911 revisited

30-08-2009 08:33PM

I haven't read the whole thread. Just half of the first page, and got annoyed when people were responding to posts that weren't there or came later in the thread (dunno how that happened?) and I don't fancy reading 12 pages either.

Someone inhere recommended a documentary called "9/11: Blueprint For Truth", and I just finished watching it, thought I'd also recommend it too to anyone interested in 9/11.

Very interesting and shows that the planes most certainly couldn't have caused the towers to collapse.

Just wondering if anyone watched the same documentary and still thinks the planes caused it?

Or are there any other documentaries or videos, etc. that focus on the other side of the story (ie. A documentary explaining in-depth how the planes did cause the towers to fall).

Cheers

Black Uhlan · 30-08-2009 08:51PM

King Mob wrote: »

You did.
Why do you keep pointing out that "they were there to document the event."

Actually I don't.

King Mob wrote: »

I was referring to the thousands of people who had cameras and were "documenting the event."

So you CANNOT produce anything of any resemeblance? Then just admit it so.

King Mob wrote: »

Because they gave this interview after 9/11.
They didn't say they were documenting a terrorist attack during the attack.

Complete nonsense. Obviously they gave it after. I'm paraphrasing but their justification was that were recording the event as they knew what it was like to be victims of daily terror of Israel. Right or wrong? They were recording at the latest soon after the first tower was hit and before the 2nd was hit and the world suspected a terror attack. Right or wrong?

King Mob wrote: »

So you honestly can't think why there might be a map of places and time in a moving van?

Do you know which places were marked? I don't, but it is the places that were marked which interested the law enforcement agents.

King Mob wrote: »

You might of heard something like "innocent till proven guilty."?

I am not saying they are guilty, I am saying their actions marked them out as suspects for involvement

King Mob wrote: »

There is no evidence he had foreknowledge.
And since neither of us have the full story we can't conclude why he left the country.

And for probably the sixth time, the authorities concluded the men had nothing to do with 9/11.

How about if Dominik Suter was placed on an FBI 911 Terror Suspect list? Wouldn't that make the investigation incomplete without his extraditon?
Wouldn't that make a mockery of the men having nothing to do with 911? so need for your 7th time now thanks.

Can you take the US Governments word on it?
Here is the leaked document http://cryptome.org/CI-08-02.pdf

squod · 30-08-2009 08:55PM

King Mob wrote: »

I'm saying there is no evidence to support the idea they had foreknowledge.

Yep, there's no more evidence so far as I'm aware. That doesn't mean to say there's no evidence. It's highly probable there's no more evidence.

Don't get me wrong on this, I'm open to correction. But so far you haven't convinced me. Nobody knows what was sent on Odigo that day, (perhaps you do?). Or what those Isreali guys got up to.

Saying there is no evidence is a term said with certainty. Certainty is not what we have here.

Black Uhlan · 30-08-2009 08:57PM

King Mob wrote: »

Except the only witness that saw them do this clearly says they turned up after the first plane hit.

Messages that contained absolutely no specifics at all.

The irony of some statements here are amazing.

Is there any evidence that would convince you that there wasn't foreknowledge?

Actually the police recieved numerous complaints.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/13/us...0men%20&st=cse

Separately, officials said a group of about five men were now under investigation in Union City, suspected of assisting the hijackers. In addition, the officials said the men had apparently set up cameras near the Hudson River and fixed them on the World Trade Center. They photographed the attacks and were said to have congratulated each other afterward, officials said.

And Meglome. They failed lie detector tests too.

meglome · 30-08-2009 09:01PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Someone inhere recommended a documentary called "9/11: Blueprint For Truth", and I just finished watching it, thought I'd also recommend it too to anyone interested in 9/11.

Very interesting and shows that the planes most certainly couldn't have caused the towers to collapse.

Just wondering if anyone watched the same documentary and still thinks the planes caused it?

Or are there any other documentaries or videos, etc. that focus on the other side of the story (ie. A documentary explaining in-depth how the planes did cause the towers to fall).

Cheers

I have a rule of thumb that says if anything has the word truth in the title then it's most likely not telling me anything near the truth.

Any chance you could summarise why they don't think it was planes that caused the collapses?

You could try here...http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/

I think the planes caused the collapses for the following reasons.

The buildings fell from exactly where the planes hit.
If there were explosives why were they not set off immediately or very quickly, from the crashes and fires.
Why wouldn't the cables controlling these explosives be cut, from said crashes and fires.
Thermite has never been shown to have been used in controlled demolition, never ever. Nor is there even an experiment to show it could work.
Why didn't anyone in full buildings not see these being installed.
The design of the floor brackets in the towers is such that 600-800 degrees c would be enough to cause them to fail.
Other steel frames buildings have collapsed from fire.
No other buildings of the design of the WTC have been left to burn so we have no may to make a direct comparison, if we thought they fell 'too easily'.

meglome · 30-08-2009 09:02PM

squod wrote: »

Yep, there's no more evidence so far as I'm aware. That doesn't mean to say there's no evidence. It's highly probable there's no more evidence.

Don't get me wrong on this, I'm open to correction. But so far you haven't convinced me. Nobody knows what was sent on Odigo that day, (perhaps you do?). Or what those Isreali guys got up to.

Saying there is no evidence is a term said with certainty. Certainty is not what we have here.

So if I can summarise this.... The fact there is no evidence is evidence that there's something going on. Sweet jesus.

squod · 30-08-2009 09:09PM

meglome wrote: »

So if I can summarise this...

So obviously no you can't. You're certain - ly not capable of summarization.
You've convinced me of that at least.

30-08-2009 09:35PM

meglome wrote: »

I have a rule of thumb that says if anything has the word truth in the title then it's most likely not telling me anything near the truth.

Any chance you could summarise why they don't think it was planes that caused the collapses?

You could try here...http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/

I think the planes caused the collapses for the following reasons.
The buildings fell from exactly where the planes hit.

If there were explosives why were they not set off immediately or very quickly, from the crashes and fires.

Why wouldn't the cables controlling these explosives be cut, from said crashes and fires.

Thermite has never been shown to have been used in controlled demolition, never ever. Nor is there even an experiment to show it could work.

Why didn't anyone in full buildings not see these being installed.

The design of the floor brackets in the towers is such that 600-800 degrees c would be enough to cause them to fail.

Other steel frames buildings have collapsed from fire.

No other buildings of the design of the WTC have been left to burn so we have no may to make a direct comparison, if we thought they fell 'too easily'.

Normally I'd agree with you on the 'truth' in the title thing, but I gotta say, they do a convincing job. It's probably worth noting though, that I'm not very biased or anything regarding this. I'd love to know exactly what happened one way or the other, but either way, I'm not devoted to any particular story.

Regarding your bullet points:

One of the towers that was hit by a plane collapsed from above where the plane hit it. They show slow motion video footage of one of the towers beginning it's collapse 15 storeys above where the plane hit it. The footage doesn't look like it has been manipulated, either.
In the (seemingly likely) event that explosives were used, I'd imagine the time between the collision and the collapse is there to give people a chance to evacuate the building? That's just my thought on it. I don't know if it's really worth questioning though, as I don't think there's any way you'll ever know for sure (assuming explosives were used, that is).
I'm no demolitions expert, but I'd imagine in 2001 that the demolition business also had it's wireless capabilities.
They talk about thermite a fair bit in the 'blueprint' documentary. I don't know how much it has (or hasn't) been used in demolishing things, but they do mention that it has the ability to reach incredibly high temperatures, and could melt steel. I think they show some Military footage of it being used in a building though. Unless I'm getting mixed up.
Not see the explosives being installed? They mention during the documentary that the lifts were closed and under repair for a while prior to 9/11, and were being 'modernised' for a while, and also talk about how it's possible that using the lift shafts, you could plant the explosives without anyone's knowledge. About a year or two ago I seen a documentary regarding 9/11 aswell and they mentioned in that one that there were two or three floors in the building that the average joes didn't have access to, and no one seemed to really know what they contained. I can't remember the name of the documentary that mentioned them, and I haven't seen such floors mentioned since (though I haven't really been looking very deep into it) so I don't know how accurate that was.
I can't really comment on this point. They mention that if the buildings fell and the floors fell in 'pancake' fashion, then the debree of the buildings would be very different and contain more solid mass than what was actually left of the buildings.
They give examples of three or four other US buildings that caught fire and burned for several hours (they show a building from Chicago. I believe, that burned for 36 hours) and none collapsed. They're of the opinion that no building has collapsed from fire alone. They also go into great detail as to how the second tower to fall, fell sideways at the top, but still collapsed in on itself, ala controlled demolition, rather than falling sideways completely.
I'd imagine that the WTC buildings, being so repetitive and basic in their design, would be easy to predict how long it would take for them to fall, by people very knowledgeable on demolishing buildings, etc. In my own opinion, i think that if the buildings were to collapse so easily after having burned for such a short time, they'd have to have been built pretty badly. So much so, that I'd imagine the force of the plane hitting them should have caused them to instantly fall over and take down any other buildings in their path? It seems very odd that they are attacked from only one side, don't so much as shake with the force of the plane, and still manage to collapse completely vertically.

Don't get me wrong, I don't know exactly what happened, I doubt anyone here does, but in my opinion, it was definitely not the planes or fire that caused the buildings to go down the way they did. If I had to choose between a natural collapse or a controlled demolition, I'd side with controlled demolition.

The Blueprint documentary also spends about 40-50 minutes discussing and going very in-depth about the other building ("building 7") that collapsed without being touched. They can't fathom how that building could naturally collapse.

Unless you're completely biased to the other side of the story, I'd definitely reccomend watching the documentary. Even if you don't care for the theory and think it's a load of bollocks, it's still very convincing and worth a viewing. It's about two hours in duration and very interesting.

If you go to their site, http://ae911truth.org/ you can view it for free on there. Here's a direct link:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4617650616903609314&hl=en

I'll check out the blogspot link you gave me. Thanks.

squod · 30-08-2009 09:43PM

I just watched the video also and I gotta say, after watching it again, I'm not convinced one way or another.

What struck me more was Giuliani saying the building was probably going to collapse in 10 mins.
But again, I'm not convinced one way or another.

meglome · 30-08-2009 09:55PM

squod wrote: »

So obviously no you can't. You're certain - ly not capable of summarization.
You've convinced me of that at least.

I'm trying to understand the confusion here. We are all reading the same articles it would appear. None of which say these men had foreknowledge or that they are guilty of anything other than overstaying a tourist visa. Certainly the FBI were suspicious of them but ultimately let them go as they had nothing on them. Well they sent them home as they were in the US illegally which wasn't the crime of the century.

So where exactly are you getting your information? Can you show us exactly?

squod · 30-08-2009 10:28PM

Maria, who asked us not to use her last name, had a view of the World Trade Center from her New Jersey apartment building. She remembers a neighbor calling her shortly after the first plane hit the towers.

She grabbed her binoculars and watched the destruction unfolding in lower Manhattan. But as she watched the disaster, something else caught her eye.

Maria says she saw three young men kneeling on the roof of a white van in the parking lot of her apartment building. "They seemed to be taking a movie," Maria said.

But Gordon insisted that his clients were just five young men who had come to America for a vacation, ended up working for a moving company, and were taking pictures of the event.

Back in Israel, several of the men discussed what happened on an Israeli talk show. One of them made this remarkable comment: "The fact of the matter is we are coming from a country that experiences terror daily. Our purpose was to document the event." But how can you document an event unless you know it is going to happen?

One highly placed investigator told Carl Cameron of Fox News that there were "tie-ins" between the Israelis and 9/11;

The Fox News source refused to give details, saying: "Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information.''

And what's your argument again?

meglome · 30-08-2009 11:06PM

Thanks for the reply. Most of these documentaries can be convincing but usually they are not telling the full facts or are giving an interpretation that is very much in dispute.

Deleted User wrote: »

One of the towers that was hit by a plane collapsed from above where the plane hit it. They show slow motion video footage of one of the towers beginning it's collapse 15 storeys above where the plane hit it. The footage doesn't look like it has been manipulated, either.

Never heard or seen that. Still doesn't fit with any controlled demolition I've ever heard of. I'll watch the footage.

Deleted User wrote: »

In the (seemingly likely) event that explosives were used, I'd imagine the time between the collision and the collapse is there to give people a chance to evacuate the building? That's just my thought on it. I don't know if it's really worth questioning though, as I don't think there's any way you'll ever know for sure (assuming explosives were used, that is).

All the lifts were off, how could you get the the tons of explosive up the stairs. The real problem for me is this wouldn't be a couple of boxes of explosives, this would be a truck load and seriously how could you plant all of those in a full building, a building that contains thousands of people. And why didn't they find residue of explosives? Why are there no seismic recordings of explosives?

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm no demolitions expert, but I'd imagine in 2001 that the demolition business also had it's wireless capabilities.

Wireless is never ever used in controlled demolition it would be extremely dangerous as a stray signal could set them off. Given the firemen couldn't use their radios properly in the WTC towers as the structure interfered with them I think wireless control would be very problematic indeed.

Deleted User wrote: »

They talk about thermite a fair bit in the 'blueprint' documentary. I don't know how much it has (or hasn't) been used in demolishing things, but they do mention that it has the ability to reach incredibly high temperatures, and could melt steel. I think they show some Military footage of it being used in a building though. Unless I'm getting mixed up.

I'm sure they do given the problems I mentioned above. In the 8 years since 911 no one, for all the talk, not one, has shown that thermite has ever been used in a controlled demolition. More than that no one has ever even done an experiment to show it could work. This is a huge problem with the thermite theory. I think when you need to invent new ways to demolish something, one that you can't even prove to work in practice then your theory has big problems.

Deleted User wrote: »

Not see the explosives being installed? They mention during the documentary that the lifts were closed and under repair for a while prior to 9/11, and were being 'modernised' for a while, and also talk about how it's possible that using the lift shafts, you could plant the explosives without anyone's knowledge. About a year or two ago I seen a documentary regarding 9/11 aswell and they mentioned in that one that there were two or three floors in the building that the average joes didn't have access to, and no one seemed to really know what they contained. I can't remember the name of the documentary that mentioned them, and I haven't seen such floors mentioned since (though I haven't really been looking very deep into it) so I don't know how accurate that was.

It literally takes months to set a building up for controlled demolition. Cutting supports, removing walls, placing truck loads of explosives (for a big building). But we're supposed to believe they managed to do this in the WTC over a couple of evenings while fixing the lifts. And not one person sees anything. How did they pull out the walls to place the explosives on the support columns with no one knowing. I'm sorry it doesn't make sense. It's known what was on each floor of the so it should be easy to check if floors were off limits.

Deleted User wrote: »

I can't really comment on this point. They mention that if the buildings fell and the floors fell in 'pancake' fashion, then the debree of the buildings would be very different and contain more solid mass than what was actually left of the buildings.

So all that dry-wall would be solid and not powder?

Deleted User wrote: »

They give examples of three or four other US buildings that caught fire and burned for several hours (they show a building from Chicago. I believe, that burned for 36 hours) and none collapsed. They're of the opinion that no building has collapsed from fire alone. They also go into great detail as to how the second tower to fall, fell sideways at the top, but still collapsed in on itself, ala controlled demolition, rather than falling sideways completely.

Other steel buildings and steel sections of buildings have fallen from fire. I'll find the info but in the Windsor building in Madrid the entire steel section at the top fell just from fire. The only way the top of the tower could topple is if it had something to leverage off. And a ten story section of a tower, once moving, is just going to fall like a stone and crush anything below it.

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd imagine that the WTC buildings, being so repetitive and basic in their design, would be easy to predict how long it would take for them to fall, by people very knowledgeable on demolishing buildings, etc. In my own opinion, i think that if the buildings were to collapse so easily after having burned for such a short time, they'd have to have been built pretty badly. So much so, that I'd imagine the force of the plane hitting them should have caused them to instantly fall over and take down any other buildings in their path? It seems very odd that they are attacked from only one side, don't so much as shake with the force of the plane, and still manage to collapse completely vertically.

All you have to do is find another building with the same design and see what happens to it. However since there are no other buildings with this exact design that's a mute point. They had a very specific design and it turns out flaws, so much so they have changed the design code in the US. I'm not a structural engineer but the weight of those sections of building falling would be immense.

Deleted User wrote: »

Don't get me wrong, I don't know exactly what happened, I doubt anyone here does, but in my opinion, it was definitely not the planes or fire that caused the buildings to go down the way they did. If I had to choose between a natural collapse or a controlled demolition, I'd side with controlled demolition.

The problem is the tell tale signs of controlled demolition are missing. Which is why thermite is brought up. And they can't prove thermite will work at all.

Deleted User wrote: »

The Blueprint documentary also spends about 40-50 minutes discussing and going very in-depth about the other building ("building 7") that collapsed without being touched. They can't fathom how that building could naturally collapse.

There was a 15 story chunk taken out of WTC7 and it was spanning over a large power substation. And with the same small floor brackets that effected the WTC towers. Doesn't seem odd to me.

Deleted User wrote: »

Unless you're completely biased to the other side of the story, I'd definitely reccomend watching the documentary. Even if you don't care for the theory and think it's a load of bollocks, it's still very convincing and worth a viewing. It's about two hours in duration and very interesting.

I'm gonna watch this. BUT if it's as obviously biased and misleading as it appears from what you've posted I can't see myself finishing it.

There lot's of other points I could make but gotta go.

meglome · 30-08-2009 11:19PM

squod wrote: »

Maria, who asked us not to use her last name, had a view of the World Trade Center from her New Jersey apartment building. She remembers a neighbor calling her shortly after the first plane hit the towers.

She grabbed her binoculars and watched the destruction unfolding in lower Manhattan. But as she watched the disaster, something else caught her eye.

Maria says she saw three young men kneeling on the roof of a white van in the parking lot of her apartment building. "They seemed to be taking a movie," Maria said.

So they were making a film after the attack has begun. Which is what we keep saying to you and you are now agreeing with, yes?

squod wrote: »

Back in Israel, several of the men discussed what happened on an Israeli talk show. One of them made this remarkable comment: "The fact of the matter is we are coming from a country that experiences terror daily. Our purpose was to document the event." But how can you document an event unless you know it is going to happen?

So we know there were filming after the attack had begun and then they admit to wanting to document the event. Right I feel all like a terrorist now because I would have documented the attack if I was there too, weirdly like loads of other people did too.

squod wrote: »

One highly placed investigator told Carl Cameron of Fox News that there were "tie-ins" between the Israelis and 9/11;

The Fox News source refused to give details, saying: "Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information.''

So an unnamed and unidentifiable source said some stuff that can't be verified in any way. We'll I'm convinced. And that assumes this report is even real.

You keep proving my point is that intentional?

uprising · 30-08-2009 11:21PM

meglome wrote: »

I think the planes caused the collapses for the following reasons.
The buildings fell from exactly where the planes hit.

That means nothing, the buildings shouldn't have fell like that, they disintigrated, there was no resistance, even if the plane could have took down the top, there should have been a partial collapse, there was no resistance, all floors fell in unison, there should have been a thud,thud,thud.

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

If there were explosives why were they not set off immediately or very quickly, from the crashes and fires.

Yes and the explosive could have been placed in a shielding that will stay cool inside while outside temperatures reach 0000's of degree's, and there are different types of explosive materials, where they were placed exactly also makes a big difference.

Why wouldn't the cables controlling these explosives be cut, from said crashes and fires.

Who need cables?, ever heard of wireless?, radiowaves, microwaves, infared, laser, timer's,so who needs cables?

Thermite has never been shown to have been used in controlled demolition, never ever. Nor is there even an experiment to show it could work.

Themite doesnt burn through concrete.

I've seen thermite eat through steel without it being too choosey about what or where the steel is that it needs to eat through.

but would be useless for steel encased in concrete, also thermite doesn't explode with huge pressure, I agree the building weren't taken down by thermite alone, but in the proper places thermite could work brilliantly.

Why didn't anyone in full buildings not see these being installed.

Maybe they thought they were putting vibration sensors on the steel structure, and anyway the places where explosives would be placed would be in the parts of the building used for maintanence, out of view of the 1000's of employee's, and I'm sure there were always hundreds of big and small building projects going on in such a building. And having parts placed off bounds for short periods of time wouldn't have been a problem for Marvin.

The design of the floor brackets in the towers is such that 600-800 degrees c would be enough to cause them to fail.

Can you show me the link to this design of the bracket, even so how many bracket's were even heated?.

Other steel frames buildings have collapsed from fire.

Not in the same way they havent, partial collapses, 9/11 was controlled demolition.

No other buildings of the design of the WTC have been left to burn so we have no may to make a direct comparison, if we thought they fell 'too easily'.

They didn't fall too easily, they have endured much greater forces from nature that never caused any problems, problems started when the bombs went off.

If this is the crux of your argument as to why the government is telling the truth, it need's a lot more effort.

31-08-2009 01:24AM

Black Uhlan wrote: »

Actually I don't.

So why do you keep insisting that they were send to tape the attack if they weren't a surveillance team?

Black Uhlan wrote: »

So you CANNOT produce anything of any resemeblance? Then just admit it so.

I never once said there where other people dancing and shouting.
I said that there where other people videoing the attacks.

Black Uhlan wrote: »

Complete nonsense. Obviously they gave it after. I'm paraphrasing but their justification was that were recording the event as they knew what it was like to be victims of daily terror of Israel. Right or wrong? They were recording at the latest soon after the first tower was hit and before the 2nd was hit and the world suspected a terror attack. Right or wrong?

So because they said something after the event means they knew the event was going to happen?
Seriously?
Did they say that it was a terrorist attack during the attack?
Did they actually say they knew it was a terrorist attack?

Have you considered the possibility you're just interpreting the words wrong?

Black Uhlan wrote: »

Do you know which places were marked? I don't, but it is the places that were marked which interested the law enforcement agents.

Yep a moving van with a map with times and places marked suspicious alright.
Not like a moving van ever picks stuff up a certain places at certain times or anything.

Black Uhlan wrote: »

I am not saying they are guilty, I am saying their actions marked them out as suspects for involvement

No you're saying pretty clearly that they had foreknowledge of the attack.

Black Uhlan wrote: »

How about if Dominik Suter was placed on an FBI 911 Terror Suspect list? Wouldn't that make the investigation incomplete without his extraditon?
Wouldn't that make a mockery of the men having nothing to do with 911? so need for your 7th time now thanks.

So the men in question were found by the authorities not to be involved in 9/11 yes or no?

uprising · 31-08-2009 03:17AM

King Mob wrote: »

No it wasn't.

There was a two month investigation.

At least try to get your facts straight.

And there's still no evidence they had foreknowledge.

Context of 'Late October 2001: Intense Political Pressure to Release Suspected Israeli Spies Arrested on 9/11'
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=alate1001pressure

Around this time intense political pressure is put on US officials holding five Israeli men arrested for suspicious behavior at the time of the 9/11 attacks (see 3:56 p.m. September 11, 2001). According to the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and two unidentified “prominent New York congressmen” lobby heavily for their release. According to a source at ABC News, well-known criminal lawyer Alan Dershowitz also becomes involved as a negotiator to help get the men released. (Dershowitz will later refuse to comment on the matter.) [CounterPunch, 2/7/2007] ABC News will later report that was “high-level negotiations between Israeli and US government officials” over the five men, resulting in a settlement. URL="http://web.archive.org/web/20020802194310/http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/DailyNews/2020_whitevan_020621.html"][COLOR=#800080]ABC News, 6/21/2002[/COLOR][/URL Apparently the political pressure will succeed because the men will be released a few weeks later (see November 20, 2001]).

31-08-2009 03:19AM

uprising wrote: »

Context of 'Late October 2001: Intense Political Pressure to Release Suspected Israeli Spies Arrested on 9/11'
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=alate1001pressure

Around this time intense political pressure is put on US officials holding five Israeli men arrested for suspicious behavior at the time of the 9/11 attacks (see 3:56 p.m. September 11, 2001). According to the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and two unidentified “prominent New York congressmen” lobby heavily for their release. According to a source at ABC News, well-known criminal lawyer Alan Dershowitz also becomes involved as a negotiator to help get the men released. (Dershowitz will later refuse to comment on the matter.) [CounterPunch, 2/7/2007] ABC News will later report that was “high-level negotiations between Israeli and US government officials” over the five men, resulting in a settlement. URL="http://web.archive.org/web/20020802194310/http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/DailyNews/2020_whitevan_020621.html"][COLOR=#800080]ABC News, 6/21/2002[/COLOR][/URL Apparently the political pressure will succeed because the men will be released a few weeks later (see November 20, 2001]).

from your own link:

However, the FBI says that none of the Israelis had any advanced knowledge of the 9/11 attacks

.

uprising · 31-08-2009 03:29AM

King Mob wrote: »

from your own link:

.

Well the FBI could hardly say they had prior knowledge and then release them, now could they, because a deal was done, the men released and sent home.

According to ABCNEWS sources, Israeli and U.S. government officials worked out a deal — and after 71 days, the five Israelis were taken out of jail, put on a plane, and deported back home.
While the former detainees refused to answer ABCNEWS' questions about their detention and what they were doing on Sept. 11, several of the detainees discussed their experience in America on an Israeli talk show after their return home.
Said one of the men, denying that they were laughing or happy on the morning of Sept. 11, "The fact of the matter is we are coming from a country that experiences terror daily. Our purpose was to document the event."

ABCNEWS' Chris Isham, John Miller, Glenn Silber and Chris Vlasto contributed to this report.

31-08-2009 03:36AM

uprising wrote: »

Well the FBI could hardly say they had prior knowledge and then release them, now could they, because a deal was done, the men released and sent home.

SO when the FBI says they had arrested them in conection with 9/11 and said they held them for two months they where telling the truth but when they say they had nothing to do with 9/11 their obviously lying?
Great logic there.

uprising wrote: »

According to ABCNEWS sources, Israeli and U.S. government officials worked out a deal — and after 71 days, the five Israelis were taken out of jail, put on a plane, and deported back home.
While the former detainees refused to answer ABCNEWS' questions about their detention and what they were doing on Sept. 11, several of the detainees discussed their experience in America on an Israeli talk show after their return home.
Said one of the men, denying that they were laughing or happy on the morning of Sept. 11, "The fact of the matter is we are coming from a country that experiences terror daily. Our purpose was to document the event." ABCNEWS' Chris Isham, John Miller, Glenn Silber and Chris Vlasto contributed to this report.

The exact same report your quoting say the FBI didn't believe the suspects had anything to do with 9/11.

Seeing as you've completely ignored the entire discussion I'll say it again.

Every single person who had a camera pointed at the flaming building could say "Our purpose was to document the event."

They never said they knew it was a terrorist attack at the time.
However seeing as they are from Israel which has had a alot of terrorist attacks they might have jumped to that conclusion.

Or did anyone who guessed it was an attack in on it?

There is nothing to show these guys had foreknowledge.

squod · 31-08-2009 09:06AM

"They seemed to be taking a movie," Maria said.

How many removals companies carry video cameras around with them?
None I bet.

"Three individuals were seen celebrating in Liberty State Park after the impact. They said three people were jumping up and down."

How many people jump up and down after a plane crash. Again none. They're actions would have made sense if they knew this was a terrorist attack. Nobody else did at the time. Reports told of a plane crash only.

One image showed a hand flicking a lighter in front of the devastated buildings, like a fan at a pop concert.
Again who told them the two airplanes crashing into the buildings were terrorist attacks?

One of them made this remarkable comment: "The fact of the matter is we are coming from a country that experiences terror daily. Our purpose was to document the event."
So then who told these guys to go to were they were, to bring a video camera and to document an 'event'. Why would somone know there was gonna be a plane crash? What does a plane crash have to do with terrorism? Nothing unless you knew it was a terrorist attack.
Which at the time of the plane crashes everybody else didin't know.

These guys shoulda been in bluddy work, not arsing around in carparks kneeling on vans videoing plane crashes. Unless arsing around in carparks kneeling on vans videoing plane crashes is their bluddy work!

"Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified."

So there's evidence linking these Isrealis (the blokes in the van) to 9/11 and it happens to be classified.
Why would there be classified information on a couple of dicks, arsing around in a car park, filming a plane crash?

31-08-2009 10:12AM

squod wrote: »

"They seemed to be taking a movie," Maria said.

How many removals companies carry video cameras around with them?
None I bet.

There were loads of people who had cameras that day, are they all terrorists?

squod wrote: »

"Three individuals were seen celebrating in Liberty State Park after the impact. They said three people were jumping up and down."

How many people jump up and down after a plane crash. Again none. They're actions would have made sense if they knew this was a terrorist attack. Nobody else did at the time. Reports told of a plane crash only.

If they were in on the plot why would the attract attention to them selves?

squod wrote: »

One image showed a hand flicking a lighter in front of the devastated buildings, like a fan at a pop concert.
Again who told them the two airplanes crashing into the buildings were terrorist attacks?

But there is no evidence that they had any foreknowldege of the attacks.

squod wrote: »

One of them made this remarkable comment: "The fact of the matter is we are coming from a country that experiences terror daily. Our purpose was to document the event."
So then who told these guys to go to were they were, to bring a video camera and to document an 'event'. Why would somone know there was gonna be a plane crash? What does a plane crash have to do with terrorism? Nothing unless you knew it was a terrorist attack.
Which at the time of the plane crashes everybody else didin't know.

Anyone with a camera could say their "purpose was to document the event."

The never said the knew about the attack before the attack.

squod wrote: »

These guys shoulda been in bluddy work, not arsing around in carparks kneeling on vans videoing plane crashes. Unless arsing around in carparks kneeling on vans videoing plane crashes is their bluddy work!

And what about the thoousand of other peopling watching the event instead of working?
Are they in on the plot as well?

squod wrote: »

"Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified."

So there's evidence linking these Isrealis (the blokes in the van) to 9/11 and it happens to be classified.
Why would there be classified information on a couple of dicks, arsing around in a car park, filming a plane crash?

There is no such classified information as all.

I must have repeat these same points at least three times at this stage.

Penn · 31-08-2009 10:29AM

What I dont understand is, with reference to these people apparantly watching and filming the attacks, they are Israelis. So does that mean that the US government were not involved in the attacks?

I mean, if the US government did plan and execute these attacks, why hire these guys to dance around outside it and rejoice or whatever?

You could say that it was to try and show that it was terrorists, but surely they'd hire more of them to reduce the chances of such uncertainty about them.

You could also argue that it was so they would film it, and the media would have footage to show of both attacks, but has their footage actually been used?

humanji · 31-08-2009 10:40AM

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

What I dont understand is, with reference to these people apparantly watching and filming the attacks, they are Israelis. So does that mean that the US government were not involved in the attacks?

I mean, if the US government did plan and execute these attacks, why hire these guys to dance around outside it and rejoice or whatever?

You could say that it was to try and show that it was terrorists, but surely they'd hire more of them to reduce the chances of such uncertainty about them.

You could also argue that it was so they would film it, and the media would have footage to show of both attacks, but has their footage actually been used?

I think it's two different conspiracies. One saying that Israel are behind it and one saying the US government is behind it.

squod · 31-08-2009 10:50AM

King Mob wrote: »

There is no such classified information as all.

??????????

squod · 31-08-2009 11:01AM

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

What I dont understand is, with reference to these people apparantly watching and filming the attacks, they are Israelis. So does that mean that the US government were not involved in the attacks?

I mean, if the US government did plan and execute these attacks, why hire these guys to dance around outside it and rejoice or whatever?

You could say that it was to try and show that it was terrorists, but surely they'd hire more of them to reduce the chances of such uncertainty about them.

You could also argue that it was so they would film it, and the media would have footage to show of both attacks, but has their footage actually been used?

I reckon it was next to impossible to stage these attacks, fund them, plan them, train the ops, carry out the surveillance etc. in the months previous, without someone finding out about it.
It would have taken a well organised, highly funded, experienced team to
carry it out.

It so happens that Isreali security forces monitor such activities in many countries. That's their job, 24/7.

It's possible so that someone did have even a small incling, and the people with the incling were from Isreal. Which leads me to my previous statements.

Penn · 31-08-2009 11:05AM

humanji wrote: »

I think it's two different conspiracies. One saying that Israel are behind it and one saying the US government is behind it.

Exactly, it can only be one or the other. So if it was Israelis or the groups that the official reports suggest, then all the conspiracies about controlled demolition etc. are out the window as the US Government weren't involved

If it was the US Government, then we're arguing about nothing, as I doubt the US Goverment would tell a small group of Israelis all about their plans and get them to film it. So what these people were doing becomes irrelevant

squod · 31-08-2009 11:26AM

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

. So what these people were doing becomes irrelevant

I reckon It's crucial. To any theory linking events in 9/11.

If anyone, other than those involved, had fore knowledge of the attacks, they should have come foward to prevent this trajedy.

Also if someone did have fore knowledge, how many people knew, and what organisations were they working for or allied to.

Penn · 31-08-2009 11:37AM

squod wrote: »

I reckon It's crucial. To any theory linking events in 9/11.

If anyone, other than those involved, had fore knowledge of the attacks, they should have come foward to prevent this trajedy.

Also if someone did have fore knowledge, how many people knew, and what organisations were they working for or allied to.

I agree. But the FBI investigated them, came to the conclusion that they had no foreknowledge and deported them.

They were filming, so did they actually get the first attack on film? Has their footage actually been shown? (I'm not being argumentative, I genuinely don't know a lot about this other than bits that I've picked up from here)

squod · 31-08-2009 11:48AM

King Mob wrote: »

If they were in on the plot why would the attract attention to them selves?

Who would you send, the bleedin' Isreali 00 bleedin' 7 ?

Did ya expect them to yurn up in tuxidos with a couple a' birds under each arm an' a bottle a' champers cooling in a bucket?

No-none but you so far has suggested they were in on the plot. They just videoed it, like they were told to. Then celebrated over a plane crash. Which they did.

squod · 31-08-2009 11:58AM

paddyirishman85 wrote: »

I agree. But the FBI investigated them, came to the conclusion that they had no foreknowledge and deported them.

They were filming, so did they actually get the first attack on film? Has their footage actually been shown? (I'm not being argumentative, I genuinely don't know a lot about this other than bits that I've picked up from here)

There's no evidence the FBI came to any conclusions, other than confidential ones.
A previous poster said these guys had failed their lie detector tests,
I dunno. I started on about an article or two I once read.

http://web.archive.org/web/20020802194310/http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/DailyNews/2020_whitevan_020621.html

http://www.tribune.ie/article/2003/nov/09/the-real-911-cover-up/?q=september%2011%20mossad

So far I'm told the Isreali dudes were 'just dicks' and that there is certainty
in the opposing arguments.

Unless they know more than everyone else does, there can't be certainty.

I'm still waiting to be convinced of the other sides argument. Which I can be.

911 revisited

Comments