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

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

2

Comments

  • #32
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭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?


  • #33
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • #34
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭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.


  • #35
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,758 ✭✭✭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


  • #36
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • #38
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭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.


  • #39
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • #40
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,758 ✭✭✭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


  • #41
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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?


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭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.


  • #43
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,758 ✭✭✭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 ?


  • #44
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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?


  • #45
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • #46
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,758 ✭✭✭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


  • #47
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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?


  • #48
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,758 ✭✭✭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


  • #49
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,758 ✭✭✭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


  • #50
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • #51
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,758 ✭✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Well it's now clear that you simply are unable to understand my point or are pretending to to avoid an actual discussion.

    So much so you're contradicting yourself and forgetting what you've posted:
    weisses wrote: »
    No i did not were did i say that ??
    weisses wrote: »
    Your explanation isn't impossible ...


  • #53
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,758 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    Well it's now clear that you simply are unable to understand my point or are pretending to to avoid an actual discussion.

    So much so you're contradicting yourself and forgetting what you've posted:

    I'll give you a chance here to fix your own deliberately misquoting ..... again

    Why are you being so disingenuous

    And good job for not being able to answering my questions

    And i understand your point but that doesn't make it a valid one


  • #54
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    weisses wrote: »
    I'll give you a chance here to fix your own deliberately misquoting ..... again

    Why are you being so disingenuous

    And good job for not being able to answering my questions

    And i understand your point but that doesn't make it a valid one

    Is it possible for police to misidentify something or not?

    You said, in clear terms that you agreed that my explanation is possible, which requires that the police misidentifying something is possible.

    If you are going to pretend to not get my point, at least try to be consistent.


  • #55
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,758 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    Is it possible for police to misidentify something or not?

    Yes .... but the report didn't state that they misidentified it ... So if you believe the cops misidentified it you have to come up with some evidence to support that ... again i didn't see anything to support your point ... so i go with what the report says
    King Mob wrote: »
    You said, in clear terms that you agreed that my explanation is possible, which requires that the police misidentifying something is possible.

    Yes But we were talking about the mural and not what was in the Van ..... see how you were misquoting me there
    King Mob wrote: »
    If you are going to pretend to not get my point, at least try to be consistent.

    I get your point ... you on the other hand have nothing to support your point .. making it nothing more then .... uhh your point

    You also claimed that if it was a mural as described in the report that it would be against the law (not innocent) ... didn't see anything from you to support that claim either


  • #56
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    weisses wrote: »
    Yes ....
    So then you agree that it's possible that the cops misidentified the mural. So that objection you had was just you feigning ignorance.
    And that's why I've given up on trying to discuss this with you.


  • #57
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,758 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    So then you agree that it's possible that the cops misidentified the mural. So that objection you had was just you feigning ignorance.
    And that's why I've given up on trying to discuss this with you.

    No don't quote me out of context again quote my whole sentence please .. don't use these dishonest tricks to make your silly points

    I play ball ... Were is your support for your claim that the cops misidentified the mural .. besides your assumptions and believes. You claimed that ... because (they or the van) were innocent then the mural must be misinterpreted as well were do you base this on and show me the supporting evidence

    I outlined a few bits so that you maybe get it this time

    You want a discussion but you bring in nothing to discuss ... only your vage assumptions and fantasy scenarios


  • #58
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    weisses wrote: »
    No don't quote me out of context again quote my whole sentence please .. don't use these dishonest tricks to make your silly points
    So now you're saying that you don't believe it's possible?
    Which is it?
    weisses wrote: »
    I play ball ... Were is your support for your claim that the cops misidentified the mural .. besides your assumptions and believes. You claimed that ... because (they or the van) were innocent then the mural must be misinterpreted as well were do you base this on and show me the supporting evidence

    I outlined a few bits so that you maybe get it this time

    You want a discussion but you bring in nothing to discuss ... only your vage assumptions and fantasy scenarios
    Again, because it's the only explanation that makes sense.
    You've agreed that it's possible.
    You can't find any holes it in.
    You can't provide any alternative explanation let alone one that is as reasonable or even proves a conspiracy.

    So then until you can point out where the explanation doesn't make sense, or provide a better or more evidence one. It's best and only explanation to pick.


  • #59
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,758 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    So now you're saying that you don't believe it's possible?
    Which is it?

    No i am saying .Don't quote me out of context

    King Mob wrote: »
    Again, because it's the only explanation that makes sense.

    Not according to the report and i have still seen nothing from you that shows the report is wrong on this matter
    King Mob wrote: »
    You've agreed that it's possible.

    Everything is possible. but i didn't see any evidence supporting your possibility so i stick with the report
    King Mob wrote: »
    You can't find any holes it in.

    I said that were ?
    King Mob wrote: »
    You can't provide any alternative explanation let alone one that is as reasonable or even proves a conspiracy.

    I don't need to .... You need to backup your alternative explanation, You don't agree with some of the findings ... that's all fine but then you need to back it up and there you fail ... for the last 20 pages
    King Mob wrote: »
    So then until you can point out where the explanation doesn't make sense,

    Again i don't need to .. for the sake of the discussion i asked you over and over again to provide some stuff to backup your claim but by failing to do so you have us running around in circles
    King Mob wrote: »
    or provide a better or more evidence one. It's best and only explanation to pick.

    Again i believe the report


  • #60
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    weisses wrote: »
    No i am saying .Don't quote me out of context
    So you don't believe it's possible that cops can misidentify stuff?

    Again you just going around in circles because you either don't understand the point I'm making or are pretending to. (And considering I've caught you out on your feigned ignorance, I've leaning towards pretending)
    Either way it's a waste of time repeating myself.

    So until you can provide a better explanation why the report claims the van was innocent, you're going to have to accept my explanation is the most likely.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,758 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    So you don't believe it's possible that cops can misidentify stuff?

    I believe cops can misidentify stuff ... But the fact its not Mentioned in the report does warrant that they had it right .... And for the sake of even having a proper discussion you need to present the evidence that the cops got it wrong .... and so far you failed to do so
    King Mob wrote: »
    Again you just going around in circles

    Correct ... trying to keep up with you
    King Mob wrote: »
    because you either don't understand the point I'm making or are pretending to. (And considering I've caught you out on your feigned ignorance, I've leaning towards pretending)
    Either way it's a waste of time repeating myself.

    If you would devote your time in looking for evidence to back up your claim instead of getting personal with me ... maybe this discussion gets somewhere.

    I understand the point you are trying to make ... but i don't believe it .. and its up to you to convince me and other posters that your claim has any merit and so far you made a very poor effort in doing so
    King Mob wrote: »
    So until you can provide a better explanation why the report claims the van was innocent, you're going to have to accept my explanation is the most likely.

    Again i don't have to do anything

    You Believe the report got it wrong on the Mural so you have to prove they got it wrong ... No one gives a sh*t what you think is the most likely scenario ... Prove/evidence is what we need


Advertisement