The 9-11 Dancing Middle Easterners and their vans

weisses

Di0genes wrote: »

You have nothing remotely approaching proof to support this claim.

http://transweb.sjsu.edu/mtiportal/research/publications/documents/Sept11.book.htm

official report

chapter 20 i think

And i never talked about exploding Vans

So i think i CAN support my claim

Di0genes

weisses wrote: »

http://transweb.sjsu.edu/mtiportal/research/publications/documents/Sept11.book.htm

official report

Official report of which part of the NYPD?

from your damning report

The vehicle was found to be an innocent delivery truck.

So not a conspiracy then.

chapter 20 i think

And i never talked about exploding Vans

So i think i CAN support my claim

The claim from Brown Bomber was the truck exploded.

Who are the officers who stopped this van?

weisses

Di0genes wrote: »

Official report of which part of the NYPD?

from your damning report



So not a conspiracy then.





The claim from Brown Bomber was the truck exploded.

Who are the officers who stopped this van?

I supported my claim "which you ridiculed" with an official report ... You should be thrilled ..... But keep shifting the goalposts I don't care

King Mob

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.

I am interested in the discussion, just as long as you are willing to answer simple direct questions.
You cannot apparently do that, as usual.
I asked you in clear terms:

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.

If you cannot answer a simple question like this, what's going to happen when I start responding about the video?

Di0genes

weisses wrote: »

I supported my claim "which you ridiculed" with an official report ... You should be thrilled ..... But keep shifting the goalposts I don't care

Okay I'm going to explain something to you here

This started thusly;

brown bomber wrote:

NYPD Officers being unable to tell the difference between a van exploding and not exploding

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

weisss wrote:

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

So you see we were already talking about exploding vans when you announced

And i never talked about exploding Vans

Look the conversation was about about a truck bomb, and you suddenly injecting and then announcing "woa woa woa who said anything about exploding", and claiming I "moved the goalposts when you're playing waterpolo on a rugby pitch.

The discussion was on truck bombs, the only person prevaricating on sporting matters here is you.

weisses

Di0genes wrote: »

Okay I'm going to explain something to you here

This started thusly;







So you see we were already talking about exploding vans when you announced



Look the conversation was about about a truck bomb, and you suddenly injecting and then announcing "woa woa woa who said anything about exploding", and claiming I "moved the goalposts when you're playing waterpolo on a rugby pitch.

The discussion was on truck bombs, the only person prevaricating on sporting matters here is you.

Nope ... I made a claim that you ridiculed I supported my claim and now you try to weasel your way out of it. You should be trying to debunk what's claimed in the report and FYI brown bomber already posted a link about this report .... But if you think my behavior is inappropriate you know what to do

Di0genes

weisses wrote: »

Di0genes wrote: »

Okay I'm going to explain something to you here

This started thusly;







So you see we were already talking about exploding vans when you announced



Look the conversation was about about a truck bomb, and you suddenly injecting and then announcing "woa woa woa who said anything about exploding", and claiming I "moved the goalposts when you're playing waterpolo on a rugby pitch.

The discussion was on truck bombs, the only person prevaricating on sporting matters here is you.

Nope ... I made a claim that you ridiculed I supported my claim and now you try to weasel your way out of it. You should be trying to debunk what's claimed in the report and FYI brown bomber already posted a link about this report .... But if you think my behavior is inappropriate you know what to do

Okay entering into a conversation mid way by taking a swipe at my temerity for asking for prove that officers in NYPDreported a truck bomb going off, and then a few posts later saying “woa were did I say anythng about a “bomb“ and suggest I am moving the goalposts is more than a tad rich

weisses

Di0genes wrote: »

Okay entering into a conversation mid way by taking a swipe at my temerity for asking for prove that officers in NYPDreported a truck bomb going off, and then a few posts later saying “woa were did I say anythng about a “bomb“ and suggest I am moving the goalposts is more than a tad rich

No you quoted me remember, ridiculing my valid post. I responded with a valid source and ever since you don't know how to respond properly

If you don't want people disagreeing with you "half way" I suggest you use pm to communicate with BB

And yes if you would have read my posts properly you would have noticed that I didn't talk about bombs going off. The fact you didn't read it is your problem not mine

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

No you quoted me remember, ridiculing my valid post. I responded with a valid source and ever since you don't know how to respond properly

If you don't want people disagreeing with you "half way" I suggest you use pm to communicate with BB

And yes if you would have read my posts properly you would have noticed that I didn't talk about bombs going off. The fact you didn't read it is your problem not mine

So to be clear, you do not agree with BB when he claims that the van exploded?
You believe the report you posted when it says that the van was an innocent delivery truck?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

So to be clear, you do not agree with BB when he claims that the van exploded?
You believe the report you posted when it says that the van was an innocent delivery truck?

I don't know if it's the same van ... He himself posted a link with the same story as in the report I think

Do you believe the report ?

Penn

Everyone chill out for Pete's MY sake. There's no need for any of you to continuously be so hostile. Calm the hell down.

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

I don't know if it's the same van ... He himself posted a link with the same story as in the report I think

Yes, and he himself has stated that that exact van as mentioned in the report exploded, contrary to what the report says.
Do you believe this is the case or not?

weisses wrote: »

Do you believe the report ?

Yes, I believe the report is probably accurately describing what happened.
The police suspected the van might contain explosives for whatever reason, arrested who they suspected were the drivers, but the van was safe and not filled with explosives.

So do you believe the report?
Do you believe BB's claims which are contrary to the report?

weisses

I believe the report for now ...gonna check out a few things mentioned in that Video

The Command Center of New York’s Office of Emergency Management (OEM), based in WTC Building 7, was evacuated around 9:30 a.m. (see 9:30 a.m. September 11, 2001). Subsequently, OEM staff members request the OEM command bus, which is equipped with radios and computers, to use as a mobile operations center. This is then used to set up a temporary command post, located at one point in front of 70 Barclay Street, with Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, OEM Commissioner John Odermatt, and the police and fire commissioners all present. Giuliani is apparently at this post when forewarned of the WTC collapse (see (Before 9:59 a.m.) September 11, 2001). Alarm is raised when a panel truck is stopped near the temporary command post, with a painting of a plane flying into the World Trade Center on it. Fearing that it might be a truck bomb, the New York Police Department immediately evacuates the surrounding area and calls out the bomb squad. NYPD temporarily detains the truck’s occupants, who turn out to be a group of Middle Easterners who speak no English, and have rented the truck. According to a report by the Mineta Transportation Institute, the vehicle turns out to be an innocent delivery truck. The report does not state who rented the truck to the Middle Easterners, or why it shows a picture of a plane hitting the WTC. [Jenkins and Edwards-Winslow, 9/2003, pp. 20; 9/11 Commission, 5/19/2004]

The Van exploding in BB link exploded on king and 6th avenue

While the Van in the report was stopped on 70 Barclay street

There is quite some distance between the 2 locations

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

I believe the report for now ...gonna check out a few things mentioned in that Video


The Van exploding in BB link exploded on king and 6th avenue

While the Van in the report was stopped on 70 Barclay street

There is quite some distance between the 2 locations

Wait so which is it?
The report says that the van with the mural painted on it did not explode.
BB says that the van with the mural painted on it exploded.

The report does not say that the van in question was on Barclay street.
It says it was near the command centre.

The command centre was moved from Barclay street as that it was right behind the WTC.
According to the report the command centre was moved to 6th Avenue.

After a head count of OEM staff on the bus, the mobile command center was dispatched to Sixth Avenue and 36th Street, near the corner fire station, with Mayor Rudy Giuliani, OEM Commissioner John Odermatt, and the fire and police commissioners present.
Restoring OEM's Functions

There were continuing moments of alarm. A panel truck with a painting of a plane flying into the World Trade Center was stopped near the temporary command post. It proved to be rented to a group of ethnic Middle Eastern people who did not speak English. Fearing that it might be a truck bomb, the NYPD immediately evacuated the area, called out the bomb squad, and detained the occupants until a thorough search was made. The vehicle was found to be an innocent delivery truck.

So again, they are both referring to the same van.
One says it exploded one does not.

Which do you believe it is?
The the van explode or did it not.

Again I'm stuck asking the same simple direct question but fail to get an answer.

Brown Bomber

Di0genes wrote: »

Official report---So not a conspiracy then.

Yeah, that's the debunker way alright.

Anyone who believes the Minetta whitewash paragraph would believe anything.

a) "Innocent" people don't run away.
b) Either these two guys painted a mural on a van they rented for some crazy reason or there is a truck rental company which paints murals of aeroplanes diving into New York City onto vans they rent to customers. Both are ridiculous scenarios.
c) Minetta doesn't mention the van exploding, therefore it must be a creation of the imagination of the NYPD Officer on the scene. Another ridiculous scenario.
e) The luckless pair of foriegn workers who can't even speak English have the power to command a total media blackout of their arrest. Another ridiculous scenario.

Di0genes wrote: »

The claim from Brown Bomber was the truck exploded.

The claim from the NYPD Officer on the scene was that the truck exploded.

Di0genes wrote: »

Who are the officers who stopped this van?

There are many names mentioned in the recording. I'm not listening to it again for you. Do it yourself.

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

a) "Innocent" people don't run away.

Lol.
Funniest statement yet.
I'm surprised that you have such faith in the police....

Brown Bomber wrote: »

b) Either these two guys painted a mural on a van they rented for some crazy reason or there is a truck rental company which paints murals of aeroplanes diving into New York City onto vans they rent to customers. Both are ridiculous scenarios.

And them doing either of these because they were involved in an inside job, somehow makes more sense?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

Lol.
Funniest statement yet.
I'm surprised that you have such faith in the police....

Yeah, hilarious. Would you run from the Police if you were stopped by them and had done nothing wrong?

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yeah, hilarious. Would you run from the Police if you were stopped by them and had done nothing wrong?

No probably not.

Are you saying that running alone is enough to prove guilt and that the police never ever make mistakes?

Or are things only actually true when you need them to support a claim?

And again, in a two sentence post you still manage to avoid the half that links back to my point...

You use the the idea that 'there's no nonsensical explanation for it' to show that the official story is "ridiculous".
Yet you have no comment about the fact that the exact same applies to the conspiracy.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

No probably not.

Probably not???

So you are saying that there is a reasonable chance that you would run from the police and your own vehicle if they stopped your vehicle if you were completely "innocent"?

These guys risked their own lives to get away. As fleeing terrorist suspects they could have justifiably been shot.

King Mob wrote: »

Are you saying that running alone is enough to prove guilt and that the police never ever make mistakes?

Running from the police is a very strong indicator of guilt.

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Probably not???

So you are saying that there is a reasonable chance that you would run from the police and your own vehicle if they stopped your vehicle if you were completely "innocent"?

These guys risked their own lives to get away. As fleeing terrorist suspects they could have justifiably been shot.


Running from the police is a very strong indicator of guilt.

So again sticking to an irrelevant point rather than addressing the real one.

There's a hundred and one reasons why they could have run, or why the officers thought they ran or why the officer misspoke when he called it in....

That's why no fair court in the world accepts running as the sole proof of guilt or even as a "strong indicator".

And now you're saying that the police would have been justified in shooting them for simply running?

Can I take it form your childish tactic that you're not going to actually address the point that I've been trying to get you to acknowledge?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

There's a hundred and one reasons why they could have run, or why the officers thought they ran or why the officer misspoke when he called it in....

That's why no fair court in the world accepts running as the sole proof of guilt or even as a "strong indicator".

Really?

ILLINOIS v. WARDLOW

Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote for the majority that, "[n]ervous, evasive behavior is a pertinent factor in determining reasonable suspicion" to justify a stop. The Chief Justice noted that "flight is the consummate act of evasion." Stevens, joined by three other justices, concurred in avoiding a per se rule but dissented from the majority holding.
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1999/1999_98_1036

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Really?

Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote for the majority that, "[n]ervous, evasive behavior is a pertinent factor in determining reasonable suspicion" to justify a stop.

Yea really.
A stop isn't a guilty verdict.
It's not a indicator of guilt in a court

It's a cause to stop the suspect and search them. That's all.

But that's just another post of you failing to address a simple point.
It's kind of pointless at this stage...

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

So again, they are both referring to the same van.
One says it exploded one does not.

Which do you believe it is?
The the van explode or did it not.

Again I'm stuck asking the same simple direct question but fail to get an answer.

No Im not convinced even the temporary EOC on that location is miles away from the exploding Van .. and they moved the Command center again later

So a proper timeline would be handy

See the answer is not s simple as you wanted it to be

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

Yea really.
A stop isn't a guilty verdict.
It's not a indicator of guilt in a court

It's a cause to stop the suspect and search them. That's all.

But that's just another post of you failing to address a simple point.
It's kind of pointless at this stage...

You said:

That's why no fair court in the world accepts running as the sole proof of guilt or even as a "strong indicator".

Therefore the appropriate response would be:

"It appears that I was mistaken".

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

No Im not convinced even the temporary EOC on that location is miles away from the exploding Van .. and they moved the Command center again later

So a proper timeline would be handy

See the answer is not s simple as you wanted it to be

So you're now saying that there was two vans with murals?
Or that the report is lying about it's location?

Do you think that any van exploded, yes or no?
It's still a very simple question but I've no idea why you're having trouble with it.

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You said:


Therefore the appropriate response would be:

"It appears that I was mistaken".

Your link said that it was reasonable suspicion to justify a stop and a search.
This is not a strong indicator of guilt.

Are you seriously that desperate to score any point?

Why are you avoiding my actual point?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

So you're now saying that there was two vans with murals?
Or that the report is lying about it's location?

Do you think that any van exploded, yes or no?
It's still a very simple question but I've no idea why you're having trouble with it.

there could be more why not

That would explain the two locations

I believe the video could be valid yes

Di0genes

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yeah, that's the debunker way alright.

Anyone who believes the Minetta whitewash paragraph would believe anything.

a) "Innocent" people don't run away.

In the middle of a mass panic like the twin towers lots of people were panicing.

b) Either these two guys painted a mural on a van they rented for some crazy reason or there is a truck rental company which paints murals of aeroplanes diving into New York City onto vans they rent to customers. Both are ridiculous scenarios.

Yes they are ridiculous scenarios thank you for admitting this is a ridiculous scenario .

A far more plausible scenario is the moving company's logo had a picture of plane flying over the new york skyline and someone leapt to a ridiculous conclusion.

c) Minetta doesn't mention the van exploding, therefore it must be a creation of the imagination of the NYPD Officer on the scene. Another ridiculous scenario.

I'm sorry the imagination of which New York Police Officers. Their names please.

e) The luckless pair of foriegn workers who can't even speak English have the power to command a total media blackout of their arrest. Another ridiculous scenario.

Or this is a ridiculous non story. How about this. Two people rent a van, in the midst of the panic someone looks at the side of the van and imagines the logo looks like planes flying into the WTC. The van is stopped searched and it is realized that it is innocuous.

I presume you can offer a plausible explanation as to why a van with a picture of the WTC attacks painted on the side of it exploded, and yet we have no witnesses to the explosion, and cannot identify the NYPD officers involved.

The claim from the NYPD Officer on the scene was that the truck exploded.

And they are?

There are many names mentioned in the recording. I'm not listening to it again for you. Do it yourself.

I'm sorry you're what? NOT INTERESTED? What a pathetic cop out. Brown Bomber thinks there could have been a truck bomb going off on 911 in New York but can't be arsed re listening to the recording.

This is desperate stuff.

Brown Bomber

Di0genes wrote: »

In the middle of a mass panic like the twin towers lots of people were panicing.

Other examples of "innocent" people fleeing from the police then please.

Di0genes wrote: »

A far more plausible scenario is the moving company's logo had a picture of plane flying over the new york skyline and someone leapt to a ridiculous conclusion.

Hmmmmmmmm....The Police Officer on the scene who seen the exploded van and the fleeing/arrested suspects has leapt to a ridiculous conclusion says Diogenes who wasn't there and knows sweet **** all about it.

I am sure that you are aware that Norman Minetta confirmed that it was a mural of a plane crashing into the WTC?

So which moving company has/had the above for it's company logo? I'm all ears...

Di0genes wrote: »

How about this. Two people rent a van, in the midst of the panic someone looks at the side of the van and imagines the logo looks like planes flying into the WTC. The van is stopped searched and it is realized that it is innocuous.

And then the passengers of the "innocuous" van flee from the police and then their van explodes, The Bomb Squad, The EMS and ALL Citywide taskforce units are requested to this "innocuous" van,

Di0genes wrote: »

I presume you can offer a plausible explanation as to why a van with a picture of the WTC attacks painted on the side of it exploded,

Explosives.

Di0genes wrote: »

and yet we have no witnesses to the explosion, and cannot identify the NYPD officers involved.

It might have escaped your attention but there has been a media blackout across the board.

Di0genes wrote: »

I'm sorry you're what? NOT INTERESTED? What a pathetic cop out. Brown Bomber thinks there could have been a truck bomb going off on 911 in New York but can't be arsed re listening to the recording.

I've already listened it a number of times? have you at all? If you are genuinely interested listen to it yourself, the link is in this thread. I'm not going to hold your hand especially since you'll just try to find some way of twisting any facts it or if you can't then conveniently then ignore it.

For example, King Mob erroneously claimed that if the Police transmission was legitimate then there would have been Officers on the scene requesting bomb squads and other Emergency Services. They did, and then King Mob shut up about it.

Di0genes wrote: »

This is desperate stuff.

King Mob

weisses wrote: »

there could be more why not

Because there's no actual evidence there was more than one van?

weisses wrote: »

That would explain the two locations

But were exactly are you getting the idea that there's two separate locations?
According to the video the van is on 6th and King.
The report you posted did not give the exact location, and it certainly did not say it was on Barclay street like you claimed it did.

But if you are now positing a second van, which one do you think exploded and which did not or did they both explode?

weisses wrote: »

I believe the video could be valid yes

So then you do not believe the report you posted which states the van did not explode?