The Underwear Bomber Case

By | February 17, 2012

Tony Muga – Now that the Underwear Bomber trial is over, the corporate controlled mainstream media has once again given a version of the story (or rather left parts out altogether) that not only stands in stark contrast to Kurt Haskell’s testimony, but is so incredibly lacking of pertinent facts that it is becoming painfully clear that a systematic effort is underway to blur the real circumstances of the case. …

Kurt’s testimony tells a whole different story, in it he points out that:

1. “While I sat there, I witnessed Umar dressed in jeans and a white t-shirt, being escorted around security by a man in a tan suit who spoke perfect American English and who aided Umar in boarding without a passport. The airline gate worker initially refused Umar boarding until the man in the tan suit intervened”

2. “We were then taken into the terminal with our unchecked carry on bags. Again, there was no concern for our safety even though Umar told the officers that there was another bomb on board as he exited the plane. I wondered why nobody was concerned about our safety, accomplices or other bombs and the lack of concern worried me greatly. I immediately told the FBI my story in order to help catch the accomplice I had seen in Amsterdam. It soon became obvious that the FBI wasn’t interested in what I had to say, which upset me further.”

3. “For one month the government refused to admit the existence of the man in the tan suit before changing course and admitting his existence in an ABC News article on January 22, 2010. That was the last time the government talked about this man. The video that would prove the truth of my account has never been released. I continue to be emotional upset that the video has not been released. The Dutch police, meanwhile, in this article (show article), also confirmed that Umar did not show his passport in Amsterdam which also meant that he didn’t go through security as both are in the same line in Amsterdam.”

4.“ I became further saddened from this case, when Patrick Kennedy of the State Department during Congressional hearings, admitted that Umar was a known terrorist, was being followed, and the U.S. allowed him into the U.S. so that it could catch Umar’s accomplices. I was once again shocked and saddened when Michael Leiter of the National Counter terrorism Center admitted during these same hearings that intentionally letting terrorists into the U.S. was a frequent practice of the U.S. Government. I cannot fully explain my sadness, disappointment and fear when I realized that my government allowed an attack on me intentionally.”

5.“During this time, I questioned if my country intentionally put a known terrorist onto my flight with a live bomb. I had many sleepless nights over this issue. My answer came shortly thereafter. In late 2010, the FBI admitted to giving out intentionally defective bombs to the Portland Christmas Tree Bomber,the Wrigley Field Bomber and several others. Further, Mr. Chambers was quoted in the Free Press on January 11, 2011 when he indicated that the government’s own explosives experts had indicated that Umar’s bomb was impossibly defective. I wondered how that could be. Certainly, I thought, Al Qaeda wouldn’t go through all of the trouble to plan such an attack only to provide the terrorist with an impossibly defective bomb.”

6.“I was greatly disappointed by the prosecution’s request to block evidence from Mr. Chambers ‘as it could then be able to be obtained by third parties, who could use it in a civil suit against the government’. It really bothered me that the government apparently was admitting to wrongdoing of some kind as it admitted that it was concerned it would be sued. It further upset me to know that the government was putting its own interests ahead of those of the passengers.”

7.“When I attended the jury selection hearings, I questioned why versions of the same two questions kept coming up, those being: Do you think you’ll be able to tell whether something is actually a bomb? and
 Do you realize that sometimes the media doesn’t always tell the truth?”

8.“When Umar listed me as his only witness, I was happy to testify, not on his behalf, but on behalf of the truth. I never expected to testify, as my eyewitness account would have been too damaging to the myth that the government and media are putting forward. A mere 5 days after I was announced as a witness, there was an inexplicable guilty plea which exasperated me as I no longer would be testifying.”

9.“In closing I will just say that regardless of how the media and government try to shape the public perception of this case, I am convinced that Umar was given an intentionally defective bomb by a U.S. Government agent and placed on our flight without showing a passport or going through security, to stage a false terrorist attack to be used to implement various government policies.” …

As Umar begins his life sentence and the Underwear Bomber case is relegated to the dusty shelf of history’s past, there are many questions that remain unanswered. Perhaps the most important one of all is: how long before the American public realizes that mainstream media is selling water from a poisoned the well?

via Sin Of Omission: Why Is ABC News Omitting Critical Details of the Underwear Bomber Case? :. | info wars


Leave a Reply