The 9-11 Dancing Middle Easterners and their vans

Brown Bomber

In the months prior to 9-11 an Israeli "art student" "possible" spy ring was busted by the DEA according to a DEA report leaked by Cryptome.org. The report shows many overlaps of the art students with the later 9-11 hijackers.

On 9-11 a number of people were arrested in the New York/New Jersey area for terrorism related offenses, all were later released and all were riding in white vans.

The best known are the "dancing Israelis" 5 men illegally in America working for what the FBI considered a possible front - Urban Moving Systems, whose owner, Dominik Suter fled the to Israel almost immediately after being questioned. Dominik Suter would later turn up on a leaked FBI terrorist list. The five were arrested after a complaint was made to police that they were seen recording and celebrating the attacks. One witness, who spoke with the FBI seen them in the Carpark at 8am, before the first plane hit.

According to local NJ newspaper The Bergen Record on Sept 12 and the FBI report bomb-sniffing dogs reacted to their van.

However, sources close to the investigation said they found other evidence linking the men to the bombing plot.


"There are maps of the city in the car with certain places highlighted," the source said. "It looked like they're hooked in with this. It looked like they knew what was going to happen when they were at Liberty State Park."
Sources also said that bomb-sniffing dogs reacted as if they had detected explosives, although officers were unable to find anything. The FBI seized the van for further testing, authorities said.

There is evidence of apaprent explosions in the twin towers on 9-11.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxhtKR8tV1I

And so the other vans...

Here Dan Rather reports on two men arrested on 9-11 by the FBI with a "truck full of explosives"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKbTFw9fs7w

And here is the rather strange case of the mural van which apparently was driving around New York on 9-11 and according to Police Radio transmission from 9-11 it's two passengers fled the car and were subsequently arrested and their van exploded.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRWQxlnZQj4

officer: [inaudible] I got a message on that uh plane,
its a big truck with a mural painted of a of a airplane diving into New York City
and exploding [inaudible] know whats in the truck, the truck is in between 6th and 7th on King Street
officer: [inaudible] 10-5 10-5
officer: with a mural painted uh airplane diving into New York blowing up. Two men got outta the truck
ran away from it, we got those two [inaudible] under.
officer: kay great.
officer: we got both suspects under kay, we have the suspects who drivedrove in the van and that exploded
we have both of them under kay lets get some help over here
officer: now Im sending you [inaudible] I just want to make sure you and your guys all right over there kay, thats all.
officer: whats the location [inaudible]
officer: put em up, put em up
officer: you know we have both the [inaudible] driven that exploded. Is that correct?
officer: what location?
officer: location [inaudible]
officer: [inaudible] location [inaudible]
officer: King Street between 6th and 7th
officer: King Street and 6th and 7th avenue, King Street and 6th and 7th avenue
officer: [inaudible] on the scene King 6 and 7, which unit are you kay?

---

I want to make it abundantly clear that this has absolutely nothing to do with religion/race from the outset and any posts which try to go down that route will be ignored and reported for taking the thread off-topic.

Also, I don't know what happened that day and don't have any answers and am not expecting any as it's an unsolved mystery, but one that's worth exploring IMO.

A final point is that I am not interested in the "uhm..well, dey let em go" argument as it means nothing as the tail has been known to dog on occasions such as these.

Otherwise, let's hope we can keep it clean and have a productive discussion.

There's few unanswered, and probably unanswerable questions for the conspiracy narrative.
First and foremost what specific evidence is there to show that these knew that the attacks were going to happen before they did?

Also your post contains some mistruths such as you say that the FBI said that their company was a possible front, this isn't the case.
And you also say that the dogs reacted to explosives, but this is decidedly different to explosive residues being found.

Course this also leads to the question about why they'd have explosives in the first place...
But one thing at a time I think.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

There's few unanswered, and probably unanswerable questions for the conspiracy narrative.
First and foremost what specific evidence is there to show that these knew that the attacks were going to happen before they did?

We've already been over this. I would emphasise that this is what I consider evidence for what they may have known.

A - Their sighting by a witness, according to the FBI report of them in the carpark at 8am; before any attacks had occured.

B- Their unusual behaviour in "celebrating" the attacks. Their no evidence of anyone else in New York/ New Jersey celebrating the attacks.

C- Their explanations given for "celebrating" the attacks when under investigation by the FBI Counter-Terrorism unit.

They claimed to be celebrating because a terrorist attacks by Islamic terrorists on the US would "be good for Israel".

They were celebrating at the latest after the first tower was hit and before the second one was, when nobody else had known it was a terrorist attack.

How did they a) know it was a terrorist attack before the US government and b) know it was Islamic terrorists?

D - They travelled with their recording equipment from their initial vantage point where they had perfectly visibility on the first tower which had been hit but couldn't see the second tower to a vantage point where they could see both towers. This is before the second tower was hit. Did they move to get a good view of the second tower before it had been hit for no apparent reason?

King Mob wrote: »

Also your post contains some mistruths such as you say that the FBI said that their company was a possible front, this isn't the case.

Yes it is and again has already been addressed here.

During the search conducted by the W.P.D, it was revealed that the building and all of its contents had been abandoned by (BLANKED AREA) the owner of UMS. This apparently is being done to avoid criminal prosecution after the 9.11.01 arrest of 5 of his employees and subsequent seizure of his office computer systems by members of the FBI NK on or around 9.13.01.

A search of UMS, Weehawken, New Jersey revealed more oddities which caused the search team leader to characterize the company as a possible "Fraudulent Operation." There was little evidence of a legitimate business operation that was found. Evidence recovery agents did seize however, 16 seperate computer units used by UMS

Do you think Mossad agents somehow end up working as furniture movers?

Oddly equipment typically used in a moving company's daily duties was not found including work gloves, blanket, straps, ropes, boxes, dollies, rollers etc,.

King Mob wrote: »

And you also say that the dogs reacted to explosives, but this is decidedly different to explosive residues being found.

Which is exactly the reason I said what I said. Sniffer dog evidence is admissable in court. It is not an absolute guarantee but is a good indicator. We don't know the result of the tests on the van so it must remain considered that it is quite possible that the van had been carrying explosive materials.

Di0genes

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Which is exactly the reason I said what I said. Sniffer dog evidence is admissable in court

No it is not.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/PLPR/2001/63.html

http://news.outlookindia.com/items.aspx?artid=628379

http://dahnbatchelorsopinions.blogspot.com/2008/05/is-evidence-obtained-by-sniffer-dogs.html

Thats just the start of the litany of nonsense in your post.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

We've already been over this. I would emphasise that this is what I consider evidence for what they may have known.

Well yes you have claimed many of these things before yet you didn't back any of them up.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

A - Their sighting by a witness, according to the FBI report of them in the carpark at 8am; before any attacks had occured.

And? Being in a car park isn't an indication of a crime, nor unusual for people working for a moving company.
And of course this would be in the same carpark were they had to move from to get a better view right?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

B- Their unusual behaviour in "celebrating" the attacks. Their no evidence of anyone else in New York/ New Jersey celebrating the attacks.

Again, and? I'm sure there was plenty of folk who acted like assholes and made inappropriate jokes and such. These guys were just caught.

And I see this as being evidence against them being Mossad agents. Or at the very least against them being competent and understanding basic intelligence skills.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

C- Their explanations given for "celebrating" the attacks when under investigation by the FBI Counter-Terrorism unit.

They claimed to be celebrating because a terrorist attacks by Islamic terrorists on the US would "be good for Israel".

They were celebrating at the latest after the first tower was hit and before the second one was, when nobody else had known it was a terrorist attack.

How did they a) know it was a terrorist attack before the US government and b) know it was Islamic terrorists?

Well first, please actually point out were they actually said this to the FBI.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

D - They travelled with their recording equipment from their initial vantage point where they had perfectly visibility on the first tower which had been hit but couldn't see the second tower to a vantage point where they could see both towers. This is before the second tower was hit. Did they move to get a good view of the second tower before it had been hit for no apparent reason?

But that vantage point also was further north wasn't it?
Isn't it true that they wouldn't have seen the impact point of the first plane from their initial vantage point which was to the south of the WTC?

And also, if being in the right place at the right time to actually see the plane hit the second tower (but also being on the wrong side to see the approach and impact) is an indication of them being in on it, them the thousand of people who were able to see the crash, and even record the impact all must have know about it. Right?
And what about WTC7? How did people know it was going to collapse 5 hours later? How were they able to be in positions to record it's collapse if the didn't know it was going to fall unless they were in on the conspiracy?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yes it is and again has already been addressed here.

During the search conducted by the W.P.D, it was revealed that the building and all of its contents had been abandoned by (BLANKED AREA) the owner of UMS. This apparently is being done to avoid criminal prosecution after the 9.11.01 arrest of 5 of his employees and subsequent seizure of his office computer systems by members of the FBI NK on or around 9.13.01.
Quote:
A search of UMS, Weehawken, New Jersey revealed more oddities which caused the search team leader to characterize the company as a possible "Fraudulent Operation." There was little evidence of a legitimate business operation that was found. Evidence recovery agents did seize however, 16 seperate computer units used by UMS

The report says it was a team leader on the ground that concluded that it was a possible fraudulent operation. This was not the conclusion of the FBI despite your claim.

And despite all of this they still had a work roster which the boss was able to produce.
So are you going to claim that they had the for thought to prepare the paper work in case they were investigated, but for some reason didn't buy stuff like work gloves, blanket, straps, ropes, boxes, dollies, rollers etc,?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Do you think Mossad agents somehow end up working as furniture movers?

Well you've yet to actually prove that they are Mossad agents.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Which is exactly the reason I said what I said. Sniffer dog evidence is admissable in court. It is not an absolute guarantee but is a good indicator. We don't know the result of the tests on the van so it must remain considered that it is quite possible that the van had been carrying explosive materials.

But that's not the same thing as explosives or explosive residue being found.
Were either actually found in the van? Does the report say that the test were run? And if so why are the results not in the report?

And bonus question, why would they have explosives in the first place?

Brown Bomber

Di0genes wrote: »

No it is not.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/PLPR/2001/63.html

http://news.outlookindia.com/items.aspx?artid=628379

http://dahnbatchelorsopinions.blogspot.com/2008/05/is-evidence-obtained-by-sniffer-dogs.html

Thats just the start of the litany of nonsense in your post.

I've just opened the first link. This is the first line.

Evidence obtained after a search by a police sniffer dog was ruled inadmissible by New South Wales Deputy Chief Magistrate Mary Jerram in Police v Darby, on 21 November 2001. The magistrate had earlier ruled that the dog had conducted a form of search and that the search was illegal.

The sniffer dog evidence was inadmissable not because it was gained illegally. Nothing else. I have no interest in reading the rest of your links when you clearly don't bother.

Di0genes

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I've just opened the first link. This is the first line.


The sniffer dog evidence was inadmissable not because it was gained illegally. Nothing else. I have no interest in reading the rest of your links when you clearly don't bother.

Then you're clearly not paying attention.

The sniffer dog can be used as justification to search a person, vechile or premise, the dog's reaction is in itself not admissiable.

But you're the one who claims

Sniffer dog evidence is admissable in court

Please provide evidence to support this assertion.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

And? Being in a car park isn't an indication of a crime, nor unusual for people working for a moving company.

Dear me...please try to get up to speed with the facts. The FBI report would be a good place to start.

The carpark they were seen in at 8am was the same carpark that were seen recording the carnage and celebrating the first plane hitting. 8am was over an hour before the first plane hit the WTC.
The reason they claimed to be there under interrogation was to get a good view of the attack. So in your opinion it's not in any way strange that they were seen in the carpark that they "documented the event" at before there even was any hint of an event?

King Mob wrote: »

And of course this would be in the same carpark were they had to move from to get a better view right?

Right. Your a smart kid surely you don't need me to explain to you that if something is obstructing your view of an object you want to view moving around the obstruction can lead to a clear view?

King Mob wrote: »

Again, and? I'm sure there was plenty of folk who acted like assholes and made inappropriate jokes and such. These guys were just caught.

Oh I didn't know you were sure, that changes things then . If your so sure it shouldn't be hard to find some evidence then.

King Mob wrote: »

And I see this as being evidence against them being Mossad agents. Or at the very least against them being competent and understanding basic intelligence skills.

Fine, doesn't change anything though.

King Mob wrote: »

Well first, please actually point out were they actually said this to the FBI.

And they actually told the FBI that the reason they were celebrating was because the attacks would be beneficial to Israel, that it was, quote, "a good thing for Israel" — that’s according to the FBI spokesman who spoke on the record about this — and that it would bring sympathy for Israel’s political agenda in the Middle East.

King Mob wrote: »

But that vantage point also was further north wasn't it?
Isn't it true that they wouldn't have seen the impact point of the first plane from their initial vantage point which was to the south of the WTC?

No, it's not true. The roof of Urban Moving Systems, (as far as I can tell would have been ideal for recording the first plane to hit, but would have been an awful place for recording the second plane to hit as the North Tower would obstruct the South Tower.

This is from FEMA,


Urban Moving System's roof was ideally placed to see/record the impact of the first tower (WTC 1) from across the Hudson.
http://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=World+Trade+Center,+New+York,+NY,+United+States&daddr=3+W+18th+St,+Hoboken,+NJ+07086&hl=en&ll=40.739454,-74.014206&spn=0.064382,0.169086&sll=40.758895,-74.030342&sspn=0.032182,0.084543&geocode=FUg1bQIdwKmW-ynrSqmJGVrCiTGTW7M25GR7AA%3BFd7tbQIdy2KW-ylZkEA3flfCiTHAvem4vRUj0A&vpsrc=0&mra=ls&z=13

THEN and before WTC 2 was hit they moved to the carpark were they could see both towers

King Mob wrote: »

And also, if being in the right place at the right time to actually see the plane hit the second tower (but also being on the wrong side to see the approach and impact) is an indication of them being in on it, them the thousand of people who were able to see the crash, and even record the impact all must have know about it. Right?

No, wrong.

King Mob wrote: »

And what about WTC7? How did people know it was going to collapse 5 hours later? How were they able to be in positions to record it's collapse if the didn't know it was going to fall unless they were in on the conspiracy?

A strange thing to bring up.

King Mob wrote: »

The report says it was a team leader on the ground that concluded that it was a possible fraudulent operation. This was not the conclusion of the FBI despite your claim.

In an internal FBI report the team leader of the the FBI team investigating Urban Moving Systems calls it a possible fraudelent operation and it's not the conclusion of the FBI? Your in denial apparently.

King Mob wrote: »

And despite all of this they still had a work roster which the boss was able to produce.

Wow! That changes everything

King Mob wrote: »

So are you going to claim that they had the for thought to prepare the paper work in case they were investigated, but for some reason didn't buy stuff like work gloves, blanket, straps, ropes, boxes, dollies, rollers etc,?

No. I was quoting the FBI who said that in their report they found it "odd" that the "movers" didn't have everyday moving equipment in their moving van. I agree it's odd. Don't you?

King Mob wrote: »

Well you've yet to actually prove that they are Mossad agents.

It was confirmed by Mark Perelman for The Jewish Daily Forward who investigated it.

King Mob wrote: »

But that's not the same thing as explosives or explosive residue being found.

Why do you keep stating the obvious?

King Mob wrote: »

Were either actually found in the van? Does the report say that the test were run?

It says at one point that tests were being carried out and that results were pending.

King Mob wrote: »

And if so why are the results not in the report?

Why are you asking me for? I had nothing to do with the report.

King Mob wrote: »

And bonus question, why would they have explosives in the first place?

What's the primary function of explosives?

Brown Bomber

Di0genes wrote: »

Then you're clearly not paying attention.

The sniffer dog can be used as justification to search a person, vechile or premise, the dog's reaction is in itself not admissiable.

But you're the one who claims



Please provide evidence to support this assertion.

Thanks but not thanks. I couldn't be less interested in discussing with you if sniffer dog evidence is admissable in court, when it is. Not interested in any blind alleys.

Di0genes

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Thanks but not thanks. I couldn't be less interested in discussing with you if sniffer dog evidence is admissable in court, when it is. Not interested in any blind alleys.

So it's not admissible as evidence thanks thought as much.

Brown Bomber

Di0genes wrote: »

So it's not admissible as evidence thanks thought as much.

Here is an example of sniffer dog reactions being used as evidence in court in the US from this year. I'm saying no more about it.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,
v.
Alberto GUTIERREZ-RUIZ, Defendant.

----

Di0genes

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Here is an example of sniffer dog reactions being used as evidence in court in the US from this year. I'm saying no more about it.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,
v.
Alberto GUTIERREZ-RUIZ, Defendant.

You didn't understand any of that did you?

Sniffer dog evidence is not admissible of proof that there were drugs in the car. It was used as justification of probable cause to justify a further search of car.

Similarly the dogs alert on 911 is not "proof" of explosives in the van. And you can't arrest someone and charge them with possession simply because a dog gives a alert.

Simply put a sniffer dog's alert is proof of nothing. It's not a admissible piece of evidence that you can bring to court. Which is what you claimed in your OP.

Brown Bomber

Di0genes wrote: »

You didn't understand any of that did you?

Sniffer dog evidence is not admissible of proof that there were drugs in the car. It was used as justification of probable cause to justify a further search of car.

Similarly the dogs alert on 911 is not "proof" of explosives in the van. And you can't arrest someone and charge them with possession simply because a dog gives a alert.

Simply put a sniffer dog's alert is proof of nothing. It's not a admissible piece of evidence that you can bring to court. Which is what you claimed in your OP.

This is what I claimed.

Which is exactly the reason I said what I said. Sniffer dog evidence is admissable in court. It is not an absolute guarantee but is a good indicator. We don't know the result of the tests on the van so it must remain considered that it is quite possible that the van had been carrying explosive materials.

I stand by it and have nothing more to say on the matter.

Di0genes

Brown Bomber wrote: »

This is what I claimed.

Which is exactly the reason I said what I said. Sniffer dog evidence is admissable in court.

It's not evidence.

It is not an absolute guarantee but is a good indicator.

Then you clearly don't understand what the word evidence means in a court of law.

We don't know the result of the tests on the van so it must remain considered that it is quite possible that the van had been carrying explosive materials.

Thats' conjecture and speculation.

A Sniffer dog barking can be used as probable cause for a police officer to conduct a court.

You can't use a dog's reaction as evidence to form a conviction.

It's probable cause not evidence

You don't understand the difference.
I stand by it and have nothing more to say on the matter.

Brown Bomber

In the months prior to 9-11 an Israeli "art student" "possible" spy ring was busted by the DEA according to a DEA report leaked by Cryptome.org. The report shows many overlaps of the art students with the later 9-11 hijackers.

On 9-11 a number of people were arrested in the New York/New Jersey area for terrorism related offenses, all were later released and all were riding in white vans.

The best known are the "dancing Israelis" 5 men illegally in America working for what the FBI considered a possible front - Urban Moving Systems, whose owner, Dominik Suter fled the to Israel almost immediately after being questioned. Dominik Suter would later turn up on a leaked FBI terrorist list. The five were arrested after a complaint was made to police that they were seen recording and celebrating the attacks. One witness, who spoke with the FBI seen them in the Carpark at 8am, before the first plane hit.

According to local NJ newspaper The Bergen Record on Sept 12 and the FBI report bomb-sniffing dogs reacted to their van.

However, sources close to the investigation said they found other evidence linking the men to the bombing plot.


"There are maps of the city in the car with certain places highlighted," the source said. "It looked like they're hooked in with this. It looked like they knew what was going to happen when they were at Liberty State Park."
Sources also said that bomb-sniffing dogs reacted as if they had detected explosives, although officers were unable to find anything. The FBI seized the van for further testing, authorities said.

There is evidence of apaprent explosions in the twin towers on 9-11.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxhtKR8tV1I

And so the other vans...

Here Dan Rather reports on two men arrested on 9-11 by the FBI with a "truck full of explosives"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKbTFw9fs7w

And here is the rather strange case of the mural van which apparently was driving around New York on 9-11 and according to Police Radio transmission from 9-11 it's two passengers fled the car and were subsequently arrested and their van exploded.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRWQxlnZQj4

officer: [inaudible] I got a message on that uh plane,
its a big truck with a mural painted of a of a airplane diving into New York City
and exploding [inaudible] know whats in the truck, the truck is in between 6th and 7th on King Street
officer: [inaudible] 10-5 10-5
officer: with a mural painted uh airplane diving into New York blowing up. Two men got outta the truck
ran away from it, we got those two [inaudible] under.
officer: kay great.
officer: we got both suspects under kay, we have the suspects who drivedrove in the van and that exploded
we have both of them under kay lets get some help over here
officer: now Im sending you [inaudible] I just want to make sure you and your guys all right over there kay, thats all.
officer: whats the location [inaudible]
officer: put em up, put em up
officer: you know we have both the [inaudible] driven that exploded. Is that correct?
officer: what location?
officer: location [inaudible]
officer: [inaudible] location [inaudible]
officer: King Street between 6th and 7th
officer: King Street and 6th and 7th avenue, King Street and 6th and 7th avenue
officer: [inaudible] on the scene King 6 and 7, which unit are you kay?

---

I want to make it abundantly clear that this has absolutely nothing to do with religion/race from the outset and any posts which try to go down that route will be ignored and reported for taking the thread off-topic.

Also, I don't know what happened that day and don't have any answers and am not expecting any as it's an unsolved mystery, but one that's worth exploring IMO.

A final point is that I am not interested in the "uhm..well, dey let em go" argument as it means nothing as the tail has been known to dog on occasions such as these.

Otherwise, let's hope we can keep it clean and have a productive discussion.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Dear me...please try to get up to speed with the facts. The FBI report would be a good place to start.

I've read the report. I just don't argee with your conclusions and miss representations of it and the surrounding facts.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The carpark they were seen in at 8am was the same carpark that were seen recording the carnage and celebrating the first plane hitting. 8am was over an hour before the first plane hit the WTC.
The reason they claimed to be there under interrogation was to get a good view of the attack. So in your opinion it's not in any way strange that they were seen in the carpark that they "documented the event" at before there even was any hint of an event?

Was there any actual reports of them having recording equipment out before the impacts?

So in your opinion is it strange that people working for a moving company would go to the same place twice in one day?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Right. Your a smart kid surely you don't need me to explain to you that if something is obstructing your view of an object you want to view moving around the obstruction can lead to a clear view?

Yes, thanks for the patronising. It does wonders for your argument.

But I'm sure that you also understand how the same all applies to the damage already done by the first plane.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And they actually told the FBI that the reason they were celebrating was because the attacks would be beneficial to Israel, that it was, quote, "a good thing for Israel" — that’s according to the FBI spokesman who spoke on the record about this — and that it would bring sympathy for Israel’s political agenda in the Middle East.

That article does not supply support for what you are claiming.
There's no source or reference and it's on a clearly biased site.

And then even if we assume that they did actually say this, why does it prove they had foreknowledge?
Isn't it possible that they just jumped the gun and assumed it was an attack before it was confirmed?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No, it's not true. The roof of Urban Moving Systems, (as far as I can tell would have been ideal for recording the first plane to hit, but would have been an awful place for recording the second plane to hit as the North Tower would obstruct the South Tower.

This is from FEMA,


Urban Moving System's roof was ideally placed to see/record the impact of the first tower (WTC 1) from across the Hudson.
http://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=World+Trade+Center,+New+York,+NY,+United+States&daddr=3+W+18th+St,+Hoboken,+NJ+07086&hl=en&ll=40.739454,-74.014206&spn=0.064382,0.169086&sll=40.758895,-74.030342&sspn=0.032182,0.084543&geocode=FUg1bQIdwKmW-ynrSqmJGVrCiTGTW7M25GR7AA%3BFd7tbQIdy2KW-ylZkEA3flfCiTHAvem4vRUj0A&vpsrc=0&mra=ls&z=13

So then why weren't they at their better vantage point to film both impacts?
Didn't you claim that they didn't know which tower was going to be hit first or from what direction they would be hit in to explain why they moved the wrong direction to see the impact of the second plane?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

THEN and before WTC 2 was hit they moved to the carpark were they could see both towers

So then you're claiming that they started watching the towers at 8 in the car park, then back to their office, then back to the car park?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No, wrong.

A strange thing to bring up.

Why is it strange?
You're the one using the fact that they moved in time to get a view of the second tower being hit (though from the wrong direction) as evidence that they must have known about the attacks.
But there's thousands of people who saw both impacts and even caught them on video. How did these people just happen to be filming the towers from just the right side to see the second plane go in..?
And what about WTC7? Why would people bother to film it 5 hours after the attacks if no one knew that it was going to fall?

If we are to apply your logic, everyone who managed to catch the planes and collapses on film must have been as clued in as the dancing Israelis

Brown Bomber wrote: »

In an internal FBI report the team leader of the the FBI team investigating Urban Moving Systems calls it a possible fraudelent operation and it's not the conclusion of the FBI? Your in denial apparently.

No, just correcting your misrepresentation.
You claimed the FBI said that they were a possible front.
But in reality only a field agent expressed that opinion.

They way you're claiming it makes it sound like it was the actual conclusion of the investigation.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No. I was quoting the FBI who said that in their report they found it "odd" that the "movers" didn't have everyday moving equipment in their moving van. I agree it's odd. Don't you?

Odd maybe, but not evidence.
Now why was their boss able to produce a work roster if they were a fraudulent operation?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It was confirmed by Mark Perelman for The Jewish Daily Forward who investigated it.

Source?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Why do you keep stating the obvious?

Because you keep twisting facts.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It says at one point that tests were being carried out and that results were pending.

Why are you asking me for? I had nothing to do with the report.

So then no explosives were actually found in the van?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What's the primary function of explosives?

Exploding stuff?
Are you saying that these guys were planting bombs at the world trade centre?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

You claimed the FBI said that they were a possible front.
But in reality only a field agent expressed that opinion.

Nope, a team leader of the unit investigating Urban Moving Systems concluded that they are a possible fraudelent operation. This is significant. Do you deny this? Have you any counter-evidence?

King Mob wrote: »

So then no explosives were actually found in the van?

Why are you asking me this? I've already told you that the results were pending according to the FBI report. There is no further information. There may have been trace elements of explosives found, we don't know.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

That article does not supply support for what you are claiming.
There's no source or reference and it's on a clearly biased site.

You obviously didn't read it properly but I'll get back to that later in the post.

I'm getting tired of this spoon feeding tbh, but here is your source - FBI Spokesman Jim Margolin.

“Their explanation of why they were happy”, FBI spokesman Margolin told me, “was that the United States would now have to commit itself to fighting [Middle East] terrorism, that Americans would have an understanding and empathy for Israel’s circumstances, and that the attacks were ultimately a good thing for Israel”.

http://www.christopherketcham.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/Final%20PDF%20of%20CounterPunch%20article%20re%20Israelis%2001-29-07.pdf

This is supported by one of the movers statements in the FBI report:

At this point BLANK apologised for appearing happy in the photographs. BLANK stated that Israel has been dealing with incidents like this for years. He believes that the US will take steps to stop terrorism in the world.

Now I've more than cleared up what you wanted to clear so I'd appreciate if you'd keep your word and now address these earlier posed questions:


"They were celebrating at the latest after the first tower was hit and before the second one was, when nobody else had known it was a terrorist attack.

How did they a) know it was a terrorist attack before the US government and b) know it was Islamic terrorists?"

King Mob wrote: »

Source?

This is actually funny...The "source" you require is the one you have just commented on - The "clearly biased site" :pac:

Obviously you didn't read it so I'll post it here again for your convenience.

MARC PERELMAN:
Yes, we ended up writing a story in March of 2002, after several months of reporting, because when this incident happened, obviously, a lot of people were intrigued, including journalists. And so, everybody was trying to find more information about this. And I’ve been talking to sources and trying to find out a little bit more, and after a while, I was able to confirm that, according to the FBI, two of those movers were identified as Mossad agents. And they were interrogated about it.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Nope, a team leader of the unit investigating Urban Moving Systems concluded that they are a possible fraudelent operation. This is significant. Do you deny this? Have you any counter-evidence?

So then you understand the difference between that and attributing that opinion to the whole FBI?

And again, why was the boss able to produce a work roster?
Why had they gone to the trouble of faking a random piece of paperwork, but then were either too lazy, too cheap or too stupid to buy other stuff to add to their cover?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Why are you asking me this? I've already told you that the results were pending according to the FBI report. There is no further information. There may have been trace elements of explosives found, we don't know.

Because there's a difference between dogs reacting and there actually being explosives in the van.
You can't honestly claim that as convincing or solid evidence.

And again: did the dancing Israelis actually have recording equipment out before the impact of the first plane?

Brown Bomber

you address my questions first as you said you would or we'll end up all over the place.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

"They were celebrating at the latest after the first tower was hit and before the second one was, when nobody else had known it was a terrorist attack.

How did they a) know it was a terrorist attack before the US government and b) know it was Islamic terrorists?"

Because they jumped the gun and made these assumptions before it was confirmed?
And this is of course assuming that these statements were made before it was actually confirm and that they are just bull****ing to cover the fact they were just plain assholes rather than politically motivated ones.

Now can you please explain what is impossible about explanation before just dismissing it out of hand?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

This is actually funny...The "source" you require is the one you have just commented on - The "clearly biased site" :pac:

Obviously you didn't read it so I'll post it here again for your convenience.

So a unnamed source making an unverifiable quote as provided by a biased reporter?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

Because they jumped the gun and made these assumptions before it was confirmed?
And this is of course assuming that these statements were made before it was actually confirm and that they are just bull****ing to cover the fact they were just plain assholes rather than politically motivated ones.

Now can you please explain what is impossible about explanation before just dismissing it out of hand?

Well it's a ludicrous conclusion. These guys - who somehow knew that been pulled over by police regarding the attacks before the police said anything, "we are not you problem! The Palestinians are!", who for some reason lied to police regarding their whereabouts between 9 and 10 am on the morning of 9-11 -- these same guys, TRY TO IMPLICATE THEMSELVES TO 9-11 SO THEY WOULDN*T LOOK LIKE "PLAIN ASSHOLES"? That King Mob is a laughable assumption.

King Mob wrote: »

So a unnamed source making an unverifiable quote as provided by a biased reporter?

Seriously King Mob WTF are you talking about? Biased reporter? Mark Perelman was a staff writer for The Jewish Daily Forward. He is certainly not biased against Israel. That's crazy talk.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Well it's a ludicrous conclusion.

Why? The twin towers had been attacked before, it's not a wild stab in the dark to think that it was terrorism.
Most news agencies reported that an attack might have been a possibility even before it was confirmed.
These guys could have just assumed it rashly and behaved in appropriately.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

These guys - who somehow knew that been pulled over by police regarding the attacks before the police said anything, "we are not you problem! The Palestinians are!",

And again this still gels with them just rashly assuming something before it was confirmed.

But then he did mention it was Palestinians who were behind the attack... how did they know it was Palestinians before.... oh wait...

And if no one had though that it was a terrorist attack before it was confirmed why were these guys picked up in the first place?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

who for some reason lied to police regarding their whereabouts between 9 and 10 am on the morning of 9-11 -- these same guys, TRY TO IMPLICATE THEMSELVES TO 9-11 SO THEY WOULDN*T LOOK LIKE "PLAIN ASSHOLES"? That King Mob is a laughable assumption.

Now you're either misunderstand what I said or trying to avoid it.

If they had just behave like that because that though the explosions were cool (like other immature, insensitive people might) they would look like pretty big assholes.
So the explanation that they were excited because of the political change that might come about sounds less immature and idiotic, so later they offer this explanation.

But of course that wasn't my actual point.

So again, is it impossible that they just made the assumption it was a terrorist attack before it was actually confirmed?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Seriously King Mob WTF are you talking about? Biased reporter? Mark Perelman was a staff writer for The Jewish Daily Forward. He is certainly not biased against Israel. That's crazy talk.

Biased towards a conspiracy explanation.
And you know, still using an unnamed source and unverifiable information.

Di0genes

Browm Bomber wrote:

Well it's a ludicrous conclusion.

While people who only heard about the first plane hitting the tower presumed it was an accident, anyone who actually witnessed the flight would hardly been in any doubt. Or have you forgotten the Naudet brothers footage

Brown Bomber

Di0genes wrote: »

Right a jewish writer or paper can't be critical of the Israeli state?

Did I say that? No I didn't. That's come from your own imagination, hasn't it? You must try and pay attention.

I've linked to Haaretz, and primarily to Gideon Levy here on boards criticizing Israeli policies so obviously I don't think this.

Di0genes wrote: »

Here's a editorial from the Jewish Daily Forward criticising the state of Israel

Thanks for the irrelevant information. Please learn the difference between criticism and bias for next time.

Di0genes wrote: »

You sound supremely confident that Mark Perelman would never been biased against Israeli. How can you be so confident. Do you have any evidence to support your assertion?

The claim was made that Mark Perelman was a "biased (against Israel) reporter". If that was the case no respectable news outlet would hire him. It's total nonsense of the kind you need to resort to when defending a nonsensical position. A respected journalist working for a respected journal becomes a "biased reporter" when he doesn't report what you want. T'riffic.

Di0genes wrote: »

Or is that he's just writing for the Jewish Daily Forward, and has a jew sounding name so it's impossible for you to conceive that he'd have this bias?

Here is his articles http://www.forward.com/authors/marc-perelman/

Show me he is a "biased reporter"or drop it.

Brown Bomber

Di0genes wrote: »

While people who only heard about the first plane hitting the tower presumed it was an accident, anyone who actually witnessed the flight would hardly been in any doubt. Or have you forgotten the Naudet brothers footage

And here is someone else who hasn't read the FBI report. Their claim is that they didn't witness the first impact so your claim is irrelevant.

They are in the first group you mentioned, or at least should be

"people who only heard about the first plane hitting the tower (and) presumed it was an accident"

Yet they KNEW it was a terrorist attack...somehow.

humanji

Sorry, I wasn't about before. Di0genes banned for a week. I'm editing and deleting the off-topic posts.

Brown Bomber

humanji wrote: »

Sorry, I wasn't about before. Di0genes banned for a week. I'm editing and deleting the off-topic posts.

No worries and thanks.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

Why? The twin towers had been attacked before,

With a car bomb. We are talking about a plane crashing into a high building, A very plausible accident. Something with a precedent.

King Mob wrote: »

it's not a wild stab in the dark to think that it was terrorism.

Of course it's a wild stab in the dark to think that a hijacked passenger jet crashing into a building is suicide terrorist attack because it's never happened before in the history of the world before or since. And it's not even the case for the movers that they suspected it might be a terrorist attack - They were completely sure as their behaviour and statements attests to, ALL FIVE OF THEM.

King Mob wrote: »

Most news agencies reported that an attack might have been a possibility even before it was confirmed.

Many? No they didn't. I'd doubt if ANY did. Please show evidence of this.

And remember we are talking about the time between the first tower being hit and the second only, which is the time they were "documenting" and "celebrating".

Realistically we are talking about the first 2-3 minutes after the first plane hitting apx. Anything longer than that and the movers story falls to pieces as it would be impossible for them to make it from their office to the apartment building.

King Mob wrote: »

These guys could have just assumed it rashly and behaved in appropriately.

Well yeah, but given the facts it's extremely unlikely.

King Mob wrote: »

And again this still gels with them just rashly assuming something before it was confirmed.

NY and NJ have 16 million people between them yet you'd have me believe that the only people seen celebrating the attacks just happened to be working for the same small "company"? It's completely ridiculous.

King Mob wrote: »

And if no one had though that it was a terrorist attack before it was confirmed why were these guys picked up in the first place?

Again I'd refer you to the FBI report that you claim you've read

Maybe you missed this part? The housewife in the NJ apartment complex who had seen them recording and celebrating the attacks on top of their van in apartment complexes multi-storey carpark only phoned the police with the van's registration number when her husband got back from work that afternoon. The BOLO (Be On The Lookout) for the van/passengers was only issued by the East Rutherford police at 3:30 that afternoon. i.e. long after the second plane hit and it was certainly a terrorist attack.

Please, read the report. These are schoolboy errors.

King Mob wrote: »

If they had just behave like that because that though the explosions were cool (like other immature, insensitive people might) they would look like pretty big assholes.
So the explanation that they were excited because of the political change that might come about sounds less immature and idiotic, so later they offer this explanation.

Riggggggggghhhhht......

It's logical that anyone when under interrogation by the FBI counter-terrorism division who wasn't involved in a terrorist attack would intentionally try to implicate themselves in a the terrorist attack they were being interrogated over so they wouldn't look "immature". Thanks for the laugh ...;)

King Mob wrote: »

But of course that wasn't my actual point.

Then what was?

King Mob wrote: »

So again, is it impossible that they just made the assumption it was a terrorist attack before it was actually confirmed?

Is it impossible that Uri Geller flew in on a magic carpet and told them through the power of his mind?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

So then you understand the difference between that and attributing that opinion to the whole FBI?

Yes. I also understand that the difference is irrelevant. The FBI search team leader, who we must assume by his position is an experienced, competent and qualified investigator considered it to be a possible "fraudelent operation".

A search of UMS Weehawken, New Jersy, revealed more oddities which caused the search team leader to characterise the company as a possible "fraudulent operation." Little evidence of a legitimate business operations was found. Evidence recovery agents did seize, however, sixteen separate computer units used by UMS.

"Little evidence of a legitimate business operation was found"

This was the conclusion of the FBI search. Why won't you accept this? Because it doesn't fit with you "boys will be boys" theory?

Nevermind that it's owner/President fled the country leaving his home and business behind and ended up on an FBI terrorist suspect list.

King Mob wrote: »

And again, why was the boss able to produce a work roster?

Something that could be thrown together in two minutes after they had been arrested. This is meaningless.

King Mob wrote: »

Why had they gone to the trouble of faking a random piece of paperwork, but then were either too lazy, too cheap or too stupid to buy other stuff to add to their cover?

That is not a question I can answer. You'd have to ask them. The fact remains

"Little evidence of a legitimate business operation was found"

That coupled with the fact that no moving equipment was found in the van the guys were arrested in gives a fairly straighforward conclusion.

Oddly, equipment typically used in a moving company's daily duties was not found, including work gloves, blankets, straps, ropes, boxes, dollies, rollers, etc

This is compounded by the what they actually did have on them,

Seizure of the individuals' property yielded the following: a 35mm camera, several personal telephone-style notebooks, back packs, airline tickets with immediate travel dates for destinations world-wide, Israeli passports (in some case, expired), a German passport, USDollars 4,700 in cash belonging to BLANK and USDollars 1,022 in cash belonging to BLANK and Student identification cards later believed to be false were also found.

King Mob wrote: »

Because there's a difference between dogs reacting and there actually being explosives in the van.

I'm aware of that. I'm also aware that the dogs reacting for explosives makes it a strong possibilty that there was in fact explosive material in the van at some point.

King Mob wrote: »

And again: did the dancing Israelis actually have recording equipment out before the impact of the first plane?

Possibly. It is undetermined.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

With a car bomb. We are talking about a plane crashing into a high building, A very plausible accident. Something with a precedent.

Of course it's a wild stab in the dark to think that a hijacked passenger jet crashing into a building is suicide terrorist attack because it's never happened before in the history of the world before or since. And it's not even the case for the movers that they suspected it might be a terrorist attack - They were completely sure as their behaviour and statements attests to, ALL FIVE OF THEM.

But the towers had been attacked before, so it's not a far off conclusion.
There conclusion would not have been a logical one at the time. But You only have to look at threads here to see how people are convinced of ridiculous, far fetched explanations for many disasters.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Many? No they didn't. I'd doubt if ANY did. Please show evidence of this.

Here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhqLh_c0NL4
At about 5:18 they mention the '93 attacks.
At 7:05 they specifically mention it could be a terrorist act minutes before the second plane hits. And when it does, he mentions Osama. How did he know it was him before it was confirmed?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Well yeah, but given the facts it's extremely unlikely.

More unlikely that a vast conspiracy that they were stupid enough to blow open because they weren't able to sit still?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

NY and NJ have 16 million people between them yet you'd have me believe that the only people seen celebrating the attacks just happened to be working for the same small "company"? It's completely ridiculous.

This point might be valid if they were all caught celebrating separate from each other. And no I'm specifically not saying that they were the only ones acting like that.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Riggggggggghhhhht......

It's logical that anyone when under interrogation by the FBI counter-terrorism division who wasn't involved in a terrorist attack would intentionally try to implicate themselves in a the terrorist attack they were being interrogated over so they wouldn't look "immature". Thanks for the laugh ...;)

Then what was?

Again you're misunderstanding and strawmaning a off handed side point I made.
And so how does what they claimed implicate them in a terrorist attack?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yes. I also understand that the difference is irrelevant. The FBI search team leader, who we must assume by his position is an experienced, competent and qualified investigator considered it to be a possible "fraudelent operation".

"Little evidence of a legitimate business operation was found"

This was the conclusion of the FBI search. Why won't you accept this? Because it doesn't fit with you "boys will be boys" theory?

Nevermind that it's owner/President fled the country leaving his home and business behind and ended up on an FBI terrorist suspect list.

Please point out were I wasn't accepting this, I'm just pointing out how you are misreporting the fact.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Something that could be thrown together in two minutes after they had been arrested. This is meaningless.

So the FBI on the ground mentioned that the single piece of paperwork they were given was an obvious fake and actually stood out since there was no other evidence of a business?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

That is not a question I can answer. You'd have to ask them. The fact remains

Funny how you can speculate about how they faked a work roster, but can't possibly think of I reason they couldn't blow 200 dollars on basic equipment to maintain their cover.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

That coupled with the fact that no moving equipment was found in the van the guys were arrested in gives a fairly straighforward conclusion.

This is compounded by the what they actually did have on them,

And they had all that, but nothing to help them keep their cover?
Best agents ever.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'm aware of that. I'm also aware that the dogs reacting for explosives makes it a strong possibilty that there was in fact explosive material in the van at some point.

But not strong enough to actually conclude there were explosives present.
So really dogs reacting is about as much of an indicator as them searching someone.

And then there's the fact that explosives being in the van doesn't make sense with your explanation for what they were doing.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Possibly. It is undetermined.

Funny, given the entire case for them having foreknowledge hinges on that.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

There conclusion would not have been a logical one at the time.

Finally. Thank you!

King Mob wrote: »

Here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhqLh_c0NL4
At about 5:18 they mention the '93 attacks.
At 7:05 they specifically mention it could be a terrorist act minutes before the second plane hits. And when it does, he mentions Osama. How did he know it was him before it was confirmed?

Ah ffs...That pilot FOX are interviewing "doesn't think it's a terrorist attack at all". What happens once the second plane hits is irrelevant as it changes everything instantly.

King Mob wrote: »

More unlikely that a vast conspiracy that they were stupid enough to blow open because they weren't able to sit still?

Humans being human ya mean? Your being sneaky with your language btw. A surveillance operation is not a "vast conspiracy"

King Mob wrote: »

This point might be valid if they were all caught celebrating separate from each other. And no I'm specifically not saying that they were the only ones acting like that.

Well then show examples of these "others" otherwise drop it.

King Mob wrote: »

And so how does what they claimed implicate them in a terrorist attack?

I've already explained to you. It indicates foreknowledge. They were high-fiving, hugging and jumping around like Israel had just won the World Cup BECAUSE THEY KNEW IT WAS A TERRORIST ATTACK THAT WOULD BE "GOOD FOR ISRAEL" BEFORE THE FIRST PLANE EVER HIT AND BEFORE THE PRESIDENT OF AMERICA, GEORGE BUSH OR ANYONE ELSE EVEN KNEW IT WAS A TERRORIST ATTACK

King Mob wrote: »

Please point out were I wasn't accepting this, I'm just pointing out how you are misreporting the fact.

In that case please stop squabbling over petty, irrelevant points. Are we agreed that if the Team Leader of the FBI search says UMS was a possible "fraudelent operation" then UMS is/was a possible "fraudelent operation"?

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Finally. Thank you!

It not being a logical conclusion for them to make does not mean they did not or could not leap to that conclusion.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Ah ffs...That pilot FOX are interviewing "doesn't think it's a terrorist attack at all". What happens once the second plane hits is irrelevant as it changes everything instantly.

But he still brings it up as a possibility, you know an example the exact thing you asked me for.
So how why did he think it might have been a terrorist attack when no one else could have possibly thought it was?
How about the news reader who suggests it was Osama? How did he know he was involved before it was confirmed?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Humans being human ya mean?

And yet you can't imagine why people might make rapid conclusions or act like assholes....
I suppose it's only a valid explanation when you want it to be...

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Your being sneaky with your language btw. A surveillance operation is not a "vast conspiracy"

No, but your OP posits it, several of your points need it to be relevant and you clearly believe it.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Well then show examples of these "others" otherwise drop it.

Well if you think that no one cheers and jumps around at a disaster, you're oddly contradictory on you view of human nature...

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I've already explained to you. It indicates foreknowledge. They were high-fiving, hugging and jumping around like Israel had just won the World Cup BECAUSE THEY KNEW IT WAS A TERRORIST ATTACK THAT WOULD BE "GOOD FOR ISRAEL" BEFORE THE FIRST PLANE EVER HIT AND BEFORE THE PRESIDENT OF AMERICA, GEORGE BUSH OR ANYONE ELSE EVEN KNEW IT WAS A TERRORIST ATTACK

And again, this explanation was given after it was confirmed to be an attack, so it could have been a bull**** answer to cover themselves for being just assholes and cheering at cool looking explosions.
And if this was the actual explanation, then they could have easily just leaped to the conclusion that it was a terrorist attack before it was confirmed.

And can you please back up your claim that they were doing this before the first plane hit.

And then perhaps explain why they did give this explanation when you think it implicates them in the terrorist plot.

Oh and maybe since you think that they both had foreknowledge and were willing to announce that fact, why did they say: "we are not your problem! The Palestinians are!" when it wasn't Palestinians?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

In that case please stop squabbling over petty, irrelevant points. Are we agreed that if the Team Leader of the FBI search says UMS was a possible "fraudelent operation" then UMS is/was a possible "fraudelent operation"?

But you keep twisting the facts and misrepresenting things, the above being a prime example.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

It not being a logical conclusion for them to make does not mean they did not or could not leap to that conclusion.

It makes it considerable less likely.

King Mob wrote: »

But he still brings it up as a possibility, you know an example the exact thing you asked me for.
So how why did he think it might have been a terrorist attack when no one else could have possibly thought it was?

And you say I misrepresent things? The newsreader when he mentioned the 93 WTC Bombing said re 9-11 first plane hitting and this is a direct quote,

This is a different challenge; just as grave

The pilot interviewed put it down to "early morning sun" and the pilot "getting distracted". and "doesn't think it is a terrorist attack at all".

AFTER, AFTER AFTER AND ONLY AFTER the second plane hits do they conclude (newsreader) "this seems to be deliberate folks!" and (pilot) "I would begin to say that".

Your so-called evidence runs contrary to what you are saying.

King Mob wrote: »

How about the news reader who suggests it was Osama? How did he know he was involved before it was confirmed? .

Who cares? It's irrelevant. Anything that happened after the second plane hit is irrelevant to what we are discussing.

King Mob wrote: »

And again, this explanation was given after it was confirmed to be an attack, so it could have been a bull**** answer to cover themselves for being just assholes and cheering at cool looking explosions.

Honestly this is the single most absurd thing I've ever heard you say.

To clarify, your best explanation as to why a group of people seen filming and celebrating the 9/11 attacks would tell their FBI interrogators that they were filming a terrorist attack on US soil before even the US President knew it was a terrorist attack and thereby implicating themselves further in the crime itself is that they were trying to "cover themselves for being just assholes"?

It reminds of the oft used alibi of the married man caught with a prostitute: "It's okay officer, I wasn't going to pay her for sex; I was going to strangle here to death and dump here body".

King Mob wrote: »

And can you please back up your claim that they were doing this before the first plane hit.

I'm sorry I had meant to say second plane above.

King Mob wrote: »

And then perhaps explain why they did give this explanation when you think it implicates them in the terrorist plot.

Because they were under interrogation by FBI experts. Who's goal is to get answers from people who don't want to give them.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It makes it considerable less likely.

why is it unlikely? Do you think that people don't jump to irrational, illogical conclusions before or in spite of evidence?
Cause I can point you to some examples...

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And you say I misrepresent things? The newsreader when he mentioned the 93 WTC Bombing said re 9-11 first plane hitting and this is a direct quote,

The pilot interviewed put it down to "early morning sun" and the pilot "getting distracted". and "doesn't think it is a terrorist attack at all".

AFTER, AFTER AFTER AND ONLY AFTER the second plane hits do they conclude (newsreader) "this seems to be deliberate folks!" and (pilot) "I would begin to say that".

Your so-called evidence runs contrary to what you are saying.

I claimed that it was reported a terrorist attack was possible before it was confirmed.
You asked for a single example, I provided one.

The pilot says "If it's a deliberate terrorist act..."

Hence other people knew it was a possibility and reported it as such.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Who cares? It's irrelevant. Anything that happened after the second plane hit is irrelevant to what we are discussing.

But it is relevant. The news reader is saying that Osama Bin Laden might be the culprit, how did he know that before it was actually offically confirmed to be an attack?

Could it have been a case of him leaping to a conclusion?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Honestly this is the single most absurd thing I've ever heard you say.

To clarify, your best explanation as to why a group of people seen filming and celebrating the 9/11 attacks would tell their FBI interrogators that they were filming a terrorist attack on US soil before even the US President knew it was a terrorist attack and thereby implicating themselves further in the crime itself is that they were trying to "cover themselves for being just assholes"?

It reminds of the oft used alibi of the married man caught with a prostitute: "It's okay officer, I wasn't going to pay her for sex; I was going to strangle here to death and dump here body".

Well no it's not my best explanation, I've specifically said several times it was a side point.
Furthermore your characterisation is a strawman based on the assumption that the knew in advance the attacks would happen and based on a twisting of their words.

Every person who picked up a camera when the first plane hit was "filming a terrorist attack on US soil before even the US President knew it was a terrorist attack".
Hell there was even people with cameras out and filming before the plane hit, something you can't say for the Dancing Israelis.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Because they were under interrogation by FBI experts. Who's goal is to get answers from people who don't want to give them.

So not only did they no have basic surveillance skills, they also didn't know how to resist light interrogation...
The Mossad must have lowered their standards lately.

So then I assume that the FBI reacted accordingly to this statement that proves their guilt right?

And again, why did they say: "we are not your problem! The Palestinians are!" when it wasn't Palestinians?

ed2hands

King Mob wrote: »

The Mossad must have lowered their standards lately.

It seems to me the FBI really lowered their standards aswell by letting 'em toddle back home so quickly considering.
Or more to the point, were told to lower their standards.

Do you think if they were Muslims, that they would have been released like that?

Ha. No chance. They'd be rotting in Guantanamo to this day..

ed2hands

ed2hands wrote: »

It seems to me the FBI really lowered their standards aswell by letting 'em toddle back home so quickly considering.
Or more to the point, were told to lower their standards.

Do you think if they were Muslims, that they would have been released like that?

Ha. No chance. They'd be rotting in Guantanamo to this day..

Well the same could be said that if these guys weren't Israelis no one would be pointing to them as part of the conspiracy.

ed2hands

Can you clarify that please? Expand on it. What do you mean by that statement?

ed2hands

ed2hands wrote: »

Can you clarify that please? Expand on it. What do you mean by that statement?

The reason that this story gets so much play on "alternative" sites is because of an underlying vein of profitable anti-Semitism in their main demographic.

Had these guys been Muslim and the same level evidence was aimed at them, I'm confident it would be a conspiracy to falsely frame Muslims with spurious evidence.

ed2hands

King Mob wrote: »

The reason that this story gets so much play on "alternative" sites is because of an underlying vein of profitable anti-Semitism in their main demographic..

Where has this story gotten "play"? I put it to you that this story has been buried.

King Mob wrote: »

Had these guys been Muslim and the same level evidence was aimed at them, I'm confident it would be a conspiracy to falsely frame Muslims with spurious evidence.

The thing is though, the evidence is sort of not spurious.

ed2hands

ed2hands wrote: »

Where has this story gotten "play"? I put it to you that this story has been buried.

So you don't visit many 9/11 truth sites then I take it?

ed2hands wrote: »

The thing is though, the evidence is sort of not spurious.

Then perhaps you'd like to address some of my points?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

why is it unlikely?

Just go with the statistics. Show me some other examples of the 16 million other people in NY/NJ that behaved in a similar matter. You can't, you'll try and dance round the issue but you still can't. Their actions are unique that day. They were high-fiving, smiling and embracing, holding up lit lighters with the smouldering towers in the background like it was a tourist attraction all the while 16 million others were in shock and horror. Yet you don't find the bizarre actions of the 5 vs the 16 million strange?

King Mob wrote: »

Do you think that people don't jump to irrational, illogical conclusions before or in spite of evidence?
Cause I can point you to some examples...

Please don't try to change the subject.

King Mob wrote: »

I claimed that it was reported a terrorist attack was possible before it was confirmed.

Let's get this straight first. You said:

Most news agencies reported that an attack might have been a possibility even before it was confirmed.

King Mob wrote: »

You asked for a single example,

Nope- I asked you to provide evidence that "most" news agencies reported.

King Mob wrote: »

I provided one.

Yeah a really bad one that has no relevance to what we are discussing as neither of them actually thought that it was a terrorist attack. For your point to have any relevance you need to supply someone on record giving a very high degree of probablility that it was a terrorist attack as the dancing Israelis evidently were sure that it was a terrorist attack.

Let's say 80% of penalties are converted. If a football team gave away a penalty and the manager of the team that had given away the penalty started hopping up and down with his arms in the air celebrating and posing for the press cameras because he was 100% sure the opposing team would miss the penalty before the taker had even placed the ball on the spot I suppose you would put it down to "people do strange things sometimes..."

Now what if unbeknownst to you the fix was in? The coach had secretly met with the referee, goalkeeper and penalty taker and it had been rehearsed that the penalty would be given by the corrupt official and scuffed into the right hand bottom corner and saved by the goalkeeper. All would be recieve financial reward especially the manager through his betting scam. You would still put it down to "people do strange things sometimes..."

King Mob wrote: »

The pilot says "If it's a deliberate terrorist act..."

IF my auntie had balls she'd be my uncle.

King Mob wrote: »

Hence other people knew it was a possibility and reported it as such.

The pilot did not think it was a terrorist attack before the plane hit. I repeat, The pilot did not think it was a terrorist attack before the plane hit

King Mob wrote: »

But it is relevant. The news reader is saying that Osama Bin Laden might be the culprit, how did he know that before it was actually offically confirmed to be an attack?

How did he, a national newsreader, who you would assume is up to date on current events and has teams of researchers aiding him know that an international terrorist leader who had issued a fatwa against the US speculate the Bin Laden "might be the culprit" of a now patently obvious terrorist attack? The mind boggles...

King Mob wrote: »

twisting of their words.

You keep making all these kind of claims and not backing them up. Perelman is a "biased reporter" and so on. I have not twisted anyones words. I'd like you to show me how I have done so.

King Mob wrote: »

Every person who picked up a camera when the first plane hit was "filming a terrorist attack on US soil before even the US President knew it was a terrorist attack".

Apples and oranges. Unless you can provide, which you haven't done so far anyone who in their own words was recording a terrorist attack, nevermind celebrating it.

You make light of this but it's such a shame the dancing Israelis and their incredible foresight weren't put to use in the North Tower as it would've saved countless lives. WTC security was making people return to their desks in the tower as it was an accident that was under control.

King Mob wrote: »

So not only did they no have basic surveillance skills, they also didn't know how to resist light interrogation...
The Mossad must have lowered their standards lately.

Not not lately. This is from the early 70's for example.

In 1973, the Mossad believed it had tracked its man to a tranquil Norwegian town called Lillehammer. One evening, the Mossad watched him board a bus with a pregnant Norwegian woman. As they got off at this bus stop, two Israeli agents jumped out of a car and fired 14 bullets. The Red Prince was dead. Munich had been avenged. But there would be no getaway this time. Norwegian police noted the license plate of the hit team's car, traced it to this safe house in Oslo and arrested six Israeli agents. And not only were members of the hit team behind bars, they had killed the wrong man.

The Israelis had killed a Moroccan waiter, Ahmed Bouchiki. He and his wife were expecting their first child in two months.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/11/20/60II/main318655.shtml

Obviously no Mossad agent would ever travel in a vehicle with traceable plates or kill a completely wrong target....oh...wait...

You seem to be giving thesehumans superhuman abilities through their membership of an organisation which is ludicirous.

In any case your comment just further again expose your ignorance. What you call "light interrogation" the Israelis claimed was torture and filed a lawsuit in the US against the FBI.

King Mob wrote: »

So then I assume that the FBI reacted accordingly to this statement that proves their guilt right?

If you'd been reading the links Ive been providing youd know that the elements within the FBI were outraged at their politically motivated release.

King Mob wrote: »

And again, why did they say: "we are not your problem! The Palestinians are!" when it wasn't Palestinians?

You really should know this. Israelis, for obvious reasons, fairly or unfairly conflate Palestinians with terrorists.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Just go with the statistics. Show me some other examples of the 16 million other people in NY/NJ that behaved in a similar matter. You can't, you'll try and dance round the issue but you still can't. Their actions are unique that day. They were high-fiving, smiling and embracing, holding up lit lighters with the smouldering towers in the background like it was a tourist attraction all the while 16 million others were in shock and horror. Yet you don't find the bizarre actions of the 5 vs the 16 million strange?

Wasn't my point. I was asking why it was unlikely that they might conclude rashly that it was a terrorist attack?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Please don't try to change the subject.

It's not changing the subject, I'm just pointing out that this very forum is a ready supply of people jumping to rash conclusion based on little, no or conflicting evidence.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Let's get this straight first. You said:


Nope- I asked you to provide evidence that "most" news agencies reported.

Well keeping things straight you said:

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Many? No they didn't. I'd doubt if ANY did. Please show evidence of this.

So I provided you an example of one. You're doing your level best to try and ignore it and move the goalposts rather than accept it, hence why I'm not bothering to waste my time to find more only for you to do the same.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yeah a really bad one that has no relevance to what we are discussing as neither of them actually thought that it was a terrorist attack. For your point to have any relevance you need to supply someone on record giving a very high degree of probablility that it was a terrorist attack as the dancing Israelis evidently were sure that it was a terrorist attack.

IF my auntie had balls she'd be my uncle.


The pilot did not think it was a terrorist attack before the plane hit. I repeat, The pilot did not think it was a terrorist attack before the plane hit

But why, if even the idea of a terrorist attack was so far out there, was it and a previous attack even mentioned?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

How did he, a national newsreader, who you would assume is up to date on current events and has teams of researchers aiding him know that an international terrorist leader who had issued a fatwa against the US speculate the Bin Laden "might be the culprit" of a now patently obvious terrorist attack? The mind boggles...

So he made a hasty conclusion not based on much or any evidence?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Apples and oranges. Unless you can provide, which you haven't done so far anyone who in their own words was recording a terrorist attack, nevermind celebrating it.

Again, the words you are using to prove these guys are guilty can be used to describe exactly what thousands of people had done.
Had this been said before the attacks, then maybe.
But it wasn't.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You seem to be giving thesehumans superhuman abilities through their membership of an organisation which is ludicirous.

Superhuman abilities like not shouting and high fiving in public?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

If you'd been reading the links Ive been providing youd know that the elements within the FBI were outraged at their politically motivated release.

Not the question I asked.
I asked did the FBI note that the phrase you are using to condemn them indicate that they must have been involved?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You really should know this. Israelis, for obvious reasons, fairly or unfairly conflate Palestinians with terrorists.

But why did they say this when they knew it wasn't Palestinians?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

Wasn't my point. I was asking why it was unlikely that they might conclude rashly that it was a terrorist attack?

Because plane crashing into a tall building has never before been a suicide terrorist attack in the history of the world. These Israelis were all convinced to a man immediately that plane crashing into a tall building was a terrorist attack when nobody else did.

King Mob wrote: »

It's not changing the subject, I'm just pointing out that this very forum is a ready supply of people jumping to rash conclusion based on little, no or conflicting evidence.

You shouldn't be so harsh on yourself.

King Mob wrote: »

Well keeping things straight you said:

So I provided you an example of one. You're doing your level best to try and ignore it and move the goalposts rather than accept it, hence why I'm not bothering to waste my time to find more only for you to do the same.

You said "many" news outlets speculated that it might be a terrorist attack. You provided a single interview where both interviewer and interviewee both concluded that it is unlikely that it is a terrorist attack.

This doesn't support what you are saying, or at least what is relevant insofar as what we should be discussing. The Israelis were CERTAIN, that it was a terrorist attack as their own actions and statements confirms. You need to show examples of others who were equally convinced that it was a terrorist attack between the first and second plane hitting. You simply won't be able to do this because it is such an unlikely conclusion to reach.

King Mob wrote: »

But why, if even the idea of a terrorist attack was so far out there, was it and a previous attack even mentioned?

This is really simple. The WTC bombing is part of the history of the Twin Towers. Why wouldn't they mention it when reporting on another tragedy on the same structure?

King Mob wrote: »

So he made a hasty conclusion not based on much or any evidence?

No. Not a conclusion. He speculated. Again, this is only after the situation has changed with the second tower being hit and it was apparent it was a terrorist attack and is therefore irrelevant to what we are discussing.

King Mob wrote: »

Again, the words you are using to prove these guys are guilty can be used to describe exactly what thousands of people had done.
Had this been said before the attacks, then maybe.
But it wasn't.

1-I'm not trying to prove they are guilty.
2-Show me evidence of people moving from a good vantage point to see the first tower being hit but with an obstructed view of the second tower to be hit in the time between both attacks to get a view of both towers for no apparent reason.
3-Are you now saying that statements made by suspects under FBI
interrogation are worthless if they are recorded after the fact? And should not be used as evidence?

King Mob wrote: »

Superhuman abilities like not shouting and high fiving in public?

I was demonstrating to you the fact that membership of Mossad does not mean that you don't make stupid mistakes and therefore stupid mistakes do not disprove anything.

King Mob wrote: »

Not the question I asked.
I asked did the FBI note that the phrase you are using to condemn them indicate that they must have been involved?

The FBI report is now the voice of the FBI now again? i.e. when it suits you?

I would hope that they concluded that it could mean that they were involved as it's the logical conclusion. It is however heavily redacted so we can't say for sure.

King Mob wrote: »

But why did they say this when they knew it wasn't Palestinians?

I've just explained this to you. For some Israelis, especially the kind that were arrested, Ex--IDF, one was even a professional Arab hunter use Palestinian and terrorist interchangeably.

The question you should be asking yourself is why they brought up they issue of terrorism with police officers before they should have known what they were stopped by police for.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I've just explained this to you. For some Israelis, especially the kind that were arrested, Ex--IDF, one was even a professional Arab hunter use Palestinian and terrorist interchangeably.

I'm just going to focus on this point since it really undermines your position.

Why since they knew that it wasn't Palestinians or at least couldn't have known who it was, why did they claim it was?

DublinWriter

I'd really love to know why the US Government expelled a number of Israeli Diplomats in the days immediately after 9/11.

As Gore Vidal said, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I'm a conspiracy analyst.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

I'm just going to focus on this point since it really undermines your position.

Why since they knew that it wasn't Palestinians or at least couldn't have known who it was, why did they claim it was?

Because Muslims/Arabs/terrorists/Palestinians can be used interchangeably by people who don't like same.

The far more important question is why the Israelis made such a strange statement to the arresting officers unquestioned. Why also did they lie again without prompt to the arresting officers about their wherabouts at the time of the attacks before they even knew what they'd been arrested for?

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Because Muslims/Arabs/terrorists/Palestinians can be used interchangeably by people who don't like same.

So then this logic couldn't apply to leaping to the conclusion that an explosion is a terrorist attack because...?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

So then this logic couldn't apply to leaping to the conclusion that an explosion is a terrorist attack because...?

Why should it?

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Why should it?

Because the only difference between the two logical leaps is that you want to accept one as an excuse but not the other.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

Because the only difference between the two logical leaps is that you want to accept one as an excuse but not the other.

Could you please explain what you are getting at?