by Pete Johnson
As we all know, on Christmas Day Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (Mutallab) boarded a plane in Denmark with a makeshift bomb hidden in his underwear. Thanks to an alert passenger and the technical difficulty involved, the bomb did not detonate, the bomber caught himself on fire, the plane landed safely and the young man, Mutallab, is in custody.
The performance of the corporately controlled Orwellian media is again abysmal to the point of being a joke. We must ask ourselves, “why?”
Enter Kurt Haskell.
Michigan attorney Kurt Haskell witnessed two important events, neither of which has been widely reported although his testimony and collaborating testimony is available via You Tube videos of local news coverage including Mlive (Michigan live), NPR, Fox News, Antiwar radio, and Alex Jones’ Prison Planet.
Mr. Haskell reports that he and his wife were sitting on the floor in a crowed room playing cards when he witnessed the so-called “Sharp Dressed Man.” Haskell, who speaks carefully as an attorney, states that while Mutallab was poorly dressed, his friend was dressed in an expensive suit. He says the suited ‘Indian’ man asked ticket agents whether a supposed ‘Sudanese refugee’ (the terrorist, Mutallab) could board without a passport. The sharp-dressed man said, ‘He’s from Sudan and we do this all the time.’ Mr. Haskell makes clear that this does not mean that Mutallab did not have a passport, only that the well-dressed man attempted and evidently succeeded in getting him on a plane with-out displaying a passport. Haskell has clarified that the Indian-looking man could have been Pakistani or other, that he would not have been able to discern nationality. Mr. Haskell has confirmed that surveillance video would have been taken in this crowed departure area (in Amsterdam), but complains that they have not been released.
January 20th, 2010 | Posted in Print Edition | Read More »
Kurt Haskell describes The Well Dressed Man and the Man in Orange by Pete Johnson January 6, 2010 As we all know, on Christmas Day Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (Mutallab) boarded a plane in Denmark with a makeshift bomb hidden in his underwear. Thanks to an alert passenger and the technical difficulty involved, the bomb did [...]
January 6th, 2010 | Posted in Web-Only Content | Read More »
Pete Johnson
Hat tip: Columbus Free Press
In November 2007 Scripps Howard surveyed 811 Americans about their beliefs regarding the events of 9/11 and asked this question:
How about that some people in the federal government had specific warnings of the 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington, but chose to ignore those warnings. Is this very likely, somewhat likely or unlikely?
32% “Very Likely”
30% “Somewhat Likely
The Orwellian Mainstream Media and every elected office holder consistently ignore the many questions about 9/11. The questions remain, and 62% of the public believe that “some people” in the Federal Government ignored specific warnings of the impending terrorist attack. Obama did not receive 62% of votes in the last election, which was considered a landslide.
The majority of Americans who continue to ask questions based on the existing evidence and facts believe that “some people” would most definitely include former Vice President Dick Cheney.. Cheney directed the response to 9/11 while keeping George Bush well away from Washington. When the 9/11 commission interviewed the executive branch, Bush and Cheney refused to testify under oath, nor did they allow an official record of their “testimony”. Instead they insisted on meeting together which would allow them to keep their stories straight.
It has been reported that a Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agent, Saeed Sheikh, had wired $100,000 to Mohammed Atta, the ringleader of the 9/11 hijackers, at the instruction of ISI chief Mahmoud Ahmad. Ahmad arrived in Washington DC on Sept 4th, 2001 and was scheduled to leave on 9/11, but extended his stay until Sept 16 due to the attacks. Ahmad was removed from his position after this information became public in October 2001. Thus, there is clear evidence that that the ISI was involved in the attack and since they work closely with the CIA it raises questions about that agency’s role as well. What exactly was Ahmad’s business in Washington DC for 12 days, and did it involve a meeting with Cheney?
Now, we fast forward to the past two weeks. Mr. “undisclosed location” Cheney resurfaces after his party was soundly defeated in the November election, in order to confess to and then defend his policy of torture. This man, who was the central figure in allowing the worst terrorist attack on American soil, is now allowed to claim proudly that his policies kept us safe. Tell that to the jumpers who fell from the World Trade Center to their deaths.
Read more.
June 4th, 2009 | Posted in Web-Only Content | Read More »
-
Designed by