FBI Reports on Israeli Mossad activities on and pre 9/11

Border-Rat

I found this on another website;



Above: A snippet from the 2001 FBI files on Urban Moving Systems and the 9-11 Dancing Israelis incident. An employee of UMS dishes on the boss (Dominik Suter?) who not only cheats customers but seems to harbor a huge grudge against the United States.



The controversy around Urban Moving Systems (active as a business since approximately 1996) centers around the fact that it was a Mossad front company, and whether or not the "employees" (agents) knew what was about to go down on September 11th. There were also, according to the FBI report, traces of explosive in the van used in the Dancing Israelis incident. Were members of this group involved in rigging the towers for demolition?



In section 5, page 25 of the FBI report, a male eyewitness who was painting the interior of an apartment spots the Dancing Israelis on a nearby roof "less than 5 minutes" after the first plane hits the WTC. The location of the roof, 100 Manhattan Avenue in Union City, NJ, is a 5 minute drive from Urban Moving Systems at 3 W 18th Street in Weehauken. This contradicts the statement of one of the Israelis in the 2nd video, who claims they began driving to that point after the first plane hit the towers.



Section 1, pages 36-37There were a number of reasons I retrieved and posted the 4 page police report from the East Rutherford, NJ P.D. and these FBI documents on the 9-11-2001 Dancing Israelis incident (links are below). If any 9-11 researchers had seen them, they failed to make them available for public scrutiny. As a consequence, some individuals have concluded that the Dancing Israelis were an "urban legend", based only on researchers' opinions and a slew of seemingly disparate facts.



Section 5, page 41

Fill out an FOIA request, or write a letter, and these public records are yours for a few dollars, or free. So why have we not seen (until now) official documentation on these suspicious events - events that apparently never got a mention in the 9-11 Commission Report?



Section 5, pages 62-63


The FBI's investigation of the Dancing Israelis is close to 450 pages long. Many sections are blanked out, some pages have been withheld, and it won't be completely declassified until 2030 at the earliest.



Section 5, page 30The report is in 6 sections. The PDF "search" option does not seem to be working. A brief synopsis of some findings are below, section by section.


Section 1, page 33
Because of time constraints, I have not vetted everything. Please note in the comments area any section/page of interest found in these documents. I have posted some snippets, however, I may have missed a few things, and would appreciate any insights, help etc.



Section 5, page 47



Section 1, page 65Above: A female witness at 100 Manhattan Avenue spots the Israelis "high fiving" each other while watching the WTC burn. Were they really happy to see the WTC burn, or were they just fans of Seattle's "High Five'n White Guys"?:

christmas2012

Totally wrong wrong wrong..9/11 did happen i had relatives on WTC that can testify it happened they were there..Its an insult to those who lost their lives and the relatives of those who lost their lives,there was no bomb,how would they have smuggled huge bombs(they would have to be) on to the buildings to cause such catastrophic explosins there were two planes hijacked seen visibly flying puposefully into the world trade center and then the jet fuel igniting killing everyone instantly on those few floors they entered in on..The other plane went purposefully lower as he was intent on killing more people,there was clearly no bomb,if it was the case then the world media would have reported it,the media cannot be seen to report lies as they would be sued..How could all those people read each others minds and think oh i know lets pull off the biggest lie ever..dont think so,and the world media sued,dont think so,all those cops out on that day to waste time on themselves?dont think so.
why make up such ridiculous lies?

Border-Rat

Cont;

p. 36 and p. 52-53 - An "unscheduled" Urban Moving Systems van is stopped by Pennsylvania State Police as it is traveling toward the Shanksville, PA hijacked flight 93 crash site:




p. 61-77 - Tenants at 100 Manhattan Avenue apartments are questioned about sightings of Israelis prior to 9-11.




Section 1, page 61.
One of the 5 Dancing Israelis was spotted at 100 Manhattan Ave. on 9-10-11. Was he helping the mysterious couple (below) move out of their apartment?



NYPD can be heard here discussing vans (Including van bombs) and one with a mural making a mockery out of the atrocity;

Picture of one of these vans;



It shows the mentality of these sick individuals, the need to drive around in New York with that on the side of the truck.

Border-Rat

Border-Rat wrote: »

Picture of one of these vans;



It shows the mentality of these sick individuals, the need to drive around in New York with that on the side of the truck.

Do you have a source for this picture? It looks very obviously photoshoped to me.

Border-Rat

FBI document Section 1 - 1138796-001 --- 303A-NK-105536 --- Section 1 (944861)





Sample from full documentation;



Confirmation of news reports in 2001 that bomb disposal dogs were alerted to traces of explosives in the 'High-Fiving' van.

Suceed

King Mob wrote: »

Do you have a source for this picture? It looks very obviously photoshoped to me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Huf2Kz7bV2k

Flick to 5:19 of this vid.

Says it's an artist's rendition, based on the accompanying audio.

Border-Rat

Tackling a mere footnote while ignoring the remaining 90% of the thread. Says it all, really.

Suceed

Border-Rat wrote: »

Tackling a mere footnote while ignoring the remaining 90% of the thread. Says it all, really.

To me, it seems as if the Israeli gentlemen in question had foreknowledge of the event.

As to the mural on the van, hard to say without more evidence.

As to the sniffer dog reacting to the van, there may have been explosives in the van or it may have been a false positive from the dog, reacting to cues from a suspicious handler, not an unknown phenomenon.

It's not clear to me, from your last post, if swabs on the van detected the presence of explosive material.?

Border-Rat

Border-Rat wrote: »

Tackling a mere footnote while ignoring the remaining 90% of the thread. Says it all, really.

What's wrong about that?
You posted a picture purporting to be an image of these mythical vans.
I was just curious where it came from.

But I think it's more telling that you posted the image as if it was real without doing any verification about it.
Further the photoshopped image itself is quite dishonest. Mainly it shows an image of a plane flying into the twin towers when the audio description (the only report of these vans) does not say that. Plus it is labelled Urban Systems Moving, a detail not reported by anyone at any time. There is nothing to link these vans with that company or the dancing Israelis.

And of course it all begs the question: why did they send these vans out in the first place?

Yes this is only one of your points, but the fact it is so weak and starts to crumble the instant you put any amount of scrutiny on it is very telling.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Further the photoshopped image itself is quite dishonest. Mainly it shows an image of a plane flying into the twin towers when the audio description (the only report of these vans) does not say that.

I hope you remember the vans were mentioned by police in an official report

weisses

weisses wrote: »

I hope you remember the vans were mentioned by police in an official report

Which report are you referring to and does it contain a detailed description of the van or is it just a repeat of the description in the audio?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Which report are you referring to and does it contain a detailed description of the van or is it just a repeat of the description in the audio?

It was the MTI report i believe ... discussed at length in here

weisses

weisses wrote: »

It was the MTI report i believe ... discussed at length in here

That's not a police report. It contains exactly four lines about the van, offering no more detail than the single audio clip that is oft repeated and most importantly, reports that the van was found to be totally innocent.

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

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

So what precisely was the point you were attempting to make?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

That's not a police report. It contains exactly four lines about the van, offering no more detail than the single audio clip that is oft repeated and most importantly, reports that the van was found to be totally innocent.

I never said it was a police report ... innocent fine by me .... but it had paintings of a Plane flying into the world trade center on the day 2 planes flew into the world trade center

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

King Mob wrote: »

So what precisely was the point you were attempting to make?

My point was to explain that the audio description is not the only report of these vans .... They were mentioned in an official report later

weisses

weisses wrote: »

I never said it was a police report ... innocent fine by me .... but it had paintings of a Plane flying into the world trade center on the day 2 planes flew into the world trade center

No, it had what was reported to be a painting of a plane flying into New York.
Considering the report said that the van was innocent, it is very likely that whatever was on it's side was misinterpreted by the reporting officer.

Unless you you can provide a reasonable explanation for why these vans were there that indicates and is consistent with a conspiracy?

weisses wrote: »

My point was to explain that the audio description is not the only report of these vans .... They were mentioned in an official report later

But that report uses that audio as it's source, because the audio recording is the only source and only first hand report of it.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

No, it had what was reported to be a painting of a plane flying into New York..

I quoted from your own quote ... that says world trade center

King Mob wrote: »

Considering the report said that the van was innocent, it is very likely that whatever was on it's side was misinterpreted by the reporting officer...

I debunked your interpretation in another thread .. doesnt matter what you make of it .. what is in the report that is what matters

King Mob wrote: »

Unless you you can provide a reasonable explanation for why these vans were there that indicates and is consistent with a conspiracy?.

Van was ther with a mural on it that had a plane flying into the WTC .. you do the math

King Mob wrote: »

But that report uses that audio as it's source, because the audio recording is the only source and only first hand report of it.

Where does it state it uses that audioreport as its only source . ?? ..

weisses

weisses wrote: »

I quoted from your own quote ... that says world trade center

But the only first hand account only specifies New York, not the World Trade Centre.

weisses wrote: »

I debunked your interpretation in another thread .. doesnt matter what you make of it .. what is in the report that is what matters

And the report says that the van was innocent.
Can you please how my explanation is impossible and can you please provide a reasonable alternative explanation that allows the van to both have a mural of the attacks but also be innocent? If you cannot, then you have not debunked anything.

weisses wrote: »

Van was ther with a mural on it that had a plane flying into the WTC .. you do the math

But it makes no sense for them to have van with a painting of the attacks. Can you please provide one sane rational reason for why anyone would do this?

weisses wrote: »

Where does it state it uses that audioreport as its only source . ?? ..

It doesn't. The audio is the only first hand source. If they used another, or you know of a different one (preferably with more accurate descriptions) please provide it.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

But the only first hand account only specifies New York, not the World Trade Centre. .

Again ... I quoted you

King Mob wrote: »

And the report says that the van was innocent.
Can you please how my explanation is impossible and can you please provide a reasonable alternative explanation that allows the van to both have a mural of the attacks but also be innocent? If you cannot, then you have not debunked anything..

Your explanation isn't impossible ...

I debunked your flawed reasoning ... I go with whats in the repport .. and you want to make your own interpatation of it .. fine by me, all your questions now have been discussed in the other thread so i suggest you use the search function

King Mob wrote: »

But it makes no sense for them to have van with a painting of the attacks. Can you please provide one sane rational reason for why anyone would do this?.

Alot of things doesnt make any sense nor have an rational reason for it to happen but they do happen

King Mob wrote: »

It doesn't. The audio is the only source. If they used another, or you know of a different one (preferably with more accurate descriptions) please provide it.

I dont believe the report used the audio only to make the claim ... but that is my interpratation

weisses

weisses wrote: »

Again ... I quoted you

That's great. But the only source says something different.
The officer on the scene only specifies New York, not the Twin Towers.

weisses wrote: »

Your explanation isn't impossible ...

I debunked your flawed reasoning ... I go with whats in the repport .. and you want to make your own interpatation of it .. fine by me, all your questions now have been discussed in the other thread so i suggest you use the search function

I don't think you know what the word debunk means.
You have not shown that my explanation is impossible or unlikely and you can't provide any plausible explanation that is more likely than mine.

And since there's a rational, possible explanation, and no explanation consistent with a conspiracy, the entire idea of these vans indicating a conspiracy is not supportable.

weisses wrote: »

Alot of things doesnt make any sense nor have an rational reason for it to happen but they do happen

Yes, like for insistence describing an innocuous mural as depicting an attack is a person acting irrational. However the explanation is rational and reasonable.
The fact you cannot provide a explanation to fit your preferred narrative means that your narrative has a hole in it. Which hilariously means that the story of these vans work against the conspiracy theory.

weisses wrote: »

I dont believe the report used the audio only to make the claim ... but that is my interpratation

So no, you cannot provide any other first hand sources for the report.
So since the audio report is the only first hand report, my statement which you took exception to is true.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

That's great. But the only source says something different.
The officer on the scene only specifies New York, not the Twin Towers..

So why are you quoting the twin towers to make your point ?

King Mob wrote: »

I don't think you know what the word debunk means.
You have not shown that my explanation is impossible or unlikely and you can't provide any plausible explanation that is more likely than mine..

You can use any explanation you want (thats what ct ers normaly do as well) but the report says MTI different so i stick with that

King Mob wrote: »

And since there's a rational, possible explanation, and no explanation consistent with a conspiracy, the entire idea of these vans indicating a conspiracy is not supportable..

thats your interpratation fine .. but the fact remains there were vans driving around with that mural on the day of the attack (according to the MTI report)

King Mob wrote: »

So no, you cannot provide any other first hand sources for the report.
So since the audio report is the only first hand report, my statement which you took exception to is true.

The MTI report said nothing about the audio reprt so assuming the used only that for their conclusion is flawed

weisses

weisses wrote: »

So why are you quoting the twin towers to make your point ?

Because that's what the MTI report claims, which is clearly a mistaken retelling of what the primary source says.

weisses wrote: »

You can use any explanation you want (thats what ct ers normaly do as well) but the report says MTI different so i stick with that

thats your interpratation fine .. but the fact remains there were vans driving around with that mural on the day of the attack (according to the MTI report)

The report you are sticking to says that the van was reported to have a mural of the attack. it does not confirm that this was the case.
It does not exclude the possibility that the officer was mistaken. And that is the only explanation that accurately allows for a van with a mural of the attack to also be innocent.

But we both know that you can't find a flaw in this and you know it's the likely explanation, you just don't want to agree with it because it doesn't show a conspiracy.

weisses wrote: »

The MTI report said nothing about the audio reprt so assuming the used only that for their conclusion is flawed

But again, there only exists one first hand report. If they didn't use this one first hand report, what did they use?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Because that's what the MTI report claims, which is clearly a mistaken retelling of what the primary source says.
The report you are sticking to says that the van was reported to have a mural of the attack. it does not confirm that this was the case.
It does not exclude the possibility that the officer was mistaken. And that is the only explanation that accurately allows for a van with a mural of the attack to also be innocent.?

Why is it clearly a mistaken retelling ?? .. Please enlighten me not with your assumptions and believes but with facts this time please

King Mob wrote: »

But we both know that you can't find a flaw in this and you know it's the likely explanation, you just don't want to agree with it because it doesn't show a conspiracy.

The only flaw i see is your reasoning that says you believe the report but not whats written in it ...

It doesn't matter what i think is likely

King Mob wrote: »

But again, there only exists one first hand report. If they didn't use this one first hand report, what did they use?

You have the report of one saying New york and the other saying Twin towers ... So instead of dismissing one you could say that there are maybe Two reports

weisses

weisses wrote: »

Why is it clearly a mistaken retelling ?? .. Please enlighten me not with your assumptions and believes but with facts this time please

Because there is only one source for the report of the van. And it came from an eyewitness. That report claim it was a plane flying into New York. It does not say anything about twin towers.
There are no other sources, hence the MTI report made a slight mistake.

weisses wrote: »

The only flaw i see is your reasoning that says you believe the report but not whats written in it ...

It doesn't matter what i think is likely

You don't understand what I am saying then, or at least pretending to.

The MTI reports says there were reports of a van with a mural. It then says that the van was found to be innocent, which to anyone not desperate to prove a conspiracy clearly implies that the mural was not as reported.

weisses wrote: »

You have the report of one saying New york and the other saying Twin towers ... So instead of dismissing one you could say that there are maybe Two reports

Then can you provide the second report you think they are using? Can you point to any other first hand reports?
If not, then we are left with only the one.

You are grasping at straws now and it's getting sad.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

Then can you provide the second report you think they are using? Can you point to any other first hand reports?
If not, then we are left with only the one.

You are grasping at straws now and it's getting sad.

That's a ridiculous thing to say.

Of course there are other reports as a matter of procedure. All of the various emergency services involved would file incident reports. Do you somehow deny this??

Obviously Minetta wasn't basing his findings on Police radio transmissions.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

That's a ridiculous thing to say.

Of course there are other reports as a matter of procedure. All of the various emergency services involved would file incident reports. Do you somehow deny this??

Obviously Minetta wasn't basing his findings on Police radio transmissions.

Then please direct us to the other reports that specifically mention the vans and describe their murals.

weisses

You said that you believed the report .. Fact

Then you said they made a mistake or misinterpretation about the mural.. Just to fit your story

Now your saying they made another mistake regarding the first and only report ... Again to make it fit so you can comprehend it

I'm not the one grasping at straws here ...

You are trying to ridicule that report to make it fit your believes. That is getting sad

weisses

weisses wrote: »

You said that you believed the report .. Fact

Then you said they made a mistake or misinterpretation about the mural.. Just to fit your story

Now your saying they made another mistake regarding the first and only report ... Again to make it fit so you can comprehend it

I'm not the one grasping at straws here ...

You are trying to ridicule that report to make it fit your believes. That is getting sad

Yes, they made a minor mistake, inferring that the mural depicted an attack on the twin towers when the report only specified New York.
But I did not say they where mistaken about the report, I said they imply that the report itself was mistaken.

You are being deliberately obtuse to avoid the obvious, more likely and non conspiracy explanation.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

Then please direct us to the other reports that specifically mention the vans and describe their murals.

I just did - NYPD, bomb squad etc reports.

Are you trying to say that this incident is somehow an exception to the rule of police procedure and no reports were filed?

Or do you agree that normal procedures would have been followed and therefore we can be sure that other reports of the incident are in fact in existence?

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I just did - NYPD, bomb squad etc reports.

Are you trying to say that this incident is somehow an exception to the rule of police procedure and no reports were filed?

Or do you agree that normal procedures would have been followed and therefore we can be sure that other reports of the incident are in fact in existence?

And of those, precisely how many of them specifically indicate that the van had a mural of the attacks on it?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Yes, they made a minor mistake, inferring that the mural depicted an attack on the twin towers when the report only specified New York.
But I did not say they where mistaken about the report, I said they imply that the report itself was mistaken.

You are being deliberately obtuse to avoid the obvious, more likely and non conspiracy explanation.

They made a minor mistake according to you ... otherwise you couldn't hold on to your ridiculous claims

Who said that they didn't talk to the officers who stopped and searched the van ... you assume they used the initial report.

Again don't try to alter the conclusions of a report just so it fits your believe .... Its rather silly to be honest

weisses

weisses wrote: »

They made a minor mistake according to you ... otherwise you couldn't hold on to your ridiculous claims

Who said that they didn't talk to the officers who stopped and searched the van ... you assume they used the initial report.

So is this what they did? Can you provide a source to support this?
Can you provide the reports you claim they used or not.
Or is there only one report that describes the mural?

weisses wrote: »

Again don't try to alter the conclusions of a report just so it fits your believe .... Its rather silly to be honest

But I'm not altering the conclusion of the report.
I agree with the report in that there was a report of a van with a mural, but it was determined to be innocent and that the initial report of a mural was in fact mistaken.

Now can you please point out where this explanation is impossible or unlikely?
Can you provide a better alternative?
Can you provide a reasonable alternative that both contains all the facts and indicates a conspiracy?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

And of those, precisely how many of them specifically indicate that the van had a mural of the attacks on it?

You're being disingenious. Could you answer the questions please`.

Are you trying to say that this incident is somehow an exception to the rule of police procedure and no reports were filed?

Or do you agree that normal procedures would have been followed and therefore we can be sure that other reports of the incident are in fact in existence?

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You're being disingenious. Could you answer the questions please`.

Are you trying to say that this incident is somehow an exception to the rule of police procedure and no reports were filed?

Or do you agree that normal procedures would have been followed and therefore we can be sure that other reports of the incident are in fact in existence?

No. And yes.

However neither means that another report contains a first hand report that describes a mural depicting the attack.
So can you provide these reports?
If not, how many first hand reports do we know that describes a mural of the attack?

One.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

No. And yes.

However neither means that another report contains a first hand report that describes a mural depicting the attack.
So can you provide these reports?
If not, how many first hand reports do we know that describes a mural of the attack?

One.

Okay. So we have established that there is more than one report. We also have established that it is unclear exactly what is contained in these confidential reports.

Based on Minetta's statements and using good sense we can assume that these reports contain accounts of a plane hitting the towers on the van as he would have been privy to these reports.

There is not a single reason that I am aware of to think otherwise.

weisses

Okay first..

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76146440&postcount=321

From our last thread debating this

King Mob wrote: »

So is this what they did? Can you provide a source to support this?
Can you provide the reports you claim they used or not.
Or is there only one report that describes the mural?

Nope not saying they did .... You claim that the report is wrong regarding the initial report because you claim there is only one report ... Backup your claim that they used the wrong report please

King Mob wrote: »

But I'm not altering the conclusion of the report.
I agree with the report in that there was a report of a van with a mural, but it was determined to be innocent and that the initial report of a mural was in fact mistaken.

Nope that is not what the report says... Don't be dishonest in quoting the report ... So yes you are altering what is said in the report

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

See the difference ??

King Mob wrote: »

Now can you please point out where this explanation is impossible or unlikely?
Can you provide a better alternative?
Can you provide a reasonable alternative that both contains all the facts and indicates a conspiracy?

Well its not the conclusion of the report that it happened the way you described it

And yes i believe the MTI report

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Okay. So we have established that there is more than one report. We also have established that it is unclear exactly what is contained in these confidential reports.

Based on Minetta's statements and using good sense we can assume that these reports contain accounts of a plane hitting the towers on the van as he would have been privy to these reports.

There is not a single reason that I am aware of to think otherwise.

We can't assume that.
We only know that one report and one report only says anything about a mural. You cannot provide any others, therefore we've got a grand total of one.

weisses

weisses wrote: »

Nope that is not what the report says... Don't be dishonest in quoting the report ... So yes you are altering what is said in the report

See the difference ??


Well its not the conclusion of the report that it happened the way you described it

And yes i believe the MTI report

And I have repeatedly and clearly argued (in both this and that thread) that the idea the mural was a case of misinterpretation in implied when they say the truck was found to be innocent.

So again I ask you to point out specifically where this does not make sense and to propose a reasonable alternative explanation for how a van with a mural of the attack can be innocent?

I have asked you repeatedly for these things but you cannot provide them because my explanation is the most likely one.

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

We can't assume that.
We only know that one report and one report only says anything about a mural. You cannot provide any others, therefore we've got a grand total of one.

I am assuming based on evidence i.e Minetta's statement.

You are also assuming, assuming that they don't make reference to the mural containing the twin towers on absolutely nothing.

Correct me if I am wrong.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I am assuming based on evidence i.e Minetta's statement.

His statements do not support what you are assuming.
We have one report and one report only that describes a mural.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

You are also assuming, assuming that they don't make reference to the mural containing the twin towers on absolutely nothing.

Correct me if I am wrong.

I'm not assuming that, I'm stating the fact that there is nothing to support the idea that any of them said anything about any mural.

So either provide more reports about the mural or just say you cannot.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

And I have repeatedly and clearly argued (in both this and that thread) that the idea the mural was a case of misinterpretation in implied when they say the truck was found to be innocent.

I think you are the one misinterpreting the report and the Mural ... You cant explain it for yourself so the report must be wrong and that is something you have to back up

King Mob wrote: »

So again I ask you to point out specifically where this does not make sense and to propose a reasonable alternative explanation for how a van with a mural of the attack can be innocent?

Ohh your explanation does make sense ... only according to the report it didn't happen that way

King Mob wrote: »

I have asked you repeatedly for these things but you cannot provide them because my explanation is the most likely one.

Again you can draw any conclusion and for you logical explanation you want but that doesn't mean it did happen that way

You came up with nothing but absolutely nothing to backup your claim

weisses

weisses wrote: »

I think you are the one misinterpreting the report and the Mural ... You cant explain it for yourself so the report must be wrong and that is something you have to back up

Ohh your explanation does make sense ... only according to the report it didn't happen that way

Where does my explanation conflict with the report?

That there was a report of a van with a mural?
That the van was found to be innocent?
That this implies that the initial report of a mural was in error?

weisses wrote: »

Again you can draw any conclusion and for you logical explanation you want but that doesn't mean it did happen that way

You came up with nothing but absolutely nothing to backup your claim

What precisely do I need to back up?

And again, can you provide any explanation at all to explain how a van with a mural of the attacks can be considered innocent?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

His statements do not support what you are assuming.

Yes it does. I am assuming that Norman Minetta, then US transportation secretary was privy to official documents or government briefings that led to him making the following statement.

A panel truck with a painting of a plane flying into the World Trade Center was stopped near the temporary command post.

Do you think Minetta got his information from youtube?

What is your assumption on Minetta's source of information which led to him to make the above statement?

King Mob wrote: »

We have one report and one report only that describes a mural.

All known public information points to there being a mural on the van that was stopped.
Account A, the NYPD says that it was a plane flying into New York City.

Account B, Norman Minetta says that the mural was of a plane flying into the WTC.

Both are consistent reports.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

Where does my explanation conflict with the report?

That there was a report of a van with a mural?
That the van was found to be innocent?
That this implies that the initial report of a mural was in error?

Where does it state that the initial report of the mural was in error ?

King Mob wrote: »

What precisely do I need to back up?

Provide evidence for your most likely scenario

King Mob wrote: »

And again, can you provide any explanation at all to explain how a van with a mural of the attacks can be considered innocent?

Would a Van driving around as described in the report breaking the law ?? i dont know ..do you ?

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Yes it does. I am assuming that Norman Minetta, then US transportation secretary was privy to official documents or government briefings that led to him making the following statement.


Do you think Minetta got his information from youtube?

But it does not follow that there were any other reports of the van having a mural of the attacks.
We only know of one first hand report that says this.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What is your assumption on Minetta's source of information which led to him to make the above statement?

That he at least heard that one audio account, or a report of it.
I don't assume anything else.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

All known public information points to there being a mural on the van that was stopped.
Account A, the NYPD says that it was a plane flying into New York City.

Account B, Norman Minetta says that the mural was of a plane flying into the WTC.

Both are consistent reports.

And all known public information amounts to one first hand account.

And all known public information does not discount the likelihood that that initial report was a case of misinteruptation.

In fact that is the only explanation for the conclusion reached in the report.
Unless you can provide some other explanation for what the report concluded the van was innocent?

weisses

weisses wrote: »

Where does it state that the initial report of the mural was in error ?

It is implied when it says the van was found to be innocent. This has been the point you've been pretending not to get for the last few pages.
I cannot make it any clearer for you.

weisses wrote: »

Provide evidence for your most likely scenario

What do I need to back up about it? That the police can make mistakes?

weisses wrote: »

Would a Van driving around as described in the report breaking the law ?? i dont know ..do you ?

No, but if it had a mural of the attacks, it would indicate that whoever drew it knew about the attacks via some means, hence would be suspicious, not innocent.

And notice how this is not an answer to the question as you cannot actually provide any alternate explanation.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

It is implied when it says the van was found to be innocent. This has been the point you've been pretending not to get for the last few pages.
I cannot make it any clearer for you.

The report states what it states ...that you cannot grasp that is your problem .. The report cannot make it any clearer for you.

King Mob wrote: »

What do I need to back up about it? That the police can make mistakes?

That the report is wrong about the mural ... and try to do it without your assumptions this time ...

King Mob wrote: »

No, but if it had a mural of the attacks, it would indicate that whoever drew it knew about the attacks via some means, hence would be suspicious, not innocent.

The report mentioned that they found it suspicious

King Mob wrote: »

And notice how this is not an answer to the question as you cannot actually provide any alternate explanation.

I dont need to provide an alternate explanation because i believe what is written .. You on the other hand need to backup your alternate explanation but fail to do so .. post after post

weisses

weisses wrote: »

The report states what it states ...that you cannot grasp that is your problem .. The report cannot make it any clearer for you.

And again, the report only makes sense with my explanation.
There is no other reason why they would say the van was in fact innocent.

weisses wrote: »

That the report is wrong about the mural ... and try to do it without your assumptions this time ...

Again you are either pretending to be obtuse or generally have trouble with reading comprehension.
I did not say the report was wrong about the mural. I am saying and saying it very clearly, the MTI report says that a report about a van was made, and that the initial report by the officer was mistaken about what the mural depicted.

weisses wrote: »

The report mentioned that they found it suspicious

And then found it innocent....

weisses wrote: »

I dont need to provide an alternate explanation because i believe what is written .. You on the other hand need to backup your alternate explanation but fail to do so .. post after post

Lol. So you believe it even though you can't actually make sense of it :rolleyes:
Why does the report say the van was innocent?

An again, what specifically about my explanation do I need to back up?
Which parts of it are impossible or unreasonable?

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

An again, what specifically about my explanation do I need to back up?
Which parts of it are impossible or unreasonable?

Everything ... haven't seen one shred of evidence to support your fantasy land theory ..... And Im the one Being Obtuse ???

Focus more on the topic instead of my state of mind

Cops see it wrong ??? fine prove it

Report is wrong ?? .. prove it

weisses

The report says 'They found the Van to be inocent'

Then you draw the conclusion that the interpretation of the mural must be wrong too .... Can you come up with legislation that says that the Mural on the Van is actualy ilegal ... Then we take it from there

weisses

weisses wrote: »

Everything ... haven't seen one shred of evidence to support your fantasy land theory ..... And Im the one Being Obtuse ???

Focus more on the topic instead of my state of mind

Cops see it wrong ??? fine prove it

Report is wrong ?? .. prove it

For the seventh time I am not saying the report is wrong.

And again you've already agreed that it is possible that the cops misinterpreted what was in the van.
And since it is possible, and you aren't able to provide a more likely explanation for why the murals exist, it's the most likely explanation.

weisses wrote: »

The report says 'They found the Van to be inocent'

Then you draw the conclusion that the interpretation of the mural must be wrong too .... Can you come up with legislation that says that the Mural on the Van is actualy ilegal ... Then we take it from there

Again, if the van actually had a mural of the attacks, that would have mean that whoever drew the knew about the attacks before hand, meaning they would not have been innocent.
However the report says other wise and the only explanation (again, since you can't actually provide any) that makes sense of the report is that the mural was in fact innocuous.

weisses

King Mob wrote: »

And again you've already agreed that it is possible that the cops misinterpreted what was in the van.

No i did not were did i say that ??

King Mob wrote: »

And since it is possible, and you aren't able to provide a more likely explanation for why the murals exist, it's the most likely explanation.

You are making less and less sense going from one assumption after the other

King Mob wrote: »

Again, if the van actually had a mural of the attacks,

And for the eight time .... to quote you I am not saying the report is wrong

King Mob wrote: »

that would have mean that whoever drew the knew about the attacks before hand, meaning they would not have been innocent.

Another assumption to fit your flawed theory

King Mob wrote: »

However the report says other wise and the only explanation (again, since you can't actually provide any) that makes sense of the report is that the mural was in fact innocuous.

That is not an answer to my question


And again I believe the report .. so its not up to me to come up with make believe scenarios ... Its up to you to provide evidence to support your scenario and so far ... as usual you came up with nothing

But keep trying ... this is funny