The 9-11 Dancing Middle Easterners and their vans

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

There is reason to believe that they had foreknowledge a) The fact that they knew it was a terrorist attack before anyone else and b) Their movement from their original position where they could see the first plane hitting but not the second to a position where they could see the second plane hitting before the second plane hit and there was knowledge of a second plane hitting.

But
a) you've admitted that it's possible that they "knew" it was a terrorist attack due to a rash leap of logic, just as they did when they concluded incorrectly it was Palestinians.
b) You have refused to explain how people were able to be in a position to capture images of the second plane (and the first plan) before anyone could have know they were coming. And why people were filming WTC7 5 hours later when "no one could have know it was going to collapse".

Oh and then there's the side point that they could not have actually seen the second plane hitting as they were north of the towers while the plane hit the south.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

There is more than enough evidence, as I've explained to suggest that they may have been intelligence agents.

Yea as long as you don't look at it too carefully, ignore points against that evidence and accept unsourced, unverifiable claims.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What you have is Possible Israeli intelligence agents who displayed behaviour consistent with foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks.

To deny this is delusional.

Well except for the whole being on the wrong side of the towers to see the plane they were meant to have moved for and the total lack of a convincing, yet cheap to maintain cover and the fact that hadn't thought through a very good getaway plan and the total inability to resist even the barest of questioning and the fact that they couldn't sit quietly for an hour without calling attention to themselves and then they went on TV.
None of which is consistent with them being intelligence agents who had foreknowledge.

To deny this is delusional.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

But
a) you've admitted that it's possible that they "knew" it was a terrorist attack due to a rash leap of logic,

1-They did know. Their own words confirm this.
2-Something being "possible" doesn't exclude other scenarios as being possible.

King Mob wrote: »

just as they did when they concluded incorrectly it was Palestinians.

They never actually directly said that it was Palestinians who were responsible.

King Mob wrote: »

b) You have refused to explain how people were able to be in a position to capture images of the second plane (and the first plan) before anyone could have know they were coming.

If you could just try thinking a little you wouldn't be asking these kind of questions. The second plane was caught on film primarily because people were filming the smouldering first tower.

King Mob wrote: »

And why people were filming WTC7 5 hours later when "no one could have know it was going to collapse".

This again is a spurious point. People were filming a burning, damaged building from the most epic and grand terrorist attack of our lifetimes only 5 hours after the attack. No mystery here.

King Mob wrote: »

Oh and then there's the side point that they could not have actually seen the second plane hitting as they were north of the towers while the plane hit the south.

The fact remains they moved and got a far superior view of the second tower.

In their own words.

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

And those of the FBI.

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

---

King Mob wrote: »

Well except for the whole being on the wrong side of the towers to see the plane they were meant to have moved for and the total lack of a convincing, yet cheap to maintain cover and the fact that hadn't thought through a very good getaway plan and the total inability to resist even the barest of questioning and the fact that they couldn't sit quietly for an hour without calling attention to themselves and then they went on TV.
None of which is consistent with them being intelligence agents who had foreknowledge.

There is a difference. The above is inconistent with them being flawless intelligence agents not inconsistent with them being intelligence agents.

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

1-They did know. Their own words confirm this.
2-Something being "possible" doesn't exclude other scenarios as being possible.

But your entire point rests on them having foreknowledge being the only possible explanation, it isn't.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

They never actually directly said that it was Palestinians who were responsible.

And they never directly said that they knew it was a terrorist attack before anyone else, but you're inferring that since it suits you.
But if you're now moving the goalposts to claim that they never said it was Palestinians, why did they say it in the first place and why did you try to argue that they thought all terrorists were Palestinians?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

If you could just try thinking a little you wouldn't be asking these kind of questions. The second plane was caught on film primarily because people were filming the smouldering first tower.

This again is a spurious point. People were filming a burning, damaged building from the most epic and grand terrorist attack of our lifetimes only 5 hours after the attack. No mystery here.

So this couldn't be the explanation for why the Israeli's moved in time?
Why is it impossible that they moved to get a better look at the north face of the first tower (were it was hit) or to see if the second tower was hit or damaged?

Why is them doing the one thing that other people did in any way suspicious?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The fact remains they moved and got a far superior view of the second tower.

In their own words.

And those of the FBI.

Yea as long as we just ignore the little lie you told.
You said:

...to a position where they could see the second plane hitting before the second plane hit and there was knowledge of a second plane hitting.

You've agreed before that they could not have seen the second plane hitting from their new position, but you claimed they could anyway.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

There is a difference. The above is inconistent with them being flawless intelligence agents not inconsistent with them being intelligence agents.

No, it's more like it's consistent with comedians acting in a spy movie parody.

And of course your previous explanations for these flaws in your narrative start to contradict each other.
They had their passports on them in case they were caught, but they didn't have barest decoration to protect their cover because they weren't expecting to be caught.
They knew the attacks were coming, but didn't know where or when, but also somehow knew when the second tower would be hit.
They went on TV to pretend to admit to it all so the government could have plausible deniablity only to have that appearance to be used as evidence.
Then when you can't dream up an explanation you suddenly feel you can't possibly speculate on why they would do something.

And this goes on and on for each ridiculous explanation for the flaws in your narrative, piling up the contradictions until it falls apart.
But this is all moot because you can't even show that they had foreknowledge.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

But your entire point rests on them having foreknowledge being the only possible explanation, it isn't.

I am proposing based on their actions, statements and supporting facts that they may have had foreknowledge.

King Mob wrote: »

And they never directly said that they knew it was a terrorist attack before anyone else, but you're inferring that since it suits you.

'
Less of that "suits you" bollox thanks. Nothing "suits me". I am trying to address the facts. Perhaps you could join me in this and not make it personal.

King Mob wrote: »

But if you're now moving the goalposts to claim that they never said it was Palestinians, why did they say it in the first place and why did you try to argue that they thought all terrorists were Palestinians?

I said that some Israelis view all Palestinians as terrorists and use both terms interchangeably. They never said that the attacks were carried out by Palestians. They implied it but did so in a way that conflates all Palestinians with Islamic extremist terrorists.

King Mob wrote: »

So this couldn't be the explanation for why the Israeli's moved in time?

Could you please drop the "well X is technically possible..." argument. It's a waste of time.

King Mob wrote: »

Why is it impossible that they moved to get a better look at the north face of the first tower (were it was hit) or to see if the second tower was hit or damaged?

And there we go again. I have never said anything is impossible. I am saying that the facts as we know them, (or at least I do ) are highly suspicious.

King Mob wrote: »

Why is them doing the one thing that other people did in any way suspicious?

Well I am blue in the face explaining this. One last time. They DID NOT dod what other people were doing. Nobody else was arrested for celebrating the attacks. Nobody else knew that they were filming a terrorist attack before the 2nd plane hit.

King Mob wrote: »

Yea as long as we just ignore the little lie you told.
You said:

It's not a lie. Your arguing semantics. I perhaps should have been more specific but by "hitting" I meant loosely they would have seen everything from their new viewpoint bar everything bar the actual impact. From the roof of UMS they would have seen essentially nothing of the second plane.

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I am proposing based on their actions, statements and supporting facts that they may have had foreknowledge.

But none of those things support the idea that they had foreknowledge.
All of those things are consistent with people who did not have any foreknowledge. And many of their actions are incompatible with the actions of someone who had foreknowledge.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Less of that "suits you" bollox thanks. Nothing "suits me". I am trying to address the facts. Perhaps you could join me in this and not make it personal.

I said that some Israelis view all Palestinians as terrorists and use both terms interchangeably. They never said that the attacks were carried out by Palestians. They implied it but did so in a way that conflates all Palestinians with Islamic extremist terrorists.

But I'm only pointing it out because you are applying a double standard.
You are saying that since they did not say in direct terms that they thought that Palestinians were responsible we cannot take that meaning from what they said.
But then on the other hand you are doing exactly that with another of thier statements.

But then this double standard still does not address my point about it.
They leapt to the conclusion that it was Palestinians before anyone could have known who was to blame.
People leaping to such conclusions and believing them to be true regardless of evidence and logic isn't uncommon.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Could you please drop the "well X is technically possible..." argument. It's a waste of time.

And there we go again. I have never said anything is impossible. I am saying that the facts as we know them, (or at least I do ) are highly suspicious.

But you see, I'm not just saying it's "technically possible" I'm showing how there are simpler, much more likely explanations. And since there exist such explanations we cannot rely on the argument you are trying to make, that the only explanation is that they had foreknowledge.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Well I am blue in the face explaining this. One last time. They DID NOT dod what other people were doing. Nobody else was arrested for celebrating the attacks. Nobody else knew that they were filming a terrorist attack before the 2nd plane hit.

You're blue in the face because you keep throwing this red herring up to deflect from the point I was making.

You are trying to use their moving to a new location just in time as evidence of their foreknowledge. This being a separate point from their dancing.
This was what I was referring to as what hundreds of others were doing.
Not their dancing.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It's not a lie. Your arguing semantics. I perhaps should have been more specific but by "hitting" I meant loosely they would have seen everything from their new viewpoint bar everything bar the actual impact. From the roof of UMS they would have seen essentially nothing of the second plane.

So by hitting you meant everything except the actually hitting.
So really the back of the building?
Which was also the same side as the hit from the first plane?
I wonder what other things you might see on that side...

And any comment on the contradictions I pointed out in your narrative?

Brown Bomber

I think it's your turn to show your hand. Why is the spies with foreknowledge scenario impossible?

And what is your account of what happened?

Please include or consider:

1. celebrating the attacks
2. The move which gave far better view of the second plane hitting before it arrived
3. How the knew it was a terrorist attack before the 2nd plane
4. Why the company they worked for had little evidence of a legitimate business and was a possible "fraudelent operation"
5. Why it's owner left two houses and his business behind and fled to Israel in the days after 9-11
6. Why there was no moving equipment in the moving van the five were arrested in but there was fake ID's and flight tickets for Sept 12th.
7. Why Marc Perelman of The Jewish Daily Forward, who investigated the case confirmed that some of the movers were confirmed Mossad agents

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I think it's your turn to show your hand.

Well saves you from addressing the points I've been trying to get you to address for the last few pages I suppose.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Why is the spies with foreknowledge scenario impossible?

I don't think it's impossible, just very very unlikely.
Reasons include:

• No plausible reason to dance and draw attention to themselves.
• They would need to be at a Three Stooges level of incompetence to explain all of their mistakes.
• There's was no benefit giving them foreknowledge or sending them to the field.
• There's a massive risk of doing either of those things leading to the conspiracy being outed.
• And there's no facts that can be only explained by them having foreknowledge.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And what is your account of what happened?

Please include or consider:

1. celebrating the attacks
2. The move which gave far better view of the second plane hitting before it arrived
3. How the knew it was a terrorist attack before the 2nd plane
4. Why the company they worked for had little evidence of a legitimate business and was a possible "fraudelent operation"
5. Why it's owner left two houses and his business behind and fled to Israel in the days after 9-11
6. Why there was no moving equipment in the moving van the five were arrested in but there was fake ID's and flight tickets for Sept 12th.
7. Why Marc Perelman of The Jewish Daily Forward, who investigated the case confirmed that some of the movers were confirmed Mossad agents

In order:

• They celebrated because they were insensitive jerks who were either cheering the large, impressive explosions or as they much later said cheering how a terrorist attack would alter the US's foreign policy.
• They moved to a different location to get a better view, as many many other witnesses did that day. They could have moved to get a clearer view of the damaged north side of the first tower or moved to see if the other tower was also damaged. Perhaps they though higher ground would offer them a better view even if it was further away. Or maybe their boss told them to leave the office and get to work, only to have them go somewhere else to gawk.
• I've explained several times why they might have "known" it was a terrorist attack, the same reason they "knew" it was Palestinians. They leapt to that conclusion. Of course this is ignoring the fact that they had made the statement well after it was a terrorist attack and it's assuming that the evidence shows that they were celebrating between the attacks.
• There's many explanations for why there was no evidence that there was a legitimate business. All or most of their gear was out in their vans. The business could have been in the process of moving from or to a new building or in the process of replacing old equipment. It could have all been lent to friends of the employees who wanted to move in the wake of the attack. Or it could even have been the opinion of an overzealous agent or department desperate to find some bad guys to blame the attacks on. Or a hundred other explanations. But even if the only one is that they were a Mossad front, this does not prove that theu had foreknowledge.
• The own could have felt unsafe in New York. Or expected an even larger attack back home in Israel and he wanted to be there for his family. Maybe he feared that he and/or his employees would be blamed regardless, either by the authorities or by the public. Or maybe he was already feeling such backlash from local people who had heard about his guys being arrested in connection with the attacks. Or maybe it was a thousand other reasons. And again, even if this did show he was a Mossad agent, it does not show he had foreknowledge.
• The moving van could be empty because the guys left in a rush and didn't bother to load it? Or maybe they had left it at their last job site and had left them there in the rush to see what was happening. As for the passports, the guys were immigrants, it was handy to have on them (I sometimes carry my passport around in my backpack, is that suspicious?). Also you claim there was "fake ID" but the FBI only found one such example: a college ID card, which in the previous thread you said wasn't a big deal. As for the tickets, they could have been for anyone or anything, maybe the guys were planning to leave that day after work, perhaps going to a friends house to crash during the night and maybe even using the van to drive to the airport. (Which would the passports, the tickets, the cash and, if one of them was under 21, the college ID.)
• Marc Perelman of The Jewish Daily Forward did not produce any evidence to back up his assertion, just quoted an unverifiable, unnamed source. I don't think you are using the same definition of the word "confirmed" that I am.

So what is your explanation for all of the above?

Brown Bomber

So it's a series of incredible coincidences that ends up with Marc Perelman outright lying in the Jewish Daily Forward and the business/front's owner on a FBI terrorist suspect list?

There are so many might's/maybes/could be/could haves/possiblies in your post. What do you think happened?

BTW...You claimed you read the FBI report. You didn't pay any attention to it in that case because so many of "maybe" points have been addressed in the report.

Di0genes

Brown Bomber wrote: »

There are so many might's/maybes/could be/could haves/possiblies in your post. What do you think happened?

Why dont you out line what you think the dancing middle easterns were doing, exactly.

weisses

Di0genes wrote: »

Why dont you out line what you think the dancing middle easterns were doing, exactly.

Just read the thread and then you can answer your own question

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So it's a series of incredible coincidences that ends up with Marc Perelman outright lying in the Jewish Daily Forward and the business/front's owner on a FBI terrorist suspect list?

It might be, or maybe he might be serving an agenda, or maybe he's just been suckered into the conspiracy theories like many others.
But again you fail to actually address the point I was making.
He does not provide a verifiable, named source for his claim.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

There are so many might's/maybes/could be/could haves/possiblies in your post. What do you think happened?

Those are some of the things I think probably happened. I use mights or maybes because I can't possibly know which ones are the right possibilities or which aren't. But the important point is that all of them are far more likely than them being involved in a nonsensical conspiracy.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

BTW...You claimed you read the FBI report. You didn't pay any attention to it in that case because so many of "maybe" points have been addressed in the report.

Unfortunately I'm not going to take your word for it. You'll actually have to put at least as much effort in as I did and explain how the FBI report does so.

Or at least do the same courtesy that I gave you and explain what you think happened in reference to the same points you brought up.

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

Just read the thread and then you can answer your own question

This point is not addressed anywhere on the thread.
There has never been a plausible explanation for why those involved in the conspiracy would bother sending these guys out.

BB just asked me to outline what I had already outlined several times in this thread to deflect from points he did not and could not address.

So maybe you'd like to explain what you think they were supposed to have been doing?

weisses

In post 32 he answered the question

Di0genes

weisses wrote: »

Just read the thread and then you can answer your own question

I have. and Brown Bomber has not done so.

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

In post 32 he answered the question

The only point I can see that's in anyway close to an answer to that point is were he says that it's a surveillance operation.
Is this what you are referring to?

Also I assume that you've no interest in engaging in the discussion and answering my question?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

The only point I can see that's in anyway close to an answer to that point is were he says that it's a surveillance operation.
Is this what you are referring to?

Also I assume that you've no interest in engaging in the discussion and answering my question?

You assumed right

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

You assumed right

That's a relief, otherwise you might have been forced to think about what you believe.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

That's a relief, otherwise you might have been forced to think about what you believe.

You assumed wrong

I have no trouble to think about what i believe

Brown Bomber

Di0genes wrote: »

Why dont you out line what you think the dancing middle easterns were doing, exactly.

Dancing.

Brown Bomber

Di0genes wrote: »

I have. and Brown Bomber has not done so.

Well I have as it happens, in the OP.

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.

For arguments sake I can speculate.

There is undoubtedly a prima facie case that Urban Moving Systems was a front. This begs the question was it a criminal or intelligence front? Marc Perelman in a 2002 article for The Jewish Daily Forward stated at least some of the Israelis were Mossad agents. He confirmed this again in a 2007 interview. There is no reason to suggest Perelman is lying. I am therefore inclined to believe that the group were Mossad spies on a surveillance mission in the US.

Who were the spying on?

I would speculate either a) Islamic extremists b) US citizens in positions of influence.

I would speculate that they were spying on Islamic radicals in New Jersey.

New Jersey was a central point for many of the hijackers as Gerald Shea, a retired corporate lawyer explains.

It soon became apparent, however, that Hudson and Bergen Counties were the second most important locus of the future hijackers’ U.S. operation and was the staging ground for the hijacking of the Pentagon Plane.

The May 2002 FBI Suspect List shows, unlike its October 2001 predecessor, that all five future hijackers of the Pentagon Plane, Khaled al Mihdhar, Nawaf al Hazmi, Salem al Hazmi, Majed Moqed89 and Hani Hanjour (the pilot) lived or had mailing addresses or were otherwise active in towns closely interspersed, within about a four-mile radius, with the towns of the Israeli New Jersey Group (Weehawken, Jersey City, Fair Lawn and Rutherford). The future hijackers’ towns included Paterson,90 Fort Lee,91 Totowa,92 Hoboken93 and Elmwood Park.94 There were also FBI Suspects in Jersey City,95 Harrison,96 Seacaucus and Hackensack

Atta, al Omari, and Ahmed al Ghamdi, though based in Hollywood and (al Ghamdi) Delray Beach, Florida, were among the hijackers who had addresses in Paterson, Fort Lee and Elmwood Park as well as in South Wayne. Up to six or more of the hijackers appear to have lived on Union Avenue in Paterson at one time or another between March and August 31, 2001
http://www.christopherketcham.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/Gerald%20Shea%20Memo%20to%20the%209-11%20Commission.pdf

So you have IMO probable Mossad surveillance agents working the area which was very active with many of the future hijackers who are seen celebrating and recording the attacks.

I think it is concievable that they were celebrating a job well done. i.e. their intelligence reports gathered through surveillance of the highjackers or their associates/facilitators was accurate.

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

There is undoubtedly a prima facie case that Urban Moving Systems was a front. This begs the question was it a criminal or intelligence front? Marc Perelman in a 2002 article for The Jewish Daily Forward stated at least some of the Israelis were Mossad agents. He confirmed this again in a 2007 interview. There is no reason to suggest Perelman is lying. I am therefore inclined to believe that the group were Mossad spies on a surveillance mission in the US.

Again what evidence does he present to actually confirm this assertion?
Or are you just buying uncritically what he says because 'he has no reason to lie'?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

Again what evidence does he present to actually confirm this assertion?
Or are you just buying uncritically what he says because 'he has no reason to lie'?

It's an anonymous source. It hasn't been challenged or retracted and Perelman's findings from his investigation was reiterated five years later. Are you calling Perelman a liar? And if so, what is his motivation for lying?

Of course there is reason for the FBI source to remain anonymous

Cameron reported Dec. 13 that federal agents were afraid to criticize Israel. "Investigators within the DEA, INS and FBI have all told Fox News that to pursue or even suggest Israeli spying ... is considered career suicide."
http://clatl.com/atlanta/the-spies-who-came-in-from-the-art-sale/Content?oid=1236109

Again, like everything else in this it can't be taken in isolation. It needs to be taken in combination with the FBI team leader categorising UMS as a "possible fraudelent operation", the fact that no moving equipment was found in the moving vans when they were arrested, the lying to police and all the rest of it that we have already been over.

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It's an anonymous source. It hasn't been challenged or retracted and Perelman's findings from his investigation was reiterated five years later. Are you calling Perelman a liar? And if so, what is his motivation for lying?

Of course there is reason for the FBI source to remain anonymous

So his claim is unverifiable?
You're now trying to shift the burden of proof rather than admit that.

He offers nothing to support his claim. Why should I believe him exactly? Would you like to rely on an argument from authority?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Again, like everything else in this it can't be taken in isolation. It needs to be taken in combination with the FBI team leader categorising UMS as a "possible fraudelent operation", the fact that no moving equipment was found in the moving vans when they were arrested, the lying to police and all the rest of it that we have already been over.

Yea, we have been over it and each of these things fall apart under scrutiny, then you say "it can't be taken in isolation" to deflect from the fact that none of them stand up.
And that is of course after you shift from and ignore all the other points I've brought up.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

So his claim is unverifiable?
You're now trying to shift the burden of proof rather than admit that.

He offers nothing to support his claim. Why should I believe him exactly? Would you like to rely on an argument from authority?

Yea, we have been over it and each of these things fall apart under scrutiny, then you say "it can't be taken in isolation" to deflect from the fact that none of them stand up.
And that is of course after you shift from and ignore all the other points I've brought up.

There is no grey area here. Either Perelman was told by an FBI source who wished to remain anonymous for obvious reasons that they were Mossad agents. or he was not and he is lying.

In your view is he lying? And more importantly why is he lying?

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

There is no grey area here. Either Perelman was told by an FBI source who wished to remain anonymous for obvious reasons that they were Mossad agents. or he was not and he is lying.

In your view is he lying? And more importantly why is he lying?

That's not addressing my points at all and is continuing to shift the burden of proof.

I see no reason to believe what he claims.
He just states it and you are using an argument from authority.

He could be lying, or he could be nuts or he could have been misreporting what he heard or he could be sucked into the same stuff thousands of truthers are or a thousand other possibilities.
But the fact remains that he provides not a scrap of evidence to support his claim.
You know he doesn't produce any such evidence yet you believe what he claims anyway.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

That's not addressing my points at all and is continuing to shift the burden of proof.

I see no reason to believe what he claims.
He just states it and you are using an argument from authority.

He could be lying, or he could be nuts or he could have been misreporting what he heard or he could be sucked into the same stuff thousands of truthers are or a thousand other possibilities.
But the fact remains that he provides not a scrap of evidence to support his claim.
You know he doesn't produce any such evidence yet you believe what he claims anyway.

So you can't give a specific reason why he'd lie?

Isn't it plausible that he investigated the case, spoke with his FBI source who wished to be quoted without his/her name included in the article due to the sensitive nature of the case?

Isn't it unlikely that The Jewish Daily Forward's news editors, with a target-market of English speaking Jews would allow this highly controversial and exclusive information be published in their reputable journal without being sure of the accuracy of the information?

Isn't it likely that a group of furniture movers that are accused of being illegal spies on foriegn soil would sue (and easily win) for libel if it was a false claim?

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So you can't give a specific reason why he'd lie?

I gave several reasons why he would lie, or at least tell something other than the truth.

He could be lying, or he could be nuts or he could have been misreporting what he heard or he could be sucked into the same stuff thousands of truthers are or a thousand other possibilities.

But I again pointed out the important thing which you ignored.
He doesn't provide any evidence for his claim.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Isn't it plausible that he investigated the case, spoke with his FBI source who wished to be quoted without his/her name included in the article due to the sensitive nature of the case?

Plausible, no. Possible yes. Just as it is possible that he's wrong or making it up.
But without evidence, I see no reason to accept his claims as true.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Isn't it unlikely that The Jewish Daily Forward's news editors, with a target-market of English speaking Jews would allow this highly controversial and exclusive information be published in their reputable journal without being sure of the accuracy of the information?

So an argument from authority?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Isn't it likely that a group of furniture movers that are accused of being illegal spies on foriegn soil would sue (and easily win) for libel if it was a false claim?

No. Even assuming that they read his stuff and took it seriously, both stretches. Libel cases are expense and often pointless, especially since the accusation has already been made and is in the public eye. And they get even more expense and complicated for ones that are across borders.
No it's not a given that they would sue.

But again all of this is just deflections form the point (or at least this most recent one) you don't want to face.
He doesn't provide any evidence for his claim.

Now do you acknowledge that or would you like to continue to dance around the subject?

Border-Rat

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkhMwID-IYQ

Israelis trying to blow up the George Washington Bridge and elsewhere celebrating the murder of 3,000. I would presume the reason they were celebrating is because of the billions of oil that was piped out of Iraq into Israel.

Obviously, putting 2 and 2 together, Iraq was invaded off the back of 9/11.

King Mob

Border-Rat wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkhMwID-IYQ

Israelis trying to blow up the George Washington Bridge and elsewhere celebrating the murder of 3,000. I would presume the reason they were celebrating is because of the billions of oil that was piped out of Iraq into Israel.

Obviously, putting 2 and 2 together, Iraq was invaded off the back of 9/11.

So ignoring the total lack of evidence for the first bit, and the even bigger lack of evidence connecting it to the Dancing Israelis, why does the above imply they had foreknowledge or that they were involved?

Border-Rat

King Mob wrote: »

So ignoring the total lack of evidence for the first bit, and the even bigger lack of evidence connecting it to the Dancing Israelis, why does the above imply they had foreknowledge or that they were involved?

The New York Times reported Thursday that a group of five men had set up video cameras aimed at the Twin Towers prior to the attack on Tuesday, and were seen congratulating one another afterwards.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,34250,00.html

Police received several calls from angry New Jersey residents claiming "middle-eastern" men with a white van were videotaping the disaster with shouts of joy and mockery.

Ha'aretz Newspaper, 17th September 2001

"They were like happy, you know … They didn't look shocked to me" said a witness

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123885&page=1

[T]hey were seen by New Jersey residents on Sept. 11 making fun of the World Trade Center ruins and going to extreme lengths to photograph themselves in front of the wreckage.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/printarticle/gam/20011217/UHELDM

Witnesses saw them jumping for joy in Liberty State Park after the initial impact.

- The Record, North Jersey News, Sept 12th, 2001

Later on, other witnesses saw them celebrating on a roof in Weehawken, and still more witnesses later saw them celebrating with high fives in a Jersey City parking lot

http://www.gothamgazette.com/citizen/jan02/7.shtml

"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

- The Record, North Jersey News, Sept 12th, 2001

Anyone with a reasonable IQ can deduce the obvious here. Israeli Mossad - at the very least, knew that it was going to happen. Their acts of celebration and mockery implicate them further. Again, I think that the billions Israel took from Mosul in oil and oil proceeds as a result of the invasion of Iraq is why they were so 'joyous'. Not to mention having the US remove Saddam as an enemy and solve Israeli fresh water concerns through Iraq.

But I suppose these are just more coincidences under that huge, gigantic 'conspiracy' carpet? :rolleyes: