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
Comments
-
And? Could it not be that they simply didn't bother too much with that snippet, it being a non-story and assumed that them both being on 6th meant that they were near each other?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
Or that they considered 3km, or less between King and Barclay, to be "close"?
But there's no evidence to suggest that a second van existed when there are reasonable explanations for the discrepancy without inventing vast conspiracies or even a second van.No but it is thought (food) for discussion
But the report clearly states that the van with a mural did not explode.As said above that could well be ... The report leaves plenty room for discussion ...But the Video BB posted does the same
The report very much does not support what's in the video or what BB is claiming.
Why is it not valid?I dont know KM, but I'm not ruling anything out .... the whole panic excuse is pretty much non valid i think,
I've already posted an example of the police mistaking something clearly innocuous for a bomb and taking it seriously enough to call out the bomb squad, shut down streets and make arrests. And this is without the extra stress and panic of actual terrorist attacks occurring.
So people mistaking something for a mural during this time to confusion, panic and stress is impossible?
And there's not pictures of it's wreckage or it's damage despite exploding in the middle of the street on a day when thousands of people had their cameras out and the police getting people out of thier homes while they deal with it..... I also find it strange that i can't find no pictures of a Van with such a painting driving around there that day ...
Yet there's not a single photo.
Not a single report beyond the transmission that BB posted.
Not one civilian witness.
And no witnesses at all who said that the van exploded.
It is strange, almost like no van actually exploded at all.
But again this is based on the totally unsupported and silly premise that there was two or more vans or they are actually referring to two separate incidents.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
But they're not. So a timeline is redundant.
If you think it's important, it's your job to track it down.
So in that case, you cannot say that the report supports what BB is claiming.That's my whole problem .. i tend to believe both
You either have to: 1. Invent an entire van and separate bomb scare for which there is no evidence or 2. come to the conclusion that one of them is wrong.
But since you "believe both", you then agree that a van exploded?
And if this is the case, why did you give out to Diogenes for suggesting you believed a van exploded?0 -
Every example of a suspect running away from the police pre arrest is by definition resisting arrest.Pedantry and a strawman.
I said that running doesn't guarantee a charge of resisting arrest.
It doesn't.
Therefore by that logic the witness testimony of "all people" is worthless due to their fallibility. Which is as nonsensical as it sounds.And police officers, like all people are fallible.
Absolutely ridiculous.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.
Equally ridiculous.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?
It's not irrelevant as it is "clearly" a strong indicator of wrongdoing.But then this is all pretty irrelevant as them running does not prove their guilt.
Well that's impossible due to the media blackout and investigations like the 9-11 Commission wilfully ignoring it. Where's Popular Mechanics when you need them?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.
Internal communications from the Police Officers in the line of duty and on the scene describing the van exploding is ample evidence which you also wilfully ignore.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?
Like building 7 falling while it was still standing? This is part of the 9.11 story and is an undeniably a newsworthy story. Don't let that stop you though.Because there might have been a bigger story that a false alarm bomb scare on 9/11?0 -
And the cops still have to charge you with it and then you have to be convicted of it. And neither of those are guaranteed.Brown Bomber wrote: »Every example of a suspect running away from the police pre arrest is by definition resisting arrest.
Another strawman. However since all witness testimony is fallible, in the absence of supporting evidence their testimony cannot be reliable.Brown Bomber wrote: »Therefore by that logic the witness testimony of "all people" is worthless due to their fallibility. Which is as nonsensical as it sounds.
It's possible that the police officer was wrong or misreported something.
So there are explanations that explain the facts without relying on a massive conspiracy that you can't even provide a ration explanation for.
Why are they ridiculous?Brown Bomber wrote: »Absolutely ridiculous.
Equally ridiculous.
Why is either impossible?
Well assuming we do live in the dystopia world you apparently want us to and the running is a valid reason for being shot, how does running prove that they had explosives? It could just be indicative of them being "guilty" of something else?Brown Bomber wrote: »It's not irrelevant as it is "clearly" a strong indicator of wrongdoing.
But it would also be impossible if the explosion never actually happened, wouldn't it?Brown Bomber wrote: »Well that's impossible due to the media blackout and investigations like the 9-11 Commission wilfully ignoring it. Where's Popular Mechanics when you need them?
But here's the thing BB, I'm not ignoring it. I was just making sure that it was worth my time addressing.Brown Bomber wrote: »Internal communications from the Police Officers in the line of duty and on the scene describing the van exploding is ample evidence which you also wilfully ignore.
But since you actually are still ignoring my original point, I'm still somewhat doubtful.
So since your only evidence at all is the recording could you indicate which point of the video proves that the van exploded?
Why? You only think it's a newsworthy story because you want it to be a part of a conspiracy. (What conspiracy and how it fits you are incapable of explaining...)Brown Bomber wrote: »Like building 7 falling while it was still standing? This is part of the 9.11 story and is an undeniably a newsworthy story. Don't let that stop you though.
But unfortunately a false bomb scare on a random street was not news on the day.0 -
And? Could it not be that they simply didn't bother too much with that snippet, it being a non-story and assumed that them both being on 6th meant that they were near each other?
Or that they considered 3km, or less between King and Barclay, to be "close"?
No i don't think it can ... But if you want it to be the way you describe it just to suit or explain your theory go right ahead,But there's no evidence to suggest that a second van existed when there are reasonable explanations for the discrepancy without inventing vast conspiracies or even a second van.
Again ...food for discussion, just as you try to do with your statement in the first quote ... but please explain " reasonable explanations for the discrepancy "But the report clearly states that the van with a mural did not explode.
You keep repeating that like a gospel ... its in the report yesThe report very much does not support what's in the video or what BB is claiming.
How can the report support or debunk what is not in the report ??? ... non point imoWhy is it not valid?
I've already posted an example of the police mistaking something clearly innocuous for a bomb and taking it seriously enough to call out the bomb squad, shut down streets and make arrests. And this is without the extra stress and panic of actual terrorist attacks occurring.
Because even in your own description there is plenty of time to check out the muralSo people mistaking something for a mural during this time to confusion, panic and stress is impossible?
Nothing is impossible .. bur for me not likely in this caseAnd there's not pictures of it's wreckage or it's damage despite exploding in the middle of the street on a day when thousands of people had their cameras out and the police getting people out of thier homes while they deal with it.
Yet there's not a single photo.
Not a single report beyond the transmission that BB posted.
Not one civilian witness.
And no witnesses at all who said that the van exploded.
Maybe because they ran away panicking ??But again this is based on the totally unsupported and silly premise that there was two or more vans or they are actually referring to two separate incidents.
But they're not. So a timeline is redundant.
If you think it's important, it's your job to track it down.
Yes i think it is important to look at it in every angle so i don't have to say that other people are just silly, see getting the timeline right should also be important for you ...so you can base part of your opinion on it maybe.So in that case, you cannot say that the report supports what BB is claiming.
You either have to: 1. Invent an entire van and separate bomb scare for which there is no evidence or 2. come to the conclusion that one of them is wrong.
I need more information to come to either conclusionBut since you "believe both", you then agree that a van exploded?
I see both as a possibility yes, with all that panic going on it could well beAnd if this is the case, why did you give out to Diogenes for suggesting you believed a van exploded?
where and what ??
And i see now how handy it is to use the "panic card"0 -
So why can't that be the explanation, but an entirely different van also with a mural, but is not mentioned in the report can be an explanation.?No i don't think it can ... But if you want it to be the way you describe it just to suit or explain your theory go right ahead,
Again ...food for discussion, just as you try to do with your statement in the first quote ... but please explain " reasonable explanations for the discrepancy "
Because you don't seem to grasp the concept that the report is saying the exact opposite of what Brown Bomber is saying.You keep repeating that like a gospel ... its in the report yes
How can the report support or debunk what is not in the report ??? ... non point imo
The report does not support the idea that any van exploded. The report does not supply evidence for a conspiracy or cast doubt on the official story.
If anything is a non-point it's you bringing up the report.
And in the above example they had plenty of time to check out the devices, yet they still described them as "bomb like" and treated them as dangerous for hours.Because even in your own description there is plenty of time to check out the mural
Nothing is impossible .. bur for me not likely in this case
How can this be?
Why can a similar but much less silly cock up not happen in New York on 9/11.
So you're going to be childish rather than address points?Maybe because they ran away panicking ??
Typical.
Were I have said anyone is "just silly"?Yes i think it is important to look at it in every angle so i don't have to say that other people are just silly, see getting the timeline right should also be important for you ...so you can base part of your opinion on it maybe.
I don't think that the timeline is important as it would have little effect on my explanations.
However if you think it is important, why not provide it and show how it excludes my explanations.
But I think you either know that such a timeline wouldn't have an effect on my explanation, not could you actually put one together, hence why you are trying to deflect the point.
And is it a possibility that there was no exploding van at all?I need more information to come to either conclusion
I see both as a possibility yes, with all that panic going on it could well be0 -
Advertisement
-
So why can't that be the explanation, but an entirely different van also with a mural, but is not mentioned in the report can be an explanation.?
Why would it be in the report ...plenty of things happened on 9/11 that didn't end up in that report but did happenBecause you don't seem to grasp the concept that the report is saying the exact opposite of what Brown Bomber is saying.
The report does not support the idea that any van exploded. The report does not supply evidence for a conspiracy or cast doubt on the official story.
If anything is a non-point it's you bringing up the report.
No it doesn't ... I said that where the Van was pulled over .. NEARBY the command center is miles away from 6th and King so maybe there could be another Van, not saying it is true but leaving the possibility open, the fact that it is not in the report doesn't mean it didn't happenAnd in the above example they had plenty of time to check out the devices, yet they still described them as "bomb like" and treated them as dangerous for hours.
How can this be?
Why can a similar but much less silly cock up not happen in New York on 9/11.
What devices ?? mentioned in the mti report where? and who described them as bomb like ??So you're going to be childish rather than address points?
Typical.
No I'm only trying to copy your way of thinking ..if you don't have any more interest in discussing this then say soWere I have said anyone is "just silly"?
Based on the 2 Van premise .. that silly thing i brought up sorry .... Now who is childish ?I don't think that the timeline is important as it would have little effect on my explanations.
However if you think it is important, why not provide it and show how it excludes my explanations.
But I think you either know that such a timeline wouldn't have an effect on my explanation, not could you actually put one together, hence why you are trying to deflect the point.
I asked you the same question because i couldn't find it ..you were assuming things again without knowing the chain of events that's why i asked you for the timelineYou 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 ??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.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.
And again your off on your assuming mission ... i said there is a possibility of maybe 2 Vans because of the distance between the Two locations, i need a timeline to check the possibility of two Vans and you could need the timeline to dismiss it ...And is it a possibility that there was no exploding van at all?
Who knows ... maybe his engine overheated on 6th and king causing a little blast ... stranger things did happen that dayAnd if this is the case, why did you give out to Diogenes for suggesting you believed a van exploded?
Care to explain this ? .. where ?? what ??? context please ??
Or is this another one of your unfounded but mature remarks ??0 -
Who stood to gain the most from the attacks on 9/11?0
-
This is not an answer to my question or my point.Why would it be in the report ...plenty of things happened on 9/11 that didn't end up in that report but did happen
You said that the authors of the report couldn't have mistakenly believed that the van was closer to the command centre than it was, ot that they believed that 3km was "close".
So how do you know these explanations are impossible.
And the fact that it isn't in the report means that the report cannot be used as evidence to support the idea that there was a second van or that any van exploded, contrary to what you are claiming.No it doesn't ... I said that where the Van was pulled over .. NEARBY the command center is miles away from 6th and King so maybe there could be another Van, not saying it is true but leaving the possibility open, the fact that it is not in the report doesn't mean it didn't happen
The device at the centre of the Boston bomb square. These were taken as serious threats for hours despite having a cartoon character on them.What devices ?? mentioned in the mti report where? and who described them as bomb like ??
So how is this possible if we are to believe what you are implying, that police can never mistake something for something else?
The you either misunderstand what I'm saying or are deliberately making a strawman argument.No I'm only trying to copy your way of thinking ..if you don't have any more interest in discussing this then say so
Called your explanation silly, not you.Based on the 2 Van premise .. that silly thing i brought up sorry .... Now who is childish ?
Inventing another van from thin air just so you don't have to disagree with BB is silly.
What was I assuming exactly?I asked you the same question because i couldn't find it ..you were assuming things again without knowing the chain of events that's why i asked you for the timeline
And again your off on your assuming mission ... i said there is a possibility of maybe 2 Vans because of the distance between the Two locations, i need a timeline to check the possibility of two Vans and you could need the timeline to dismiss it ...
I provided explanations for the dependency based on both locations. So my explanation is not dependant on a timeline
Yours is, so the onus is on you to provide the timeline as it is the only thing you have to suggest there was two van.
All the other evidence and common sense points to there only being one van and that van not exploding as per the report that you provided.
Yea maybe or maybe there wasn't an explosion at all?Who knows ... maybe his engine overheated on 6th and king causing a little blast ... stranger things did happen that day
So if there exists an explanation for the report that does not involve a massive conspiracy, why assume that this incident has anything to do with the massive conspiracy.
You gave out to Diogenes for suggesting you might believe that there was an explosion despite what the report you posted said.Care to explain this ? .. where ?? what ??? context please ??
Or is this another one of your unfounded but mature remarks ??
You have spent the last few pages inventing imaginary vans so you can say there might have been an explosion.0 -
This is not an answer to my question or my point.
You said that the authors of the report couldn't have mistakenly believed that the van was closer to the command centre than it was, ot that they believed that 3km was "close".
So how do you know these explanations are impossible.
Not impossible but unlikely ... 3 km is a long way in ManhattanAnd the fact that it isn't in the report means that the report cannot be used as evidence to support the idea that there was a second van or that any van exploded, contrary to what you are claiming.
No I believe what is in the report and that there was something going on at 6th and king ... that's why timeline and location is important to me ...The device at the centre of the Boston bomb square. These were taken as serious threats for hours despite having a cartoon character on them.
So how is this possible if we are to believe what you are implying, that police can never mistake something for something else?
You can look all over the globe for situations to support your claim i don't careCalled your explanation silly, not you.
Inventing another van from thin air just so you don't have to disagree with BB is silly.
No again ... there is the Video and the report and all i try to do is to see if and how they are connected .. You claiming that I am inventing something that is already discussed on thread is silly don't you think ??What was I assuming exactly?
I provided explanations for the dependency based on both locations. So my explanation is not dependant on a timeline
You assumed that i stated there were 2 Vans i said possiblyYours is, so the onus is on you to provide the timeline as it is the only thing you have to suggest there was two van.
It will benefit the discussion and maybe proof me wrong, thats why its important for me ...All the other evidence and common sense points to there only being one van and that van not exploding as per the report that you provided.
In your narrow minded non fact finding view maybe yesYea maybe or maybe there wasn't an explosion at all?
So if there exists an explanation for the report that does not involve a massive conspiracy, why assume that this incident has anything to do with the massive conspiracy.
remember the mural painted on the Van as stated in the reportYou gave out to Diogenes for suggesting you might believe that there was an explosion despite what the report you posted said.
You have spent the last few pages inventing imaginary vans so you can say there might have been an explosion.
Again show me where !!! ... put up a quote showing me giving out to Di0genes ... and try to keep it in context this time .. .Otherwise try to keep these unfounded insinuations to yourself0 -
According to your opinion, someone else could consider 3km is not a long way.Not impossible but unlikely ... 3 km is a long way in Manhattan
And this does not explain the possibility that they simply thought it was closer that it was.
You know what really is actually unlikely? A second van for which there's no evidence for it's existence.
Then by all means find and post the timeline as your argument is dependant on it. Mine is not. I do not think that a timeline is important to my argument or that it is even possible to find.No I believe what is in the report and that there was something going on at 6th and king ... that's why timeline and location is important to me ...
So basically you're just going to ignore bits of evidence you don't like...You can look all over the globe for situations to support your claim i don't care
However the fact remains we have an example of a police force mistaking something for something else and treating it as serious threat. Exactly what you are saying is unlikely on 9/11.
And it's a far more likely possibility that the report and the video are referring to the same van that did not explode.No again ... there is the Video and the report and all i try to do is to see if and how they are connected .. You claiming that I am inventing something that is already discussed on thread is silly don't you think ??
You assumed that i stated there were 2 Vans i said possibly
A van for which there is no evidence for at all is not a likely explanation.
Unfortunatly, that's not how logic works. If you think it proves your claim or theory, you can post it.It will benefit the discussion and maybe proof me wrong, thats why its important for me ...
So how does this mural make it part of a conspiracy?remember the mural painted on the Van as stated in the report
You see that's the question I started asking, but have yet to see an answer for.0 -
Advertisement
-
According to your opinion, someone else could consider 3km is not a long way.
And this does not explain the possibility that they simply thought it was closer that it was.
No you are not making any sense there .. its not what you think is right its what's in the report .... you can argue this to hell and back but 3 km is not nearby in Manhattan and remember this is the command center closest to 6th and king not necessarily the one the Van got stoppedYou know what really is actually unlikely? A second van for which there's no evidence for it's existence.
Its claimed in the video ..you haven't been able to debunk itThen by all means find and post the timeline as your argument is dependant on it. Mine is not. I do not think that a timeline is important to my argument or that it is even possible to find.
You couldn't come up with one neither am I ... its still important though
scenario could be Van searched at CC at 11 and exploded 6th and king at 1 pmSo basically you're just going to ignore bits of evidence you don't like...
If it suits you to fabricate your theory please use itHowever the fact remains we have an example of a police force mistaking something for something else and treating it as serious threat. Exactly what you are saying is unlikely on 9/11.
Please provide facts that these incidents are the same ??And it's a far more likely possibility that the report and the video are referring to the same van that did not explode.
A van for which there is no evidence for at all is not a likely explanation
I think its really interesting that you will settle for the far more likely idea even if that means getting bits an pieces from incidents elsewhere to support your "likely claim"Unfortunatly, that's not how logic works. If you think it proves your claim or theory, you can post it.
No its how your logic works thats differentSo how does this mural make it part of a conspiracy?
You see that's the question I started asking, but have yet to see an answer for.
A Van driving around in Manhattan with a Mural of a plane htting the WTC on 9/11 right after the attacks could make it part of a conspiracy yes
About answering questions ..... How about you answering mine ..you know the one you claimed i was giving out to di0genes the one i asked for a proper answer 3 times .... still waiting
Your always giving out to people not answering your questions but this is the third discussion we are having that you cannot backup your claims ... i see a pattern forming0 -
And the other explanation I gave involved them thinking it was closer than it actually was.No you are not making any sense there .. its not what you think is right its what's in the report .... you can argue this to hell and back but 3 km is not nearby in Manhattan and remember this is the command center closest to 6th and king not necessarily the one the Van got stopped
No the video and BB clearly believe that the van in the report is the same van in the recording, just that the report is lying about it not exploding.Its claimed in the video ..you haven't been able to debunk it
Ok, great, then provide the evidence to support this.You couldn't come up with one neither am I ... its still important though
scenario could be Van searched at CC at 11 and exploded 6th and king at 1 pm
You think the timeline is important to prove these explanations.
I do not think that the timeline is important for my explanation.
I'm not going to do your work for you and provide you with the timeline.
If you want a timeline, go get it.
But I'm not fabricating anything, I'm providing you an example of the exact thing you said is unlikely to happen.If it suits you to fabricate your theory please use it
They both refer to the van with a mural. No other reports confirm any other vans with a mural. The description of the actions of the police in the report match the recording.Please provide facts that these incidents are the same ??
And what "bits and pieces" are these?I think its really interesting that you will settle for the far more likely idea even if that means getting bits an pieces from incidents elsewhere to support your "likely claim"
The idea it's possible that people can misidentify stuff? Or that they can make a mistake in a report? Or that they can have different ideas of a subjective word?
So please explain why each of these could not possibly have been at play.
Nope, it's one of the basics I'm afraid.No its how your logic works thats different
I'm not going to bother finding the timeline for you because 1. I don't think it's relevant. 2. I don't think it's possible. 3. You won't accept it anyway.
Ok, how is it a part of the conspiracy?A Van driving around in Manhattan with a Mural of a plane htting the WTC on 9/11 right after the attacks could make it part of a conspiracy yes0 -
And the other explanation I gave involved them thinking it was closer than it actually was.
Again ..ridiculous claim, look if your theory doesn't make any sense admit it ..Not very difficult for mostNo the video and BB clearly believe that the van in the report is the same van in the recording, just that the report is lying about it not exploding.
Proof please,,, looks like another one of your unsupported claimsOk, great, then provide the evidence to support this.
You think the timeline is important to prove these explanations.
I do not think that the timeline is important for my explanation.
Again, the timeline could be crucial in this discussion ...it looks to me you have no interest at all in debating this theory,
I always thought you are the kind of person who wants clarity and all in discussions (proof evidence) ... Now it looks you have very little to ad to the debate other then taking down your opponent.I'm not going to do your work for you and provide you with the timeline.
If you want a timeline, go get it.
Your unfounded assumptions earlier and later quoted by me could be easily verified by a timeline ..That's why i ask you for it first remember
I know that when you are running out of options your replies are getting more and more incoherent but for discussion sake we could work together to debunk or prove a point, I have no trouble finding things for you on google rememberBut I'm not fabricating anything, I'm providing you an example of the exact thing you said is unlikely to happen.
Then show me the relevance between the two incidents ... you come up with something new ... at least make an effort to proof itThey both refer to the van with a mural. No other reports confirm any other vans with a mural. The description of the actions of the police in the report match the recording.
No other reports?? what reports ?
The description of the actions of police can be found anywhere because its standard procedure
.And what "bits and pieces" are these?
The idea it's possible that people can misidentify stuff? Or that they can make a mistake in a report? Or that they can have different ideas of a subjective word?
So please explain why each of these could not possibly have been at play
You are dragging in the Boston thing not me.
So when I'm reading this correctly, There can only be mistakes in certain reports when it suits your own theoryNope, it's one of the basics I'm afraid.
I'm not going to bother finding the timeline for you because 1. I don't think it's relevant. 2. I don't think it's possible. 3. You won't accept it anyway.
Again 1. I brought up the timeline myself as being important in this discussion, specialy when it comes to going to different CC at certain times, 2. again the fact that you don't find it relevant doesn't make it inrelevant 3. exactly my point YOU are not interested in the discussion you are here to piss people off,
1. I'm not going to bother finding thatOk, how is it a part of the conspiracy?
2.You won't accept it anyway (sounds familiar ??)
About answering questions ..... How about you answering mine ..you know the one you claimed i was giving out to di0genes the one i asked for a proper answer 4 times .... still waiting
Your always giving out to people not answering your questions but this is the third discussion we are having that you cannot backup your claims ... i see a pattern forming
Are you sure your not just mistaking trolling for proper discussion?0 -
I will not give another warning after this. Stop being so aggressive in your posts. All of you. If you have a problem with a post or poster, or think they're trolling, report it.
Any more accusations of trolling and the user gets a minimum one week ban.0 -
Ok, why is it ridiculous?Again ..ridiculous claim, look if your theory doesn't make any sense admit it ..Not very difficult for most
The van and the command centre were both on 6th. Someone unfamiliar with New York might have believed that this means that they were very close as I did before looking it up.
And even then I would consider 3 km or less than a five minute drive to be "close".
So please explain why either of these explanations are impossible or ridiculous specifically.
Simply claiming that they are does not make them so.
So, why is it crucial?Again, the timeline could be crucial in this discussion
I can see why it might be crucial for your explanation seeing as it would be the only thing to support the existence of the imaginary second van.
However my explanation is not dependant on the timeline. I do not require a timeline to support my explanation.
So I see no need to find the timeline just as I see no need to go make your points for you.
If you want the timeline, go nuts and post.
Because it's an example of the police misidentifying something that is clearly not a bomb or suspicious and a massive, serious operation springing from this mistake.You are dragging in the Boston thing not me.
Exactly what I am saying happened with this truck.
So the Boston example shows that it can and does happen, regardless of how obviously non-threatening something is.
So again, since it has actually happened before, what is impossible or ridiculous about the police misidentifying something as a "mural" and treating it as a threat.
And of course even though you are claiming that my explanations are ridiculous and unlikely, you've failed to actually provide a solid consistent alternative which is not ridiculous or likely by your standards.
So again, how does this van (or vans, if we are to allow our imaginations to wander) fit into a conspiracy?0 -
Ok, why is it ridiculous?
The van and the command centre were both on 6th. Someone unfamiliar with New York might have believed that this means that they were very close as I did before looking it up.
It is a report we are talking about not a tourist who is in New york for the first timeAnd even then I would consider 3 km or less than a five minute drive to be "close".
5 mins ?? here in Kerry maybe ..but not downtown Manhattan I'm afraidSo, why is it crucial?
I can see why it might be crucial for your explanation seeing as it would be the only thing to support the existence of the imaginary second van.
Yes correct it would give a clearer pictureHowever my explanation is not dependant on the timeline. I do not require a timeline to support my explanation.
That depends on what command center they are talking aboutBecause it's an example of the police misidentifying something that is clearly not a bomb or suspicious and a massive, serious operation springing from this mistake.
Exactly what I am saying happened with this truck.
So the Boston example shows that it can and does happen, regardless of how obviously non-threatening something is.
Police sees a Van with paintings of a plane hitting the WTC nearby the command post just after the biggest terrorist attack in History, with Two middle easterners that don't speak a word of English and you think this is "obviously non-threatening"So again, since it has actually happened before, what is impossible or ridiculous about the police misidentifying something as a "mural" and treating it as a threat.
You believe that you can copy the Boston incident onto this fine by me, I just stick with the report ... If you don't agree fineAnd of course even though you are claiming that my explanations are ridiculous and unlikely, you've failed to actually provide a solid consistent alternative which is not ridiculous or likely by your standards.
Again Timeline ... Can expose my wrong and proof I'm right
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/fiveisraelis.html
Another link with claims of more VansSo again, how does this van (or vans, if we are to allow our imaginations to wander) fit into a conspiracy?
Again the Mural and the lack of attention it got
And again can you give me the quote that i gave out to di0genes so i can give him my sincere apologies
If you can't ..... be a man and just admit you make those remarks just to wind people up0 -
And neither explain why either explanation is impossible or unlikely.It is a report we are talking about not a tourist who is in New york for the first time
5 mins ?? here in Kerry maybe ..but not downtown Manhattan I'm afraid
Again they could have mistakenly believed that the command centre being on 6th and the van being on 6th meant that they were very nearby.
Or they could have considered 3 km "close". What your opinion of that their opinion should be does not take away form the fact that it is subjective.
So so please precisiely why these two explanations are impossible or unlikely.
Great, so you're not posting it because...?Yes correct it would give a clearer picture
Either position could be considered "close". Which command centre you prefer to pretend the report is referring to does not effect my explanations.That depends on what command center they are talking about
Well first off you, the video and the report use a lot a different descriptions of the so called mural. So far it's been "A plane flying towards the twin towers" and "A plane flying towards New York" then there's also "the plane flying in.." and the "plane exploding over..."Police sees a Van with paintings of a plane hitting the WTC nearby the command post just after the biggest terrorist attack in History, with Two middle easterners that don't speak a word of English and you think this is "obviously non-threatening"
You believe that you can copy the Boston incident onto this fine by me, I just stick with the report ... If you don't agree fine
None of that seems very consistent and all points to the fact that this "mural" was pretty open to interruption.
But then my example shows that the police finding this threatening does not prove anything, because the police also found images of a cartoon character made out of lite-brites "threatening."
The police make mistakes like that.
you can ignore that fact if you like.
So then why don;t you post the timeline, since we both agree it's important for you.Again Timeline ... Can expose my wrong and proof I'm right
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/fiveisraelis.html
Another link with claims of more Vans
Ok, but that's not an answer to my question. What part did these vans play in the conspiracy? Why were they painted in murals that attracted attention and gave the game away? What were they targeting that required a bomb that according to BB wouldn't have done any damage?Again the Mural and the lack of attention it got
And the thousand other questions that claiming that the van are part of the conspiracy seems to beg.
Again you plug your ears and pretend that my explanation doesn't make sense or is unlikely. But no one has actually been able to show any sane or rational alternative that shows the conspiracy.0 -
i might not have been. but since you are suggesting that it might have been ... do you have any proof?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.The burden of proof lies with the claimant.
perhaps you should read it first, or say that you have not read it.If you can point me to any section of the NIST where is makes a unsubstantiated claim I'd be happy to read it.
if you have read it, then you should say that, and confirm that you agree with it completely ...0 -
And neither explain why either explanation is impossible or unlikely.
Again they could have mistakenly believed that the command centre being on 6th and the van being on 6th meant that they were very nearby.
Or they could have considered 3 km "close". What your opinion of that their opinion should be does not take away form the fact that it is subjective.
So so please precisiely why these two explanations are impossible or unlikely.
I believe the report, i think it is common sense that 3 km in Manhattan is not nearby, again your opinion against mine, please don/t think in behalf of the makers of the report ...it makes your claim less and less believable...Great, so you're not posting it because...?
I don't have it unfortunatelyWell first off you, the video and the report use a lot a different descriptions of the so called mural. So far it's been "A plane flying towards the twin towers" and "A plane flying towards New York" then there's also "the plane flying in.." and the "plane exploding over..."
None of that seems very consistent and all points to the fact that this "mural" was pretty open to interruption.
But then my example shows that the police finding this threatening does not prove anything, because the police also found images of a cartoon character made out of lite-brites "threatening."
The police make mistakes like that.
you can ignore that fact if you like.
I believe the claims of the report about the mural .... You don't so come up with proof/evidence of a different scenario.... not only your opinion/example .
There was also nothing suspicious about that ryder truck in Oklahoma city and we all know the outcome of that
And again can you give me the quote that i gave out to di0genes so i can give him my sincere apologies0 -
And I say it's common sense that 3km is close.I believe the report, i think it is common sense that 3 km in Manhattan is not nearby, again your opinion against mine,
It's almost as if the word has a subjective meaning or something...
But you are "thinking in behalf of the makers of the report". You are saying they meant a a different truck. You are saying that they could not have possibly meant what I am suggesting that they could have meant.please don/t think in behalf of the makers of the report ...it makes your claim less and less believable...
I've suggested a pair of plausible explanations. Your alternative is a a second van for which there is no evidence for and presupposes a vast conspiracy.
You have not been able to suggest why my explanations are wrong or implausible you have just stated they are and refused to support your argument.
And neither do I as I do not think it is important.I don't have it unfortunately
So now that you have not got the time table you have nothing at all to support the idea of a second van, besides your opinion of someone else's opinion.
Like perhaps the police misidentifying something innocuous as a serious threat?I believe the claims of the report about the mural .... You don't so come up with proof/evidence of a different scenario.... not only your opinion/example .
Like maybe a completely innocuous advertising thing with a picture of a cartoon character made out of a children's toy?
So it happened then, why can't it happen on 9/11?
And then what is the scenario you are suggesting that explains why there were these mural trucks in the first place?
Can you provide the same thing you are asking me for, complete with evidence/proof?
And since you believe the claims of the report, do you believe that the truck was "an innocent delivery truck"?
Because you seem to be trying to suggest that it's a part of the conspiracy, counter to the claims of the report.
So you're banning me from using examples for other situations while then using your own when it suits you.There was also nothing suspicious about that ryder truck in Oklahoma city and we all know the outcome of that
And what exactly is the point you're trying to make here?
Do you think that I am suggesting that the police should not have checked the mural truck?0 -
Advertisement
-
-
So can you explain why an example of the police taking a clearly innocuous item as a serious threat is not relevant to my point.nobody is banning you from making examples. we'd just like it to be relevant examples ... that's all.
Can you explain how Weisses's example is relevant to either of our points?0 -
can you state your point and your example, as well as why you think weisses's example is not relevant?So can you explain why an example of the police taking a clearly innocuous item as a serious threat is not relevant to my point.
Can you explain how Weisses's example is relevant to either of our points?
we'll take it from there ...0 -
can you state your point and your example, as well as why you think weisses's example is not relevant?
we'll take it from there ...
Well I have done so several times.
I am suggesting that the police mistook what was painted on the van as a "mural" of the attacks.
I am using my example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Boston_bomb_scare) to show that the police can and do mistake innocuous items (such as the items in my example) as something threatening.
Hence my example is an example of what I am claiming could possibly and likely did happen.
Hence it is relevant.
I do not know if Weisses's example is relevant or not because I do not know what point he is attempting to make, that's why I asked him.
Nearest I can guess is that he is trying to suggest that I am claiming that the police never get it right or that something that looks innocent could be dangerous.
The first I am not claiming and is therefore not relevant, the second is irrelevant because I have not claimed otherwise and we are not discussing something the police regarded as "innocent".
So again, why is my example not relevant and why is Weisses's?0 -
that is fair enough. you are claiming that they did not see the mural clearly.Well I have done so several times.
I am suggesting that the police mistook what was painted on the van as a "mural" of the attacks.
you have an example of police making a mistake in judgement regarding the classification of certain devices.I am using my example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Boston_bomb_scare) to show that the police can and do mistake innocuous items (such as the items in my example) as something threatening.
Hence my example is an example of what I am claiming could possibly and likely did happen.
you are missing the context here.Hence it is relevant.
it is relevant if your point is that police misclassifying devices, or more generally, police make mistakes.
if its the first point, then you have failed to show how the police not getting a clear look at a van is similar to police looking at a device, calling backup and after further investigation, incorrectly determined the device to be a i.e.d..
if it is the second point, you are claiming that police make mistakes, so anything and everything they have done could be a mistake, with a high probability.
then i won't comment on it.I do not know if Weisses's example is relevant or not because I do not know what point he is attempting to make, that's why I asked him.
but you are claiming that sometimes the police identify something incorrectly (as dangerous).Nearest I can guess is that he is trying to suggest that I am claiming that the police never get it right or that something that looks innocent could be dangerous.
The first I am not claiming and is therefore not relevant, the second is irrelevant because I have not claimed otherwise and we are not discussing something the police regarded as "innocent".
this is different to the police being mistaken in what they saw in a mural, and their actions based upon that.
i can't comment on Weisses's, but i hope i've show how your is not.So again, why is my example not relevant and why is Weisses's?0 -
That's not what I claimed or was claiming.that is fair enough. you are claiming that they did not see the mural clearly.
But the thing is, the police in my example were looking at the "devices" clearly and could still see that they had a cartoon character on them, yet they were still treated as dangerous and they declared them as such.you have an example of police making a mistake in judgement regarding the classification of certain devices.
you are missing the context here.
it is relevant if your point is that police misclassifying devices, or more generally, police make mistakes.
if its the first point, then you have failed to show how the police not getting a clear look at a van is similar to police looking at a device, calling backup and after further investigation, incorrectly determined the device to be a i.e.d..
if it is the second point, you are claiming that police make mistakes, so anything and everything they have done could be a mistake, with a high probability.
So it's likely that the same thing happened in the 9/11 example.
They either saw a van with something that could have been mistaken as the claimed mural, or heard second hand reports of the mural, and treating it as suspicious and dangerous.
Ok, why is it different?but you are claiming that sometimes the police identify something incorrectly (as dangerous).
this is different to the police being mistaken in what they saw in a mural, and their actions based upon that.0 -
the cartoon character was not what made them think they were dangerous, the electronics and circuit boards visible were what resulted in them being classified as dangerous.That's not what I claimed or was claiming.
But the thing is, the police in my example were looking at the "devices" clearly and could still see that they had a cartoon character on them, yet they were still treated as dangerous and they declared them as such.
So it's likely that the same thing happened in the 9/11 example.
They either saw a van with something that could have been mistaken as the claimed mural, or heard second hand reports of the mural, and treating it as suspicious and dangerous.
Ok, why is it different?
similarly the reason the vans are suspicious, were not the murals alone, but the fact of who was driving them and what was happening that day.0 -
And at no point did I ever argue that the police were not justified in stopping and searching the van.the cartoon character was not what made them think they were dangerous, the electronics and circuit boards visible were what resulted in them being classified as dangerous.
similarly the reason the vans are suspicious, were not the murals alone, but the fact of who was driving them and what was happening that day.
But in both cases they clearly misidentified what they saw, showing that the police can misidentify what they say and take these things seriously on very flimsy basis.
So the police reporting a "mural" does not necessarily mean it actually was a mural when there are much more plausible explanations.0 -
ok, you are saying that incorrect deduction is equivalent to incorrect reportingAnd at no point did I ever argue that the police were not justified in stopping and searching the van.
But in both cases they clearly misidentified what they saw, showing that the police can misidentify what they say and take these things seriously on very flimsy basis.
So the police reporting a "mural" does not necessarily mean it actually was a mural when there are much more plausible explanations.
i'll try a different angle so ...
so at no point was there a van there?
what about the buildings that the plane flew into? just because the police reported that planes flew into buildings, as you claim with your example, does not necessarily mean it actually happened, when there are much more plausible explanations.
does that show you the fallacy in your example and the argument you are using to apply it in this context?0 -
Advertisement
-
If you prefer to stick to that childish strawman, then sure, you can believe that.ok, you are saying that incorrect deduction is equivalent to incorrect reporting
If you would prefer to actually address what I said however...
I am not arguing that there was never a van, that's another strawman.i'll try a different angle so ...
so at no point was there a van there?
It would, if it was a comparable example, but it is not.what about the buildings that the plane flew into? just because the police reported that planes flew into buildings, as you claim with your example, does not necessarily mean it actually happened, when there are much more plausible explanations.
does that show you the fallacy in your example and the argument you are using to apply it in this context?
With the planes we have 100's of hours of video, 1000's of photos, multiple eyewitnesses confirming the exact same thing independently, the resulting damage and found wreckage and human remains positively identifying the exact planes that crashed.
Now had the example you are now using been applicable to what I'm actually saying, we would have no photos or video, no wreckage, no damage and a bare handful of witnesses who all give different and contradictory statements.
Now if a police officer claimed that he saw a plane hit, and all of that stuff applied, would you believe him? Or would you look for a more plausible answer?
And it's the same here. There's no photo or video showing the mural (let alone any evidence that the van exploded) and everyone gave conflicting reports of the mural. And then the idea of a van having a mural does not make a lick of sense, no one has been able to offer even a stupid sounding conspiracy explanation for the van let alone a a sane rational one.
So the most likely explanation from the verifiable evidence is that the van was an innocent deliver truck that had either a logo or an advertisement on it that was misconstrued by the police (or someone reporting it to the police) to be depicting an attack. The police then acted as they would when faced with something they determine is suspicious even though it really wasn't, exactly like in the Boston example I posted.0
Advertisement