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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

FBI Report on "Dancing Israelis" declassified.

2456

Comments

  • #52
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    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.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    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.


  • #53
    Brown Bomber
    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.


  • #54
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    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.


  • #55
    Brown Bomber
    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.


  • #56
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    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?
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    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.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    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?
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    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.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    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?
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    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.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    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.


  • #57
    Brown Bomber
    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?


  • #58
    jimmycrackcorm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,345 ✭✭✭✭jimmycrackcorm


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

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDs19vPlM50


  • #59
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    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.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    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.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    • 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.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    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.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    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.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    So incompotent that they are all free.
    After they got caught because they drew attention to themselves...
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    ....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?
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    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.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    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.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    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?


  • #60
    Brown Bomber
    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
  • #61
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    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?
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    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.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    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?
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Yes, but they didn't.
    For no plausible reason and despite common sense.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    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.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    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.


  • #62
    enfant terrible
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,592 ✭✭✭enfant terrible


    You are a very patient man King Mob.

    There is no reasoning with some people.


  • #63
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    enfant terrible wrote: »
    You are a very patient man King Mob.

    There is no reasoning with some people.
    :pac:

    Yeah so patient he didn't take the time to read the FBI report or else he would've known that the "highfivers" intentions in moving locations was to get a better view of the 2nd tower.

    Tell me et have you read it? What did you make of it?


  • #64
    Di0genes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    :pac:

    Yeah so patient he didn't take the time to read the FBI report or else he would've known that the "highfivers" intentions in moving locations was to get a better view of the 2nd tower.

    Tell me et have you read it? What did you make of it?

    I'd forget the smilies and concentrate on answering King Mobs points.


  • #65
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Di0genes wrote: »
    I'd forget the smilies and concentrate on answering King Mobs points.

    Points? :pac: The sniffer dogs reacted for explosives in the fan and their boss done a runner cos' they were "dicks"?

    This myth is going down as busted :D


  • #66
    Di0genes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Points? :pac: The sniffer dogs reacted for explosives

    Sniffer dogs react to chemicals. They're a moving firm, theres no telling what was in the van, that the dog was reacting to.
    in the fan and their boss done a runner cos' they were "dicks"?

    This myth is going down as busted :D

    :D;):rolleyes::confused::pac:

    And yet a coherent conspiracy is yet to emerge.

    Do you think the dancing jews put explosives in the twin towers Brown Bomber.

    Do you think the WTC 1&2 or WTC 7 were a controlled demolition.

    Or wait do you now think there was a grand conspiracy on 9/11?

    Heaven forfend brown bomber that you'd actually put up for once and tell us what you really think happened. Heaven forfend that you'd actually nail your colours to the mast and tell us what theory you subscribe to.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    Di0genes wrote: »
    Sniffer dogs react to chemicals. They're a moving firm, theres no telling what was in the van, that the dog was reacting to.

    err they are sniffer dogs for explosives, they react to i dunno, explosives?

    your defence seems to be the "so you saw me doing <act>?, well what you saw was light boucning of my and into your eyes, there is no way of telling what cosmic radiation did to those light particles or even if they exist in the first place!"

    and they were not a moving firm, i think it had been established that they were a front. sure you'll argue now that they had a van and what else can you do with a van but me a moving firm i suppose ....


  • #68
    enno99
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭enno99


    Di0genes wrote: »
    I'd forget the smilies and concentrate on answering King Mobs points.

    Maybe you should follow your own advice and answer the question as to who doctored barry Jennings statement in the list of witnesss reports that you frequently post
    7. After the initial blast, Housing Authority worker Barry Jennings, 46, reported to a command center on the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center. He was with Michael Hess, the city's corporation counsel, when they felt and heard another explosion [the collapse of the north tower]. First calling for help, they scrambled downstairs to the lobby, or what was left of it. "I looked around, the lobby was gone. It looked like hell," Jennings said. http://www.record-eagle.com/2001/sep/11scene.htm

    Was that your work or someone elses


  • #69
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Points? :pac: The sniffer dogs reacted for explosives in the fan and their boss done a runner cos' they were "dicks"?

    This myth is going down as busted :D

    So can you explain why they were carrying explosives in a moving van?
    Or why a surveillance team would have access to or need of explosives?

    Can you actually point out were in the linked report the think about the dog is?
    Can you show us were the police tested for explosives and positively found evidence for them?

    We'll stick to that one since you don't want to stick to the others ones you're now ignoring.


  • #70
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    davoxx wrote: »
    err they are sniffer dogs for explosives, they react to i dunno, explosives?

    your defence seems to be the "so you saw me doing <act>?, well what you saw was light boucning of my and into your eyes, there is no way of telling what cosmic radiation did to those light particles or even if they exist in the first place!"

    and they were not a moving firm, i think it had been established that they were a front. sure you'll argue now that they had a van and what else can you do with a van but me a moving firm i suppose ....

    You think?
    Can you substantiate this?


  • #71
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    King Mob wrote: »
    You think? Can you substantiate this?

    yeah funny enough i do think, i don't just follow others.

    what and how do you want substantiated?


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    davoxx wrote: »
    yeah funny enough i do think, i don't just follow others.

    what and how do you want substantiated?
    With some evidence to show that is it true that you yourself went out and verified, since you don't just follow others and all.


  • #73
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    King Mob wrote: »
    With some evidence to show that is it true that you yourself went out and verified, since you don't just follow others and all.

    What level of evidence? since you obviously read the full report and all other entries on the web.
    King Mob wrote: »
    With some evidence to show that is it true that you yourself went out and verified, since you don't just follow others and all.

    yeah i flew all the way over and went to their head office and there was a poster saying 'moved back to Israel, job done lads, we were never a moving business in the first place", but still not convinced i decided to hang around, but who should i meet but the man himself Dominic Suter, in the flesh, i asked to see his passport, he showed me, man i was stunned, we had coffee form a quaint place there, good thing i am jewish otherwise they would not let me in, they questioned me like feck, but after gaining their trust (had to burn a few pages of the koran), they told me that it was them that had planted bombs at wtc7, and they showed me pictures of them doing it, he did say that the 'lads' who were dancing were fired, that they should have known better, but what could he do? at least "we'll" be able to clear the world of the filth (i was not sure it he meant just Muslims or not), but sure enough he had to leave eventually, i asked him if he would sign an affidavit to this, but funnily enough he said no, they 'guys' know already.

    true story.


  • #74
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    davoxx wrote: »
    What level of evidence? since you obviously read the full report and all other entries on the web.
    Something from a reliable source that shows the evidence for that conclusion.
    Or at least the evidence you've used to reach you conclusion.
    davoxx wrote: »
    true story.
    So then you are relying on what people have told you?


  • #75
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    King Mob wrote: »
    Something from a reliable source that shows the evidence for that conclusion.
    Or at least the evidence you've used to reach you conclusion.
    define what is reliable, and what is unreliable? and again what level of evidence?
    King Mob wrote: »
    So then you are relying on what people have told you?
    no .. i am relying on what i heard, i have no idea what 'they' told me, all i know is what i heard from Dominic Suter.


  • #76
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    davoxx wrote: »
    define what is reliable, and what is unreliable? and again what level of evidence?


    no .. i am relying on what i heard, i have no idea what 'they' told me, all i know is what i heard from Dominic Suter.

    Well it's clear now that you've nothing to back up what you claimed and it was simply a case of you buying what you were told from conspiracy theorists and repeating it even though you can't show it's true.

    I wish you guys would just admit this stuff instead of trying to dance around it.


  • #77
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    King Mob wrote: »
    Well it's clear now that you've nothing to back up what you claimed and it was simply a case of you buying what you were told from conspiracy theorists and repeating it even though you can't show it's true.

    I wish you guys would just admit this stuff instead of trying to dance around it.

    sorry - what evidence do you have that i have nothing, please show it or be quiet, i told you how i checked myself, and yet you deny it. PROVE it please? no you can't?, so i guess you're wrong.

    you just seem to be dodging everything with, that's not evidence, that proves nothing, easily done. you ask for evidence to disprove something, now i made the same call as yourself, and you whine.

    it good to see that you actually have nothing factual and have read nothing regarding the event and background.

    if you have a point state it, or be quiet. thanks!!


  • #78
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    davoxx wrote: »
    sorry - what evidence do you have that i have nothing, please show it or be quiet, i told you how i checked myself, and yet you deny it. PROVE it please? no you can't?, so i guess you're wrong.
    My evidence is that you just spend the last 5 posts dodging the simple question and are now trying the mature tactics of "well so are you" and you "can't prove I can't".

    So you either have evidence to back up your claim or you don't.
    If you do, show it, if you don't then you should hold yourself to your own standards and be quiet.

    Experience tells me you'll do neither however.


  • #79
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    King Mob wrote: »
    My evidence is that you just spend the last 5 posts dodging the simple question and are now trying the mature tactics of "well so are you" and you "can't prove I can't".
    sorry there bub, that's not evidence to disprove what i said.
    come back again when you have some, thanks ... but read on though.

    King Mob wrote: »
    So you either have evidence to back up your claim or you don't.
    If you do, show it, if you don't then you should hold yourself to your own standards and be quiet.
    i don't need evidence, you are the one trying to disprove my claim, funny how you don't hold yourself to your own standards about evidence (conveniently).

    you asked for "evidence" that it was a front, yet you can not provide evidence that explains the reports for that day, i doubt you even read them, otherwise you'd be able to quote them.

    King Mob wrote: »
    Experience tells me you'll do neither however.
    pity you don't learn from it.

    come back again when you've read the document in question.


  • #80
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    davoxx wrote: »
    i don't need evidence....
    Lol, unfortunatly, that's not how logical inquiry works.
    You claimed that the company were shown to be a front. I asked you to substantiate this.
    You didn't and can't.


  • #81
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    King Mob wrote: »
    Lol, unfortunatly, that's not how logical inquiry works.
    You claimed that the company were shown to be a front. I asked you to substantiate this.
    You didn't and can't.

    it is, clearly you don't understand it yourself.
    you asked, i clarified for level, you said i had to have verified by myself. lucky i had such evidence, i explained it to you, you claimed it was false, without proving it to be so.


    have you read the document? you keep avoiding this?

    don't bother replying (well you will anyway with some nonsense, but i won't reply) unless you answer yes/no to whether you have read the document.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    davoxx wrote: »
    have you read the document? you keep avoiding this?

    don't bother replying (well you will anyway with some nonsense, but i won't reply) unless you answer yes/no to whether you have read the document.
    Yes I have read most of the document.

    But it's good that you are at least labelling the arguments you're going to ignore.


  • #83
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    King Mob wrote: »
    Yes I have read most of the document.

    But it's good that you are at least labelling the arguments you're going to ignore.

    finally a straight answer from you. now, i'm not going to believe that you read it (i have my reasons), but i am not claiming that you did not read it.

    do you see the difference there with what you said about my true story?
    do you see the difference with what i required for evidence? i don't need to see you reading it to know if you've read it, even if i did, you could still have pretended to.


    but the fact it that we take that report with some credibility, to say:
    King Mob wrote: »
    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.
    does not prove that they were not agents, it is your belief, but it is contra to what is recorded. true what is recorded could have been changed, but then your argument would be regarding the validity of the report.

    this is how you've argued.

    regarding the moving company being a front, it was established via company records, and the fact that the owner left asap, as well as other sources, some that have been retracted, that in all likelihood it was a front. a legitimate business would not have responded as they had in the report and subsequent events (them leaving usa when they had a job?)


  • #84
    meglome
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    davoxx wrote: »
    sorry there bub, that's not evidence to disprove what i said.
    come back again when you have some, thanks ... but read on though.

    i don't need evidence, you are the one trying to disprove my claim, funny how you don't hold yourself to your own standards about evidence (conveniently).

    you asked for "evidence" that it was a front, yet you can not provide evidence that explains the reports for that day, i doubt you even read them, otherwise you'd be able to quote them.

    pity you don't learn from it.

    come back again when you've read the document in question.

    Don't want to get in the middle of the discussion. But really when someone makes claim they need to back them up. You are making the claims so either they have a basis in fact or they don't. It makes no sense whatsoever that someone would disprove claims that you can't even prove to begin with. There are plenty of explanations that would fit these Israelis so explain why anyone should believe yours.


  • #85
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    davoxx wrote: »
    regarding the moving company being a front, it was established via company records, and the fact that the owner left asap, as well as other sources, some that have been retracted, that in all likelihood it was a front. a legitimate business would not have responded as they had in the report and subsequent events (them leaving usa when they had a job?)
    Can you provide a link to where you saw these company records?

    Can you detail and provide these other sources?

    Or should I just take your word for everything?


  • #86
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    meglome wrote: »
    Don't want to get in the middle of the discussion. But really when someone makes claim they need to back them up. You are making the claims so either they have a basis in fact or they don't. It makes no sense whatsoever that someone would disprove claims that you can't even prove to begin with. There are plenty of explanations that would fit these Israelis so explain why anyone should believe yours.

    glady, though i guess you believe that my explanation is that they are agents?

    the report shows that they are not acting normally, though normally is subjective. "On March 15, 2002, The Forward claimed that the FBI had concluded that the van's driver, Paul Kurzberg, and his brother Sivan, were indeed Mossad operatives, who were in America "spying on local Arabs".[59]" - wiki
    true this may be wrong, but this makes me inclined to believe that they were agents. now the obvious problem would be that no agent is going to say "hey i'm an undercover agent", so we have to base our decision form the evidence which in my opinion individually can be dismissed, but together, they can't.


  • #87
    meglome
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    davoxx wrote: »
    glady, though i guess you believe that my explanation is that they are agents?

    the report shows that they are not acting normally, though normally is subjective. "On March 15, 2002, The Forward claimed that the FBI had concluded that the van's driver, Paul Kurzberg, and his brother Sivan, were indeed Mossad operatives, who were in America "spying on local Arabs".[59]" - wiki
    true this may be wrong, but this makes me inclined to believe that they were agents. now the obvious problem would be that no agent is going to say "hey i'm an undercover agent", so we have to base our decision form the evidence which in my opinion individually can be dismissed, but together, they can't.

    Let me post more of that piece for you.
    The Forward claimed that the FBI had concluded that the van's driver, Paul Kurzberg, and his brother Sivan, were indeed Mossad operatives, who were in America "spying on local Arabs".[59] ABC news cited this report on June 21, 2002, adding that the FBI had concluded that the five Israelis had no foreknowledge of the attacks.[60]

    The link to The Forward doesn't work so I can't read it.

    But I'd ask you why believe the first claim they were Mossad agents but not believe they had no foreknowledge?


  • #88
    ed2hands
    Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    Juval Aviv (former Mossad agent) believes Urban Moving was a front.

    Details of that and other points in this thread in vid below:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kh3wo18oDZU


  • #89
    Daithi 1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,006 ✭✭✭Daithi 1


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    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.


    Very disappointed they didn't reveal where they learned to dance. :(


  • #90
    meglome
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    ed2hands wrote: »
    Juval Aviv (former Mossad agent) believes Urban Moving was a front.

    Details of that and other points in this thread in vid below:

    Again even if we believe some of them were (albeit poor) Mossad agents does the rest of the CT claims makes sense. I still don't think they do.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    King Mob wrote: »
    Can you provide a link to where you saw these company records?
    no, i did not realise i'd need it later on ... i need to bookmark everything i read and see.
    search on the web yourself first and see what you find.
    King Mob wrote: »
    Can you detail and provide these other sources?
    all of them? search on the web, there is plenty there.
    King Mob wrote: »
    Or should I just take your word for everything?
    god no. but you can't just dismiss everything because you don't believe it.


  • #92
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    meglome wrote: »
    But I'd ask you why believe the first claim they were Mossad agents but not believe they had no foreknowledge?

    i never mentioned foreknowledge, so you have no idea what i believe regarding that.
    i just said it was suspicious, and that i believe they are agents.

    you can see that the evidence for them being agents is quite damning.


  • #93
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    davoxx wrote: »
    no, i did not realise i'd need it later on ... i need to bookmark everything i read and see.
    search on the web yourself first and see what you find.

    all of them? search on the web, there is plenty there.
    So if you can't provide a single source for what you are claiming, why exactly do you believe it?
    Why do you expect others to believe it?
    davoxx wrote: »
    god no. but you can't just dismiss everything because you don't believe it.
    And why not? Why should I take your claim seriously when you've nothing to support it?
    Without sources how is your claim distinguishable from a total fiction?
    If it's true, you should be able to back it up.


  • #94
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    meglome wrote: »
    Again even if we believe some of them were (albeit poor) Mossad agents does the rest of the CT claims makes sense. I still don't think they do.
    it's not an all or nothing. CT do not need to have the full story, by definition they can't, they just need to have enough evidence that disproves the official theory.


  • #95
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    King Mob wrote: »
    So if you can't provide a single source for what you are claiming, why exactly do you believe it?
    Why do you expect others to believe it?
    i can, i'm just lazy tbh, i'm annoyed of everyone saying "prove it", "it's just a theroy" and "so just because that was right, does not mean this could possible be right".
    i don't care if people believe it or not, i just care when someone uses silly arguments and bad logic, and dismiss everything that does not support their belief rather than basing the belief on the evidence and the credibility.

    this applies to both sides of the fence.

    King Mob wrote: »
    And why not? Why should I take your claim seriously when you've nothing to support it?
    Without sources how is your claim distinguishable from a total fiction?
    If it's true, you should be able to back it up.
    Agreed, but you can't claim otherwise similarly. (i'm taking about my true story)

    also some things are not backup able, unless you record everything all the time, and have access to that information.


  • #96
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    davoxx wrote: »
    i can, i'm just lazy tbh, i'm annoyed of everyone saying "prove it", "it's just a theroy" and "so just because that was right, does not mean this could possible be right".
    i don't care if people believe it or not, i just care when someone uses silly arguments and bad logic, and dismiss everything that does not support their belief rather than basing the belief on the evidence and the credibility.

    this applies to both sides of the fence.
    But you see, if no-one asks for evidence (no here has asked for proof), then what's the point of discussion?

    If people like yourself are to lazy to explain why they believe something and be able to back it up we're left with:
    A "I believe X."
    B "Why do you believe X?"
    A "I'm not going to tell."

    I'm trying to base what I believe on evidence, hence why I asked you.
    You are not bothered to attempt to prove such evidence, and experience tells me that it probably does not exist.
    davoxx wrote: »
    Agreed, but you can't claim otherwise similarly. (i'm taking about my true story)

    also some things are not backup able, unless you record everything all the time, and have access to that information.
    And if you can't back them up like you "true" story for whatever reason, then it's totally indistinguishable from fiction, and I treat it as such.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    ed2hands
    Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    King Mob wrote: »
    But you see, if no-one asks for evidence (no here has asked for proof), then what's the point of discussion?

    If people like yourself are to lazy to explain why they believe something and be able to back it up we're left with:
    A "I believe X."
    B "Why do you believe X?"
    A "I'm not going to tell."

    I'm trying to base what I believe on evidence, hence why I asked you.
    You are not bothered to attempt to prove such evidence, and experience tells me that it probably does not exist.

    And if you can't back them up like you "true" story for whatever reason, then it's totally indistinguishable from fiction, and I treat it as such.

    So using your own logic, i take it you don't believe Al Qaeda carried out the attacks.
    Because many say there's not much evidence of that either.

    Including the FBI:

    When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI said,
    “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

    And Dick Cheney:

    "So we've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming"


  • #98
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    ed2hands wrote: »
    So using your own logic, i take it you don't believe Al Qaeda carried out the attacks.
    Because many say there's not much evidence of that either.

    Including the FBI:

    When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI said,
    “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

    And Dick Cheney:

    "So we've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming"
    And amazingly you ironically miss the point of my argument providing neither context nor sources for those quotes.


  • #99
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    King Mob wrote: »
    And amazingly you ironically miss the point of my argument providing neither context nor sources for those quotes.
    your point is
    King Mob wrote: »
    With some evidence to show that is it true that you yourself went out and verified, since you don't just follow others and all.
    and like i said we don't have access to all the information.

    i'm lazy, i'll argee there, but i'm not here to walk people through everything, you have to research yourself in order to argue either side. a lot of people don't and then ask for proof. if you had read the document in the first place you would have understood why people believe them to be agents and that the business was a front, but alas you did not, or you just choice to ignore it.

    anyone can always say "link please".


    also you don't need proof for discussion, it just needs to make sense or be plausible.

    if it was confirmed beyond all doubt, then that would be the official story, and nobody would be claiming that the truth is being hidden.

    if you can't see the fallacy in expecting proof for claiming that someone is hiding proof, well then i guess we can't discuss anything.


  • #100
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    King Mob wrote: »
    If people like yourself are to lazy to explain why they believe something and be able to back it up we're left with:
    A "I believe X."
    B "Why do you believe X?"
    A "I'm not going to tell."

    because you get people responding like this:
    A "i believe x to be true"
    B "why?"
    A "this here shows us that it must be"
    B "no it does not"
    A "well what does it show then?"
    B "errr...."
    A "you don't understand it" or "you have no researched it"
    B "you are wrong, i just want proof!!"


    bit of a rant, but i hope my true story showed you the fault in your discuss techniques.


  • #101
    ed2hands
    Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    King Mob wrote: »
    And amazingly you ironically miss the point of my argument providing neither context nor sources for those quotes.

    No, i got the point of your argument alright so no irony there.

    The context of the quotes was to put it to you in relation to your logic, ie in the absence of evidence linking Al Qaeda to 9/11 other than a dodgy "confession" videotape, i take it you don't believe Al Qaeda carried out the attacks.

    Source for the FBI Rex Tomb quote is apparently a Muckraker report by Ed Haas. Anyway as i'm sure you're aware, it's common knowledge that the FBI has not been able to link Bin Laden with 9/11 other than the "confession" tape.

    The FBI stated that evidence linking Al-Qaeda and bin Laden to the attacks of September 11 is clear and irrefutable.[56] The Government of the United Kingdom reached the same conclusion regarding Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden's culpability for the September 11, 2001, attacks.[57] However, a "White Paper" by the U.S. government, documenting the case against bin Laden and the Al Qaeda organization concerning the September 11 attacks, publicly promised by Secretary of State Colin Powell, was never published. So far, the U.S. Justice Department has not sought formal criminal charges against bin Laden (or anyone but Zacarias Moussaoui) for the 9/11 attacks.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militant_activity_of_Osama_bin_Laden

    Here's Cheney saying what he said:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61dvcn2TIUg


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement