Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

FBI Report on "Dancing Israelis" declassified.

1235789

Comments

  • #122
    Di0genes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    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?



    Em Brown Bomber Post 66

    I'd love to know do you think urban moving systems rigged the WTC 1&2 or WTC 7 with explosives.


  • #123
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Di0genes wrote: »
    Em Brown Bomber Post 66

    I'd love to know do you think urban moving systems rigged the WTC 1&2 or WTC 7 with explosives.

    I'd love it if you would stop trying to change the subject to one less painful for you.

    I never said that they planted explosives so let's keep on topic, yeah?


  • #124
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    so in reply to http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=74424461#post74424461 ...
    Di0genes wrote: »
    http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Co..._Laden_to_9-11
    that's the evidence proof (i know you like that word better)?? really? no i'm serious ... really? ... oh wait here it is ...
    Di0genes wrote: »
    As mentioned, hard evidence refers to things like DNA, fingerprints etc, so I imagine they'd be impossible to find

    so i take that as a "No I don't have any but <insert excuse here> ... chirp chirp!!"

    (and i did not even have to debunk the debunkers website)


  • #125
    Di0genes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    I'd love it if you would stop trying to change the subject to one less painful for you.

    I never said that they planted explosives so let's keep on topic, yeah?

    So why are you so excited by the sniiffer dog aspect of the story?

    Whats the significance of dogs.

    What do you think Urban Moving Systems were doing?


  • #126
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    aside - why is it that some people have to work in teams to deny the evidence err proof err hard solid evidently provable evidence proof ...
    one person argues (badly) then stops (when he can't reply) then someone else takes up the quest and before long he/she drops out and another takes it on ...
    AND i notice a lot of thanks being given, but no replies and that makes baby superman sad.


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    Di0genes wrote: »
    So why are you so excited by the sniiffer dog aspect of the story?

    Whats the significance of dogs.

    What do you think Urban Moving Systems were doing?

    all quiet on my front, so i'll ask a question here.

    why did the dogs react? and do you have HARD evidence as to whatever reason you are going claim ...


    btw, the evidence thing is not misused since there were no dogs in the van ...
    nor was there dogs barking in the van ...
    etc


  • #128
    Di0genes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    davoxx wrote: »
    so in reply to http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=74424461#post74424461 ...


    that's the evidence proof (i know you like that word better)?? really? no i'm serious ... really? ... oh wait here it is ...



    so i take that as a "No I don't have any but <insert excuse here> ... chirp chirp!!"

    (and i did not even have to debunk the debunkers website)


    Again I feel like you don't seem to understand words like "evidence" or "proof".

    When Rex Tomb was discussing the idea of hard evidence he was referring to physical evidence.

    This seems to be going far over your head.

    Heres a simple point for you.

    If the FBI didn't think Bin Laden was in charge of the group that carried out the 9/11 attacks. don't you think they'd be discussing or announcing who they do think carried out the attack? And releasing statements about how they didn't consider him a suspect even though a seal team killed him.

    I'm honestly struggling to see why you're delighted here, and you appear to be high fiving and back slapping yourself for winning a argument no one is having with you.


  • #129
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    Di0genes wrote: »
    Again I feel like you don't seem to understand words like "evidence" or "proof".

    When Rex Tomb was discussing the idea of hard evidence he was referring to physical evidence.

    This seems to be going far over your head.

    Heres a simple point for you.

    If the FBI didn't think Bin Laden was in charge of the group that carried out the 9/11 attacks. don't you think they'd be discussing or announcing who they do think carried out the attack? And releasing statements about how they didn't consider him a suspect even though a seal team killed him.

    I'm honestly struggling to see why you're delighted here, and you appear to be high fiving and back slapping yourself for winning a argument no one is having with you.
    good excuse!!


    (if you want me to break it down so you can avoid the points again, sorry no will do. unless you want to show some evidence/proof/<your special understanding of the difference between them> ...)


  • #130
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    Di0genes wrote: »
    If the FBI didn't think Bin Laden was in charge of the group that carried out the 9/11 attacks. don't you think they'd be discussing or announcing who they do think carried out the attack? And releasing statements about how they didn't consider him a suspect even though a seal team killed him.
    Yeah, that's proof, or evidence, or something ...


  • #131
    Di0genes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    davoxx wrote: »
    all quiet on my front, so i'll ask a question here.

    why did the dogs react? and do you have HARD evidence as to whatever reason you are going claim ...


    btw, the evidence thing is not misused since there were no dogs in the van ...
    nor was there dogs barking in the van ...
    etc

    Sigh...

    Again you don't seem to understand what you're arguing.

    You're saying the dogs barking is "proof" or "evidence" of explosives.

    Well dog's barks aren't admissible in court.

    There's lots of reasons the dogs could have barking. As you said, there could have been bitches in the van, chemicals that are used in explosives, but were inert, the dogs could have been reacting to handler stress, or stress levels of one of the movers.

    As to "hard evidence" of any of the above. Sorry, and I'm going to have to explain this very simply. I don't need any.

    The burden of proof is on the claimant. I'm offering plausible alternative theories.

    I'm sorry if this concept eludes you. I'm very sorry for you.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    Di0genes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    davoxx wrote: »
    Yeah, that's proof, or evidence, or something ...

    No thats logic.

    (if you want me to break it down so you can avoid the points again, sorry no will do. unless you want to show some evidence/proof/<your special understanding of the difference between them> ...)

    I don't have a special understanding of the concepts.

    I understand things like the concept of burden of proof.

    As in "the burden of proof is on the person making the claim"


  • #133
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    Di0genes wrote: »
    No thats logic.
    good thing so .. coz that is exactly what i asked for, but i mistyped it as proof or evidence .. apparently i get confused with those two, but seems like i was actually looking for logic!!!

    i'll be sure to type logic when i'm looking for proof/evidence and vice versa ... just so we don't get confused.


  • #134
    Penn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,775 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Di0genes wrote: »
    Do you think the dancing jews put explosives in the twin towers Brown Bomber.

    Where did Brown Bomber refer to the people as "jews"? This thread is about Israelis, do not bring religion into it without proper reason.
    Di0genes wrote: »
    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.

    From the forum charter:
    Don't make the natives restless. This is a catch-all rule for general trolling, bitching and similar. Posting in a manner purely to get a reaction from someone will not be tolerated. If a moderator feels that said poster is doing this intentionally or is the cause of the mess, then that poster can and will be infracted and/or banned.

    Calm your tone, Di0genes. Only warning.


  • #135
    meglome
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


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

    So do you believe a security dog can pick up something that isn't explosives or drugs but react like it is? Yes or no.
    davoxx wrote: »
    see http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74418800&postcount=92
    davoxx wrote: »
    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.

    Right. Why is it suspicious in itself if they were agents? Their movements are not consistent with foreknowledge, they don't move to a better location to see what happens. And seriously what kind of operation would it be when the team sits there and watches. The Israelis have a history of pulling off fairly audacious operations and I don't recall any of them involving having a load of people sitting there watching, especially while drawing attention to themselves. Maybe you can show the precedent for hanging around and watching?
    davoxx wrote: »
    huh? seriously, huh? do i even need to say anything?
    best denial reply ever!!

    Drug and explosives dogs can pick up on things that are not drugs and explosives, this is a fact. They call it an indication when the dog smells something, then through searches or chemical tests they look for more evidence. If there is no more evidence then you walk off with the benefit of the doubt. It's very simply but you're not getting it.


  • #136
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    meglome wrote: »
    movements are not consistent with foreknowledge, they don't move to a better location to see what happens..

    Arghhhhhhhhhhh

    Have any of you "debunkers" even read the FBI report?????????

    IN. THEIR. OWN. WORDS.

    THEY MOVED FROM POINT A (where they could see the first tower that had been hit) to point B where they could see the second tower that was to be hit).

    The second tower could not be seen from point A.

    They moved from point A to point B in the time between both attacks.
    This is before anyone bar those responsible and those on the planes knew that it was more than an accident.

    If this is not consistent with foreknowledge I don't know WTF is!!

    Now as your star (and solitary stated) reason not having foreknowledge is in fact the opposite of what you thought does this mean that you will now reevaluate your position???


  • #137
    meglome
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Arghhhhhhhhhhh

    Have any of you "debunkers" even read the FBI report?????????

    IN. THEIR. OWN. WORDS.

    THEY MOVED FROM POINT A (where they could see the first tower that had been hit) to point B where they could see the second tower that was to be hit).

    The second tower could not be seen from point A.

    They moved from point A to point B in the time between both attacks.
    This is before anyone bar those responsible and those on the planes knew that it was more than an accident.

    If this is not consistent with foreknowledge I don't know WTF is!!

    Now as your star (and solitary stated) reason not having foreknowledge is in fact the opposite of what you thought does this mean that you will now reevaluate your position???

    Sigh... I said "movements are not consistent with foreknowledge, they don't move to a better location to see what happens". Obviously they did move but they had no idea where they were going and had to use the roof of their van when they got there. So these 'elite' mossad agents not only hung around, drew attention to themselves but had no clue where exactly to go to get a better vantage point for the important footage they didn't actually need in the first place.
    meglome wrote: »
    The Israelis have a history of pulling off fairly audacious operations and I don't recall any of them involving having a load of people sitting there watching, especially while drawing attention to themselves. Maybe you can show the precedent for hanging around and watching?

    Is this sinking in?
    Mr. REGAV: These five Israelis were not involved in any intelligence opera-tion in the United States. And the Americans, the American intelligence au-thorities, have never raised this issue with us. The story is simply false.

    MILLER: (VO) Source tell 20/20 there is still debate within the FBI over whether or not the young men were spies. But many in the US intelligence community believe that some of the men were engaged in espionage for Israel. However, sources also tell us, even if they were spies, there was no evidence to conclude they had advanced knowledge of the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

    Mr. CANNISTRARO: The investigation, at the end of the day, after all of the polygraphs, all of the field work, all of the cross-checking, the intelligence work, concluded that they probably did not have advanced knowledge of 9/11.

    WALTERS: John, so the FBI has concluded that these men did not have any advanced knowledge of the attack on the Trade Center.

    MILLER: And they seem to be comfortable with that conclusion.

    WALTERS: OK. Then what were they doing looking at the World Trade Center then?

    MILLER: They say that they read about the attack on the Internet, went to the roof of the moving company, couldn't really see it, and then went to the higher ground to get a better view and to take pictures.

    WALTERS: Well, all right, but why were they smiling?

    MILLER: Well, that's been the most difficult question. And the only explanations we've had, both from the lawyer and from the Israeli government, is chalking that up just to immature conduct.

    WALTERS: But the bottom line is, that there is no evidence that these men knew about the attacks in advance.

    MILLER: No. And I think the FBI and the CIA spent a great deal of time trying to drill down to that answer and found no proof of that.

    WALTERS: Well, I hope that we have put this rumor to rest once and for all.

    MILLER: We've certainly tried.

    From here http://www.911myths.com/html/dancing_israelis.html

    This is a very reasonable explanation, much better than the most inept Israeli spies ever.


  • #138
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    You didn't actually read the FBI report did you?

    Be honest...
    I read most of it. If you think that there's a section that actually says, this point out where.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    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.
    So is that all they say or is that all they go on to make their conclusion?
    What consists of "moving equipment" exactly? Cardboard boxes? Packing tape? Box cutters? Those hand cart things? Little packing peanuts?

    Were these spies plain old too cheap to buy this stuff to maintain their cover?
    You might argue that the weren't expecting to be searched, but this doesn't gel with the excuse you used to explain why they were carrying their passport....


  • #139
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    King Mob wrote: »
    I read most of it. If you think that there's a section that actually says, this point out where.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74424746&postcount=115

    i think that post sums it up.


  • #140
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭ [Deleted User]


    davoxx wrote: »
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74424746&postcount=115

    i think that post sums it up.

    So are you referring to this passage:
    A search of Urban Moving Systems, Weehaken New Jersey, revealed more oddities which caused the search team leader to characterise the company as a possible "fraudulent operation". Little evidence of a legitimate business operation was found.

    Or do you have any other evidence to support your claim.
    Because a search team leader doesn't speak for the entire FBI.
    And even then his conclusion was it was a possible "fraudulent operation", not a conclusion that it was.

    And on top of this can you explain why the boss was able to produce a delivery schedule?
    Were did he get that exactly?


  • #141
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    King Mob wrote: »
    So are you referring to this passage:


    Or do you have any other evidence to support your claim.
    Because a search team leader doesn't speak for the entire FBI.
    And even then his conclusion was it was a possible "fraudulent operation", not a conclusion that it was.

    And on top of this can you explain why the boss was able to produce a delivery schedule?
    Were did he get that exactly?

    well as team leader, he speaks for his team, who were there first hand.

    regarding any further 'evidence' i will have to refer to http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74422337&postcount=105
    and my reply http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74422587&postcount=106


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭ [Deleted User]


    davoxx wrote: »
    well as team leader, he speaks for his team, who were there first hand.
    But you claimed that the FBI concluded that they were a front, not that a field agent thought they might be.
    The passage you pointed to does not support your claim.


  • #143
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    King Mob wrote: »
    I read most of it. If you think that there's a section that actually says, this point out where.
    During the search conducted by the W.P.D, it was revealed that the building and all of its contents had been abandoned by (BLANKED AREA) the owner of UMS. This apparently is being done to avoid criminal prosecution after the 9.11.01 arrest of 5 of his employees and subsequent seizure of his office computer systems by members of the FBI NK on or around 9.13.01.
    (...)
    A search of UMS, Weehawken, New Jersey revealed more oddities which caused the search team leader to characterize the company as a possible "Fraudulent Operation." There was little evidence of a legitimate business operation that was found. Evidence recovery agents did seize however, 16 seperate computer units used by UMS

    It's "possible" not "probable". My mistake. But I've just read the thing twice to your none. I won't be doing that again.
    King Mob wrote: »
    So is that all they say or is that all they go on to make their conclusion?
    What consists of "moving equipment" exactly? Cardboard boxes? Packing tape? Box cutters? Those hand cart things? Little packing peanuts?

    Were these spies plain old too cheap to buy this stuff to maintain their cover?
    You might argue that the weren't expecting to be searched, but this doesn't gel with the excuse you used to explain why they were carrying their passport....

    Oddly equipment typically used in a moving company's daily duties was not found including work gloves, blanket, straps, ropes, boxes, dollies, rollers etc,.


  • #144
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    King Mob wrote: »
    But you claimed that the FBI concluded that they were a front, not that a field agent thought they might be.
    The passage you pointed to does not support your claim.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74424746&postcount=115


  • #145
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭ [Deleted User]


    davoxx wrote: »
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74424746&postcount=115

    Ah right, forgot about the claim of an article in a publication, which we can't see...
    Convincing.


  • #146
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    My mistake. But I've just read the thing twice to your none. I won't be doing that again.

    sure you will, he'll keep making claims with no proof and expect us to ...


  • #147
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    King Mob wrote: »
    Ah right, forgot about the claim of an article in a publication, which we can't see...
    Convincing.
    better than anything you've provided ...


  • #148
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    (...)


    It's "possible" not "probable". My mistake. But I've just read the thing twice to your none. I won't be doing that again.

    Oddly equipment typically used in a moving company's daily duties was not found including work gloves, blanket, straps, ropes, boxes, dollies, rollers etc,.
    So can you explain why they could not have just bought this stuff and keep it in their van and offices?
    Or were they somehow not concerned about be caught and searched, yet also concerned enough to bring their own passports?

    Is the only possible explanation for not having this stuff in the van was they they were a front?


  • #149
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭ [Deleted User]


    davoxx wrote: »
    better than anything you've provided ...
    Please point out any claims I have made that require me to back them up.
    Cause if you're going to engage in childish tactics like "well so are you", you should at least back it up more than your did with your initial unsupported claim.


  • #150
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    King Mob wrote: »
    Please point out any claims I have made that require me to back them up.
    Cause if you're going to engage in childish tactics like "well so are you", you should at least back it up more than your did with your initial unsupported claim.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74417047&postcount=78
    which is in reply to
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=74416950&postcount=77


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    King Mob wrote: »
    Please point out any claims I have made that require me to back them up.

    I'll make this very simple.
    you claimed my true story was false.
    prove it.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement