FBI Report on "Dancing Israelis" declassified.

enfant terrible · 15-09-2011 04:47AM

You are a very patient man King Mob.

There is no reasoning with some people.

Brown Bomber · 15-09-2011 09:05AM

enfant terrible wrote: »

You are a very patient man King Mob.

There is no reasoning with some people.

:pac:

Yeah so patient he didn't take the time to read the FBI report or else he would've known that the "highfivers" intentions in moving locations was to get a better view of the 2nd tower.

Tell me et have you read it? What did you make of it?

Di0genes · 15-09-2011 11:24AM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

:pac:

Yeah so patient he didn't take the time to read the FBI report or else he would've known that the "highfivers" intentions in moving locations was to get a better view of the 2nd tower.

Tell me et have you read it? What did you make of it?

I'd forget the smilies and concentrate on answering King Mobs points.

Brown Bomber · 15-09-2011 11:27AM

Di0genes wrote: »

I'd forget the smilies and concentrate on answering King Mobs points.

Points? :pac: The sniffer dogs reacted for explosives in the fan and their boss done a runner cos' they were "dicks"?

This myth is going down as busted

Di0genes · 15-09-2011 12:29PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Points? :pac: The sniffer dogs reacted for explosives

Sniffer dogs react to chemicals. They're a moving firm, theres no telling what was in the van, that the dog was reacting to.

in the fan and their boss done a runner cos' they were "dicks"?

This myth is going down as busted

:rolleyes:

:pac:

And yet a coherent conspiracy is yet to emerge.

Do you think the dancing jews put explosives in the twin towers Brown Bomber.

Do you think the WTC 1&2 or WTC 7 were a controlled demolition.

Or wait do you now think there was a grand conspiracy on 9/11?

Heaven forfend brown bomber that you'd actually put up for once and tell us what you really think happened. Heaven forfend that you'd actually nail your colours to the mast and tell us what theory you subscribe to.

davoxx · 15-09-2011 12:56PM

Di0genes wrote: »

Sniffer dogs react to chemicals. They're a moving firm, theres no telling what was in the van, that the dog was reacting to.

err they are sniffer dogs for explosives, they react to i dunno, explosives?

your defence seems to be the "so you saw me doing <act>?, well what you saw was light boucning of my and into your eyes, there is no way of telling what cosmic radiation did to those light particles or even if they exist in the first place!"

and they were not a moving firm, i think it had been established that they were a front. sure you'll argue now that they had a van and what else can you do with a van but me a moving firm i suppose ....

enno99 · 15-09-2011 03:16PM

Di0genes wrote: »

I'd forget the smilies and concentrate on answering King Mobs points.

Maybe you should follow your own advice and answer the question as to who doctored barry Jennings statement in the list of witnesss reports that you frequently post

7. After the initial blast, Housing Authority worker Barry Jennings, 46, reported to a command center on the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center. He was with Michael Hess, the city's corporation counsel, when they felt and heard another explosion [the collapse of the north tower]. First calling for help, they scrambled downstairs to the lobby, or what was left of it. "I looked around, the lobby was gone. It looked like hell," Jennings said. http://www.record-eagle.com/2001/sep/11scene.htm

Was that your work or someone elses

15-09-2011 04:41PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Points? :pac: The sniffer dogs reacted for explosives in the fan and their boss done a runner cos' they were "dicks"?

This myth is going down as busted

So can you explain why they were carrying explosives in a moving van?
Or why a surveillance team would have access to or need of explosives?

Can you actually point out were in the linked report the think about the dog is?
Can you show us were the police tested for explosives and positively found evidence for them?

We'll stick to that one since you don't want to stick to the others ones you're now ignoring.

15-09-2011 04:43PM

davoxx wrote: »

err they are sniffer dogs for explosives, they react to i dunno, explosives?

your defence seems to be the "so you saw me doing <act>?, well what you saw was light boucning of my and into your eyes, there is no way of telling what cosmic radiation did to those light particles or even if they exist in the first place!"

and they were not a moving firm, i think it had been established that they were a front. sure you'll argue now that they had a van and what else can you do with a van but me a moving firm i suppose ....

You think?
Can you substantiate this?

davoxx · 15-09-2011 04:53PM

King Mob wrote: »

You think? Can you substantiate this?

yeah funny enough i do think, i don't just follow others.

what and how do you want substantiated?

15-09-2011 05:01PM

davoxx wrote: »

yeah funny enough i do think, i don't just follow others.

what and how do you want substantiated?

With some evidence to show that is it true that you yourself went out and verified, since you don't just follow others and all.

davoxx · 15-09-2011 05:16PM

King Mob wrote: »

With some evidence to show that is it true that you yourself went out and verified, since you don't just follow others and all.

What level of evidence? since you obviously read the full report and all other entries on the web.

King Mob wrote: »

With some evidence to show that is it true that you yourself went out and verified, since you don't just follow others and all.

yeah i flew all the way over and went to their head office and there was a poster saying 'moved back to Israel, job done lads, we were never a moving business in the first place", but still not convinced i decided to hang around, but who should i meet but the man himself Dominic Suter, in the flesh, i asked to see his passport, he showed me, man i was stunned, we had coffee form a quaint place there, good thing i am jewish otherwise they would not let me in, they questioned me like feck, but after gaining their trust (had to burn a few pages of the koran), they told me that it was them that had planted bombs at wtc7, and they showed me pictures of them doing it, he did say that the 'lads' who were dancing were fired, that they should have known better, but what could he do? at least "we'll" be able to clear the world of the filth (i was not sure it he meant just Muslims or not), but sure enough he had to leave eventually, i asked him if he would sign an affidavit to this, but funnily enough he said no, they 'guys' know already.

true story.

15-09-2011 05:22PM

davoxx wrote: »

What level of evidence? since you obviously read the full report and all other entries on the web.

Something from a reliable source that shows the evidence for that conclusion.
Or at least the evidence you've used to reach you conclusion.

davoxx wrote: »

true story.

So then you are relying on what people have told you?

davoxx · 15-09-2011 05:33PM

King Mob wrote: »

Something from a reliable source that shows the evidence for that conclusion.
Or at least the evidence you've used to reach you conclusion.

define what is reliable, and what is unreliable? and again what level of evidence?

King Mob wrote: »

So then you are relying on what people have told you?

no .. i am relying on what i heard, i have no idea what 'they' told me, all i know is what i heard from Dominic Suter.

15-09-2011 05:38PM

davoxx wrote: »

define what is reliable, and what is unreliable? and again what level of evidence?

no .. i am relying on what i heard, i have no idea what 'they' told me, all i know is what i heard from Dominic Suter.

Well it's clear now that you've nothing to back up what you claimed and it was simply a case of you buying what you were told from conspiracy theorists and repeating it even though you can't show it's true.

I wish you guys would just admit this stuff instead of trying to dance around it.

davoxx · 15-09-2011 05:45PM

King Mob wrote: »

Well it's clear now that you've nothing to back up what you claimed and it was simply a case of you buying what you were told from conspiracy theorists and repeating it even though you can't show it's true.

I wish you guys would just admit this stuff instead of trying to dance around it.

sorry - what evidence do you have that i have nothing, please show it or be quiet, i told you how i checked myself, and yet you deny it. PROVE it please? no you can't?, so i guess you're wrong.

you just seem to be dodging everything with, that's not evidence, that proves nothing, easily done. you ask for evidence to disprove something, now i made the same call as yourself, and you whine.

it good to see that you actually have nothing factual and have read nothing regarding the event and background.

if you have a point state it, or be quiet. thanks!!

15-09-2011 05:52PM

davoxx wrote: »

sorry - what evidence do you have that i have nothing, please show it or be quiet, i told you how i checked myself, and yet you deny it. PROVE it please? no you can't?, so i guess you're wrong.

My evidence is that you just spend the last 5 posts dodging the simple question and are now trying the mature tactics of "well so are you" and you "can't prove I can't".

So you either have evidence to back up your claim or you don't.
If you do, show it, if you don't then you should hold yourself to your own standards and be quiet.

Experience tells me you'll do neither however.

davoxx · 15-09-2011 06:30PM

King Mob wrote: »

My evidence is that you just spend the last 5 posts dodging the simple question and are now trying the mature tactics of "well so are you" and you "can't prove I can't".

sorry there bub, that's not evidence to disprove what i said.
come back again when you have some, thanks ... but read on though.

King Mob wrote: »

So you either have evidence to back up your claim or you don't.
If you do, show it, if you don't then you should hold yourself to your own standards and be quiet.

i don't need evidence, you are the one trying to disprove my claim, funny how you don't hold yourself to your own standards about evidence (conveniently).

you asked for "evidence" that it was a front, yet you can not provide evidence that explains the reports for that day, i doubt you even read them, otherwise you'd be able to quote them.

King Mob wrote: »

Experience tells me you'll do neither however.

pity you don't learn from it.

come back again when you've read the document in question.

15-09-2011 06:37PM

davoxx wrote: »

i don't need evidence....

Lol, unfortunatly, that's not how logical inquiry works.
You claimed that the company were shown to be a front. I asked you to substantiate this.
You didn't and can't.

davoxx · 15-09-2011 06:43PM

King Mob wrote: »

Lol, unfortunatly, that's not how logical inquiry works.
You claimed that the company were shown to be a front. I asked you to substantiate this.
You didn't and can't.

it is, clearly you don't understand it yourself.
you asked, i clarified for level, you said i had to have verified by myself. lucky i had such evidence, i explained it to you, you claimed it was false, without proving it to be so.

have you read the document? you keep avoiding this?

don't bother replying (well you will anyway with some nonsense, but i won't reply) unless you answer yes/no to whether you have read the document.

15-09-2011 06:48PM

davoxx wrote: »

have you read the document? you keep avoiding this?

don't bother replying (well you will anyway with some nonsense, but i won't reply) unless you answer yes/no to whether you have read the document.

Yes I have read most of the document.

But it's good that you are at least labelling the arguments you're going to ignore.

davoxx · 15-09-2011 07:08PM

King Mob wrote: »

Yes I have read most of the document.

But it's good that you are at least labelling the arguments you're going to ignore.

finally a straight answer from you. now, i'm not going to believe that you read it (i have my reasons), but i am not claiming that you did not read it.

do you see the difference there with what you said about my true story?
do you see the difference with what i required for evidence? i don't need to see you reading it to know if you've read it, even if i did, you could still have pretended to.

but the fact it that we take that report with some credibility, to say:

King Mob wrote: »

But in the actual reports, the moment they're pulled out of the van they apparently announce they are Israelis.
I honestly can't see the sense in a secret surveillance team doing that.

does not prove that they were not agents, it is your belief, but it is contra to what is recorded. true what is recorded could have been changed, but then your argument would be regarding the validity of the report.

this is how you've argued.

regarding the moving company being a front, it was established via company records, and the fact that the owner left asap, as well as other sources, some that have been retracted, that in all likelihood it was a front. a legitimate business would not have responded as they had in the report and subsequent events (them leaving usa when they had a job?)

meglome · 15-09-2011 07:10PM

davoxx wrote: »

sorry there bub, that's not evidence to disprove what i said.
come back again when you have some, thanks ... but read on though.

i don't need evidence, you are the one trying to disprove my claim, funny how you don't hold yourself to your own standards about evidence (conveniently).

you asked for "evidence" that it was a front, yet you can not provide evidence that explains the reports for that day, i doubt you even read them, otherwise you'd be able to quote them.

pity you don't learn from it.

come back again when you've read the document in question.

Don't want to get in the middle of the discussion. But really when someone makes claim they need to back them up. You are making the claims so either they have a basis in fact or they don't. It makes no sense whatsoever that someone would disprove claims that you can't even prove to begin with. There are plenty of explanations that would fit these Israelis so explain why anyone should believe yours.

15-09-2011 07:14PM

davoxx wrote: »

regarding the moving company being a front, it was established via company records, and the fact that the owner left asap, as well as other sources, some that have been retracted, that in all likelihood it was a front. a legitimate business would not have responded as they had in the report and subsequent events (them leaving usa when they had a job?)

Can you provide a link to where you saw these company records?

Can you detail and provide these other sources?

Or should I just take your word for everything?

davoxx · 15-09-2011 07:23PM

meglome wrote: »

Don't want to get in the middle of the discussion. But really when someone makes claim they need to back them up. You are making the claims so either they have a basis in fact or they don't. It makes no sense whatsoever that someone would disprove claims that you can't even prove to begin with. There are plenty of explanations that would fit these Israelis so explain why anyone should believe yours.

glady, though i guess you believe that my explanation is that they are agents?

the report shows that they are not acting normally, though normally is subjective. "On March 15, 2002, The Forward claimed that the FBI had concluded that the van's driver, Paul Kurzberg, and his brother Sivan, were indeed Mossad operatives, who were in America "spying on local Arabs".[59]" - wiki
true this may be wrong, but this makes me inclined to believe that they were agents. now the obvious problem would be that no agent is going to say "hey i'm an undercover agent", so we have to base our decision form the evidence which in my opinion individually can be dismissed, but together, they can't.

meglome · 15-09-2011 07:27PM

davoxx wrote: »

glady, though i guess you believe that my explanation is that they are agents?

the report shows that they are not acting normally, though normally is subjective. "On March 15, 2002, The Forward claimed that the FBI had concluded that the van's driver, Paul Kurzberg, and his brother Sivan, were indeed Mossad operatives, who were in America "spying on local Arabs".[59]" - wiki
true this may be wrong, but this makes me inclined to believe that they were agents. now the obvious problem would be that no agent is going to say "hey i'm an undercover agent", so we have to base our decision form the evidence which in my opinion individually can be dismissed, but together, they can't.

Let me post more of that piece for you.

The Forward claimed that the FBI had concluded that the van's driver, Paul Kurzberg, and his brother Sivan, were indeed Mossad operatives, who were in America "spying on local Arabs".[59] ABC news cited this report on June 21, 2002, adding that the FBI had concluded that the five Israelis had no foreknowledge of the attacks.[60]

The link to The Forward doesn't work so I can't read it.

But I'd ask you why believe the first claim they were Mossad agents but not believe they had no foreknowledge?

ed2hands · 15-09-2011 07:28PM

Juval Aviv (former Mossad agent) believes Urban Moving was a front.

Details of that and other points in this thread in vid below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kh3wo18oDZU

Daithi 1 · 15-09-2011 07:31PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It's partly censored but here it is. http://www.scribd.com/doc/62392807/1138796-001-303A-NK-105536-Section-1-944861 Just skimmed through it at the moment. Comments to follow.

Very disappointed they didn't reveal where they learned to dance.

meglome · 15-09-2011 07:33PM

ed2hands wrote: »

Juval Aviv (former Mossad agent) believes Urban Moving was a front.

Details of that and other points in this thread in vid below:

Again even if we believe some of them were (albeit poor) Mossad agents does the rest of the CT claims makes sense. I still don't think they do.

davoxx · 15-09-2011 07:37PM

King Mob wrote: »

Can you provide a link to where you saw these company records?

no, i did not realise i'd need it later on ... i need to bookmark everything i read and see.
search on the web yourself first and see what you find.

King Mob wrote: »

Can you detail and provide these other sources?

all of them? search on the web, there is plenty there.

King Mob wrote: »

Or should I just take your word for everything?

god no. but you can't just dismiss everything because you don't believe it.