Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

FBI Report on "Dancing Israelis" declassified.

Options
2456789

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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?
    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?
    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭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


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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.
    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭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) ?


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭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


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭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


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭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


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭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





  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭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)


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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.


  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭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?


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    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.
    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?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    It's you who's been irrational Mob. Yekahs taught me this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
    That's not quite how you use the No true Scotsman fallacy. And doesn't address my point.

    Them sending people to get crappy pictures of an event that will be caught on thousands of cameras simply for their own amusement, while risking exposure even if they had sent competent agents does not make sense.
    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?
    Well your analogy isn't complete.
    It'd be more like why would they send a separate team to take photos of the stuff in Abu Graib (in addition to the photos already being taken), but form outside through a window, and only from angles were you can't see the horrible, important stuff. Then have those agents call as much attention to themselves as humanly possible, instantly admit who they work for when they're caught, have ID on them, then after all that put them on TV?

    So when you can explain why the hell someone would ever do that, then you'll have a rational conspiracy explanation for the dancing Israelis.


  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Are you taking the piss?

    You think they misremembered where they were during the attacks on 9/11 when it was the day of 9/11 and they were in New York and actually watching the attacks?

    Give it a rest.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Are you taking the piss?

    You think they misremembered where they were during the attacks on 9/11 when it was the day of 9/11 and they were in New York and actually watching the attacks?

    Give it a rest.
    It was one suggestion among a list of others.
    A suggestion that is entirely possible, something that often happens to people witnessing events like that and far, far more likely than any silly explanation that involves massive global conspiracies.

    But honestly you clearly don't want to even consider possible explanations that you don't like.


  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    King Mob wrote: »
    It'd be more like why would they send a separate team to take photos of the stuff in Abu Graib (in addition to the photos already being taken), but form outside through a window,
    Will you just take a deep breath and read what I say. Please. Regardless of their level of involvement it the photos/recording was for posterity, obviously.

    As were the photos in Abu Ghraib.
    King Mob wrote: »
    and only from angles were you can't see the horrible, important stuff.
    We've already danced this pointless dance and you were shown to be wrong.

    They had a good view of the first tower to be hit from their workplace roof.

    Despite this good view they for some strange reason decided to all jump into a van and drive to another area where they could see the second tower. DESPITE THE FACT THAT NO INNOCENT NEW YORKER KNEW THERE WAS TO BE A SECOND ATTACK.

    Do you honestly think that they would travel from a good view to a comparable one for no apparent reason at all?
    King Mob wrote: »
    Then have those agents call as much attention to themselves as humanly possible,
    Hypothethically if they were involved in carrying out such a daring operation then their reactions are understandable if ill advised.
    King Mob wrote: »
    instantly admit who they work for when they're caught,
    They said they were Israeli NOT WORKED FOR ISRAEL. If telling someone your nationality is the equivalent of telling them who you work for it must get very confusing for Trappatoni.

    King Mob wrote: »
    have ID on them,
    They had their passports, 5,000 dollars and aeroplane tickets for an immediate getaway all in the van.

    This is all normal **** that people bring into work everyday right?
    King Mob wrote: »
    then after all that put them on TV?
    Why not? Any covert careers they ever might have had are over. Plausible deniability.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Will you just take a deep breath and read what I say. Please. Regardless of their level of involvement it the photos/recording was for posterity, obviously.

    As were the photos in Abu Ghraib.
    And even if this was true and made a lick of sense for them to risk exposure, what was wrong with the thousands of photos and hours of video from bystanders who would not have raised suspicion and were closer to the buildings?
    We've already danced this pointless dance and you were shown to be wrong.

    They had a good view of the first tower to be hit from their workplace roof.

    Despite this good view they for some strange reason decided to all jump into a van and drive to another area where they could see the second tower. DESPITE THE FACT THAT NO INNOCENT NEW YORKER KNEW THERE WAS TO BE A SECOND ATTACK.
    And how did hundreds of other people manage to turn on their cameras and get closer to the WTC andcapture the second plane hitting the tower if they didn't know it was going to happen?
    How come there's so much video of WTC7 when no innocent New Yorker knew it was going to come down?
    I guess all of them were in on it too.
    Do you honestly think that they would travel from a good view to a comparable one for no apparent reason at all?
    And maybe they went north to try and get a clearer look at were the plane had hit in the first tower which was the north face?
    Or maybe they had went up there to see if the second one had been hit?

    Seriously, you really only think there's one explanation for this?
    Hypothethically if they were involved in carrying out such a daring operation then their reactions are understandable if ill advised.
    And their behaviour is understandable if they're just dicks.
    If these guys were intelligence agents they are bafflingly incompetent.
    They said they were Israeli NOT WORKED FOR ISRAEL. If telling someone your nationality is the equivalent of telling them who you work for it must get very confusing for Trappatoni.
    And they couldn't have had fake passports because...?
    Or just not have their passports on them?
    They had their passports, 5,000 dollars and aeroplane tickets for an immediate getaway all in the van.

    This is all normal **** that people bring into work everyday right?
    No not to you, but it's not impossible for them to have this stuff without being involved, isn't it?
    Given that these guys were immigrants carrying a passport might not be a uncommon thing.
    And the cash could have been for anything.
    Off the books payroll, Personal cash for something, a customer or customers paid them in cash, they could have been dealing drugs out of the back of the van.

    Maybe if they acted like intelligence agents they wouldn't have needed to leave that day anyway.
    But they if they were in on it, surely they would have known that there wasn't going to be any flights out of New York that day, let alone America.
    Why not? Any covert careers they ever might have had are over. Plausible deniability.
    Um.. never mention them at any point and therefore never bring attention to them?
    And considering people use their TV appearance as proof of their foreknowledge looks like that's another case for the reverse commandos.


  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    King Mob wrote: »
    And even if this was true and made a lick of sense for them to risk exposure, what was wrong with the thousands of photos and hours of video from bystanders who would not have raised suspicion and were closer to the buildings?
    Yeah because they all had the dancing Israelis in the foreground too...Oh wait!...They didn't!
    King Mob wrote: »
    And how did hundreds of other people manage to turn on their cameras and get closer to the WTC andcapture the second plane hitting the tower if they didn't know it was going to happen?
    I guess all of them were in on it too.
    Yeah and maybe people phoned the cops on these hundreds because they were celebrating the attacks. I say "attacks" but anyone innocent person didn't know that there was attacks but an tragic, accidental plane crash.


    • Maybe they lied to the police when questioned about their alibis.
    • Maybe police sniffer dogs reacted for explosives in their vans
    • Maybe they worked for a "probable front" according to the FBI
    • Maybe they refused lie detector tests.
    • Maybe their "boss" fled the country leaving his "business" behind a day after being questioned
    Maybe...nah...


    King Mob wrote: »
    And maybe they went north to try and get a clearer look at were the plane had hit in the first tower which was the north face?
    Or maybe they had went up there to see if the second one had been hit?

    Seriously, you really only think there's one explanation for this?
    No. I've an open mind but you seemingly do not- the 9/11 Commission report.

    King Mob wrote: »
    And their behaviour is understandable if they're just dicks.
    No the photos alone are, there is much more to this. Every aspect is suspicious.
    King Mob wrote: »
    If these guys were intelligence agents they are bafflingly incompetent.
    So incompotent that they are all free.
    King Mob wrote: »
    And they couldn't have had fake passports because...?
    ....If they were caught, as they were, it the would give the game away. There real passports were more useful as any fakes for travelling.

    King Mob wrote: »
    Or just not have their passports on them?
    And how do you suppose they would travel without them? They are not the crotch bomber.

    Also, how could they know for sure that they could safely return to wherever they might have left them had the **** hit the fan?
    King Mob wrote: »
    No not to you, but it's not impossible for them to have this stuff without being involved, isn't it?
    Of course.
    King Mob wrote: »
    Given that these guys were immigrants carrying a passport might not be a uncommon thing.
    Fair enough.
    King Mob wrote: »
    And the cash could have been for anything.
    Including getaway money.

    King Mob wrote: »
    Maybe if they acted like intelligence agents they wouldn't have needed to leave that day anyway.

    But they if they were in on it, surely they would have known that there wasn't going to be any flights out of New York that day, let alone America.
    Nobody said they had to fly. They would still need their passports however. They couldn't be sure what was going to happen so the passports/flight tickets/ cash gives them options to flee.

    King Mob wrote: »
    Um.. never mention them at any point and therefore never bring attention to them?
    And considering people use their TV appearance as proof of their foreknowledge looks like that's another case for the reverse commandos.
    I don't accept the "document the event" ..."we israelis suffer terrorism every day" as some kind of admittance of guilt. Obviously. But what he has done is inadvertantly dropped himself in it. They were documenting a terrorist event BEFORE THE 2ND PLANE HIT. THE WORLD AND HIS DOG THOUGHT IT WAS AN ACCIDENT AT THIS POINT? HOW DID HE KNOW IT WAS A TERRORIST ATTACK AFTER JUST 1 PLANE HITTING?


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,339 ✭✭✭✭jimmycrackcorm


    I stumbled into this thread thinking the topic was about this:



  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Yeah because they all had the dancing Israelis in the foreground too...Oh wait!...They didn't!
    So you're now saying that they were specifically told to dance around and give thumbs up...
    Now your theory is even stupider.
    Yeah and maybe people phoned the cops on these hundreds because they were celebrating the attacks. I say "attacks" but anyone innocent person didn't know that there was attacks but an tragic, accidental plane crash.
    And as we all know people never act like assholes when witnessing an accident. It's physically impossible.
    • Maybe they lied to the police when questioned about their alibis.
    • Maybe police sniffer dogs reacted for explosives in their vans
    • Maybe they worked for a "probable front" according to the FBI
    • Maybe they refused lie detector tests.
    • Maybe their "boss" fled the country leaving his "business" behind a day after being questioned
    Maybe...nah...
    I'll stick to the points already brought up first, otherwise this post will be ridiculously long.
    No. I've an open mind but you seemingly do not- the 9/11 Commission report.
    But you are rejecting every other non-conspiracy explanations because you don't like them.
    I'm judging the explanations based on how plausible they are.
    No the photos alone are, there is much more to this. Every aspect is suspicious.
    And then if we look at other aspects, they quickly fall apart as well.
    So incompotent that they are all free.
    After they got caught because they drew attention to themselves...
    ....If they were caught, as they were, it the would give the game away. There real passports were more useful as any fakes for travelling.

    And how do you suppose they would travel without them? They are not the crotch bomber.
    Are you now saying it's impossible to travel with fake passports?

    And if they didn't want to have fake ones in case it was suspicious, why did they have a fake ID as reported by the FBI?
    Also, how could they know for sure that they could safely return to wherever they might have left them had the **** hit the fan?
    Because if they had acted like the majority of people that day who took pictures, they wouldn't have had to worry at all.
    Including getaway money.
    Yes, and it could have been pay off money they got from the Aryan Nation to frame Jews for 9/11.
    However I'm going by what is most likely and supported by the evidence. All of those explanations I gave were far more likely then them being involved in a vast global conspiracy.
    I don't accept the "document the event" ..."we israelis suffer terrorism every day" as some kind of admittance of guilt. Obviously. But what he has done is inadvertantly dropped himself in it. They were documenting a terrorist event BEFORE THE 2ND PLANE HIT. THE WORLD AND HIS DOG THOUGHT IT WAS AN ACCIDENT AT THIS POINT? HOW DID HE KNOW IT WAS A TERRORIST ATTACK AFTER JUST 1 PLANE HITTING?
    Now that would make sense if those quotes were in context and before it was know it was a terrorist attack.
    But if we ignore logic and sense as is often the case here, and that this statement meant what you say it did, then what would you call what thousands of others who took photos and videos did?
    Why were they video taping stuff if they didn't know it was a terrorist attack?


  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    King Mob wrote: »
    So you're now saying that they were specifically told to dance around and give thumbs up...
    This is why I told you to pay attention earlier.

    I see their filming as potentially revelling in their crime and their success. I have stated that there would be no intelligence value of a plane flying into WTC. Got that now? They can be filming of their own accord and still have had foreknowledge.

    Do you think orders came down from the Pentagon that Lyndie Englund should give the thumbs up sign nect to a tortured naked mans crotch in Abu Ghraib? Or was she just a sick **** who got a thrill out of it and wanted a photo to relive it?
    King Mob wrote: »
    But you are rejecting every other non-conspiracy explanations because you don't like them.
    I'm judging the explanations based on how plausible they are.
    Congratulations! Me too. I haven't rejected anything bar the nonsense points like "they didn't move to get a better view" when they did in their own words and "maybe they didn't know where they were when the 9/11 attacks happened"
    King Mob wrote: »
    And if they didn't want to have fake ones in case it was suspicious, why did they have a fake ID as reported by the FBI?
    How about you do some of your own thinking...?

    They were fake college ID*s. Easily faked, no big deal. Fake passports are a different case entirely which could lead back to a Tel Aviv lab as the Irish case has shown.
    King Mob wrote: »
    Because if they had acted like the majority of people that day who took pictures, they wouldn't have had to worry at all.
    Yes, but they didn't.
    King Mob wrote: »
    Yes, and it could have been pay off money they got from the Aryan Nation to frame Jews for 9/11.
    However I'm going by what is most likely and supported by the evidence. All of those explanations I gave were far more likely then them being involved in a vast global conspiracy.

    Less of the vast global conspiracy crap thanks. I never said such a thing-

    King Mob wrote: »
    Now that would make sense if those quotes were in context and before it was know it was a terrorist attack.
    But if we ignore logic and sense as is often the case here, and that this statement meant what you say it did, then what would you call what thousands of others who took photos and videos did?
    Why were they video taping stuff if they didn't know it was a terrorist attack?
    Find me one example of a single person filming between the first and second plane hitting because it was a terrorist attack and not a spectacular accident and then your point will make some sense.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    This is why I told you to pay attention earlier.

    I see their filming as potentially revelling in their crime and their success. I have stated that there would be no intelligence value of a plane flying into WTC. Got that now? They can be filming of their own accord and still have had foreknowledge.

    Do you think orders came down from the Pentagon that Lyndie Englund should give the thumbs up sign nect to a tortured naked mans crotch in Abu Ghraib? Or was she just a sick **** who got a thrill out of it and wanted a photo to relive it?
    But you claimed that they were sent to take the pictures with them giving the thumbs etc, because none of the thousand of photos and hours of footage would have that, and whoever sent them really needed the photos to have them,
    But if they weren't given orders to do this, then what was wrong with the other photos that didn't sate their master's fetish?
    Congratulations! Me too. I haven't rejected anything bar the nonsense points like "they didn't move to get a better view" when they did in their own words and "maybe they didn't know where they were when the 9/11 attacks happened"
    And your answer might make sense if you had explained why you think that that explanation is wrong, then addressed the other six I gave.
    How about you do some of your own thinking...?

    They were fake college ID*s. Easily faked, no big deal. Fake passports are a different case entirely which could lead back to a Tel Aviv lab as the Irish case has shown.
    So why did they have a fake college ID?
    If they didn't want to be traced back to Israel, why the hell did they have Israeli passports?
    Yes, but they didn't.
    For no plausible reason and despite common sense.
    Less of the vast global conspiracy crap thanks. I never said such a thing-
    But you have to believe it to believe that these Israelis had foreknowledge.
    And it's implied by the rest of your conspiracy.
    Find me one example of a single person filming between the first and second plane hitting because it was a terrorist attack and not a spectacular accident and then your point will make some sense.
    Sure I'll do so the moment you show that these guys were.
    Because the only source for this is one out of context quote after the fact, which in context can be used to describe the actions of thousands of people.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement