FBI Report on "Dancing Israelis" declassified.

Brown Bomber

It's partly censored but here it is. http://www.scribd.com/doc/62392807/1138796-001-303A-NK-105536-Section-1-944861 Just skimmed through it at the moment. Comments to follow.

King Mob

Gotten about half way through them. Not much evidence to show who they were for either side. All the important bits are redacted.

Though from reading some of the arrest reports them announcing the fact they were Israeli might not have been the best stealth tactic.

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

Gotten about half way through them. Not much evidence to show who they were for either side. All the important bits are redacted.

Though from reading some of the arrest reports them announcing the fact they were Israeli might not have been the best stealth tactic.

You think them having Israeli passports they should have claimed to be something else

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

You think them having Israeli passports they should have claimed to be something else

Because we all know that Israeli special forces always carry and use Israeli passports...

But in the actual reports, the moment they're pulled out of the van they apparently announce they are Israelis.
I honestly can't see the sense in a secret surveillance team doing that.

Brown Bomber

Don't you find it suspicious that they moved from their vantage point on the Urban Systens Roof where they could see the tower that was struck first perfectly but not the second to a carpark where they could "document the event" with good view of both towers. When nobody knew the second tower was to be hit?

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Don't you find it suspicious that they moved from their vantage point on the Urban Systens Roof where they could see the tower that was struck first perfectly but not the second to a carpark where they could "document the event" with good view of both towers. When nobody knew the second tower was to be hit?

No not really. Mostly because it's probably not true.
Edit: It's not true.
The Urban Moving Systems building is apparently in Weehawken NJ. (the only specific address I could find was: 1720 Willow Ave, Weehawken, NJ 07086 But have no idea if it's the exact one.)
The reports say that the witnesses saw them in a carpark in Union City NJ.
Ten seconds on Google Maps shows that Union city is further north or further west than Weehawken, therefore further away from the WTC.
I'm begining to think that these guys are some sort of wacky, reverse commandos were "Get a closer look" means "move further away" and Stealth apparently means jump around calling attention to yourself and announce who you are working for immediately and if possible, on TV.

And even if it was and they were there to record the attack, why didn't they just go to the park in the first place?

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

Because we all know that Israeli special forces always carry and use Israeli passports...

Did they expect to be arrested I dint think so

Did they want to to be carrying dodgy ID going through an airport after a major terrorist attack Not a good idea either

But in the actual reports, the moment they're pulled out of the van they apparently announce they are Israelis.

Again they had passports which left them no choice

I honestly can't see the sense in a secret surveillance team doing that


.

That would be my take on it

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

Did they expect to be arrested I dint think so

Well maybe they should have seeing as they weren't being at all stealthy.

enno99 wrote: »

Did they want to to be carrying dodgy ID going through an airport after a major terrorist attack Not a good idea either

But they did have a dodgy ID on them when they were arrested, it's reported in the link above.

And Israelis have never had issues using dodgy passports...

enno99 wrote: »

Again they had passports which left them no choice

That would be my take on it

Or they could just not have had their passports on them?
Or not have gone on an entirely pointless mission?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

No not really. Mostly because it's probably not true.
Edit: It's not true.
The Urban Moving Systems building is apparently in Weehawken NJ. (the only specific address I could find was: 1720 Willow Ave, Weehawken, NJ 07086 But have no idea if it's the exact one.)
The reports say that the witnesses saw them in a carpark in Union City NJ.
Ten seconds on Google Maps shows that Union city is further north or further west than Weehawken, therefore further away from the WTC.
I'm begining to think that these guys are some sort of wacky, reverse commandos were "Get a closer look" means "move further away" and Stealth apparently means jump around calling attention to yourself and announce who you are working for immediately and if possible, on TV.

And even if it was and they were there to record the attack, why didn't they just go to the park in the first place?

EDIT is is true!!!

A few minutes later, BLANK and all went outside to look at the World Trade Center as it is visible from Urban Moving Systems. BLANK and BLANK suggested that they take a picture of the event for history. BLANK and BLANK climbed into the company van and drove to a parking lot fronting the Hudson River, which gave them a view of the entire length of both towers.BLANK is not sure if BLANK was in the van with them. BLANK is unsure of the exact location of this lot but advised that it only took five minutes to get there. BLANK and BLANK all climbed onto the roof of the van to get a better view of what was going on. BLANK admitted that they all took still photographs of the World Trade Center with BLANK 35 MM camera, but denied that he took any video or saw anyone with a video camera. No one mounted the camera on a tripod or any other mounting device. BLANK has no explanation of reports that they were observed videotaping the event.

After spending a few minutes at the lot, they drove back to Urban Moving Systems, where they went up on the roof of the building and took more still photographs but no videotape. BLANK stated that only one side of one tower is visible from the roof of Urban Moving. At this point, BLANK apologized for appearing happy in the photographs.

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

EDIT is is true!!!

A few minutes later, BLANK and all went outside to look at the World Trade Center as it is visible from Urban Moving Systems. BLANK and BLANK suggested that they take a picture of the event for history. BLANK and BLANK climbed into the company van and drove to a parking lot fronting the Hudson River, which gave them a view of the entire length of both towers.BLANK is not sure if BLANK was in the van with them. BLANK is unsure of the exact location of this lot but advised that it only took five minutes to get there. BLANK and BLANK all climbed onto the roof of the van to get a better view of what was going on. BLANK admitted that they all took still photographs of the World Trade Center with BLANK 35 MM camera, but denied that he took any video or saw anyone with a video camera. No one mounted the camera on a tripod or any other mounting device. BLANK has no explanation of reports that they were observed videotaping the event.

After spending a few minutes at the lot, they drove back to Urban Moving Systems, where they went up on the roof of the building and took more still photographs but no videotape. BLANK stated that only one side of one tower is visible from the roof of Urban Moving. At this point, BLANK apologized for appearing happy in the photographs.

So then the reports of the people saying they saw the Israelis out their windows in Union City are lying then?
Or is the above report false when he says that they went to the Hudson?

And what's wrong with their explanation that they simply drove closer to get a better look? Are you seriously suggesting that the only possible explanation for moving closer was to see the second plane hit?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

So then the reports of the people saying they saw the Israelis out their windows in Union City are lying then?
Or is the above report false when he says that they went to the Hudson?"

Well your understanding is wrong. It says they were in the car park (in Union City) "fronting" the Hudson i.e. towards the twin towers from the NJ side of the Hudson.

King Mob wrote: »

And what's wrong with their explanation that they simply drove closer to get a better look? Are you seriously suggesting that the only possible explanation for moving closer was to see the second plane hit?

Show me another single example of one person in one photo celebrating the attacks and then we can talk about simple explanations.

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Well your understanding is wrong. It says they were in the car park (in Union City) "fronting" the Hudson i.e. towards the twin towers from the NJ side of the Hudson.

But Union City doesn't doesn't border the Hudson.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_City,_New_Jersey
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/08/Census_Bureau_map_of_Union_City%2C_New_Jersey.gif

Their offices (if the address is correct) were closer and were fronting the Hudson.

So to be in Union City, fronting the river or no they have to be further north or further west than their offices: further away from the WTC.
And if this was were they where as you think, how would they have gotten a better view of the plane hitting the South Tower when it hit the south face which is not viewable from Union city or their offices?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Show me another single example of one person in one photo celebrating the attacks and then we can talk about simple explanations.

I'll take you dodging the question means that you realise exactly how silly it is to suggest that "moving to get a better look" implies foreknowledge.

And speaking of simple explanations I would like two.
Why spies would celebrate on a covert surveillance mission.
And why there needed to be a surveillance mission in the first place.

enno99

Closer to New York, FBI agents and Bergen County Sheriff's Department crime scene technicians spent three hours Thursday night searching the Weehawken headquarters of Urban Moving Systems at 3W 18th St.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/sears.html




Urban Moving Systems at 3 W 18th St NJ

Three minute drive to waterfront terrace car park gives them unobstructed view of manhattan



http://maps.google.ie/maps?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&channel=s&hl=en&biw=1006&bih=593&q=Union+City,+New+Jersey&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x89c25782f1042d95:0xba005c0f7421780,Union+City,+NJ,+USA&gl=ie&ei=GaVvTvvhGtCwhAec4pHRCQ&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=title&resnum=2&ved=0CCUQ8gEwAQ

Dont know if these type of links work but you can just use google maps to get directions

Open to correction was the union city resident the woman with the binoculars? which would enable her to see as far as the waterfront

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

Urban Moving Systems at 3 W 18th St NJ

Three minute drive to waterfront terrace car park gives them unobstructed view of manhattan

and that address seems near enough to one I gave, perhaps they moved a few blocks.

But none of those locations could possibly offer an unobstructed view of both towers or, as BB claims, a clear view of the second tower being hit.

enno99 wrote: »

Dont know if these type of links work but you can just use google maps to get directions

It just brings us to Union City, but not the specific car park you are talking about.

enno99 wrote: »

Open to correction was the union city resident the woman with the binoculars? which would enable her to see as far as the waterfront

Pretty unlikely, as the nearest Union City gets to the waterfront is a few blocks. And if she was watching them through a set of binoculars, it calls a lot of stuff about her testimony into question.

A Primal Nut

The dancing Israel's were not actually dancing. They were taking photos of themselves at an historical event and smiled in the pictures (hence the suspicion surrounding them). Their behaviour was extremely immature, nothing more.

If they were part of the conspiracy, why the hell would they be dancing and drawing attention to themselves?

According to the transcripts there doesn't seem to be anything strange, just a bunch of young guys acting immaturely and not being respectful.

http://www.911myths.com/html/dancing_israelis.html

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

and that address seems near enough to one I gave, perhaps they moved a few blocks.

But none of those locations could possibly offer an unobstructed view of both towers or, as BB claims, a clear view of the second tower being hit.


It just brings us to Union City, but not the specific car park you are talking about.


Pretty unlikely, as the nearest Union City gets to the waterfront is a few blocks. And if she was watching them through a set of binoculars, it calls a lot of stuff about her testimony into question.

Use google maps get directions from Urban Moving Systems at 3 W 18th St. NJ

To Waterfront Terrace
Weehawken, NJ 07086, USA

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

Pretty unlikely, as the nearest Union City gets to the waterfront is a few blocks. And if she was watching them through a set of binoculars, it calls a lot of stuff about her testimony into question.

If its not to much trouble can you elaborate on that a bit more

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

Use google maps get directions from Urban Moving Systems at 3 W 18th St. NJ

To Waterfront Terrace
Weehawken, NJ 07086, USA

So according to that they go further away from the WTC to a position that cannot possibly give them a clear view of the impact in the second tower, which BB claimed was their intention.
I'm not even sure you would be able to see the south tower from where they were, the north one would be in the way.

enno99 wrote: »

If its not to much trouble can you elaborate on that a bit more

Well if they were only being observed via a pair of binoculars, how can she make claims about how they sounded, or claim details like they were recording video?

Now notice how none of this makes sense if you believe that they were part of a conspiracy, yet nothing has the same issue if you believe they weren't?

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

So according to that they go further away from the WTC to a position that cannot possibly give them a clear view of the impact in the second tower, which BB claimed was their intention.
I'm not even sure you would be able to see the south tower from where they were, the north one would be in the way.


Well if they were only being observed via a pair of binoculars, how can she make claims about how they sounded, or claim details like they were recording video?

Now notice how none of this makes sense if you believe that they were part of a conspiracy, yet nothing has the same issue if you believe they weren't?

There is a four story parking lot down there with nothing only blue sky between it and Manhattan

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

There is a four story parking lot down there with nothing only blue sky between it and Manhattan

Yes, now look at the layout of the WTC, the North Tower (WTC1) is almost directly between that that WTC2.
WTC1 might very well obscure the other one.

And then even it it didn't, they are still looking southwards towards the north sides (specially north west corners) of the building, which barring x-ray vision would prevent them from seeing the impact of the plane in WTC2, the viewing of which is the reason BB claimed they moved in the first place.

So why, if they had foreknowledge of the attacks would they move to a viewpoint which did not offer a view of the thing they were apparently sent to record, or a viewpoint that did not offer a better view than from thier own roof?
And why the hell were they sent to record it in the first place? There's no rational reason to send what appear to be the Three Stooges of espionage on such a mission when there's a chance they would blow their cover and expose your sinister plot.

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

Yes, now look at the layout of the WTC, the North Tower (WTC1) is almost directly between that that WTC2.
WTC1 might very well obscure the other one.

And then even it it didn't, they are still looking southwards towards the north sides (specially north west corners) of the building, which barring x-ray vision would prevent them from seeing the impact of the plane in WTC2, the viewing of which is the reason BB claimed they moved in the first place.

So why, if they had foreknowledge of the attacks would they move to a viewpoint which did not offer a view of the thing they were apparently sent to record, or a viewpoint that did not offer a better view than from thier own roof?

You know this how ?


And why the hell were they sent to record it in the first place? There's no rational reason to send what appear to be the Three Stooges of espionage on such a mission when there's a chance they would blow their cover and expose your sinister plot.

Five Stooges

Witnesses saw them jumping for joy in Liberty State Park after the initial impact (5). Later on, other witnesses saw them celebrating on a roof in Weehawken, and still more witnesses later saw them celebrating with high fives in a Jersey City parking lot. (6)

Both prime vantage points 2 teams and meet up in jersey park

312 pavonia avenue jersey city NJ
Another address for urban removals nearer to liberty state park

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

You know this how ?

Know what how? That they couldn't see the south face of a building they were looking at from the north?
...Basic geometry?

enno99 wrote: »

Five Stooges

Yes I realise there were five of them, but the comedy team was the "Three Stooges".

enno99 wrote: »

Witnesses saw them jumping for joy in Liberty State Park after the initial impact (5). Later on, other witnesses saw them celebrating on a roof in Weehawken, and still more witnesses later saw them celebrating with high fives in a Jersey City parking lot. (6)

Both prime vantage points 2 teams and meet up in jersey park

But this doesn't gel with what BB was saying. He claimed that they started off in their building, then went to union city then back again.

But if we are to believe your interpretation, they started off in Liberty state park. This is south of the WTC, which means they couldn't have seen the impact of the first plane as it hits in the north face of the north tower.
Then after missing what they were sent to record, they go further away either to Weehaken or Union city and miss the second plane?

How does this make sense?
Your scenario just makes their seem less like actions of spies sent to record the event and more like the actions of characters in a comedy film.

enno99 wrote: »

312 pavonia avenue jersey city NJ
Another address for urban removals nearer to liberty state park

So then if this is the case, why did the go north to see the second plane hit as BB says they did?

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

Know what how? That they couldn't see the south face of a building they were looking at from the north?
...Basic geometry?

Yes I realise there were five of them, but the comedy team was the "Three Stooges".

But this doesn't gel with what BB was saying. He claimed that they started off in their building, then went to union city then back again.

But if we are to believe your interpretation, they started off in Liberty state park. This is south of the WTC, which means they couldn't have seen the impact of the first plane as it hits in the north face of the north tower.
Then after missing what they were sent to record, they go further away either to Weehaken or Union city and miss the second plane?

How does this make sense?
Your scenario just makes their seem less like actions of spies sent to record the event and more like the actions of characters in a comedy film.

So then if this is the case, why did the go north to see the second plane hit as BB says they did?

Both prime vantage points 2 teams and meet up in a jersey parking lot( from post 21)

my posts dont contain more than a couple of lines as im **** at typing

do you want me to make that bit clearer

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

Both prime vantage points 2 teams and meet up in jersey park( from post 21)

my posts dont contain more than a couple of lines as im **** at typing

do you want me to make that bit clearer

What you can do is back up your claim that there was two teams.
Or Explain how "Prime vantage" points mean points were you can't see what you're supposed to have been there to see.
Or Explain why the "second team" left their post before they could see what they were supposed to watch?
Or Explain what Jersey park was, are you referring to Liberty State park? Or the car park in Union City?

Or answer the question I keep asking: "why were they sent on this mission in the first place?"

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

What you can do is back up your claim that there was two teams.
Or Explain how "Prime vantage" points mean points were you can't see what you're supposed to have been there to see.
Or Explain why the "second team" left their post before they could see what they were supposed to watch?
Or Explain what Jersey park was, are you referring to Liberty State park? Or the car park in Union City?

Or answer the question I keep asking: "why were they sent on this mission in the first place?"

Ill just answer the last bit
If you want to know the mindset of Israeli (tourists) Im the wrong person for that

The rest is not that hard if you apply yourself
Goodnight

Sorry that was a jersey parking lot told ya about my typing

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

Ill just answer the last bit
If you want to know the mindset of Israeli (tourists) Im the wrong person for that

The rest is not that hard if you apply yourself
Goodnight

So you've no evidence there were two separate groups?
It was just a lame attempt to try and make sense of an increasingly silly theory.

And on top of the massive gaps in the theory you can't even think of a single plausible reason why the people involved in the conspiracy would send agents to record the event in the first place.

So do you still believe that these guys were involved despite all of this?

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

So you've no evidence there were two separate groups?
It was just a lame attempt to try and make sense of an increasingly silly theory.

And on top of the massive gaps in the theory you can't even think of a single plausible reason why the people involved in the conspiracy would send agents to record the event in the first place.

So do you still believe that these guys were involved despite all of this?

KM 5-3 =2 you have 2 groups

SLOOPY

King Mob wrote: »

And if she was watching them through a set of binoculars, it calls a lot of stuff about her testimony into question.

King Mob wrote: »

Well if they were only being observed via a pair of binoculars, how can she make claims about how they sounded, or claim details like they were recording video?

"On 9/11/2001 BLANK BLANK a housewife and Union City,NJ resident,advised that at approximately 9.00am, 9/11/2001 BLANK neighbor, BLANK called her on the telephone that she BLANK saw smoke coming from the WTC.In order to see the WTC more closely,BLANK used 7x33mm power binoculars to view the scene.From the rear window of her apartment and while looking in the direction of the WTC,BLANK observed three (3) males kneeling on the roof of a white van located in the rear parking lot of her apartment complex.

She noticed the individuals and it appeared as though they noticed her."

The way i read that was that she was watching what was happening at the WTC through binoculars and not the 3 men in the apartments parking lot.

King Mob

SLOOPY wrote: »

"On 9/11/2001 BLANK BLANK a housewife and Union City,NJ resident,advised that at approximately 9.00am, 9/11/2001 BLANK neighbor, BLANK called her on the telephone that she BLANK saw smoke coming from the WTC.In order to see the WTC more closely,BLANK used 7x33mm power binoculars to view the scene.From the rear window of her apartment and while looking in the direction of the WTC,BLANK observed three (3) males kneeling on the roof of a white van located in the rear parking lot of her apartment complex.

She noticed the individuals and it appeared as though they noticed her."

The way i read that was that she was watching what was happening at the WTC through binoculars and not the 3 men in the apartments parking lot.

So then they had to be in Union City, therefore further away from the WTC then they would have been and unable to see the south faces of the buildings?

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

KM 5-3 =2 you have 2 groups

And which Witness reports back this up?

Now, I want you to explain why you are unable to actually answer my question.
How can you still believe that these guys were Israeli agents when you can't think of a single plausible reason or benefit for them to be there, let alone make sense of their actions or show that they had foreknowledge?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

But Union City doesn't doesn't border the Hudson.

Their offices (if the address is correct) were closer and were fronting the Hudson.

Ey...?

I've just told you that fronting in this case mean facing the direction of. I can be facing the Hudson from here in Sweden if I wanted. Distance is irrelevant.

Have you got some kind problem admitting your wrong or summit? Seriously, you dropped the ball saying why wouldn't a group of people with their passports on them say to the police who have the power to search them, their real identidies?

Now your trying to deny that that car park has a better view of the 2nd tower DESPITE THE FACT THAT IT DOES IN THEIR OWN WORDS!!!!

Seriously King Mob what the ****..........? I get it you don't think anything untoward went on but a little objectivity and dare I say scepticism wouldn't go astray here.

Denialism is not scepticism.

BLANK and BLANK climbed into the company van and drove to a parking lot fronting the Hudson River, which gave them a view of the entire length of both towers.

BLANK stated that only one side of one tower is visible from the roof of Urban Moving.

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Ey...?

I've just told you that fronting in this case mean facing the direction of. I can be facing the Hudson from here in Sweden if I wanted. Distance is irrelevant.

So then they moved further west and further north from were they were?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Have you got some kind problem admitting your wrong or summit? Seriously, you dropped the ball saying why wouldn't a group of people with their passports on them say to the police who have the power to search them, their real identidies?

No, I'm wondering why a covert surveillance unit would have their real passports in the first place.
And if they just had to have their real ID on them, why then did they also have a fake one?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Now your trying to deny that that car park has a better view of the 2nd tower DESPITE THE FACT THAT IT DOES IN THEIR OWN WORDS!!!!

Seriously King Mob what the ****..........? I get it you don't think anything untoward went on but a little objectivity and dare I say scepticism wouldn't go astray here.

Denialism is not scepticism.

So again we have secret agents announcing stuff they really shouldn't.
But since you're taking their word as gospel, then why did they move north where they could not have possibly seen the south face of the south tower where the second plane hit?
I thought you said that they moved so they could watch that?
And if this wasn't their goal, what could have possibly been gained by watching the opposite end of the building?
What could have possibly been gained from this mission at all?

You yammer on about me not being skeptical and denying stuff, yet you can't answer this very simple question.

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

And which Witness reports back this up?

Now, I want you to explain why you are unable to actually answer my question.
How can you still believe that these guys were Israeli agents when you can't think of a single plausible reason or benefit for them to be there, let alone make sense of their actions or show that they had foreknowledge?

Now you WANT really

What you want is to wind in your neck a little
You exposed yourself as a blatant liar on the building 7 thread
You have just exposed yourself to be the two ends and the middle of of D!ckhead on this one

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

Now you WANT really

What you want is to wind in your neck a little
You exposed yourself as a blatant liar on the building 7 thread
You have just exposed yourself to be the two ends and the middle of of D!ckhead on this one

So you write this instead of answering a simple question.
If I'm such a terrible person, why don't you just show me up and address a simple question which you must surely have an answer for if you believe that these Israelis were involved.

But you can't because there's no sane reason why they should be there.
And then on top of that you can't address any of the other points I've made.
So to cover that fact you switch to a unsupported personal attack and are no doubt leaving the thread in a huff.
Because the alternative, examining what you believe, is unthinkable.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

So then they moved further west and further north from were they were?


No, I'm wondering why a covert surveillance unit would have their real passports in the first place.
And if they just had to have their real ID on them, why then did they also have a fake one?


So again we have secret agents announcing stuff they really shouldn't.
But since you're taking their word as gospel, then why did they move north where they could not have possibly seen the south face of the south tower where the second plane hit?
I thought you said that they moved so they could watch that?
And if this wasn't their goal, what could have possibly been gained by watching the opposite end of the building?
What could have possibly been gained from this mission at all?

You yammer on about me not being skeptical and denying stuff, yet you can't answer this very simple question.

And here we go again with the pointless questions. Foreknowledge doesn't mean that they knew which side building was going to be hit. Does it?

Do you think Bin Laden knew which side of the towers was going to be hit? Do you think they hijackers knew when they took over the cockpit? Do you think it somehow matters which side of a skyscraper you hit if your purpose is just to smash into it ffs?

Why are you denying this? In their own words they moved to get a better view of both towers in their own words and in the words of the FBI who interrogated them for weeks.

They purposely travelled from a position where they could see one only tower to a position where they could see the second tower before the there was any indication that the 2nd tower would be hit. Does this prove foreknowlege? No. Is it consistent with foreknowledge? Certainly.

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And here we go again with the pointless questions. Foreknowledge doesn't mean that they knew which side building was going to be hit. Does it?

Do you think Bin Laden knew which side of the towers was going to be hit? Do you think they hijackers knew when they took over the cockpit? Do you think it somehow matters which side of a skyscraper you hit if your purpose is just to smash into it ffs?

Why are you denying this? In their own words they moved to get a better view of both towers in their own words and in the words of the FBI who interrogated them for weeks.

They purposely travelled from a position where they could see one only tower to a position where they could see the second tower before the there was any indication that the 2nd tower would be hit. Does this prove foreknowlege? No. Is it consistent with foreknowledge? Certainly.

And do you know what else it's consistent with?
Not having foreknowledge and being one of the thousands of people who went out that day to record footage. Especially those who might want to get a clearer look at the face of the building that had already been struck.

You were the one who brought them moving as an indication of their foreknowledge and you were the one who claimed they did so to see the impact of the plane.
Both of which you need to back peddle from.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Don't you find it suspicious that they moved from their vantage point on the Urban Systens Roof where they could see the tower that was struck first perfectly but not the second to a carpark where they could "document the event" with good view of both towers. When nobody knew the second tower was to be hit?

And yet you still cannot give a single plausible reason why they would be sent by the conspirators in the first place.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

And do you know what else it's consistent with?
Not having foreknowledge and being one of the thousands of people who went out that day to record footage. Especially those who might want to get a clearer look at the face of the building that had already been struck.

You were the one who brought them moving as an indication of their foreknowledge and you were the one who claimed they did so to see the impact of the plane.
Both of which you need to back peddle from.


And yet you still cannot give a single plausible reason why they would be sent by the conspirators in the first place.

Before we move on can you please answer these questions simply and honestly.

a) Is moving to a point which gives a view of the second tower hit (pre-impact ) from a position with an obstructed view of the second tower consistent with foreknowledge?

b) Is it perfectly reasonable to have foreknowledge of the attacks without knowing which side would be succesfully hit (if any) ?

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Before we move on can you please answer these questions simply and honestly.

a) Is moving to a point which gives a view of the second tower hit (pre-impact ) from a position with an obstructed view of the second tower consistent with foreknowledge?

b) Is it perfectly reasonable to have foreknowledge of the attacks without knowing which side would be succesfully hit (if any) ?

Yes, consistent with but not proof of. Just as it's consistent with the thousands of normal people who did exactly the same thing that day.

Yes, but makes little sense as then you'd have to explain how they knew which side the first hit, and what time to be there at.

Now you see, honestly, simply and on the first try.
Now can you finally answer the question I've been asking for the last few pages?

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

So you write this instead of answering a simple question.
If I'm such a terrible person, why don't you just show me up and address a simple question which you must surely have an answer for if you believe that these Israelis were involved.

But you can't because there's no sane reason why they should be there.
And then on top of that you can't address any of the other points I've made.
So to cover that fact you switch to a unsupported personal attack and are no doubt leaving the thread in a huff.
Because the alternative, examining what you believe, is unthinkable.

Forgive me the next time you demand an answer from me I will comply

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

Forgive me the next time you demand an answer from me I will comply

So I'll take it that you're still not going to answer a simple question.

Ever wonder why you can't?

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

So I'll take it that you're still not going to answer a simple question.

Ever wonder why you can't?

Ok

Do I think they were sent to document the event I think thats possible
Do I think they were high level mossad agents No
Do I think they were mossad lackeys told to keep an eye out on the day and record the events ( drop the film at some po box or similar scenario and given a few grand for their trouble) I also think thats possible
Do I think that they were the only ones asked to do it wouldent surprise me if there was more than one group

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

Ok

Do I think they were sent to document the event I think thats possible
Do I think they were high level mossad agents No
Do I think they were mossad lackeys told to keep an eye out on the day and record the events ( drop the film at some po box or similar scenario and given a few grand for their trouble) I also think thats possible
Do I think that they were the only ones asked to do it wouldent surprise me if there was more than one group

But that's still not an answer to my question.
My question was specifically:
Why did they send people to document the event?
What plausible benefit would that have?

And if you think all that was possible, why is it impossible that they had no advance knowledge?

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

But that's still not an answer to my question.
My question was specifically:
Why did they send people to document the event?
What plausible benefit would that have?

And if you think all that was possible, why is it impossible that they had no advance knowledge?

Not one question but three

Answer to all three I dont know nor do I care

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

Not one question but three

Answer to all three I dont know nor do I care

So you can't give a single rational reason for why Israel or the conspirators would send these guys in the first place, or detail any plausible benefit of them doing so.
Nor can you provide anything to suggest that they were sent by Israel or any conspirators and acting under orders.
Nor can you exclude the possibility that they were just doing what thousands of people did that day.

But you don't care about that, you're going to claim that they were involved anyway. Evidence and sense be damned.

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

But you don't care about that, you're going to claim that they were involved anyway. Evidence and sense be damned.

So now thinking something is possible is a definite accusation

King Mob

enno99 wrote: »

So now thinking something is possible is a definite accusation

So then you don't actually believe that these guys were involved, you just think it's possible despite the total lack of evidence, motive and basic common sense?

Brown Bomber

Your right in saying that it has no intelligence value but ask yourself why the military and CIA contractors took photos of their torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and there you'll find the answer to your question.

Edit: that's assuming Mossad (or rogue element therein) had foreknowledge due to surveillance, enabling or planning of the attacks

As for motive ask Bibi
Report: Netanyahu says 9/11 terror attacks good for Israel

http://www.haaretz.com/news/report-netanyahu-says-9-11-terror-attacks-good-for-israel-1.244044

Iraq war was good for Israel: Olmert

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

So then you don't actually believe that these guys were involved, you just think it's possible despite the total lack of evidence, motive and basic common sense?

Perhaps you can use your good common sense to say why they lied to police officers as to there whereabouts during the attack?

(see the police report)

Perhaps you can use your common sense to describe why a witness at the apartments seen one of the 5 Israelis in the same apartment block telling another resident that he was in the building as a construction worker EDIT: in the week of the attacks?

(see the FBI report)

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Your right in saying that it has no intelligence value but ask yourself why the military and CIA contractors took photos of their torture of prisoners and there you'll find the answer to your question.

Seriously that's your answer?
They risked blowing their cover by sending the most incompetent agents they could find to take pictures for ****s and giggles.
Pictures of which would have been in no way better than the thousands of photos and hours of video taken in the city?

We must have different definitions of the word plausible and rational.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

Seriously that's your answer?
They risked blowing their cover by sending the most incompetent agents they could find to take pictures for ****s and giggles.
Pictures of which would have been in no way better than the thousands of photos and hours of video taken in the city?

We must have different definitions of the word plausible and rational.

It's you who's been irrational Mob. Yekahs taught me this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Edit: Why did they take photos in Abu Ghraib? And how is different to recording the twin towers attacks if you were involved in carrying them out?

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Perhaps you can use your good common sense to say why they lied to police officers as to there whereabouts during the attack?

(see the police report)

They were up to something fishy other than being involved in a massive global conspiracy.
They misremembered or misspoke.
They don't like police and gave false information rather than be helpful.
They didn't lie, it's just that other witnesses are misreporting what they saw.

Then going for less likely scenarios, but are still far more plausible that the silly conspiracy version.
The cop righting the report was distraught over the events of the day and either misreported, misheard or misremembered what they had told him.

Or maybe even he believed that these were involved in the attacks and falsified the report so the cops had more to hold them on.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Perhaps you can use your common sense to describe why a witness at the apartments seen one of the 5 Israelis in the same apartment block telling another resident that he was in the building as a construction worker?

(see the FBI report)

Again, tons of explanations that don't involve massive conspiracies.
The witness misremembered or misheard a conversation they were not in.
The witness confused the guy with some one else.
The guy misspoke.

Maybe the landlord wasn't letting the guys into the building to move stuff so he pretended to be a construction worker to get in?

What's the conspiracy explanation for this?
Why did he need to pretend to be a construction worker to pretend to be a removal worker to take useless pictures?