Here is his signature


Are we supposed to believe that signature is from someone who comes from one of the wealthiest families in Africa, and who was educated in top British schools. It looks like he can barely print his first name.

There are also conflicting photos of him. I reckon that this was a false flag operation and the poor patsie who is locked up in the US (probrably soon to be shipped to Gitmo) is not Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab at all.

Nobody would try to blow up a plane the way we are being told he attempted (Richard Reid was also a setup), they would just load a bomb in a suitcase and check it in. The bomb could be enormous compared to what pathetic amount could be smuggled on with carry-on luggage and he would look less suspicious because he had luggage for an international flight.

There are eyewitnesses that say Umar (or whoever it was) was assisted through security at Schipol airport, and that an agent was videoing the whole flight including Umars arrest.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-gZ5OR8XzQ

PETN usually requires a shockwave to detonate, this bomb was never supposed to explode.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/28/us/28explosives.html?_r=3

What in the world has family background got to do with signature?

^^
I too seriously wonder. . . .

What in the world has family background got to do with signature?

Wealthy people use signatures a lot more than someone who is dirt poor (for bank accounts, D/L, passport and visa applications, ), and they are more defensive of their signatures so they invariably develop somewhat complex signatures.

Im not wealthy but I have been advised at a bank that my signature is too simple and easily copied, and my signature is more complex than Umars.

That signature above is not only the signature of someone who is at best only semi-literate, but it is also the signature of someone who has never had a reason to develop a proper signature.

L_D:

Wealthy people use signatures a lot more than someone who is dirt poor (for bank accounts, D/L, passport and visa applications, ), and they are more defensive of their signatures so they invariably develop somewhat complex signatures.

Im not wealthy but I have been advised at a bank that my signature is too simple and easily copied, and my signature is more complex than Umars.

That signature above is not only the signature of someone who is at best only semi-literate, but it is also the signature of someone who has never had a reason to develop a proper signature.

Okay, the more you try to make sense of our post, the more ridiculous you sound. . .
There's nothing wrong with that signature, his name is clearly spelled okay and his hand writing is okay too
So, what fact are you trying to lay out?

Okay, the more you try to make sense of our post, the more ridiculous you sound. . .
There's nothing wrong with that signature, his name is clearly spelled okay and his hand writing is okay too

Are you trying to tell me that there is nothing unusual about a signature where just the first name is poorly printed?

That signature might be understandable where the person has literacy problems and/or has never learnt to write (as opposed to print), and has never had good reason to develop a proper signature, but that signature from someone well educated and extremely wealthy?? Never.

mama-gee:

Okay, the more you try to make sense of our post, the more ridiculous you sound. . .
There's nothing wrong with that signature, his name is clearly spelled okay and his hand writing is okay too
So, what fact are you trying to lay out?

are you telling me that the signature is acceptable? when you write your checks do you literally spell you name out??

i'm a bit baffled at your level of reasoning and security consciousness.

the passport was issued in 2005, when he was 18.

Not sure when people normally develop signatures.

where did sahara reporters get hold of this?

tpia i beg to differ, most people at 18 have a solid signature i.e one that cannot be easily copied (unless lack of education, basic reading and writing skills are factored into the equation)

@ topic. This is the signature on his passport. It doesn't mean this is his bank signature. I have a different signature for my bank a/c (more complex), a different one for other stuff e.g drivers license, I.D cards e.t.c (it is basically my initials and surname to make it easily comprehensible) . I know some people have the same signature for all documents, but most people I have in my family have different signatures for cheques than for other docs. So your theory may be inaccurate. As for him checking in the bomb with his luggage. Do you think that Al-Qaeda wouldn't have tried it if it were possible. The screening that is done on check-in baggage is quite thorough.

montelik:

@ topic. This is the signature on his passport. It doesn't mean this is his bank signature. I have a different signature for my bank a/c (more complex), a different one for other stuff e.g drivers license, I.D cards e.t.c (it is basically my initials and surname to make it easily comprehensible) . I know some people have the same signature for all documents, but most people I have in my family have different signatures for cheques than for other docs. So your theory may be inaccurate. As for him checking in the bomb with his luggage. Do you think that Al-Qaeda wouldn't have tried it if it were possible. The screening that is done on check-in baggage is quite thorough.

exactly

My signature is almost as simple as that, just my name inside the first letter lol
I dont use cheques, i use passwords

Niseed:

are you telling me that the signature is acceptable? when you write your checks do you literally spell you name out??

i'm a bit baffled at your level of reasoning and security consciousness.

Here in the USA, if you are asked to give your signature, you print your first name.

but most people I have in my family have different signatures for cheques than for other docs. So your theory may be inaccurate. As for him checking in  the bomb with his luggage. Do you think that Al-Qaeda wouldn't have tried it if it were possible. The screening that is done on check-in baggage is quite thorough.

I honestly dont think anyone would consider a completly unstylised printing of their first name as a valid signature for an official document like a passport, unless that is the best they can do.  

Every successful airline bombing has been a large bomb placed in the luggage compartments (lockerbie, Cubana flight455). If anyone really wanted to blow up a plane this is the way they would do it, these pathetic attempts by the likes of Richard Reid or Umar(?) are false flag operations that are never meant to succeed.

Even if they managed to detonate the small amount of explosives they smuggle onboard it is unlikely they would bring the plane down (especially when Umar was virtually sitting on the explosives so he would absorb much of the blast, why didnt he remove the explosives from his crutch while he was in the toilet for 20min?)

Checked luggage comes under very little screening, and certainly nothing like the screening of hand luggage or personal screening as you enter a plane, very very little checked luggage gets opened. Think of all the large bottles of alcohol etc that are in checked luggage, it would be impossible to check all of them.

The main defence against someone putting a bomb in a suitcase and loading it onto a plane is that the person must fly with the luggage, this is of course no deterrent to a suicide bomber. Yet these two idiots (reid and umar) board international flights with no checked luggage at all which just makes them look more suspicious, either >Al-Qaeda< are complete idiots or we are for believing such nonsensical plots.

Here in the USA, if you are asked to give your signature, you print your first name.

So your passport just has your first name printed on it? What a load of rubbish.

The only situation where I might print my name is if I am signing for goods, but for D/L, banking, passports, visas, that would be completely inappropriate.

Every successful airline bombing has been a large bomb placed in the luggage compartments (lockerbie, Cubana flight455). If anyone really wanted to blow up a plane this is the way they would do it

I would like to correct myself on this point, after doing a bit of research I have found that there have been a few successful bombings of planes using hand luggage, although by far the vast majority of bombings have been through the loading of suitcase bombs.

Ironically, one of the main reasons for using hand luggage seemed to be so the bomb could be hidden on the plane to blow up on the following trip, of course a suicide bomber would have no reason for such tactics.

Also Cubana fl455 had a bomb planted on it before takeoff, so it was neither a suitcase or carry-on bomb.

mama-gee:

Here in the USA, if you are asked to give your signature, you print your first name.

What a ridiculous comment!!! you must think you are the only one "Here in the USA", Please find attached a picture of your past president who wasnt the brightest bulb.