CLASSIFIED TOP SECRET - CIA Ops endangering commercial flights

[inigo88]

I also saw a great video today about PETN. I guess this stuff is real easy to make and cheap.

I don't claim to be an expert on the stuff, but I do find it interesting. Do you have a link to the video? I was under the impression that PETN itself is easy to make, but pentaerythritol, the main ingredient, is not. Suffice to say, it requires some intense Walter White type chemistry to synthesize. That being said could a guy in Yemen make it in his garage? Maybe, if he was a chemistry grad student from Berkeley or something. But I still find it pretty unlikely.

 

[SpiraMirabilis]

Pentaerythritol is a high school level synthesis with readily available components. We're talking H2O, calcium hydroxide, formaldehyde, ethanol and acids -- some of the most common chemicals and compounds in the world.

 

[SpiraMirabilis]

Also, the guys making the bombs (not the guys using them) may very well be chemistry professors. Its best no to underestimate them.

Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk 2

 

[skyking_den]

Also, the guys making the bombs (not the guys using them) may very well be chemistry professors. Its best no to underestimate them.

I've been reading more on my own about this and that touches on one of the factors that leaves some convinced that the bomb was made to be intentionally defective. Designed to leave the Nigerian caught red handed wearing the incriminating evidence.

It would take some degree of sophistication or connections to obtain the PETN or to make any form of it. Yet the bomb was made to be hopelessly defective experts claim. That follows an emerging pattern of arrests over the last few years. Our government supplying intentionally defective or fake explosives to suspects and then arresting them holding a US government issued bomb. Then gleefully releasing every secret heroic detail of their sting operation to the media.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...orism-stings/2012/04/13/gIQASJ6CGT_story.html

 

[Gonzo]

It would take some degree of sophistication or connections to obtain the PETN or to make any form of it.

Based on the video I saw, I don't think it would take connections or a degree of sophistication to make PETN. In fact it is so easy even a FA can make.

 

[skyking_den]

Based on the video I saw, I don't think it would take connections or a degree of sophistication to make PETN. In fact it is so easy even a FA can make.

The issue of the amount of difficulty in obtaining PETN may be a key to the mystery. May be irrelevant. I don't know. No one has seen your video except you. Guess we'll take your word for it. But at the end of the day, we are still left with key credibility questions of all the players involved in Delta 253. That to me is key.

Lie - the government lied about the the degree of CIA involvement. first claiming the CIA dropped the ball altogether and failed to involve themselves at all in the bomber's access to the plane. later they had to change their story, admitting that the CIA did pull strings of some kind to make sure the bomber could board the plane. the state department witness refused to say any more in public. the CIA won't talk at all about it.

Truth - the pax, Kurt Haskell's bizarre claims that our government had used it's influence somehow to get the bomber onto Delta 253 turned out to be correct. i'm not all that hung up on whether or not the accomplice wore a tan suit, or exactly who signed his paycheck. the point to me is that the pax stood his ground despite government denials, and the government later reluctantly admitted that they had lied and that the CIA was involved in pulling strings to get the bomber access. a reasonable person might conclude that the mystery accomplice Haskell saw was connected to the CIA's effort to get the bomber on Delta 253, and that he is visable in the airport video tapes that the government will not allow the public to see.

Our government also has a recent history of using undercover operatives to supply defective bombs to wanna be terrorists. I think we have to connect the dots here.

 

[Gonzo]

The issue of the amount of difficulty in obtaining PETN may be a key to the mystery. May be irrelevant. I don't know. No one has seen your video except you. Guess we'll take your word for it. But at the end of the day, we are still left with key credibility questions of all the players involved in Delta 253. That to me is key.

Other member of JC have seen the video or will see the video over the next 6 months

Lie - the government lied about the the degree of CIA involvement. first claiming the CIA dropped the ball altogether and failed to involve themselves at all in the bomber's access to the plane. later they had to change their story, admitting that the CIA did pull strings of some kind to make sure the bomber could board the plane. the state department witness refused to say any more in public. the CIA won't talk at all about it.

Did I miss that video where they said they helped him got on the plane?

Truth - the pax, Kurt Haskell's bizarre claims that our government had used it's influence somehow to get the bomber onto Delta 253 turned out to be correct.

Like I said did I mess something?

 

[skyking_den]

Other member of JC have seen the video or will see the video over the next 6 months

Did I miss that video where they said they helped him got on the plane?

Like I said did I mess something?

Sorry. I can't respond to that. Too many syntax problems. JC humor?

 

[Gonzo]

Sorry. I can't respond to that. Too many syntax problems. JC humor?

Sorry I was posting from my phone. So I guess this is your way of not answering my questions?

 

[Qutch]

Gonzo, I don't think any offense was intended by SK's last post, but your choice of wording is a little confusing. I have not responded either to the questions you put to me, for similar reasons. And I'm not sure you are reading and listening to all of the posted evidence before you post your rebuttals/questions. I can tell you that many JC readers are pouring over these videos and some are discussing them by PM or email. No private or posted message that I have seen indicates that anyone understands what you are talking about.
.

Other member of JC have seen the video or will see the video over the next 6 month.

Did you mean "Other members of JC have seen......" or "Another member of JC has seen....." In other words Gonzo, was it one member (singular) or many members (plural) that have seen the video? And who are they?

And what did you mean by "have seen or will see the video over the next 6 months." How do you know who will, and who will not, see it over the next 6 months? Again, we don't know what you mean, so no one is responding.

Nobody wants to start a spelling and grammar war here. I make mistakes too. But the precise language that JC members used in their posts, and that the Flight 253 related witnesses used in their video recorded testimony and interviews, is essential to this conversation and may be what is confusing you. It would be helpful if you would go back and listen very carefully to all of the testimony, and then be more precise with your own wording when posting.
.

 

[///AMG]

So just how many PMs are in your inbox qutch? From casual observations, it would seem that your PM/email traffic is nearly a full time job now

 

[Gonzo]

Did you mean "Other members of JC have seen......" or "Another member of JC has seen....." In other words Gonzo, was it one member (singular) or many members (plural) that have seen the video? And who are they?

And what did you mean by "have seen or will see the video over the next 6 months." How do you know who will, and who will not, see it over the next 6 months? Again, we don't know what you mean, so no one is responding.

Yes other members of JC have seen the video or will see it in the next 6 months. Most members know what I am talking about and can guess where I saw the video and who made it. Think, most of the members here work for a airline.

 

[Qutch]

So just how many PMs are in your inbox qutch? From casual observations, it would seem that your PM/email traffic is nearly a full time job now

Yep. Lost count. Most of my forum related online time is spent there these days. . The imaginary JC Underground in my mind just keeps getting bigger. .

Imaginary or not, I get some pretty fine help from the Qmail Underground. . Really appreciate that. .
.

 

[ScorpionStinger]

I love JC.com... lol, I'm learning a lot from everyone. Aviation and non-aviation related..... Its safe to say this is aviation related tho. Thanks Qutch and all those contributing to this discussion. I enjoy the professionalism here.

 

[Qutch]

I love JC.com... lol, I'm learning a lot from everyone. Aviation and non-aviation related..... Its safe to say this is aviation related tho. Thanks Qutch and all those contributing to this discussion. I enjoy the professionalism here.

The "Thanks" goes to the JC Moderators on this thread. They laid down the standards of behavior they wanted to see on this thread, and everybody is following them. In the PM discussion circles as well as the open posts. The Mods created the environment allowing this to work.

Let's keep it civil... You're free to agree or disagree with what the OP says, but he presented his original post with no attacks against any user here. You don't have to agree with what he says, but let's keep the discussion civil please.

The only thing I didn't like was the rule allowing posters to disagree with me. I think everyone should be required to agree with everything I say. I'm appealing that part of their ruling.
.

 

[MQAAord]

Denied.

 

[PugetSoundMan]

Great thread. Really unbelievable story. Several posters have asked the question about proof. Absolute proof I guess that the CIA actually gave the guy the defective bomb, or that they knew he was carrying a bomb when they arranged to get him on to Northwest flt 253. I've gone through all the evidence posted here (3 times), and more I found on my own. Frankly, I'm conflicted.

On the one hand, it looks to me like the government definitely lied and tried to hide CIA involvement at first. And there is no doubt that the CIA wanted the UB on the plane and secretly helped him get on the plane by blocking the visa cancellation. The guy from the State Department admitted all that. From what I've read, the pax Haskell is also right about the government concealing evidence like the airport video so no one can see the UB's accomplice - aka CIA handler. And I'll concede that it is also true that in other cases (but not this case) there is proof that the FBI has been providing accomplices, cash and fake bombs to dumb & dumber terrorist patsies that they recruit. All this looks bad. Very bad. But like KSCessnaDriver and Gonzo say, it's not absolute proof. Qutch has presented a convincing case that lies are being told, the media isn't really digging into the story for some reason, and the government is hiding something here. But what? If the CIA were a regular person accused of a crime against flight 253, how could you convict them without absolute proof? Innocent until proven guilty? Is there enough evidence here to draw a conclusion?

 

[inigo88]

Pentaerythritol is a high school level synthesis with readily available components. We're talking H2O, calcium hydroxide, formaldehyde, ethanol and acids -- some of the most common chemicals and compounds in the world.

You're right that it seems like it's not the most exotic/difficult to make stuff out there now that I've read a bit more about it. However the chemistry forum I found discussing the synthesis of Pentaerythritol (which I'm probably now on an FBI watch list for visiting... Sucks! ) noted some pretty involved steps including a lot of precise temperature control and a vacuum distillation process. A poster in one of the threads noted that PETN was difficult enough that its synthesis was discouraged and suggested trying RDX (C4!) instead. Obviously this being an aviation website, it's unwise to discuss the synthesis of explosives in any further detail (since the two subjects don't exactly go hand in hand).

You have a point that Ca(OH)2, ethanol, various acids (and acetaldehyde) aren't difficult to find, but I disagree that it's a high school level process (unless you had a seriously kick ass teacher who taught you college level organic chemistry), and anyone who's actually taken a chemistry class will probably remember that even with every step of the procedure laid out in front of you it's still difficult to get any kind of substantial percent yield without some serious finesse.

Like you said though, it's a moot point if you pay someone else to do it for you.

 

[Qutch]

I'm conflicted.

On the one hand, it looks to me like the government definitely lied and tried to hide CIA involvement at first. And there is no doubt that the CIA wanted the UB on the plane and secretly helped him get on the plane by blocking the visa cancellation. The guy from the State Department admitted all that. From what I've read, the pax Haskell is also right about the government concealing evidence like the airport video so no one can see the UB's accomplice - aka CIA handler. And I'll concede that it is also true that in other cases (but not this case) there is proof that the FBI has been providing accomplices, cash and fake bombs to dumb & dumber terrorist patsies that they recruit. All this looks bad. Very bad. But like KSCessnaDriver and Gonzo say, it's not absolute proof. Qutch has presented a convincing case that lies are being told, the media isn't really digging into the story for some reason, and the government is hiding something here. But what? If the CIA were a regular person accused of a crime against flight 253, how could you convict them without absolute proof? Innocent until proven guilty? Is there enough evidence here to draw a conclusion?

I've received about 6 Qmail/PMs, in addition to the 3-4 posts here on this subject. All asking the same question regarding the Standard of Proof threshold to be applied. I had not intended to push too hard for a Conclusion, preferring to just present the other side's evidence and let readers draw their own conclusions.

I've learned that, when it comes to certain subjects, for some people no amount of proof is sufficient. Dog owners who's pit bulls go on a rampage through the neighborhood are certain their sweet pooches must have been provoked somehow. Mothers of teens accused of mass murder swear that their child is loving, and could not have committed the crime. And for some, no matter what their Government is accused of doing, no matter how strong the evidence, they refuse to believe the evidence is sufficient.

You've summarized the evidence fairly IMO. But the Standard of Proof Conclusion yardstick you cite is a debatable issue in my opinion. I'll argue the other side of this sticky issue in my next post.
.

 

[Data]

Did I miss that video where they said they helped him got on the plane?

Gonzo I think you missed the congressional testimony on cspan, or didn't understand the significance of what the State Department admitted to there. They intervened in the visa process to help get Umar Abdulmutallab on to flight 253 for Detroit. The big moment comes about 1/2 way through the video. They didn't say they carried him on to the airplane. Not that kind of help. They admitted that they rigged the visa system so he could slip through airport security and they did it at the request of Intelligence agencies. That's help.