 100 grammes of PETN, a high-grade military plastic explosive, attached to a powder-fuse running through his shoelace. That combination surprised bomb experts - TATP is not the trigger normally used for PETN - but was seen as a sophisticated mixture for avoiding detection.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22989-1695442,00.html

The TATP in Reid's shoes was "blended" with an explosive called PETN, or pentaerythritol tetranitrate, which can be ignited with a normal cigarette lighter. PETN is a key ingredient of Semtex, the Czech-made military explosive used to down Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988.

http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/shoebomb.htm



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-12-05 09:42 AM
Response to Reply #6
12. He accurately reported that the original story changed from C4
to PETN. In fact, this was a presented as his primary reason for suspicion.

Exactly like the London bombing, wouldn't you agree?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-12-05 11:15 PM
Response to Reply #6
20. How do you know so much details & URLs about such?
What kind of data base do you have?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-13-05 06:13 AM
Response to Reply #20
22. There's this thing called Google - you should try it n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-18-05 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Also looks like alert flight attendants
During the flight, the suspect, who was sitting behind the wing in the coach section of the Boeing 767, lighted a match but put it in his mouth when confronted by flight attendant Hermis Moutardier, according to an FBI affidavit.

She told the captain and returned to see Reid with a match held to the tongue of his sneaker, then noticed a wire protruding from the shoe. She tried to grab the sneaker, but Reid allegedly pushed her to the floor, and she screamed for help.


This is a lot different from a bunch of passengers suddenly jumping a guy who was just sitting there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-18-05 05:11 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-18-05 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Don't you care about the truth?
Edited on Mon Jul-18-05 06:05 PM by hack89
How are you going to convince the US public if your facts are wrong? Just look at it as a public service!

http://www.jsonline.com/news/nat/dec01/7635.asp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-18-05 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. I care about the truth of course
But I was curious why you jumped on this thread so quickly. Why were you so eager to debunk the idea that anything funny happened on the flight?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Informed Citizen Donating Member (120 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-12-05 10:41 AM
Response to Reply #9
13. Questions
Hack89,

Do you or do you not acknowledge the long history of black operations perpetrated by U.S. intelligence organization with the explicit intent of misinforming the public. If you do not, then there are many quite convincing things to read on the subject. If you do, then more skepticism would suit you better. I'm not saying that anything you've said is wrong, but only that you might get along better with people like Spooked if you appeared willing to be more skeptical. I appreciate your scrutiny, and advocacy of careful review of the facts. However, a Milwakee newspaper is certainly not the final resting place of the truth. Wouldn't you agree that our present government wants to create fear among the public with the intent to influence our willingness to spend our tax dollars on security? I'm not suggesting the Reid, or any other specific 'terrorist' is bogus, but merely that its a possibility, and I would suggest more of a likelihood. Don't you agree?

- I.C.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-12-05 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. No I don't agree..
Edited on Fri Aug-12-05 11:09 AM by hack89
one can be skeptical of the government without turning everything into a conspiracy. To put it bluntly, too many people here feel that as long as you have the right attitude then facts and logic don't matter. Some conspiracy theories are true and some are not- if facts and logic aren't the difference between the two then what is?

And where is the skepticism on your side - if I would advance a CT concerning 9/11 with a couple of anonymous sources do you think I would be challenged to provide more proof? Even the wildest theories are embraced here with no thought or hesitation - as long as it displays the appropriate mistrust and hate of Bush and the government it will accepted with enthusiasm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Informed Citizen Donating Member (120 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-12-05 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Facts and logic
Hack89,

I agree that it is not logical to assume a conspiracy where the facts point to a more basic explanation. I appreciate your willingness to acknowledge that some conspiracy theories are true. You ask where the skepticism is 'on my side', as though we are on different sides. I'm not sure what 'side' you are on, but we appear to agree that 'facts and logic' must be paramount to supposition. Do you suppose to know what 'side' I'm on, or that I am easily swayed by false rhetoric? I don't find that to be a fair assumption. Sounds to me like a theory not based on fact or logic. ;) I also find your characterization of the people here at DU9/11 to be overly stereotypical. While I acknowledge that many in here have an immature approach to critical inquiry, and that many are guided too much by a general distaste or admiration for the present administration, I find that to be the case in any group of people. Very few are rigorously committed to logic, or even understand the process of deductive thinking. However, I have found that there are many in here who are quick to ask for supportive documentation in reference to new assertions, and that these individuals appear to have a healthy sense of skepticism. I appreciate your willingness to call people on their lack of scrutiny, but your frustration with people's lack of academic rigor will not appeal to people's logic, nor inspire debate. I suggest ignoring those who appear overly subject to wild theories, and finding those who will engage you in effective debate in reference to facts.

- I.C.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-12-05 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. The thing that offends me most about most CT theories
is that they force one into such a dark and negative view of mankind. By nature, I am an optimistic type of person who looks for the good in all. I feel that most people are good and not only understand good from bad, but would not stand by idly while evil was committed. This is one reason I am a Democrat - it the party that appeals to the best instincts of men and women. To embrace many conspiracy theories espoused on this board is to reject that ideal. The word "government" is used on this board as if it was a living entity but it is not - it is made up of people. Some bad but most (IMHO) good. Lets take the attacks on NIST as an example - many would have you believe that all 5000 employees of NIST are so craven and cowardly that they would participate in the cover up of mass murder. I won't accept that without a extremely high level of proof, for to accept such thinking unquestioningly is to sink to such a level of cynicism that it would be ever impossible to see good in people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Informed Citizen Donating Member (120 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-12-05 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. I agree, but...
Hack89,

I think you are right that most people are good. This is one reason why I can't stand the demonization of 'the mass'. People on the the left like to portray the average American as sheep. I think that while many in this country do not have all the information, that they would do the right thing if they did. But this points to something that you seem not to acknowledge in this recent message. Do you not think that many people, such as a majority of those working for the NIST are just dutifully doing their jobs, assuming their bosses have everyone's best interst in mind, while it is possible, and I'm not saying probable, that some at the top are able to hijack the good work of these people to utilize for less than kosher ends. For instance, Bush has lied to the American people, his fault of otherwise, and I think that many good people have been misled as a result. Compartmentalization, and beaurocracy have been known to lead good people to follow the bad.

- I.C.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-12-05 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. No..
they are not sheeple - they are educated, dedicated and caring Americans like me and you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Informed Citizen Donating Member (120 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Aug-12-05 11:05 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. Maybe you misunderstood...
Hack89,

Maybe you misunderstood what I was getting at. I was basically agreeing with you that the average person is a caring and moral person. I was saying that people are not sheep. But I was also indicating that sometimes good people are mislead by people who have been corrupted. I assume you do not suppose that everyone is good. For example the WorldCom execs who were just put in jail, and swindled hundreds of good people out of the pensions that they worked so hard for. Those people weren't sheep. They were unwitting victims of people at the top who had enough control to hide their crimes from everyone below them, and the average Joe paid the price. Don't you think there are some bad people, and they sometimes they manipulate the good people?

- I.C.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hack89 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-13-05 06:12 AM
Response to Reply #19
21. Yes are right some what..
the issue with the NIST example is that they created a report for everyone to read and you can't hide bad or incomplete science - peer review is the heart of science and NIST could not hide a white wash from its own scientists. They would look at it and know something was very wrong - and some (I believe many) would have said something protect their professional reputations if nothing else. Look at the report and how many labs and people were involved - it is impossible to argue it was a secretive process. At Worldcom and Enron, secrecy was key to manipulating the employees - the NIST report was an open process involving hundreds of people conducted in a collaborative scientific process. Plus they put it out for peer review - notice it is draft published specifically for public comments.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Informed Citizen Donating Member (120 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-13-05 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. I think so...
Hack89,

But I wasn't even trying to make a point about the NIST. I was just using it as an example. I do think there is room for error in the report based on the initial assumptions that guided the research. Just as the Kean report was incomplete due to its narrow scope. Both studies began with the assumption that the official story was correct, and didn't take into account any contradictory information. As a result their conclusions may have a great degree of internal logic, and yet not perfectly reflect the truth of the matter. And this would not have to involve anyone being intentionally deceptive. But once again that wasn't my point. I just wanted to find some common ground between us related to the fact that sometimes the good guys are unwittingly misled by the secret intentions of others. This is certainly the basis for every conspiracy that history holds. I just wanted to make sure that you weren't too idealistic. There are bad guys about there after all.

- I.C.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 01:27 AM
Response to Reply #21
25. Well, perhaps you might enjoy commenting an actual NIST
Edited on Wed Oct-05-05 01:28 AM by stickdog
report, rather than simply spouting inaccurate and unsupported faith-based postulates about them?

Here a great place to start:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=45315&mesg_id=45315
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-13-05 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #16
24. Optimism and NIST
hack, I think if you'll look at the names on the NIST report you'll see
that responsibility is so fragmented that the number of those actually
reponsible for the coverup aspects of the report is very small.

As to optimism--what could possibly be more optimistic than to think
that we are presently operating under an evil regime that steals
elections and wages unnecessary wars in order to create a climate
justifying abrogation of civil liberties and massive military
expenditures.

That view says that the American people are not nearly as stupid and
bigoted as some would have us believe. That view says that if we can
just get rid of the blight of the Bush cabal we can have peace,
freedom, and prosperity. We can cut our $500 billion a year military
(some say it's $800 billion all told*) down to a rational 50 or 60
billion, and fund a major educational initiative to prepare our
unemployed for jobs and prepare our kids to compete in the future.

* http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050605/NEWS/506050332/1030/FEATURES15
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 06:30 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC