George Washington Bridge and Building Seven connection?

I just read this on another forum and I gotta tell you....it sounds plausible. No, not plausible but extremely possible!

Most have forgotten or aren't aware of that van that was stopped/confiscated that day with enough explosives to blow up that bridge on September 11th, 2001.

Now...what this person from that other forum claims is, that van was intended to blow up Building 7. And apparently the FBI, CIA were in on it because they were under investigation. Perhaps somehow connected to Sept 10th Rumsfeld speech regarding the 2.3 trillion missing dollars?

However, they (the people who were in on this) were NOT aware of the plane attacks.
These were two separate events (if the first one, the van....ever took place)

So, Building 7, wired with explosive beforehand, was PLANNED to go down that day (and blamed on that van driven by an Israelite) but instead the plane strikes derailed the plan and the van-plan was squashed by unaware police who merely stopped the van like they were stopping most cars that day.

So because it was already wired and their plan failed, they HAD to bring down that building because otherwise they (inspectors?) would've found all the wiring. So....as CRAZY as this sounds, it makes sense because we all can't figure out 'why' Building 7 collapsed.

Well perhaps, now we know.



I never followed up on what happened to these two men driving that van. Does anyone know? I'll do some research myself now but this is really.....unsettling.

reply to post by Human_Alien


You are apparently unaware that the explosives in a van at George Washington bridge story was soon retracted :-

www.911myths.com...

Why haven't we heard MORE about this? I mean, I slightly remember this but like Houdini. it disappeared.
Was this even in the OS?
Where are these men now?

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by Human_Alien

 

You are apparently unaware that the explosives in a van at George Washington bridge story was soon retracted :-

www.911myths.com...

Please don't link me over to a page. Tell me what you're saying this is saying please.

reply to post by Alfie1


I know it faded into oblivion as did my recollection of the van that day. But this is pretty significant. What are the ODDS of a van with explosives and an unknown totally mystifying implosion of a building (#7) happening on the same day?

I gotta be honest with you, I never followed the story. I was too busy being pissed off at my government and trying to make sense of every thing else!

Originally posted by Human_Alien

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by Human_Alien

 

You are apparently unaware that the explosives in a van at George Washington bridge story was soon retracted :-

www.911myths.com...

Please don't link me over to a page. Tell me what you're saying this is saying please.

The article I linked you to is not that long but is quite comprehensive. Bottom line is that NYPD denied explosives were found in the van :-

www.breakingnews.ie...

reply to post by Alfie1



Ya know what? I tend to believe the first reports on this particular day despite the confusion.
How can they mix up or confuse a van with explosive with a van with no explosives?

So assuming there were explosive.....because again, that makes the most sense....it might've been targeted for building #7.

The argument is not whether or not there were explosives because there WERE!
Maybe not afterward when they realized that would be too hard to explain so.................


You guys STILL trust your government?

reply to post by Alfie1


They 'deny' explosives.

Well there ya have it folks. Let's move the line along because apparently this TOO was a misunderstanding.


Puh-lease!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


The more they deny the more you can tell where the truths are.

Originally posted by Human_Alien
reply to post by Alfie1

 

Ya know what? I tend to believe the first reports on this particular day despite the confusion.

Of course you do because that is what you want. Have fun.

Originally posted by Human_Alien
reply to post by Alfie1

 

They 'deny' explosives.

Well there ya have it folks. Let's move the line along because apparently this TOO was a misunderstanding.


Puh-lease!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


The more they deny the more you can tell where the truths are.

So, the NYPD is in on it too? Makes sense since the FDNY demolished WTC7! /truther

reply to post by Alfie1


You think I WANTED 9-11????

I just want the truth and everything from 19 hijackers to.......... 3 heroes over Shanksville is nothing but rubbish!

You believe it because it tastes good on your palate. My palate is already soured with the acid they fed me..... so I can take the truth.

But some people rather accept the pretty lies instead of the ugly truth.
Seeing you're one of them......see ya!

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by Human_Alien
reply to post by Alfie1

 

They 'deny' explosives.

Well there ya have it folks. Let's move the line along because apparently this TOO was a misunderstanding.


Puh-lease!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


The more they deny the more you can tell where the truths are.

So, the NYPD is in on it too? Makes sense since the FDNY demolished WTC7! /truther

I never inferred the NYPD were in on it. I don't believe that for a second. Nor the firemen. I do believe the firemen might've been paid (from funds that I donated) to keep their opinions to themselves though.

Originally posted by Human_Alien
I never inferred the NYPD were in on it. I don't believe that for a second. Nor the firemen. I do believe the firemen might've been paid (from funds that I donated) to keep their opinions to themselves though.

Bottom line is that NYPD denied explosives were found in the van

- Alfie1

To which YOU responded:

Originally posted by Human_Alien


They 'deny' explosives.

Well there ya have it folks. Let's move the line along because apparently this TOO was a misunderstanding.


Puh-lease!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


The more they deny the more you can tell where the truths are.

So, what did you mean by this? Are you calling the NYPD liars? If they are lying about this, it makes them part of the massive cover up.

Oh, and do you have any proof whatsoever of the FDNY accepting bribes to shut up?

Originally posted by Human_Alien

You think I WANTED 9-11????

He thinks you want to believe conspiracy theories about 9/11. Which is why you choose to believe a single unconfirmed report on the most confusing day of news coverage since Pearl Harbor.

He's right.

reply to post by DrEugeneFixer



How can a van of explosives be misunderstood? Mis-seen? Mis-identified?

It's not like Flight 93 landed safely in Cleveland then....retracted.
Or a 5th plane, Flight 23 was also involved then....retracted.
Or the Pentagon was hit by a missile then...retracted
Or Flight 93 was taken out by a missile then...retracted
Or the towers fell from controlled demolition then...retracted
Or Barbara Olsen spoke to her husband then...retracted
Or GW saw the first plane hit then....retracted
Or Silverstein said Pulled the Buildings then....retracted
Or Rumsfeld said 'a missile' then.....retracted
And, seeing and reporting explosive in a van is also............retracted.
Now I get it

When it falls outside the perimeters of the story line .......just retract it. That should be 9-11's new motto.
"Don't believe it? Just retract it"


Yes indeed it was a confusing day for us.
Shouldn't have been for the professionals who are paid and trained to protect this country though or....those reporting the news!
When are you going to stop making excuses?

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer
Which is why you choose to believe a single unconfirmed report on the most confusing day of news coverage

By whom? The very people who sponsored this entire event? You mean THAT unconfirmed report?

You make me laugh and...sick too.

Originally posted by Human_Alien

By whom? The very people who sponsored this entire event?

But you're assuming the very conclusion you wish to demonstrate!

Originally posted by DrEugeneFixer

Originally posted by Human_Alien

By whom? The very people who sponsored this entire event?

But you're assuming the very conclusion you wish to demonstrate!

Hey listen, my government (who owns the media) told me to listen to them and not to question them. So that's what I am doing. They announced stories (which they later retracted) therefore, I concluded.

You're the one who is changing up on them, not me.

You're not one of them-there home grown terrorist are you? Because like Bush once said: You're either with us, or you're a terrorist.
I like a man who talks in black and white like that. No grey area for him. No siree. He was SO very special!

They attacked your argument once, then, from there attacked you over and over. See how derailing a thread works? Ad Hominem....
Just because they retracted it means nothing, full speed ahead and run over those trolls. How many who reported that day retracted? !1,2,3,4....?

A grand jury of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a 16-count indictment against Kerik on November 8, 2007, alleging conspiracy, mail fraud, wire fraud and lying to the Internal Revenue Service. Kerik surrendered to authorities the next day and pled

not guilty to all charges. [2][3][4] On October 20, 2009, his bail was revoked and he was jailed

pending trial. [5] On November 5, he pleaded guilty [6] to 8 charges in a plea bargain with

prosecutors who recommended a jail sentence of 27 to 33 months. [

Here is something not a conspiracy about the MOUTHPIECE for NYPD, Kerik is a self admitted greedy liar. He lies for money. Get it? Give him money and he will say anything. He will say anything to get money. Give him a Secretary of DHS appointment and he dance the jig, song and dance, but he was scared of the senate confirmation. TPTB kept their end of the bargain somebody got close so to save his rear end he now did in prison an 8 count out of 16 felon involving fraud.
SHOCKING