NYPD Discuss attempt to blow up George Washington Bridge

Border-Rat

It exposes the sick mindset of the perpetrators to have a mural on the side of a van depicting remote control planes impacting the towers. Incidentally, Israeli Mossad members were caught filming the impact and had traces explosives found in the (seperate) van.

[Jackass]

So, wait...put this in context...

A van with a murial of the 9/11 attacks painted on the side (planes flying into new york and exploding) was pulled over on 9/11, which was packed with explosives on the George Washington bridge?

This sounds massively significant to the whole events of the day, who were these people, and what happened to them, and why have I never heard of this before?

Maybe I'm missing something here, but wouldn't having someone like this in custody potentially hold a massive insight into the perpitrators of the attacks and massively credit or discredit certain arguments either way?

If they were members of Mossad (the CIA funded Israeli intelligence agency), then isn't this an earth shattering development in the whole ordeal?

Other than reported on the day, why has this not been mainstream content in observing the events of that day ever since, from all sides? (official and theoretical - I would imagine someone making an argument for a cover up would cover something like this in a lot more detail, but I've never heard it mentioned before now...)

Jonny7

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/A_truckload_of_explosives

It's fairly well debunked.

I watched a report that claimed the White house had been hit on one of the UK channels on the day, live reporting in chaotic situations brings mistakes and anomalies (it was later corrected that the White House was being evacuated)

Brown Bomber

Jonny7 wrote: »

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/A_truckload_of_explosives

It's fairly well debunked.

I watched a report that claimed the White house had been hit on one of the UK channels on the day, live reporting in chaotic situations brings mistakes and anomalies (it was later corrected that the White House was being evacuated)

That site is debunked.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z02QrY-jcdk

Jonny7

It's a weak rebuttal.

His first point is that the mass media has reported it so it has to be true.
"It's not like mass media made all of this up"

Yet he didn't accept when the "mass media" retracted the story.

Which is it?

His second point is about Guiliani and this guy Kerik. He calls Guiliani a "lying cross-dressing mobster". Then he goes on to talk about Kerik whom he says "denied bombs in the buildings..".. sooo I stopped watching right there.

Brown Bomber

Jonny7 wrote: »

It's a weak rebuttal.
.. sooo I stopped watching right there.

How would you know if you didn't watch til the end? Anyway, your loss.

Jonny7

Brown Bomber wrote: »

How would you know if you didn't watch til the end? Anyway, your loss.

Well I gave him 3 minutes of my time.. as soon as I heard about "bombs" in the buildings, end of that. There's plausible, and then there is batshiat crazy

Brown Bomber

Jonny7 wrote: »

Well I gave him 3 minutes of my time.. as soon as I heard about "bombs" in the buildings, end of that. There's plausible, and then there is batshiat crazy

Watch it. Don't watch it. I don't care. It's a moot point anyway as your link doesn't even begin to "debunk" anything in the OP and I suspect you don't even know why.

I hate to bring in posts from a another topic, but this guy in the video is doing exactly what you are accusing others of doing in the 7/7 thread BB.

In the first minute he dismisses the Popular Mechanics issue, not by addressing any of the points it makes but by saying it uses cartoons (or illustrations) to explain how the towers collapsed, "exactly like they used cartoons" to convince people of the WMDs in Iraq.

And of course as has been pointed out, he also concludes that any reports from the Mayor's office or the police must be untrue because they lie about other things. He repeated attacks the character of the guys he's refering to on matters that have no baring on the actual topic.
And then all of this is based on the strawman that the site is simpl relying on thier authority.

So is this another case of your double standards or should we just ignore this uncomfortable part of the video you are no doubt going to distance yourself from?

[Jackass]

Jonny7 wrote: »

Well I gave him 3 minutes of my time.. as soon as I heard about "bombs" in the buildings, end of that. There's plausible, and then there is batshiat crazy

Sorry, but "bombs in the building", i.e. controlled explosion, is one of the main reasons for questioning 9/11, as well as the presence of thermite and building 7 along with hundreds of witnesses, many of whom were interviewed live on TV, talking about multiple "bombs" or "explosions" going off in the buildings...

I just find it strange if you would classify this as bat **** crazy...how familiar are you with evidence presented about a "conspiracy" on 9/11?

I'm not saying it's fact, I'm just saying there's lots of evidence and is one of the main focal points in questioning 9/11..

Penn

How about we try discussing the topic without making sly digs at each other for a change? Y'know, at least for the first 10 pages of this thread. See how that works out.

Jonny7

[Jackass] wrote: »

Sorry, but "bombs in the building", i.e. controlled explosion, is one of the main reasons for questioning 9/11, as well as the presence of thermite and building 7 along with hundreds of witnesses, many of whom were interviewed live on TV, talking about multiple "bombs" or "explosions" going off in the buildings...

I just find it strange if you would classify this as bat **** crazy...how familiar are you with evidence presented about a "conspiracy" on 9/11?

I'm not saying it's fact, I'm just saying there's lots of evidence and is one of the main focal points in questioning 9/11..

To respond to the above. It's how such a theory comes about that we need to analyse, not the claim itself.

I see discrepancies, fabrications, coincidences, dodgy physics, misquotes, pseudo-expert opinions, distortions (some genuine) - that are all glued together to form doubts in the official sequence of events*

Certain individuals then build a narrative using these doubts (naturally, its human nature), however they then start a belief system in this narrative. Subsequently that turns into a self-perpetuating theory which they vigorously defend (sound familiar?)

If that statement is false, then where is the evidence of..
Who exactly planned it?
When was it planned?
Who was informed of the plan?
Is this information passed from administration to administration? how far down the chain did it go?
Who invented silent explosives?
Which agency or group or individuals planted them in two of the world's largest buildings?
When did that happen exactly? dates? etc


What about the reasoning..

Why plant explosives in these two buildings that are just about to be hit by two highly combustible airliners? why take that monumental risk just for effect?
What if one of the jetliners miss? what if both miss? the explosives will be found, why are the explosives then necessary? (if they are just for added effect)
If the President can't get a blowjob without the world knowing, or the powers-that-be can't cover up war-crimes, torture and atrocities very well, why would they risk killing thousands of their own civilians in such a hugely complex utterly risky way? why not chose something more straightforward?
Again there are dozens of reasoning questions, yet they are casually discarded, because they rely on supporting evidence rather than a theory built on doubt*

I've read more than a few theorists who claim that it's so far into the realm of fantasy that hijackers could take control of planes and fly them into the buildings.....

Yet their own theories on the matter ironically push the imagination much further - the US government, treasonously killing thousands of its own civilians, in the most extraordinarily elaborate, risky, over-the-top, frankly stupid plan.

Same thing has happened with the 7/7 London bombings. Identical modus operandi in creating the "theory". Taking coincidences, anomalies, false information, misquotes, news errors/mistakes (including genuine) - bringing it together into said theory - then the development of a rigorous almost religious defense of that theory. Yet what is the actual theory? where is the plan? where is it laid out fully? with names? and dates? When was it planned? who was involved? how far down in government did it go? Real questions, carefully avoided.

I'm not even going to check the conspiracy theories on the Madrid bombings, but I could make a pretty good guess on the matter.

Build up repertoire of evidence*, use said "evidence" to highlight enough doubt in official story. Use that doubt to somehow suggests the presence of a much more implausible theory. Indirectly defend that implausible theory by the fact that the evidence* exists. Circular. Rinse, repeat.

No offense to anyone here - just my opinion.

Brown Bomber

Jonny,
Have you figured out yet why your link doesn't debunk the OP yet?

Border-Rat

I don't think he has.

I'm also curious as to why Israeli Mossad would celeberate the atrocities and mock them, to such an extent that locals would call the Police. Then in custody refuse to take lie detector tests, then weeks later agree to take them them fail them. I also wonder why the owner of Urban Moving Systems fled to Israel in such a hurry.

Its curious that the Mossad agents then went on Israeli TV and said that they were there to 'document the event'. Extraordinary terminology! They purposely went to New York to film this? This seems to correlate with the New York Times report indicating that they had set up the camera's prior to the first impact.

An interesting video;

Torakx

Thanks for that.Watched the whole 2+ hours hehe.
Good stuff!

Monty Burnz

Brown Bomber wrote: »

That site is debunked.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z02QrY-jcdk

In the video clip at about 7 minutes in, the reporter states that CBS is reporting an 'exclusive' about the truck bomb and the arrests. This presumably means that all these reports in different places arose from one CBS reporter, right?

Brown Bomber

Monty Burnz wrote: »

In the video clip at about 7 minutes in, the reporter states that CBS is reporting an 'exclusive' about the truck bomb and the arrests. This presumably means that all these reports in different places arose from one CBS reporter, right?

No, not at all. It's the context that gives the meaning to "exclusive". It is not exclusive in the same way Hello magazine have exlusive rights to photograph the Beckham's wedding after paying a tidy sum as this is a controlled enviroment and measures are undertaken to assure this. "Exclusive" in this case means that CBS are claiming to be breaking the story. The difference is that all other news outlets, local and national have their own individual contact books, channels of communication and sources that they can turn to to verify and expand the story and to get fresh quotes.

Brown Bomber

Torakx wrote: »

Thanks for that.Watched the whole 2+ hours hehe.
Good stuff!

Honestly, I found that film to have a little too much "counting of Jews" involved, reminded me a little of neo-nazism.

Can I suggest a far better film imo?

9/11 AND THE COVERUP
http://vimeo.com/39578648

It doesn't shy away from the obvious Israeli connections, in fact it exposes them but it doesn't link it to religion.

Brown Bomber

Border-Rat wrote: »

Its curious that the Mossad agents then went on Israeli TV and said that they were there to 'document the event'. Extraordinary terminology! They purposely went to New York to film this? This seems to correlate with the New York Times report indicating that they had set up the camera's prior to the first impact.

I think the "document the event" quote is a red herring of the same category as Silverstein's "pull it" statement. Both are ambiguous. Far more damning is their move from "documenting"/celebrating from the UMS roof where they had a perfect vantage point of the first tower that was hit but not the second (yet to be hit) tower to a point where they could document/celebrate the second tower as the plane struck.

It was an incredible act of foresight. They somehow knew that it was a terrorist attack despite it being the first of it's kind in history and the rest of the world was thinking it was a tragic accident.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I think the "document the event" quote is a red herring of the same category as Silverstein's "pull it" statement. Both are ambiguous.

They're only ambiguous if you totally ignore the context they were said in and assume the people who said them are stupid enough to blow the entire conspiracy.
However when you look at them without a view to prove the conspiracy both states are clear and innocuous.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Far more damning is their move from "documenting"/celebrating from the UMS roof where they had a perfect vantage point of the first tower that was hit but not the second (yet to be hit) tower to a point where they could document/celebrate the second tower as the plane struck.

It was an incredible act of foresight. They somehow knew that it was a terrorist attack despite it being the first of it's kind in history and the rest of the world was thinking it was a tragic accident.

Just as the people filming the collapse of building 7, 5 hours after the event had "foresight". Or any one pointing a camera at either of the two towers when the planes hit knew the planes were coming.
Right?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

They're only ambiguous if you totally ignore the context they were said in and assume the people who said them are stupid enough to blow the entire conspiracy.

You do know what a red herring is right? If not could you please find out and reread what you've quoted of me.

King Mob wrote: »

However when you look at them without a view to prove the conspiracy both states are clear and innocuous.

Pathetic strawman.

King Mob wrote: »

Just as the people filming the collapse of building 7, 5 hours after the event had "foresight". Or any one pointing a camera at either of the two towers when the planes hit knew the planes were coming.
Right?

No. Wrong. Once again you've failed to actually consider what you are saying or are so unfamiliar with the facts that you can't give an informed opinion.

People filming building 7 were doing so AFTER it was known that what had occured was a monumental terrorist attack. The most epic single terrorist attack in our or anyone elses lifetime which was carried out in the backyard of the worlds sole superpower. Also, they were filming a burning building.

This is obviously not the same as moving to get a good view of the South Tower before it had been hit or there was any indication it would be hit from a place where they couldn't see it at all. This is from their own statements to the FBI.


The only footage of in existence to the best of my knowledge of the first plane hitting is the Naudet brothers footage. They are filmakers and were actually filming firemen in Manhattan for a documentary they were making and the plane hitting was filmed entirely accidentally.


This is obviously not the same as moving to get a good view of the South Tower before it had been hit or there was any indication it would be hit from a place where they couldn't see it at all. This is from their own statements to the FBI.

As for the second plane hitting there is no other footage in existence to the best of my knowledge that was being filmed for any other reason than due to it's proximity to the South Tower which had been hit and was smouldering.

This is obviously not the same as moving to get a good view of the South Tower before it had been hit or there was any indication it would be hit from a place where they couldn't see it at all. This is from their own statements to the FBI.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You do know what a red herring is right? If not could you please find out and reread what you've quoted of me.

You said that the statements were ambiguous. They are not at all.
Nor are they red herrings since they are things that conspiracy theorists hook onto all by themselves.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Pathetic strawman.

No it's not a strawman. Many conspiracy theorists refer to the Silverstein quote out of context, just as you and others do with the other quote. And both of them require you to assume an epic level of stupidity for them to be even considered possible evidence.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No. Wrong. Once again you've failed to actually consider what you are saying or are so unfamiliar with the facts that you can't give an informed opinion.

People filming building 7 were doing so AFTER it was known that what had occured was a monumental terrorist attack. The most epic single terrorist attack in our or anyone elses lifetime which was carried out in the backyard of the worlds sole superpower. Also, they were filming a burning building.

This is obviously not the same as moving to get a good view of the South Tower before it had been hit or there was any indication it would be hit from a place where they couldn't see it at all. This is from their own statements to the FBI.

But why were they filming a burning building when they couldn't even see the fires? Why were they filming it when they could not have possibly known it was going to collapse? Why if it's only plausible that people film stuff after they know what it is were the towers filmed only directly after the first attack?
Could it have been that they were just documenting the event, regardless of what it was known to be at the time and got lucky?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The only footage of in existence to the best of my knowledge of the first plane hitting is the Naudet brothers footage. They are filmakers and were actually filming firemen in Manhattan for a documentary they were making and the plane hitting was filmed entirely accidentally.

So they just happened to be in the right place at the right time?
How could they have possibly been in just the right spot with their cameras pointed in just the right direction? Surely that's too coincidental to be possible?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

As for the second plane hitting there is no other footage in existence to the best of my knowledge that was being filmed for any other reason than due to it's proximity to the South Tower which had been hit and was smouldering.

But how did people know that the second tower was going to be hit and moved into position to see the second tower be hit?

Of course these points are all rhetorical, since the answer is obvious.
People get lucky and can be in the right place at the right time.
You don't think any of those examples are suspicious, so there's no reason you should find the Israeli guys doing the same suspicious.

They could moved north to a point were they could see if the other tower had been damaged.
They could have moved to try and get a better look at the damage to the first tower, which was damaged on the north facing side.
Why don't these explanations work?

And why, if they knew the second tower was going to be hit, did they not just start off in a position to see both towers, and avoid the suspicion entirely, and do so instead of choosing two separate positions that didn't actually let them see either impact?

Like the two quotes, your accusation sounds good and damning... Until you look at it in context and without a bias towards a conspiracy.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

You said that the statements were ambiguous. They are not at all.
Nor are they red herrings since they are things that conspiracy theorists hook onto all by themselves.

If you are going to have a discussion with me please have the decency to address what I say and not what "conspiracy theorists" say.

I don't know how you can argue that Silverstein's comments aren't ambiguous when they clearly are as it is not at all clear what he is referring to by "it" in pull it.

To paraphrase Silverstein:
I was on the phone with the Fire Chief and we decided that since there has been such a terrible loss of live that we should pull it.

Considering that pull is a demolition industry term used to describe a controlled demolition of a building and that Building 7 fell in a manner that convinced controllled demolitions expert Danny Jowenko that it was controlled demolition "it" could quite conceivably refer to the building itself and not as Silverstein later claimed to the firefighters themselves (who have probably never been referred to as "it" before or since).

Therefore Silverstein's statement is quite obviously ambiguous and I won't be wasting any further time in pointless discussion of something that is already established.

King Mob wrote: »

No it's not a strawman. Many conspiracy theorists refer to the Silverstein quote out of context, just as you and others do with the other quote. And both of them require you to assume an epic level of stupidity for them to be even considered possible evidence.

Nice veiled insult . Again please address what I say and not "conspiracy theorists". Furthermore, please pay closer attention to what I say. I've originally stated that they are both ambiguous statements and are therefore red herrings and therefore evidence of nothing.

King Mob wrote: »

But why were they filming a burning building when they couldn't even see the fires?

What do you mean "But why...?" I've just explained to you: THEY WERE FILMING THE VERY RECENT AFTERMATH OF A SPECTACULAR TERRORIST ATTACK.

Look, I've just read through the rest of the nonsense below and I am not going to refute it point-by-point when it is not even an honest argument. You cannot honestly compare a group of foriegners celebrating and filming a terrorist attack to everyone else who were horrified and shocked and filming what they thought was a tragic accident.

You cannot honestly compare people filming from the street where they stand or from their apartment windows to a group of people who have a perfectly good vantage point (assuming no foreknowledge) to see the "accident" moving to an alternative location that only improved should a second plane hit the second tower.

King Mob wrote: »

But how did people know that the second tower was going to be hit and moved into position to see the second tower be hit?

Which people? Sources.

King Mob wrote: »

They could have moved to try and get a better look at the damage to the first tower, which was damaged on the north facing side.
Why don't these explanations work?

Because their view from UMS roof gave them perfect visibility of North face of the North Tower.

King Mob wrote: »

And why, if they knew the second tower was going to be hit, did they not just start off in a position to see both towers, and avoid the suspicion entirely, and do so instead of choosing two separate positions that didn't actually let them see either impact?

Because - and again this involves you giving some consideration before you type - then their cover would be blown. How could they justify driving around in a large group in a van (to stand on) together with a camera, flight tickets for immediate departure, passports and thousands rolled up in a sock all some distance from their respective homes?

]

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I don't know how you can argue that Silverstein's comments aren't ambiguous when they clearly are as it is not at all clear what he is referring to by "it" in pull it.
To paraphrase Silverstein:
I was on the phone with the Fire Chief and we decided that since there has been such a terrible loss of live that we should pull it.

Considering that pull is a demolition industry term used to describe a controlled demolition of a building and that Building 7 fell in a manner that convinced controllled demolitions expert Danny Jowenko that it was controlled demolition "it" could quite conceivably refer to the building itself and not as Silverstein later claimed to the firefighters themselves (who have probably never been referred to as "it" before or since).

Therefore Silverstein's statement is quite obviously ambiguous and I won't be wasting any further time in pointless discussion of something that is already established.

You have not given the full context of the quote you are using.
And in addition you've misquoted him to further twist it.

If you take the time to find the entire context it makes it very clear that the "it" he was referring to.
Isn't it just as conceivable that the "it" was the operation to contain the fires? If not, why not?

And this of course ignoring the myriad of problems with the idea of it being an admission that you aren't going to address.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Look, I've just read through the rest of the nonsense below and I am not going to refute it point-by-point when it is not even an honest argument. You cannot honestly compare a group of foriegners celebrating and filming a terrorist attack to everyone else who were horrified and shocked and filming what they thought was a tragic accident.

But I'm not comparing all of their actions. I'm not saying that all of the other people who managed to be in the right place at the right were dancing etc. Nor is how insensitive or horrified any of the people were in anyway relevant to my point.
My point is that what you are using to show their guilt (ie, specifically the fact that they moved in time to see the second tower hit, and nothing else) is no different to the thousands of other people who managed to be in the right place in the right time.
(again stressing that this is a separate point to the accusation that they were dancing.)
So unless you're willing to accuse thousand of others of being involved in the conspiracy as well, coincidence is still a viable (and more likely) explanation

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Because their view from UMS roof gave them perfect visibility of North face of the North Tower.

Assuming that is true why is it impossible they could have thought there might have been more damage than they saw? Or that the other tower could have been damaged?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Because - and again this involves you giving some consideration before you type - then their cover would be blown. How could they justify driving around in a large group in a van (to stand on) together with a camera, flight tickets for immediate departure, passports and thousands rolled up in a sock all some distance from their respective homes?

But this not only does not answer my question, it does not make a lick of sense for your conspiracy.
If they had known both towers would have been hit, there's no reason why wouldn't they have picked the spot were they could see both?
Had they done this you wouldn't even have this incredibly shaky piece of evidence.

But if for some reason they couldn't do this, why then did they drive to a new location if they were so worried that such an action would blow their cover?
If you wish to argue that they needed to see both towers get hit (though not from a vantage point were they could see the impact) and this trumped their concerns about blowing their cover then you'll have to go back and explain why they didn't just start off in a place where they could see both towers.

And importantly, if you are going to argue that they were so concerned about not blowing their cover they didn't want to drive down the road, why the hell they the blow their cover in the silliest way imaginable?

Monty Burnz

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No, not at all. It's the context that gives the meaning to "exclusive". It is not exclusive in the same way Hello magazine have exlusive rights to photograph the Beckham's wedding after paying a tidy sum as this is a controlled enviroment and measures are undertaken to assure this. "Exclusive" in this case means that CBS are claiming to be breaking the story. The difference is that all other news outlets, local and national have their own individual contact books, channels of communication and sources that they can turn to to verify and expand the story and to get fresh quotes.

But it seems that they didn't? So perhaps someone at CBS went off half-cocked, and on closer investigation it turned out that elements of the story were incorrect? I don't see how it could have been hushed up otherwise. You'd have as much luck trying to hush up the attack on the Twin Towers, given the media (and general) hysteria around the subject that day.

RichieC

That is a proper WTF video...

Brown Bomber

Monty Burnz wrote: »

But it seems that they didn't? So perhaps someone at CBS went off half-cocked, and on closer investigation it turned out that elements of the story were incorrect? I don't see how it could have been hushed up otherwise. You'd have as much luck trying to hush up the attack on the Twin Towers, given the media (and general) hysteria around the subject that day.

Well the "event" in the OP i.e van stopped by NYPD on 911 with, according to the NYPD Officer at the scene a mural of a plane crashing into the WTC, 2 suspects flee on foot, van explodes - regardless of the finer details - was never, ever reported in anyway shape or form in the media. Total media blackout, so evidently it is possible.

Monty Burnz

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Well the "event" in the OP i.e van stopped by NYPD on 911 with, according to the NYPD Officer at the scene a mural of a plane crashing into the WTC, 2 suspects flee on foot, van explodes - regardless of the finer details - was never, ever reported in anyway shape or form in the media. Total media blackout, so evidently it is possible.

Apologies BB, I may be getting stuff mixed up here. Is there an authoritative source for the story so? If it's in the OP, I'll have a look at it. But the fact that we are discussing it now suggests that it wasn't successfully 'blacked out' if it actually happened, doesn't it?

Brown Bomber

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Apologies BB, I may be getting stuff mixed up here. Is there an authoritative source for the story so? If it's in the OP, I'll have a look at it. But the fact that we are discussing it now suggests that it wasn't successfully 'blacked out' if it actually happened, doesn't it?

The original source is not the media, it is a NYPD/EMU radio transmission that was recorded by a HAM radio enthusiast Robert Sandford.

Robert (above), on his side of the Golden Gate Bridge. Below is the WB6NYC Shack.

http://www.fenichel.com/RobtShack.jpg

Robert Sanford - WB6NYC

Robert Sanford went about his life as he usually does. 11th September started off early for Robert - about 6.00 am, but who cares...... Robert is an Amateur radio enthusiast (as I am) and when he learned about the events unfolding in New York Robert was on the case immediately.

During the next few hours Robert recorded some of the most amazing audio that he had ever had to listen to - and probably some of the saddest content. Events on 11th September are known to most people on Earth, but when you actually listen to the audio recordings that Robert captured it WILL change your view of the whole thing known as Incident 0727.

Here's some info about Robert in his own words:

After some 20 years in New York City I have decided to "get the hell out of Dodge" and make the nice quiet town of Sausalito my new "home town". I was the Emergency Coordinator for ARES, the Radio Officer for RACES and the SKYWARN Coordinator for New York City.


http://www.incident0727.com/robert_sanford.htm

Monty Burnz

Interesting, but very confused stuff. They talk about 2 guys, and how they got 'both of them' under arrest. I thought there was a big group? Also, the reference to remote control planes - how the hell do you convey that in a mural on the side of a truck? Then there are several references to 'exploded' - what exploded?

Brown Bomber

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Interesting, but very confused stuff. They talk about 2 guys, and how they got 'both of them' under arrest. I thought there was a big group?

I believe you may be under the impression that there was one van?

There was reportedly a number of vans interconnected with 911.

1. There were truck bombs reported in the base of the towers.
2. The "mural" van. Arrests reported of "Middle Eastern" men.
3. The George Washington Bridge van - reportedly arrests and explosions
4. Two Urban Moving Systems vans, who the FBI considered a "possible fraudelent business" . 1 - The Dancing Israelis and 2- There was another van that was stopped by police that was heading towards the Shanskville crash site on 9-11.
5. There was also a strange call made to police of of terrorists in a white van dressed as "Palestinians" at the Holland Tunnel.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Also, the reference to remote control planes - how the hell do you convey that in a mural on the side of a truck?

I'd speculate that it was cartoony in nature.

Monty Burnz wrote: »

how the hell do you convey that in a mural on the side of a truck? Then there are several references to 'exploded' - what exploded?

According to the officers at the scene the mural van exploded that the two suspects fled from.

Monty Burnz

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I believe you may be under the impression that there was one van?

Yes, exactly - I'm wondering just how many vans there were and how many of the 'extra' vans are garbled accounts of the actual van/s.