Bet you don't know this happened on 9/11, and why was it covered up?, page 1
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 5 times
Topic started on 8-10-2011 @ 02:01 AM by Jeanius
Some of us here may have heard of this, but ask any non ATSer about this subject and they'll 99.9% have no clue that this even happened at all.

It looks like some police officers who were not in on it, as very few were if any, were on top of the ball and did a stellar performance on the job that day.

And if it was not a false flag attack, that means these men were terrorists and there would be no reason not to cover it up.

These alert police officers found a truck load of explosives and arrested 2 occupants.

Why was this covered up? What happened to the two guys?

If there was going to be another HUGE tragedy, like taking down the George Washington Bridge, wouldn't the government at that time have used it as more of a reason to go into Afghanistan, especially if they were terrorists?

You know Bush and his cronies would have used this to the fullest extent to scare the public even more to make sure there was going to be a war in the middle east in retribution.

I think they were traceable explosives, military explosives, and military grade explosives do massive damage.

Just like the Oklahoma City bombing and the Oslo bombing.

Fertilizer bombs do NOT do that much damage, even if it was a U-Haul truck full.

And a fertilizer bomb could NOT take down a bridge!

However, a truck full of military explosives can do the MASSIVE damage witnessed on the other occasions and potentially take down a bridge.

Why were two men caught with a truckload of explosives on 9/11 never talked about again and why didn't make it into the 9/11 commission report?

This seems like huge news to me and should have received worldwide attention.

And what the hell happened to the two suspects in custody?!?

Were they released cause they were CIA/Mossad???

I smell something, and it's a mix of bull excrement and fishy.

edit on 8-10-2011 by Jeanius because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 8-10-2011 @ 02:21 AM by FurvusRexCaeli
reply to post by Jeanius


Everyone knows about this. It was just the media getting something wrong and breathlessly reporting it, as usual. Then they retracted it, but the Truthers ignored the retraction and continued to repeat the wrong information, as usual.

911myths.com...
edit on 8-10-2011 by FurvusRexCaeli because: (no reason given)




reply posted on 8-10-2011 @ 02:22 AM by Jeanius
reply to post by alfa1



Why wasn't it covered in the 9/11 report?

Why do we have no idea who the two men arrested were?

All we know is it happened, and that they only reported on it for one day.

I'd call that a cover up.


reply posted on 8-10-2011 @ 02:24 AM by Jeanius
reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli



So your anti truther website makes your statement true?

Would the same go for me if I posted a "truther" website that said it was true?


reply posted on 8-10-2011 @ 02:33 AM by Jeanius
reply to post by alfa1



Show me these reports and retractions.

And a retraction doesn't mean it's not defiantly not true, they are also used when they report on something they were not supposed to.

I think the majority of "truther" info is wrong, fake, and maybe even diversions to keep people looking for the truth away from it.

But surely the "official story" is not 100% true either.

Even members of the 9/11 commission have said that.
edit on 8-10-2011 by Jeanius because: (no reason given)



reply posted on 8-10-2011 @ 08:49 AM by nixie_nox
reply to post by Jeanius



You couldnt have a car bomb going off without 200k people seeing it in front of the whitehouse.



reply posted on 9-10-2011 @ 12:18 AM by Jeanius
reply to post by nixie_nox



Who said it went off?

Or that it was anywhere near the whitehouse?

It was in NJ.


reply posted on 9-10-2011 @ 12:20 AM by Jeanius
reply to post by Asktheanimals



Very good point.

The police said they had apprehended 2 men with a truck full of explosives.

All the reporter did was what she was supposed to, report it.

So unless the police were lying, she shouldn't have had to retract it.

Or she reported something that was later covered up.

The later of the two seems most likely in this case.

(though you've still produced no evidence proving it was retracted to my knowledge)


reply posted on 9-10-2011 @ 04:36 PM by vipertech0596
reply to post by Jeanius



No, if you go back and check the archives, you will see that NYPD made a radio call shortly after the first one in which they said that the dogs had been wrong and there were not any explosives in the van. The media, neglected to report that little factoid.

So, why wasn't it covered in the 9/11 Report....BECAUSE IT WAS FALSE.


reply posted on 9-10-2011 @ 04:45 PM by vipertech0596
reply to post by Jeanius



Members of the 9/11 Commission have indeed said that portions of the story are not true.

However, they are referring to the story that we were given in the weeks after 9/11, which portrayed our response as well-oiled. When the Commission did their investigating, they discovered that the reality of that day was that the Government response was, confused, slow, and highly disorganized.

The Commissioners also say that by and large, the Report is a VERY accurate picture of the events of that day, the history leading up to the attacks and the people who planned/carried out the attacks. Yes, a few things were glossed over...but only to avoid a post Pearl Harbor style witchhunt that would not have done anything to make us safer.


reply posted on 9-10-2011 @ 04:54 PM by ParkerCramer
Originally posted by vipertech0596
reply to
post by Jeanius



No, if you go back and check the archives, you will see that NYPD made a radio call shortly after the first one in which they said that the dogs had been wrong and there were not any explosives in the van. The media, neglected to report that little factoid.

So, why wasn't it covered in the 9/11 Report....BECAUSE IT WAS FALSE.


Stands to reason that the police would not need dogs to discover a van FULL of explosives...............

so, the point here is was a van FULL of explosives reported or just a van with possible explosives???

Parker
MTUBY


reply posted on 9-10-2011 @ 05:03 PM by bekod
well cbs and abc nightly news ran the story as well search.yahoo.com... here is the vid www.youtube.com... cbs is up first then the abc spin version i think yes it was a real truck, yes there were explosives and yes WTC7 was pulled, take it how you like it i will not try nor argue the issue , it has all been done before and will be for long time, one more will =not change the issue any more so than one less.
Pages:     ^^TOP^^



Alert: Possible Terror-related activity in NW Ohio
  Posted 11 days ago with 45 member flags
\'Bin Laden died of natural causes\'
  Posted 9 days ago with 17 member flags
Was it a drone that almost caused mid-air over Denver?
  Posted 11 days ago with 9 member flags
US shadow war in Horn of Africa revealed by blogger
  Posted 12 days ago with 6 member flags