Looks Like I'll Be A Witness For The Defense In The Underwear Bomber Case
by Kurt Haskell | October 6, 2011
Today was the day for final jury selection in the Underwear Bomber case. I watched some of it on Tuesday and I was interested to see which jurors were picked. The final jury was set to be picked today at 1:30. I adjusted my schedule so that I could be down there at 1:30 today. I had a trial a few blocks away that was due to last until around 1:00 today. My plan was to head over there when I finished my trial.
As my trial was ending, I got the following text from my brother "I hear that you will be testifying in the underwear bomber case". This was news to me as my status as a witness was undetermined as of Tuesday. I gave my brother a call and he said he heard on the radio, that stand-by Anthony Chambers said in court this morning that I would be testifying.
While walking to Federal Court to watch final jury selection, I ran into someone that works with stand-by attorney Chambers. He told me that final jury selection was done as it didn't take as long as expected. He also told me that it was Umar that said he would call me as a witness, not Chambers. He then said Chambers is right there, go talk to him and he pointed across the street. Chambers was standing on the sidewalk across the street. I talked to Chambers for a minute and we agreed to talk again soon. He said I won't be testifying for approximately another month as the trial is supposed to be lengthy.
I then headed back to my office and found out that I had messages from Fox National News and the A.P. I talked to Ed White from the A.P. on Tuesday and he misquoted me in the article he wrote. Specifically, Ed White asked what I though about Umar making outbursts in court. I said the following "I saw him before boarding and he never said anything, I've seen him in court several times, and I even saw him when he lit his fake bomb and his crotch was burning and he never makes a peep. This is totally out of character for him." You can see how Ed White did a cut and paste job of my quote here:
http://www.ydr.com/crime/ci_19035789
Note that Ed White left out that I saw Umar before boarding and that he lit a fake bomb.
I talked to Ed White again today and told him that I would only talk to him if he didn't twist my words around to mean something else. He agreed, but here is the hatchet job Ed White did to my interview with him today. Note that he says I have a "wild theory" among other things:
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2011/10/05/2666662/final-jury-pool-settled-in-underwear.html
This is the last straw in my discussions with the media. The media is nothing but a 4th branch of the government. I will no longer talk to any of them except the alternative media that has been supportive all along.
Note, however, in the above article, Chambers indicates that I may be the only defense witness called. How ironic is it that I will have Umar's life in my hands just as Umar had my life in his hands (or underwear) on Christmas Day 2009? I will be up to the task. I realize that some may not agree with me and may attempt to harm me. Nevertheless, I will speak the truth and not be intimidated. I will do this for the common good of all of the citizens of the United States. It is not often that I quote a passage from the bible, but I think it is appropriate here:
"And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."
Showing posts with label Kurt Haskell. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kurt Haskell. Show all posts
Kurt Haskell : Looks Like I'll Be A Witness For The Defense In The Underwear Bomber Case
Thursday, October 06, 2011
Filed under
Kurt Haskell,
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab,
Underwear Bomber
by Winter Patriot
on Thursday, October 06, 2011
[
link |
| home
]
| home
]
Kurt Haskell : A Closer Look at Selected Domestic "Terrorist Attacks" From The Past Decade
Sunday, October 02, 2011
A Closer Look at Selected Domestic "Terrorist Attacks" From The Past Decade
By Kurt Haskell | October 2, 2011
Over the past 21 months, I have come into contact with many people that fail to even consider the possibility that U.S. intelligence agents could have been involved in the underwear bomber plot. It is with these people in mind that I decided to write the following article. I have noticed that recent terrorist attacks within the United States have many similar characteristics. If you look at these plots together as a series of attacks, the modus operandi of U.S. intelligence agencies begins to develop. For this article, I have decided to look at only "terrorist attacks" from January 1, 2002, to the present.
1. Mohamed Mohamud (The Portland Christmas Tree Bomber)
Date Of Incident: November 26, 2010.
The 2010 Portland car bomb plot involved an incident in which Mohamud, a Somali-American student, was arrested in an FBI sting operation, after attempting to set off what he thought was a car bomb at a Christmas tree lighting in Portland, Oregon.
Mohamud had been monitored by the FBI for months. Prior to Mohamud's arrest, an undercover FBI agent, posing as a terrorist, had been in contact with him since June 2010 (A 5 month period). In preparation for the planned bombing of a public gathering, Mohamud and undercover FBI operatives drove to a remote area of Lincoln County, Oregon, where they conducted a test run on November 4, 2010 by detonating a real bomb Mohamud believed to have been hidden inside a backpack.
The fake bomb was in a white van that carried six 55-gallon drums with what appeared to be real detonation cords and plastic caps. Mohamud tried to detonate the bomb by dialing a cell phone that was attached to it. When the device failed to explode, the undercover agent suggested he get out of the car to obtain better reception. When he did so, arresting agents moved in.
According to the FBI, the device it provided to Mohamud had no explosive components (even the detonating caps were inert) and the public was never in any danger.
2. Sami Samir Hassoun (Wrigley Field Bomber)
Date of Incident: September 19, 2010
Hassoun placed a backpack authorities say he thought contained a bomb near Chicago's Wrigley Field. The fake but ominous looking device (a paint can fitted with blasting caps and a timer) was given to him by an FBI undercover agent.
According to Hassoun's attorney, Hassoun didn't bring anything of his own making to the incident. All materials were given to him by an under cover FBI agent. Hassoun also had no apparent affiliation with extremists.
The complaint alleges he raised the specter of terrorist groups only by suggesting it would be helpful to blame them for any attacks he staged. At least two FBI undercover agents got in touch with Hassoun, posing as co-plotters and eventually helped to deliver the bogus bomb.
3. Bronx Terrorism Plot
Date of Incident: May 20, 2009
On May 20, 2009, US law enforcement arrested four black Muslim men in connection with a plot to shoot down military airplanes flying out of an Air National Guard base in Newburgh, New York and blow up two synagogues in the Riverdale community of the Bronx. The events leading up to the attempted attack began in June 2008.
Shahed Hussain, an Albany hotel owner and FBI informant, showed up at the Masjid al-Ikhlas mosque under the name "Maqsood", talking of jihad and violence. Hussain, a Pakistani immigrant, agreed to serve as an FBI informant after being arrested in 2002 over a scam involving driver's licenses. Four men expressed interest to Hussain. They planned to both bomb the Riverdale Temple and nearby Riverdale Jewish Center in the Bronx, and, using Stinger surface-to-air guided missiles, shoot down military planes flying out of a nearby air base.
On May 6, 2009, the men traveled to Stamford, Connecticut, to pick up what they believed to be a surface-to-air guided-missile system and three improvised explosive devices, all of which were incapable of actually being used. The men placed fake bombs wired to cell phones in three separate cars outside the Riverdale Temple and nearby Riverdale Jewish Center, both in the Riverdale community of Bronx.
The FBI informer also served as the driver of the suspects’ vehicle. Both the car bombs and the missiles were actually fakes given to the plotters with the help of an informant for the FBI. Each of the two homemade bombs was equipped with about 37 pounds of inert material designed to look like C-4 plastic explosive, and "there was no danger to anyone," according to the FBI. The men were returning to their vehicle and heading to attack aircraft at the Stewart Air National Guard Base in Newburgh, New York, with the fake Stinger missiles when law enforcement stopped them.
4. Antonio Martinez
Date of Incident: December 8, 2010
Martinez was arrested in an FBI sting after agents said he tried to detonate a phony bomb outside a Maryland military recruitment center. The FBI began investigating Martinez in early October 2010 after an informant pointed out postings on Martinez's Facebook page.
Martinez's attorney said the lack of a recording of the informant's initial three conversations with Martinez is a sign the government was trying to obscure its role in developing the plot. It was in those conversations that Martinez first mentioned attacking the recruiting center, according to a criminal complaint.
Also according to his attorney, the government "induced him to be involved in an act which was clearly the design of the government and provided Martinez with the fake bomb".
5. Rezwan Ferdaus
Date of Incident: September 28, 2011
Federal prosecutors allege in court documents that Rezwan Ferdaus outlined an elaborate plan to undercover FBI agents posing as al-Qaeda operatives that involved the use of three drone aircraft carrying deadly payloads to attack and destroy federal government landmarks. Ferdaus was arrested after allegedly accepting delivery of materials, including three grenades, six Ak-47 assault rifles and a quantity of what he believed to be powerful C-4 explosives. U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz said all of the weaponry was in the control of undercover agents who were closely monitoring the plot's developments. She said the public was never in danger.
However, some legal organizations and Muslim groups have questioned whether Ferdaus, whose activities were carried out with two undercover FBI agents posing as terrorists, would have been able to carry out such a sophisticated plot if left to his own devices. In numerous previous cases in the US, the FBI has been accused of over-zealousness in its investigations and of entrapping people into terror plots who might otherwise not have carried out an attack. On April 19, 2011, undercover agents met with Ferdaus and questioned the "feasibility" of his plan. That raises the prospect that the FBI agents were somehow goading Ferdaus into more action.
At the same meeting the undercover agents also gave financial assistance for Ferdaus to travel to Washington on a scouting trip: a fact that raises the question of whether he would have made the trip without that financial help. The undercover agents also supplied thousands of dollars in cash for Ferdaus to buy the F-86 Sabre miniature plane to be used in an attack.
Analysis Of These 5 Attacks:
When looking at these plots, the most obvious connection between them (Other than the Muslim male connection) is that the FBI provided each of these "terrorists" with fake weapons, including fake explosives, to carry out the plots. Also, each of the terrorists attempted to carry out the plots with the aid of undercover FBI agents. It is unclear to what extent the FBI agents came up with the initial idea. However, it certainly is questionable whether any of these attacks would have occurred without the aid of the undercover FBI agents.
Before meeting up with the undercover FBI agents, most of these men had little to no criminal record and were guilty of no more than random terroristic thoughts. It is also very apparent that the undercover FBI agents allowed the "terrorists" to conclude a significant portion of the plots including attempting to detonate fake bombs.
While researching these and other "terrorist" attacks, I could not help but notice the lack of "terrorist" attacks from 2002-2008. I can't help but question whether the increase in these attacks is related to the term of office of President Obama, which began in January 2009.
As I chose to not make this article [political], I won't delve into such aspect any further. During this same time period, on December 25, 2009, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the "Underwear Bomber" attempted to detonate an explosive in his underwear as he sat 8 rows in front of me.
Analysis of the Underwear Bomber Incident:
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (Umar) allegedly received his bomb from Al Qaeda in Yemen and due to U.S. Intelligence Agencies "failing to connect the dots", was able to board flight 253 with a bomb. The U.S. Intelligence Agencies "failed to connect" the dots despite the fact that they had been warned by Umar's own father several months earlier that Umar was a threat.
Further, we are told that it was this "failing to connect the dots" that led to Umar boarding, despite the Congressional testimony of Patrick Kennedy (see his testimony here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jN_33ojupTc).
This testimony from Kennedy, the Under Secretary of State, indicated that a yet to be disclosed intelligence agency was tracking Umar, and wanted to track him into the U.S. to catch "bigger fish". Now how would such agency do that if it didn't allow Umar to board a plane heading to the U.S.?
What's also troubling is that nearly all of the mainstream U.S. media failed to even report on this Congressional testimony. The one newspaper that did, the Detroit News, has now erased the story from its archives. Of course, I witnessed Umar near the boarding gate of flight 253. He was escorted by a sharp dressed man, that spoke perfect American English without an accent and told the gate agent that Umar didn't have a passport, that he needed to board the plane, that he was from "Sudan, and we do this all the time".
My next question is who is the "we" that he was referring to. Obviously, I have to ask what sort of U.S. authority figure in Amsterdam could say that "we" let refugees on planes all of the time without passports and apparently, has the authority to make it happen. It seems that an undercover FBI agent would fit the bill.
Although Schiphol Airport has the most security cameras in the world, the airport audio and video remain unreleased under a court protective order.
In December 2010, Umar's stand-by attorney, Anthony Chambers reported to the Detroit Free Press that "The Government's own experts have indicated that the bomb was impossibly defective as it lacked a blasting cap". That story has now been erased from the Free Press archives.
Although pieces of the bomb laid all over the airline cabin near row 19, law enforcement officers made no effort to remove passengers from such area and passengers trampled through pieces of the bomb as they exited the plane.
The NPR interview of Jay Howard, the man who sat next to Umar, is very telling (see below) (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123821351. In this interview, Howard relates that the FBI told him not to talk about what happened and took all of his clothes that were covered with pieces of the bomb.
Although the FBI had samples of the bomb all over the airline, it seized all of his clothes to "test the bomb materials". I have to wonder if the FBI actually seized Mr. Howard's clothes in order to not let others test the bomb materials. In his NPR interview, Mr. Howard makes the following curious comment "I don't want to call him a terrorist because he hasn't been treated as a terrorist and it wasn't a national threat". Really Mr. Howard? Why wasn't it a National threat? Is this why the FBI told you not to talk about this too much?
Note that I am not saying that Jay Howard was involved in this lot, but only that he knows more than he is letting on.
Remember, after we exited the plane, we were taken to a baggage claim area where we stood with our carry on bags for an hour, not knowing if other bombs were located in the carry on bags. Law enforcement was not concerned, however. At this time, Umar had already exited the plane and told officers that "there is another bomb on board". Another man was taken into custody during this time, after a bomb sniffing dog found explosives in his carry on bag. The U.S. Government changed its story on who this man was 5 times before finally deciding to ignore the existence of the man entirely.
It's most likely that this man was an FBI undercover agent that provided Umar with his "bomb" and the bomb residue in his bag alerted the dog. In late 2010, Umar was charged with conspiring with "persons known and unknown" yet none of these persons have ever been named. Their involvement with the plot has never been explained.
Shouldn't such persons be on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted List? Shouldn't the FBI solicit the public to help identify such individuals, who should be some of the most wanted men in the world? Not if they are FBI agents.
There are very few differences between the Underwear Bomber incident and the 5 incidents I listed above. One difference being that this attack occurred on a plane which caused a fire that did indeed threaten lives. The other plots seemingly didn't risk injury to others. We must remember that the U.S. needs legitimate "terrorist attacks" to keep making money for those that benefit from the fraudulent war on terror.
Also, a legitimate airline attack was needed to usher in the body scanning machines. Without a failed bomb in a terrorist's clothes, the American public would never stand for the body scanning machines.
Lastly, the flight proceeded over Detroit before the "bomb" was lit, on Christmas Day, in order to make the biggest splash in the media. The U.S. Government's modus operandi of setting up these attacks with fake bombs and without risking injury to others was seemingly achieved. This led to Janet Napolitano's explicit comment that "the system worked" when referring to this attack.
Janet knows what happened here, and so do I. Hopefully, I have convinced [others] that read this post that the U.S. Government, via its intelligence agencies, gave Umar a fake bomb and escorted him through security in order to assure a fake "terrorist attack".
This "terrorist" attack occurred in order to continue padding the wallets of those that benefit from the war on terror and its repulsive body scanners. Would this plot have happened without the aid of the unnamed U.S. Intelligence Agency that allowed Umar to board, provided Umar with his fake bomb and God knows whatever else? Not a chance.
I sit here writing this article a mere 30 minutes from Dearborn, Michigan, which has the largest segment of Muslims in the U.S. I realize that if the U.S. were truly in danger of terrorist attacks from Muslims, this area should be in jeopardy of suicide and car bombings that frequently occur in the middle east. These attacks do not occur here. I know why, and I ask that you also ask yourself why.
Those that are hopeful that the upcoming trial will reveal anything of this sort should think again. Umar is representing himself and thereby refusing to let standy-by attorney Chambers use the entrapment defense (that he told me he would) if he was allowed to. This action by Umar is inexplicable, unless of course he is involved in the plot, has been threatened or promised a lenient sentence. I don't know which, but there seemingly is no other explanation. Obviously, there is more to this story than the FBI is telling us.
By Kurt Haskell | October 2, 2011
Over the past 21 months, I have come into contact with many people that fail to even consider the possibility that U.S. intelligence agents could have been involved in the underwear bomber plot. It is with these people in mind that I decided to write the following article. I have noticed that recent terrorist attacks within the United States have many similar characteristics. If you look at these plots together as a series of attacks, the modus operandi of U.S. intelligence agencies begins to develop. For this article, I have decided to look at only "terrorist attacks" from January 1, 2002, to the present.
1. Mohamed Mohamud (The Portland Christmas Tree Bomber)
Date Of Incident: November 26, 2010.
The 2010 Portland car bomb plot involved an incident in which Mohamud, a Somali-American student, was arrested in an FBI sting operation, after attempting to set off what he thought was a car bomb at a Christmas tree lighting in Portland, Oregon.
Mohamud had been monitored by the FBI for months. Prior to Mohamud's arrest, an undercover FBI agent, posing as a terrorist, had been in contact with him since June 2010 (A 5 month period). In preparation for the planned bombing of a public gathering, Mohamud and undercover FBI operatives drove to a remote area of Lincoln County, Oregon, where they conducted a test run on November 4, 2010 by detonating a real bomb Mohamud believed to have been hidden inside a backpack.
The fake bomb was in a white van that carried six 55-gallon drums with what appeared to be real detonation cords and plastic caps. Mohamud tried to detonate the bomb by dialing a cell phone that was attached to it. When the device failed to explode, the undercover agent suggested he get out of the car to obtain better reception. When he did so, arresting agents moved in.
According to the FBI, the device it provided to Mohamud had no explosive components (even the detonating caps were inert) and the public was never in any danger.
2. Sami Samir Hassoun (Wrigley Field Bomber)
Date of Incident: September 19, 2010
Hassoun placed a backpack authorities say he thought contained a bomb near Chicago's Wrigley Field. The fake but ominous looking device (a paint can fitted with blasting caps and a timer) was given to him by an FBI undercover agent.
According to Hassoun's attorney, Hassoun didn't bring anything of his own making to the incident. All materials were given to him by an under cover FBI agent. Hassoun also had no apparent affiliation with extremists.
The complaint alleges he raised the specter of terrorist groups only by suggesting it would be helpful to blame them for any attacks he staged. At least two FBI undercover agents got in touch with Hassoun, posing as co-plotters and eventually helped to deliver the bogus bomb.
3. Bronx Terrorism Plot
Date of Incident: May 20, 2009
On May 20, 2009, US law enforcement arrested four black Muslim men in connection with a plot to shoot down military airplanes flying out of an Air National Guard base in Newburgh, New York and blow up two synagogues in the Riverdale community of the Bronx. The events leading up to the attempted attack began in June 2008.
Shahed Hussain, an Albany hotel owner and FBI informant, showed up at the Masjid al-Ikhlas mosque under the name "Maqsood", talking of jihad and violence. Hussain, a Pakistani immigrant, agreed to serve as an FBI informant after being arrested in 2002 over a scam involving driver's licenses. Four men expressed interest to Hussain. They planned to both bomb the Riverdale Temple and nearby Riverdale Jewish Center in the Bronx, and, using Stinger surface-to-air guided missiles, shoot down military planes flying out of a nearby air base.
On May 6, 2009, the men traveled to Stamford, Connecticut, to pick up what they believed to be a surface-to-air guided-missile system and three improvised explosive devices, all of which were incapable of actually being used. The men placed fake bombs wired to cell phones in three separate cars outside the Riverdale Temple and nearby Riverdale Jewish Center, both in the Riverdale community of Bronx.
The FBI informer also served as the driver of the suspects’ vehicle. Both the car bombs and the missiles were actually fakes given to the plotters with the help of an informant for the FBI. Each of the two homemade bombs was equipped with about 37 pounds of inert material designed to look like C-4 plastic explosive, and "there was no danger to anyone," according to the FBI. The men were returning to their vehicle and heading to attack aircraft at the Stewart Air National Guard Base in Newburgh, New York, with the fake Stinger missiles when law enforcement stopped them.
4. Antonio Martinez
Date of Incident: December 8, 2010
Martinez was arrested in an FBI sting after agents said he tried to detonate a phony bomb outside a Maryland military recruitment center. The FBI began investigating Martinez in early October 2010 after an informant pointed out postings on Martinez's Facebook page.
Martinez's attorney said the lack of a recording of the informant's initial three conversations with Martinez is a sign the government was trying to obscure its role in developing the plot. It was in those conversations that Martinez first mentioned attacking the recruiting center, according to a criminal complaint.
Also according to his attorney, the government "induced him to be involved in an act which was clearly the design of the government and provided Martinez with the fake bomb".
5. Rezwan Ferdaus
Date of Incident: September 28, 2011
Federal prosecutors allege in court documents that Rezwan Ferdaus outlined an elaborate plan to undercover FBI agents posing as al-Qaeda operatives that involved the use of three drone aircraft carrying deadly payloads to attack and destroy federal government landmarks. Ferdaus was arrested after allegedly accepting delivery of materials, including three grenades, six Ak-47 assault rifles and a quantity of what he believed to be powerful C-4 explosives. U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz said all of the weaponry was in the control of undercover agents who were closely monitoring the plot's developments. She said the public was never in danger.
However, some legal organizations and Muslim groups have questioned whether Ferdaus, whose activities were carried out with two undercover FBI agents posing as terrorists, would have been able to carry out such a sophisticated plot if left to his own devices. In numerous previous cases in the US, the FBI has been accused of over-zealousness in its investigations and of entrapping people into terror plots who might otherwise not have carried out an attack. On April 19, 2011, undercover agents met with Ferdaus and questioned the "feasibility" of his plan. That raises the prospect that the FBI agents were somehow goading Ferdaus into more action.
At the same meeting the undercover agents also gave financial assistance for Ferdaus to travel to Washington on a scouting trip: a fact that raises the question of whether he would have made the trip without that financial help. The undercover agents also supplied thousands of dollars in cash for Ferdaus to buy the F-86 Sabre miniature plane to be used in an attack.
Analysis Of These 5 Attacks:
When looking at these plots, the most obvious connection between them (Other than the Muslim male connection) is that the FBI provided each of these "terrorists" with fake weapons, including fake explosives, to carry out the plots. Also, each of the terrorists attempted to carry out the plots with the aid of undercover FBI agents. It is unclear to what extent the FBI agents came up with the initial idea. However, it certainly is questionable whether any of these attacks would have occurred without the aid of the undercover FBI agents.
Before meeting up with the undercover FBI agents, most of these men had little to no criminal record and were guilty of no more than random terroristic thoughts. It is also very apparent that the undercover FBI agents allowed the "terrorists" to conclude a significant portion of the plots including attempting to detonate fake bombs.
While researching these and other "terrorist" attacks, I could not help but notice the lack of "terrorist" attacks from 2002-2008. I can't help but question whether the increase in these attacks is related to the term of office of President Obama, which began in January 2009.
As I chose to not make this article [political], I won't delve into such aspect any further. During this same time period, on December 25, 2009, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the "Underwear Bomber" attempted to detonate an explosive in his underwear as he sat 8 rows in front of me.
Analysis of the Underwear Bomber Incident:
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (Umar) allegedly received his bomb from Al Qaeda in Yemen and due to U.S. Intelligence Agencies "failing to connect the dots", was able to board flight 253 with a bomb. The U.S. Intelligence Agencies "failed to connect" the dots despite the fact that they had been warned by Umar's own father several months earlier that Umar was a threat.
Further, we are told that it was this "failing to connect the dots" that led to Umar boarding, despite the Congressional testimony of Patrick Kennedy (see his testimony here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jN_33ojupTc).
This testimony from Kennedy, the Under Secretary of State, indicated that a yet to be disclosed intelligence agency was tracking Umar, and wanted to track him into the U.S. to catch "bigger fish". Now how would such agency do that if it didn't allow Umar to board a plane heading to the U.S.?
What's also troubling is that nearly all of the mainstream U.S. media failed to even report on this Congressional testimony. The one newspaper that did, the Detroit News, has now erased the story from its archives. Of course, I witnessed Umar near the boarding gate of flight 253. He was escorted by a sharp dressed man, that spoke perfect American English without an accent and told the gate agent that Umar didn't have a passport, that he needed to board the plane, that he was from "Sudan, and we do this all the time".
My next question is who is the "we" that he was referring to. Obviously, I have to ask what sort of U.S. authority figure in Amsterdam could say that "we" let refugees on planes all of the time without passports and apparently, has the authority to make it happen. It seems that an undercover FBI agent would fit the bill.
Although Schiphol Airport has the most security cameras in the world, the airport audio and video remain unreleased under a court protective order.
In December 2010, Umar's stand-by attorney, Anthony Chambers reported to the Detroit Free Press that "The Government's own experts have indicated that the bomb was impossibly defective as it lacked a blasting cap". That story has now been erased from the Free Press archives.
Although pieces of the bomb laid all over the airline cabin near row 19, law enforcement officers made no effort to remove passengers from such area and passengers trampled through pieces of the bomb as they exited the plane.
The NPR interview of Jay Howard, the man who sat next to Umar, is very telling (see below) (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123821351. In this interview, Howard relates that the FBI told him not to talk about what happened and took all of his clothes that were covered with pieces of the bomb.
Although the FBI had samples of the bomb all over the airline, it seized all of his clothes to "test the bomb materials". I have to wonder if the FBI actually seized Mr. Howard's clothes in order to not let others test the bomb materials. In his NPR interview, Mr. Howard makes the following curious comment "I don't want to call him a terrorist because he hasn't been treated as a terrorist and it wasn't a national threat". Really Mr. Howard? Why wasn't it a National threat? Is this why the FBI told you not to talk about this too much?
Note that I am not saying that Jay Howard was involved in this lot, but only that he knows more than he is letting on.
Remember, after we exited the plane, we were taken to a baggage claim area where we stood with our carry on bags for an hour, not knowing if other bombs were located in the carry on bags. Law enforcement was not concerned, however. At this time, Umar had already exited the plane and told officers that "there is another bomb on board". Another man was taken into custody during this time, after a bomb sniffing dog found explosives in his carry on bag. The U.S. Government changed its story on who this man was 5 times before finally deciding to ignore the existence of the man entirely.
It's most likely that this man was an FBI undercover agent that provided Umar with his "bomb" and the bomb residue in his bag alerted the dog. In late 2010, Umar was charged with conspiring with "persons known and unknown" yet none of these persons have ever been named. Their involvement with the plot has never been explained.
Shouldn't such persons be on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted List? Shouldn't the FBI solicit the public to help identify such individuals, who should be some of the most wanted men in the world? Not if they are FBI agents.
There are very few differences between the Underwear Bomber incident and the 5 incidents I listed above. One difference being that this attack occurred on a plane which caused a fire that did indeed threaten lives. The other plots seemingly didn't risk injury to others. We must remember that the U.S. needs legitimate "terrorist attacks" to keep making money for those that benefit from the fraudulent war on terror.
Also, a legitimate airline attack was needed to usher in the body scanning machines. Without a failed bomb in a terrorist's clothes, the American public would never stand for the body scanning machines.
Lastly, the flight proceeded over Detroit before the "bomb" was lit, on Christmas Day, in order to make the biggest splash in the media. The U.S. Government's modus operandi of setting up these attacks with fake bombs and without risking injury to others was seemingly achieved. This led to Janet Napolitano's explicit comment that "the system worked" when referring to this attack.
Janet knows what happened here, and so do I. Hopefully, I have convinced [others] that read this post that the U.S. Government, via its intelligence agencies, gave Umar a fake bomb and escorted him through security in order to assure a fake "terrorist attack".
This "terrorist" attack occurred in order to continue padding the wallets of those that benefit from the war on terror and its repulsive body scanners. Would this plot have happened without the aid of the unnamed U.S. Intelligence Agency that allowed Umar to board, provided Umar with his fake bomb and God knows whatever else? Not a chance.
I sit here writing this article a mere 30 minutes from Dearborn, Michigan, which has the largest segment of Muslims in the U.S. I realize that if the U.S. were truly in danger of terrorist attacks from Muslims, this area should be in jeopardy of suicide and car bombings that frequently occur in the middle east. These attacks do not occur here. I know why, and I ask that you also ask yourself why.
Those that are hopeful that the upcoming trial will reveal anything of this sort should think again. Umar is representing himself and thereby refusing to let standy-by attorney Chambers use the entrapment defense (that he told me he would) if he was allowed to. This action by Umar is inexplicable, unless of course he is involved in the plot, has been threatened or promised a lenient sentence. I don't know which, but there seemingly is no other explanation. Obviously, there is more to this story than the FBI is telling us.
Filed under
Antonio Martinez,
Kurt Haskell,
Mohamed Mohamud,
Rezwan Ferdaus,
Sami Samir Hassoun,
Shahed Hussain,
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab,
Underwear Bomber
by Winter Patriot
on Sunday, October 02, 2011
[
link |
| home
]
| home
]
Kurt Haskell : Forged Passport In Underwear Bomber Case?
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Forged Passport In Underwear Bomber Case?
By Kurt Haskell | September 27, 2011
I spent much of this evening reading court documents from the underwear bomber (Umar) case. For those that are interested, you can read them at:
http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/hpc/
There are many gems in the documents, but I'll only focus on one of them tonight.
While reading the documents, I found what I believe to be another smoking gun. Since day one when Lori and I exited flight 253, I've maintained that Umar boarded flight 253 with the help of a sharp dressed man and WITHOUT A PASSPORT. Early on in this case, Judge Edmunds issued a protective order forbidding either side from discussing any of the evidence in the case. However, that didn't stop the U.S. Government from releasing propaganda pictures into the media. The most famous picture is a picture of Umar with law enforcement on the plane. The two that were the most obvious frauds were the picture of Umar's minimally damaged underwear and the picture of Umar's passport. The passport picture was released for no other reason then to attempt to discredit my eyewitness testimony. In no other case (to my knowledge) has the government released a picture of some one's passport to the media. I have taken great offense to the release of the passport and it is with great pleasure that I now believe I can show it was a fake. Interestingly enough, stand-by attorney Chambers indicated at the July 7, 2011 hearing that he had just received a copy of Umar's passport. Chambers referred to this (and some other evidence) document as "significant evidence". We must now ask why it is considered "significant evidence" by Chambers. I also have to wonder why such a seemingly insignificant document like a passport was withheld for 18 months from the defense (Maybe it took that long to create a good fake?).
When I looked for the picture of Umar's passport tonight, it was not easy to find. I did however, manage to find a copy of it here:
http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=6651
I encourage everyone to take a very good look at Umar's signature, particularly the "m" and the "a" in Umar. Also note that it doesn't include his last name. Further, the picture doesn't particularly look like Umar and seems to show a man with a receding hairline. At this time, I will leave a discussion of the picture for another day.
Now take a look at this document filed by Umar and written in his own handwriting:
http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/hpc/docs/10.Defendant_Motion_for_Detention_Hearing.pdf
Note that the "a's" are completely different in that the "a" in the passport photo has a closed loop while in the court document, the "a's" are open at the top. Further, note that Umar's "m" is significantly larger than the "a" is in the passport photo. Also, note that the "m's" in the court document look significantly different then the "m" in the passport. Specifically, the "m's" in the court document are the same size as the "a's" are and are significantly more slanted and pointed then the "m's" in the passport. In the court document, you can also see that most of the "m's" contain a side arm while the "m" in the passport photo does not. Lastly, note that the passport appears to have very neat handwriting while the court document has very sloppy handwriting.
Of course, the conclusion is that one of the documents is a fake. It is much more likely that the passport photo is a fake as there would be no legitimate reason to fake the court document. If the passport photo, is in fact a fake, we must ask why the government would release a fake passport photo. The only logical explanation is that a real passport did not exist. Obviously, the U.S. Government felt a need early on to release a fraudulent passport to discredit my eyewitness account. The reason for the attempt to discredit me is obvious and points directly at my theory in this case.
Umar was escorted through security without a passport and with an intentionally defective bomb in order to stage a false flag terrorist attack.
Note that in this court document, Chambers has indicated that U.S. Government agents have given contradictory statements (see item 9):
http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/hpc/docs/05.Motion_for_Disclosure_of_Grand_Jury_Materials.pdf
Surprise, surprise, U.S. Government agents are giving false statements. Why should we be surprised when their employer releases a fraudulent document?
*** I am editing this post this morning (9-28-11) to make one comment about the passport photo. The passport appears to be issued on September 15, 2005. Umar was age 18 on that date. The man in the passport piture clearly has a receding hairline (and to me doesn't look like Umar). The possibility of an 18 year old having a receding hairline is remote at best. It appears that the U.S. Government has once again been exposed in this matter.
*** Second edit: See below for a copy of my fax to Anthony Chambers:
Facsimile Cover Sheet
To: Anthony Chambers, Esq.
Company:
Phone:
Fax: 313-xxx-xxxx
From: Kurt R. Haskell, J.D., L.L.M.
Company: Haskell Law Firm, P.C.
Phone: 734-285-5625
Fax: 734-281-0969
Date: September 28, 2011
Pages including this cover page:
3, RE: Umar Farouk Adbulmutallab
Comments: Tony, I am assuming that since I haven’t heard from you that I will not be testifying. I assume that to mean that Umar has chosen to not use the entrapment/excessive government involvement defense. That is unfortunate and leads me to believe that Umar is complicit with the government for some reason. Nonetheless, I am attaching my recent blog post to make you aware of some passport anomalies. Obviously, I was there when Umar was posed as a Sudanese refugee and boarded without a passport. Thus, I know that he didn’t have a passport. I doubt that you will have enough control in the trial to admit the passport anomalies into evidence. However, I am providing this evidence to you for impeachment purposes on the off chance that you can use it. I know there is a great deal of evidence in this case and I just wanted to make you aware of this information. Good luck with the trial. I am not envious of your position. I will be there whenever my schedule allows.
By Kurt Haskell | September 27, 2011
I spent much of this evening reading court documents from the underwear bomber (Umar) case. For those that are interested, you can read them at:
http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/hpc/
There are many gems in the documents, but I'll only focus on one of them tonight.
While reading the documents, I found what I believe to be another smoking gun. Since day one when Lori and I exited flight 253, I've maintained that Umar boarded flight 253 with the help of a sharp dressed man and WITHOUT A PASSPORT. Early on in this case, Judge Edmunds issued a protective order forbidding either side from discussing any of the evidence in the case. However, that didn't stop the U.S. Government from releasing propaganda pictures into the media. The most famous picture is a picture of Umar with law enforcement on the plane. The two that were the most obvious frauds were the picture of Umar's minimally damaged underwear and the picture of Umar's passport. The passport picture was released for no other reason then to attempt to discredit my eyewitness testimony. In no other case (to my knowledge) has the government released a picture of some one's passport to the media. I have taken great offense to the release of the passport and it is with great pleasure that I now believe I can show it was a fake. Interestingly enough, stand-by attorney Chambers indicated at the July 7, 2011 hearing that he had just received a copy of Umar's passport. Chambers referred to this (and some other evidence) document as "significant evidence". We must now ask why it is considered "significant evidence" by Chambers. I also have to wonder why such a seemingly insignificant document like a passport was withheld for 18 months from the defense (Maybe it took that long to create a good fake?).
When I looked for the picture of Umar's passport tonight, it was not easy to find. I did however, manage to find a copy of it here:
http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=6651
I encourage everyone to take a very good look at Umar's signature, particularly the "m" and the "a" in Umar. Also note that it doesn't include his last name. Further, the picture doesn't particularly look like Umar and seems to show a man with a receding hairline. At this time, I will leave a discussion of the picture for another day.
Now take a look at this document filed by Umar and written in his own handwriting:
http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/hpc/docs/10.Defendant_Motion_for_Detention_Hearing.pdf
Note that the "a's" are completely different in that the "a" in the passport photo has a closed loop while in the court document, the "a's" are open at the top. Further, note that Umar's "m" is significantly larger than the "a" is in the passport photo. Also, note that the "m's" in the court document look significantly different then the "m" in the passport. Specifically, the "m's" in the court document are the same size as the "a's" are and are significantly more slanted and pointed then the "m's" in the passport. In the court document, you can also see that most of the "m's" contain a side arm while the "m" in the passport photo does not. Lastly, note that the passport appears to have very neat handwriting while the court document has very sloppy handwriting.
Of course, the conclusion is that one of the documents is a fake. It is much more likely that the passport photo is a fake as there would be no legitimate reason to fake the court document. If the passport photo, is in fact a fake, we must ask why the government would release a fake passport photo. The only logical explanation is that a real passport did not exist. Obviously, the U.S. Government felt a need early on to release a fraudulent passport to discredit my eyewitness account. The reason for the attempt to discredit me is obvious and points directly at my theory in this case.
Umar was escorted through security without a passport and with an intentionally defective bomb in order to stage a false flag terrorist attack.
Note that in this court document, Chambers has indicated that U.S. Government agents have given contradictory statements (see item 9):
http://www.mied.uscourts.gov/hpc/docs/05.Motion_for_Disclosure_of_Grand_Jury_Materials.pdf
Surprise, surprise, U.S. Government agents are giving false statements. Why should we be surprised when their employer releases a fraudulent document?
*** I am editing this post this morning (9-28-11) to make one comment about the passport photo. The passport appears to be issued on September 15, 2005. Umar was age 18 on that date. The man in the passport piture clearly has a receding hairline (and to me doesn't look like Umar). The possibility of an 18 year old having a receding hairline is remote at best. It appears that the U.S. Government has once again been exposed in this matter.
*** Second edit: See below for a copy of my fax to Anthony Chambers:
Facsimile Cover Sheet
To: Anthony Chambers, Esq.
Company:
Phone:
Fax: 313-xxx-xxxx
From: Kurt R. Haskell, J.D., L.L.M.
Company: Haskell Law Firm, P.C.
Phone: 734-285-5625
Fax: 734-281-0969
Date: September 28, 2011
Pages including this cover page:
3, RE: Umar Farouk Adbulmutallab
Comments: Tony, I am assuming that since I haven’t heard from you that I will not be testifying. I assume that to mean that Umar has chosen to not use the entrapment/excessive government involvement defense. That is unfortunate and leads me to believe that Umar is complicit with the government for some reason. Nonetheless, I am attaching my recent blog post to make you aware of some passport anomalies. Obviously, I was there when Umar was posed as a Sudanese refugee and boarded without a passport. Thus, I know that he didn’t have a passport. I doubt that you will have enough control in the trial to admit the passport anomalies into evidence. However, I am providing this evidence to you for impeachment purposes on the off chance that you can use it. I know there is a great deal of evidence in this case and I just wanted to make you aware of this information. Good luck with the trial. I am not envious of your position. I will be there whenever my schedule allows.
Filed under
Kurt Haskell,
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab,
Underwear Bomber
by Winter Patriot
on Tuesday, September 27, 2011
[
link |
| home
]
| home
]
Kurt Haskell : The Colossal Deceit Known As The Underwear Bomber Case
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
The Colossal Deceit Known As The Underwear Bomber Case
Kurt Haskell | September 13, 2011
With jury selection set to begin in the Underwear Bomber Trial set to begin tomorrow, I've spent the evening reminiscing about Christmas Day 2009 and the 21 months since. The Underwear Bomber attack has fundamentally changed my life. Not in the way most would think, but it has destroyed any faith I've had in the U.S. Government, the media and this country as a whole. To say that I believe the government is corrupt and the media is complicit doesn't fully explain my beliefs. Not only have I come to those conclusions, but I've witnessed that an ordinary person who sees something important can be silenced despite his efforts to spread the truth. Such is the Underwear Bomber case. I can do nothing but laugh at the TSA's new policy of "If you see something say something." That is exactly what I did, and not only did the U.S. Government not want to hear what I had to say, but it actively lied about it, attempted to get me to change my story, and hid, by withholding (secret government) evidence or putting a protective order on the evidence and nearly everything that would support my eyewitness account.
Where are we now? We now have The Underwear Bomber (Umar) representing himself with the help of standby attorney Chambers. Attorney Chambers has indicated to me that if he were Umar's attorney, that the defense would be entrapment and that I would be a key witness. Of course, such a defense would expose the U.S. Government's involvement in the plot. It is much too convenient to have Umar represent himself and be in charge of what the defense will be, what evidence is presented, what witnesses are called and what questions each witness is asked. A trial with Umar representing himself will leave the relevant facts of this case unknown for generations. I can't help but think that Umar fired his attorneys for a reason other than he is a crazy terrorist. It is much too convenient that the entity that staged the event, also controls the evidence, what information is leaked to the media, who the prosecutors are, and the prison where Umar has sbeen staying at for the last 21 months. Let's not overlook the fact that the U.S. Government has admitted to waterboarding and torturing terrorists. Do you see the pieces of the puzzle forming a clear picture yet?
Make no mistake that Umar did in fact attempt to detonate a device (although it was a defective device) on Flight 253. He is not innocent. It remains to be discovered whether my belief that Umar is complicit with the "theatre" going on before our eyes came about before or after the event of Christmas Day 2009. It really is not important except that you must understand that he is now complicit in covering up the true story of Christmas Day 2009. There is no other explanation as to why Umar is representing himself and rejecting the entrapment defense (Which I have discovered he will do).
For those that are still skeptical of my claims, please realize that I do not make my claims without a great deal of thought and research. My firm belief is that Umar was escorted around security and given an intentionally defective bomb by a U.S. intelligence agent. The bomb was never intended to detonate, but merely intended to create a "simulated terrorist attack" or a "false flag attack" if you will. In December of 2009, the U.S. Government hadn't seen a terrorist attack in 8 years, It was getting more and more difficult to spend hundreds of billions a year on terrorism and to continue to fight two fraudulent wars based on terrorism. Those making their livings off of the war on terror didn't want to lose their cash cow. Enter Umar the Underwear Bomber. A second benefit of a failed bomb being found in Umar's underwear, was to enable body scanning machines to be placed in every airport. How convenient for Michael Chertoff, a former head of the DHS, to have ties to the body scanning companies. I doubt that this was any coincidence. Once again, billions of dollars would flow from the U.S. Government for body scanning machines that were needed to protect us.
What we are now left with are the bits and pieces of the Underwear Bomber case that can form a clear picture of what happened that day. For those of you attempting to put it all together, please take your time and think about the evidence instead of glossing over it and continuing to remain in denial. The truth is that your U.S. Government staged a false terrorist attack in order to steal your tax dollars and your 4th Amendment Rights to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures. Please thoroughly consider the following with an open mind and think about why this sort of behavior must stop now:
My thoughts on this case and the list of anomalies that differ from the official version of events were made through: (a) numerous discussions with other passengers, (b) my own eyewitness account, (c) discussions with Umar's standby attorney, (d) hundreds of articles on the story (e) evidence provided to me by others "in the know" or just other concerned citizens, and (f) from the official record at hearings I attended.
Anomalies of the case in no particular order:
1. In December 2010, Chambers told the Detroit Free Press that the Government's own explosives experts indicate that the bomb was impossibly defective. The Free Press later erased this article from its online site, but did not erase earlier underwear bomber stories.
2. The FBI has admitted to supplying the Portland Christmas Tree Bomber and the Wrigley Field Bomber with intentionally defective bombs shortly after the underwear bomber event.
3. Janet Napolitano's comment that "the system worked" was a Freudian slip.
4. The plane taxied to the gate. The passengers were not allowed off of the plane for 20-30 minutes (Was the bomb still on the plane?). There was bomb material that was supposedly explosive all over the cabin of the plane. Nobody took any action to make sure the passengers were safe or that the "explosives" were of no danger to the passengers. This is evidence of foreknowledge that there was no danger to the passengers.
5. TSA admitted knowledge of the threat while the flight was over Canada/Atlantic Ocean. No measures were taken to notify the pilot or to divert the flight for an emergency landing elsewhere.
6. My eyewitness account of the sharp dressed man and the related evidence as to this man. There is no other likely explanation for this man except for government involvement. The airport video has never been released and remains under protective order of the court.
7. The government's continued release of Umar's passport picture through the media. This was done for no other reason that to attempt to discredit me. Why such an effort to show a passport picture all over the media? In no other case has a passport picture been shown in the media. A copy of the supposed "passport" of Umar, however, was not released to Chambers until June 2011. The release of the passport to standby defense counsel was delayed 19 months in order to limit the amount of time Chambers would need to have experts verify its authenticity.
8. The explanation for the cameraman is near unbelieveable. He started filming the sky just before the attack started and then he turned to film the entire attack from beginning to end. We all thought we were going to die. The last thing on anyone's mind at that time was to film something.
9. On 1-5-10 Breibart posted an article that indicated the Government had viewed over 200 hours of video from the airport and it showed no evidence of an accomplice. This article is contradicted by the 1-22-10 article of ABC News by Brian Ross that indicated that "The government is looking into the identity of a man that helped Umar at Schiphol." The article fails to mention that this "sharp dressed man" escorted Umar through security without a passpot and instead tries to paint this man as Al Qaeda. The government is contradicting itself in both of these stories and is attemptin weak coverups in each story.
10. Umar is charged with conspiracy. The accomplices names or contributions are never mentioned. They are not listed as wanted and they are never discussed. This is because they are U.S. Intelligence agents.
11. Customs spokeperson Ron Smith changed the official story about the 2nd man taken into custody in Detroit 5 times. Then he sent a half hearted apoogetic email to the media. My story as to this man has never changed. Ron Smith eventually gave up lying and quit talking about this man who was witnessed by nearly all of the passengers.
12. Why were pictures of Umar's underwear constantly released to the media? These pictures show Umar's underwear is largely intact. I have information from a credible source that due to this incident, Umar "Will never have any kids". This fact is not in line with undamaged underwear. The continued release of the underwear was used as a propaganda piece to reinforce the deceit.
13. The prosecution has continued to block evidence from Umar's standby attorney and in some cases, has provided it late. Why? If Umar was a terrorist nut, what is it that the government does not want the defense to see? It seems to me that if the official story is true, then this is an open and shut case. It appears that the government feels a need to insulate itself from civil cases filed by the passengers.
14. Why has Chambers repeatedly indicated that Umar has a very valid defense? The answer is the entrapment defense.
15. Portions of the Patriot Act were set to expire just before Christmas Day 2009. The Congressional vote to extend them was delayed until February. Body scanning machines were already built and sitting in warehouses. Michael Chertoff, the former head of the Department of Homeland Security has ties to the body scanning manufacturers. The U.S. had no terrorist attacks from 2001 until Christmas Day 2009. A new terrorist attack was needed to get the body scanning machines in the airports.
16. If flight 253 had crashed, nobody would know that the bomb was in Umar's underwear. An unsuccesful staged attack was necessary to show where the bomb was held. This was needed to sell the American public that body scanners were needed to prevent similar future attacks.
17. The story of Umar obtaining his bomb in another country and wearing it to Schiphol is not logical. It is much more likely that he was given the defective bomb at or near the airport. It is likely that the second man taken into custody in Detroit gave him the bomb at Schiphol. My theory is that the bomb sniffing dog (which we witnessed) in Detroit sniffed bomb residue in his bag after we landed.
18. Umar could have been stopped in Amsterdam after boarding and been charged with various charges that would have resulted in a life sentence. Instead he was allowed to fly into U.S. airspace and light his bomb there, over Detroit, on Christmas Day in order to make this a MUCH large media story to usher in the body scanners.
19. How did Umar pick his window seat over the gas tank when he paid cash for his ticket? (You must buy your ticket with credit in order to pick your seat).
20. Other terrorist attack videos are released within hours. The relevant video in this case has never been released. Note that Schiphol airport has more cameras than any airport in the world.
21. The bomb was lit in the cabin and not in the bathroom so that it could be filmed and make more of a media event than a dud bomb lit in a bathroom.
22. Obama's "failed to connect the dots speech" is discredited by the Congressional testimony of Patrick Kennedy of the State Department. Kennedy indicated that, in so many words, that the government was tracking Umar and did not revoke his visa in order to track him into the U.S. This is almost, but not quite an admission that he was let into the U.S. on purpose.
23. The Congressional testimony of Michael Leiter indicated that the U.S. Government frequently lets terrorists into the U.S.
24. In early 2010, a Mr. Wolf appeared on the Keith Olberman Show and indicated that the Obama administration was looking into the possibility that this was an intentional plot by a U.S. intelligence agency.
25. Watch the Congressional testimony of Patrick Kennedy (available on the internet) and watch how he does vocabulary gymnastics to avoid saying that this was an intentional plot by U.S. intelligence.
26. Dutch military police initially indicated that Umar did not go through normal security measures. This was only reported once.
27. Why did a passenger call me in early January 2010 and attempt to convince me that I did not see Umar being escorted around security, but I instead witnessed a minor child being taken through security. This was untrue. I later found out that such passenger works for a contractor that receives a great deal of business from the Department of Defense.
28. Why does the mainstream media continue to not investigate this story and continue to not report my eyewitness account?
29. A second passenger contacted me and confirmed my acount of the Sharp Dressed Man. She is scared and refuses to come forward.
30. Why have nearly all of the passengers refused to talk about this case?
31. Why were a great deal of the passengers, military personnel, government workers and government contractors?
32. Why did the prosecution indicate at a recent hearing that it was still withholding some evidence that was deemed to be secret (top seret?). What could be so secret if the government was not involved in the plot?
33. Why has the online Detroit Free Press site erased all underwear bomber articles that support my theory on the case, but retained older articles that support the official story?
It is unfortunate that the upcoming trial will be nothing but a farce and deceitful theatre to imbed lies in the minds of the sheeple.
Kurt Haskell | September 13, 2011
With jury selection set to begin in the Underwear Bomber Trial set to begin tomorrow, I've spent the evening reminiscing about Christmas Day 2009 and the 21 months since. The Underwear Bomber attack has fundamentally changed my life. Not in the way most would think, but it has destroyed any faith I've had in the U.S. Government, the media and this country as a whole. To say that I believe the government is corrupt and the media is complicit doesn't fully explain my beliefs. Not only have I come to those conclusions, but I've witnessed that an ordinary person who sees something important can be silenced despite his efforts to spread the truth. Such is the Underwear Bomber case. I can do nothing but laugh at the TSA's new policy of "If you see something say something." That is exactly what I did, and not only did the U.S. Government not want to hear what I had to say, but it actively lied about it, attempted to get me to change my story, and hid, by withholding (secret government) evidence or putting a protective order on the evidence and nearly everything that would support my eyewitness account.
Where are we now? We now have The Underwear Bomber (Umar) representing himself with the help of standby attorney Chambers. Attorney Chambers has indicated to me that if he were Umar's attorney, that the defense would be entrapment and that I would be a key witness. Of course, such a defense would expose the U.S. Government's involvement in the plot. It is much too convenient to have Umar represent himself and be in charge of what the defense will be, what evidence is presented, what witnesses are called and what questions each witness is asked. A trial with Umar representing himself will leave the relevant facts of this case unknown for generations. I can't help but think that Umar fired his attorneys for a reason other than he is a crazy terrorist. It is much too convenient that the entity that staged the event, also controls the evidence, what information is leaked to the media, who the prosecutors are, and the prison where Umar has sbeen staying at for the last 21 months. Let's not overlook the fact that the U.S. Government has admitted to waterboarding and torturing terrorists. Do you see the pieces of the puzzle forming a clear picture yet?
Make no mistake that Umar did in fact attempt to detonate a device (although it was a defective device) on Flight 253. He is not innocent. It remains to be discovered whether my belief that Umar is complicit with the "theatre" going on before our eyes came about before or after the event of Christmas Day 2009. It really is not important except that you must understand that he is now complicit in covering up the true story of Christmas Day 2009. There is no other explanation as to why Umar is representing himself and rejecting the entrapment defense (Which I have discovered he will do).
For those that are still skeptical of my claims, please realize that I do not make my claims without a great deal of thought and research. My firm belief is that Umar was escorted around security and given an intentionally defective bomb by a U.S. intelligence agent. The bomb was never intended to detonate, but merely intended to create a "simulated terrorist attack" or a "false flag attack" if you will. In December of 2009, the U.S. Government hadn't seen a terrorist attack in 8 years, It was getting more and more difficult to spend hundreds of billions a year on terrorism and to continue to fight two fraudulent wars based on terrorism. Those making their livings off of the war on terror didn't want to lose their cash cow. Enter Umar the Underwear Bomber. A second benefit of a failed bomb being found in Umar's underwear, was to enable body scanning machines to be placed in every airport. How convenient for Michael Chertoff, a former head of the DHS, to have ties to the body scanning companies. I doubt that this was any coincidence. Once again, billions of dollars would flow from the U.S. Government for body scanning machines that were needed to protect us.
What we are now left with are the bits and pieces of the Underwear Bomber case that can form a clear picture of what happened that day. For those of you attempting to put it all together, please take your time and think about the evidence instead of glossing over it and continuing to remain in denial. The truth is that your U.S. Government staged a false terrorist attack in order to steal your tax dollars and your 4th Amendment Rights to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures. Please thoroughly consider the following with an open mind and think about why this sort of behavior must stop now:
My thoughts on this case and the list of anomalies that differ from the official version of events were made through: (a) numerous discussions with other passengers, (b) my own eyewitness account, (c) discussions with Umar's standby attorney, (d) hundreds of articles on the story (e) evidence provided to me by others "in the know" or just other concerned citizens, and (f) from the official record at hearings I attended.
Anomalies of the case in no particular order:
1. In December 2010, Chambers told the Detroit Free Press that the Government's own explosives experts indicate that the bomb was impossibly defective. The Free Press later erased this article from its online site, but did not erase earlier underwear bomber stories.
2. The FBI has admitted to supplying the Portland Christmas Tree Bomber and the Wrigley Field Bomber with intentionally defective bombs shortly after the underwear bomber event.
3. Janet Napolitano's comment that "the system worked" was a Freudian slip.
4. The plane taxied to the gate. The passengers were not allowed off of the plane for 20-30 minutes (Was the bomb still on the plane?). There was bomb material that was supposedly explosive all over the cabin of the plane. Nobody took any action to make sure the passengers were safe or that the "explosives" were of no danger to the passengers. This is evidence of foreknowledge that there was no danger to the passengers.
5. TSA admitted knowledge of the threat while the flight was over Canada/Atlantic Ocean. No measures were taken to notify the pilot or to divert the flight for an emergency landing elsewhere.
6. My eyewitness account of the sharp dressed man and the related evidence as to this man. There is no other likely explanation for this man except for government involvement. The airport video has never been released and remains under protective order of the court.
7. The government's continued release of Umar's passport picture through the media. This was done for no other reason that to attempt to discredit me. Why such an effort to show a passport picture all over the media? In no other case has a passport picture been shown in the media. A copy of the supposed "passport" of Umar, however, was not released to Chambers until June 2011. The release of the passport to standby defense counsel was delayed 19 months in order to limit the amount of time Chambers would need to have experts verify its authenticity.
8. The explanation for the cameraman is near unbelieveable. He started filming the sky just before the attack started and then he turned to film the entire attack from beginning to end. We all thought we were going to die. The last thing on anyone's mind at that time was to film something.
9. On 1-5-10 Breibart posted an article that indicated the Government had viewed over 200 hours of video from the airport and it showed no evidence of an accomplice. This article is contradicted by the 1-22-10 article of ABC News by Brian Ross that indicated that "The government is looking into the identity of a man that helped Umar at Schiphol." The article fails to mention that this "sharp dressed man" escorted Umar through security without a passpot and instead tries to paint this man as Al Qaeda. The government is contradicting itself in both of these stories and is attemptin weak coverups in each story.
10. Umar is charged with conspiracy. The accomplices names or contributions are never mentioned. They are not listed as wanted and they are never discussed. This is because they are U.S. Intelligence agents.
11. Customs spokeperson Ron Smith changed the official story about the 2nd man taken into custody in Detroit 5 times. Then he sent a half hearted apoogetic email to the media. My story as to this man has never changed. Ron Smith eventually gave up lying and quit talking about this man who was witnessed by nearly all of the passengers.
12. Why were pictures of Umar's underwear constantly released to the media? These pictures show Umar's underwear is largely intact. I have information from a credible source that due to this incident, Umar "Will never have any kids". This fact is not in line with undamaged underwear. The continued release of the underwear was used as a propaganda piece to reinforce the deceit.
13. The prosecution has continued to block evidence from Umar's standby attorney and in some cases, has provided it late. Why? If Umar was a terrorist nut, what is it that the government does not want the defense to see? It seems to me that if the official story is true, then this is an open and shut case. It appears that the government feels a need to insulate itself from civil cases filed by the passengers.
14. Why has Chambers repeatedly indicated that Umar has a very valid defense? The answer is the entrapment defense.
15. Portions of the Patriot Act were set to expire just before Christmas Day 2009. The Congressional vote to extend them was delayed until February. Body scanning machines were already built and sitting in warehouses. Michael Chertoff, the former head of the Department of Homeland Security has ties to the body scanning manufacturers. The U.S. had no terrorist attacks from 2001 until Christmas Day 2009. A new terrorist attack was needed to get the body scanning machines in the airports.
16. If flight 253 had crashed, nobody would know that the bomb was in Umar's underwear. An unsuccesful staged attack was necessary to show where the bomb was held. This was needed to sell the American public that body scanners were needed to prevent similar future attacks.
17. The story of Umar obtaining his bomb in another country and wearing it to Schiphol is not logical. It is much more likely that he was given the defective bomb at or near the airport. It is likely that the second man taken into custody in Detroit gave him the bomb at Schiphol. My theory is that the bomb sniffing dog (which we witnessed) in Detroit sniffed bomb residue in his bag after we landed.
18. Umar could have been stopped in Amsterdam after boarding and been charged with various charges that would have resulted in a life sentence. Instead he was allowed to fly into U.S. airspace and light his bomb there, over Detroit, on Christmas Day in order to make this a MUCH large media story to usher in the body scanners.
19. How did Umar pick his window seat over the gas tank when he paid cash for his ticket? (You must buy your ticket with credit in order to pick your seat).
20. Other terrorist attack videos are released within hours. The relevant video in this case has never been released. Note that Schiphol airport has more cameras than any airport in the world.
21. The bomb was lit in the cabin and not in the bathroom so that it could be filmed and make more of a media event than a dud bomb lit in a bathroom.
22. Obama's "failed to connect the dots speech" is discredited by the Congressional testimony of Patrick Kennedy of the State Department. Kennedy indicated that, in so many words, that the government was tracking Umar and did not revoke his visa in order to track him into the U.S. This is almost, but not quite an admission that he was let into the U.S. on purpose.
23. The Congressional testimony of Michael Leiter indicated that the U.S. Government frequently lets terrorists into the U.S.
24. In early 2010, a Mr. Wolf appeared on the Keith Olberman Show and indicated that the Obama administration was looking into the possibility that this was an intentional plot by a U.S. intelligence agency.
25. Watch the Congressional testimony of Patrick Kennedy (available on the internet) and watch how he does vocabulary gymnastics to avoid saying that this was an intentional plot by U.S. intelligence.
26. Dutch military police initially indicated that Umar did not go through normal security measures. This was only reported once.
27. Why did a passenger call me in early January 2010 and attempt to convince me that I did not see Umar being escorted around security, but I instead witnessed a minor child being taken through security. This was untrue. I later found out that such passenger works for a contractor that receives a great deal of business from the Department of Defense.
28. Why does the mainstream media continue to not investigate this story and continue to not report my eyewitness account?
29. A second passenger contacted me and confirmed my acount of the Sharp Dressed Man. She is scared and refuses to come forward.
30. Why have nearly all of the passengers refused to talk about this case?
31. Why were a great deal of the passengers, military personnel, government workers and government contractors?
32. Why did the prosecution indicate at a recent hearing that it was still withholding some evidence that was deemed to be secret (top seret?). What could be so secret if the government was not involved in the plot?
33. Why has the online Detroit Free Press site erased all underwear bomber articles that support my theory on the case, but retained older articles that support the official story?
It is unfortunate that the upcoming trial will be nothing but a farce and deceitful theatre to imbed lies in the minds of the sheeple.
Filed under
Kurt Haskell,
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab,
Underwear Bomber
by Winter Patriot
on Tuesday, September 13, 2011
[
link |
| home
]
| home
]
Lori Haskell : Fox News Interview Part 2
Tuesday, February 01, 2011
Fox News Interview Part 2
By Lori Haskell | February 1, 2011
After we interviewed at the courthouse, Fox called Kurt the next day to see if they could come to the office to continue the conversation. I really don't like being on TV, but they wanted us both, so I participated and let Kurt do the bulk of the talking. Glad someone mainstream media is FINALLY reporting this. Go Amy Lange!
By Lori Haskell | February 1, 2011
After we interviewed at the courthouse, Fox called Kurt the next day to see if they could come to the office to continue the conversation. I really don't like being on TV, but they wanted us both, so I participated and let Kurt do the bulk of the talking. Glad someone mainstream media is FINALLY reporting this. Go Amy Lange!
Filed under
Kurt Haskell,
Lori Haskell,
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab,
Underwear Bomber
by Winter Patriot
on Tuesday, February 01, 2011
[
link |
| home
]
| home
]
Lori Haskell : Updates........
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Updates
By Lori Haskell | January 30, 2011
Kurt and I went to Umar's status conference this week. Being in a court room, not being the "attorney" for one of the parties, is weird in itself. Sitting in the back watching the proceedings is odd to me. Kurt and I got there early and sat in the hallway until the doors opened. Once the doors opened, we went in and took a seat. From what I could tell, the only other people there besides us were the media, attorneys for the other side, and I believe, some CIA agents. Kurt was asked by a reporter who he was with (I think they thought we were reporters) and he told her that we were passengers, which sparked her interest. She was from The Free Press and talked to us a lot before the hearing, during it, and in the hall afterwards.
Nothing we said to her was reported in the Free Press, which did not surprise us since mainstream media seems to steer clear of reporting our story. I don't blame the reporters though, I think they are truly interested, but when they give the story to their higherups, the stories are shot down because we are speaking out against the government, who helps fund them/controls them.........
Anyway, we walked outside and it was kinda crazy. Cameras flashing, video cameras everywhere. We talked to a bunch of TV stations, and Fox News was the only one to actually report having talked to us. I imagine Fox is able to report as they are a republican based station, and since we are speaking out against the government and the current administration is democrat, this makes it OK for Fox to show this stuff, and they are probably encouraged to do so.
Fox also contacted us the next day asking to come to the office, and filmed us for an hour talking about our different ideas and theories. This was aired as well, two days in a row, however, I cannot find this video online anywhere for some reason. Was Fox told not to air it online by someone? Hmmmm.
Anyway, back to the hearing. When Umar came out, it was really eerie. He was wearing a white t-shirt, just like the last time I saw him. Seeing him was really odd. I almost felt like I was taken back to that day, all the memories of how horrible I felt for months came rushing back to me. I think Kurt felt the same, as I looked at him and said "this is creepy" and he agreed. One result of the PTSD was nightmares and flashbacks to the event, and that night, I had a nightmare and a flashback again. Luckily, it was just the one night though and has not happened since.
We had drinks after work with a friend this week who knew nothing about all of this, and when telling her about the flight, I almost started crying, especially when I saw my telling the story was making Kurt slightly upset. It's so strange to me that what I went through still affects me so much. I remember Kurt sitting back down in his seat, after walking up the aisle saying "we are going to die" and how all I could think about was how upset my Mom would be and how I thought I was living in some bad horror movie. [...]
By Lori Haskell | January 30, 2011
Kurt and I went to Umar's status conference this week. Being in a court room, not being the "attorney" for one of the parties, is weird in itself. Sitting in the back watching the proceedings is odd to me. Kurt and I got there early and sat in the hallway until the doors opened. Once the doors opened, we went in and took a seat. From what I could tell, the only other people there besides us were the media, attorneys for the other side, and I believe, some CIA agents. Kurt was asked by a reporter who he was with (I think they thought we were reporters) and he told her that we were passengers, which sparked her interest. She was from The Free Press and talked to us a lot before the hearing, during it, and in the hall afterwards.
Nothing we said to her was reported in the Free Press, which did not surprise us since mainstream media seems to steer clear of reporting our story. I don't blame the reporters though, I think they are truly interested, but when they give the story to their higherups, the stories are shot down because we are speaking out against the government, who helps fund them/controls them.........
Anyway, we walked outside and it was kinda crazy. Cameras flashing, video cameras everywhere. We talked to a bunch of TV stations, and Fox News was the only one to actually report having talked to us. I imagine Fox is able to report as they are a republican based station, and since we are speaking out against the government and the current administration is democrat, this makes it OK for Fox to show this stuff, and they are probably encouraged to do so.
Fox also contacted us the next day asking to come to the office, and filmed us for an hour talking about our different ideas and theories. This was aired as well, two days in a row, however, I cannot find this video online anywhere for some reason. Was Fox told not to air it online by someone? Hmmmm.
Anyway, back to the hearing. When Umar came out, it was really eerie. He was wearing a white t-shirt, just like the last time I saw him. Seeing him was really odd. I almost felt like I was taken back to that day, all the memories of how horrible I felt for months came rushing back to me. I think Kurt felt the same, as I looked at him and said "this is creepy" and he agreed. One result of the PTSD was nightmares and flashbacks to the event, and that night, I had a nightmare and a flashback again. Luckily, it was just the one night though and has not happened since.
We had drinks after work with a friend this week who knew nothing about all of this, and when telling her about the flight, I almost started crying, especially when I saw my telling the story was making Kurt slightly upset. It's so strange to me that what I went through still affects me so much. I remember Kurt sitting back down in his seat, after walking up the aisle saying "we are going to die" and how all I could think about was how upset my Mom would be and how I thought I was living in some bad horror movie. [...]
Filed under
Kurt Haskell,
Lori Haskell,
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab,
Underwear Bomber
by Winter Patriot
on Sunday, January 30, 2011
[
link |
| home
]
| home
]
Kurt Haskell : Prosecutor's Trying To Block Use Of Evidence By Umar's Standby Attorney
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Prosecutor's Trying To Block Use Of Evidence By Umar's Standby Attorney
by Kurt Haskell | December 28, 2010
Ho-hum, just another story that supports my version of Flight 253 with Umar as a patsy:
http://www.freep.com/article/20101122/NEWS05/101122060/Feud-rages-over-underwear-bombing-evidence#ixzz17kENrZf0
This story just keeps getting better and better. First of all, what the heck is a standby attorney? You either have an attorney or you don't. Having an attorney allows you to have the attorney client privilege apply to all of your communications between the client and attorney. Under no circumstances can those communications be discovered by anyone or held against you in court. Does that apply to a standby attorney? Does that mean that Umar has an attorney or he doesn't? Why do I ask? A few weeks ago I went to visit Umar in prison to discuss his case. I was denied access because Umar had a "standby attorney" listed on his visitor sheet. Without that listing, I (allegedly) could have met with Umar and discussed his case.
Now to a discussion of this article. Judge Edmunds previously ordered that Umar's standby attorney, Anthony Chambers, could have access to all of the discovery materials for the case. For non-lawyers, discovery is the pre-trial process in which both sides obtain all of the evidence that might be used at trial. Logically, if an attorney is getting ready for a trial, his staff will help him with that preparation, and consequently, will have access to all of the discovery materials. The prosecutors are now attempting to block the request of Attorney Chambers to give his staff and various experts (who may testify for Umar) access to such materials. A denial of such a request would greatly damage any help Attorney Chambers may be able to provide Umar.
A question I have is, why try and block such a request if you have nothing to hide? Wasn't that the excuse the U.S. Government used when it started using illegal wiretaps? If you have nothing to hide, then don't worry about it. Again, this is just another tell to the truth that I've been repeating over the last year. I caught the U.S. Government with their hand in the cookie jar and it knows it. Now it must take every unjustified step to ensure that Umar doesn't receive a fair trial. For those of you that ask if it really matters, yes it does. A person can commit a crime and still be found not guilty. Umar could be found not guilty based on a defense of entrapment. Umar could also get off on the Outrageous Government Conduct Defense. Such a defense came into existence in the 1971 case of Greene v. United State, 454 F.2d 783. In ruling for the Defendant in that case, the court stated that "we do not believe that the Government may involve itself so directly and continuously over such a long period of time in the creation and maintenance of criminal operations, and yet prosecute its collaborators".
Hidden in this article is also this gem: Anthony Chambers needs to discuss the evidence with experts. Hmmm, I have to wonder what kind of experts? Anthony Chambers is apparently an expert in criminal law with 25 years experience. Thus, I don't see that he would have a need to consult with other attorneys to discuss the issues. The only other possibility, is that he needs to discuss evidence with experts in chemical composition, explosives and plane construction. Each being tied to the question of whether Umar's bomb was viable. As I stated in my post on 12-25-10, this question is the only question that matters. Apparently, after looking at the evidence and/or discussing the matter with Umar, Anthony Chambers questions exactly what I do about the bomb. He apparently feels the viability of the bomb is the entire case. Obviously, he must be questioning some sort of shady government evidence as to its viability. I am almost feeling sorry for the man that nearly killed me (via fire from a fake bomb). On deck for me this week will be a personal visit to the office of Attorney Anthony Chambers.
by Kurt Haskell | December 28, 2010
Ho-hum, just another story that supports my version of Flight 253 with Umar as a patsy:
http://www.freep.com/article/20101122/NEWS05/101122060/Feud-rages-over-underwear-bombing-evidence#ixzz17kENrZf0
This story just keeps getting better and better. First of all, what the heck is a standby attorney? You either have an attorney or you don't. Having an attorney allows you to have the attorney client privilege apply to all of your communications between the client and attorney. Under no circumstances can those communications be discovered by anyone or held against you in court. Does that apply to a standby attorney? Does that mean that Umar has an attorney or he doesn't? Why do I ask? A few weeks ago I went to visit Umar in prison to discuss his case. I was denied access because Umar had a "standby attorney" listed on his visitor sheet. Without that listing, I (allegedly) could have met with Umar and discussed his case.
Now to a discussion of this article. Judge Edmunds previously ordered that Umar's standby attorney, Anthony Chambers, could have access to all of the discovery materials for the case. For non-lawyers, discovery is the pre-trial process in which both sides obtain all of the evidence that might be used at trial. Logically, if an attorney is getting ready for a trial, his staff will help him with that preparation, and consequently, will have access to all of the discovery materials. The prosecutors are now attempting to block the request of Attorney Chambers to give his staff and various experts (who may testify for Umar) access to such materials. A denial of such a request would greatly damage any help Attorney Chambers may be able to provide Umar.
A question I have is, why try and block such a request if you have nothing to hide? Wasn't that the excuse the U.S. Government used when it started using illegal wiretaps? If you have nothing to hide, then don't worry about it. Again, this is just another tell to the truth that I've been repeating over the last year. I caught the U.S. Government with their hand in the cookie jar and it knows it. Now it must take every unjustified step to ensure that Umar doesn't receive a fair trial. For those of you that ask if it really matters, yes it does. A person can commit a crime and still be found not guilty. Umar could be found not guilty based on a defense of entrapment. Umar could also get off on the Outrageous Government Conduct Defense. Such a defense came into existence in the 1971 case of Greene v. United State, 454 F.2d 783. In ruling for the Defendant in that case, the court stated that "we do not believe that the Government may involve itself so directly and continuously over such a long period of time in the creation and maintenance of criminal operations, and yet prosecute its collaborators".
Hidden in this article is also this gem: Anthony Chambers needs to discuss the evidence with experts. Hmmm, I have to wonder what kind of experts? Anthony Chambers is apparently an expert in criminal law with 25 years experience. Thus, I don't see that he would have a need to consult with other attorneys to discuss the issues. The only other possibility, is that he needs to discuss evidence with experts in chemical composition, explosives and plane construction. Each being tied to the question of whether Umar's bomb was viable. As I stated in my post on 12-25-10, this question is the only question that matters. Apparently, after looking at the evidence and/or discussing the matter with Umar, Anthony Chambers questions exactly what I do about the bomb. He apparently feels the viability of the bomb is the entire case. Obviously, he must be questioning some sort of shady government evidence as to its viability. I am almost feeling sorry for the man that nearly killed me (via fire from a fake bomb). On deck for me this week will be a personal visit to the office of Attorney Anthony Chambers.
Filed under
Kurt Haskell,
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab,
Underwear Bomber
by Winter Patriot
on Tuesday, December 28, 2010
[
link |
| home
]
| home
]
Kurt Haskell : My Visit to See Umar
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
My Visit to See Umar
By Kurt Haskell | November 30, 2010
As I posted about a month or so ago, I have been attempting to meet Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab (AKA- The Underwear Bomber) in prison.
I initially contacted the Milan Prison holding Umar by phone. I was given an extension to a Ms. Rodriguez and left her several messages. She did not return any of my calls.
I put this on the back burner for awhile as I have been busy at the office. While on vacation in Las Vegas this weekend, I decided that I would try again when I got back to Michigan. Today was that day.
After my trial this morning, Shannon (An attorney in my office) and I drove to the Milan Prison. We met a guard who said he would attempt to have us meet Umar on the spot since we were there. I thought "sweet" as I wasn't expecting much from this visit.
We were told that we would have to talk to Ms. Rodriguez after her meeting ended in approximately 5 minutes. So we waited. When Ms. Rodriguez finished her meeting, the guard talked to her and showed her our I.D.'s and bar cards. The guard then came into our waiting room and told us that we would have to call to schedule a meeting with Umar. O.K., this is more of what I expected.
When we returned to the office, Shannon called the prison and was told that we could never meet with Umar unless he put us on his visitor list. She was further told that we could not meet with him as his potential attorneys either as he had a court appointed attorney listed on his visitor sheet.
We were told this in spite of the fact that it is well known that Umar does not have an attorney. As I have stated all along, the government will have to kill me to stop me from my relentless pursuit of the truth. Until I am successful, the government's deceit of the American public concerning the Underwear Bomber will continue.
By Kurt Haskell | November 30, 2010
As I posted about a month or so ago, I have been attempting to meet Umar Farouk Abdul Mutallab (AKA- The Underwear Bomber) in prison.
I initially contacted the Milan Prison holding Umar by phone. I was given an extension to a Ms. Rodriguez and left her several messages. She did not return any of my calls.
I put this on the back burner for awhile as I have been busy at the office. While on vacation in Las Vegas this weekend, I decided that I would try again when I got back to Michigan. Today was that day.
After my trial this morning, Shannon (An attorney in my office) and I drove to the Milan Prison. We met a guard who said he would attempt to have us meet Umar on the spot since we were there. I thought "sweet" as I wasn't expecting much from this visit.
We were told that we would have to talk to Ms. Rodriguez after her meeting ended in approximately 5 minutes. So we waited. When Ms. Rodriguez finished her meeting, the guard talked to her and showed her our I.D.'s and bar cards. The guard then came into our waiting room and told us that we would have to call to schedule a meeting with Umar. O.K., this is more of what I expected.
When we returned to the office, Shannon called the prison and was told that we could never meet with Umar unless he put us on his visitor list. She was further told that we could not meet with him as his potential attorneys either as he had a court appointed attorney listed on his visitor sheet.
We were told this in spite of the fact that it is well known that Umar does not have an attorney. As I have stated all along, the government will have to kill me to stop me from my relentless pursuit of the truth. Until I am successful, the government's deceit of the American public concerning the Underwear Bomber will continue.
Filed under
Kurt Haskell,
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab,
Underwear Bomber
by Winter Patriot
on Tuesday, November 30, 2010
[
link |
| home
]
| home
]
Kurt Haskell : WHY AN UNDERWEAR BOMBER TRIAL WITH AN ENTRAPMENT DEFENSE WOULD BE ONE OF THE GREATEST EVENTS IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Monday, September 13, 2010
WHY AN UNDERWEAR BOMBER TRIAL WITH AN ENTRAPMENT DEFENSE WOULD BE ONE OF THE GREATEST EVENTS IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
by Kurt Haskell | September 13, 2010
It has been nearly nine months since Lori and I were almost killed by the Underwear Bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. For the first few months, Lori and I were very vocal over the media blackout and corresponding cover up to the real story of the Christmas Day events. If anyone is not familiar with our experience, our story can be read here in this blog. For the past few months, we have chosen to sit back and watch as the trial, or lack thereof, plays out in the courthouse we regularly practice in. While the media blackout to the true events continues, the failed attack on our credibility has been replaced with deafening silence as to our eyewitness account. To us, this matter has never been about seeking vengeance against the Underwear Bomber. When taking our eyewitness account and adding it to the small amount of honest facts that have come out, one can only recognize the Underwear Bomber as a mere patsy. It is quite shocking that, thus far, the Underwear Bomber hasn't been forever silenced as other patsies that have come before him. What has led me to write this update is the following article:
http://www.freep.com/article/20100913/NEWS01/100913036/1318/Terror-suspect-fires-his-lawyers
It seems as though the Underwear Bomber has now decided to fire his attorneys and represent himself. I am actually not too surprised by this event. Being an attorney myself, I can see his attorneys trying to stuff a settlement down his throat while he argues in opposition that he was set up. Further, I must consider the following in realizing why this happened:
My nephew recently started law school. In August he had an orientation with a guest speaker. That speaker just happened to be none other than the Underwear Bomber prosecutor, Barbara McQuade. During such orientation, Attorney McQuade indicated that she has a case in which certain information can only be given to the judge and not released elsewhere due to "National Security". Since Attorney McQuade was only appointed as a federal prosecutor in the summer of 2009, it is not too difficult to determine what case she is referring to. I am sure that this information could only lead to further frustration on the part of the Underwear Bomber and continued conflict with his attorneys.
When I read the Free Press article today, the attorney in myself came out and I had to ask how I would like to see the defense of this case handled.
It seems to me, that now that the Underwear Bomber is representing himself, or possibly using new attorneys, that the use of an entrapment defense is not out of the question. The use of such a defense could be one of the greatest moments in the history of the United States of America. Only through a defense such as this, could the full involvement of the U.S. Government be fully discovered and divulged. Please consider the following:
1. The Underwear Bomber was escorted through security without a passport by the Sharp Dressed Man who by all accounts, appears to be a government agent.
2. Congressional hearings have confirmed that the Underwear Bomber was likely let on flight 253 intentionally.
3. The bomb failed to detonate, and by many accounts, was designed so that it would not detonate.
4. The entire terrorist attack was filmed from before it started until after it ended.
5. The bomb was obtained in Yemen where the CIA has been known to have agents interacting with Al Qaeda.
Once you accept the above, it is not so far fetched to believe that the U.S. Government planted a defective bomb on the Underwear Bomber to:
1. Renew the Patriot Act
2. Get body scanners in the airports
3. Further the U.S. involvement in strategically located Yemen
4. Further the fraudulent war on terror
5. Provide further profit to the military industrial complex
Only through an entrapment defense that is fully litigated in open court could the American citizens get what they deserve, an open honest investigation into the Christmas Day events of 2009. Such a trial could possibly wake up the millions of American citizens that fail to even consider that its government is corrupt, dishonest, and working for those who only seek to consolidate their power and wealth.
I am not holding my breath that a trial with an entrapment defense will occur. Nor could I (under the rules of the State bar), or would I, want to be involved in the representation of a man that almost killed me. I encourage my fellow members of the bar to consider representing the Underwear Bomber pro bono and using such a defense to help not only your potential client, but also your fellow American citizens. It is not the prosecution of the Underwear bomber that will help fight the fraudulent war on terror. It is the prosecution of the U.S. Government officials responsible for the Underwear Bomber attack that will put an end to the U.S.S.A. (United Socialist States of America) and restore the U.S.A.
by Kurt Haskell | September 13, 2010
It has been nearly nine months since Lori and I were almost killed by the Underwear Bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. For the first few months, Lori and I were very vocal over the media blackout and corresponding cover up to the real story of the Christmas Day events. If anyone is not familiar with our experience, our story can be read here in this blog. For the past few months, we have chosen to sit back and watch as the trial, or lack thereof, plays out in the courthouse we regularly practice in. While the media blackout to the true events continues, the failed attack on our credibility has been replaced with deafening silence as to our eyewitness account. To us, this matter has never been about seeking vengeance against the Underwear Bomber. When taking our eyewitness account and adding it to the small amount of honest facts that have come out, one can only recognize the Underwear Bomber as a mere patsy. It is quite shocking that, thus far, the Underwear Bomber hasn't been forever silenced as other patsies that have come before him. What has led me to write this update is the following article:
http://www.freep.com/article/20100913/NEWS01/100913036/1318/Terror-suspect-fires-his-lawyers
It seems as though the Underwear Bomber has now decided to fire his attorneys and represent himself. I am actually not too surprised by this event. Being an attorney myself, I can see his attorneys trying to stuff a settlement down his throat while he argues in opposition that he was set up. Further, I must consider the following in realizing why this happened:
My nephew recently started law school. In August he had an orientation with a guest speaker. That speaker just happened to be none other than the Underwear Bomber prosecutor, Barbara McQuade. During such orientation, Attorney McQuade indicated that she has a case in which certain information can only be given to the judge and not released elsewhere due to "National Security". Since Attorney McQuade was only appointed as a federal prosecutor in the summer of 2009, it is not too difficult to determine what case she is referring to. I am sure that this information could only lead to further frustration on the part of the Underwear Bomber and continued conflict with his attorneys.
When I read the Free Press article today, the attorney in myself came out and I had to ask how I would like to see the defense of this case handled.
It seems to me, that now that the Underwear Bomber is representing himself, or possibly using new attorneys, that the use of an entrapment defense is not out of the question. The use of such a defense could be one of the greatest moments in the history of the United States of America. Only through a defense such as this, could the full involvement of the U.S. Government be fully discovered and divulged. Please consider the following:
1. The Underwear Bomber was escorted through security without a passport by the Sharp Dressed Man who by all accounts, appears to be a government agent.
2. Congressional hearings have confirmed that the Underwear Bomber was likely let on flight 253 intentionally.
3. The bomb failed to detonate, and by many accounts, was designed so that it would not detonate.
4. The entire terrorist attack was filmed from before it started until after it ended.
5. The bomb was obtained in Yemen where the CIA has been known to have agents interacting with Al Qaeda.
Once you accept the above, it is not so far fetched to believe that the U.S. Government planted a defective bomb on the Underwear Bomber to:
1. Renew the Patriot Act
2. Get body scanners in the airports
3. Further the U.S. involvement in strategically located Yemen
4. Further the fraudulent war on terror
5. Provide further profit to the military industrial complex
Only through an entrapment defense that is fully litigated in open court could the American citizens get what they deserve, an open honest investigation into the Christmas Day events of 2009. Such a trial could possibly wake up the millions of American citizens that fail to even consider that its government is corrupt, dishonest, and working for those who only seek to consolidate their power and wealth.
I am not holding my breath that a trial with an entrapment defense will occur. Nor could I (under the rules of the State bar), or would I, want to be involved in the representation of a man that almost killed me. I encourage my fellow members of the bar to consider representing the Underwear Bomber pro bono and using such a defense to help not only your potential client, but also your fellow American citizens. It is not the prosecution of the Underwear bomber that will help fight the fraudulent war on terror. It is the prosecution of the U.S. Government officials responsible for the Underwear Bomber attack that will put an end to the U.S.S.A. (United Socialist States of America) and restore the U.S.A.
Filed under
Kurt Haskell,
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab,
Underwear Bomber
by Winter Patriot
on Monday, September 13, 2010
[
link |
| home
]
| home
]
Kurt Haskell : VIDEO FROM WEBSTER TARPLEY OF RUSSIA TODAY
Friday, February 12, 2010
VIDEO FROM WEBSTER TARPLEY OF RUSSIA TODAY
By Kurt Haskell | February 12, 2010
This is a very interesting video, which backs up much of what I have been saying, but takes it a step further.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NU4RjI9ZhKA&feature=player_embedded
By Kurt Haskell | February 12, 2010
This is a very interesting video, which backs up much of what I have been saying, but takes it a step further.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NU4RjI9ZhKA&feature=player_embedded
Filed under
Kurt Haskell,
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab,
Underwear Bomber
by Winter Patriot
on Friday, February 12, 2010
[
link |
| home
]
| home
]
Kurt Haskell : Remaining Questions
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Remaining Questions
THE REMAINING QUESTIONS FROM FLIGHT 253 AND A DISCUSSION OF THE POSSIBILITIES -by Kurt Haskell
January 31, 2010
The following questions are those that we do not have adequate information (In my mind) on in order to make a final determination.
1. Who is the Man in Orange?
2. Did Mutallab know the Sharp Dressed Man?
3. Was it intended that the bomb explode?
4. Did the U.S. Government know that Mutallab had a bomb when it allowed him to board Flight 253?
5. Why is the U.S. Government seeking a plea deal for Mutallab?
6. Why did a fellow passenger call me to discuss changing my story?
7. Why are the important questions being ignored by the mainstream media?
1. Who is the Man in Orange?
The story of the Man in Orange has been previously discussed at length, so I will not state it again in this article, but who was he?
The following evidence supports the theory that we know the identity of the Man in Orange:
The Detroit Free Press released an account of Flight 253 passenger Samuel Pappy on January 29, 2010. It stated the following:
"Two bomb-sniffing dogs named Jordi and Brenda checked out hundreds of bags and carry-ons that had been deposited in Customs. They cleared every bag except one: The dogs keyed in on a soft-sided black carry-on belonging to Pappy, the Indian born man who said he helped calm other passengers during the flight.
Pappy, who lives in Georgia, said he was hand cuffed in front of other passengers, which he said he found humiliating. A police report said his bags were searched and cleared. He was released with other passengers later that afternoon".
The Free Press account verifies the following aspects of the Man in Orange:
1. Indian Man
2. Bomb-sniffing dogs were alerted to his carry-on bag and no other bags.
3. He was taken away and questioned.
There is further evidence that Pappy may have been the Man in Orange. When a fellow passenger called me in an apparent attempt to get me to change my story, he did not attempt to change my story in regards to the Man in Orange. He actually concurred with my account.
While the evidence indicates strongly that Pappy was the Man in Orange a few questions are raised in my mind.
The following evidence supports the theory that we still do not know the identity of the Man in Orange:
1. Ron Smith, spokesperson for U.S. Customs, changed the official story of the Man in Orange 5 times. Each story appearing after a public statement from myself, which discredited the official version. Why?
2. My account of the Man in Orange indicated that he was NOT handcuffed when he was taken away, but he was handcuffed after he emerged from questioning. This appears to not correspond with version 6 of the official story, which appeared in the Free Press.
3. As he was exiting Flight 253, Mutallab indicated that another bomb was on the plane.
4. How often do bomb-sniffing dogs indicate a false positive?
2. Did Mutallab know the Sharp Dressed Man?
The story of the Sharp Dressed Man has previously been discussed at length and his identity has been proven(To my satisfaction) as an agent of the U.S. Government. However, did Mutallab know the Sharp Dressed Man?
The following evidence supports the theory that Mutallab did know the Sharp Dressed Man:
1. The two men approached the final ticket gate together.
2. The Sharp Dressed Man did all of the talking.
3. The Sharp Dressed Man indicated that Mutallab was from "Sudan", which was an obvious lie.
4. The Sharp Dressed man advocated for Mutallab to board without showing a passport.
5. The U.S. Government is now admitting that Mutallab may have had help in making sure he did not get cold feet when boarding.
The following evidence supports the theory that Mutallab did not know the Sharp Dressed Man:
1. Mutallab was nervous and fidgety as he stood by the Sharp Dressed Man.
2. The account of Shama Chopra, the Montreal passenger who also saw Mutallab before boarding, also described Mutallab as being very nervous as he went through security.
3. Was it intended that the bomb explode?
The only reason I am here today is that Mutallab's bomb did not explode. We have to ask whether it was ever intended to explode?
The following evidence supports the theory that the bomb was intended to explode:
1. Mutallab went all the way to Yemen to obtain the bomb.
2. It was stitched into his underwear.
3. The quantity of explosive was enough to blow up the plane.
4. Mutallab purchased a one-way ticket without luggage (except for one small carry-on bag).
The following evidence supports the theory that the bomb was not intended to explode:
1. The bomb required a detonator to explode. This bomb did not have (Or had a malfunctioning detonator) a detonator.
2. It is difficult to believe that Mutallab would plan for this event in such great detail, but not assure that it would work.
3. A camera man filmed the entire attack from before it started until after it ended.
4. The U.S. Government allowed Mutallab on the plane in order to track him in the U.S. and catch potential accomplices.
4. Did the U.S. Government know that Mutallab had a bomb when it allowed him to board Flight 253?
This is possibly the most important question to be answered.
The following is evidence that the U.S. Government knew Mutallab had a bomb when he boarded Flight 253:
1. The U.S. Government had pre-purchased body scanning machines.
2. The U.S. Government had already begun bombing Yemen.
3. The camera man on the plane. Although, this would indicate that the U.S. Government knew Mutallab had a defective bomb.
4. The extensive evidence over the months leading up to the flight, which included wire tapped intercepts indicating that someone named "Umar Farouk" would be attempting a terrorist attack.
5. Michael Chertoff's ties to the company that produces the body scanning machines.
The following is evidence that the U.S. Government did not know that Mutallab had a bomb when he boarded Flight 253:
1. It is almost incomprehensible to believe that the U.S. Government would intentionally allow it's citizens to be blown up (Although, this would not be the case if it knew that Mutallab's bomb was defective).
2. The bomb was in Mutallab's underwear and may have been difficult to find.
5. Why is the U.S. Government seeking a plea deal for Mutallab?
One has to wonder why the government wants a plea deal when the U.S. Government has plenty of evidence to convict Mutallab.
The following evidence supports the theory that the U.S. Government has a legitimate reason for seeking a plea deal:
1. To seek additional evidence from Mutallab to catch accomplices.
2. To spare the cost of a trial (However, this trial would be very short and not too costly).
The following evidence supports the theory that the U.S. Government does not have a legitimate reason for seeking a plea deal:
1. There is plenty of evidence to convict Mutallab.
2. His crime was particularly heinous and he does not deserve a lenient sentence.
3. Anything less than a life sentence without the possibility of parole would be ridiculous.
4. Mutallab could have been treated as an enemy combatant and denied a court appointed attorney, which could have had the same result as a plea deal, as far as obtaining additional evidence. The U.S. Government already admitted that Mutallab was telling all until his attorney arrived.
5. The truth of the story would be known when evidence was presented at trial.
6. Why did a fellow passenger call me to discuss changing my story?
Approximately one week after Flight 253, and after I had been telling my story to the media, I received a call from a fellow passenger. The important parts of the conversation were as follows:
1. "Kurt, I think you should stop telling your story about the 'Sharp Dressed Man'. It was an unaccompanied minor that you saw. I am sure of it. He was escorted on the flight by an airline employee. I saw him after we landed with the employee. You will look stupid when the truth comes out".
2. "Remember when we took the buses from the plane to the terminal"?
3. "I thought you were crazy when I heard you in the media, but yesterday(One week after the flight) I had a revelation and remembered what happened".
Lets look at the reason this call was made and the importance of the above statements.
The following evidence indicates that the call was made from a concerned fellow passenger:
1. The caller was pleasant and appeared to be concerned.
2. My wife verified that he was, in fact, on our plane.
3. Maybe he did see something, but was something different than what I saw.
4. He did not say that he saw the Sharp Dressed Man before boarding.
5. He provided, on its face, a seemingly believable story.
The following evidence indicates that the call was made from someone trying to "shut me up".
1. The call was made after the caller had a revelation one week after the flight. This would be a highly unlikely event.
2. I have since discovered that the caller has ties to the U.S. Government.
3. U.S. Customs has indicated that there were no unaccompanied minors on our flight.
4. To have an airline employee as an escort, the minor must be age 11 or younger. Although Mutallab looks young (15 or 16 by my estimation), he does not look 11.
5. Why the call out of the blue to me?
6. The statement that we took buses to the terminal was not true. This statement could have been made in an effort to make me believe that the plane landed far away from the terminal. This, if true, would cover up the post-landing gaffes indicated in the January 29, 2010, Detroit News article.
7. Why indicate that he thought I was crazy? Possibly as a subliminal put down to me to make me not talk to the media.
8. Although I have since spoken to many passengers, none have indicated that they saw an unaccompanied minor either before or after landing. One passenger, however, did indicate to me that she saw Mutallab escorted by another individual to the final ticket counter.
9. The numerous amount of evidence that has since come out and now indicates that the U.S. Government intentionally let Mutallab on Flight 253.
10. The U.S. Government knew at that time, that I could not be intimidated by a government official and knew it had to try an alternative means to stop my story from getting out to the public.
11. The caller has since made the following peculiar statement (Which may not be an exact quote but it is close), which is odd considering that it is coming from a victim of a recent terrorist attack:
"The American public should forget about Flight 253 and focus on health care and the economy".
This statement appears to be a statement more attributable to a government official then a passenger of Flight 253.
7. Why are the important questions being ignored by the main stream media?
It would seem that in a free country the press would be investigative on all important questions, including those that may show corrupt/grossly negligent activities by its own government. However, as often has been the case, the mainstream media is all too quick to put the "official" story out to the public and not ask the difficult questions. As I am finding out, it is very difficult for a normal everyday citizen to have his concerns heard in the media. Any official statement from the government, however, is immediately reported worldwide. One has to wonder whether the ties between the large corporations that run the media and the U.S. Government itself, have become so tight as to jeopardize the freedom and safety of the U.S. citizens. It has come to the point that some are calling my wife and I heroes for insisting on the truthful reporting of this story. That is a very sad statement, because we are not heroes, but only eyewitnesses. The belief that we are heroes, speaks of the current sad state of affairs in this country. Those that have something to say are scared to come forward with the truth. The United States of America is no longer a free country.
I look forward to hearing the responses to this post. I know some of you will feel strongly in support of one side or the other on each of the above questions. However, I take no position on these questions at this time. I also look forward to hearing any other questions anyone would like me to blog about, as this is a very involved story and I acknowledge that I may have missed some further unresolved questions.
THE REMAINING QUESTIONS FROM FLIGHT 253 AND A DISCUSSION OF THE POSSIBILITIES -by Kurt Haskell
January 31, 2010
The following questions are those that we do not have adequate information (In my mind) on in order to make a final determination.
1. Who is the Man in Orange?
2. Did Mutallab know the Sharp Dressed Man?
3. Was it intended that the bomb explode?
4. Did the U.S. Government know that Mutallab had a bomb when it allowed him to board Flight 253?
5. Why is the U.S. Government seeking a plea deal for Mutallab?
6. Why did a fellow passenger call me to discuss changing my story?
7. Why are the important questions being ignored by the mainstream media?
1. Who is the Man in Orange?
The story of the Man in Orange has been previously discussed at length, so I will not state it again in this article, but who was he?
The following evidence supports the theory that we know the identity of the Man in Orange:
The Detroit Free Press released an account of Flight 253 passenger Samuel Pappy on January 29, 2010. It stated the following:
"Two bomb-sniffing dogs named Jordi and Brenda checked out hundreds of bags and carry-ons that had been deposited in Customs. They cleared every bag except one: The dogs keyed in on a soft-sided black carry-on belonging to Pappy, the Indian born man who said he helped calm other passengers during the flight.
Pappy, who lives in Georgia, said he was hand cuffed in front of other passengers, which he said he found humiliating. A police report said his bags were searched and cleared. He was released with other passengers later that afternoon".
The Free Press account verifies the following aspects of the Man in Orange:
1. Indian Man
2. Bomb-sniffing dogs were alerted to his carry-on bag and no other bags.
3. He was taken away and questioned.
There is further evidence that Pappy may have been the Man in Orange. When a fellow passenger called me in an apparent attempt to get me to change my story, he did not attempt to change my story in regards to the Man in Orange. He actually concurred with my account.
While the evidence indicates strongly that Pappy was the Man in Orange a few questions are raised in my mind.
The following evidence supports the theory that we still do not know the identity of the Man in Orange:
1. Ron Smith, spokesperson for U.S. Customs, changed the official story of the Man in Orange 5 times. Each story appearing after a public statement from myself, which discredited the official version. Why?
2. My account of the Man in Orange indicated that he was NOT handcuffed when he was taken away, but he was handcuffed after he emerged from questioning. This appears to not correspond with version 6 of the official story, which appeared in the Free Press.
3. As he was exiting Flight 253, Mutallab indicated that another bomb was on the plane.
4. How often do bomb-sniffing dogs indicate a false positive?
2. Did Mutallab know the Sharp Dressed Man?
The story of the Sharp Dressed Man has previously been discussed at length and his identity has been proven(To my satisfaction) as an agent of the U.S. Government. However, did Mutallab know the Sharp Dressed Man?
The following evidence supports the theory that Mutallab did know the Sharp Dressed Man:
1. The two men approached the final ticket gate together.
2. The Sharp Dressed Man did all of the talking.
3. The Sharp Dressed Man indicated that Mutallab was from "Sudan", which was an obvious lie.
4. The Sharp Dressed man advocated for Mutallab to board without showing a passport.
5. The U.S. Government is now admitting that Mutallab may have had help in making sure he did not get cold feet when boarding.
The following evidence supports the theory that Mutallab did not know the Sharp Dressed Man:
1. Mutallab was nervous and fidgety as he stood by the Sharp Dressed Man.
2. The account of Shama Chopra, the Montreal passenger who also saw Mutallab before boarding, also described Mutallab as being very nervous as he went through security.
3. Was it intended that the bomb explode?
The only reason I am here today is that Mutallab's bomb did not explode. We have to ask whether it was ever intended to explode?
The following evidence supports the theory that the bomb was intended to explode:
1. Mutallab went all the way to Yemen to obtain the bomb.
2. It was stitched into his underwear.
3. The quantity of explosive was enough to blow up the plane.
4. Mutallab purchased a one-way ticket without luggage (except for one small carry-on bag).
The following evidence supports the theory that the bomb was not intended to explode:
1. The bomb required a detonator to explode. This bomb did not have (Or had a malfunctioning detonator) a detonator.
2. It is difficult to believe that Mutallab would plan for this event in such great detail, but not assure that it would work.
3. A camera man filmed the entire attack from before it started until after it ended.
4. The U.S. Government allowed Mutallab on the plane in order to track him in the U.S. and catch potential accomplices.
4. Did the U.S. Government know that Mutallab had a bomb when it allowed him to board Flight 253?
This is possibly the most important question to be answered.
The following is evidence that the U.S. Government knew Mutallab had a bomb when he boarded Flight 253:
1. The U.S. Government had pre-purchased body scanning machines.
2. The U.S. Government had already begun bombing Yemen.
3. The camera man on the plane. Although, this would indicate that the U.S. Government knew Mutallab had a defective bomb.
4. The extensive evidence over the months leading up to the flight, which included wire tapped intercepts indicating that someone named "Umar Farouk" would be attempting a terrorist attack.
5. Michael Chertoff's ties to the company that produces the body scanning machines.
The following is evidence that the U.S. Government did not know that Mutallab had a bomb when he boarded Flight 253:
1. It is almost incomprehensible to believe that the U.S. Government would intentionally allow it's citizens to be blown up (Although, this would not be the case if it knew that Mutallab's bomb was defective).
2. The bomb was in Mutallab's underwear and may have been difficult to find.
5. Why is the U.S. Government seeking a plea deal for Mutallab?
One has to wonder why the government wants a plea deal when the U.S. Government has plenty of evidence to convict Mutallab.
The following evidence supports the theory that the U.S. Government has a legitimate reason for seeking a plea deal:
1. To seek additional evidence from Mutallab to catch accomplices.
2. To spare the cost of a trial (However, this trial would be very short and not too costly).
The following evidence supports the theory that the U.S. Government does not have a legitimate reason for seeking a plea deal:
1. There is plenty of evidence to convict Mutallab.
2. His crime was particularly heinous and he does not deserve a lenient sentence.
3. Anything less than a life sentence without the possibility of parole would be ridiculous.
4. Mutallab could have been treated as an enemy combatant and denied a court appointed attorney, which could have had the same result as a plea deal, as far as obtaining additional evidence. The U.S. Government already admitted that Mutallab was telling all until his attorney arrived.
5. The truth of the story would be known when evidence was presented at trial.
6. Why did a fellow passenger call me to discuss changing my story?
Approximately one week after Flight 253, and after I had been telling my story to the media, I received a call from a fellow passenger. The important parts of the conversation were as follows:
1. "Kurt, I think you should stop telling your story about the 'Sharp Dressed Man'. It was an unaccompanied minor that you saw. I am sure of it. He was escorted on the flight by an airline employee. I saw him after we landed with the employee. You will look stupid when the truth comes out".
2. "Remember when we took the buses from the plane to the terminal"?
3. "I thought you were crazy when I heard you in the media, but yesterday(One week after the flight) I had a revelation and remembered what happened".
Lets look at the reason this call was made and the importance of the above statements.
The following evidence indicates that the call was made from a concerned fellow passenger:
1. The caller was pleasant and appeared to be concerned.
2. My wife verified that he was, in fact, on our plane.
3. Maybe he did see something, but was something different than what I saw.
4. He did not say that he saw the Sharp Dressed Man before boarding.
5. He provided, on its face, a seemingly believable story.
The following evidence indicates that the call was made from someone trying to "shut me up".
1. The call was made after the caller had a revelation one week after the flight. This would be a highly unlikely event.
2. I have since discovered that the caller has ties to the U.S. Government.
3. U.S. Customs has indicated that there were no unaccompanied minors on our flight.
4. To have an airline employee as an escort, the minor must be age 11 or younger. Although Mutallab looks young (15 or 16 by my estimation), he does not look 11.
5. Why the call out of the blue to me?
6. The statement that we took buses to the terminal was not true. This statement could have been made in an effort to make me believe that the plane landed far away from the terminal. This, if true, would cover up the post-landing gaffes indicated in the January 29, 2010, Detroit News article.
7. Why indicate that he thought I was crazy? Possibly as a subliminal put down to me to make me not talk to the media.
8. Although I have since spoken to many passengers, none have indicated that they saw an unaccompanied minor either before or after landing. One passenger, however, did indicate to me that she saw Mutallab escorted by another individual to the final ticket counter.
9. The numerous amount of evidence that has since come out and now indicates that the U.S. Government intentionally let Mutallab on Flight 253.
10. The U.S. Government knew at that time, that I could not be intimidated by a government official and knew it had to try an alternative means to stop my story from getting out to the public.
11. The caller has since made the following peculiar statement (Which may not be an exact quote but it is close), which is odd considering that it is coming from a victim of a recent terrorist attack:
"The American public should forget about Flight 253 and focus on health care and the economy".
This statement appears to be a statement more attributable to a government official then a passenger of Flight 253.
7. Why are the important questions being ignored by the main stream media?
It would seem that in a free country the press would be investigative on all important questions, including those that may show corrupt/grossly negligent activities by its own government. However, as often has been the case, the mainstream media is all too quick to put the "official" story out to the public and not ask the difficult questions. As I am finding out, it is very difficult for a normal everyday citizen to have his concerns heard in the media. Any official statement from the government, however, is immediately reported worldwide. One has to wonder whether the ties between the large corporations that run the media and the U.S. Government itself, have become so tight as to jeopardize the freedom and safety of the U.S. citizens. It has come to the point that some are calling my wife and I heroes for insisting on the truthful reporting of this story. That is a very sad statement, because we are not heroes, but only eyewitnesses. The belief that we are heroes, speaks of the current sad state of affairs in this country. Those that have something to say are scared to come forward with the truth. The United States of America is no longer a free country.
I look forward to hearing the responses to this post. I know some of you will feel strongly in support of one side or the other on each of the above questions. However, I take no position on these questions at this time. I also look forward to hearing any other questions anyone would like me to blog about, as this is a very involved story and I acknowledge that I may have missed some further unresolved questions.
Filed under
Kurt Haskell,
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab,
Underwear Bomber
by Winter Patriot
on Sunday, January 31, 2010
[
link |
| home
]
| home
]
Kurt Haskell : Remaining Questions
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Remaining Questions
Kurt Haskell | January 31, 2010
THE REMAINING QUESTIONS FROM FLIGHT 253 AND A DISCUSSION OF THE POSSIBILITIES -by Kurt Haskell
The following questions are those that we do not have adequate information (In my mind) on in order to make a final determination.
1. Who is the Man in Orange?
2. Did Mutallab know the Sharp Dressed Man?
3. Was it intended that the bomb explode?
4. Did the U.S. Government know that Mutallab had a bomb when it allowed him to board Flight 253?
5. Why is the U.S. Government seeking a plea deal for Mutallab?
6. Why did a fellow passenger call me to discuss changing my story?
7. Why are the important questions being ignored by the mainstream media?
~~~
1. Who is the Man in Orange?
The story of the Man in Orange has been previously discussed at length, so I will not state it again in this article, but who was he?
The following evidence supports the theory that we know the identity of the Man in Orange:
The Detroit Free Press released an account of Flight 253 passenger Samuel Pappy on January 29, 2010. It stated the following:
"Two bomb-sniffing dogs named Jordi and Brenda checked out hundreds of bags and carry-ons that had been deposited in Customs. They cleared every bag except one: The dogs keyed in on a soft-sided black carry-on belonging to Pappy, the Indian born man who said he helped calm other passengers during the flight.
Pappy, who lives in Georgia, said he was hand cuffed in front of other passengers, which he said he found humiliating. A police report said his bags were searched and cleared. He was released with other passengers later that afternoon".
The Free Press account verifies the following aspects of the Man in Orange:
1. Indian Man
2. Bomb-sniffing dogs were alerted to his carry-on bag and no other bags.
3. He was taken away and questioned.
There is further evidence that Pappy may have been the Man in Orange. When a fellow passenger called me in an apparent attempt to get me to change my story, he did not attempt to change my story in regards to the Man in Orange. He actually concurred with my account.
While the evidence indicates strongly that Pappy was the Man in Orange a few questions are raised in my mind.
The following evidence supports the theory that we still do not know the identity of the Man in Orange:
1. Ron Smith, spokesperson for U.S. Customs, changed the official story of the Man in Orange 5 times. Each story appearing after a public statement from myself, which discredited the official version. Why?
2. My account of the Man in Orange indicated that he was NOT handcuffed when he was taken away, but he was handcuffed after he emerged from questioning. This appears to not correspond with version 6 of the official story, which appeared in the Free Press.
3. As he was exiting Flight 253, Mutallab indicated that another bomb was on the plane.
4. How often do bomb-sniffing dogs indicate a false positive?
2. Did Mutallab know the Sharp Dressed Man?
The story of the Sharp Dressed Man has previously been discussed at length and his identity has been proven(To my satisfaction) as an agent of the U.S. Government. However, did Mutallab know the Sharp Dressed Man?
The following evidence supports the theory that Mutallab did know the Sharp Dressed Man:
1. The two men approached the final ticket gate together.
2. The Sharp Dressed Man did all of the talking.
3. The Sharp Dressed Man indicated that Mutallab was from "Sudan", which was an obvious lie.
4. The Sharp Dressed man advocated for Mutallab to board without showing a passport.
5. The U.S. Government is now admitting that Mutallab may have had help in making sure he did not get cold feet when boarding.
The following evidence supports the theory that Mutallab did not know the Sharp Dressed Man:
1. Mutallab was nervous and fidgety as he stood by the Sharp Dressed Man.
2. The account of Shama Chopra, the Montreal passenger who also saw Mutallab before boarding, also described Mutallab as being very nervous as he went through security.
3. Was it intended that the bomb explode?
The only reason I am here today is that Mutallab's bomb did not explode. We have to ask whether it was ever intended to explode?
The following evidence supports the theory that the bomb was intended to explode:
1. Mutallab went all the way to Yemen to obtain the bomb.
2. It was stitched into his underwear.
3. The quantity of explosive was enough to blow up the plane.
4. Mutallab purchased a one-way ticket without luggage (except for one small carry-on bag).
The following evidence supports the theory that the bomb was not intended to explode:
1. The bomb required a detonator to explode. This bomb did not have (Or had a malfunctioning detonator) a detonator.
2. It is difficult to believe that Mutallab would plan for this event in such great detail, but not assure that it would work.
3. A camera man filmed the entire attack from before it started until after it ended.
4. The U.S. Government allowed Mutallab on the plane in order to track him in the U.S. and catch potential accomplices.
4. Did the U.S. Government know that Mutallab had a bomb when it allowed him to board Flight 253?
This is possibly the most important question to be answered.
The following is evidence that the U.S. Government knew Mutallab had a bomb when he boarded Flight 253:
1. The U.S. Government had pre-purchased body scanning machines.
2. The U.S. Government had already begun bombing Yemen.
3. The camera man on the plane. Although, this would indicate that the U.S. Government knew Mutallab had a defective bomb.
4. The extensive evidence over the months leading up to the flight, which included wire tapped intercepts indicating that someone named "Umar Farouk" would be attempting a terrorist attack.
5. Michael Chertoff's ties to the company that produces the body scanning machines.
The following is evidence that the U.S. Government did not know that Mutallab had a bomb when he boarded Flight 253:
1. It is almost incomprehensible to believe that the U.S. Government would intentionally allow it's citizens to be blown up (Although, this would not be the case if it knew that Mutallab's bomb was defective).
2. The bomb was in Mutallab's underwear and may have been difficult to find.
5. Why is the U.S. Government seeking a plea deal for Mutallab?
One has to wonder why the government wants a plea deal when the U.S. Government has plenty of evidence to convict Mutallab.
The following evidence supports the theory that the U.S. Government has a legitimate reason for seeking a plea deal:
1. To seek additional evidence from Mutallab to catch accomplices.
2. To spare the cost of a trial (However, this trial would be very short and not too costly).
The following evidence supports the theory that the U.S. Government does not have a legitimate reason for seeking a plea deal:
1. There is plenty of evidence to convict Mutallab.
2. His crime was particularly heinous and he does not deserve a lenient sentence.
3. Anything less than a life sentence without the possibility of parole would be ridiculous.
4. Mutallab could have been treated as an enemy combatant and denied a court appointed attorney, which could have had the same result as a plea deal, as far as obtaining additional evidence. The U.S. Government already admitted that Mutallab was telling all until his attorney arrived.
5. The truth of the story would be known when evidence was presented at trial.
6. Why did a fellow passenger call me to discuss changing my story?
Approximately one week after Flight 253, and after I had been telling my story to the media, I received a call from a fellow passenger. The important parts of the conversation were as follows:
1. "Kurt, I think you should stop telling your story about the 'Sharp Dressed Man'. It was an unaccompanied minor that you saw. I am sure of it. He was escorted on the flight by an airline employee. I saw him after we landed with the employee. You will look stupid when the truth comes out".
2. "Remember when we took the buses from the plane to the terminal"?
3. "I thought you were crazy when I heard you in the media, but yesterday(One week after the flight) I had a revelation and remembered what happened".
Lets look at the reason this call was made and the importance of the above statements.
The following evidence indicates that the call was made from a concerned fellow passenger:
1. The caller was pleasant and appeared to be concerned.
2. My wife verified that he was, in fact, on our plane.
3. Maybe he did see something, but was something different than what I saw.
4. He did not say that he saw the Sharp Dressed Man before boarding.
5. He provided, on its face, a seemingly believable story.
The following evidence indicates that the call was made from someone trying to "shut me up".
1. The call was made after the caller had a revelation one week after the flight. This would be a highly unlikely event.
2. I have since discovered that the caller has ties to the U.S. Government.
3. U.S. Customs has indicated that there were no unaccompanied minors on our flight.
4. To have an airline employee as an escort, the minor must be age 11 or younger. Although Mutallab looks young (15 or 16 by my estimation), he does not look 11.
5. Why the call out of the blue to me?
6. The statement that we took buses to the terminal was not true. This statement could have been made in an effort to make me believe that the plane landed far away from the terminal. This, if true, would cover up the post-landing gaffes indicated in the January 29, 2010, Detroit News article.
7. Why indicate that he thought I was crazy? Possibly as a subliminal put down to me to make me not talk to the media.
8. Although I have since spoken to many passengers, none have indicated that they saw an unaccompanied minor either before or after landing. One passenger, however, did indicate to me that she saw Mutallab escorted by another individual to the final ticket counter.
9. The numerous amount of evidence that has since come out and now indicates that the U.S. Government intentionally let Mutallab on Flight 253.
10. The U.S. Government knew at that time, that I could not be intimidated by a government official and knew it had to try an alternative means to stop my story from getting out to the public.
11. The caller has since made the following peculiar statement (Which may not be an exact quote but it is close), which is odd considering that it is coming from a victim of a recent terrorist attack:
"The American public should forget about Flight 253 and focus on health care and the economy".
This statement appears to be a statement more attributable to a government official then a passenger of Flight 253.
7. Why are the important questions being ignored by the main stream media?
It would seem that in a free country the press would be investigative on all important questions, including those that may show corrupt/grossly negligent activities by its own government. However, as often has been the case, the mainstream media is all too quick to put the "official" story out to the public and not ask the difficult questions. As I am finding out, it is very difficult for a normal everyday citizen to have his concerns heard in the media. Any official statement from the government, however, is immediately reported worldwide. One has to wonder whether the ties between the large corporations that run the media and the U.S. Government itself, have become so tight as to jeopardize the freedom and safety of the U.S. citizens. It has come to the point that some are calling my wife and I heroes for insisting on the truthful reporting of this story. That is a very sad statement, because we are not heroes, but only eyewitnesses. The belief that we are heroes, speaks of the current sad state of affairs in this country. Those that have something to say are scared to come forward with the truth. The United States of America is no longer a free country.
I look forward to hearing the responses to this post. I know some of you will feel strongly in support of one side or the other on each of the above questions. However, I take no position on these questions at this time. I also look forward to hearing any other questions anyone would like me to blog about, as this is a very involved story and I acknowledge that I may have missed some further unresolved questions.
Kurt Haskell | January 31, 2010
THE REMAINING QUESTIONS FROM FLIGHT 253 AND A DISCUSSION OF THE POSSIBILITIES -by Kurt Haskell
The following questions are those that we do not have adequate information (In my mind) on in order to make a final determination.
1. Who is the Man in Orange?
2. Did Mutallab know the Sharp Dressed Man?
3. Was it intended that the bomb explode?
4. Did the U.S. Government know that Mutallab had a bomb when it allowed him to board Flight 253?
5. Why is the U.S. Government seeking a plea deal for Mutallab?
6. Why did a fellow passenger call me to discuss changing my story?
7. Why are the important questions being ignored by the mainstream media?
~~~
1. Who is the Man in Orange?
The story of the Man in Orange has been previously discussed at length, so I will not state it again in this article, but who was he?
The following evidence supports the theory that we know the identity of the Man in Orange:
The Detroit Free Press released an account of Flight 253 passenger Samuel Pappy on January 29, 2010. It stated the following:
"Two bomb-sniffing dogs named Jordi and Brenda checked out hundreds of bags and carry-ons that had been deposited in Customs. They cleared every bag except one: The dogs keyed in on a soft-sided black carry-on belonging to Pappy, the Indian born man who said he helped calm other passengers during the flight.
Pappy, who lives in Georgia, said he was hand cuffed in front of other passengers, which he said he found humiliating. A police report said his bags were searched and cleared. He was released with other passengers later that afternoon".
The Free Press account verifies the following aspects of the Man in Orange:
1. Indian Man
2. Bomb-sniffing dogs were alerted to his carry-on bag and no other bags.
3. He was taken away and questioned.
There is further evidence that Pappy may have been the Man in Orange. When a fellow passenger called me in an apparent attempt to get me to change my story, he did not attempt to change my story in regards to the Man in Orange. He actually concurred with my account.
While the evidence indicates strongly that Pappy was the Man in Orange a few questions are raised in my mind.
The following evidence supports the theory that we still do not know the identity of the Man in Orange:
1. Ron Smith, spokesperson for U.S. Customs, changed the official story of the Man in Orange 5 times. Each story appearing after a public statement from myself, which discredited the official version. Why?
2. My account of the Man in Orange indicated that he was NOT handcuffed when he was taken away, but he was handcuffed after he emerged from questioning. This appears to not correspond with version 6 of the official story, which appeared in the Free Press.
3. As he was exiting Flight 253, Mutallab indicated that another bomb was on the plane.
4. How often do bomb-sniffing dogs indicate a false positive?
2. Did Mutallab know the Sharp Dressed Man?
The story of the Sharp Dressed Man has previously been discussed at length and his identity has been proven(To my satisfaction) as an agent of the U.S. Government. However, did Mutallab know the Sharp Dressed Man?
The following evidence supports the theory that Mutallab did know the Sharp Dressed Man:
1. The two men approached the final ticket gate together.
2. The Sharp Dressed Man did all of the talking.
3. The Sharp Dressed Man indicated that Mutallab was from "Sudan", which was an obvious lie.
4. The Sharp Dressed man advocated for Mutallab to board without showing a passport.
5. The U.S. Government is now admitting that Mutallab may have had help in making sure he did not get cold feet when boarding.
The following evidence supports the theory that Mutallab did not know the Sharp Dressed Man:
1. Mutallab was nervous and fidgety as he stood by the Sharp Dressed Man.
2. The account of Shama Chopra, the Montreal passenger who also saw Mutallab before boarding, also described Mutallab as being very nervous as he went through security.
3. Was it intended that the bomb explode?
The only reason I am here today is that Mutallab's bomb did not explode. We have to ask whether it was ever intended to explode?
The following evidence supports the theory that the bomb was intended to explode:
1. Mutallab went all the way to Yemen to obtain the bomb.
2. It was stitched into his underwear.
3. The quantity of explosive was enough to blow up the plane.
4. Mutallab purchased a one-way ticket without luggage (except for one small carry-on bag).
The following evidence supports the theory that the bomb was not intended to explode:
1. The bomb required a detonator to explode. This bomb did not have (Or had a malfunctioning detonator) a detonator.
2. It is difficult to believe that Mutallab would plan for this event in such great detail, but not assure that it would work.
3. A camera man filmed the entire attack from before it started until after it ended.
4. The U.S. Government allowed Mutallab on the plane in order to track him in the U.S. and catch potential accomplices.
4. Did the U.S. Government know that Mutallab had a bomb when it allowed him to board Flight 253?
This is possibly the most important question to be answered.
The following is evidence that the U.S. Government knew Mutallab had a bomb when he boarded Flight 253:
1. The U.S. Government had pre-purchased body scanning machines.
2. The U.S. Government had already begun bombing Yemen.
3. The camera man on the plane. Although, this would indicate that the U.S. Government knew Mutallab had a defective bomb.
4. The extensive evidence over the months leading up to the flight, which included wire tapped intercepts indicating that someone named "Umar Farouk" would be attempting a terrorist attack.
5. Michael Chertoff's ties to the company that produces the body scanning machines.
The following is evidence that the U.S. Government did not know that Mutallab had a bomb when he boarded Flight 253:
1. It is almost incomprehensible to believe that the U.S. Government would intentionally allow it's citizens to be blown up (Although, this would not be the case if it knew that Mutallab's bomb was defective).
2. The bomb was in Mutallab's underwear and may have been difficult to find.
5. Why is the U.S. Government seeking a plea deal for Mutallab?
One has to wonder why the government wants a plea deal when the U.S. Government has plenty of evidence to convict Mutallab.
The following evidence supports the theory that the U.S. Government has a legitimate reason for seeking a plea deal:
1. To seek additional evidence from Mutallab to catch accomplices.
2. To spare the cost of a trial (However, this trial would be very short and not too costly).
The following evidence supports the theory that the U.S. Government does not have a legitimate reason for seeking a plea deal:
1. There is plenty of evidence to convict Mutallab.
2. His crime was particularly heinous and he does not deserve a lenient sentence.
3. Anything less than a life sentence without the possibility of parole would be ridiculous.
4. Mutallab could have been treated as an enemy combatant and denied a court appointed attorney, which could have had the same result as a plea deal, as far as obtaining additional evidence. The U.S. Government already admitted that Mutallab was telling all until his attorney arrived.
5. The truth of the story would be known when evidence was presented at trial.
6. Why did a fellow passenger call me to discuss changing my story?
Approximately one week after Flight 253, and after I had been telling my story to the media, I received a call from a fellow passenger. The important parts of the conversation were as follows:
1. "Kurt, I think you should stop telling your story about the 'Sharp Dressed Man'. It was an unaccompanied minor that you saw. I am sure of it. He was escorted on the flight by an airline employee. I saw him after we landed with the employee. You will look stupid when the truth comes out".
2. "Remember when we took the buses from the plane to the terminal"?
3. "I thought you were crazy when I heard you in the media, but yesterday(One week after the flight) I had a revelation and remembered what happened".
Lets look at the reason this call was made and the importance of the above statements.
The following evidence indicates that the call was made from a concerned fellow passenger:
1. The caller was pleasant and appeared to be concerned.
2. My wife verified that he was, in fact, on our plane.
3. Maybe he did see something, but was something different than what I saw.
4. He did not say that he saw the Sharp Dressed Man before boarding.
5. He provided, on its face, a seemingly believable story.
The following evidence indicates that the call was made from someone trying to "shut me up".
1. The call was made after the caller had a revelation one week after the flight. This would be a highly unlikely event.
2. I have since discovered that the caller has ties to the U.S. Government.
3. U.S. Customs has indicated that there were no unaccompanied minors on our flight.
4. To have an airline employee as an escort, the minor must be age 11 or younger. Although Mutallab looks young (15 or 16 by my estimation), he does not look 11.
5. Why the call out of the blue to me?
6. The statement that we took buses to the terminal was not true. This statement could have been made in an effort to make me believe that the plane landed far away from the terminal. This, if true, would cover up the post-landing gaffes indicated in the January 29, 2010, Detroit News article.
7. Why indicate that he thought I was crazy? Possibly as a subliminal put down to me to make me not talk to the media.
8. Although I have since spoken to many passengers, none have indicated that they saw an unaccompanied minor either before or after landing. One passenger, however, did indicate to me that she saw Mutallab escorted by another individual to the final ticket counter.
9. The numerous amount of evidence that has since come out and now indicates that the U.S. Government intentionally let Mutallab on Flight 253.
10. The U.S. Government knew at that time, that I could not be intimidated by a government official and knew it had to try an alternative means to stop my story from getting out to the public.
11. The caller has since made the following peculiar statement (Which may not be an exact quote but it is close), which is odd considering that it is coming from a victim of a recent terrorist attack:
"The American public should forget about Flight 253 and focus on health care and the economy".
This statement appears to be a statement more attributable to a government official then a passenger of Flight 253.
7. Why are the important questions being ignored by the main stream media?
It would seem that in a free country the press would be investigative on all important questions, including those that may show corrupt/grossly negligent activities by its own government. However, as often has been the case, the mainstream media is all too quick to put the "official" story out to the public and not ask the difficult questions. As I am finding out, it is very difficult for a normal everyday citizen to have his concerns heard in the media. Any official statement from the government, however, is immediately reported worldwide. One has to wonder whether the ties between the large corporations that run the media and the U.S. Government itself, have become so tight as to jeopardize the freedom and safety of the U.S. citizens. It has come to the point that some are calling my wife and I heroes for insisting on the truthful reporting of this story. That is a very sad statement, because we are not heroes, but only eyewitnesses. The belief that we are heroes, speaks of the current sad state of affairs in this country. Those that have something to say are scared to come forward with the truth. The United States of America is no longer a free country.
I look forward to hearing the responses to this post. I know some of you will feel strongly in support of one side or the other on each of the above questions. However, I take no position on these questions at this time. I also look forward to hearing any other questions anyone would like me to blog about, as this is a very involved story and I acknowledge that I may have missed some further unresolved questions.
Filed under
Kurt Haskell,
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab,
Underwear Bomber
by Winter Patriot
on Sunday, January 31, 2010
[
link |
| home
]
| home
]
Kurt Haskell : AN INTERESTING NOTE TO TODAY'S CNN ARTICLE ON FLIGHT 253
Thursday, January 28, 2010
AN INTERESTING NOTE TO TODAY'S CNN ARTICLE ON FLIGHT 253
Kurt Haskell | January 28, 2010
A few days ago, CNN contacted all of the known flight 253 passengers by email. The email stated that as the Haiti earthquake story had calmed down, CNN wanted to write a new article on flight 253. The email listed a series of questions that CNN wanted the passengers to answer about flight 253. This is the first major media organization to contact Lori and I after the hearings took place in Congress. These hearings provided the statements from Patrick Kennedy and Michael Leiter that led to the obviously conclusion that the Sharp Dressed Man was a U.S. Government agent (Please scroll down below and read previous blog posts if you are not informed as to these comments and this conclusion). Therefore, I expected CNN to address these issues, as they are now, in my opinion, the most important part of the flight 253 story. When I provided my answers, I informed CNN that it could only use my answers if it intended to discuss the Sharp Dressed Man in its article. I heard nothing further from CNN. Lori, however, got another email that said, since we can't use Kurt's answers, can we at least use yours? This was not a surprise to me since it is obvious that the major media is furthering the U.S. governement's flight 253 propaganda. Lori's take on all of this is that we should keep flight 253 in the media no matter what. My take is that it is time for the media to step up to the plate and ask the hard questions. Until that happens, don't bother wasting my time to further the U.S. Government's agenda. You can read the article below as Lori posted a link in her most recent blog entry. Notice that I am not mentioned in the article. At least the media is showing its true colors.
Kurt Haskell | January 28, 2010
A few days ago, CNN contacted all of the known flight 253 passengers by email. The email stated that as the Haiti earthquake story had calmed down, CNN wanted to write a new article on flight 253. The email listed a series of questions that CNN wanted the passengers to answer about flight 253. This is the first major media organization to contact Lori and I after the hearings took place in Congress. These hearings provided the statements from Patrick Kennedy and Michael Leiter that led to the obviously conclusion that the Sharp Dressed Man was a U.S. Government agent (Please scroll down below and read previous blog posts if you are not informed as to these comments and this conclusion). Therefore, I expected CNN to address these issues, as they are now, in my opinion, the most important part of the flight 253 story. When I provided my answers, I informed CNN that it could only use my answers if it intended to discuss the Sharp Dressed Man in its article. I heard nothing further from CNN. Lori, however, got another email that said, since we can't use Kurt's answers, can we at least use yours? This was not a surprise to me since it is obvious that the major media is furthering the U.S. governement's flight 253 propaganda. Lori's take on all of this is that we should keep flight 253 in the media no matter what. My take is that it is time for the media to step up to the plate and ask the hard questions. Until that happens, don't bother wasting my time to further the U.S. Government's agenda. You can read the article below as Lori posted a link in her most recent blog entry. Notice that I am not mentioned in the article. At least the media is showing its true colors.
Filed under
Kurt Haskell,
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab,
Underwear Bomber
by Winter Patriot
on Thursday, January 28, 2010
[
link |
| home
]
| home
]
Kurt Haskell : THE TRUTH ABOUT FLIGHT 253 HAS BEEN REVEALED
Thursday, January 28, 2010
THE TRUTH ABOUT FLIGHT 253 HAS BEEN REVEALED
Kurt Haskell | January 28, 2010
***Please note that in the article that follows, I am not claiming that the U.S. Government knew Mutallab had a bomb or intended to hurt anyone on Flight 253 when the U.S. Government let him board.
THE SHARP DRESSED MAN WHO AIDED MUTALLAB ONTO FLIGHT 253 WAS A U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENT.
Since our flight landed on Christmas Day, Lori and I have been doing everything in our power to uncover the truth about why we were almost blown up in the air over Detroit. The truth is now finally out after the publication of the following Detroit News article:
http://detnews.com/article/20100127/NATION/1270405/Terror-suspect-kept-visa-to-avoid-tipping-off-larger-investigation
Let me quote from the article:
"Patrick F. Kennedy, an undersecretary for management at the State Department, said Abdulmutallab's visa wasn't taken away because intelligence officials asked his agency not to deny a visa to the suspected terrorist over concerns that a denial would've foiled a larger investigation into al-Qaeda threats against the United States.
"Revocation action would've disclosed what they were doing," Kennedy said in testimony before the House Committee on Homeland Security. Allowing Adbulmutallab to keep the visa increased chances federal investigators would be able to get closer to apprehending the terror network he is accused of working with, "rather than simply knocking out one solider in that effort."'
Now it all becomes apparent. Let me detail everything we know about the "Sharp Dressed Man" (SDM).
1. While being held in Customs on Christmas Day, I first told the story of the SDM.
2. My story has never changed.
3. The FBI visited my office on December 29, 2009, and showed me a series of approximately 10 photographs. None were of the SDM. I asked the FBI if they brought the Amsterdam security video to help me identify the SDM, but they acted as though my request was ridiculous. The FBI asked me what accent the SDM spoke in and I indicated that he had an American accent similar to my own. I further indicated that he wore a tan suit without a tie, was Indian looking, around age 50, 6'0" tall and 250-260 lbs. I further indicated that I did not believe that he was an airline employee and that he was not on our flight.
4. During the first week of January, 2010, Dutch Military Police and the FBI indicated that over "200 Hours" of Amsterdam airport security video had been reviewed and it "Shows Nothing".
5. The mainstream media picked up the "Shows nothing" story, which slanders my story. After visiting my office twice for a flight 253 special, Dateline NBC and Chris Hanson indicated that my story was "Unsubstantiated rumor dispelled as myth" and our story did not air during the tv special.
6. On January 2, 2010, I receive a call from a flight 253 passenger who indicated to me that it may be in my best interest to stop talking publicly about the SDM because he believes I am "wrong" in what I saw. He did not make any claim that he saw the SDM boarding gate incident at all. This call was made out of the blue after he made a "revelation" of this event on January 1, 2010. I later discover that this caller has ties to the U.S. Government.
7. On January 20, 2010, current Director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), Michael E. Leiter, made a startling admission. Leiter indicated that: "I will tell you, that when people come to the country and they are on the watch list, it is because we have generally made the choice that we want them here in the country for some reason or another."
8. On January 22, 2010, CongressDaily reported that intelligence officials "have acknowledged the government knowingly allows foreigners whose names are on terrorist watch lists to enter the country in order to track their movement and activities."
CongressDaily also reported, citing an unnamed "intelligence official" that Michael E. Leiter's statement on January 20, 2010, reflected government policy and told the publication, "in certain situations it's to our advantage to be able to track individuals who might be on a terrorist watch list because you can learn something from their activities and their contacts."
9. On January 22, 2010, ABC News published an article that showed a change of position in the government's official story. Please see the following blog post for more information:
http://haskellfamily.blogspot.com/2010/01/initially-discounted.html
The U.S. government provided no explanation for the reason my story was initially discounted.
10. The SDM could not be from Al Qaeda. When speaking at the counter in Amsterdam, the SDM said the following "He is from Sudan, we do this all the time". Who is "we"? If it is Al Qaeda, you surely don't make such a statement to an airport security official.
11. The SDM could not be from airport security. The SDM did not dress in any security uniform and did not appear to have any security badge. The SDM did not speak with a Dutch accent. The SDM dressed in a suit coat and pants. If the SDM was a higher up security official, he would not have to convince the ticket agent to let Mutallab on the plane without a valid passport. Instead, he would just order her to do it.
12. Could the SDM have been a U.S. Government official? He dressed in a suit and not a security uniform. Check. He indicated we do this all the time. Could "we" be the U.S. Government? Check. He spoke Enlish with an American accent. Check. Would he need to convince the ticket agent that this was a normal procedure to allow boarding without a passport? Check. Would he have the ability to obtain such clearance? Check. Could he enter this security area even though he wasn't a passenger? Check. Would the ticket agent likely refer this request to a manager? Check. Would the U.S. Government not want this information public and try to hide it? Check.
13. The Amsterdam security video has not been released. A much more minor airport security violation occurred at the Newark New Jersey airport several days after the flight 253 incident. That video was released shortly thereafter.
14. Senators Levin and Stabenow, as well as Congressman Dingle, all refuse to discuss the matter with me.
With the information we already knew and the admission from the above referenced Detroit News article, we have evidence and claims made by government officials that the U.S. Government wanted Mutallab to proceed into the U.S. in order to obtain information on other terrorists involved with him. Once we take this statement and add it to my eyewitness account of a "Sharp Dressed Man" escorting Mutallab through the boarding process and allowing him to board without a valid passport we can make the connection that the "Sharp Dressed Man" was a U.S. Government official/agent.
The reasoning behind the following events now becomes very clear:
1. The reason Mutallab got through security despite the numerous warnings for months before our flight.
2. The reason why there have been so many lies from the U.S. Government attempting to discredit my eyewitness account.
3. The reason why the Amsterdam airport security video is being hidden from the public.
4. The reason why the government is proposing a "Failed to Connect the Dots" account of the failure. The truth is too damning.
5. The reason why Mr. Wolf of the Obama administration indicated on the Keith Olberman Show that the White House was investigating a possible "intentional act" from within the U.S. Government as the reason for the Christmas Day attack.
6. The explanation for the cameraman and why he hasn't been identified (Obviously, he was another U.S. Government agent) whose job was to film Mutallab for some governmental purpose.
7. The reason for the lax security after landing, which can be attributed to foreknowledge of the possible suspects involved.
8. The reason for the failure to search or secure the plane and passengers after landing, which can also be attributed to foreknowledge of the possible suspects involved.
9. The corporate media's attempt to bury my eyewitness account.
10. Carl Levin's, Debbie Stabenow's and John Dingle's intentional avoidance of my story and failure to return my calls/emails.
11. Janet Napolitano's statement that "The System Worked". From her point of view it probably did as this WAS PART OF THE SYSTEM!
This article is the big center piece of the puzzle that has been missing and was needed to finish the entire puzzle.
Kurt Haskell | January 28, 2010
***Please note that in the article that follows, I am not claiming that the U.S. Government knew Mutallab had a bomb or intended to hurt anyone on Flight 253 when the U.S. Government let him board.
THE SHARP DRESSED MAN WHO AIDED MUTALLAB ONTO FLIGHT 253 WAS A U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENT.
Since our flight landed on Christmas Day, Lori and I have been doing everything in our power to uncover the truth about why we were almost blown up in the air over Detroit. The truth is now finally out after the publication of the following Detroit News article:
http://detnews.com/article/20100127/NATION/1270405/Terror-suspect-kept-visa-to-avoid-tipping-off-larger-investigation
Let me quote from the article:
"Patrick F. Kennedy, an undersecretary for management at the State Department, said Abdulmutallab's visa wasn't taken away because intelligence officials asked his agency not to deny a visa to the suspected terrorist over concerns that a denial would've foiled a larger investigation into al-Qaeda threats against the United States.
"Revocation action would've disclosed what they were doing," Kennedy said in testimony before the House Committee on Homeland Security. Allowing Adbulmutallab to keep the visa increased chances federal investigators would be able to get closer to apprehending the terror network he is accused of working with, "rather than simply knocking out one solider in that effort."'
Now it all becomes apparent. Let me detail everything we know about the "Sharp Dressed Man" (SDM).
1. While being held in Customs on Christmas Day, I first told the story of the SDM.
2. My story has never changed.
3. The FBI visited my office on December 29, 2009, and showed me a series of approximately 10 photographs. None were of the SDM. I asked the FBI if they brought the Amsterdam security video to help me identify the SDM, but they acted as though my request was ridiculous. The FBI asked me what accent the SDM spoke in and I indicated that he had an American accent similar to my own. I further indicated that he wore a tan suit without a tie, was Indian looking, around age 50, 6'0" tall and 250-260 lbs. I further indicated that I did not believe that he was an airline employee and that he was not on our flight.
4. During the first week of January, 2010, Dutch Military Police and the FBI indicated that over "200 Hours" of Amsterdam airport security video had been reviewed and it "Shows Nothing".
5. The mainstream media picked up the "Shows nothing" story, which slanders my story. After visiting my office twice for a flight 253 special, Dateline NBC and Chris Hanson indicated that my story was "Unsubstantiated rumor dispelled as myth" and our story did not air during the tv special.
6. On January 2, 2010, I receive a call from a flight 253 passenger who indicated to me that it may be in my best interest to stop talking publicly about the SDM because he believes I am "wrong" in what I saw. He did not make any claim that he saw the SDM boarding gate incident at all. This call was made out of the blue after he made a "revelation" of this event on January 1, 2010. I later discover that this caller has ties to the U.S. Government.
7. On January 20, 2010, current Director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), Michael E. Leiter, made a startling admission. Leiter indicated that: "I will tell you, that when people come to the country and they are on the watch list, it is because we have generally made the choice that we want them here in the country for some reason or another."
8. On January 22, 2010, CongressDaily reported that intelligence officials "have acknowledged the government knowingly allows foreigners whose names are on terrorist watch lists to enter the country in order to track their movement and activities."
CongressDaily also reported, citing an unnamed "intelligence official" that Michael E. Leiter's statement on January 20, 2010, reflected government policy and told the publication, "in certain situations it's to our advantage to be able to track individuals who might be on a terrorist watch list because you can learn something from their activities and their contacts."
9. On January 22, 2010, ABC News published an article that showed a change of position in the government's official story. Please see the following blog post for more information:
http://haskellfamily.blogspot.com/2010/01/initially-discounted.html
The U.S. government provided no explanation for the reason my story was initially discounted.
10. The SDM could not be from Al Qaeda. When speaking at the counter in Amsterdam, the SDM said the following "He is from Sudan, we do this all the time". Who is "we"? If it is Al Qaeda, you surely don't make such a statement to an airport security official.
11. The SDM could not be from airport security. The SDM did not dress in any security uniform and did not appear to have any security badge. The SDM did not speak with a Dutch accent. The SDM dressed in a suit coat and pants. If the SDM was a higher up security official, he would not have to convince the ticket agent to let Mutallab on the plane without a valid passport. Instead, he would just order her to do it.
12. Could the SDM have been a U.S. Government official? He dressed in a suit and not a security uniform. Check. He indicated we do this all the time. Could "we" be the U.S. Government? Check. He spoke Enlish with an American accent. Check. Would he need to convince the ticket agent that this was a normal procedure to allow boarding without a passport? Check. Would he have the ability to obtain such clearance? Check. Could he enter this security area even though he wasn't a passenger? Check. Would the ticket agent likely refer this request to a manager? Check. Would the U.S. Government not want this information public and try to hide it? Check.
13. The Amsterdam security video has not been released. A much more minor airport security violation occurred at the Newark New Jersey airport several days after the flight 253 incident. That video was released shortly thereafter.
14. Senators Levin and Stabenow, as well as Congressman Dingle, all refuse to discuss the matter with me.
With the information we already knew and the admission from the above referenced Detroit News article, we have evidence and claims made by government officials that the U.S. Government wanted Mutallab to proceed into the U.S. in order to obtain information on other terrorists involved with him. Once we take this statement and add it to my eyewitness account of a "Sharp Dressed Man" escorting Mutallab through the boarding process and allowing him to board without a valid passport we can make the connection that the "Sharp Dressed Man" was a U.S. Government official/agent.
The reasoning behind the following events now becomes very clear:
1. The reason Mutallab got through security despite the numerous warnings for months before our flight.
2. The reason why there have been so many lies from the U.S. Government attempting to discredit my eyewitness account.
3. The reason why the Amsterdam airport security video is being hidden from the public.
4. The reason why the government is proposing a "Failed to Connect the Dots" account of the failure. The truth is too damning.
5. The reason why Mr. Wolf of the Obama administration indicated on the Keith Olberman Show that the White House was investigating a possible "intentional act" from within the U.S. Government as the reason for the Christmas Day attack.
6. The explanation for the cameraman and why he hasn't been identified (Obviously, he was another U.S. Government agent) whose job was to film Mutallab for some governmental purpose.
7. The reason for the lax security after landing, which can be attributed to foreknowledge of the possible suspects involved.
8. The reason for the failure to search or secure the plane and passengers after landing, which can also be attributed to foreknowledge of the possible suspects involved.
9. The corporate media's attempt to bury my eyewitness account.
10. Carl Levin's, Debbie Stabenow's and John Dingle's intentional avoidance of my story and failure to return my calls/emails.
11. Janet Napolitano's statement that "The System Worked". From her point of view it probably did as this WAS PART OF THE SYSTEM!
This article is the big center piece of the puzzle that has been missing and was needed to finish the entire puzzle.
Filed under
Kurt Haskell,
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab,
Underwear Bomber
by Winter Patriot
on Thursday, January 28, 2010
[
link |
| home
]
| home
]
Kurt Haskell : UPDATE ON FLIGHT 253: A CONVERSATION WITH A FELLOW PASSENGER
Saturday, January 02, 2010
UPDATE ON FLIGHT 253: A CONVERSATION WITH A FELLOW PASSENGER
By Kurt Haskell | January 02, 2010
Today I received a phone call from a fellow passenger, Bo Taylor (Bo indicated that I could identify him). This was the first contact I have had with any other passenger (besides Lori) since we left customs on Christmas Day. The conversation was very interesting because we both saw different things and were able to compare notes.
In the interest of obtaining the truth, which has always been my goal, I am posting the following account of Bo Taylor that differs from mine:
"After we landed in Detroit I saw an older looking teenager who was African and looked NEARLY IDENTICAL to the terrorist bomber. Since he was a minor, and travelling alone, he was accompanied by an airport employee at all times. Kurt, this could have been the guy you saw in Amsterdam before we boarded." I have no reason whatsoever to dispute the veracity of Bo's statement. I also have no reason to not believe what I saw.
Two different people can see two different things. However, I am not sure that it matters that much. You see, if Bo is correct, than we have a possible future airline security breach since the teenager was allowed on the plane without a passport(apparently) due to coming from Sudan (apparently). This may be a common airline policy that is potentially problematic. If I am correct, well, we have an entirely different and much larger problem. Either way, there are concerns. Either way we need an open, honest, and thorough investigation. There is one way to conclusively determine who is correct, and that would be for the Amsterdam Airport to RELEASE THE CLOSED CAPTION VIDEO FOOTAGE! Seriously, the attack happened 8 days ago, the relevant video is probably 2-3 minutes in length and has(apparently) already been viewed by airport security personnel. So why hasn't it appeared anywhere? Within 24 hours of any bank robbery or gas station hold up, the video of the perpetrator is played all over the news and posted on the internet. If the video really is not related to the terrorist incident, release it and let us move on. If it is related, release it, place it on the internet and let the world attempt to identify the "sharp dressed man". I suspect that due to the potential problems I indicated above (regardless of which account the video supports) federal law enforcement will likely never release the video.
Bo went on to emphasize the numerous amount of gaffes he saw (Many of which I did too) AFTER our plane landed. Bo cited the following as major problems he saw with how the investigation was handled:
1. We were left on the plane too long after landing, which caused unnecessary risk to the passengers.
2. We should have never been allowed to take our carry on bags into the terminal since they were not searched until we had been held for approximately one hour. This also caused unnecessary risk to the passengers.
3. Even though there was a no cell phone policy, Bo observed many people making cell phone calls and believes this was also an unnecessary risk to the passengers.
4. He was particularly concerned that according to him, "law enforcement in customs was not even notified that there was a bomb on our plane until we had been held for quite awhile". He informed me that an officer he spoke to in customs was clueless that there was even a bomb on our plane. Therefore, law enforcement WAS NOT EVEN AWARE of the risk our carry on bags presented while we were held in customs!
5. He indicated that he informed law enforcement that a man videotaped the entire terrorist incident and he gave the following possible seat numbers for the "camera man", seats 31A, 31B, 32A or 32B. However, law enforcement did not verify who was in such seats. Further, law enforcement could have confiscated each camera, but instead let this lead slip away when they let the passengers leave without ever finding the video.
It was very nice to compare notes with a fellow passenger even if his account was somewhat different than mine. My goal is not to prove that what I saw is correct, but only to pose the questions in order to obtain satisfactory answers. An open, honest, and complete investigation is vitally important to the future of all airline passengers. We must all continue to ask the questions until all of our concerns are satisfied.
By the way, the very important questions I posed at the conclusion of yesterday's post continue to remain unanswered.
Kurt Haskell- A Flight 253 passenger and a concerned American Citizen.
By Kurt Haskell | January 02, 2010
Today I received a phone call from a fellow passenger, Bo Taylor (Bo indicated that I could identify him). This was the first contact I have had with any other passenger (besides Lori) since we left customs on Christmas Day. The conversation was very interesting because we both saw different things and were able to compare notes.
In the interest of obtaining the truth, which has always been my goal, I am posting the following account of Bo Taylor that differs from mine:
"After we landed in Detroit I saw an older looking teenager who was African and looked NEARLY IDENTICAL to the terrorist bomber. Since he was a minor, and travelling alone, he was accompanied by an airport employee at all times. Kurt, this could have been the guy you saw in Amsterdam before we boarded." I have no reason whatsoever to dispute the veracity of Bo's statement. I also have no reason to not believe what I saw.
Two different people can see two different things. However, I am not sure that it matters that much. You see, if Bo is correct, than we have a possible future airline security breach since the teenager was allowed on the plane without a passport(apparently) due to coming from Sudan (apparently). This may be a common airline policy that is potentially problematic. If I am correct, well, we have an entirely different and much larger problem. Either way, there are concerns. Either way we need an open, honest, and thorough investigation. There is one way to conclusively determine who is correct, and that would be for the Amsterdam Airport to RELEASE THE CLOSED CAPTION VIDEO FOOTAGE! Seriously, the attack happened 8 days ago, the relevant video is probably 2-3 minutes in length and has(apparently) already been viewed by airport security personnel. So why hasn't it appeared anywhere? Within 24 hours of any bank robbery or gas station hold up, the video of the perpetrator is played all over the news and posted on the internet. If the video really is not related to the terrorist incident, release it and let us move on. If it is related, release it, place it on the internet and let the world attempt to identify the "sharp dressed man". I suspect that due to the potential problems I indicated above (regardless of which account the video supports) federal law enforcement will likely never release the video.
Bo went on to emphasize the numerous amount of gaffes he saw (Many of which I did too) AFTER our plane landed. Bo cited the following as major problems he saw with how the investigation was handled:
1. We were left on the plane too long after landing, which caused unnecessary risk to the passengers.
2. We should have never been allowed to take our carry on bags into the terminal since they were not searched until we had been held for approximately one hour. This also caused unnecessary risk to the passengers.
3. Even though there was a no cell phone policy, Bo observed many people making cell phone calls and believes this was also an unnecessary risk to the passengers.
4. He was particularly concerned that according to him, "law enforcement in customs was not even notified that there was a bomb on our plane until we had been held for quite awhile". He informed me that an officer he spoke to in customs was clueless that there was even a bomb on our plane. Therefore, law enforcement WAS NOT EVEN AWARE of the risk our carry on bags presented while we were held in customs!
5. He indicated that he informed law enforcement that a man videotaped the entire terrorist incident and he gave the following possible seat numbers for the "camera man", seats 31A, 31B, 32A or 32B. However, law enforcement did not verify who was in such seats. Further, law enforcement could have confiscated each camera, but instead let this lead slip away when they let the passengers leave without ever finding the video.
It was very nice to compare notes with a fellow passenger even if his account was somewhat different than mine. My goal is not to prove that what I saw is correct, but only to pose the questions in order to obtain satisfactory answers. An open, honest, and complete investigation is vitally important to the future of all airline passengers. We must all continue to ask the questions until all of our concerns are satisfied.
By the way, the very important questions I posed at the conclusion of yesterday's post continue to remain unanswered.
Kurt Haskell- A Flight 253 passenger and a concerned American Citizen.
Filed under
Kurt Haskell,
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab,
Underwear Bomber
by Winter Patriot
on Saturday, January 02, 2010
[
link |
| home
]
| home
]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
