israeli george washington bridge story (attempted) debunking

[Drew J]

Looks like someone on the dailypaul is getting ready to write a 'debunking' of you Ryan Dawson.

http://www.dailypaul.com/331128/it-take ... s-evidence" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

First.

I wasn't being sarcastic.
Submitted by RonPaulWins on Mon, 12/22/2014 - 09:33

I wasn't so much attacking you either.

If you choose to trust O'Keefe's claims, that's on you. I had watched his presentation above, I'm quite sure right after it was first released, although it might have been a few months after? There are real and fake facts included, some fake facts are so fake that they are clearly intentional disinformation, there is no other explanation for them being presented.

Edit:

I just started browsing through this since it says in the description it is updated. He has George Washington Bridge vehicle full of explosives information starting at ~1:14:00. I have been working on a major related project in my spare time for more than a month, it is closer to being finished than my last mention of it, but I have quite a bit more work to go. When I publish it, you'll laugh at O'Keefe's GWB presentation, I guarantee it. His presentation of GWB info is so simple, false and incomplete it's laughable.

Second.

I am not afraid to bring the issue to Ry, and I like Ry.
Submitted by RonPaulWins on Wed, 12/24/2014 - 20:03. Permalink

The problem is, related to the GWB reports, he is 100% completely wrong. When the presentation's finished, I'm going to bring it to his attention.

Q: What reporter, and for what network / station, reported LIVE on 9/11 that the GWB vehicle full of explosives was the FBI APB BOLO vehicle that was the "Dancing Israelis"?

It's going to be included in the presentation. I 100% guarantee you that Ry and O'Keefe both have never seen that report. So I could guarantee you haven't either. GWB report that states the GWB vehicle full of explosives is the "Dancing Israelis" FBI APB BOLO vehicle. What reporter and for what network? I know the answer.

Third.

You didn't answer the question, why not?
Submitted by RonPaulWins on Mon, 12/22/2014 - 21:34. Permalink

It wasn't a trick question, it's important though. You say that my understanding is laughable? I know the answer, it's going to be included in my presentation.

I bet $100 that Ken O'Keefe and Ry Dawson also have no idea what the answer is. Ask them, I bet you they don't tell you. But my understanding is laughable, right?

Fourth.

Vote down!
My understanding is laughable? Let's play a game
Submitted by RonPaulWins on Mon, 12/22/2014 - 11:44. Permalink

Q: Where exactly was the "blonde lady" when reporting GWB incident?

Let me guess. This guy believes that this van was not actually packed with explosives because as that 911myths site claims, the statement it was packed with explosives was later retracted.

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/inde ... 531AAnhqkK" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What your video does NOT say is that the reporter retracted what she said, and admits she was given false information.
She later admitted that although their were arrests, there was never a van full of explosives.
Here was their retraction
"As with the State Department car-bombing, Rather had to backtrack on this story as well: "Marcia Kramer of WCBS-TV, our CBS-owned and -operated station in New York, reported some time ago that the FBI had in custody two suspects caught with a pickup truck of explosives around the George Washington Bridge; now further checking on that story [reveals] that other law enforcement officials in New York said they knew nothing about it, and now Jim Stewart is saying that FBI headquarters in Washington knows nothing about it. We'll have to put that in a long line of things that's under the 'Well, we're skeptical now.' Maybe it's true and maybe it isn't."
Rather accompanied the backtracking with another self-justification: "I repeat for emphasis, we'd rather be last than be wrong, but in reporting of this kind, we're bound to make some mistakes."

Here is an article about the stuff up by the reporters on that channel
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1090" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Two more
"On CBS Tuesday night there was a report -- originated by its New York station, WCBS -- that a van filled with explosives had been found on the George Washington Bridge. Though men in a van were detained, the vehicle did not contain explosives. Still, CBS said the report was based on trusted sources and the station corrected it when it learned that the report was in dispute.
(New York Times)"
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/17/busin ... ps-in.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
During first-day coverage Tuesday, CBS anchor Dan Rather trumpeted an exclusive by WCBS-TV reporter Marcia Kramer, who told viewers that police had stopped a car carrying explosives under the George Washington Bridge. Rather said there were enough explosives "to do great damage" to the span.

But Tuesday night, Rather announced that "further checking on that story" showed other authorities knew nothing about it. "Maybe it's true and maybe it isn't," he added.
Though no explosives were involved after all, Kramer noted in an update that the vehicle's occupants were detained.
(New York Daily News)"
http://web.archive.org/web/201002240113 ... the_r.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As I said, it is all in my links. And my links contain full transcripts and other reports, not just carefully edited snippets put together like your video.


There's a very good reason why this particular report wasn't investigated by the 9/11 Commission, then: it was retracted within hours, and long before they started work.

Check this out.
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeFor ... c/42854/4/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

arbor Feb 15 2008, 09:50 PM Post #87


After a few hours of research, I have found info to put this baby to bed.

On CNN, they covered a press briefing by mayor Guiliani and police chief Kerik. In it, Kerik comments about the rumor of the van with explosives on the GWB.

Kerik says, a van was pulled over, and a few people were arrested. The van WAS NOT on the GWB. NO EXPLOSIVES were found. and this info came from the FBI.

so there....its over

the video clip is at 9:22

https://archive.org/details/cnn200109112323-0005" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

arbor Feb 16 2008, 10:22 AM Post #89

the fact is, only one white van was pulled over, there were no explosives. this has now been proven by news reports from the day. case closed.

arbor Feb 28 2008, 09:18 PM Post #107

i am not a member of any zionist organizations. i do not participate in any zionist activities. i do not contribute to any zionist charities. i have never visited israel. but i do have a passover dinner.

happy Joe?

arbor Feb 28 2008, 10:11 PM Post #109

there is no evidence to deny. there was only one van...not three. there were no explosives found in it. no van exploded in manhattan (let alone a van driven by israelis).

the three israelis doing the Hora on the single white van were "documenting the event" just like everyone else in manhattan and new jersey was "documenting the event". they just all werent interviewed by an israeli talk show and had their words misinterpreted by those seeking to implicate israelis.

60 or so israelis were arrested and deported, just like how thousands of arabs were arrested and deported, for visa violations. no story there.

the only evidence that exists, is that israel may have had an intelligence operation going on in the usa (is that news??) as the 9-11 plot was taking shape.

thats it. no evidence of israeli conspiracy. no evidence of israeli plots.

this topic has reached its zenith.

goodnight. and goodluck.

At this point, someone else pops up with some logic and reason regarding the five dancing israelis that were pulled over.

SPreston Feb 29 2008, 01:04 PM Post #111

These ' Mossad Agents' were there specificallly to film an attack on the WTC which they should have known nothing about. Their dancing and celebrating the destruction and deaths of thousands of people displays more than just insider knowledge, but displays an active participation.

And what did we learn from Albert Pastore's book on 9-11?

The Israelis worked for a Weehawken moving company known as Urban Moving Systems. An American employee of Urban Moving Systems told the Bergen Record that a majority of his co-workers were Israelis and they were all joking about the attacks. The employee, who declined to give his name said: "I was in tears. These guys were joking and that bothered me." 60

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/stf2.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Back to the loose change topic.

arbor Mar 1 2008, 01:16 AM Post #118

i am more then willing to accept israeli culpability in crimes when there is evidence to prove it. The Lavon Affair is one example, the shelling of Sabra and Shatilla another, and the attack on the USS Liberty may be another, as was the massacre at Deir Yassin.

But I have seen no substantial evidence linking Israelis or Israel to the 9-11 attacks. Sorry Joey.

I do think arbor is correct to deny the story about a white van with a mural painted on it with the towers exploding. Didn't Ryan Dawson think that was nonsense as well?

kahlmyishmael May 13 2008, 01:34 PM Post #138

So explain how the Israeli MOSSAD AGENTS were able to predict the future by painting a mural of a plane crashing into a building on a van they rented.

Check this source out instead.

There were multiple vans involved on 9/11 reported with explosives, box cutters, eye witness testimony from cops who thought they were all connected, and Israelis behind all of them. One was a police radio report of a van with a ‘mural of a plane crashing into NYC’ that was whitewashed in a follow-up as an innocent delivery van. The FOIA got the actual police audio (in the video) and this is not what they claim. They claim the van explodes. Not only that you hear them swearing and beating the perpetrators and calling them “Palestinians” which should give you a clue that it was intentionally planted information and goes along with the guys arrested earlier saying “Palestinians are your problem” and the “celebrating” Palestinian footage shown on the MSM (and retracted later).

http://mondoweiss.net/2011/07/israel-in ... watch-list" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In other words, some people may be falling for a psyop when they write stuff like this:

The existence of the mural van was corroborated by a report put out by the Norman Y. Mineta International Institute for Surface Transportation Policy Studies (MTI) entitled “Saving City Lifelines: Lessons Learned in the 9-11 Terrorist Attacks“. On page 28 of the report it states:

“There were continuing moments of alarm. 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.”

The MTI report — while confirming that there was indeed a van with a painting on its side astonishingly depicting the events that were unfolding just blocks away — attempts to hide the fact that the mural van subsequently exploded, which was stated multiple times by NYPD officers in the aforementioned police radio recording. The MTI report affirms that the mural van was rented to “ethnic Middle Eastern people who did not speak English.” Say, if these Middle Easterners were Arabs don’t you suppose that the mainstream media would have been having a field day over this incident and wouldn’t it have been highlighted in the official 9/11 Commission Report? Strangely, it was completely ignored and forgotten by both the media and the U.S. government. Common sense dictates that if these two Middle Eastern suspects were Muslim Arabs — who had rented a delivery truck and painted the 9/11 attack scenario on the side of it and then parked it near the WTC on 9/11 — than it would have been plastered all over the television and printing press as proof of an “Arab/Al-Qaeda conspiracy,” which the Jewish media was keen on promoting from the outset. It would have coincided perfectly with the ‘Al-Qaeda’ narrative being trumpeted by Ariel Sharon, Ehud Barak and America’s Jewish-run mass media. Since the mural van incident was deliberately hidden from the public, the only logical conclusion that can be extracted from this information is that these “ethnic Middle Easterners” were Jewish Israelis, not Islamic Arabs. The preposterous conclusion of the MTI report that the 9/11 mural van turned out to be nothing more than an “innocent delivery truck” is so absurd that further comment would be superfluous.

http://zioncrimefactory.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[atlantaiconoclast]

Yeah this guy at the DP argues that there was only one Urban Moving System van in question that day. He basically conflates the Dancing Israelis' van with the story about the one packed with explosives. He conveniently ignores the story about the exploding van.

[Drew J]

I noticed the conflation by ronpaulwins as well. However he, as well as arbor on the loose change boards and that one quote from answers.yahoo seem to believe that the story about the van on the washington bridge packed with explosives was a mistake. That answers.yahoo site even provided a quote from Dan Rather stating he wasn't sure if the van was actually passed with explosives either and that he may have to do a retraction. So I do find that interesting. I don't care how many intial reports you can compile, the live reports are getting their info from the same intelligence agency sources. And if it turns out they didn't find explosives, I bet Dan Rather wasn't the only one to issue a retraction.

However, check this out.

The "Dancing Israelis" FBI Report - Debunked
http://www.takeourworldback.com/dancing ... report.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Now I know what you're thinking, but check this quote out.

Thanks to andie531 for obtaining and making available the FBI documents on the "Dancing Israelis": KURZBERG, SIVAN ET AL. As will be shown, this FBI 'investigation' is very similar to the NIST 'investigations' into the World Trade Center (WTC) buildings collapses, in that the conclusion is politically motivated rather than evidence-based. Section 5 even reveals how the FBI's NS-2C Unit of its "National Security Division" based at FBI Headquarters, Washington, D.C., ordered FBI Newark to stop their investigation of the Israelis.

Also,

[Page 3 reveals that the Israelis had taken 76 photographs; also confirmed on page 80.]

[Page 7 of 141 shows that seized items #1 to #3 were maps. Early reports stated that evidence linking the Israelis to the attacks consisted of maps "with certain places highlighted". Subsequently, although it was admitted that there were "tie-ins", the "evidence linking these Israelis to 9-11" was "classified". If there was no evidence to link them, there would be no evidence to classify. Other items listed include passports, a flight coupon and itinerary, black organizers, pocket notebooks, and "fabric sample (explosive residue)".]

I'm guessing ronpaulwins from thedailypaul or arbor from that other website I quoted never read this report either. On the other hand, there is this source.

On the morning of 9/11, a little old lady whom wishes to be known only as Maria, was called by a neighbor to tell her about the first strike on the North Tower. Grabbing a pair of binoculars, she went to the window overlooking NY. This New Jersey woman then noticed a group of men on a white van, seemingly filming the event and acting happy. This shocked her and she copied the plate numbers and called the law.

When pulled over by the police, the driver of the van said "We are Israelis, we are not your problem, Your problems are our problems."

Inside, they had $4,700 in a sock, box cutters and foreign passports. A bomb dog reacted to plastic explosive residue, although none was found. They also had photos of them celebrating and "high-fiving" with the World Trade Center smoking in the background. One photo had them with a lighter up in the air like groupies at a rock concert.

Web archive of original
or
Stormfront block quotation
or
Blockyourid website

So apparently, no van with Israelis that was pulled over was documented to have either been packed with explosives or even had explosives residue. I may be inclined to agree with ronpaulwins if this is the only issue he is complaining about. I want to provide a probable explanation for why the dogs may have reacted to what humans thought would be explosives residue, but turned out to be a false positive. Let us examine another story. Pay attention to the year.

May 7, 2002

In the middle of the night a moving truck is pulled over for speeding in Oak Harbor, Washington, near the Whidbey Island Naval Air Station. The base is the home of the advanced electronic warfare Prowler jets. A bomb-sniffing dog detects explosives on one of the men and inside the truck. High-tech equipment is then later used to confirm the presence of TNT on the gearshift and RDX plastic explosive on the steering wheel. Both men turn out to be Israeli (one with an altered passport), and in the country illegally.
[Fox News, 5/13/02]

However, later the FBI clears the two men, saying both the dog and the tests just detected false positives from "residue left by a cigarette lighter."
[Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 5/14/02, Jerusalem Post, 5/14/02]

Source

All it would take is for one of those Israelis to be a smoker on 9-11 and that would apparently be enough to trick a police dog.

[Drew J]

On the other hand, some people do not buy that explanation.

Monday, 23 August 2004
Mossad and Moving Companies: Masterminds of Global Terrorism?
http://codshit.blogspot.com/2004/08/mos ... minds.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

On May 7, 2002, local police authorities pulled over a Budget rental truck in Oak Harbour, Washington near the Whitney Island Naval Air Station. The driver and his passenger were Israeli nationals, one of which had entered the country illegally. The other had an expired visa. Tests performed on the vehicle revealed that there were traces of TNT on the gearshift and RDX plastic explosives on the steering wheel. But no actual explosives were reported to have been found in the truck. [Fox News, 5/13/02]

A report in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer the following day reported that the FBI performed follow-up tests on the truck which turned-up negative. One source speculated that perhaps the original tests had actually detected just cigarette residue, and not explosives. [Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 5/14/02, Jerusalem Post, 5/14/02].

Critics argued that it would make no sense for U.S. authorities to use a method of testing that could be skewed by cigarette residue. The website whatreallyhappened.com remarked:

“The specific claim is made that residue from a cigarette lighter confused the tests for TNT and RDX. That doesn't explain why the trained bomb-sniffing dog, who surely knows the difference between explosives and cigarettes [else he would false-positive every smoker, ashtray, and convenience store he came across] gave the first indications of explosives in the truck that led to the tests in the first place. Likewise, were the chemical tests unable to discriminate between tobacco and TNT/RDX, which are chemically quite different from tobacco combustion products, they would give false positive results for every vehicle ever tested in which smokers had ever ridden. Given the likelihood of finding tobacco residues in any car, such tests would have to be designed to tell the difference. The same is true for other products from non- electric cigarette lighters, the vast majority of which are butane.”

The same website also provided references to three documents with detailed information on the tests used to detect TNT and RDX. None of the documents indicated that the presence of cigarette residue might induce inaccurate test results. [International Society for Optical Engineering 1984; Cold Regions and Research Engineering Laboratory 5-1996; Security Management n.d.]

I also remembered another peculiar item: the so-called Urban Moving Company that some researchers suggest was a cover for Mossad.

Many observers have suggested that Israel had foreknowledge of the 9/11 terrorists attacks. Some have even argued that they may have been behind the attacks, and it seems that the funny stories about Israelis with trucks and bad papers just keep popping up here and there.

So perhaps this story about cigarette residue was just a cover? In other words, the van with the dancing Israelis that was pulled over did in fact have explosives residue? Why not?

[Drew J]

Let's get back to the van on the George washington Bridge.

The Jerusalem Post later reported that a white van with a bomb was stopped as it approached the George Washington Bridge, but the ethnicity of the suspects was not revealed. Here's what the Jerusalem Post reported on September 12, 2001:

American security services overnight stopped a car bomb on the George Washington Bridge. The van, packed with explosives, was stopped on an approach ramp to the bridge. Authorities suspect the terrorists intended to blow up the main crossing between New Jersey and New York, Army Radio reported. (13)

"...two suspects are in FBI custody after a truckload of explosives was discovered around the George Washington Bridge ... The FBI ... says enough explosives were in the truck to do great damage to the George Washington Bridge." WMV video download (545kB)

It was reported the van contained tonnes of explosives (14).

What's really intriguing is that ABC's 20/20 (15), the New York Post (16), and the New Jersey Bergen Record (17) all clearly and unambiguously reported that a white van with Israelis was intercepted on a ramp near Route 3, which leads directly to the Lincoln Tunnel.

But the Jerusalem Post, Israeli National News (Arutz Sheva) (18), and Yediot America, (19) all reported, just as clearly and unambiguously, that a white van with Israelis was stopped on a ramp leading to the George Washington Bridge, which is several miles north of the Lincoln Tunnel.

It appears as if there may actually have been two white vans involved, one stopped on each crossing. This would not only explain the conflicting reports as to the actual location of the arrests, but would also explain how so many credible eye-witnesses all saw celebrating "middle-easterners" in a white van in so many different locations. It also explains why the New York Post and Steve Gordon (lawyer for the 5 Israelis) originally described how three Israelis were arrested but later increased the total to five.

Perhaps one van was meant to drop off a bomb while the other was meant to pick up the first set of drivers while re-crossing back into New Jersey? If a van was to be used as a parked time-bomb on the GW Bridge, then certainly the drivers would need to have a "get- away van" to pick them up and escape. And notice how the van (or vans) stayed away from the third major crossing -the Holland Tunnel- which was where the police had originally been directed to by that anti-Palestinian 9-1-1 "mystery caller". A classic misdirection play.

http://waronyou.com/forums/index.php?topic=11891.0;wap2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This proves there was more than one van and this confirms that the phone call about a Palestinian terrorist driving a van was a psyop to trick the police. However, what I said earlier about Dan Rather and others issuing a retraction about explosives being in the van on the George Washington Bridge I think, still stands. The van with three men that was stopped on the george washington bridge had no explosives. And we don't have any reports to indicate bomb sniffing dogs went crazy upon finding any alleged residue. So if ronpaulwins wants to argue there is no proof for the presence of explosives or any kind of residue, I would agree with him on this particular van.

However, in the van that the dancing israelis were driving, all five were inside that one, and THAT is the one that dogs reacted to. THAT is the van some claimed cigarette residue fooled the dogs. But as explained above, that is a highly unscientific explanation. So ronpaulwins would lose on debating THAT particular van.

[atlantaiconoclast]

I agree we have no physical evidence that a van was packed with explosives. However, as Ry has pointed out, the claim of a van being packed with explosives is a fairly specific one,. Furthermore, why would CBS and other media outlets claim that FBI and or NYPD had told them about the explosives in the van, if no authorities had made that claim? Why would authorities make such an exagerrated or baseless claim? Why would the GW Bridge story get reported much later in the evening if it involved the same group of Israelis seen dancing and who were arrested much earlier?

[Drew J]

Furthermore, why would CBS and other media outlets claim that FBI and or NYPD had told them about the explosives in the van, if no authorities had made that claim?

Who knows? Authorities may have said they might contain explosives and the 'might' may have gotten lost or forgotten. I don't know. But I do know that a retraction was made by Dan Rather regarding the van with three men on the George washington Bridge. However, the other van that was pulled over with all five dancing israelis in it in Jersey, that set the dogs off.

The van belonged to a Mossad front company called Urban Moving Systems. Around 4 p.m. on Sept. 11, the van was pulled over, and five Israelis: Sivan and Paul Kurzberg, Yaron Shmuel, Oded Ellner and Omer Marmari, all between 22 and 27 years old, were arrested at gunpoint. One had $4,700 in cash hidden in his sock while another carried two foreign passports. Box cutters were found in the van.

http://www.bollyn.com/five-dancing-israelis/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And we can confidently say there was explosives residue in this van, based on the fact that the explanation that cigarette residue can be mistaken for expolosives redisude fails on a scientific level. The fact that we have even one van with documented explosives residue should be enough to shut up the naysayers who deny any Israeli involvement.

[atlantaiconoclast]

I dont buy the retraction. Again, how likely is tgat such a specific claim gets reported, as sourced from authorities, if there was nothing to it? And why nothing about the two arrested in that van near the GW Bridge. Im sure Rather trusts authorities to take back a highly specific claim. I don't.

[Drew J]

If you want to take that road, then fine. I don't know which one I take. All I know is that this little 'mistake' or 'discrepancy' on one single van will not be enough for that poster ronpaulwins on thedailypaul website to discredit all the other evidence in War By Deception. I bet ronpaulwins doesn't even know about the van with the dancing israelis that did contain explosives residue and not cigarette residue because the science shows those two can not possibly mistaken for the other; as already stated by others and quoted by me.

[Drew J]

RELATED:

A Challenge to Ry's version of the GWB story?
http://www.ancreport.com/forum/v ... 14&t=33562" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;