MOSSAD FRONT URBAN MOVING SYSTEMS RECIEVED FEDERAL FUNDING IN MONTHS PRIOR TO 911

Brown Bomber · 30-04-2011 3:51pm #1

Just came across this and thought I'd share. http://www.fedspending.org/faads/faads.php?reptype=r&database=faads&record_id=2039277&detail=3&datype=T&sortby=i

Assistance Transaction #2039277
(FY 2000-2008)

.searching { display: block; } Expanded Detail on Individual Transactions for FY 2001

Award Or Aggregate #1

Recipient Information

[SIZE=-2] [/SIZE] Recipient NameURBAN MOVING SYSTEMS INC Recipient City NameBAYONNE Recipient County NameHUDSON Recipient State CodeNew Jersey Recipient Zip Code07002 Congressional DistrictNJ90: New Jersey unknown districts Recipient CategoryIndividuals Recipient Typeindividual
Project and Award Info

[SIZE=-2] [/SIZE] Major AgencySmall Business Administration Agency Code7300: Small Business Administration Agency NameSMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Federal Award ID45966540 State Application ID NumberSAI EXEMPT CFDA Program Number59.012: Small Business Loans CFDA Program TitleSMALL BUSINESS LOANS Assistance CategoryLoans (both direct and guaranteed) Assistance Typeguaranteed/insured loan Project DescriptionTO AID SMALL BUSINESSES WHICH ARE UNABLE TO OBTAIN FINANCING IN THE PRIVATE CREDIT MARKETPLACE
Action

[SIZE=-2](Award or Aggregate #1)[/SIZE] Fiscal Year2001 Action Typenew assistance action Federal Funding Amount$498,750 *

Non-Federal Funding Amount$166,250 Total Funding Amount$665,000 Obligation / Action Date06/22/2001 Starting Date06/22/2001 Ending Date06/22/2024 Record Typeindividual action * Note: SBA may include loans that have been authorized but for which no award was made. We are working with SBA to resolve this issue.

Principal Place

[SIZE=-2] [/SIZE] Principal Place Code3403580 Principal Place StateNEW JERSEY Principal Place County or CityBAYONNE

Total transactions for fiscal year 2001: 1

Federal funding (within this search) for the year : $498,750

For those that don't know Urban Moving Systems was the "company" that employed the 3 dancing Israelis that were seen filming and celebrating the first attack on the towers in Arab costumes. They were caught whilst driving later in the day with another 2 Israelis and found with the usual box cutters, large amounts of cash etc and the sniffer dog reacted to the van for explosives.

Details here: http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=urban_moving_systems

And the actual police report filed by the arresting officers is here http://www.scribd.com/doc/46173840/Police-Report

The companies head Dominik Suter fled the country 3 days after 9-11 and was placed on an FBI suspect list which was leaked in Italy.
http://cryptome.org/CI-08-02.pdf

Di0genes · 30-04-2011 3:59pm

Can you explain show that this funding was out of the ordinary for a business of it's size. Can you explain the significance of this funding?

Having large amounts of cash is plausible for a moving business. As are box cutters. Explosives or the chemicals used in explosives can be found in ordinary house hold chemicals.

Furthermore no explosives or explosive residue was ever found at the Twin Towers, and no conspiracy theory has been put forward that explains how the towers could have been rigid.

Other than all that. Yeah really interesting.

Hookah · 30-04-2011 4:39pm

Di0genes wrote: »

Furthermore no explosives or explosive residue was ever found at the Twin Towers, and no conspiracy theory has been put forward that explains how the towers could have been rigid.

Was there a forensic examination of the rubble at the Twin Towers?

Di0genes · 30-04-2011 4:56pm

Hookah wrote: »

Was there a forensic examination of the rubble at the Twin Towers?

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Hookah · 30-04-2011 4:59pm

Di0genes wrote: »

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Did the NIST investigation look for evidence of the WTC towers being brought down by controlled demolition? Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter." NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.

.

Di0genes · 30-04-2011 5:02pm

Hookah wrote: »

.

In the shift of rubble were wedding rings, tiny bone fragments, and scrapes of DNA have been found and returned to the family members, no one has found any detention cord, blasting caps or charges, any of the sort of residue you'd find after a controlled denotation.

Hookah · 30-04-2011 6:38pm

Di0genes wrote: »

In the shift of rubble were wedding rings, tiny bone fragments, and scrapes of DNA have been found and returned to the family members, no one has found any detention cord, blasting caps or charges, any of the sort of residue you'd find after a controlled denotation.

http://911review.com/means/demolition/index.html

If you scroll down there's a theory on computerized demolition which requires none of the above.

Di0genes · 30-04-2011 8:06pm

Hookah wrote: »

http://911review.com/means/demolition/index.html

If you scroll down there's a theory on computerized demolition which requires none of the above.

You mean the theory created by Eric Hufschmid?

The fact that there isn't a single example of this theory being used by any CD company in the world, and Eric Hufschmid hasn't proposed how it would work.

Yeah oh thats credible.

Brown Bomber · 01-05-2011 5:04am

Di0genes wrote: »

You mean the theory created by Eric Hufschmid?

You mean Eric Hufschmid who's sister is married to Rupert Murdoch's son? :pac:

Going to stick my kneck out and call shill on him

And you expect them to find exploded det cord? WTF?

Di0genes · 01-05-2011 2:43pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You mean Eric Hufschmid who's sister is married to Rupert Murdoch's son? :pac:

Going to stick my kneck out and call shill on him

And you expect them to find exploded det cord? WTF?

Unexploded, from misfiring cord.

Prepping a building for controlled demolition requires months and months of prep work and planning, support beams need to be cut, miles and miles of det cord need to be laid.

There's no evidence for a controlled demolition of the world trade centre.

Please take a moment to read one of the epic threads on this matter on this forum that have come before this.

Hookah · 01-05-2011 2:45pm

Di0genes wrote: »

Unexploded, from misfiring cord.

Prepping a building for controlled demolition requires months and months of prep work and planning, support beams need to be cut, miles and miles of det cord need to be laid.

There's no evidence for a controlled demolition of the world trade centre.

Please take a moment to read one of the epic threads on this matter on this forum that have come before this.

How do you think WTC7 collapsed?

Di0genes · 01-05-2011 2:50pm

Hookah wrote: »

How do you think WTC7 collapsed?

I believe the NIST report on building 7 is accurate.

There are a rake of threads already on this on this forum. Please take some time to search them, and understand these matters have been discussed on this forum already.

Hookah · 01-05-2011 2:54pm

Di0genes wrote: »

I believe the NIST report on building 7 is accurate.

There are a rake of threads already on this on this forum. Please take some time to search them, and understand these matters have been discussed on this forum already.

I've also read a scientific report on the NIST report which said something about that report having to defy the laws of physics in order to be correct.

You pays your money and you takes your choice.

Care for me to dig it up for you? I posted in it in one of those threads, under a different username, already.

Di0genes · 01-05-2011 2:56pm

Hookah wrote: »

I've also read a scientific report on the NIST report which said something about that report having to defy the laws of physics in order to be correct.

You pays your money and you takes your choice.

Care for me to dig it up for you? I posted in it in one of those threads, under a different username, already.

Yes please.

Hookah · 01-05-2011 3:07pm

Di0genes wrote: »

Yes please.

I have to run so I'll dig it out later.

This should keep you going for now...http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/57-news-releases-by-others/450-scientific-theory.html

The report I mentioned is on that site somewhere.

http://www.darkpolitricks.com/2010/08/nist-admit-their-report-on-wtc-7-is-not-consistent-with-basic-principles-of-physics/

Di0genes · 01-05-2011 3:11pm

Hookah wrote: »

I have to run so I'll dig it out later.

This should keep you going for now...http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/57-news-releases-by-others/450-scientific-theory.html

The report I mentioned is on that site somewhere.

http://www.darkpolitricks.com/2010/08/nist-admit-their-report-on-wtc-7-is-not-consistent-with-basic-principles-of-physics/

I don't rate AEtruth as a source. And again this has been done to death ad nauesum already on this forum.

Mahatma coat · 01-05-2011 4:17pm

Well then, you should have no problem disproving their statements, or even better you should be able to link to where you have previously disproved their statements

Attack the Statement not the source.

Monty Burnz · 01-05-2011 4:31pm

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And the actual police report filed by the arresting officers is here http://www.scribd.com/doc/46173840/Police-Report

The police report details nothing of who was arrested, what they were arrested for, or any details of the scenario. How can we know that report refers to the episode it is claimed to?

Di0genes · 01-05-2011 5:20pm

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Well then, you should have no problem disproving their statements, or even better you should be able to link to where you have previously disproved their statements

Attack the Statement not the source.

Mahatma unless you have amnesia you'll have forgotten the dozens of threads on this subject matter before. Threads you participated in.

Me? It's a nice day outside.

It's a decade since 9/11 all conspiracy theorists are doing is re hashing old points over again. I'm not like the guy from me. If I search WTC 7 threads I undoubatbly find the one were you suggest the building could have been taken out by a suitcase nuke.

Unless there's something new to discuss why rehash old arguments?

Mahatma coat · 01-05-2011 5:22pm

HOw about this
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123885&page=2

Mahatma coat · 01-05-2011 5:25pm

First off, the reason this is STILL being discussed almost a decade later is that the assertions have NOT been conclusivley DISPROVED, and the 'Official' Explanation has more holes than the Quite nice piece of Swiss Cheese I had for lunch.

Mahatma coat · 01-05-2011 5:27pm

Oh BTW, if you bother to re read that thread You will see that I did not Suggest a Suitcase Nuke, I merely made a Witty comment on its deployment;)

Monty Burnz · 01-05-2011 5:29pm

Mahatma coat wrote: »

First off, the reason this is STILL being discussed almost a decade later is that the assertions have NOT been conclusivley DISPROVED, and the 'Official' Explanation has more holes than the Quite nice piece of Swiss Cheese I had for lunch.

To be fair, every time an aspect of the CT is shot down, the CT encompasses the new explanation. They had a term for this during the Cold War - 'persistent enemy imaging'. No matter what side A does, side B can choose to interpret it as sinister, and vice versa.

See how the release of Obama's full birth cert has been greeted by the birthers - 'it's a forgery'. They were not going to believe it whatever happened as they made their minds up long ago.

Di0genes · 01-05-2011 5:30pm

Mahatma coat wrote: »

First off, the reason this is STILL being discussed almost a decade later is that the assertions have NOT been conclusivley DISPROVED, and the 'Official' Explanation has more holes than the Quite nice piece of Swiss Cheese I had for lunch.

The fact that a decade later a coherent alternative theory as to how the WTC 7 was destroyed has not been forthcoming, says more.

Hookah · 01-05-2011 5:30pm

Di0genes wrote: »

I don't rate AEtruth as a source.

Of course you don't or we wouldn't be arguing.

And again this has been done to death ad nauesum already on this forum.

Do you accept the NIST's admittance that the building was in freefall for 2.25 seconds, in their final 2008 report?

Di0genes · 01-05-2011 5:42pm

Hookah wrote: »

Of course you don't or we wouldn't be arguing.

I spent many months as a member of AE for truth, as one of their "professional experts" who spoke out about 9/11.

I signed on as Professor Hubert J Farnsworth, Professor at Mars U, with a expertise in "Doomsday Weapons".

Do you accept the NIST's admittance that the building was in freefall for 2.25 seconds, in their final 2008 report?

Yes.

Mahatma coat · 01-05-2011 5:43pm

Monty Burnz wrote: »

To be fair, every time an aspect of the CT is shot down, the CT encompasses the new explanation. They had a term for this during the Cold War - 'persistent enemy imaging'. No matter what side A does, side B can choose to interpret it as sinister, and vice versa.

See how the release of Obama's full birth cert has been greeted by the birthers - 'it's a forgery'. They were not going to believe it whatever happened as they made their minds up long ago.

Yeah, but, A lot of people still haven't made their minds up, the whole concept of the Truth movement is Just that, the search for the truth of what happened and what led to it, the 'official' explanation just dosen't stack up, yet a lot of the theories contradict each other, the only way forward is to establish the truth, and deal with that.

Hookah · 01-05-2011 5:47pm

Di0genes wrote: »

I spent many months as a member of AE for truth, as one of their "professional experts" who spoke out about 9/11.

I signed on as Professor Hubert J Farnsworth, Professor at Mars U, with a expertise in "Doomsday Weapons".

Are you confirming that rumours of the existence of shills is actually true?

Yes.

And you're happy that a fire and falling debris caused the conditions necessary for the building to enter into freefall?

Hookah · 01-05-2011 5:52pm

Monty Burnz wrote: »

To be fair, every time an aspect of the CT is shot down, the CT encompasses the new explanation. They had a term for this during the Cold War - 'persistent enemy imaging'. No matter what side A does, side B can choose to interpret it as sinister, and vice versa.

And to fair, every time an aspect of the non-CT is shot down, the non-CT encompasses....etc.

Di0genes · 01-05-2011 6:31pm

Hookah wrote: »

Are you confirming that rumours of the existence of shills is actually true?

If pretending to be

If that's your idea of Shill, well.....

It shows the shoddy practices of AE for truth.

And you're happy that a fire and falling debris caused the conditions necessary for the building to enter into freefall?

Yes I am. Utterly content to accept it.

Brown Bomber · 01-05-2011 7:24pm

Di0genes wrote: »

I spent many months as a member of AE for truth, as one of their "professional experts" who spoke out about 9/11.

I signed on as Professor Hubert J Farnsworth, Professor at Mars U, with a expertise in "Doomsday Weapons".

Somebody is telling porky pies here.

We played a game here a few years back where were signed up to the AE petition with the most ridiculous user name and professional background.

I spent two days on the list despite registering myself as a Professor Hubert J Farnsworth, a graduate of Mars U, with an expertise in "Doomsday devices"

Thats right for 48 hours there was a cartoon character among the signatures.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5217581&postcount=21

MOSSAD FRONT URBAN MOVING SYSTEMS RECIEVED FEDERAL FUNDING IN MONTHS PRIOR TO 911

Comments