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

The 9-11 Dancing Middle Easterners and their vans

24567…11

Comments

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


    King Mob wrote: »
    There conclusion would not have been a logical one at the time.
    Finally. Thank you!
    King Mob wrote: »
    Here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhqLh_c0NL4
    At about 5:18 they mention the '93 attacks.
    At 7:05 they specifically mention it could be a terrorist act minutes before the second plane hits. And when it does, he mentions Osama. How did he know it was him before it was confirmed?

    Ah ffs...That pilot FOX are interviewing "doesn't think it's a terrorist attack at all". What happens once the second plane hits is irrelevant as it changes everything instantly.
    King Mob wrote: »
    More unlikely that a vast conspiracy that they were stupid enough to blow open because they weren't able to sit still?
    Humans being human ya mean? Your being sneaky with your language btw. A surveillance operation is not a "vast conspiracy"
    King Mob wrote: »
    This point might be valid if they were all caught celebrating separate from each other. And no I'm specifically not saying that they were the only ones acting like that.
    Well then show examples of these "others" otherwise drop it.
    King Mob wrote: »
    And so how does what they claimed implicate them in a terrorist attack?
    I've already explained to you. It indicates foreknowledge. They were high-fiving, hugging and jumping around like Israel had just won the World Cup BECAUSE THEY KNEW IT WAS A TERRORIST ATTACK THAT WOULD BE "GOOD FOR ISRAEL" BEFORE THE FIRST PLANE EVER HIT AND BEFORE THE PRESIDENT OF AMERICA, GEORGE BUSH OR ANYONE ELSE EVEN KNEW IT WAS A TERRORIST ATTACK
    King Mob wrote: »
    Please point out were I wasn't accepting this, I'm just pointing out how you are misreporting the fact.
    In that case please stop squabbling over petty, irrelevant points. Are we agreed that if the Team Leader of the FBI search says UMS was a possible "fraudelent operation" then UMS is/was a possible "fraudelent operation"?


  • #33
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Finally. Thank you!
    It not being a logical conclusion for them to make does not mean they did not or could not leap to that conclusion.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Ah ffs...That pilot FOX are interviewing "doesn't think it's a terrorist attack at all". What happens once the second plane hits is irrelevant as it changes everything instantly.
    But he still brings it up as a possibility, you know an example the exact thing you asked me for.
    So how why did he think it might have been a terrorist attack when no one else could have possibly thought it was?
    How about the news reader who suggests it was Osama? How did he know he was involved before it was confirmed?
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Humans being human ya mean?
    And yet you can't imagine why people might make rapid conclusions or act like assholes....
    I suppose it's only a valid explanation when you want it to be...
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Your being sneaky with your language btw. A surveillance operation is not a "vast conspiracy"
    No, but your OP posits it, several of your points need it to be relevant and you clearly believe it.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Well then show examples of these "others" otherwise drop it.
    Well if you think that no one cheers and jumps around at a disaster, you're oddly contradictory on you view of human nature...
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    I've already explained to you. It indicates foreknowledge. They were high-fiving, hugging and jumping around like Israel had just won the World Cup BECAUSE THEY KNEW IT WAS A TERRORIST ATTACK THAT WOULD BE "GOOD FOR ISRAEL" BEFORE THE FIRST PLANE EVER HIT AND BEFORE THE PRESIDENT OF AMERICA, GEORGE BUSH OR ANYONE ELSE EVEN KNEW IT WAS A TERRORIST ATTACK
    And again, this explanation was given after it was confirmed to be an attack, so it could have been a bull**** answer to cover themselves for being just assholes and cheering at cool looking explosions.
    And if this was the actual explanation, then they could have easily just leaped to the conclusion that it was a terrorist attack before it was confirmed.

    And can you please back up your claim that they were doing this before the first plane hit.

    And then perhaps explain why they did give this explanation when you think it implicates them in the terrorist plot.

    Oh and maybe since you think that they both had foreknowledge and were willing to announce that fact, why did they say: "we are not your problem! The Palestinians are!" when it wasn't Palestinians?
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    In that case please stop squabbling over petty, irrelevant points. Are we agreed that if the Team Leader of the FBI search says UMS was a possible "fraudelent operation" then UMS is/was a possible "fraudelent operation"?
    But you keep twisting the facts and misrepresenting things, the above being a prime example.


  • #34
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    King Mob wrote: »
    It not being a logical conclusion for them to make does not mean they did not or could not leap to that conclusion.
    It makes it considerable less likely.
    King Mob wrote: »
    But he still brings it up as a possibility, you know an example the exact thing you asked me for.
    So how why did he think it might have been a terrorist attack when no one else could have possibly thought it was?
    And you say I misrepresent things? The newsreader when he mentioned the 93 WTC Bombing said re 9-11 first plane hitting and this is a direct quote,
    This is a different challenge; just as grave

    The pilot interviewed put it down to "early morning sun" and the pilot "getting distracted". and "doesn't think it is a terrorist attack at all".

    AFTER, AFTER AFTER AND ONLY AFTER the second plane hits do they conclude (newsreader) "this seems to be deliberate folks!" and (pilot) "I would begin to say that".

    Your so-called evidence runs contrary to what you are saying.
    King Mob wrote: »
    How about the news reader who suggests it was Osama? How did he know he was involved before it was confirmed? .
    Who cares? It's irrelevant. Anything that happened after the second plane hit is irrelevant to what we are discussing.
    King Mob wrote: »
    And again, this explanation was given after it was confirmed to be an attack, so it could have been a bull**** answer to cover themselves for being just assholes and cheering at cool looking explosions.
    Honestly this is the single most absurd thing I've ever heard you say.

    To clarify, your best explanation as to why a group of people seen filming and celebrating the 9/11 attacks would tell their FBI interrogators that they were filming a terrorist attack on US soil before even the US President knew it was a terrorist attack and thereby implicating themselves further in the crime itself is that they were trying to "cover themselves for being just assholes"?

    It reminds of the oft used alibi of the married man caught with a prostitute: "It's okay officer, I wasn't going to pay her for sex; I was going to strangle here to death and dump here body".
    King Mob wrote: »
    And can you please back up your claim that they were doing this before the first plane hit.
    I'm sorry I had meant to say second plane above.
    King Mob wrote: »
    And then perhaps explain why they did give this explanation when you think it implicates them in the terrorist plot.
    Because they were under interrogation by FBI experts. Who's goal is to get answers from people who don't want to give them.


  • #35
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    It makes it considerable less likely.
    why is it unlikely? Do you think that people don't jump to irrational, illogical conclusions before or in spite of evidence?
    Cause I can point you to some examples...
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    And you say I misrepresent things? The newsreader when he mentioned the 93 WTC Bombing said re 9-11 first plane hitting and this is a direct quote,

    The pilot interviewed put it down to "early morning sun" and the pilot "getting distracted". and "doesn't think it is a terrorist attack at all".

    AFTER, AFTER AFTER AND ONLY AFTER the second plane hits do they conclude (newsreader) "this seems to be deliberate folks!" and (pilot) "I would begin to say that".

    Your so-called evidence runs contrary to what you are saying.
    I claimed that it was reported a terrorist attack was possible before it was confirmed.
    You asked for a single example, I provided one.

    The pilot says "If it's a deliberate terrorist act..."

    Hence other people knew it was a possibility and reported it as such.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Who cares? It's irrelevant. Anything that happened after the second plane hit is irrelevant to what we are discussing.
    But it is relevant. The news reader is saying that Osama Bin Laden might be the culprit, how did he know that before it was actually offically confirmed to be an attack?

    Could it have been a case of him leaping to a conclusion?
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Honestly this is the single most absurd thing I've ever heard you say.

    To clarify, your best explanation as to why a group of people seen filming and celebrating the 9/11 attacks would tell their FBI interrogators that they were filming a terrorist attack on US soil before even the US President knew it was a terrorist attack and thereby implicating themselves further in the crime itself is that they were trying to "cover themselves for being just assholes"?

    It reminds of the oft used alibi of the married man caught with a prostitute: "It's okay officer, I wasn't going to pay her for sex; I was going to strangle here to death and dump here body".
    Well no it's not my best explanation, I've specifically said several times it was a side point.
    Furthermore your characterisation is a strawman based on the assumption that the knew in advance the attacks would happen and based on a twisting of their words.

    Every person who picked up a camera when the first plane hit was "filming a terrorist attack on US soil before even the US President knew it was a terrorist attack".
    Hell there was even people with cameras out and filming before the plane hit, something you can't say for the Dancing Israelis.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Because they were under interrogation by FBI experts. Who's goal is to get answers from people who don't want to give them.
    So not only did they no have basic surveillance skills, they also didn't know how to resist light interrogation...
    The Mossad must have lowered their standards lately.

    So then I assume that the FBI reacted accordingly to this statement that proves their guilt right?

    And again, why did they say: "we are not your problem! The Palestinians are!" when it wasn't Palestinians?


  • #36
    ed2hands
    Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    King Mob wrote: »
    The Mossad must have lowered their standards lately.

    It seems to me the FBI really lowered their standards aswell by letting 'em toddle back home so quickly considering.
    Or more to the point, were told to lower their standards.

    Do you think if they were Muslims, that they would have been released like that?

    Ha. No chance. They'd be rotting in Guantanamo to this day..


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    ed2hands wrote: »
    It seems to me the FBI really lowered their standards aswell by letting 'em toddle back home so quickly considering.
    Or more to the point, were told to lower their standards.

    Do you think if they were Muslims, that they would have been released like that?

    Ha. No chance. They'd be rotting in Guantanamo to this day..
    Well the same could be said that if these guys weren't Israelis no one would be pointing to them as part of the conspiracy.


  • #38
    ed2hands
    Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    Can you clarify that please? Expand on it. What do you mean by that statement?


  • #39
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    ed2hands wrote: »
    Can you clarify that please? Expand on it. What do you mean by that statement?
    The reason that this story gets so much play on "alternative" sites is because of an underlying vein of profitable anti-Semitism in their main demographic.

    Had these guys been Muslim and the same level evidence was aimed at them, I'm confident it would be a conspiracy to falsely frame Muslims with spurious evidence.


  • #40
    ed2hands
    Closed Accounts Posts: 873 ✭✭✭ed2hands


    King Mob wrote: »
    The reason that this story gets so much play on "alternative" sites is because of an underlying vein of profitable anti-Semitism in their main demographic..

    Where has this story gotten "play"? I put it to you that this story has been buried.
    King Mob wrote: »
    Had these guys been Muslim and the same level evidence was aimed at them, I'm confident it would be a conspiracy to falsely frame Muslims with spurious evidence.

    The thing is though, the evidence is sort of not spurious.


  • #41
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    ed2hands wrote: »
    Where has this story gotten "play"? I put it to you that this story has been buried.
    So you don't visit many 9/11 truth sites then I take it?
    ed2hands wrote: »
    The thing is though, the evidence is sort of not spurious.
    Then perhaps you'd like to address some of my points?


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    King Mob wrote: »
    why is it unlikely?
    Just go with the statistics. Show me some other examples of the 16 million other people in NY/NJ that behaved in a similar matter. You can't, you'll try and dance round the issue but you still can't. Their actions are unique that day. They were high-fiving, smiling and embracing, holding up lit lighters with the smouldering towers in the background like it was a tourist attraction all the while 16 million others were in shock and horror. Yet you don't find the bizarre actions of the 5 vs the 16 million strange?
    King Mob wrote: »
    Do you think that people don't jump to irrational, illogical conclusions before or in spite of evidence?
    Cause I can point you to some examples...
    Please don't try to change the subject.
    King Mob wrote: »
    I claimed that it was reported a terrorist attack was possible before it was confirmed.
    Let's get this straight first. You said:
    viewpost.gif Most news agencies reported that an attack might have been a possibility even before it was confirmed.
    King Mob wrote: »
    You asked for a single example,
    Nope- I asked you to provide evidence that "most" news agencies reported.
    King Mob wrote: »
    I provided one.
    Yeah a really bad one that has no relevance to what we are discussing as neither of them actually thought that it was a terrorist attack. For your point to have any relevance you need to supply someone on record giving a very high degree of probablility that it was a terrorist attack as the dancing Israelis evidently were sure that it was a terrorist attack.

    Let's say 80% of penalties are converted. If a football team gave away a penalty and the manager of the team that had given away the penalty started hopping up and down with his arms in the air celebrating and posing for the press cameras because he was 100% sure the opposing team would miss the penalty before the taker had even placed the ball on the spot I suppose you would put it down to "people do strange things sometimes..."

    Now what if unbeknownst to you the fix was in? The coach had secretly met with the referee, goalkeeper and penalty taker and it had been rehearsed that the penalty would be given by the corrupt official and scuffed into the right hand bottom corner and saved by the goalkeeper. All would be recieve financial reward especially the manager through his betting scam. You would still put it down to "people do strange things sometimes..."
    King Mob wrote: »
    The pilot says "If it's a deliberate terrorist act..."
    IF my auntie had balls she'd be my uncle.
    King Mob wrote: »
    Hence other people knew it was a possibility and reported it as such.
    The pilot did not think it was a terrorist attack before the plane hit. I repeat, The pilot did not think it was a terrorist attack before the plane hit
    King Mob wrote: »
    But it is relevant. The news reader is saying that Osama Bin Laden might be the culprit, how did he know that before it was actually offically confirmed to be an attack?
    How did he, a national newsreader, who you would assume is up to date on current events and has teams of researchers aiding him know that an international terrorist leader who had issued a fatwa against the US speculate the Bin Laden "might be the culprit" of a now patently obvious terrorist attack? The mind boggles...wink.gif
    King Mob wrote: »
    twisting of their words.
    You keep making all these kind of claims and not backing them up. Perelman is a "biased reporter" and so on. I have not twisted anyones words. I'd like you to show me how I have done so.
    King Mob wrote: »
    Every person who picked up a camera when the first plane hit was "filming a terrorist attack on US soil before even the US President knew it was a terrorist attack".
    Apples and oranges. Unless you can provide, which you haven't done so far anyone who in their own words was recording a terrorist attack, nevermind celebrating it.

    You make light of this but it's such a shame the dancing Israelis and their incredible foresight weren't put to use in the North Tower as it would've saved countless lives. WTC security was making people return to their desks in the tower as it was an accident that was under control.

    King Mob wrote: »
    So not only did they no have basic surveillance skills, they also didn't know how to resist light interrogation...
    The Mossad must have lowered their standards lately.
    Not not lately. This is from the early 70's for example.
    In 1973, the Mossad believed it had tracked its man to a tranquil Norwegian town called Lillehammer. One evening, the Mossad watched him board a bus with a pregnant Norwegian woman. As they got off at this bus stop, two Israeli agents jumped out of a car and fired 14 bullets. The Red Prince was dead. Munich had been avenged. But there would be no getaway this time. Norwegian police noted the license plate of the hit team's car, traced it to this safe house in Oslo and arrested six Israeli agents. And not only were members of the hit team behind bars, they had killed the wrong man.

    The Israelis had killed a Moroccan waiter, Ahmed Bouchiki. He and his wife were expecting their first child in two months.
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/11/20/60II/main318655.shtml

    Obviously no Mossad agent would ever travel in a vehicle with traceable plates or kill a completely wrong target....oh...wait...

    You seem to be giving thesehumans superhuman abilities through their membership of an organisation which is ludicirous.

    In any case your comment just further again expose your ignorance. What you call "light interrogation" the Israelis claimed was torture and filed a lawsuit in the US against the FBI.
    King Mob wrote: »
    So then I assume that the FBI reacted accordingly to this statement that proves their guilt right?
    If you'd been reading the links Ive been providing youd know that the elements within the FBI were outraged at their politically motivated release.
    King Mob wrote: »
    And again, why did they say: "we are not your problem! The Palestinians are!" when it wasn't Palestinians?
    You really should know this. Israelis, for obvious reasons, fairly or unfairly conflate Palestinians with terrorists.


  • #43
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Just go with the statistics. Show me some other examples of the 16 million other people in NY/NJ that behaved in a similar matter. You can't, you'll try and dance round the issue but you still can't. Their actions are unique that day. They were high-fiving, smiling and embracing, holding up lit lighters with the smouldering towers in the background like it was a tourist attraction all the while 16 million others were in shock and horror. Yet you don't find the bizarre actions of the 5 vs the 16 million strange?
    Wasn't my point. I was asking why it was unlikely that they might conclude rashly that it was a terrorist attack?
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Please don't try to change the subject.
    It's not changing the subject, I'm just pointing out that this very forum is a ready supply of people jumping to rash conclusion based on little, no or conflicting evidence.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Let's get this straight first. You said:


    Nope- I asked you to provide evidence that "most" news agencies reported.

    Well keeping things straight you said:
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Many? No they didn't. I'd doubt if ANY did. Please show evidence of this.
    So I provided you an example of one. You're doing your level best to try and ignore it and move the goalposts rather than accept it, hence why I'm not bothering to waste my time to find more only for you to do the same.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Yeah a really bad one that has no relevance to what we are discussing as neither of them actually thought that it was a terrorist attack. For your point to have any relevance you need to supply someone on record giving a very high degree of probablility that it was a terrorist attack as the dancing Israelis evidently were sure that it was a terrorist attack.

    IF my auntie had balls she'd be my uncle.


    The pilot did not think it was a terrorist attack before the plane hit. I repeat, The pilot did not think it was a terrorist attack before the plane hit
    But why, if even the idea of a terrorist attack was so far out there, was it and a previous attack even mentioned?
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    How did he, a national newsreader, who you would assume is up to date on current events and has teams of researchers aiding him know that an international terrorist leader who had issued a fatwa against the US speculate the Bin Laden "might be the culprit" of a now patently obvious terrorist attack? The mind boggles...wink.gif
    So he made a hasty conclusion not based on much or any evidence?
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Apples and oranges. Unless you can provide, which you haven't done so far anyone who in their own words was recording a terrorist attack, nevermind celebrating it.
    Again, the words you are using to prove these guys are guilty can be used to describe exactly what thousands of people had done.
    Had this been said before the attacks, then maybe.
    But it wasn't.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    You seem to be giving thesehumans superhuman abilities through their membership of an organisation which is ludicirous.
    Superhuman abilities like not shouting and high fiving in public?
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    If you'd been reading the links Ive been providing youd know that the elements within the FBI were outraged at their politically motivated release.
    Not the question I asked.
    I asked did the FBI note that the phrase you are using to condemn them indicate that they must have been involved?
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    You really should know this. Israelis, for obvious reasons, fairly or unfairly conflate Palestinians with terrorists.
    But why did they say this when they knew it wasn't Palestinians?


  • #44
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    King Mob wrote: »
    Wasn't my point. I was asking why it was unlikely that they might conclude rashly that it was a terrorist attack?
    Because plane crashing into a tall building has never before been a suicide terrorist attack in the history of the world. These Israelis were all convinced to a man immediately that plane crashing into a tall building was a terrorist attack when nobody else did.
    King Mob wrote: »
    It's not changing the subject, I'm just pointing out that this very forum is a ready supply of people jumping to rash conclusion based on little, no or conflicting evidence.
    You shouldn't be so harsh on yourself.
    King Mob wrote: »
    Well keeping things straight you said:

    So I provided you an example of one. You're doing your level best to try and ignore it and move the goalposts rather than accept it, hence why I'm not bothering to waste my time to find more only for you to do the same.
    You said "many" news outlets speculated that it might be a terrorist attack. You provided a single interview where both interviewer and interviewee both concluded that it is unlikely that it is a terrorist attack.

    This doesn't support what you are saying, or at least what is relevant insofar as what we should be discussing. The Israelis were CERTAIN, that it was a terrorist attack as their own actions and statements confirms. You need to show examples of others who were equally convinced that it was a terrorist attack between the first and second plane hitting. You simply won't be able to do this because it is such an unlikely conclusion to reach.
    King Mob wrote: »
    But why, if even the idea of a terrorist attack was so far out there, was it and a previous attack even mentioned?
    This is really simple. The WTC bombing is part of the history of the Twin Towers. Why wouldn't they mention it when reporting on another tragedy on the same structure?

    King Mob wrote: »
    So he made a hasty conclusion not based on much or any evidence?
    No. Not a conclusion. He speculated. Again, this is only after the situation has changed with the second tower being hit and it was apparent it was a terrorist attack and is therefore irrelevant to what we are discussing.

    King Mob wrote: »
    Again, the words you are using to prove these guys are guilty can be used to describe exactly what thousands of people had done.
    Had this been said before the attacks, then maybe.
    But it wasn't.
    1-I'm not trying to prove they are guilty.
    2-Show me evidence of people moving from a good vantage point to see the first tower being hit but with an obstructed view of the second tower to be hit in the time between both attacks to get a view of both towers for no apparent reason.
    3-Are you now saying that statements made by suspects under FBI
    interrogation are worthless if they are recorded after the fact? And should not be used as evidence?
    King Mob wrote: »
    Superhuman abilities like not shouting and high fiving in public?
    I was demonstrating to you the fact that membership of Mossad does not mean that you don't make stupid mistakes and therefore stupid mistakes do not disprove anything.
    King Mob wrote: »
    Not the question I asked.
    I asked did the FBI note that the phrase you are using to condemn them indicate that they must have been involved?
    The FBI report is now the voice of the FBI now again? i.e. when it suits you?

    I would hope that they concluded that it could mean that they were involved as it's the logical conclusion. It is however heavily redacted so we can't say for sure.
    King Mob wrote: »
    But why did they say this when they knew it wasn't Palestinians?
    I've just explained this to you. For some Israelis, especially the kind that were arrested, Ex--IDF, one was even a professional Arab hunter use Palestinian and terrorist interchangeably.

    The question you should be asking yourself is why they brought up they issue of terrorism with police officers before they should have known what they were stopped by police for.


  • #45
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    I've just explained this to you. For some Israelis, especially the kind that were arrested, Ex--IDF, one was even a professional Arab hunter use Palestinian and terrorist interchangeably.

    I'm just going to focus on this point since it really undermines your position.

    Why since they knew that it wasn't Palestinians or at least couldn't have known who it was, why did they claim it was?


  • #46
    DublinWriter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,581 ✭✭✭DublinWriter


    I'd really love to know why the US Government expelled a number of Israeli Diplomats in the days immediately after 9/11.

    As Gore Vidal said, I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I'm a conspiracy analyst.


  • #47
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    King Mob wrote: »
    I'm just going to focus on this point since it really undermines your position.

    Why since they knew that it wasn't Palestinians or at least couldn't have known who it was, why did they claim it was?

    Because Muslims/Arabs/terrorists/Palestinians can be used interchangeably by people who don't like same.

    The far more important question is why the Israelis made such a strange statement to the arresting officers unquestioned. Why also did they lie again without prompt to the arresting officers about their wherabouts at the time of the attacks before they even knew what they'd been arrested for?


  • #48
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Because Muslims/Arabs/terrorists/Palestinians can be used interchangeably by people who don't like same.
    So then this logic couldn't apply to leaping to the conclusion that an explosion is a terrorist attack because...?


  • #49
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    King Mob wrote: »
    So then this logic couldn't apply to leaping to the conclusion that an explosion is a terrorist attack because...?
    Why should it?


  • #50
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Why should it?

    Because the only difference between the two logical leaps is that you want to accept one as an excuse but not the other.


  • #51
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    King Mob wrote: »
    Because the only difference between the two logical leaps is that you want to accept one as an excuse but not the other.
    Could you please explain what you are getting at?


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Could you please explain what you are getting at?
    To explain why these guys claimed that Palestinians were at fault when they could not have known who was to blame, you are claiming that they leaped to the conclusion that "terrorist = Palestinian".
    To explain why these guys "knew it was a terrorist act" before they could have known I am saying that they made the leap to the conclusion that "Disaster/explosion = terrorist act".

    You are rejecting my explanation because it is unlikely or impossible, but then using the same exact reasoning to explain an aspect of your narrative.


  • #53
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    King Mob wrote: »
    To explain why these guys claimed that Palestinians were at fault when they could not have known who was to blame, you are claiming that they leaped to the conclusion that "terrorist = Palestinian".
    No. I am saying in the Isreali vernacular terrorist and Palestinian can be used interchangeably.


  • #54
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    No. I am saying in the Isreali vernacular terrorist and Palestinian can be used interchangeably.
    That's generalising and great and all.
    But I'm sure that these guys understood that there were terrorists from other countries and groups in the world.
    They made the incorrect leap that these terrorists were Palestinians because by your accusation always make the leap that "terrorist = Palestinian".

    Just as they made a similar (but in this case correct) leap that an explosion or a disaster was an attack.

    But you think one is impossible simply because you don't want it to be possible.


  • #55
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    King Mob wrote: »
    That's generalising and great and all.
    But I'm sure that these guys understood that there were terrorists from other countries and groups in the world.
    They made the incorrect leap that these terrorists were Palestinians because by your accusation always make the leap that "terrorist = Palestinian".

    Just as they made a similar (but in this case correct) leap that an explosion or a disaster was an attack.

    But you think one is impossible simply because you don't want it to be possible.

    I never said it was impossible, just highly unlikely given the circumstances i.e. plane crashes into a building = guaranteed suicide terrorist attack.

    And if their only crime is foresight (and visa violations) then why lie to police?

    Even more unlikely in that they reached this group conclusion - that's five seperate conclusions - in the time between the first attack and the second attack, that's 16 mins.

    It must be remembered that even if they did somehow realise that this was a terrorist attack after one plane that doesn't explain why they then moved to carpark to see the second tower.

    What makes it more unlikely is the distinct possibility that they were Mossad agents as confirmed by Perelman, a reporter for the Jewish Daily Forward magazine who investigated the story..

    This is supported by the fact the the FBI team leader charged with investigating their supposed employer Urban Moving Systems who found little evidence of legitimate business and categorised the company as a "possible fraudelent operation".

    This is further supported by the NYPD reports of the arresting officers and the FBI who found no evidence of normal moving equipment in their van but found suspicious items such as fake ID's, large amounts of cash, plane tickets for immediate travel.

    This is again supported by the fact that the owner of the "possible fraudelent operation" just dropped his businees and home and fled the country back to Israel.

    This same owner of the "fraudelent operation" was put on a FBI terrorist suspect list.

    Point being, it is not simply a case of a group of lads cheering a plane crashing into building. There is a lot more unexplained elements to this beyond their uniquely bizarre behaviour.


  • #56
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    I never said it was impossible, just highly unlikely given the circumstances i.e. plane crashes into a building = guaranteed suicide terrorist attack.
    And it's highly unlikely to assume that it was a terrorist attack = Palestinian attack on US soil, yet they assumed that anyway.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    And if their only crime is foresight then why lie to police?
    Hundreds of reasons I've outlined before.
    Why do you think they lied to the police and why does it prove they had foreknowledge?
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Even more unlikely in that they reached this group conclusion - that's five seperate conclusions - in the time between the first attack and the second attack, that's 16 mins.
    Ah so they were all separate and had no communication between themselves
    until they all arrived at the the same location and all immediately began dancing without talking to each other?

    Cause unless this is the case, your point is invalid.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    It must be remembered that even if they did somehow realise that this was a terrorist attack after one plane that doesn't explain why they then moved to carpark to see the second tower.
    And it still has to be answered why people were filming WTC7 five hours after the towers fell. Or how people were able to actually catch images on the second (and first plane) going in.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    What makes it more unlikely is the distinct possibility that they were Mossad agents as confirmed by Perelman, a reporter for the Jewish Daily Forward magazine who investigated the story..
    Again, no sources were provided.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    This is supported by the fact the the FBI team leader charged with investigating their supposed employer Urban Moving Systems who found little evidence of legitimate business and categorised the company as a "possible fraudelent operation".

    This is further supported by the NYPD reports of the arresting officers and the FBI who found no evidence of normal moving equipment in their van but found suspicious items such as fake ID's, large amounts of cash, plane tickets for immediate travel.

    This is again supported by the fact that the owner of the "possible fraudelent operation" just dropped his businees and home and fled the country back to Israel.

    This same owner of the "fraudelent operation" was put on a FBI terrorist suspect list.
    And even ignoring the myriad of points I've brought up against each of these (which you have), how do any of them show that they had foreknowledge?
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Point being, it is not simply a case of a group of lads cheering a plane crashing into this. There is a lot more unexplained elements to this beyond their uniquely bizarre behaviour.
    But each of these elements crumble apart if you look at them critically.
    And even if they didn't and they were some sort of Mossad front (apparently from the department that deals with the comedically inept), there's not a single elements that shows that they had foreknowledge.

    But you continue to throw out the old debunked and unsupported claims en mass because when we try to hold one down and examine it, the cracks start to show.


  • #57
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    I'm not going over the same points again. I think you are delusional if you've think you've debunked anything.

    How specifically has the FBI Team Leader of the team charged with investigating Urban Movement Systems categorising the company as a "possible fraudelent operation" been debunked by you?

    How has Perelman's investigations for The Jewish Daily Forward where he confirmed and then re-confirmed in 2007 that members of the group were active Mossad members been debunked by you?

    (hint: you calling him a "biased reporter" without reason doesn't cut it)

    How has Domink Suter fleeing the country to Israel during the investigation been debunked by you?

    How has his presence on an FBI terrorist suspect list been debunked by you?


  • #58
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    I'm not going over the same points again. I think you are delusional if you've think you've debunked anything.

    How specifically has the FBI Team Leader of the team charged with investigating Urban Movement Systems categorising the company as a "possible fraudelent operation" been debunked by you?

    How has Perelman's investigations for The Jewish Daily Forward where he confirmed and then re-confirmed in 2007 that members of the group were active Mossad members been debunked by you?

    (hint: you calling him a "biased reporter" without reason doesn't cut it)

    How has Domink Suter fleeing the country to Israel during the investigation been debunked by you?

    How has his presence on an FBI terrorist suspect list been debunked by you?

    So notice how you've avoided my point again?
    That none of those points actually show that they had foreknowledge even if they were all true and showed them to be Mossad agents.

    I've tried to pin down a single point to narrow the discussion down, but you're trying to avoid it because it's becoming indefensible.

    And as a side point, I didn't reject Perelman's solely because he was biased.


  • #59
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    King Mob wrote: »
    So notice how you've avoided my point again?
    That none of those points actually show that they had foreknowledge even if they were all true and showed them to be Mossad agents.

    I've tried to pin down a single point to narrow the discussion down, but you're trying to avoid it because it's becoming indefensible.

    And as a side point, I didn't reject Perelman's solely because he was biased.

    But the possibilty that they are intelligence agents is crucial to them having foreknowledge, wouldn't you agree?


  • #60
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    But the possibilty that they are intelligence agents is crucial to them having foreknowledge, wouldn't you agree?
    It might if you had anything to suggest that they did have foreknowledge, but you don't.
    So again even if all of your points against them were true they would not show that they had foreknowledge.
    But then none of you points prove that they were Mossad in the first place so your accusations fail on two levels.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    King Mob wrote: »
    It might if you had anything to suggest that they did have foreknowledge, but you don't.
    So again even if all of your points against them were true they would not show that they had foreknowledge.
    But then none of you points prove that they were Mossad in the first place so your accusations fail on two levels.

    There is reason to believe that they had foreknowledge a) The fact that they knew it was a terrorist attack before anyone else and b) Their movement from their original position where they could see the first plane hitting but not the second to a position where they could see the second plane hitting before the second plane hit and there was knowledge of a second plane hitting.

    There is more than enough evidence, as I've explained to suggest that they may have been intelligence agents.

    What you have is Possible Israeli intelligence agents who displayed behaviour consistent with foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks.

    To deny this is delusional.


Advertisement