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

The 9-11 Dancing Middle Easterners and their vans

Options
15678911»

Comments

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


    King Mob wrote: »
    Weisses, what points specifically do you require me to back up?

    i'd like a link to the report.

    also why do you assume that the mural is the mistake as opposed to the 'innocent' truck part? maybe they incorrectly described it as innocent? thus explaining the mural?

    also since you did not avoided my question on who said it was an 'innocent delivery truck', maybe i'll rephrase it ... did the NYPD that detained the van arrive to the conclusion that it was innocent?

    and just so you know, when someone is innocent, it means that they have not been proven guilty, not necessarily that they have been proven innocent.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    Post 152 page 11 ... Chapter 20 restoring oem functions chapter name ... Typing on phone ATM so no copy paste


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


    weisses wrote: »
    Post 152 page 11 ... Chapter 20 restoring oem functions chapter name ... Typing on phone ATM so no copy paste
    thanks there are so many reports :)

    i think did i read it before:
    http://transweb.sjsu.edu/mtiportal/research/publications/documents/Sept11.book.htm

    but since it's design was about transit systems responses to 911, i did not give it much weight in their conclusion of 'innocent delivery van'.

    but is surprising how king mob can believe the innocent part of that quote, because he already believes and then 'logically' disregard the mural, since it does not fit his preconceived theory.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    Weisses, what points specifically do you require me to back up?
    I have asked you this several time but I can't provide you an answer if I don't actually know what you are asking for.
    I tried presenting a list of points and explained that I cannot provide concrete proof and then explained why such a thing is not nessesary for my argument.

    concrete proof ... Try no proof at all
    And i already answered your question several times
    King Mob wrote: »
    I've explained why neither of us can provide the concrete proof you seem to be demanding and explained how neither of our points or arguments need to rely on such proof.
    We are (or at least we should be) providing possible explanations and determining which is the most likely.
    And I detailed this in the post you aren't really addressing so much as ranting at.

    No ... again, I believe what is claimed in the report about the mural you don't ... So i asked you to provide at least some evidence/proof why you don't accept that and you have giving me none, to turn it around and make it a matter for me to proof is not on here

    But if you insist I will ask Penn to open the Building 7 threat and we will use the same tactic you try to use here on the NIST report okay ??
    King Mob wrote: »
    At this stage it's clear that you're simply trying to stall any discussion at all.

    Yet another assumption King Mob ??? .. adress the points raised other then maybe's and could be's and we can move on


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    Another idea could be that the vans were on their way to attack the rescue workers, I mean it was done before (or tried)


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 25,233 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    concrete proof ... Try no proof at all
    And i already answered your question several times
    No you haven't. I do not know which points you need me to prove.
    I can't answer your questions when I don't know what you are referring to, but you clearly don't actually want answers. You're just trying to derail any discussion.
    And good job, you've done it.
    weisses wrote: »
    Yet another assumption King Mob ??? .. adress the points raised other then maybe's and could be's and we can move on
    And you say this and then the very next post you bring up another "maybe and could be".


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    No you haven't. I do not know which points you need me to prove.
    I can't answer your questions when I don't know what you are referring to

    Post 253, 256, 277, 283 for starters
    King Mob wrote: »
    but you clearly don't actually want answers. You're just trying to derail any discussion.
    And good job, you've done it.

    If you have trouble with my postings or think I'm derailing this thread then ask a Mod to review my posts otherwise stop making such silly insinuations
    King Mob wrote: »
    And you say this and then the very next post you bring up another "maybe and could be".

    Yes why not i think its Important to look at different hypothesis, I cannot proof them but sure we can discuss them
    King Mob wrote: »
    At this stage it's clear that you're simply trying to stall any discussion at all.

    First according to you i stall the discussion then 2 posts further my effort is used against me .... well done mate... well done


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,233 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    Post 253, 256, 277, 283 for starters
    All of these points are asking me to back up stuff I am not actually arguing or imply that I believe the report is wrong.
    I do not believe the report is wrong I have said this several time incredibly clearly. The only way you can not see this is if you are willingly ignoring what I have written.
    weisses wrote: »
    Yes why not i think its Important to look at different hypothesis, I cannot proof them but sure we can discuss them
    And that's what I've been trying to get you to do for the past two pages.

    I presented a hypothesis, you refused to engage it and demanded I prove stuff I never claimed.
    So again, more examples of you trying to stop any discussion.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    All of these points are asking me to back up stuff I am not actually arguing or imply that I believe the report is wrong.
    I do not believe the report is wrong I have said this several time incredibly clearly
    . The only way you can not see this is if you are willingly ignoring what I have written.


    So as stated in the report the Mural with the plane flying into the WTC is a correct statement .... Finally why didn't you say so 3 pages ago

    Because as stated above there is nothing wrong with the report

    And I am not ignoring what you have written I disagree with it .. as you should know by now
    King Mob wrote: »
    And that's what I've been trying to get you to do for the past two pages.

    I presented a hypothesis, you refused to engage it and demanded I prove stuff I never claimed.
    So again, more examples of you trying to stop any discussion.

    No wrong again

    I have a hypothesis based on only a maybe and could be, would be and might have, It will probably be shot down

    You have an hypothesis on what is written in an official report ... which you supported with maybe and could be, would be and might have and yes that is not acceptable for me

    As said earlier I am more then happy to use this NEW approach on the nist report and building 7


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,233 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    So as stated in the report the Mural with the plane flying into the WTC is a correct statement .... Finally why didn't you say so 3 pages ago

    Because as stated above there is nothing wrong with the report

    And I am not ignoring what you have written I disagree with it .. as you should know by now
    But I explained this. You ignored it.

    I believe that when they said that the van was innocent it also meant that the painting was innocuous and was not actually a painting of the attack.
    I thought such a thing was clear.

    So again, I believe what is written in the report, not your interpretation.
    And yes, I said this repeatedly over the last few pages, you ignored that as well.
    weisses wrote: »
    No wrong again

    I have a hypothesis based on only a maybe and could be, would be and might have, It will probably be shot down

    You have an hypothesis on what is written in an official report ... which you supported with maybe and could be, would be and might have and yes that is not acceptable for me

    As said earlier I am more then happy to use this NEW approach on the nist report and building 7
    Great, so you're applying a double standard. You should have just said as much.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    But I explained this. You ignored it.

    I believe that when they said that the van was innocent it also meant that the painting was innocuous and was not actually a painting of the attack.
    I thought such a thing was clear.

    Thats your hypothesis ... you just try to wiggle and move around with this so it will fit your theory/way of thinking ... And it is clear for you indeed but still it is unverified, maybe could be, and would have, nonsense,

    and to reach that conclusion at all you need to verify first that the painting described in the report constitutes arrest/crime in the first place.
    And if driving around with such painting itself is not a crime, it could well be painted as described in the report ... see here i just came up with another hypothesis ...
    King Mob wrote: »
    So again, I believe what is written in the report, not your interpretation.
    And yes, I said this repeatedly over the last few pages, you ignored that as well.

    No you believe your interpretation of what is actualy not in the report ... see how easy you twist things around to make it suit you
    King Mob wrote: »
    Great, so you're applying a double standard. You should have just said as much.

    Now where did i do that?


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,233 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    and to reach that conclusion at all you need to verify first that the painting described in the report constitutes arrest/crime in the first place.
    And if driving around with such painting itself is not a crime, it could well be painted as described in the report ... see here i just came up with another hypothesis ...
    So perhaps an example of the police taking something innocuous looking and treating it as dangerous?


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    So perhaps an example of the police taking something innocuous looking and treating it as dangerous?

    perhaps ... But unverified and not proven... So I'm sticking to what is said in the report ....


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


    King Mob wrote: »
    So perhaps an example of the police taking something innocuous looking and treating it as dangerous?
    So perhaps an example of a poster taking something written down and selectively treating it as miswritten without anything to back it up?


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,233 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    perhaps ... But unverified and not proven... So I'm sticking to what is said in the report ....
    What's unverified and not proven exactly?

    That it can happen?
    But I posted an example of exactly that happening before.

    That it's definitely what happened?
    But as you said that's just a hypothesis, like you suggested with a second van or the van coming back, which you likewise you can't verify or prove.
    Except that My hypothesis is far more likely because it doesn't rely on a vast nonsensical conspiracy as your hypothesis does.

    You say that you're sticking with the report, but you keep going back to these things that aren't in the report and don't make a lick of sense.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    Except that My hypothesis is far more likely because it doesn't rely on a vast nonsensical conspiracy as your hypothesis does.

    So now your saying that my believe in the report is a nonsensical conspiracy? ... i tought you believed it as well ...

    And yes your view on the report is unverified and not proven ... In fact you haven't even tried
    King Mob wrote: »
    You say that you're sticking with the report, but you keep going back to these things that aren't in the report and don't make a lick of sense.

    I believe you are the one constantly talking about what's not in de report .. You know that nonsensical statement that because the Van turned out to be an innocent delivery truck probably the mural automatically turns into an innocent painting as well

    What's in it i believe but where were was the van coming from and what was it going to do ... I mean driving around with a mural describing what happened earlier that day raises questions an there is the video BB posted ..So plenty of things to talk about outside that passage in the report


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,233 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    So now your saying that my believe in the report is a nonsensical conspiracy? ... i tought you believed it as well ...

    And yes your view on the report is unverified and not proven ... In fact you haven't even tried

    I believe you are the one constantly talking about what's not in de report .. You know that nonsensical statement that because the Van turned out to be an innocent delivery truck probably the mural automatically turns into an innocent painting as well

    What's in it i believe but where were was the van coming from and what was it going to do ... I mean driving around with a mural describing what happened earlier that day raises questions an there is the video BB posted ..So plenty of things to talk about outside that passage in the report
    Weisess one last time before I totally give up: what specifically do you want me to support?
    Which point specifically are you referring to?

    At this stage you aren't even reading what I'm posting and doing your level best to misunderstand it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    Weisess one last time before I totally give up: what specifically do you want me to support?

    Ok for the last time ..... your problem with the Mural as explained in the report ... Not only your view about it but backed up with at least some evidence that the statement is wrong
    King Mob wrote: »
    At this stage you aren't even reading what I'm posting and doing your level best to misunderstand it.

    Im sorry ...didn't see where i read you wrong but to suggest I'm doing that on purpose is more worrying


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,233 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    Ok for the last time ..... your problem with the Mural as explained in the report ... Not only your view about it but backed up with at least some evidence that the statement is wrong

    Im sorry ...didn't see where i read you wrong but to suggest I'm doing that on purpose is more worrying
    And for the last time. I do not believe the report is wrong. I do not believe the report makes a wrong statement.

    But I've explained this in every way imaginable.
    I've tried everything and I can't get you to engage with anything resembling an adult discussion.

    You can't even answer a straight direct question.

    So I'm done.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    And for the last time. I do not believe the report is wrong. I do not believe the report makes a wrong statement.


    But .....
    King Mob wrote: »
    To clarify, I believe the report. And I also agree with Diogenes when he suggests that the "mural" was something innocuous that was misinterpreted in the panic of the day.

    And this ..post 235
    King Mob wrote: »
    Well I have done so several times.
    I am suggesting that the police mistook what was painted on the van as a "mural" of the attacks.

    Don't forget this one
    King Mob wrote: »
    But in both cases they clearly misidentified what they saw, showing that the police can misidentify what they say and take these things seriously on very flimsy basis.
    So the police reporting a "mural" does not necessarily mean it actually was a mural when there are much more plausible explanations.

    and it goes on and on
    King Mob wrote: »
    To repeat myself to be be extra clear and to prevent you for making even more strawmen: I believe the report, however I believe that the police saw a mural that they interpreted as depicting the attack when this wasn't actually the case.

    Again you can believe what you want ..but in here you need to backup what you believe ...or at least make an effort

    And a couple of posts later you come up with this
    King Mob wrote: »
    Ok, and what part about the mural did I claim that's different to the report?
    What exactly am I dismissing from the report?

    At this point i suggest you look to the quotes above
    King Mob wrote: »
    Again this isn't a case of me misremembering anything. I'm am telling you directly I do not disagree with the report or believe that it is wrong.
    I am not trying to debunk it, or any of the points it made.

    After that you have this claim of the report
    King Mob wrote: »
    So seeing as you can't make sense of the report with your interpretation, ie cannot explain how the van could be innocent and have a mural (at least without inventing entirely new van and vast, nonsensical conspiracies), any honest person would start looking for a more reasonable explanation.

    Again look at your own statements above and yet you claim that i can't make sense of the report ... and yes your quotes are chronological
    King Mob wrote: »
    Like for instance when the report says that the van was "innocent" it meant the painting on the side was likewise "innocent".

    That is a mighty leap

    And here is another one
    King Mob wrote: »
    Yes, I am, and have always been saying that there was something on the van (such as a logo or a advertisement) that was misinterpreted as depicting something it does not.
    Make up your mind now will you

    See another claim that is not in the report that you didn't bother to backup

    King Mob wrote: »
    No, that's not what I said, implied or believe.
    A panel truck with what was believed to be a painting of a plane flying into the World Trade Center was stopped near the temporary command post.

    Again believes are good ..proof in this thread is better

    And ...
    King Mob wrote: »
    The report does not support the idea that any van exploded. The report does not supply evidence for a conspiracy or cast doubt on the official story.
    If anything is a non-point it's you bringing up the report.

    So seeing these to quotes from you ... And still Im the one bringing in non points regarding the report .... funny
    King Mob wrote: »
    But I've explained this in every way imaginable.
    I've tried everything and I can't get you to engage with anything resembling an adult discussion.

    Do you still think your the mature one after looking over your quotes ... And no they are not random, This is how the discussion went
    King Mob wrote: »
    You can't even answer a straight direct question.

    Yeah right

    King Mob wrote: »
    So I'm done.

    Good


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


    King Mob wrote: »
    So I'm done.
    finally!!!

    all you've done is use a line in a paragraph to try to disprove something in the same paragraph ... brilliant!!


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,451 ✭✭✭weisses


    Another theory to why the Van(s) where there

    The 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, although not the deadliest terrorist attack in the city's history, was the most ambitious,

    including a secondary explosive device intended to harm first responders,
    and caused great alarm.


    The terrorists clearly intended to bring down the towers, and some people believe they came close to doing so. Six people died in the explosion, and thousands were injured, primarily by smoke. Damage was extensive. The New York subway and Port Authority Trans Hudson (PATH) train stations under the towers were badly damaged. Subsequent threat assessments concluded that a second terrorist attempt on the World Trade Center was likely, although no probabilistic estimate was offered. The possibility, albeit remote, of terrorists deliberately crashing a plane into the towers was even included in the spectrum of possible threats.4


    Fears of further attacks were heightened later that year, when authorities uncovered a plot to carry out multiple large-scale bombings at city landmarks, including bridges and tunnels.

    So BB video is not instantly a Hoax as is suggested here


Advertisement