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

13»

Comments

  • #62
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    weisses wrote: »
    Again i don't have to do anything
    So then how do you make sense of the report?


  • #63
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,758 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    So then how do you make sense of the report?

    No it doesn't work that way ... You have trouble believing parts of it but fails miserably in providing proof/evidence to support that ... once you do that then we can discuss why that report makes sense

    This is not the "answer a question with a question forum"


  • #64
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    weisses wrote: »
    No it doesn't work that way ... You have trouble believing parts of it but fails miserably in providing proof/evidence to support that ... once you do that then we can discuss why that report makes sense

    This is not the "answer a question with a question forum"
    So then since you can't provide an explanation, and mine is both possible and makes sense of all the facts, why are you having trouble admitting it's the more like explanation?


  • #65
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,758 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    So then since you can't provide an explanation, and mine is both possible and makes sense of all the facts, why are you having trouble admitting it's the more like explanation?

    I believe the report to be accurate ... that explains it does it ?

    Your explanation could be possible yes .. but unverified/unproven/not backed up with facts .. Witch you keep failing to provide .. post after post .. I have no other choice then to stick with the report

    You have to come up with the facts that make it the more likely explanation ... It has nothing to do with me failing in admitting it

    King Mob wrote: »
    and mine is both possible and makes sense of all the facts,

    What facts .. backup your "facts"


  • #66
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    weisses wrote: »
    I believe the report to be accurate ... that explains it does it ?

    What facts .. backup your "facts"
    The report says the mural van was innocent as in had nothing to do with 9/11.

    Why else would they say that?

    if you can't answer, we have one explanation.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,758 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    The report says the mural van was innocent
    Correct
    King Mob wrote: »
    as in had nothing to do with 9/11.

    Your assumption .. not backed up or verified
    King Mob wrote: »
    Why else would they say that?

    That is for you to find out since you have trouble what is stated
    King Mob wrote: »
    if you can't answer, we have one explanation.

    Correct you can't provide evidence for your interpretation so there is indeed still one explanation .. The one in the report


  • #68
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    weisses wrote: »
    Your assumption .. not backed up or verified
    So then why does it say it was innocent.
    How can a van which indicated that someone connected to it knew about the attacks beforehand be considered innocent?

    Having a mural isn't illegal, but being suspected of having information about a terrorist attack is not innocent.

    So why does it say that? Why is the no mention of a follow up investigation about how these people knew about the attacks beforehand?
    How did the mural get there in the first place?

    And does my explanation explain all of these questions, yes or no?


  • #69
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,758 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    So then why does it say it was innocent.
    How can a van which indicated that someone connected to it knew about the attacks beforehand be considered innocent?

    I don't know if what your assuming here is how it went down that day ... it will fit your theory that's for sure
    King Mob wrote: »
    Having a mural isn't illegal, but being suspected of having information about a terrorist attack is not innocent.

    I read nowhere they were suspected of having info on the attacks
    King Mob wrote: »
    So why does it say that? Why is the no mention of a follow up investigation about how these people knew about the attacks beforehand?
    How did the mural get there in the first place?

    I haven't got a clou .. its the million dollar question .. same as your failure to produce some sort of evidence to support your theory and prove the report wrong
    King Mob wrote: »
    And does my explanation explain all of these questions, yes or no?

    Nope its a theory your presenting .. nothing more


  • #70
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    weisses wrote: »

    Nope its a theory your presenting .. nothing more

    Which of the questions was not answered by my explanation?

    How would the mural have gotten there if the people who drew it did not know about the attack?
    You clearly think that they did, hence why you've and others bring this up in connection to 9/11.

    If these people had no foreknowledge or any connection to 9/11 what's the point of this discussion in the first place?


  • #71
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,758 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    Which of the questions was not answered by my explanation?

    You gave a scenario that fits your explanation
    King Mob wrote: »
    How would the mural have gotten there if the people who drew it did not know about the attack?

    Who said they didn't?
    King Mob wrote: »
    You clearly think that they did, hence why you've and others bring this up in connection to 9/11.

    According to the report there was the mural ... the rest is speculation
    King Mob wrote: »
    If these people had no foreknowledge or any connection to 9/11 what's the point of this discussion in the first place?

    Again how do you know the hadn't any foreknowledge ?


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    weisses wrote: »
    Again how do you know the hadn't any foreknowledge ?
    Because that doesn't make sense.
    It doesn't makes sense when the report calls the van innocent.
    And there's no explanation to explain all the facts with them having foreknowledge.

    And again, you are speculating, but you're pretending not to to have a pointless argument.
    You clearly think that the mural is connected to some one with foreknowledge of 9/11, but know that doesn't make sense and isn't supported by any facts or logic.


  • #73
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,758 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    Because that doesn't make sense.
    It doesn't makes sense when the report calls the van innocent.
    And there's no explanation to explain all the facts with them having foreknowledge.

    Your making desperate leaps here to prove your point but failing over and over
    King Mob wrote: »
    And again, you are speculating, but you're pretending not to to have a pointless argument.

    How am i speculating ??
    The only one speculating is you because you have nothing to backup your claims ... so you keep stuck in your assuming/speculating/rambling loop
    King Mob wrote: »
    You clearly think that the mural is connected to some one with foreknowledge of 9/11, but know that doesn't make sense and isn't supported by any facts or logic.

    I think that there was a mural painted on the Van as described in the report

    You don't believe that but fails to prove the report got it wrong

    Don't try to turn everything around .. its kinda sad


  • #74
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    weisses wrote: »
    Your making desperate leaps here to prove your point but failing over and over
    Again point out these leaps and be specific.

    You've admited it's possible.
    You can't find any holes.
    You can't find any other explanation.
    And the entire thing does not make sense unless you have an explanation.

    You're being silly and pedantic because you're desperate for proof of a conspiracy you realise doesn't make any sense.

    So unless you're going to show how my explanation is impossible or provide a better one, this discussion is over I'm afraid.


  • #75
    weisses
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,758 ✭✭✭weisses


    King Mob wrote: »
    Again point out these leaps and be specific.

    I wont .. read back and you will see ... I am asking you to be specific post after post but you fail to do so yourself other then speculate
    King Mob wrote: »
    You've admited it's possible.

    To rule out different scenarios would be arrogant yes ... But i'm still waiting for some evidence on your scenario
    King Mob wrote: »
    You can't find any holes.

    Holes as in what and were did i stated that ?
    King Mob wrote: »
    You can't find any other explanation.

    Again i don't need to because i believe the report ... You just don't get it

    King Mob wrote: »
    You're being silly and pedantic because you're desperate for proof of a conspiracy you realise doesn't make any sense.

    Ahhhh ... Just to get this right ... I believe in the findings of an official report ... You don't (the mural thing) you come up with alternative scenario without being able to verify your version of it or presenting anything to support it at all ... and 10 pages later I am the one being silly and pedantic ....

    King Mob wrote: »
    So unless you're going to show how my explanation is impossible or provide a better one, this discussion is over I'm afraid.

    Its not up to me to check your explanation or come up with a better one ... nice try though

    Its up to you to debunk the findings in the report with facts .. .And that will not happen with assumptions I'm afraid

    So yes if i were you i would abandon this thread just as you did the last one regarding this topic...


Advertisement