It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Bombs on the bridge??? (Need Info Please)

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
five dancing Mossad and IDF agents who later admitted they were there to 'document the event'.


Amongst all the other stuff in your post this stands out. I assume you got this information from the edited video of them going on TV in Israel?

Do you really think that secret agents go on TV and admit to what they've done? Isn't it more likely that the video has been chopped up and translated to make you believe something that isn't true?




posted on May, 15 2011 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Amongst all the other stuff in your post this stands out. I assume you got this information from the edited video of them going on TV in Israel?

Do you really think that secret agents go on TV and admit to what they've done? Isn't it more likely that the video has been chopped up and translated to make you believe something that isn't true?


Which part, the part about them being former IDF and Mossad Explsovies experts, the part about them being there to 'document the event', or the part where they were arrested with box cutters, large amounts of cash and trace amounts of explosives in the van, or the part about them dancing and high fiving each other as thousands of americans died in front of their camera?



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy


the part about them being former IDF and Mossad Explsovies experts, the part about them being there to 'document the event',


That part. Which is what I quoted in the post above.

The other stuff is exaggerated or made up also, but I'm interested specifically in your reasoning and evidence for this.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
The other stuff is exaggerated or made up also, but I'm interested specifically in your reasoning and evidence for this.


Um, in short, I watched the news like everybody else did and remember what I've read and seen with my own eyes. All of this stuff was widely reported on main stream media, you guys are a riot though. Is rewriting history a job or a hobby? I hope you're not getting paid for something as simple as categorical denial, especially when you're denying events as well documented as this was.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   
If i remember rightly a van was stopped at the New Jersey turnpike, it was full of explosives and they stated they thought it was heading for the George Washington Bridge.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 


Yes they do go on tv.


Can you pick him out of the line up?



And guess what he even paid for the hit with his company Payoneer. Guess you can say he was paymaster for the hit in Dubai.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   
Something did go on at some point either on a bridge or close to one. It either happened with the strike on the North Tower or it happened shortly after, but before the strike on the South Tower.

I'm pressed for time today with school assignments due, but years ago I read through the WTC Task Force Interviews. They were full of interesting stories. Quite a few stories spoke about something happening, or something they ran across while they were enroute to the towers. Almost all of the stories had any information you could use to put together what happened or exactly where redacted. I wrote a paper where I was trying to piece together what may have happened and I intended to start a thread on it.

I've somehow lost the paper I wrote, either misplaced it whle rearranging pc files or it got lost in my many reformats. If anyone has the time, I suggest looking through the link I'm posting at the bottom. It is a collection of all the stories I thought were relevant and in those stories are stories about encountering something Some are quite specific and trace the route they used up until they reached the "something" and the route they had to detour on. But they redact much that makes it able to pinpoint an actual location.

There are over 500 interviews, and I've read all of them. The ones I have posted below are ones that I thought were relevant to some degree and the information I'm talking about is contained in the ones I've included. If I get a chance today I'll start reading over my notes and see If I can find the relevant information.

WTC Task Force Interviews/Oral Histories

On a side note, if you have not read these I highly suggest that you do. Regardless of your views on 9/11 and OS vs. whatever, the information in them is amazing.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Out of curiosity, I've been looking and it seems that the actual photos of the Van stopped on the George Washington bridge have completely vanished from the net over the last two years, the spooks have been busy. I have a copy somewhere in my research folders, but I'd be really interested in knowing where all the copies online went.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
Um, in short, I watched the news like everybody else did and remember what I've read and seen with my own eyes. All of this stuff was widely reported on main stream media, you guys are a riot though. Is rewriting history a job or a hobby? I hope you're not getting paid for something as simple as categorical denial, especially when you're denying events as well documented as this was.


The news didn't, as far as I know, refer to them as Mossad agents or report their alleged claim to be there to "document the event". Where did you get that from?

Also, the news in the UK reported that the "entire Eastern seaboard of the US is under attack" on 9/11. Using your criteria I suppose it must have been.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   
There is available on the web radio communications from the NYPD where you can hear the report coming in live over the air about the van being stopped.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by JBA2848
 


The two situations are obviously completely different. He's not trying to cover anything up. He's going on the show as an "expert".

Presumably Mossad are trying to cover up their supposed involvement in 9/11. Which makes it odd that you guys think they would go on TV to discuss their crimes.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
... or report their alleged claim to be there to "document the event". .


They said it themselves, it's well known. Now you're just being dishonest, so I'm going to ignore you.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   
car bombs and explosives
The same radio message tells them to be on the look out for a van with a plane painted on it and that there are numerous car bombs.
edit on 15-5-2011 by andy1972 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
... or report their alleged claim to be there to "document the event". .


They said it themselves, it's well known. Now you're just being dishonest, so I'm going to ignore you.


What? Where am I being dishonest? I asked you where you got this information from. You said "the news", but I've seen no evidence of that and neither are you able to show me any, apparently.

I'm left to assume that you got it from a heavily edited youtube video that asks the viewer to believe that Mossad agents go on TV to admit to involvement in crimes that Mossad is trying to cover up. Which is obviously ridiculous. It probably is easier to ignore simple explanations when you're desperate to believe something.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 04:06 PM
link   


Here's a report with interviews from the men.

edit on 15-5-2011 by mayabong because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by mayabong
 


A couple of points from that :-

(a) No mention of explosives - not even from police arresting officer.

(b) The van was plain white as to be seen at 3.14 ; twitchy please note.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 01:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Just posting info for people to draw their own conclusions.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by mayabong
reply to post by Alfie1
 


Just posting info for people to draw their own conclusions.



Quite right; I wasn't having a go at you at all.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 04:57 AM
link   
This is a really interesting news item as I've never heard of this 9/11 mural van until now.

My research on it has revealed there to be no official public photo of this mural unfortunately. Of course that doesn't mean that no photo was ever taken of it or that such doesn't exist somewhere behind closed doors.

But, what I discovered was that the photo that is being passed around as the "real deal" is actually a dramatization of the actual mural van of police reports from the doco "Core of Corruption." Also, there seems to be another thread already on this topic that was started last year:

9/11 Mural Van



posted on May, 17 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alfie1
Probably because the report was one of many erroneous early reports arising from the confusion of the day and was soon retracted .


Oh yeah, everyone was *so confused* that police were making up reports of pulling people over on a bridge, with explosives, who actually never existed.


You know the NYPD first responders released radio communications from that morning and they also talk about about two guys running away from a vehicle which subsequently explodes, and the two guys are both arrested. But we never heard any more about that, either.


You'd think we'd at least maybe here what confused them so damned much, but nope, just "confusion" (according to... you?) and nothing else about it.

What a joke. You know I think WTC7 collapsing and all the other explosions at the actual WTC complex were just a bunch of confusion too now that you mention it. It was just two planes and two buildings exploding... err I mean "collapsing" to the ground, that's it.

edit on 17-5-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join