FBI Report on "Dancing Israelis" declassified.

meglome wrote: »

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

i never mentioned foreknowledge, so you have no idea what i believe regarding that.
i just said it was suspicious, and that i believe they are agents.

you can see that the evidence for them being agents is quite damning.

davoxx wrote: »

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.

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

So if you can't provide a single source for what you are claiming, why exactly do you believe it?
Why do you expect others to believe it?

davoxx wrote: »

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

And why not? Why should I take your claim seriously when you've nothing to support it?
Without sources how is your claim distinguishable from a total fiction?
If it's true, you should be able to back it up.

meglome wrote: »

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.

it's not an all or nothing. CT do not need to have the full story, by definition they can't, they just need to have enough evidence that disproves the official theory.

King Mob wrote: »

So if you can't provide a single source for what you are claiming, why exactly do you believe it?
Why do you expect others to believe it?

i can, i'm just lazy tbh, i'm annoyed of everyone saying "prove it", "it's just a theroy" and "so just because that was right, does not mean this could possible be right".
i don't care if people believe it or not, i just care when someone uses silly arguments and bad logic, and dismiss everything that does not support their belief rather than basing the belief on the evidence and the credibility.

this applies to both sides of the fence.

King Mob wrote: »

And why not? Why should I take your claim seriously when you've nothing to support it?
Without sources how is your claim distinguishable from a total fiction?
If it's true, you should be able to back it up.

Agreed, but you can't claim otherwise similarly. (i'm taking about my true story)

also some things are not backup able, unless you record everything all the time, and have access to that information.

davoxx wrote: »

i can, i'm just lazy tbh, i'm annoyed of everyone saying "prove it", "it's just a theroy" and "so just because that was right, does not mean this could possible be right".
i don't care if people believe it or not, i just care when someone uses silly arguments and bad logic, and dismiss everything that does not support their belief rather than basing the belief on the evidence and the credibility.

this applies to both sides of the fence.

But you see, if no-one asks for evidence (no here has asked for proof), then what's the point of discussion?

If people like yourself are to lazy to explain why they believe something and be able to back it up we're left with:
A "I believe X."
B "Why do you believe X?"
A "I'm not going to tell."

I'm trying to base what I believe on evidence, hence why I asked you.
You are not bothered to attempt to prove such evidence, and experience tells me that it probably does not exist.

davoxx wrote: »

Agreed, but you can't claim otherwise similarly. (i'm taking about my true story)

also some things are not backup able, unless you record everything all the time, and have access to that information.

And if you can't back them up like you "true" story for whatever reason, then it's totally indistinguishable from fiction, and I treat it as such.

ed2hands

King Mob wrote: »

But you see, if no-one asks for evidence (no here has asked for proof), then what's the point of discussion?

If people like yourself are to lazy to explain why they believe something and be able to back it up we're left with:
A "I believe X."
B "Why do you believe X?"
A "I'm not going to tell."

I'm trying to base what I believe on evidence, hence why I asked you.
You are not bothered to attempt to prove such evidence, and experience tells me that it probably does not exist.

And if you can't back them up like you "true" story for whatever reason, then it's totally indistinguishable from fiction, and I treat it as such.

So using your own logic, i take it you don't believe Al Qaeda carried out the attacks.
Because many say there's not much evidence of that either.

Including the FBI:

When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI said,
“The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

And Dick Cheney:

"So we've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming"

ed2hands wrote: »

So using your own logic, i take it you don't believe Al Qaeda carried out the attacks.
Because many say there's not much evidence of that either.

Including the FBI:

When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI said,
“The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

And Dick Cheney:

"So we've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming"

And amazingly you ironically miss the point of my argument providing neither context nor sources for those quotes.

King Mob wrote: »

And amazingly you ironically miss the point of my argument providing neither context nor sources for those quotes.

your point is

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.

and like i said we don't have access to all the information.

i'm lazy, i'll argee there, but i'm not here to walk people through everything, you have to research yourself in order to argue either side. a lot of people don't and then ask for proof. if you had read the document in the first place you would have understood why people believe them to be agents and that the business was a front, but alas you did not, or you just choice to ignore it.

anyone can always say "link please".

also you don't need proof for discussion, it just needs to make sense or be plausible.

if it was confirmed beyond all doubt, then that would be the official story, and nobody would be claiming that the truth is being hidden.

if you can't see the fallacy in expecting proof for claiming that someone is hiding proof, well then i guess we can't discuss anything.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61dvcn2TIUg

King Mob wrote: »

If people like yourself are to lazy to explain why they believe something and be able to back it up we're left with:
A "I believe X."
B "Why do you believe X?"
A "I'm not going to tell."

because you get people responding like this:
A "i believe x to be true"
B "why?"
A "this here shows us that it must be"
B "no it does not"
A "well what does it show then?"
B "errr...."
A "you don't understand it" or "you have no researched it"
B "you are wrong, i just want proof!!"

bit of a rant, but i hope my true story showed you the fault in your discuss techniques.

ed2hands

King Mob wrote: »

And amazingly you ironically miss the point of my argument providing neither context nor sources for those quotes.

No, i got the point of your argument alright so no irony there.

The context of the quotes was to put it to you in relation to your logic, ie in the absence of evidence linking Al Qaeda to 9/11 other than a dodgy "confession" videotape, i take it you don't believe Al Qaeda carried out the attacks.

Source for the FBI Rex Tomb quote is apparently a Muckraker report by Ed Haas. Anyway as i'm sure you're aware, it's common knowledge that the FBI has not been able to link Bin Laden with 9/11 other than the "confession" tape.

The FBI stated that evidence linking Al-Qaeda and bin Laden to the attacks of September 11 is clear and irrefutable.[56] The Government of the United Kingdom reached the same conclusion regarding Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden's culpability for the September 11, 2001, attacks.[57] However, a "White Paper" by the U.S. government, documenting the case against bin Laden and the Al Qaeda organization concerning the September 11 attacks, publicly promised by Secretary of State Colin Powell, was never published. So far, the U.S. Justice Department has not sought formal criminal charges against bin Laden (or anyone but Zacarias Moussaoui) for the 9/11 attacks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militant_activity_of_Osama_bin_Laden

Here's Cheney saying what he said:

davoxx wrote: »

if you can't see the fallacy in expecting proof for claiming that someone is hiding proof, well then i guess we can't discuss anything.

Please point out were I asked for proof.
I only ask for evidence or for claims to be substantiated or what leads a person to believe something.
If you don't understand the difference between those and proof, there's very little I can do.

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

Please point out were I asked for proof.
I only ask for evidence or for claims to be substantiated or what leads a person to believe something.
If you don't understand the difference between those and proof, there's very little I can do.

Sorry I know this the wrong thread but this one has your attention

Can you explain this

King Mob wrote: »

Please point out were I asked for proof.
I only ask for evidence or for claims to be substantiated or what leads a person to believe something.
If you don't understand the difference between those and proof, there's very little I can do.

King Mob wrote: »

You think?
Can you substantiate this?

davoxx wrote: »

Yea, you don't understand what constitutes proof and what constitutes evidence, nor can you tell the difference between them and what you use to form what you believe.

There are reasons why you believe something, these things are called evidence, assuming you are evaluating something rationally and with logic.
If you can't supply this evidence, the reasons why you came to a conclusion, then your position is not based on logic and rationality.

Proof on the other hand in the colloquial sense is proving something beyond all reasonable doubt.
I've never asked for this.

King Mob wrote: »

Yea, you don't understand what constitutes proof and what constitutes evidence, nor can you tell the difference between them and what you use to form what you believe.

There are reasons why you believe something, these things are called evidence, assuming you are evaluating something rationally and with logic.
If you can't supply this evidence, the reasons why you came to a conclusion, then your position is not based on logic and rationality.

Proof on the other hand in the colloquial sense is proving something beyond all reasonable doubt.
I've never asked for this.

errr okay? i was going to repost the picture, but i fear that you just don't get it.

there is plenty of evidence on this thread, what you want is proof, but you call it evidence. but to be honest the picture summed it up.

also people believe in a lot of things with no evidence, religion being one of the obvious ones ...

davoxx wrote: »

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

The chemicals in explosives. Like Ammonia fertilizer. THings that can be carried in vans.

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!"

Firstly it's not my "defense".

And secondly, the dogs reacted as if the presence of explosives were there.

Do you really think a dog barking is conclusive proof of anything? Don't the handlers have to investigate to find the explosives?

Would you think it fair if a sniffer dog barked at you, and this was proof you were carrying drugs, and immediately convicted based on nothing more than the dog's bark?

If the dog reacted so dramatically surely the presence of explosives would be investigated.

Dogs can react to stress, even police dogs, perhaps the dogs reaction was based on the heightened stress levels of their handlers.

Or put simply do you really think a dog's bark is conclusive proof of explosives?

And you get sarcastic about me supposedly making excuses about how eyes understand light..

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 ....

The onus to prove a theory is on the person presenting the theory.

Not on me to disprove it.

ennon wrote:

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

Jennings only objected to how Dylan Avery misrepresented his statement, and refused to co-operate with later versions on Loose Change.

Jennings happily spoke to the BBC.

Throwing splittle than Jennings was misquoted, you should show me Jennings objecting to his statement.

I'll be waiting for you next to the crickets.

enno99

Di0genes wrote: »

Jennings only objected to how Dylan Avery misrepresented his statement, and refused to co-operate with later versions on Loose Change.

Jennings happily spoke to the BBC.

Throwing splittle than Jennings was misquoted, you should show me Jennings objecting to his statement.

I'll be waiting for you next to the crickets.

No the question is who typed the lie that you frequently post

Here is the proper quote

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. 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://archives.record-eagle.com/2001/sep/11scene.htm

ed2hands wrote: »

So using your own logic, i take it you don't believe Al Qaeda carried out the attacks.
Because many say there's not much evidence of that either.

Including the FBI:

When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI said,
“The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

You understand that hard evidence are things like fingerprints DNA etc....

And ed2hands if you really think the FBI don't think Bin Laden was connected to 9/11 do you really think they wouldn't have said something when Bin Laden was murdered in part because of his role in the 9/11 attacks...

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Connecting_bin_Laden_to_9-11

This Rex Tomb quote about "No hard evidence" and "Bin Laden" is one of the more profoundly moronic conspiracy theories about 9/11 so it's really in fine company on the dancing jew thread.....

davoxx wrote: »

I think asking you provide evidence of where you saw those company records isn't splitting hairs. Its just evidence.

Posting jpgs just shows you're just prevaricating about a claim you can't substantiate.

Di0genes wrote: »

I think asking you provide evidence of where you saw those company records isn't splitting hairs. Its just evidence.

Posting jpgs just shows you're just prevaricating about a claim you can't substantiate.

out of
.
.
.
context

and i gave evidence, thank you very much, next time read what i posted.
the image was regarding proof vs substantiated evidence.

Di0genes wrote: »

This Rex Tomb quote about "No hard evidence" and "Bin Laden" is one of the more profoundly moronic conspiracy theories about 9/11

so do you have any substantiated evidence that this is just a conspiracy theory?

so you'll be hiding in bushes making chirping noises now

davoxx wrote: »

and i gave evidence, thank you very much, next time read what i posted.
the image was regarding proof vs substantiated evidence.

Proof is showing something beyond all doubt.
Substantiated evidence is evidence you can show and verify.

You claimed that the FBI concluded that the company was a front, I was asking you to show were they said this or explain how you knew.
You didn't do this.
Experience tells me that you can't.

Di0genes wrote: »

Do you really think a dog barking is conclusive proof of anything? Don't the handlers have to investigate to find the explosives?

But it is EVIDENCE of explosives, which I thought you guys were looking for? Not PROOF, remember the difference?
Of course, the van could have been full of bitches in heat, but we have no evidence of that.

Di0genes wrote: »

The onus to prove a theory is on the person presenting the theory.

No, you don't need to prove a theory. You can provide evidence to support it (which is the case here) or provide evidence to disprove it (which has not been done).

King Mob wrote: »

Experience tells me that you can't.

you really do not learn from experience,
please refer to prior posts,
i am not here to constantly repeat myself.

fine just this once, again

davoxx wrote: »

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.

referenced on page 36 of the document in the first post.

like i said i doubt you read it, and now can you stop wasting people's time?

meglome

davoxx wrote: »

But it is EVIDENCE of explosives, which I thought you guys were looking for? Not PROOF, remember the difference?
Of course, the van could have been full of bitches in heat, but we have no evidence of that.

But it's not evidence of anything... unless explosives are found somewhere. If you handle money there is a chance a drug dog could detect cocaine off you from the money. Fertilizer can be made into a bomb and a moving company could easily be moving something chemical that a dog would pick up on.
Did you know if you eat poppyseeds on a bagel they can show up as traces of cocaine? (look it up)

This is from a previous post to you...

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?

meglome wrote: »

Did you know if you eat poppyseeds on a bagel they can show up as traces of cocaine? (look it up)

you are right, but you really should not be using cocaine for sugar, but i can see how you'd get confused

meglome wrote: »

This is from a previous post to you...

Let me post more of that piece for you.

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?

see http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74418800&postcount=92

AND FINALLY!!!

meglome wrote: »

But it's not evidence of anything... unless explosives are found somewhere.

huh? seriously, huh? do i even need to say anything?
best denial reply ever!!

Brown Bomber

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.

You didn't actually read the FBI report did you?

Be honest...

If you did you'd that that the FBI investigatiors considered it a probable front. Also, you'd know that there was no moving equipment in the van that was seized.

Also you would have known that Dominik Suter, Urban Moving Systems boss who fled for Israel was put on an FBI terrorist suspect list with the likes of Bin Laden.

What exactly do you need or expect? A certificate of an intelligence front issued by the government and stamped by the mayor?

davoxx wrote: »

But it is EVIDENCE of explosives, which I thought you guys were looking for? Not PROOF, remember the difference?

A dog being excited isn't evidence of anything. The dog arouses suspicion it doesn't provide evidence.

Deciding your own definition of "evidence" doesn't make your case strong.

Of course, the van could have been full of bitches in heat, but we have no evidence of that.

Did you see what did there. You misused your own definition of evidence.

You admit you've no evidence that the van was full of bitches. Just as you must agree you've no evidence that there were explosives in the van based on the dog barking.

You've shot yourself in the foot.

No, you don't need to prove a theory. You can provide evidence to support it (which is the case here) or provide evidence to disprove it (which has not been done).

Again we met a poster on the CT forum who should never be let near a jury box.

Di0genes wrote: »

Again we met a poster on the CT forum who should never be let near a jury box.

why won't you reply to http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74424461&postcount=112 ????

chirp chirp .... (you know crickets)