Bet you don't know this happened on 9/11, and why was it covered up?

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.

Originally posted by Jeanius
Why was this covered up?

How do you mean "covered up"?
The google search for 911 arrest truck explosives returns more than 1 MILLION 6 HUNDRED THOUSAND returns, and it is one of the most widely discussed topics (not just on here, but anywhere on the net) when the topic of 911 comes up.

If somebody is trying to cover this up, they're doing a very very bad job.

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...

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 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?

Originally posted by Jeanius
Why wasn't it covered in the 9/11 report?

Probably because, despite your assertion, there were NO explosives in this or any other truck.

The "truckload of explosives" story, while very widely discussed on 911 sites, is simply not true.
Just the result of news outlets getting crazy and making # up (which they later retracted) in the heat of the moment.


How about this for another story... shortly after the planes hit the two towers, reports came in and were broadcast on TV, of a car bomb going off outside the Whitehouse.
Why isnt this in the 911 report either?
Same reason.

reply to post by alfa1


Says who?

The people covering it up?

Well the US wasnt bout to have their attack on america be outdone, duh

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.

dun dun dun

another thread bites the dust.

Retraction?
From a convicted felon like Bernard Kerik?
Sure, I'd trust his word any day
News stories like this don't start as "rumors", that is unless the police are prone to spreading such themselves.

reply to post by Jeanius


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

reply to post by nixie_nox


Who said it went off?

Or that it was anywhere near the whitehouse?

It was in NJ.

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 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 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.

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

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.