First of all,mods I know there are other threads about this but none says the obvious so I'm laying it all out here. This was another "Underwear bomber" play to get the worlds attention on Naija and steal even more of the peoples freedoms in this case the internet.

It seems Brit intel got him off the hook.His family at the time complained off endless MI5 recruitment attempts. There are even more questions concerning the entire event. Absence of blood on his clothing despite the bloody cleaver and hands,what appear to be the use of greenscan on the video with people simply photoshopped into the background afterward.

http://karanjazplace..com/2013/05/the-nigerian-underwear-bomber-redux.html

@kikuyu1,

This is an excerpt from your blog ...

In December 2009 Umar Farouk Mutallab,a Nigerian graduate student was arrested allegedly trying to blow up an Amsterdam-Detroit flight on Christmas day with an "underwear bomb," (who thinks up this adolescent shit!). Immediately after his arrest the case revealed laughable inconsistencies:
-he had a US visa but no passport
-a mysterious Indian helped him board
-didn't check any luggage
-the explosive was so weak it wouldn't even have hurt him much less the aircraft fuselage.

Now this is what I found.

Abdulmutallab arrived in Amsterdam on Friday from Lagos, Nigeria. After a layover of less than three hours, he passed through a security check at the gate in Amsterdam, including a hand baggage scan and a metal detector, officials said.

Abdulmutallab was carrying a valid Nigerian passport and had a valid U.S. visa, the Dutch said. His name did not appear on any Dutch list of terror suspects.

The confirmation on Umar Farouq Abdulmutallab's passport comes after a fellow passenger claimed to have seen a possible accomplice help the 23-year-old Nigerian board the flight.

Source

Do you want to help me reconcile both views before I continue?

Hey,thats what the Dutch said!Don't blame me if the narratives aren't completely seamless. Yes, I noticed that,btw.

@kiriku, be sure now before u write. Haba!

Bobandgreat: @kiriku, be sure now before u write. Haba!

What is the anomaly? Read the whole piece and tell me if it detracts from the greater NARRATIVE stating both Farouk and the 2 Michaels were working for intelligence agencies.

I knew it! With time the official narrative always falls apart-it can never stand up to serious scrutiny. Now it seems even his brother was also Brit intel. We already know who got the so-called Mr Michael Olemindis Ndemolajo/Michael Adebolajo out of his Kenyan terrorism court case.

The younger brother of one of the men accused of murdering Drummer Lee Rigby was paid thousands of pounds by MI6 as part of spying operations in the Middle East, The Mail on Sunday has discovered.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2334476/Woolwich-murder-MI6-connection-Younger-brother-Michael-Adebolajo-paid-thousands-spy-Middle-East.html#ixzz2VJsE7st0
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

What I just can't figure out what their modus operandi is.

kikuyu1: First of all,mods I know there are other threads about this but none says the obvious so I'm laying it all out here. This was another "Underwear bomber" play to get the worlds attention on Naija and steal even more of the peoples freedoms in this case the internet.

http://karanjazplace..com/2013/05/the-nigerian-underwear-bomber-redux.html

This one na new madness?
Madness wey never mature eh kwa
Hope still dey inshallah

I see this insidious thread is back in focus.

When I am less constrained for time, I will back to explain my earlier position.

U guyz are speaking in tongues!!!

10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes

1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.

2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.

3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.

4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.

5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.

6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.

7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.

8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.

9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.

10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.

A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore.

http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html

@OP, please explain how you reconcile your conspiracy theory with the following monologue.

I'm a soldier', man accused of Woolwich murder tells court as he continues to interrupt judge

One of the men accused of murdering soldier Lee Rigby told the Old Bailey today: "I'm a man, I'm a soldier, I'm a British citizen."

Appearing via videolink, Michael Adebolajo, 28, interrupted proceedings on several occasions during the bail hearing, telling judge Mr Justice Sweeney: "It's not about you.

"This whole trial is about more than that. It's not about me, even though I played a major part in proceedings.

"Really and truly it's about the good, honest, decent, hardworking British members of society, whether they be Muslim or non-Muslim.

"They are the ones that have suffered the most..."

Adebolajo, whose left arm was in a plaster cast after the incident outside Woolwich barracks in south east London on May 22, went on:"It's possible throughout life that people may sometimes smother you and say things about you that are false.

"But as a regular citizen and human being, we have to get over it.

"I believe that the British people are decent. From my experience growing up in my country, only a fraction will wish to slander and lie against me. But the rest would prefer to know the truth, even if the truth came back to bite me on the buttock."

Adebolajo, who is also accused of the attempted murder of two police officers and possession of a firearm - a 9.4mm KNIL model 91 revolver - with intent to cause others to believe that violence would be used, was reprimanded by the judge for interrupting several times and eventually the videolink was switched off.

The defendant was listed as Mujaahid Abu Hamza AKA Adebolajo by the court, after asking to be referred to by the name when he appeared before magistrates on Monday, and was addressed as Mr Hamza today.

Adebolajo was charged with the four counts on Saturday, having been discharged from hospital on Friday having spent just over a week there being treated for his injuries after being shot by police in the incident.

The court heard that Adebolajo had been seen by psychiatrists three times while in hospital and at least twice since he had been discharged and in custody, and had been declared fit for interview in all.

His defence barrister, David Gottlieb, told the court: "It's the prosecution's case that he is completely sane. He doesn't suffer from any mental disorder at all. Mr Hamza agrees with that."

While this was discussed the defendant interjected with: "I'm not familiar with this legal jargon.

"I'm a soldier, not a lawyer."

The start of the hearing had been delayed after Adebolajo complained about having to be handcuffed in the video-link room at Belmarsh prison and he was eventually allowed to have them removed on the understanding that two prison officers sat beside him during the hearing.

Wearing a burgundy top with a pink jumper that was only over one arm due to his cast, Adebolajo also complained that his privacy had been violated as he claimed he had been made to have his private parts examined twice ahead of his appearance this morning.

"I'm a man, I'm a soldier, I'm a British citizen," he said.

"And you can't see my privates."

Describing the prison officer who had asked to examine him as a "jobsworth", he added that after the experience: "I cried like a baby, you know, into my sleeve."

He said he had let him look at him as he had said "please" when he asked, adding that he appreciated his politeness.

The packed courtroom listened as he likened the situation to when someone says "please" when they ask to get past him when shopping for margarine in a supermarket.

"It could be Flora or Utterly Butterly, you find it hard not to move," he said.

When reprimanded by the judge for interrupting, the defendant said: "Stop trying to stifle the truth.

"Wouldn't want the truth to get out, would we? Wouldn't want that."

But he later praised Mr Justice Sweeney after he let him have his handcuffs removed, saying "May Allah bless you" three times.

"That man who is wearing the white wig and the red robe. May Allah bless that man because he has had the courage to do something that many wouldn't have had the courage to do so."

Adebolajo from Romford in Essex, will appear at the court alongside co-defendant Michael Adebowale, 22, from Greenwich, south east London, for a preliminary hearing on June 28.

Soure

Mudley313: 10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes

1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.

2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.

3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.

4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.

5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.

6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.

7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.

8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.

9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims. This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.

10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.

A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore.

http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html

The gatekeepers of the narrative,the Mainstream Media are not and have never been the ethical warriors of truth you pretend they are. With your thinking Ancient Egypt/Nubia would still be white and people would still believe the official 911 story.
Btw,do you believe the USG version of 911?

Pray tell. What's the "true" story?

Another RIDICULOUS conspiracy theory. Don't you people ever get tired?

Bawss1: Another RIDICULOUS conspiracy theory. Don't you people ever get tired?

Conspiracy theory is actually conspiracy FACT. Btw,why does it bother you that I disbelieve official histories and authorised accounts of everything? That I'd rather look deeper than accepted surface 'explanations,'which are as full of holes as a collander;just like Woolwich to seek patterns in my own searching.