Miami Bomb Incident Starts to Look Suspicious
Eyewitness says Alpizar never mentioned bomb, passengers were more afraid
of Air Marshals putting guns to their heads
Paul Joseph Watson | December 9 2005
The shooting of Rigoberto Alpizar at Miami
International Airport stinks
like a giant festering rat just two days after it happened. Alpizar never screamed that he had a bomb and passengers relate
that they were more frightened of Air Marshals putting guns to their head and threatening them not to look at what was taking
place on board American Airlines Flight 924. For those of us who researched the brutal murder of Charles De Menezes in London, striking parallels have begun to emerge.
We live in an age where government deception about
everything under the sun is a matter of course and no major event can take place without us automatically being suspicious
about whether there were underlying motives involved.
The incident seemed straightforward enough when the official version of what
happened was released.
A mentally unstable man runs off a plane with a backpack screaming that he has
a bomb and he is shuffling around in his bag apparently attempting to detonate it. Most people agree that to shoot him dead
as the Air Marshals did was an extreme but necessary course of action to take.
Let's take a step back here.
Is a real suicide bomber going to announce that he is trying to detonate a bomb?
How many Palestinians have you heard about who explain what they are about to do and risk being apprehended before being able
to do it?
Furthermore, we have eyewitnesses confirming that Rigoberto Alpizar's wife was
hysterical in trying to get the message across that the man was mentally ill and did not have a bomb.
OK, so even considering these questions, many people would still maintain that
if they were on the plane and this happened they would still want the guy filled with bullets, better to be safe than sorry.
This is where the waters begin to muddy.
Time Magazine reported the comments of one of the passengers on board American Airlines Flight 924. This is what he had to say,
"I never heard the word 'bomb' on the plane,"
McAlhany told TIME in a telephone interview. "I never heard the word bomb until the FBI asked me did you hear the word bomb.
That is ridiculous."
So if we are to believe this eyewitness, the 'madman' Alpizar never claimed
to have a bomb, therefore his only crime was running on a grounded plane.
If he didn't announce that he had a bomb then why was it necessary to shoot
McAlhany's account of the drama takes on an even more intriguing turn when we
consider the following from Time Magazine,
When the incident began McAlhany was in
seat 24C, in the middle of the plane. "[Alpizar] was in the back," McAlhany says, "a few seats from the back bathroom. He
sat down." Then, McAlhany says, "I heard an argument with his wife. He was saying 'I have to get off the plane.' She said,
Alpizar took off running down the aisle,
with his wife close behind him. "She was running behind him saying, 'He's sick. He's sick. He's ill. He's got a disorder,"
McAlhany recalls. "I don't know if she said bipolar disorder [as one witness has alleged]. She was trying to explain to the
marshals that he was ill. He just wanted to get off the plane."
McAlhany described Alpizar as carrying
a big backpack and wearing a fanny pack in front. He says it would have been impossible for Alpizar to lie flat on the floor
of the plane, as marshals ordered him to do, with the fanny pack on. "You can't get on the ground with a fanny pack," he says.
"You have to move it to the side."
By the time Alpizar made it to the front
of the airplane, the crew had ordered the rest of the passengers to get down between the seats. "I didn't see him get shot,"
he says. "They kept telling me to get down. I heard about five shots."
McAlhany says he tried to see what was
happening just in case he needed to take evasive action. "I wanted to make sure if anything was coming toward me and they
were killing passengers I would have a chance to break somebody's neck," he says. "I was looking through the seats because
I wanted to see what was coming.
I was on the phone with my brother. Somebody came down the aisle and put a shotgun
to the back of my head and said put your hands on the seat in front of you. I got my cell phone karate chopped out of my hand.
Then I realized it was an official."
In the ensuing events, many of the passengers began crying in fear, he recalls. "They
were pointing the guns directly at us instead of pointing them to the ground," he says "One little girl was crying. There
was a lady crying all the way to the hotel."
McAlhany said he saw Alpizar before the flight and is absolutely stunned by what unfolded
on the airplane. He says he saw Alpizar eating a sandwich in the boarding area before getting on the plane. He looked normal
at that time, McAlhany says. He thinks the whole thing was a mistake: "I don't believe he should be dead right now."
This account brings several facts into clearer view.
- The reason for Alpizar's rush to leave the
plane would seem to stem from his unstable emotional state and the row with his wife, and had nothing to do with the potential
of him having a bomb, as proven by the fact that he never said he had a bomb and the subsequent controlled explosions proved
that he didn't have a bomb.
- If Alpizar did not have a bomb and gave no
reason to make Air Marshals think he had a bomb, then he was killed for another reason.
- The fact that Air Marshals were terrorizing
passengers, putting guns to their heads and karate kicking mobile phones out of their hands proves that, whatever was taking
place, they didn't want anyone to have a consistent and clear view of what was going on.
- The eyewitnesses were more afraid of the
gun wielding Air Marshals than they were of Alpizar and felt their lives were more endangered by the Marshals than Alpizar.
This evidence trends towards two possible explanations behind this incident.
Either the government wanted Alpizar dead for their own reasons and carried out a targeted
assassination under the guise of an anti-terror operation or this incident was staged to reinforce the myth that there are
real terrorists running around that the government needs to protect us from by taking away our liberties.
This event will lead to even more choking airport security measures, reversing
more rational trends which began with the announcement that small sharp objects would be allowed on planes again.
Whatever the case, this incident has uncanny parallels with the murder of Charles de
Menezes by British undercover police one day after the supposed aborted second London
bombings on July 22nd.
The official story seemed to justify the shooting. A man wearing a large padded
jacket at the height of summer with wires trailing out jumps a barrier and runs for the nearest train in a manic fashion as
he is followed by plain clothed police who had tracked him from a building under surveillance due to it potentially housing
The official story of course turned out to be a complete lie fronted by Met
Head (or meat head) Sir Ian Blair, who pathetically clung onto his job by endlessly repeating the same bulls**t on British
television for weeks after the event.
De Menezes was wearing a light denim jacket, was playing chase with his cousin,
did not vault a barrier, did not have wires trailing from his jacket and was not seen coming from said building due to the
policeman watching the building taking a p**s at the time. CCTV tapes of the incident were seized by police who then claimed
that the tapes didn't exist due to the cameras conveniently malfunctioning at that exact time, something which the London
Underground workers wholesale denied.
This and many more startling inconsistencies prove that the police knew for
certain that De Menezes was no suicide bomber but they had been ordered to kill him anyway.
De Menezes was a freelance electrician and potential knowledge of the shady
'electrical surge' explanation that preceded the official story of the London
bombings could have sealed his fate.
The murder of Alpizar looks like it's in the same basket. No doubt the official
probe will bring to light more damning evidence but then the establishment lackeys will just pardon their mob bosses anyway.
The Miami Police Department caught a lot of heat recently for their Constitution gutting 'Miami Shield' program, where cops will randomly lay siege to city buildings, ride
buses and trains and demand to see ID's.
Were the events at the airport a response to that criticism? A message sent
that we need to shut up and show obidience to authority because there are terrorist bombers out there that we need to be protected
from? The timing of the two stories is at the very least interesting if not sinister.
This is a time of universal deceit, and any major event needs to be scrutinized
without haste because in nearly every case the evidence points directly to government collusion and cover-up.