Police raid "every little photographer store" on 9/11

While the World Trade Center buildings were collapsing, the police had an important mission: get a picture record of people's memories.

Go to 4:09 in this video:

I find police raiding photo shops extremely suspicious! I'd definitely be interested to see if any of the photos were evidence of something they didn't want people to see. I also wonder what happened to the photos after they were taken.

Its all those little steps to hide, confiscate, and destroy evidence that add up to the strongest evidence that they made it happen on purpose.

Wouldn't these pictures have been taken before 9/11 and developed for pick up for 10 am on 9/11? Need more info, but its interesting.

They went to the camera shops in the subway ONLY underneath the WTC complex.

There were envelopes/picture laid out to be picked up ON sept 11. Not pictures FROM sept 11.
How does the sentiment "we had to get a picture record of peoples' memories." translate into something sinister? They're doing people a favor.

I don't know how you can watch this video without noticing the blaring contradictions that they try to use as evidence to support other contradictions.

Starting two threads for the same nonsense isn't helping anyone, and neither is the way the september clues people group this crap with actual facts. They're making everyone who sees the possibility of an 'inside job' look like lunatics, and you're helping them by reposting this crap.


[edit on 28-12-2008 by alaskan]

Originally posted by alaskan
They went to the camera shops in the subway ONLY underneath the WTC complex.

There were envelopes/picture laid out to be picked up ON sept 11. Not pictures FROM sept 11.
How does the sentiment "we had to get a picture record of peoples' memories." translate into something sinister? They're doing people a favor.

I don't know how you can watch this video without noticing the blaring contradictions that they try to use as evidence to support other contradictions.

Starting two threads for the same nonsense isn't helping anyone, and neither is the way the september clues people group this crap with actual facts. They're making everyone who sees the possibility of an 'inside job' look like lunatics, and you're helping them by reposting this crap.


[edit on 28-12-2008 by alaskan]

You have some attitude, guy. I started two different threads with two completely different topics. Furthermore, I doubt you have the required expertise to say they are any more insane than you are.

You claim that the photos were taken before 9/11. Evidence? You say "just by the subway". Evidence? The hatchet attempt really needs work.

Why is it that some people must reply with such an attitude? Are you helping anyone with your attitude 'buddy'? I can practically feel your scathing tone leaking from my monitor!

Also, you went slightly off topic about the September Clues series. Well I wasn't talking about that... I was talking about what the officer's job was that day. But in any case the Clues series is full of completely legitimate questions that have yet to be fully addressed. I'm still mystified by the ridiculous coloring job on the news. New York is green... blue... red... yellow... pink... purple.

I *very vividly* remember being so infuriated by the lack of any actual video of New York on 9/11 that I turned off the TV and didn't even turn it back on. It was just infuriating to me that none of the news networks figured I would actually want to see the entire building in ordinary video quality. I was thinking... so are they ever going to actually show the buildings or what?! Yeah nobody is going to want to actually see what is going on they just want some mostly black & white blurry outline of New York all day.

One last thing... if it were not for the Clues series I would have never found what I can bet my life are video edit-jobs in the videos. I have not released them on ATS and may never do that... but 'Thank God' for September Clues because I would have never known the media did a hack job on their 9/11 coverage in real-time on that day. I'll be sure to U2U the link should I ever release what are crystal-clear edits that I have the Clues series to thank for getting me interested in.

[edit on 28-12-2008 by truthquest]

I'm not your guy, buddy.

Repeating "Evidence?" over and over again in real life will make people think you're crazy.

Claiming the police were in cahoots with the people bringing the buildings down and immediately collected pictures as some sort of monitoring/nwo scheme will make people think you're crazy.

People will associate you with the rest of us and we all look stupid.

What kind of videos are you talking about? Before/after, inside/outside? Like tours of the buildings or video of the events unfolding in high quality/lots of angles?

Three of the alleged 'hijacked' flights were originally headed for LAX. Supposedly the passengers aboard had friends and family expecting to meet them on arrival. Usually when there is an air disaster, the airlines arrange to gather and console the victims of the air crash. So what was going on at LAX?



Original alleged Flight 11 manifest with some discrepencies

Flight 11 - Logan Intl Airport in Boston to Los Angeles Intl Airport
Flight 175 - Logan Intl Airport in Boston to Los Angeles Intl Airport
Flight 77 - Washington Dulles Intl Airport to Los Angeles Intl Airport
Flight 93 - Newark Intl Airport to San Francisco Intl Airport



So they evacuated LAX on 9-11 because???

1. So the American people would not see that there were strangely not very many grieving families for the alleged passengers supposedly killed on the three flights allegedly headed for LAX? Only two grievers (finally) at LAX three hours after the alleged crashes into the WTC? Maybe those two were actors hurriedly sent into emergency action? The reporters were there expecting to see thousands; so who screwed up and forgot to arrange the grieving families for the passengers who were never on the aircraft? We already know there were NO HIJACKERS. This 9-11 OFFICIAL STORY just gets more and more stupid and unbelievable almost daily.

2. They did not have room for the thousands of grieving family members from three alleged crashed flights so the heck with them?

3. They received warnings of threats against LAX?

4. Some other reason which makes the least bit of sense?

Raiding photo stores:

Was something going on just prior to the WTC explosions that the 9-11 perpetrators did not want captured on film? Or were the police just being helpful? How many other unreported police teams were there out collecting undeleloped film and photos. Sounds strangely like the FBI at the Pentagon doesn't it?

Edna Cintron bravely hanging on and waving in the alleged impact hole. Where is the hot steel which should be burning her hands and clothing? How come she doesn't look burned from all the jet fuel?





[edit on 12/28/08 by SPreston]

Originally posted by alaskan
I'm not your guy, buddy.

Repeating "Evidence?" over and over again in real life will make people think you're crazy.

Claiming the police were in cahoots with the people bringing the buildings down and immediately collected pictures as some sort of monitoring/nwo scheme will make people think you're crazy.

People will associate you with the rest of us and we all look stupid.

What kind of videos are you talking about? Before/after, inside/outside? Like tours of the buildings or video of the events unfolding in high quality/lots of angles?

Do us all a favor and never comment on any ATS member's intelligence or sanity unless it is actually relevant to the topic. Can you do that?! The topic here is why police would raid photo shops. Arguing someone's sanity like that is not going to get you anywhere, EVER on these forums.

So moving on to evidence (the word you'll find me repeat until your eardrums explode). You posted claims and did not to back them up with any evidence. So if the police were in the photo shops and wanted to "preserve people's memories" why were they only worried about taking only the photos time-stamped for pickup at 10AM? If simply preserving people's memories was the concern then the officer would just take all of the photos in the shop and not worry about the time stamp? Or do you have actual evidence that the police officer later clarified his remarks?

The same thing applies to you saying the police only raided the one photo shop under the WTC. How do you figure "every little photo shop" as the officer states translates into "one photoshop right under the WTC". Again, where is your evidence.

I have no doubt that there may be an innocent explanation, but clearly the activity is suspicious until shown otherwise given the interview of the officer. When police confiscate photos to be picked up at 10AM on 9/11 I don't consider that the slightest bit normal at all. Unless you have evidence of something I'm not seeing here then you should just admit that it is suspicious.

Click here to learn more about this warning.