The 9-11 Dancing Middle Easterners and their vans

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No you haven't. This is not an explanation of what has happened. This is you beating around the bush to try and avoid the fact that you don't have an explanation.

Van with suspected explosives >>>> Van with explosives >>>> Van exploded is not conflicting at all as it is a plausible chain of events.

And reports getting muddled is a plausible chain of events that does not require a vast conspiracy involving the media and the entirety of the NYPD.

You have nothing beyond 3rd and 4th hand accounts of a possible explosion and a van possibly containing explosives.
No pictures, no video, no nothing.

And yea, your chain of events is contradicting because they refer to two vans.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

This is what I said in the very first post:


Either you have a decent explanation or you don't. You don't seem capable of providing one.

So you have absolutely no explanation at all (decent or otherwise) that would make any sort of sense. You won't even speculate or guess about such an explanation.

However you then accuse us of exactly that (despite us doing otherwise) then use that accusation as support for the belief in the conspiracy.

It's another example of your double standard.

stuar

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Either you have a decent explanation or you don't. You don't seem capable of providing one.

he wont, normally dissapears from threads when truth comes about

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

And reports getting muddled is a plausible chain of events that does not require a vast conspiracy involving the media and the entirety of the NYPD.

You have nothing beyond 3rd and 4th hand accounts of a possible explosion and a van possibly containing explosives.
No pictures, no video, no nothing.

And yea, your chain of events is contradicting because they refer to two vans.

So you have absolutely no explanation at all (decent or otherwise) that would make any sort of sense. You won't even speculate or guess about such an explanation.

However you then accuse us of exactly that (despite us doing otherwise) then use that accusation as support for the belief in the conspiracy.

It's another example of your double standard.

Listen, I asked if anyone could explain two events that occured on 9-11.

1. The mural van which accord to the Police exploded, it's passengers fled and were arrested after fleeing.
2. The reports of arrests of a group of men who were apparently arrested for carrying explosives in their van.

You interjected but have offered nothing of any substance to explain whatever it is that you supposedly believe. For some reason the presence of two vans seems to be causing you and Diogenes some difficulty, so we can take them one-by-one starting with the mural van.


The police radio recorded officers on the spot at King Street who apprehended the two suspects who had fled from the mural van on 9.11 van exploded according to the police officers own statements.

What is your opinion on this?

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Listen, I asked if anyone could explain two events that occured on 9-11.

1. The mural van which accord to the Police exploded, it's passengers fled and were arrested after fleeing.
2. The reports of arrests of a group of men who were apparently arrested for carrying explosives in their van.

You interjected but have offered nothing of any substance to explain whatever it is that you supposedly believe. For some reason the presence of two vans seems to be causing you and Diogenes some difficulty, so we can take them one-by-one starting with the mural van.


The police radio recorded officers on the spot at King Street who apprehended the two suspects who had fled from the mural van on 9.11 van exploded according to the police officers own statements.

What is your opinion on this?

Again this could be due to many many crossed wires, miscommunications, cock ups and increasingly likely, plain exargerations and lies from the conspiracy theorists.
This is the explanation.

So we'll start with the first one:
Where exactly is the source for this claim about the mural van.
Is it only that transcript of the police radio you posted?
How about photos of it or the damage it caused?

And again you have no explanation at all for them.
They make absolutely no sense in the context of a conspiracy.
Why exactly would anyone involved in the conspiracy drive around in a van painted in what was about to happen and therefore blow the entire operation?
Israeli reverse commandos again?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

So basically you're closing your mind and refusing to even question what you believe?

So basically you're closing your mind and refusing to even question the "official" story !

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

Again this could be due to many many crossed wires, miscommunications, cock ups

Crossed wires? Missed communications? Cock ups?

Do you honestly think a policeman can't tell the difference between a van exploding and a van not exploding? That a policeman can't tell the difference between suspects fleeing and suspects not fleeing? That they can't tell the difference between suspects being apprehended and suspects not being apprehended?

Where is the window for "cock ups" here?

King Mob wrote: »

and increasingly likely, plain exargerations and lies from the conspiracy theorists.

Is this in reference to me? Where are the lies? Kindly explain.

King Mob wrote: »

This is the explanation.

Again you've made no explanation.

King Mob wrote: »

So we'll start with the first one:
Where exactly is the source for this claim about the mural van.

A guy who is not a conspiracy theorist but a police scanner enthusiast recorded the police transmission.

King Mob wrote: »

Is it only that transcript of the police radio you posted?

No. There is the actual recording (already posted).

King Mob wrote: »

How about photos of it or the damage it caused?

This is a photo of the "damage" of the suicide car bombing in Stockholm last year the following day.

King Mob wrote: »

They make absolutely no sense in the context of a conspiracy.
Why exactly would anyone involved in the conspiracy drive around in a van painted in what was about to happen and therefore blow the entire operation?
Israeli reverse commandos again?

How should I know? They could've been decoys faciliitating the attack on the George Washinton Bridge, or patsies.

Of course the mural van wouldn't draw any suspicion before the actual attacks themselves for obvious reasons.

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Crossed wires? Missed communications? Cock ups?

Do you honestly think a policeman can't tell the difference between a van exploding and a van not exploding? That a policeman can't tell the difference between suspects fleeing and suspects not fleeing? That they can't tell the difference between suspects being apprehended and suspects not being apprehended?

Where is the window for "cock ups" here?

Again, what's so difficult to believe about people miscommunicating stuff?
Even in the radio transcript they have to repeat themselves several times.
It could have easily been the case that the police were working from 2nd or 3rd hand knowledge when referring to that van.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Again you've made no explanation.

I have done. you're just ignoring it.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

A guy who is not a conspiracy theorist but a police scanner enthusiast recorded the police transmission.

No. There is the actual recording (already posted).

So that's it?
No pictures of the van before or after?
No police reports about it?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

This is a photo of the "damage" of the suicide car bombing in Stockholm last year the following day.

So no, you have no photos of the damage it caused or the wreckage it left of itself. Because people totally wouldn't have noticed and taken a picture?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

How should I know? They could've been decoys faciliitating the attack on the George Washinton Bridge, or patsies.

Of course the mural van wouldn't draw any suspicion before the actual attacks themselves for obvious reasons.

But you are asking us the very same question, yet when we can't provide an explanation (as long as you continue to ignore the fact we did) it's somehow support for the conspiracy.
Yet somehow when you are asked your question, it suddenly become impossible to speculate.
As I said, double standard.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

Again, what's so difficult to believe about people miscommunicating stuff?
Even in the radio transcript they have to repeat themselves several times.
It could have easily been the case that the police were working from 2nd or 3rd hand knowledge when referring to that van.

No it couldn't. If you paid attention you would know that it was a police officer on the scene who informed the rest of the fleeing suspects, their arrest and their van exploding.

King Mob wrote: »

I have done. you're just ignoring it.

Your so-called explanation doesn't qualify as it is incredibly weak. Your explanation of a Police Officer seeing a van explode and arresting the drivers is that he is confused and it never happened. This is obviously absurd.

King Mob wrote: »

So that's it?
No pictures of the van before or after?
No police reports about it?

I am sure that is not it, The Emergency Services and the Bomb Squad were called to the scene. Nothing has ever been released, this event has literally been plunged down the memory hole which makes it more suspcious.

King Mob wrote: »

So no, you have no photos of the damage it caused or the wreckage it left of itself. Because people totally wouldn't have noticed and taken a picture?

A car exploding doesn't necessarily leave outside damage. The scene could be controlled. This doesn't take away from the police transmission.

King Mob wrote: »

But you are asking us the very same question, yet when we can't provide an explanation (as long as you continue to ignore the fact we did) it's somehow support for the conspiracy.
Yet somehow when you are asked your question, it suddenly become impossible to speculate.
As I said, double standard.

No double standard. I said I don't have an explanation; never claimed to. You seem to think you do but don't. That is the difference.

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No it couldn't. If you paid attention you would know that it was a police officer on the scene who informed the rest of the fleeing suspects, their arrest and their van exploding.

And what exactly is this based on?
Because that context is not in the transcript you posted.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Your so-called explanation doesn't qualify as it is incredibly weak. Your explanation of a Police Officer seeing a van explode and arresting the drivers is that he is confused and it never happened. This is obviously absurd.

And why is it "incredibly weak"?
What's impossible about miscommunications being thrown around before anything was confirmed?
The transcript you posted had nothing about the officers actually seeing the van explode.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I am sure that is not it, The Emergency Services and the Bomb Squad were called to the scene. Nothing has ever been released, this event has literally been plunged down the memory hole which makes it more suspcious.

So again, you presupposing a conspiracy.
The fact that nothing significant was released also coincides with it being a muddled false alarm does it not?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

A car exploding doesn't necessarily leave outside damage. The scene could be controlled. This doesn't take away from the police transmission.

So what you're saying is that the police were aware of the attack and knew to keep everything quiet immediately, keep people from taking any photographs, yet also somehow talk about it on the radio and let it leak to the press?
But a van exploding would leave remnants of the van on the scene and would make a street full of people curious about what had just exploded outside.
Yet no wreckage. No pictures. No witnesses.
Almost like it never actually happened.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No double standard. I said I don't have an explanation; never claimed to. You seem to think you do but don't. That is the difference.

So then why does you not having a sane rational explanation not take away from the conspiracy like you think it does with the official story.
Shouldn't the fact that you have no explanation at all make you question the conspiracy story?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

And what exactly is this based on?
Because that context is not in the transcript you posted.

Yes, it is actually.

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

King Mob wrote: »

And why is it "incredibly weak"?

I've already explained.

King Mob wrote: »

What's impossible about miscommunications being thrown around before anything was confirmed?

Because no amount of "miscommunications" can account for a police officer witnessing/being directly involved (it's not absolutely clear) a van being stopped by the police, the passengers fleeing and subsequently being arrested and then the van exploding.

King Mob wrote: »

The transcript you posted had nothing about the officers actually seeing the van explode.

Again,

officer: we got both suspects under kay, we have the suspects who drivedrove in the van and that exploded

King Mob wrote: »

So again, you presupposing a conspiracy.
The fact that nothing significant was released also coincides with it being a muddled false alarm does it not?

Yes it would if you ignore the Police transmission but there is no reason to do so.

King Mob wrote: »

So what you're saying is that the police were aware of the attack and knew to keep everything quiet immediately, keep people from taking any photographs, yet also somehow talk about it on the radio and let it leak to the press?

No what I am saying is that police take cameras for evidence purposes. Again please make yourself more familiar with the facts. You again are confusing the two vans. There was no press coverage of this whatsover.

King Mob wrote: »

But a van exploding would leave remnants of the van on the scene and would make a street full of people curious about what had just exploded outside.
Yet no wreckage. No pictures. No witnesses.
Almost like it never actually happened.

Oh but there are witnesses. The Police Officers who arrested them and later the medics and drug squad members who were called to the scene.

King Mob wrote: »

So then why does you not having a sane rational explanation not take away from the conspiracy like you think it does with the official story.
Shouldn't the fact that you have no explanation at all make you question the conspiracy story?

No.

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yes, it is actually.

officer: we got both suspects under kay, we have the suspects who drivedrove in the van and that exploded

So can you please explain how this indicates that the officers saying this actually saw the van explode?

Because it at best just indicates that they have suspects which is even an assumption as "we" could mean either them or their precinct or even the police force as a whole.

Point is that even this radio transmission (which is your only evidence) can be explained by other events.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I've already explained.

No just dismissing and refusing to discuss as usual.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Because no amount of "miscommunications" can account for a police officer witnessing/being directly involved (it's not absolutely clear) a van being stopped by the police, the passengers fleeing and subsequently being arrested and then the van exploding.

Yes it would if you ignore the Police transmission but there is no reason to do so.

No it's not clear at all. Not even the grammar of the sentence makes sense.
That transmission does not indicate that any police officer actually witnessed the van or it exploding.

It could have easily been the case of a member of the public reporting the van exploding (perhaps erroneously or again perhaps because he had heard a false 2nd hand story) and the police are referring to suspects they think are connected to that report.

What the transmission does not include is stuff you would expect to hear if a bomb went off. Such are clear confirmations that there was an explosion. Damage and casualty reports, requests for the appropriate emergency services.

But instead the only thing you have to actually support the claim is a cop reported: 'we have the suspects we thing are from that van that was reported to have exploded.'

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No what I am saying is that police take cameras for evidence purposes. Again please make yourself more familiar with the facts.

So then can you provide anything to suggest that anyone's camera was actually taken? Were are the civilian witness reports?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You again are confusing the two vans. There was no press coverage of this whatsover.

And why wasn't there? Why did they let people know about the one on the bridge but not this one?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Oh but there are witnesses. The Police Officers who arrested them and later the medics and drug squad members who were called to the scene.

So please provide some other reports that clearly and unambiguously refer to the van and it exploding.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No.

This is not an answer to my question.
I asked:

Why does you not having a sane rational explanation not take away from the conspiracy like you think it does with the official story.
Shouldn't the fact that you have no explanation at all make you question the conspiracy story?

But if you think that not having any sane explanation at all for something does not mean you need to start questioning things, why are you asking for such explanations?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

So can you please explain how this indicates that the officers saying this actually saw the van explode?

Because it at best just indicates that they have suspects which is even an assumption as "we" could mean either them or their precinct or even the police force as a whole.

Point is that even this radio transmission (which is your only evidence) can be explained by other events.

This is turning into a completely pointless conversation. Are you a skeptic or a debunker?
The Policeman who informing the others about the suspects/arrest/explosion is obviously there. That's why the radio co-ordinator guy in the office asks him "are you okay over there" through his radio.

King Mob wrote: »

That transmission does not indicate that any police officer actually witnessed the van or it exploding.

It does, at least to anyone who is not in denial.

This is the sequence of events:

1. Van sighted with mural of a plane diving into the city of New York spotted.
2. Van is stopped by the police.
3. 2 Passengers flee the van.
4. Both passengers are caught and arrested.
5. Van explodes.

5 obviously happened after point two and three above so naturally it follows that the police did see the van explode as the police involvement was the catalyst for the passengers to flee.

King Mob wrote: »

What the transmission does not include is stuff you would expect to hear if a bomb went off. Such are clear confirmations that there was an explosion. Damage and casualty reports, requests for the appropriate emergency services.

Yes it does. The partial transcript is not the full recording. I've already told you that the Bomb Squad and the EMU (Emergency Services Unit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Service_Unit ) were called for on the transmission
So, next?

King Mob wrote: »

So then can you provide anything to suggest that anyone's camera was actually taken? Were are the civilian witness reports?

You tell me. That's what I want to know. There obviously was an event.

King Mob wrote: »

And why wasn't there? Why did they let people know about the one on the bridge but not this one?

Why are you asking me?

King Mob wrote: »

So please provide some other reports that clearly and unambiguously refer to the van and it exploding.

You have it live as it happened from the police. What more could you possibly want?

King Mob wrote: »

But if you think that not having any sane explanation at all for something does not mean you need to start questioning things, why are you asking for such explanations?

Because it is worthy of an explanation. A van, with a mural of a plane crashing into towers in NY on the day of 9-11 explodes after it is stopped by police, it's passengers flee and are arrested and it is not investigated by the 9-11 Commission or even the media.

Nobody even knows what happened to the passengers.

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

This is turning into a completely pointless conversation. Are you a skeptic or a debunker?
The Policeman who informing the others about the suspects/arrest/explosion is obviously there. That's why the radio co-ordinator guy in the office asks him "are you okay over there" through his radio.

And such a question would be asked if they had been investigating a false bomb threat.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It does, at least to anyone who is not in denial.

But it's not I'm afraid. Nor am I in denial.
You however are desperate to find the conspiracy in it and as such have landed on one conclusion and refuse to consider any other explanations.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

This is the sequence of events:

1. Van sighted with mural of a plane diving into the city of New York spotted.
2. Van is stopped by the police.
3. 2 Passengers flee the van.
4. Both passengers are caught and arrested.
5. Van explodes.

5 obviously happened after point two and three above so naturally it follows that the police did see the van explode as the police involvement was the catalyst for the passengers to flee.

Points 2 and 3 are not confirmed by your transcript, not is 5.
4 is true in that "suspects" were arrested.
And importantly, 1 is neither confirmed or makes a lick of sense.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yes it does. The partial transcript is not the full recording. I've already told you that the Bomb Squad and the EMU (Emergency Services Unit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Service_Unit ) were called for on the transmission
So, next?

Great please point out were they do this.
And point to the bits beyond the ambiguous statement you've been clinging to so far that confirm that there actually was an explosion.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You tell me. That's what I want to know. There obviously was an event.

But you proposed that they took the cameras to explain why you have no pictures.
And you still can't explain why there's no civilian reports of any explosion.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Why are you asking me?

Because it "is worthy of an explanation." Isn't it?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You have it live as it happened from the police. What more could you possibly want?

An unambiguous statement?
Pictures?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Because it is worthy of an explanation. A van, with a mural of a plane crashing into towers in NY on the day of 9-11 explodes after it is stopped by police, it's passengers flee and are arrested and it is not investigated by the 9-11 Commission or even the media.

Nobody even knows what happened to the passengers.

So then why is it not worthy of a conspiracy explanation?
Why does it not matter that you can't provide any logical sane explanation for these things?
Are you holding conspiracy beliefs to a different standard perhaps?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

And such a question would be asked if they had been investigating a false bomb threat.

Ey? Anyone ever been injured by a "false bomb threat" before? Of course they haven't that'd be ridiculous as are your desperate attempts to protect the hallowed Official conspiracy theory.

A quick paraphrased recap of the Police radio transmission:

Police Officer: Two suspects have fled the van. We have them arrested now. Their van has exploded. Can we get some help over here!?
Police switchboard operator: Are you okay over there?

King Mob version: Somebody, somewhere heard a rumour about something or other.

King Mob wrote: »

But it's not I'm afraid. Nor am I in denial.
You however are desperate to find the conspiracy in it and as such have landed on one conclusion and refuse to consider any other explanations.

You are in denial. I am more than prepared to take on any reasonable and rational explanation as long as they don't insult my intelligence. Your, "they are probably imagining arresting the suspects and the van exploding" is contrary to the very basics of common sense.

King Mob wrote: »

Points 2 and 3 are not confirmed by your transcript, not is 5.
4 is true in that "suspects" were arrested.
And importantly, 1 is neither confirmed or makes a lick of sense.

The transcript as I've already explained numerous times is just a partial transcript of the Police radio recording. All are confirmed in the recording itself. Please take the time to listen to it and stop wasting mine.

¨

King Mob wrote: »

Great please point out were they do this.

No. I'm not your babysitter. I've provided link after link in this thread. Listen to it yourself.

I've lost the will to respond any further just now.

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Ey? Anyone ever been injured by a "false bomb threat" before? Of course they haven't that'd be ridiculous as are your desperate attempts to protect the hallowed Official conspiracy theory.

A quick paraphrased recap of the Police radio transmission:

Police Officer: Two suspects have fled the van. We have them arrested now. Their van has exploded. Can we get some help over here!?
Police switchboard operator: Are you okay over there?

King Mob version: Somebody, somewhere heard a rumour about something or other.

Strawman argument.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You are in denial. I am more than prepared to take on any reasonable and rational explanation as long as they don't insult my intelligence. Your, "they are probably imagining arresting the suspects and the van exploding" is contrary to the very basics of common sense.

Strawman argument.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The transcript as I've already explained numerous times is just a partial transcript of the Police radio recording. All are confirmed in the recording itself. Please take the time to listen to it and stop wasting mine.

And experience tells me every time you guys claim this it isn't true.
If the recording actually confirms any of the things I asked for, please point out were.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

No. I'm not your babysitter. I've provided link after link in this thread. Listen to it yourself.

I've lost the will to respond any further just now.

And as always you've avoided my point.

You are using the idea that no one can supposedly explain these reports so therefore the official story is suspect.
However because you have a double standard the actual fact that you cannot provide any explanation at all seems to have no baring on the conspiracy story.

But as you've said, you're too closed minded for this to matter anyway.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

Strawman argument.


Strawman argument.


And experience tells me every time you guys claim this it isn't true.
If the recording actually confirms any of the things I asked for, please point out were.


And as always you've avoided my point.

You are using the idea that no one can supposedly explain these reports so therefore the official story is suspect.
However because you have a double standard the actual fact that you cannot provide any explanation at all seems to have no baring on the conspiracy story.

But as you've said, you're too closed minded for this to matter anyway.

Yeah, just like I thought a waste of time trying to reason with you.

Iäm going to put myself out of my misery and agree with you. The policeman who was on the scene reporting back on the radio who seen the exploded van and the suspects fleeing and then being arrested never actually seen it. It never happened. It was all an illusion. It was The Truman Show II. It was the Matrix. It was a David Copperfield trick. Take your pick.

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yeah, just like I thought a waste of time trying to reason with you.

Iäm going to put myself out of my misery and agree with you. The policeman who was on the scene reporting back on the radio who seen the exploded van and the suspects fleeing and then being arrested never actually seen it. It never happened. It was all an illusion. It was The Truman Show II. It was the Matrix. It was a David Copperfield trick. Take your pick.

And again, a strawman and avoiding my point.
Maybe if you could answer questions and points you have a tough time with directly we could have a mature discussion for once.

but then if you could do that, chances are you wouldn't believe half the nonsense you do...

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

And again, a strawman and avoiding my point.
Maybe if you could answer questions and points you have a tough time with directly we could have a mature discussion for once.

but then if you could do that, chances are you wouldn't believe half the nonsense you do...

I'm not avoiding your point. You don't have one anymore than if you claimed to have a point by saying it was the ghost of Napolean hacking the police frequency and imitating an NYPD cop and leaving the message for a practical joke. Your "police transmission is hearsay" point is a non-point. There is nothing to address.

Please listen to the recording and tell me what you honestly think is the most likely conclusion is that can be drawn,

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

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'm not avoiding your point.....

And yet you still avoid it in this post :rolleyes:

You are using the idea that no one can supposedly explain these reports so therefore the official story is suspect.
However because you have a double standard the actual fact that you cannot provide any explanation at all seems to have no baring on the conspiracy story.

So explain exactly why I must offer an explanation in the first place while you do not and seem to have no problem with the fact that you cannot?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

And yet you still avoid it in this post :rolleyes:


So explain exactly why I must offer an explanation in the first place while you do not and seem to have no problem with the fact that you cannot?

You don't have to explain anything, but if you can't you should admit it. You haven't - Anyway, Im going to sleep...you won't even listen to what we are discussing and comment. This is a pointless excercise. Thanks for wasting both our time. Goodnight.

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You don't have to explain anything, but if you can't you should admit it.

And does this (false) idea that I can't explain it call the official story into question or not?
If not, what exactly is your point with this thread?
If so, why does this not also apply to you and the conspiracy narrative.

And yes, I've listened to the transmission. There's no point in discussing it when you are working so hard to avoid my point.

You answer those direct simple questions for a change, then maybe it'll be worth discussing the video.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

And does this (false) idea that I can't explain it call the official story into question or not?
If not, what exactly is your point with this thread?
If so, why does this not also apply to you and the conspiracy narrative.

And yes, I've listened to the transmission. There's no point in discussing it when you are working so hard to avoid my point.

You answer those direct simple questions for a change, then maybe it'll be worth discussing the video.

As I've explained repeatedly I have addressed your so-called points and have stated they are devoid of any credibility and that is all the addressing they deserve as your "point involves" NYPD Officers being unable to tell the difference between a van exploding and not exploding / Suspects fleeing and not fleeing / Suspects being arrested and not arrested.

Naturally this isn't the case.

If you are not interested in discussing the evidence provided quit wasting my time. Thanks.

Di0genes

Brown Bomber wrote: »

As I've explained repeatedly I have addressed your so-called points and have stated they are devoid of any credibility and that is all the addressing they deserve as your "point involves" NYPD Officers being unable to tell the difference between a van exploding and not exploding / Suspects fleeing and not fleeing / Suspects being arrested and not arrested.

Naturally this isn't the case.

If you are not interested in discussing the evidence provided quit wasting my time. Thanks.

Which NYPD officers? What are their names.

weisses

Di0genes wrote: »

Which NYPD officers? What are their names.

These kind of questions always come up when the discussion is not going as planned for some ... So typical.

weisses

It Baffles me that there was actually a truck (maybe more) driving out there near the WTC on 9/11 with paintings of a plane flying into the WTC

Di0genes

weisses wrote: »

These kind of questions always come up when the discussion is not going as planned for some ... So typical.

Its a perfectly valid point. I've quoted numerous firemen, NYPD officers, port authority workers accounts from 9/11, I have nearly always included their name as they have gone on the record.

Brown Bomber wants us to believe a truck bomb went off on 9/11, I'd like to know the names of officers in this recording so this can be verified.

weisses

Di0genes wrote: »

Its a perfectly valid point. I've quoted numerous firemen, NYPD officers, port authority workers accounts from 9/11, I have nearly always included their name as they have gone on the record.

Brown Bomber wants us to believe a truck bomb went off on 9/11, I'd like to know the names of officers in this recording so this can be verified.

Not everyone will go on record, ....

It doesn't make the claims less valid imo.

Di0genes

weisses wrote: »

Not everyone will go on record, ....

It doesn't make the claims less valid imo.

It does actually.

Several members of the NYPD saw a truck bomb (a truck that bizarrely was supposed to be painted like a plan crashing into NY) explode in broad daylight in the middle of manhattan and there are no eyewitnesses? No police officer willing to discuss it?

weisses

Di0genes wrote: »

It does actually.

Several members of the NYPD saw a truck bomb (a truck that bizarrely was supposed to be painted like a plan crashing into NY) explode in broad daylight in the middle of manhattan and there are no eyewitnesses? No police officer willing to discuss it?

Maybe they are not allowed to discuss it

And the painted truck(s) were there .... Showing a plane crashing into the WTC yes ... Bizarre alright but true

Di0genes

weisses wrote: »

Maybe they are not allowed to discuss it

Okay lets suppose its true? Why? Who gave the order? Why are these officers obeying this order over 10 years later?

And the painted truck(s) were there .... Showing a plane crashing into the WTC yes ...

They were you can prove it? And offer a plausible explanation as to why their was a van painted with plane crashing into the WTC driving around NY that day, And when stopped it exploded allowing the driver to escape. Meanwhile theres no evidence of truck bomb going off. No eyewitnesses and the police officers who made the radio broadcast have never come forward and been identified.

Bizarre alright but true

You have nothing remotely approaching proof to support this claim.