Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

MOSSAD FRONT URBAN MOVING SYSTEMS RECIEVED FEDERAL FUNDING IN MONTHS PRIOR TO 911

24

Comments

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


    Di0genes wrote: »
    In the shift of rubble were wedding rings, tiny bone fragments, and scrapes of DNA have been found and returned to the family members, no one has found any detention cord, blasting caps or charges, any of the sort of residue you'd find after a controlled denotation.

    :D :cool:
    Diogenes wrote: »

    beerbaron perhaps you'd like to explain how you wire a building for demolition, then set it on fire for 5 hours, and expect the det cord and charges to remain intact.
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=55954060&postcount=37


  • #33
    Oracle
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,630 ✭✭✭Oracle


    Almost $500,000 dollars is a lot of money for a small business. It's also possible that this was not their only source of funding. I'd say having been approved for a federal loan, of almost half a million dollars, they could then successfully apply for loans from other financial institutions.


  • #34
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,311 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    For those that don't know Urban Moving Systems was the "company" that employed the 3 dancing Israelis that were seen filming and celebrating the first attack on the towers in Arab costumes. They were caught whilst driving later in the day with another 2 Israelis and found with the usual box cutters, large amounts of cash etc and the sniffer dog reacted to the van for explosives.

    The usual sloppy anti-Israeli CT myths.
    Who actually claimed the Israelis were 'dancing' - the woman (Maria) who contacted the police about the actual van and people in question just stated that they were filming after the first plane impact, and that What struck Maria were the expressions on the men's faces. "They were like happy, you know … They didn't look shocked to me. I thought it was very strange" That falls well short of both 'dancing' and 'celebrating'.

    Maria (the witness to the activities of the Israelis), didn't claim they were dressed as Arabs. A completely different call to police about a van out near Newark airport (nowhere near Weehawken, where the Israelis were), with 'Arab dressed men' behaving suspiciously ("mixing some junk")- that van was reported to be heading north towards the Holland tunnel near Liberty State park. The Israeli's van was stopped (not 'caught') by police near Giants Stadium after this suspicion of a van filled with explosives being driven around by arabs was communicated to police, so it's understandable that an assumption of possible explosives was made - but whether sniffer dogs gave a false positive or not (and we don't know from the police that they did) it's unambigiously the case that no evidence of explosives in the van was found by forensic investigators. Box cutters in a removals van? How strange. Four and a half grand in cash? Clearly guilty of not using a bank for safekeeping, but what more can you read into that?

    Maybe the company was indeed a front for Israeli intellegence, but there's not a jot to imply that the men were doing anything more than rubbernecking the same event that thousands of others were.


  • #35
    Di0genes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Somebody is telling porky pies here.

    Other people stayed up for longer. Apparently using a cartoon character as my picture was a dead giveaway.


  • #36
    Di0genes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    :D :cool:

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=55954060&postcount=37


    And the source of your amusement is?


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Mahatma coat
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,869 ✭✭✭Mahatma coat


    according to the Reports they had the camera set up Prior to the first Impact.

    If the men were 'just rubbernecking' why were they held for 71 days????


    and 4grand is a lot of cash to have shoved in yer sock


  • #38
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Mahatma coat wrote: »
    according to the Reports they had the camera set up Prior to the first Impact.
    Which report?
    Mahatma coat wrote: »
    If the men were 'just rubbernecking' why were they held for 71 days????
    If the men were part of a surveillance team in on the massive conspiracy, why were they held at all?
    Mahatma coat wrote: »
    and 4grand is a lot of cash to have shoved in yer sock
    Yes it is.
    Why does it point to them being involved?


  • #39
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    alastair wrote: »
    but there's not a jot to imply that the men were doing anything more than rubbernecking the same event that thousands of others were.

    I await similar accounts of rubbernecking such as this
    The five aroused attention in New Jersey after people noticed them going to unusual lengths to photograph the World Trade Center ruins and making light of the situation. One photograph developed by the F.B.I. showed Sivan Kurzberg holding a lighted lighter in the foreground, with the smoldering wreckage in the background, said Steven Noah Gordon, a lawyer for the five.

    http://www.crimelynx.com/dozens.html


  • #40
    Di0genes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    I await similar accounts of rubbernecking such as this

    And these were the guys Mossad sent to "document" the attack?

    Seriously BB you can't have it both ways, either these are part of a elite team with foreknowledge of the attacks, or a pack of jackass'.


  • #41
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Di0genes wrote: »
    And these were the guys Mossad sent to "document" the attack?

    Seriously BB you can't have it both ways, either these are part of a elite team with foreknowledge of the attacks, or a pack of jackass'.

    Actually there is no reason why they can't be both as evidenced by the CCTV footage of the bungling Mossad asssasins in Dubai in funny disguises.

    As to why they'd do it? The same reason IDF soliders pose for trophy photos with Arab "fresh kills" or Abu Ghraib military/contractors pose for photographs while hooded men are forced to masturate or naked men are piled on top of each other under threat to their lives - they are trophies for the sick


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,311 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Mahatma coat wrote: »
    according to the Reports they had the camera set up Prior to the first Impact.

    If the men were 'just rubbernecking' why were they held for 71 days????

    The proof they were just rubbernecking is that they were released without charge.

    And no-one claimed they were set up before the first plane impact - at least no-one outside the world of conspiracy 'theories'.


  • #43
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,311 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Actually there is no reason why they can't be both as evidenced by the CCTV footage of the bungling Mossad asssasins in Dubai in funny disguises.

    Funny disguises? Anyone catch them? Their intended victim still alive?

    Compare with a few kids taking photos miles from the WTC with ****ty cameras and not demonstrating best taste. Oh and therefore opening themselves up to armchair anti-Semites and their half-baked conspiracy myths.


  • #44
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    alastair wrote: »
    Oh and therefore opening themselves up to armchair anti-Semites and their half-baked conspiracy myths.
    Alastair, I don't think it is good logic to label an argument 'anti-semitic'. It is either true or not, regardless of the motivation of the person making the argument. This, for me, is uncomfortably close to the way that anyone criticising Israel's policies WRT the Palestinians is labelled an anti-Semite.


  • #45
    Hookah
    Closed Accounts Posts: 849 ✭✭✭Hookah


    Di0genes wrote: »
    Yes I am. Utterly content to accept it.

    Then I'm wasting my time trying to reason with you.


  • #46
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,311 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    Alastair, I don't think it is good logic to label an argument 'anti-semitic'. It is either true or not, regardless of the motivation of the person making the argument. This, for me, is uncomfortably close to the way that anyone criticising Israel's policies WRT the Palestinians is labelled an anti-Semite.

    Nonsense. Israel's actions regarding the Palestinians is wide open to criticism, portraying the activities of three Israelis photographing 9/11 as evidence of culpability is the sort of loolah 'argument' that smacks in many cases of anti-semitism. Quite how were you convinced that they had foreknowledge without any actual evidence to suggest so?


  • #47
    Di0genes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    Hookah wrote: »
    Then I'm wasting my time trying to reason with you.

    Why? Or are you just incapable of coming up with a coherent alternative theory?


  • #48
    Hookah
    Closed Accounts Posts: 849 ✭✭✭Hookah


    Di0genes wrote: »
    Why? Or are you just incapable of coming up with a coherent alternative theory?

    Falling debris and a burning fire causing the conditions to send a 47 theory building into vertical freefall, is not, nor anywhere near, a coherent theory.

    That is my point.


  • #49
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,311 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Hookah wrote: »
    Falling debris and a burning fire causing the conditions to send a 47 theory building into vertical freefall, is not, nor anywhere near, a coherent theory.

    That is my point.

    Scientific investigation and the experts on the ground that day don't have a problem with that particular cause and effect. Compare that with the supposed alternative 'theories'.


  • #50
    Di0genes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    Hookah wrote: »
    Falling debris and a burning fire causing the conditions to send a 47 theory building into vertical freefall, is not, nor anywhere near, a coherent theory.

    That is my point.

    There is a much larger and complicated report from the NIST.

    But yes having a skyscraper fall on you, and raging uncontrolled fires burning throughout the building for hours will do that.


  • #51
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    alastair wrote: »
    Nonsense. Israel's actions regarding the Palestinians is wide open to criticism, portraying the activities of three Israelis photographing 9/11 as evidence of culpability is the sort of loolah 'argument' that smacks in many cases of anti-semitism. Quite how were you convinced that they had foreknowledge without any actual evidence to suggest so?
    The linking of questions to anti-semitism is nonsense.

    And why have you suddenly decided that I believe the Israelis were involved?


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Hookah
    Closed Accounts Posts: 849 ✭✭✭Hookah


    alastair wrote: »
    Scientific investigation and the experts on the ground that day don't have a problem with that particular cause and effect. Compare that with the supposed alternative 'theories'.

    Scientific investigation does have a problem with that particular cause and effect. Hence the conspiracy theory.
    Di0genes wrote: »

    But yes having a skyscraper fall on you, and raging uncontrolled fires burning throughout the building for hours will do that.

    A skyscraper fell on top of WTC7? First I heard of it.

    You accept then, that it's the first time in history a fire has caused a steel framed building to collapse?


  • #53
    Di0genes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    Hookah wrote: »

    A skyscraper fell on top of WTC7? First I heard of it.

    Large chunks of both WTC 1 and 2 fell onto WTC 7
    You accept then, that it's the first time in history a fire has caused a steel framed building to collapse?

    What a absurd concept. Dozens of steel framed buildings have collapsed due to fire.

    www.haifire.com/presentations/Historical_Collapse_Survey.pdf


  • #54
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,311 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    The linking of questions to anti-semitism is nonsense.

    And why have you suddenly decided that I believe the Israelis were involved?

    Questions can't be anti-semetic in intent? Equating criticism of the actions of the Israeli state in the occupied territories with bizzare theories regarding some lads photographing a burning skyscraper and acting the idiot makes any sense?

    And you're the one advocating suspicion of foreknowledge - how would that not suggest involvement?


  • #55
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,311 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Hookah wrote: »
    Scientific investigation does have a problem with that particular cause and effect. Hence the conspiracy theory.



    A skyscraper fell on top of WTC7? First I heard of it.

    You accept then, that it's the first time in history a fire has caused a steel framed building to collapse?


    jeez - three out of three wrong. Full marks for consistency I guess?


  • #56
    Hookah
    Closed Accounts Posts: 849 ✭✭✭Hookah


    Di0genes wrote: »
    What a absurd concept. Dozens of steel framed buildings have collapsed due to fire.

    www.haifire.com/presentations/Historical_Collapse_Survey.pdf

    Now look at the tables, concerning the nature of the buildings and the collapses.

    The only steel framed buildings with a total collapses due to fire are the WTC buildings.

    Every other one is either not a steel framed building, or suffered only a partial collapse (which could mean anything).


  • #57
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    alastair wrote: »
    Questions can't be anti-semetic
    I fixed your post :)
    alastair wrote: »
    And you're the one advocating suspicion of foreknowledge - how would that not suggest involvement?
    You've lost me there - where did I say they had foreknowledge?


  • #58
    alastair
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,311 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Monty Burnz wrote: »
    I fixed your post :)


    You've lost me there - where did I say they had foreknowledge?

    You are aware that 'post fixing' is a no no?

    It was you who claimed that they had been set up prior to the first impact. A claim you didn't substantiate - but one you were happy to perpetuate.


  • #59
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,856 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    alastair wrote: »
    You are aware that 'post fixing' is a no no?

    It was you who claimed that they had been set up prior to the first impact. A claim you didn't substantiate - but one you were happy to perpetuate.
    I think you're confusing him with a different poster.

    You are both on the same side of the debate here.


  • #60
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    alastair wrote: »
    You are aware that 'post fixing' is a no no?
    No, I wasn't aware that making logical points by curtailing someone else's post was a no-no. Link?
    alastair wrote: »
    It was you who claimed that they had been set up prior to the first impact. A claim you didn't substantiate - but one you were happy to perpetuate.
    You are aware that pretending people said things that they didn't is a no-no? It should be pretty simple to prove that I claimed 'they' were set up prior to the first impact. Go ahead, or please apologise.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Dave! wrote: »
    You are both on the same side of the debate here.
    Well, I wouldn't like to think I'm on a 'side' as such. This shouldn't really be a football match or something :)


Advertisement
Advertisement