Sunday, April 15, 2012

The FBI, the NYPD and the 9-11-2001 King Street Exploding Mural Truck - All Roads Lead to Nowhere

One unsolved mystery of the events of 9-11 is the story of the exploding truck found on King Street in Manhattan on 9-11-2001.

The best evidence for the existence of the truck (sometimes referred to as a "van") is an audio of the New York Police Department radio transmissions on that day, which were recorded by a ham radio operator.  The operator is identified in the video below as WB6NYC who was at the time working as an emergency coordinator for the Amateur Radio Emergency Service (ARES) in New York City.

In the audio at 1:42, 1:54, and 2:32 mention is made of a "remote controlled plane filled with explosives" - the location is given as "King and 6th Avenue".

Several requests are then made to the officer reporting on the plane to "10-5 (repeat) the message about the plane". At 3:51 an officer states "Central, I got a message on that, uh, plane. It's a big truck with a mural painted of an airplane diving into New York City and exploding".

At 4:05 an officer makes a request for the Bomb Squad and the ESU (Emergency Service Unit) of the NYPD to go to King Street.  ESU also functions as a SWAT unit.  From above link:  "The personnel selected for ESU become highly trained, elite members of the NYPD who perform rescue, SWAT and other high risk tactical, counter-narcotic and counter-terror operations."

At 4:20 in the audio one of the officers on the scene states that two men got out of the truck and ran away from it, and that they are holding the two men. At 4:34 "F***ing beat the s*** outta them!" plus sounds of a commotion are heard.  At 4:45 the statement is made "We have the suspects who drove in the van, the van exploded". At 5:00 "Put 'em up, put 'em up." ("Put your hands up".) Mention is made of an explosion at 5:03 and then again at 5:36.  At 6:10 a request is made to contact the chief of OCCB, the Organized Crime Control Bureau.

The truck was also mentioned in the Mineta Transportation Institute Report (September 2003) and the mural in that report (page 28 in the .pdf file) is described as "a plane crashing into the World Trade Center".

"Mineta" refers to Norman Mineta, Secretary of Transportation under George W. Bush, appointed to the position in 2001.  Norman Mineta is also mentioned several times in the official 9-11 Commission Report.

There are no photos of the truck.  Mock-ups, apparently done with Photoshop style software, have been surfacing.

Below is the scanner recording.




Critics have stated that there is no 6th or 7th Avenue next to King Street in Manhattan as heard on the audio.  The King Street location was between Avenue of the Americas, which New Yorkers habitually refer to as 6th Avenue, and Varick Street, which feeds into 7th Avenue.



In a 9-16-2001 New York Times article titled After Shining Decade, City Dwellers Reassess Face of Their Reality by Adam Nagourney, mention is made in the 8th paragraph of the truck found on King Street in Soho:  


Contrast that with the audio above and then this excerpt from page 28 of the pdf file of the Mineta Transportation Institute Report, which gives a different story:

Mineta Transportation Institute Report, p. 28

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.

In 2011, I made a Freedom of Information Act request to the FBI on the King Street truck referencing the above information, copies of it attached to the request.  The FBI responded.  They were unable to locate any records.

I also contacted the NYPD and was referred to the Freedom of Information Law unit (FOIL).  I made a request referencing the same information and patterned it based on a sample letter used by attorneys.

About a month later, I got two responses from the NYPD.  The first was a letter stating "this unit is unable to locate records responsive to your request..."

The second letter, oddly, came a few days later.  

It stated that "Your request has been assigned to Police Officer [           ] of this office, and it is estimated that processing of your request will be completed by 3/11/12."

The reasons given for the delay were:

1.  "Numerous records must be reviewed in order to determine whether disclosure is required."  and

2.  "Records have not yet been received by other NYPD unit(s)."

A couple of weeks after the "completed by" date, I contacted Officer [        ] at the FOIL Unit.  He stated that the first letter was correct and that the second "must have been a clerical error".  He also stated that he acted on the second letter, "went above and beyond" normal efforts to find the information, and still came up with nothing.  When I asked about the New York Times article, he said "We're not the New York Times."

The FOIL unit of the NYPD is known for being notoriously slow, "habitually withholding information and flouting government transparency laws", according to a recent article in the Village Voice:  FOIL'd Again: Why Doesn't the NYPD Want You to Know Anything?

I am not questioning the veracity of the officer in charge of this detail. However, it is difficult to tell, given the past history of the FOIL Unit, whether there is no information on the King Street incident or whether the officer was not allowed to disclose any.   

In November of 2011, a revision to the FOIA rules was defeated.  This revision would have authorized the government to inform the public that requested records do not exist even if they do.

An article on the defeated revision states that "Under normal practice, which seems Orwellian enough, the government may assert that it can neither confirm nor deny that relevant records exist if the matter involves national security."  Could this be why no records on the King Street van have been forthcoming?

Adam Nagourney became the New York Times' Los Angeles bureau chief in 2010.  As a last ditch effort, I emailed Nagourney about his New York Times piece from 2001. A response came in less than 1 hour (click to enlarge).  It read "Hey sorry.  Way too long ago don't remember any more."



Was the mural on the truck a depiction of a remote controlled plane?  Was the truck used to distribute goods to Israelis who would then sell them from mall kiosks?

From the Wall Street Journal 12-3-08 "Shalom Christmas Shoppers: Israelis Sell Toys, Cosmetics at the Mall"


Urban Moving Systems, the Israeli Mossad front famous for the "Dancing Israelis" who celebrated the collapse of the WTC, is connected to a warehouse in Bayonne, NJ.  This warehouse is a distribution point for Zoomcopters, a simple toy famous for being sold by Israelis from mall kiosks just prior to 9-11.

Other goods sold by Israelis include but are not limited to: Dead Sea cosmetics, remote controlled planes and helicopters, and hair extensions.  Did the King Street truck belong to Urban Moving?

Would ethnic Middle Eastern people, as stated in the Mineta report, simply be code for "Israelis"?  If in fact "the vehicle was found to be an innocent delivery truck", then why did it explode, and why did the occupants run away just before the explosion?

I am no longer interested in pursuing this wild goose chase to find information. I am leaving this up to an organization or concerned individual(s).  They need to go through the process of asking for the information, and when they don't get it, filing a class action suit.

File it against the City of New York, the NYPD, Rudolph Guiliani and Bernard Kerik as defendants.  The crime of aiding and abetting the cover-up of a terrorist act should be one of the charges.  Take a cue from the New York Times suit against the NYPD FOIL Unit.

We Are Change New York City, are you listening?

POSTSCRIPT:

The following video of so called "witnesses" to the King Street mural truck only came out within the last year.  In my opinion, it is circa 2012 and therefore bogus.  Cell phone video in 2001 was not that common, or of high quality.  Also, why would anyone be taking video of this clown (with the oddly satanic hand gestures) and not the mural truck, only a few blocks away and a far more interesting subject?  According to Nagourney's NY Times article, the truck was towed away around 11:30 a.m. 




Related:

List of 9-11 Police and Fire Radio Transmissions

Confirming the Exploding-Mural-Van Coverup

Feds Drop Plan to Lie in Public-Record Act Requests

New York Times Sues City Police, Saying Information Has Been Illegally Withheld

 9-11, Mossad Mall Spies, Zoomcopters, and Dominik Suter

The official 2001 FBI docs on Urban Moving Systems and the 9-11-2001 Dancing Israelis incident

 

Friday, April 6, 2012

Senate Candidate Lee Whitnum (CT) Calls Opponent a "Whore for AIPAC"


See candidate's platform, stand on Israel at http://leewhitnum.com/

4-5-12 WEST HARTFORD — It was a new tone and a new day in the race for the U.S. Senate race among Democrats, when Lee Whitnum called one of the contenders “a whore” in his support for Israel and another “ignorant.”

Whitnum, who was not invited by the organizers of the last debate in early March, was condemned afterwards by her colleagues and by U.S. Rep. Chris Murphy, D-5, the subject of her “whore” comment, during the debate when he had a chance to react to her criticism.

Whitnum, acknowledged she may have crossed the line, saying she “wasn’t really thrilled” with her performance, according to the Associated Press.

“I’m dealing with a whore here who sells his soul to AIPAC (The American Israel Public Affairs Committee), who will say anything for the job,” she said of Murphy’s support for Israel. She referred to state Rep. William Tong, D-Stamford, another candidate as “ignorant.”
Earlier in the debate she said she would bring more federal dollars back to Connecticut by advocating that the U.S. stop its support for Israel which she estimated, if ended, could mean $600 million for Connecticut to fix its schools and bridges. Whitnum said she is suing the federal government over this. She also sued to be part of the last debate, but was turned down by the court.

“The Jewish community has always taken care of its own. There isn’t any reason why Connecticut children and Connecticut people have to pay the price for a country that is not impoverished,” Whitnum said.

Murphy said now more than ever Israel needs support from the United States.

“This is in our national security interest, ultimately in the interest of U.S. taxpayers to have a strong relationship with Israel and I think it is worth saying on this stage that a lot of her comments have been out of bounds and over the line,” said Murphy, who along with Susan Bysiewicz are the leading contenders for the party’s nomination, according to the recent polls.

Whitnum proposed that the U.S. prosecute American settlers who “go to Israel and maim or kill in the Proimised Land.” She said this “would solve anti-American sentiments worldwide. This is the number one reason why people hate this country.”
As part of his final comments Murphy said he was rethinking his support for all the contenders to be part of the debates that are just starting to unfold for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by retiring U.S. Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, I-Conn.

“I’d advocated for all the candidates to be a part of these debates and I might think twice about that with that kind of awful language being used on the airwaves,” Murphy said of the live debate sponsored by NBC Connecticut.

Marc Bradley, campaign manager for Tong, afterwards said there was no place for these personal attacks in the race and he called the slur she used against Murphy “despicable.”

http://nhregister.com/articles/2012/04/05/news/doc4f7e5ff708207464094966.txt?viewmode=fullstory


Lee Whitnum Candidate for the US Senate

Citizensforleewhitnum@yahoo.com
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 6, 2012


In response to criticism of Whitnum’s performance at the April 5 NBC debate Whitnum blames her disconnect and hostility at the end of the debate on being “flabbergasted” at the other candidates apparent ignorance of well-documented fact. 

“I was struck speechless. The entire reason why I run for public office is because of the Neoconservatives’ role in the taking down of Iraq. A handful of people played my great country into unnecessary war. This must never happen again. It mobilized me into action and it is why I run for public office. I can’t believe the other Senate candidates were not aware. My realization of their ignorance shocked me so much it caused a momentary disconnect. I think for the first time in my life I was rendered speechless.”

Whitnum said she finds it hard to believe Congressman Murphy doesn’t know about the facts. “I can’t fathom that a Congressman doesn’t know about what happened. The first question any American should ask after it was proven by the bi-partisan 9-11 Commission that there were no WMD is why did we take down Iraq? It was not an accident. We were played by a handful of Neocons with an agenda for Mr. Netanyahu.”
Whitnum cites the Washington think tank that spawned the Neoconservative, The Project for the New American Century and Mr. Netanyahu’s highly published manifesto that came out of that think tank. 

“The Neoconservative manifesto is called: Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm”, said Whitnum. “It was written by Richard Perle and other neoconservatives for Mr. Netanyahu. Penned by Richard Perle in 2000 and signed by (Colbert, Fairbanks, Feith, Loewenberg, Torop, Wurmser) it states plainly, “focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq – an important Israeli objective in its own right – as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions.”

“I still can’t believe that a handful of Neoconservatives, the aforementioned plus Joe Lieberman, Judith Miller, and Steven Hadley played my country into unnecessary war.” said Whitnum. “at the same time AIPAC bragged that ‘quietly lobbying congress for war in Iraq’ was an accomplishment. Our worst strategic decision as a nation was AIPAC’s accomplishment. Scary.” 

Regarding the other candidates, Whitnum believes Tong is very bright but doesn’t know anything about the Neoconservatives. Susan knows but will never publicly admit, and Murphy, to whom she directs most of her anger, is “a feel-good candidate.” 

“It just proves Murphy is a feel-good candidate who will say anything to get himself elected,” said Whitnum. “I would never do that. I can’t tell people what they want to hear – I’m going to tell them the truth. I’ve never been afraid to face truth.”

Whitnum says that in 2003 after reading Bob Woodward’s “Plan of Attack” and then the first 60 pages of Pat Buchanan’s book “Where the Right Went Wrong” that changed her life and spurned her into political action. She has since done extensive research on the topic. She has posted relevant points on her website citing 40+ references all pointing to the same chain of events and the same people. All responsible for the lead-up to Iraq.

“Those who don’t learn from history are destined to repeat it. We are on the brink of another war, Netanyahu has the nerve to come here and to demand that we take down Iran all part of the same agenda. Meanwhile he hasn’t lifted a finger to solve his domestic problem which is something five US presidents have demanded – a resolution to the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. A conflict that makes us all unsafe. Demand truth and knowledge from your candidates.”

Whitnum is a candidate for US Senate in Connecticut.