So you pick the baloney from the worlds most trusted site infowars and you ignore the posts that mention the address and the posts that point out the difference between the vaults he posted and the pictures of the vaults from the manufacturers website. Sorry but if you believe this you have gone full blown woo.
ETA - Nice of you to post the email from infowars yet fail to mention that they emailed FEMA and didn't get an answer. Does that mean FEMA is in on a nefarious CT?
What "baloney"? Did you miss the bit where I mentioned I have a friend in the funeral industry? The posted e-mail sounds like the sorts of things he talks about. If it isn't legitimate, it's a very good forgery.
Also, did you notice that there are at least two manufacturers of these things? The comparison photos compared them to the Polyguard vaults. But they weren't made by Polyguard, the rep identified them as their competitor's products.
So we have someone in the industry, positively IDing them, and you still insist they must be something else.
And where the hell have I mentioned anything about FEMA? For someone who is so quick to go off on others for reading more into his posts than is there, you're awfully quick to do the same. The e-mail pretty much sums this up: Coffin vaults, manufactured in bulk, stockpiled on land owned by the company.
http://www.vantageproducts.com/Air Seal.html
How about comparing them to this photo? To my eye, as well as can be told from the pictures available, they are identical. 3 end ribs, 11 or 13 side ribs depending on how you count them, rounded top edge with a rectangular top.
Show me a septic tank that matches these things, if they exist.
No CT, but so far all the evidence I've seen, combined with what my aforementioned friend tells me, says that they are coffin vaults. Nothing sinister, but your insistence that they must be something else, on the basis of no evidence at all, and in the face of credible evidence that they are, is pure psuedoskepticism, which is something that, up until now, I hadn't believed in either, thanks a lot.
ETA 2 - If you are actually citing infowars.com as a credible source, all your credibility with me just went down the toilet.
Even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then. Infowars doesn't always (or even usually) fake the actual evidence they link to, it's their ridiculous re-interpretations of that evidence that makes them a problem. As I said above, there's nothing to indicate to me that that e-mail is a fake, but even it's innocuous explanation hasn't stopped Infowars from
going nuts with this.
And again, if you've got some (any!) evidence to show these are something else,
show us. It's pretty bad when even Infowars and ATS are doing a better job of proving their case than an (alleged) JREFer.