1. Syrez

    Syrez Member


    I am interested to know if there is a debunk for the basic premise indicated within this audio transmission?

    Namely that the NYPD, on 9/11/2001 (or the day afterwards), intercepted a van with a "mural painted [along its side] of an air-plane diving into New York city and exploding", and that further, when intercepted, the "van exploded".

    The circumstantial material that is visually presented during this transmission is of absolutely no relevance for the purposes of this request, and should be totally disregarded.

    I am specifically interested in the audio transmission (concerning an occurrence at King Street, between 6th and 7th Avenues) from 4 minutes and 44 seconds until the end of the transmission, so it may be as well to close one's eyes while listening, or pay no regard to the visuals.

    Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.


    P.S, if anyone has information about the "remote control" aspects one of the police officers is referring to, that would be a bonus.
     
    Last edited: Jul 9, 2014
  2. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    Not a debunking, but the story is "covered" on this site with some links to purported police/emergency audio

    Searching the 'net for the guy who supposedly recorded this (Robert Stanford, emergency co-ordinator for the New York City District Amateur Radio Emergency Service) only gets this page. However "Bayscan.net" that he "went to" is available on the wayback machine and has links to firehouse.com which still has at least some of his recordings from 9/11
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
  3. Syrez

    Syrez Member

    Thank you very much, I shall read and follow up.
     
  4. Syrez

    Syrez Member

    I came across an alleged actual photograph of this (or one of the other purported vans) just last week (and I've lost the link). This one was snapped incidentally upon a street corner and the 'mural' was a simple design in black and white. Thanks again.
     
  5. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    no idea what I'm hearing or seeing. sounds like too many things going on at once. sounds like the officer says "van exploded" but it is a [box) truck on King Street?

    good luck sorting this mess out! ; ) you can always send in a FOIA request and ask.


    found this but haven't verified it was actually in the NYTimes yet. http://www.scribd.com/doc/73220201/KS

    kingstreet.JPG an yea the pics in th vid seem to be completely unrelated? http://www.911myths.com/index.php/A_truckload_of_explosives[/box]
     
  6. Keith Beachy

    Keith Beachy Active Member

    "remote control" has to be BS the officer made up, chit chat on the radio freq. The planes used on 911 were stock 767/757, not radio controlled, there is no radio control in a 757/767. I could image anyone suspecting UBL bought jets, manned or remote control filled with explosives based on the impacts being so violent. However, the violence of the impacts were due to physics. E=mv2. So the impacts looked like large bombs going off due to the Kinetic Energy. The remote control junk has to be BS, normal junk talk we all might make up on 911 talking on a radio.
    For 911 truth it could be a great quote-mine event, with no coherent placement in a story of woo.
    How would police officers know the planes on 911 were remote control?

    Who said a truck exploded on 911?
     
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    it kinda sounds like someone on the police radio says "van explode[ed]. but that officer might not have even been on king street, could've been talking about a van that got hit by tower debris or he could have been talking about the mural, what showed in the mural pic. hard to tell.
     
  8. Efftup

    Efftup Senior Member

    This seems to be one of those times where the audio is REALLY unclear and hard to tell who said what and people on both sides of the 9/11 fence seem to be hearing what they want to.

    There is some comment about remote control plane full of explosives, and someone repeatedly asks about this.
    Then someone mentions the bomb squad and then a van, with a mural on it depicting an aeroplane crashing into New York City and exploding.
    then when they first mention the suspects leaving the van is sounds to ME like they were talking about the plane on the side of the van exploding, and yet then not long afterwords it sounds like he said the van exploded. then someone asks if he;s alright or needs extra help.

    I would have thought that an actual van exploding would have made SOME news headlines, even in the wake of the twin towers.
    although one source that claimed the men were arrested and the van was full of explosives and then reported 8 minutes later a correction.

    http://www.breakingnews.ie/archives/2001/0912/world/cwmheycwsn/
    http://www.breakingnews.ie/archives/2001/0912/world/cwmheymhau/

    Some of the suggestions just seem ridiculous to me. The idea that Mossad would hide their name in the name of their front company is fairly ludicrous and that someone with foreknowledge of the attack who were going to film the attack and celebrate would paint something like that on the side of the van and draw attention to themselves is really silly.
     
  9. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    there was a van in NJ and one on the George Washington bridge. which seems to be what that stuff refers to. one of my links above explains it a bit.

    the King street vehicle was a box truck. a panel truck. which looks nothing like a van. if I can tell the difference its kinda hard to believe a male police officer would call a box delivery truck a van.
     
  10. Efftup

    Efftup Senior Member

    I think van was my choice of words. at least one of the articles somewhere was about what turned out to be an innocent box truck. The mural on the side of the truck in the video is a picture that was photoshopped as an "artist's impression" that has of course done the rounds as if it actually looked like that.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  11. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    I know. "van explode[ed] was the term I heard on the police audio. the OP DID say we shouldn't look at the visuals in the youtube post! because its apparently talking about dancing Israelis and whatnot.
     
  12. NoTech64

    NoTech64 New Member

    I picked this up, from a reasonable punter, at this forum
    http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread564141/pg1
    "Notice how the police are talking about "remote controlled plane"? According to someone who lives in NYC, the actual image on the side of the van showed more a military plane with camo pattern on it coming up from below the two towers. And underneath is in Hebrew "learn the fun of how to fly model planes". The van was just a delivery van for a toy shop."
    He also links to the MTI 02/06 report, as mentioned by Keith Beachy.
     
  13. NoParty

    NoParty Senior Member

    Yeah, there's no reason to take this seriously at all:
    Yes, one guy, very casually says "van exploded" but his tone does not convey that he meant it
    literally. Others accept the statement quite casually, as well. No one confirms it, or asks anything like:
    "It exploded on the street?" or "Are their victims?" or anything regarding need for medical care.
    Later in the recording a second mention is made that bomb squad is being sent to the stopped vehicle
    on King St., between 6th & 7th. Obviously, it was understood that the suspicious truck was still a concern, it certainly had not exploded.
    The complete lack of any news story in the next 24 hours reporting a van expoding near the George Washington
    bridge, is the most obvious giveaway. Also, that this non-story seems to only still exist via anti-semitic racists trying to
    convince people that this was the nefarious work of Israel's Mossad...
    Rather easy, as debunks go...
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. iamse7en

    iamse7en New Member

    Yes, that is from the NYTimes. You can see the article here, but it has been edited "large panel truck" is changed to just "truck." Original article here. Plus if you search for that exact sentence in google, the NYTimes article appears and google's snippet shows the article once said "large panel truck" - not sure why they edited the article to just say truck.

    Two police scanners cover the incident. And eyewitnesses (@ 32:57) also talk about this. She saw 2 "iranian" men running, saw they were detained, that it was a van full of bombs, just like the police scanner believed. The young female also says there was gunfire involved. The male says "someone said" (thus 2nd hand) it was a truck that had a picture of the WTC with a plane flying into it, just like the scanner says, that they "caught it" while pointing toward King St. Then it was apparently towed away by police bomb squad. And the gov't report years later says it's just an innocent delivery truck. Wtf?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. et232

    et232 New Member

    Has anyone ever found out where that photo of that van with the painting came from? A van like this is mentioned in this report http://transweb.sjsu.edu/MTIportal/research/publications/documents/Sept11.book.htm ... "A panel truck with a painting of a plane flying into the World Trade Center was stopped near the temporary command post. It proved to be rented to a group of ethnic Middle Eastern people who did not speak English. Fearing that it might be a truck bomb, the NYPD immediately evacuated the area, called out the bomb squad, and detained the occupants until a thorough search was made. The vehicle was found to be an innocent delivery truck." Ok, but what about that painting?
     
  16. JRBids

    JRBids Senior Member

    How did "she" know it was "full of bombs".
     
  17. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Moderator Staff Member

    The photo of the van appears to come from this Wordpress blog, which has a disclaimer saying it is photoshopped: an "artist's impression" based on the alleged report.

    https://kendoc911.wordpress.com/israeli-connections-to-911/mossad-truck-bombs/

    upload_2016-9-14_17-0-50.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  18. NoParty

    NoParty Senior Member

    Love it.

    Create a visual to "illustrate" a possible (or fictional) event.

    Visual becomes the evidence that possible (or fictional) event truly occurred.

    [sigh]

    Sometimes it's ugly, cynical calculated to deceive...other times someone sincerely (but unhelpfully) trying to help.

    Thanks, TB
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  19. NoTech64

    NoTech64 New Member

    This is a more realistic explanation:
     
  20. Trailblazer

    Trailblazer Moderator Staff Member

    That quote comes from the "Let's Roll" forum, but the person posting it didn't ever post the image which they said they had. http://letsrollforums.com/amazing-mural-van-photo-t19016.html

    Five years later, someone else posted this image, but with no source and no indication that it is the same one.

    [​IMG]
     
    • Like Like x 2
  21. NoTech64

    NoTech64 New Member

     
  22. iamse7en

    iamse7en New Member

    Why do you keep saying possible or fictional? You've got a reputable police officer on a police scanner, an eyewitness down the street, AND a government report from Minta Transport Institute all confirming there was a truck with 2 middle easterners, who were detained, and a mural painted on the side depicting a plane flying into either NYC or the WTC. NYT confirms this large panel truck (no mention of the mural) and that it was towed away by NYC bomb squad.

    Whether these individuals were guilty, whether there were explosives, whether there was an explosion, or whether there were gunshots is unclear. But isn't the above enough evidence for you to conclude this truck with this mural existed? Get your head out of the sand!
     
  23. NoTech64

    NoTech64 New Member

    Yes, a truck with a mural existed.
     
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  24. JRBids

    JRBids Senior Member

    His explanation is hearsay. Till I see an actual photo it didn't happen. Due to the fact that 99% of the people in NYC are carrying a cell phone with a camera in it 24/7, I am going with it didn't happen.
     
  25. JRBids

    JRBids Senior Member

    None of them carrying a phone with a camera apparently.
     
  26. Auldy

    Auldy Senior Member

    While I agree with the hearsay, I'd like to point out that phones with cameras were not quite as ubiquitous in 2001 as they are today.

    http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/camera-phone-history/
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  27. MikeC

    MikeC Closed Account

    Millions of them still do, all over the world.

    trucks with murals are not unusual.
     
  28. NoParty

    NoParty Senior Member

    That's absolutely true...and relevant.

    But we also don't want to act like actual cameras were some kind of rarity in 2001...
    there were almost certainly a lot more of them around, than now, actually, since many people
    in 2016 only don't have a decent functioning camera, because they now use their phone instead.
    (Geez...worst, most tortured sentence ever? Possibly. My apologies. I'm sending it to Buller-Lytton right now)


    p.s. I'm still stupidly standing at the edge of the Grand Canyon, etc., with a clunky old
    camera and lens, while cool, hip guys like this fellow use the more elegant, modern approach...
    Screen Shot 2016-09-14 at 6.12.16 PM.
     
    Last edited: Sep 14, 2016
    • Funny Funny x 3
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  29. et232

    et232 New Member

    Thanks a lot, Trailblazer, excellent! And also thanks for the other comments. Typical that a photoshopped mural on a van becomes "evidence". Regarding the mural itself, I won't believe it til I see it. I can't believe these guys and their van were held and searched, but nobody did anything aboout the claimed incriminating mural while 911 was happening, impossible. Maybe there was a painting of the NY skyline and planes flying over, rather than planes flying into the WTC. If the latter was really the case that van should have been impounded, but they found it to be an "innocent delivery truck" ... makes no sense.
     
  30. Keith Beachy

    Keith Beachy Active Member

    How can a mural be incriminating?
    http://www.oddee.com/_media/imgs/articles/a237_wtc2.jpg
    Arrest that artist?

    When I researched the WTC history, I believe I saw an image with an aircraft. They were saying the buildings might get hit like the ESB. I can't find it now, about the WTC when it was being designed which had a plane impact implied, worried about aircraft accidents like the Empire State Building B-25 impact.

    Cookie!
    http://www.oddee.com/_media/imgs/articles/a237_wtc6.jpg
    Big Bird was arrested tuesday...

    http://www.snopes.com/rumors/thecoup.asp
     
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2016
  31. deirdre

    deirdre Moderator Staff Member

    wouldnt bomb squad files and photos be available to the public via FOIA? I imagine they took photos of the van/truck on King Street.
     
  32. faded

    faded New Member

    i'm the person that posted image that on letsroll. my post had nothing to do with the urban moving system vans and the vans with traces explosives and the vans packed with explosives. the image i shared is an image from another investigator that i can confirm received his information legitimately, and i can confidently say is a legitimate photo from a random civilian.

    again, i want to clarify that i am not trying to implicate this image has anything to do with any of the other vans reported on 9/11, especially the one supposedly packed with explosives. this seems to be a van that was just caught in the noise of the event and is unrelated.

    my contribution of the image is essentially unrelated to said conspiracy theories and was essentially made to stop people from regurgitating the fake images. this is the real so-called "mural van." nothing more, nothing less
     
    • Like Like x 1