Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The 9-11 Dancing Middle Easterners and their vans

Options
15791011

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    It might have escaped your attention but there has been a media blackout across the board.
    It not being mentioned on the news is not an indication of a media blackout.
    It only is if you're assuming beforehand it's part of a conspiracy.
    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.
    I didn't so much "shut up about it" as I just don't see the point in clarifying it to you when you are incapable of answering direct simple questions.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    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.

    Uhhmm I was talking about the location you claimed because you didn't accept Barclay ...

    I believe that the Van in the report didn't blew up


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭weisses


    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.

    This is desperate stuff.

    Do you believe what is said in The Mti report Di0genes ???


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    Uhhmm I was talking about the location you claimed because you didn't accept Barclay ...
    So why do you think there was a second van at Barclay?
    Neither the recording or the report indicate that there was any sort of suspicious van there.
    weisses wrote: »
    I believe that the Van in the report didn't blew up
    but then you're not positing that there was a second van that did, correct?


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    So why do you think there was a second van at Barclay?

    There was a Van stopped and searched at the Command center and there could be a Van Exploding at 6th and King
    King Mob wrote: »
    Neither the recording or the report indicate that there was any sort of suspicious van there.

    Where?

    You seem to know exactly how it happened so I'll ask you for the sake of clarity

    Could you give me the Timeline for the moving of the command centers ?? because I count 4 locations already

    And the time the Van was stopped ??

    King Mob wrote: »
    but then you're not positing that there was a second van that did, correct?

    Did what ?


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


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

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w115.html

    http://www.forensic-evidence.com/site/Police/Pol_Running.html
    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.

    Which police officer Brown Bomber. What was their name.

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

    Confirmed as in he witnessed it himself?


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

    And the names of any of the officers from these units who confirms that they arrived at the scene and saw the aftermath of a carbomb?
    Explosives.

    Evidence that the van exploded please.
    It might have escaped your attention but there has been a media blackout across the board.

    Orchestrated by whom? Enforced by whom? For over ten years?
    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.

    SO YOU CAN'T GIVE ME THE NAME OF A SINGLE OFFICER WHO WITNESSED THE BOMB GOING OFF? No. Good.

    Desperate stuff.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭weisses


    Maybe you overlooked my question Di0genes

    Do you believe what is said in The MTI report ??


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    weisses wrote: »
    Maybe you overlooked my question Di0genes

    Do you believe what is said in The MTI report ??

    For the most part. I believe the comments about van "painted with the plane crashing into the WTC could easily be a mistake and it was a van with a mural ofplane that was flying over the NY skyline, and in the confusion and excitement it was misconstrued as a plane flying into the WTC.

    It's a much more plausible explanation.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭weisses


    Di0genes wrote: »
    For the most part. I believe the comments about van "painted with the plane crashing into the WTC could easily be a mistake and it was a van with a mural ofplane that was flying over the NY skyline, and in the confusion and excitement it was misconstrued as a plane flying into the WTC.

    Ok fine by me

    Could you name any of the officers that pulled over that Van and made the wrong interpretation of the mural ?

    Because this being an official report and all you must assume that the makers did verify that "ridiculous CT claim" of a plane flying into the WTC painted on a Van driving around in Manhattan after the Attacks.
    Di0genes wrote: »
    It's a much more plausible explanation.

    Sorry but now you just sound like the average CT'er you fight on this forum on a day to day basis (questioning the outcome of an official report)


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    weisses wrote: »
    Ok fine by me

    Could you name any of the officers that pulled over that Van and made the wrong interpretation of the mural ?

    No see the lack of the names of the officers is one of the issues I have with the report.
    Because this being an official report

    What in your mind does the the word "official" mean?
    and all you must assume that the makers did verify that "ridiculous CT claim" of a plane flying into the WTC painted on a Van driving around in Manhattan after the Attacks.

    I'm not making any assumption.

    Sorry but now you just sound like the average CT'er you fight on this forum on a day to day basis (questioning the outcome of an official report)

    Im sorry you appear to be jumping up and down excitedly going OMG ITS A OFFICIAL REPORT!

    It's by the College of Business of San Jose State University? Why should I take everything in it as gospel truth?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭weisses


    Di0genes wrote: »
    No see the lack of the names of the officers is one of the issues I have with the report.

    You want people to put names forward and when faced with the same question you pull this out of the head .. i admit you are dodging this one perfectly ....

    Di0genes wrote: »
    What in your mind does the the word "official" mean?

    In this case I use it as being a non CT based report ..even King Mob agrees with the report,
    King Mob wrote: »
    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.

    Also conveniently leaving out the mural ... but okay

    Di0genes wrote: »
    Im sorry you appear to be jumping up and down excitedly going OMG ITS A OFFICIAL REPORT!

    No i am just baffled that you dismiss everything that doesn't suit your narrow minded views ... I thought that it only applied to CT but now even "official" reports are not safe

    Look this report doesn't suit your theory .. That doesn't automatically make the report wrong ...

    Di0genes wrote: »
    It's by the College of Business of San Jose State University? Why should I take everything in it as gospel truth?


    Ahhhh you should have used the same attitude with the NIST report


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    weisses wrote: »
    You want people to put names forward and when faced with the same question you pull this out of the head .. i admit you are dodging this one perfectly ....

    No No I'm not. I'm sorry if this is a troubling concept for you. If Brown Bomber thinks several NYPD officers pulled over a truck that later exploded, then the onus is on Brown Bomber to provide the names of the officers and not I.

    The burden of proof lies with the claimant.

    In this case I use it as being a non CT based report ..even King Mob agrees with the report,

    What king mob believes is irrelevant to our discussion.
    Also conveniently leaving out the mural ... but okay

    As I mentioned the mural could have been of a plane flying over the NYC skyline, and it was misconstrued in the panic and confusion as being a plane flying into the twin towers.

    No i am just baffled that you dismiss everything that doesn't suit your narrow minded views ... I thought that it only applied to CT but now even "official" reports are not safe

    I'm more than happy to take the Mineta report on face value on any number of things, they can be independently verified.

    The claim that their vans with murals of planes crashing into the twin towers is unverified, as is the claims about a truck bomb going off, that isn't in the Mineta report but Brown Bomber is claiming it happened. I've asked for the names of officers who made the arrests or saw the bomb going off and you have both abjectly failed to do.
    Look this report doesn't suit your theory .. That doesn't automatically make the report wrong ...

    No but the absence of any supporting evidence does. Or a any plausible theory as to what the vans were doing.

    Ahhhh you should have used the same attitude with the NIST report

    If you can point me to any section of the NIST where is makes a unsubstantiated claim I'd be happy to read it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    There was a Van stopped and searched at the Command center and there could be a Van Exploding at 6th and King
    And they couldn't have been the same van because...?
    The report you posted says that the command centre was at 6th as well.
    weisses wrote: »
    Where?

    You seem to know exactly how it happened so I'll ask you for the sake of clarity
    You claimed that the Van was on Barclay street. Neither the report you posted nor the recording say that a van was on Barclay street.
    Why did you claim there was a van on Barclay street?
    weisses wrote: »
    Could you give me the Timeline for the moving of the command centers ?? because I count 4 locations already

    And the time the Van was stopped ??
    No I can't because neither source provides such information.
    You are the one positing that there was two vans, the onus on you is to show that they both existed.
    weisses wrote: »
    Did what ?
    You are suggesting that there was two vans.
    Did they both blow up?
    If not, did only one of them blow up? Which one blew up?

    Asking questions here is like pulling teeth.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    In this case I use it as being a non CT based report ..even King Mob agrees with the report,

    Also conveniently leaving out the mural ... but okay
    To clarify, I believe the report. And I also agree with Diogenes when he suggests that the "mural" was something innocuous that was misinterpreted in the panic of the day.

    However you seem to be conveniently leaving out the part where the report says that the van did not explode.... but okay...


  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


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

    However you seem to be conveniently leaving out the part where the report says that the van did not explode.... but okay...

    A quick correction: The report does not say the van didn't explode. It implies it.


  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    King Mob wrote: »
    It not being mentioned on the news is not an indication of a media blackout.
    :confused::confused::confused:
    Yes it is. That is the definition of a media blackout.
    King Mob wrote: »
    IIt only is if you're assuming beforehand it's part of a conspiracy.
    :confused::confused::confused:

    King Mob wrote: »
    I didn't so much "shut up about it" as I just don't see the point in clarifying it to you when you are incapable of answering direct simple questions.
    You didn't shut up about it you just didn't say anything about it ever again? :confused::confused::confused::confused:


  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Di0genes wrote: »

    WTF...? You have provided exactly no examples of innocent people running from the Police. Nevermind people running from the Police on 9-11 for no apparent reason.

    Is that your best effort?

    Did you even read your own links???
    [FONT=Times New Roman,Georgia,Times][FONT=Times New Roman,Georgia,Times]Unprovoked flight upon the sight of police, said the Court, is the consummate act of evasion. Although it is not necessarily indicative of wrongdoing, it clearly is suggestive of such.[/FONT][/FONT]

    Which is exactly my point!!!
    Di0genes wrote: »
    Confirmed as in he witnessed it himself?
    ???

    At no time in history has "confirmed" meant "witnessed it himself". I can't imagine why you would think it does.
    Di0genes wrote: »
    So which moving company has/had the above for it's company logo? I'm all ears...
    That's what I asked you. Maybe you left it in accidentally? Regardless, that's an important question which you failed to answer, so I repeat:
    So which moving company has/had the above for it's company logo?
    Di0genes wrote: »
    Evidence that the van exploded please.




    Di0genes wrote: »
    Orchestrated by whom?
    The media, obviously.

    Di0genes wrote: »
    Enforced by whom?
    How should I know?
    Di0genes wrote: »
    For over ten years?
    Obviously yes as that is the time since the incident and there hasn't been a single media report.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    A quick correction: The report does not say the van didn't explode. It implies it.
    The report said that the van was found to be an innocent delivery van.
    The report does not mention it exploding, there's no sane way to take that sentence any other way than "the van did not explode".
    So yea, if you'd like to be pointlessly pedantic about it. It implies it did not explode.

    So do you think the report is accurate?
    :confused::confused::confused:
    Yes it is. That is the definition of a media blackout.
    So then the media not reporting, say, the gaming convention I recently attended is the result of me obtaining a media blackout?

    Or is it the fact that the media doesn't report non-stories?
    For example a false alarm bomb scare?
    You didn't shut up about it you just didn't say anything about it ever again? :confused::confused::confused::confused:
    I'd address it, but there's little reason as you are still refusing to address my original point.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭weisses


    Di0genes wrote: »
    No No I'm not. I'm sorry if this is a troubling concept for you. If Brown Bomber thinks several NYPD officers pulled over a truck that later exploded, then the onus is on Brown Bomber to provide the names of the officers and not I.

    The burden of proof lies with the claimant.

    So it lies with the maker of that Movie .. The fact that you are not willing to get the names yourself by watching the movie is no ones fault but your own

    Instead you come up with this
    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.

    This is desperate stuff.



    Di0genes wrote: »
    As I mentioned the mural could have been of a plane flying over the NYC skyline, and it was misconstrued in the panic and confusion as being a plane flying into the twin towers.

    What panic ??

    They stopped the Van ... thought it could hold a Bomb.... evacuated the area ... Called in the Bomb squad ... Bomb squad investigates .... Everything thoroughly searched .... Nothing found ..

    And you want us to believe that everyone there was running around as a headless chicken panicking all the time not able to make out the meaning of the Mural on the Van ... yeah right

    Di0genes wrote: »
    The claim that their vans with murals of planes crashing into the twin towers is unverified

    Is in the MTI report
    Di0genes wrote: »
    as is the claims about a truck bomb going off, that isn't in the Mineta report but Brown Bomber is claiming it happened. I've asked for the names of officers who made the arrests or saw the bomb going off and you have both abjectly failed to do.

    So you say ..certain things that end up in reports are not true
    ..certain things that are not in reports didn't happen
    ..certain things yo can't be arsed to look up yourself so they didn't happen either

    Di0genes wrote: »
    No but the absence of any supporting evidence does. Or a any plausible theory as to what the vans were doing.

    But that's the problem your way of thinking doesn't leave any room for plausibility


    Di0genes wrote: »
    If you can point me to any section of the NIST where is makes a unsubstantiated claim I'd be happy to read it.

    Didn't we had thread upon thread dealing with that

    Plenty of respectable people did show the Flaws of the report ..


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    And they couldn't have been the same van because...?
    There is 3 km between the locations
    King Mob wrote: »
    The report you posted says that the command centre was at 6th as well.
    And Barclay ....there was also a command post set up at pier 92 I think
    That's why the timeline is important
    King Mob wrote: »
    You claimed that the Van was on Barclay street. Neither the report you posted nor the recording say that a van was on Barclay street.
    Why did you claim there was a van on Barclay street?
    Because they had a headquarter on Barclay street as well, I missed the one on 6th in the report (still 3km away from 6th and king) Care to explain that ?
    The whole point with the command centre's is that neither one was close to 6th and king
    King Mob wrote: »
    No I can't because neither source provides such information. You are the one positing that there was two vans, the onus on you is to show that they both existed.
    Nope there is quite a large distance between the command post in the report and 6th and king .. that leaves the room for a 2 (maybe more) Van scenario
    How do you Explain 1 Van being at possibly two places ?
    King Mob wrote: »
    You are suggesting that there was two vans.
    Did they both blow up?
    If not, did only one of them blow up? Which one blew up?
    No ...possibly, .. and probably the one on 6th and king ??
    King Mob wrote: »
    Asking questions here is like pulling teeth.
    I think you should be more focused on answering them because you said yourself you cannot be bothered answering certain questions


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭weisses


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

    I explained earlier that there was no indication of panic ... It suits your theory to dismiss the Mural but is not a valid one

    So you change your original stance on the report? ...
    King Mob wrote: »
    However you seem to be conveniently leaving out the part where the report says that the van did not explode.... but okay...

    Where did i conveniently leave out that part ?? ...

    It is in the MTI report i posted ... I left it in your quote when replying

    So please point out where i left it out conveniently so i can correct that


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    weisses wrote: »
    There is 3 km between the locations

    And Barclay ....there was also a command post set up at pier 92 I think
    That's why the timeline is important

    Because they had a headquarter on Barclay street as well, I missed the one on 6th in the report (still 3km away from 6th and king) Care to explain that ?
    The whole point with the command centre's is that neither one was close to 6th and king

    Nope there is quite a large distance between the command post in the report and 6th and king .. that leaves the room for a 2 (maybe more) Van scenario
    How do you Explain 1 Van being at possibly two places ?
    So it's impossible that they, when writing the report though that because both the van and the command centre were both on 6th, they were closer they they actually were?
    In fact 6th and King is quite close to Barclay, perhaps that's what they were referring to?

    Is the only possible explanation for this discrepancy to invent and entirely new van from thin air?
    weisses wrote: »
    No ...possibly, .. and probably the one on 6th and king ??
    So you believe that the one van in the report (ie. "near the command centre") did not explode, but that there was another on 6th and King that did explode?
    Is that correct?
    weisses wrote: »
    I explained earlier that there was no indication of panic ... It suits your theory to dismiss the Mural but is not a valid one
    So there's not possible way that what was on the van could have been misinterpreted? I'm not dismissing it, I'm offering a sane explanation for it, in accordance to the report you posted.
    The report said that it was an innocent delivery van.
    Or was this van painted differently to the van that you think exploded?
    weisses wrote: »
    So you change your original stance on the report? ...
    I have not changed my stance on the report.
    weisses wrote: »
    Where did i conveniently leave out that part ?? ...

    It is in the MTI report i posted ... I left it in your quote when replying

    So please point out where i left it out conveniently so i can correct that
    Because if you are choosing to believe the report, then you cannot use it to support the theory that a van exploded because it claims otherwise.


  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Di0genes wrote: »
    Im sorry you appear to be jumping up and down excitedly going OMG ITS A OFFICIAL REPORT!

    It's by the College of Business of San Jose State University? Why should I take everything in it as gospel truth?
    Actually it's by the Minetta institute who were founded and are funded by Congress and the statements are made by Norman Minetta a Bush Cabinet appointee and part of the Executive Branch of the US Government during 9/11 itself and at the release of the report.


  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Di0genes wrote: »
    For the most part. I believe the comments about van "painted with the plane crashing into the WTC could easily be a mistake and it was a van with a mural ofplane that was flying over the NY skyline, and in the confusion and excitement it was misconstrued as a plane flying into the WTC.

    It's a much more plausible explanation.

    Proportion of all known reports that say mural was of a plane crashing into New York: 100%

    Proportion of all known reports that say mural was a "plane that was flying over the NY skyline": 0%

    You've somehow convinced yourself that the
    0% is "much more plausible".

    Why???????
    Hardly skepticism is it?


  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    King Mob wrote: »
    So then the media not reporting, say, the gaming convention I recently attended is the result of me obtaining a media blackout?

    Or is it the fact that the media doesn't report non-stories?
    For example a false alarm bomb scare?
    Firstly, you don't seem to know what a "false bomb scare" is. It is a bomb threat/warning, the "false" making it an empty threat warning.

    Nevertheless, I've already had a needlessly long, drawn out conversation about that which is self-evident i.e. that running from the Police is an indication of wrongdoing. We really shouldn't need the US Supreme Court to tell us, as they did that it is. It's common sense territory as is the current object of our conversation. Again all it takes is common sense to realise that a van with people from the "Middle East" that has a mural painted on it of a plane diving into the WTC is stopped by the NYPD in New York on the day of 9-11, it's passengers make a run for it, are caught, then arrested, the area is evacuated, the bomb squad, medics and the entire NY City Taskforce are summoned to the scene is newsworthy.

    Even all this is accepting (which I don't) that the NYPD Police officer that seen their van explode suddenly became temporarily insane and the van didn't explode.


  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Incidentally, this is Robert Sandford, the guy who made the Police Radio recording with a little background information.

    Robt-ggb.jpg

    Robert (above), on his side of the Golden Gate Bridge. Below is the WB6NYC Shack.

    RobtShack.jpg
    http://www.fenichel.com/RobtShack.jpg

    [FONT=Arial, Helvetica][FONT=arial, Arial, Helvetica]Robert Sanford - WB6NYC

    Robert Sanford went about his life as he usually does. 11th September started off early for Robert - about 6.00 am, but who cares...... Robert is an Amateur radio enthusiast (as I am) and when he learned about the events unfolding in New York Robert was on the case immediately.

    During the next few hours Robert recorded some of the most amazing audio that he had ever had to listen to - and probably some of the saddest content. Events on 11th September are known to most people on Earth, but when you actually listen to the audio recordings that Robert captured it WILL change your view of the whole thing known as Incident 0727.

    Here's some info about Robert in his own words:

    After some 20 years in New York City I have decided to "get the hell out of Dodge" and make the nice quiet town of Sausalito my new "home town". I was the Emergency Coordinator for ARES, the Radio Officer for RACES and the SKYWARN Coordinator for New York City.


    [/FONT][/FONT]http://www.incident0727.com/robert_sanford.htm


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Firstly, you don't seem to know what a "false bomb scare" is. It is a bomb threat/warning, the "false" making it an empty threat warning.
    More pointless pedantry.
    Bomb scares can come from authorities misinterpreting reports and innocuous things without the need for someone to make a threat. Including shutting down roads and calling in emergency services.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Boston_bomb_scare
    Nevertheless, I've already had a needlessly long, drawn out conversation about that which is self-evident i.e. that running from the Police is an indication of wrongdoing. We really shouldn't need the US Supreme Court to tell us, as they did that it is. It's common sense territory as is the current object of our conversation.
    It is common sense stuff, that you are twisting and misrepresenting to suit your ends.
    Running does not make people guilty of anything other than running from the police. This would not even guarantee a charge of resisting arrest.

    Furthermore we can't even conclude that they did run in the first place.
    Other possibilities remain such as the police officer misspeaking, or misinterpreting what they had done.
    Again all it takes is common sense to realise that a van with people from the "Middle East" that has a mural painted on it of a plane diving into the WTC is stopped by the NYPD in New York on the day of 9-11, it's passengers make a run for it, are caught, then arrested, the area is evacuated, the bomb squad, medics and the entire NY City Taskforce are summoned to the scene is newsworthy.
    Where are you getting the idea that the area was evacuated?

    And which of this is inconsistent with a false bomb scare?
    Even all this is accepting (which I don't) that the NYPD Police officer that seen their van explode suddenly became temporarily insane and the van didn't explode.
    And we're not accepting that's what the officer reported.
    There's no other evidence of any sort to support that there was an explosion at all.

    So before I actually discuss the recording (since it's clear you are incapable of honestly answering the question I asked.), have you any other evidence to support the idea that a van exploded beyond that recording?


  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    King Mob wrote: »
    More pointless pedantry.
    More alliteration?
    King Mob wrote: »
    Bomb scares can come from authorities misinterpreting reports and innocuous things without the need for someone to make a threat. Including shutting down roads and calling in emergency services.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Boston_bomb_scare
    I'll come back to this in a minute.
    King Mob wrote: »
    It is common sense stuff, that you are twisting and misrepresenting to suit your ends.
    Now you are being completely unfair. I don't have any "ends" so let's stick to the topic.
    King Mob wrote: »
    Running does not make people guilty of anything other than running from the police. This would not even guarantee a charge of resisting arrest.
    You make no sense. Running away from Police is an obvious case of resisting arrest and is a crime in NY.
    RESISTING ARREST
    A Misdemeanor
    PENAL LAW 205.30
    (Committed on or after Sept. 1, 1980)

    Under our law, a person is guilty of Resisting Arrest when he
    or she intentionally prevents or attempts to prevent a police officer
    [or peace officer] from effecting an authorized arrest of himself or
    herself [or another person].
    http://www.nycourts.gov/cji/2-PenalLaw/205/205-30.pdf
    King Mob wrote: »
    Furthermore we can't even conclude that they did run in the first place.
    Yes we can. The Police Officer on the scene has said so. Minneta doesn't mention it at all and there is absolutely zero evidence to suggest otherwise.
    King Mob wrote: »
    Other possibilities remain such as the police officer misspeaking, or misinterpreting what they had done.
    This is absolutely ridiculous.

    Possibility A:The Police Officer said the passengers fled when what he meant to say was they waited patiently in their car???? That's absurd.

    Possibility B: The Police Officer thought he saw the passengers take flight but it turns out they were actually waiting patiently in their van???? Equally absurd.
    King Mob wrote: »
    Where are you getting the idea that the area was evacuated?
    Minetta says so.
    King Mob wrote: »
    And we're not accepting that's what the officer reported.
    There's no other evidence of any sort to support that there was an explosion at all.
    What other evidence is neccessary? You have a live, on the scene commentary by professionals.

    If you were listening to a game on the radio would you not accept the final score of the game until fans who'd been at the game rang into BBC Radio?
    King Mob wrote: »
    So before I actually discuss the recording (since it's clear you are incapable of honestly answering the question I asked.), have you any other evidence to support the idea that a van exploded beyond that recording?
    No, but the Police radio transmission is significant and stands by itself.have you any evidence that the van didn't explode and was returned to it's owners?

    ======================================================

    I said I'd get back to the "Boston Bomb scare", now why did that get a ton of coverage, all media outlets seemed to have reported heavily on it and this "bomb scare" got absolutely nothing, ever?


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,236 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    More alliteration?

    I'll come back to this in a minute.

    Now you are being completely unfair. I don't have any "ends" so let's stick to the topic.

    You make no sense. Running away from Police is an obvious case of resisting arrest and is a crime in NY.
    Pedantry and a strawman.
    I said that running doesn't guarantee a charge of resisting arrest.
    It doesn't.
    Yes we can. The Police Officer on the scene has said so. Minneta doesn't mention it at all and there is absolutely zero evidence to suggest otherwise.
    And police officers, like all people are fallible.
    This is absolutely ridiculous.

    Possibility A:The Police Officer said the passengers fled when what he meant to say was they waited patiently in their car???? That's absurd.

    Possibility B: The Police Officer thought he saw the passengers take flight but it turns out they were actually waiting patiently in their van???? Equally absurd.
    And again, more strawmen.

    One of many many possibilities is that the pair of suspects left the van and turned and moved away form the police officer, failing to notice or hear him, which he then misinterpreted as an attempt to flee.

    Or perhaps the cop's car was parked a good bit away and when they left the van and he had to run after them to get them to stop?

    But then this is all pretty irrelevant as them running does not prove their guilt.
    Minetta says so.
    I didn't see that on my last read. It does indeed say that they evacuated the area.
    What other evidence is neccessary? You have a live, on the scene commentary by professionals.
    But that's not a given I'm afraid. I would like to see pictures of the van before and after, other witnesses to the van, the arrests and the explosion... Basically more that one source.
    No, but the Police radio transmission is significant and stands by itself.have you any evidence that the van didn't explode and was returned to it's owners?
    Yes, the Minetta report.

    So just to be sure, the only actual source you have that the van exploded was the record featured in the earlier video.
    You have nothing else to confirm that happened?
    I said I'd get back to the "Boston Bomb scare", now why did that get a ton of coverage, all media outlets seemed to have reported heavily on it and this "bomb scare" got absolutely nothing, ever?
    Because there might have been a bigger story that a false alarm bomb scare on 9/11?

    And I do like how you totally avoided the point I made with that link.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,455 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    So it's impossible that they, when writing the report though that because both the van and the command centre were both on 6th, they were closer they they actually were?
    In fact 6th and King is quite close to Barclay, perhaps that's what they were referring to?

    When writing a report the time of guessing is over .. All the things you mentioned above are easy verifiable ... from the command center on 6th to 6th and king is 3km ... that is NOT nearby, and Barclay is even further away from 6th and king ... according to my search
    King Mob wrote: »
    Is the only possible explanation for this discrepancy to invent and entirely new van from thin air?

    No but it is thought (food) for discussion

    King Mob wrote: »
    So you believe that the one van in the report (ie. "near the command centre") did not explode, but that there was another on 6th and King that did explode?
    Is that correct?

    As said above that could well be ... The report leaves plenty room for discussion ...But the Video BB posted does the same

    King Mob wrote: »
    So there's not possible way that what was on the van could have been misinterpreted? I'm not dismissing it, I'm offering a sane explanation for it, in accordance to the report you posted.
    The report said that it was an innocent delivery van.
    Or was this van painted differently to the van that you think exploded?

    I dont know KM, but I'm not ruling anything out .... the whole panic excuse is pretty much non valid i think, .... I also find it strange that i can't find no pictures of a Van with such a painting driving around there that day ...

    Did they let the guys go after they searched the Van @ the command center loading up with explosives after and driving to 6th and king?? Who knows... again Timeline is important


    King Mob wrote: »
    Because if you are choosing to believe the report, then you cannot use it to support the theory that a van exploded because it claims otherwise.

    That's my whole problem .. i tend to believe both


Advertisement