911 revisited

King Mob

Black Uhlan wrote: »

Why do you think the sender, wasn't questioned?

Because they couldn't find him perhaps?
Or the did and didn't find anything suspicious?

Black Uhlan wrote: »

If it was so, and if it was just some crazy coincidence/practical joke or whatever that it didn't come to light with the public to clear up an confusion? Likewise, why not reveal the actual contents of the message?

Wasn't there a 9/11 commission for the purposes of clarity?

Well but the public does know about it. The company made a statement.

But why was this message send then at all if some people had foreknowledge?
And why send it to Israel?
Why did the company make a statement about it?
Why didn't they fake catching the guy who sent it and connect him to the terrorists?

Black Uhlan

Certainly warrants investigation by the authorities. Look, either it has significance or it does not. If it is ultimately of no importance, or not of a sensitive nature with regards to security then please out of respect to the victims and their families please share this. If it was a failed investigation, please share this. If it is a case where there is something more then let the people now. No idea why the media don't follow up on things like this...The silence just suggests that there is something to hide to me.

King Mob

Black Uhlan wrote: »

Certainly warrants investigation by the authorities. Look, either it has significance or it does not. If it is ultimately of no importance, or not of a sensitive nature with regards to security then please out of respect to the victims and their families please share this. If it was a failed investigation, please share this. If it is a case where there is something more then let the people now. No idea why the media don't follow up on things like this...The silence just suggests that there is something to hide to me.

So if they're covering up the investigation, why couldn't they cover up the initial breaking news?

Black Uhlan

so if they are not covering up any investigation please link to it.

King Mob

Black Uhlan wrote: »

so if they are not covering up any investigation please link to it.

Mmh it's mentioned in the link we're talking about.
Not being continuously covered by the press does not equal a cover up.

So if they are covering it up how come there was initial reports?

Oh and all those other questions I asked are still unanswered BTW.

meglome

Black Uhlan wrote: »

"having Israeli's in place where there Israeli's...isn't odd" seriously, I have no clue where you are going with this.

Come on man, try to read the info at least. 1. Their "neighbour" was never their neighbour to begin with, as far as I can make out no details are given as to were these guys lived. Neighbour was mentioned in a headline of an news piece I read, please tell me you are not just reading the headlines. 2. The "neighbour" did not report them because they were "speaking arabic", she reported them because they they were posing for pictures with the burning tower as a backdrop, celebrating the attack and at the latest in the minutes after the first plane hit.

Can we agree on this? I'd like you to think about it for just a second if you would...Bare in mind this is before the world was aware it was not just a terrible accident. It is what I thought at the time as I watched live, Pres Bush even saw fit to continue reading his childrens book. Surely noone would be compelled to celebrate a plane crash? And anyone who would possess such pschyopathic tendencies would surely keep any feelings to themselves? What chance of five individuals to record, dance, and celebrate on top of their van to get a better shot of a plane crash? Almost Zero I would say. But...would it make more sense if they were celebrating and recording the succesful completion of the greatest crime of all time?

When you said this ..."So given the language differences they might have been laughing or maybe they were just excited or maybe that's just the way young people who speak Hebrew come across to English speakers,"

I have no idea what you are getting at. Seriously, are you trying to say laughing sounds different in Hebrew? I know there is a scarcity of Jews in Ireland, especially those who speak Hebrew but I don't live there any more and I can assure you, as an English speaker myself that "young people who speak "Hebrew" do not come across as people celebrating and recording an apparent terrible tragedy.

"they were just dickheads" perhaps but it really doesn't explain anything. If you haven't already please read these two short links. They were the best I could find from the NT Times and ABC. http://web.archive.org/web/20020802194310/http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/DailyNews/2020_whitevan_020621.html http://www.crimelynx.com/dozens.html
They answer most of the questions that I believe you would have to establish that it is all a little fishy.

Without going through all this again, I've read your articles. And unless I'm missing something there seems to be no evidence that these Israelis did anything other than overstay their holiday visas. Am I missing something?

Black Uhlan

Look I don't think this can go any farther. We both know as little as each other, which is almost nothing. My take on it is that if there was any possibility that information was relayed giving any advanced warning I strongly feel that this should be investigated to a final conclusion. You apparently do not feel that it justifies investigation? or that a group of 'furniture movers' pose for photographs with cheesy grins as if they have the Eiffel Tower behind them when in fact it is the burning soon to be rubble killing thousands WTC building. Correct me if I am wrong here?

I'm not trying to point the finger at Israel, but it appears to me now that they may have had some knowledge. Much like here in the Al-Qaeda hotel bombings in Jordan, 2005

"Hours before the bombings, many Israelis were evacuated from the Radisson SAS, one of the hotels hit in the attacks, apparently due to a specific security alert. http://web.archive.org/web/20051124120525/http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/643639.html

King Mob

Black Uhlan wrote: »

You apparently do not feel that it justifies investigation?

No.
A internet message to random two people that offers no specifics at all doesn't really warrant an investigation.

Black Uhlan wrote: »

or that a group of 'furniture movers' pose for photographs with cheesy grins as if they have the Eiffel Tower behind them when in fact it is the burning soon to be rubble killing thousands WTC building. Correct me if I am wrong here?

You'll have to explain how this proves they had foreknowledge.

Black Uhlan

meglome wrote: »

Without going through all this again, I've read your articles. And unless I'm missing something there seems to be no evidence that these Israelis did anything other than overstay their holiday visas. Am I missing something?

Appears to me yes, the whole dancing, laughing, smiling, documenting part of a tragedy/operation. Their links to the intelligence service, the fact that he had 5K in his sock, the maps, the fake passports, the explosive traces in the van. The Urban Moving Systems owner fleeing the country a couple of days later. This can not all be written off as just them being "dickheads"

meglome

Black Uhlan wrote: »

Look I don't think this can go any farther. We both know as little as each other, which is almost nothing. My take on it is that if there was any possibility that information was relayed giving any advanced warning I strongly feel that this should be investigated to a final conclusion. You apparently do not feel that it justifies investigation? or that a group of 'furniture movers' pose for photographs with cheesy grins as if they have the Eiffel Tower behind them when in fact it is the burning soon to be rubble killing thousands WTC building. Correct me if I am wrong here?

I'm not trying to point the finger at Israel, but it appears to me now that they may have had some knowledge. Much like here in the Al-Qaeda hotel bombings in Jordan, 2005

"Hours before the bombings, many Israelis were evacuated from the Radisson SAS, one of the hotels hit in the attacks, apparently due to a specific security alert. http://web.archive.org/web/20051124120525/http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/643639.html

Maybe you should have tried this link http://web.archive.org/web/20051124034944/www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/643661.html

Black Uhlan

King Mob wrote: »

No.
A internet message to random two people that offers no specifics at all doesn't really warrant an investigation.


You'll have to explain how this proves they had foreknowledge.

A minimum of 2, and hardly random they both worked in the same office, in the same city for the same company that happens to the company who provides the messaging service. And this company happens to be two blocks sway from the world trade center. I have no idea about Odigo, but perhaps they have Mossad ties themselves, would make sense as an asset.

meglome

Black Uhlan wrote: »

Appears to me yes, the whole dancing, laughing, smiling, documenting part of a tragedy/operation. Their links to the intelligence service, the fact that he had 5K in his sock, the maps, the fake passports, the explosive traces in the van. The Urban Moving Systems owner fleeing the country a couple of days later. This can not all be written off as just them being "dickheads"

One person reported this. ONE. Seems conclusive to me.

And to be honest if I was an Israeli and these stories came out I'd make myself scare too. You could be lynched for even the suggestion that you were involved.

Black Uhlan

meglome wrote: »

Maybe you should have tried this link http://web.archive.org/web/20051124034944/www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/643661.html

Ha, you got me. However, that would explain the 1 death, an Arab-Israeli.

King Mob

Black Uhlan wrote: »

A minimum of 2, and hardly random they both worked in the same office, in the same city for the same company that happens to the company who provides the messaging service.

And have you any evidence that more than two people got this message?

Black Uhlan wrote: »

And this company happens to be two blocks sway from the world trade center.

You realise that there are probably hundreds of businesses within 2 blocks of the WTC?
And the the messages where sent to employees in Israel?

Black Uhlan wrote: »

I have no idea about Odigo, but perhaps they have Mossad ties themselves, would make sense as an asset.

You don't know anything about the company so your just going to make something up about them?
That makes sense alright.

Black Uhlan

meglome wrote: »

One person reported this. ONE. Seems conclusive to me.

And to be honest if I was an Israeli and these stories came out I'd make myself scare too. You could be lynched for even the suggestion that you were involved.

THE FBI had the photographs, their own legal representatives talked about them. This in not in dispute.

King Mob

Black Uhlan wrote: »

Appears to me yes, the whole dancing, laughing, smiling,

Yep that's exactly what a covert monitering unit would be doing during a mission alright.

Black Uhlan wrote: »

documenting part of a tragedy/operation.

You mean like the thousands of other people who were doing the exact same thing?

Black Uhlan wrote: »

Their links to the intelligence service,

Even if the did have these links it doesn't show that they had foreknowledge.

Black Uhlan wrote: »

the fact that he had 5K in his sock,

Not one of the source I've read has claimed this.

Black Uhlan wrote: »

the maps,

Can't think of a single reason why there'd be a map in a moving van.

Black Uhlan wrote: »

the fake passports,

All the other sources I've seen say they were foreign passports not fake ones.

Black Uhlan wrote: »

the explosive traces in the van.

There wasn't any.

Black Uhlan wrote: »

The Urban Moving Systems owner fleeing the country a couple of days later.

And this proves what exactly?
He was under investigation for immigration violations.

Black Uhlan wrote: »

This can not all be written off as just them being "dickheads"

And none of it show they had foreknowledge.

meglome

Black Uhlan wrote: »

THE FBI had the photographs, their own legal representatives talked about them. This in not in dispute.

So? Does any of that mean they did anything wrong?

Black Uhlan

meglome wrote: »

So? Does any of that mean they did anything wrong?

Alas, we will know because the investigation was shut down due to political pressure.

King Mob

Black Uhlan wrote: »

Alas, we will know because the investigation was shut down due to political pressure.

No it wasn't.

the men were released because they "did not know anything about 9/11".

There was a two month investigation.

At least try to get your facts straight.

And there's still no evidence they had foreknowledge.

Black Uhlan

quote=King Mob;61860751]Yep that's exactly what a covert monitering unit would be doing during a mission alright.[/quote]

Who said they were a monitoring unit?

King Mob wrote: »

You mean like the thousands of other people who were doing the exact same thing?

TELL YOU WHAT: YOU FIND 1 SINGLE EXAMPLE OF ANYONE CELEBRATING WHILE THEY WERE RECORDING or taking photo's. JUST 1. BONUS POINTS IF YOU CAN GET A PHOTO OF ANYONE HOLDING A LIGHTER UP IN THE FOREGROUND WITH THE RUINS OF A WTC TOWER IN THE BACKGROUND. I Bet you can't!

http://www.crimelynx.com/dozens.html
The five aroused attention in New Jersey after people noticed them going to unusual lengths to photograph the World Trade Center ruins and making light of the situation. One photograph developed by the F.B.I. showed Sivan Kurzberg holding a lighted lighter in the foreground, with the smoldering wreckage in the background, said Steven Noah Gordon, a lawyer for the five.

King Mob wrote: »

Even if the did have these links it doesn't show that they had foreknowledge.

I agree. But, they were recording after the first tower was hit ONLY. On the talk show they said they were "documenting the event" because of the daily terror in Israel. HOW DID THEY KNOW IT WAS A TERRORIST ATTACK WHEN THE REST OF THE WORLD DIDN'T?

King Mob wrote: »

Not one of the source I've read has claimed this.

Can't think of a single reason why there'd be a map in a moving van.

All the other sources I've seen say they were foreign passports not fake ones.

"From inside the vehicle the officers, who were quickly joined by agents from the FBI, retrieved multiple passports and $4,700 in cash stuffed in a sock. According to New Jersey's Bergen Record, which on September 12 reported the arrest of the five Israelis, an investigator high up in the Bergen County law enforcement hierarchy stated that officers had also discovered in the vehicle "maps of the city with certain places highlighted. It looked like they're hooked in with this", the source told the Record, referring to the 9/11 attacks. "It looked like they knew what was going to happen when they were at Liberty State Park."

King Mob wrote: »

And this proves what exactly?
He was under investigation for immigration violations.

It suggests that he had something to hide. Look you don't have to be Poirot to realise this is suspicous. I have no clue as to why you seem incapable of admitting this. Perhaps as it does not fit in with the official narrative, which I assume is your take on it it therefore challenges your own personal infallability on the issue?

FYI here are the penalties for hiring illegal aliens

http://www.nvo.com/beaulier/penaltiesforemployingundocumentedworkers/

There are civil and criminal penalties for hiring illegal aliens. Sec. 274A of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and 8 U.S.C. 1324a, makes it unlawful for any person knowingly to hire, recruit or refer for a fee any alien not authorized to work. An employer that violates these laws can face penalties of:

· $250 to $2,000 fine for each unauthorized individual;

· $2,000 to $5,000 for each employee if the employer has previously been in violation; or

· $3,000 to $10,000 for each individual if the employer was subject to more than one cease and desist order.

The employer could also be fined $100 to $1,000 for each individual “paperwork” violation.

The criminal penalties for a pattern and practice violation can be up to $3,000 for each unauthorized alien, imprisonment up to six months, or both.

So a maximum fine of 15,000 dollars if I am correct? And that is only if it could be proven that they were knowingly hired as illegal.

Can you honestly, honestly, tell me this is valid reason to leave your business, home, and country and go on the run??

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=123885&page=2
The FBI searched Urban Moving's offices for several hours, removing boxes of documents and a dozen computer hard drives.
There are legal means to hire foreign workers on a temporary or permanent basis and our office can help you explore your options.

Hardly standard practice for visa violations.

King Mob wrote: »

And none of it show they had foreknowledge.

This account suggests otherwise

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/13/us/after-the-attacks-the-investigation-bin-laden-tie-cited.html?scp=1&sq=Spetember%2013%202001%20five%20men%20&st=cse

Separately, officials said a group of about five men were now under investigation in Union City, suspected of assisting the hijackers. In addition, the officials said the men had apparently set up cameras near the Hudson River and fixed them on the World Trade Center. They photographed the attacks and were said to have congratulated each other afterward, officials said.

One last point. Someone mentioned that they were apparently speaking in Arabic. Can anyone confirm this?

Black Uhlan

King Mob wrote: »

No it wasn't.


There was a two month investigation.

At least try to get your facts straight.

And there's still no evidence they had foreknowledge.

The investigation was 2 months in this is something different.

King Mob

Black Uhlan wrote: »

Who said they were a monitoring unit?

You did.
Why do you keep pointing out that "they were there to document the event."

Black Uhlan wrote: »

TELL YOU WHAT: YOU FIND 1 SINGLE EXAMPLE OF ANYONE CELEBRATING WHILE THEY WERE RECORDING or taking photo's. JUST 1. BONUS POINTS IF YOU CAN GET A PHOTO OF ANYONE HOLDING A LIGHTER UP IN THE FOREGROUND WITH THE RUINS OF A WTC TOWER IN THE BACKGROUND. I Bet you can't!

http://www.crimelynx.com/dozens.html
The five aroused attention in New Jersey after people noticed them going to unusual lengths to photograph the World Trade Center ruins and making light of the situation. One photograph developed by the F.B.I. showed Sivan Kurzberg holding a lighted lighter in the foreground, with the smoldering wreckage in the background, said Steven Noah Gordon, a lawyer for the five.

I was referring to the thousands of people who had cameras and were "documenting the event."

Black Uhlan wrote: »

I agree. But, they were recording after the first tower was hit ONLY. On the talk show they said they were "documenting the event" because of the daily terror in Israel. HOW DID THEY KNOW IT WAS A TERRORIST ATTACK WHEN THE REST OF THE WORLD DIDN'T?

Because they gave this interview after 9/11.
They didn't say they were documenting a terrorist attack during the attack.

Black Uhlan wrote: »

"From inside the vehicle the officers, who were quickly joined by agents from the FBI, retrieved multiple passports and $4,700 in cash stuffed in a sock. According to New Jersey's Bergen Record, which on September 12 reported the arrest of the five Israelis, an investigator high up in the Bergen County law enforcement hierarchy stated that officers had also discovered in the vehicle "maps of the city with certain places highlighted. It looked like they're hooked in with this", the source told the Record, referring to the 9/11 attacks. "It looked like they knew what was going to happen when they were at Liberty State Park."

So you honestly can't think why there might be a map of places and time in a moving van?

Black Uhlan wrote: »

It suggests that he had something to hide. Look you don't have to be Poirot to realise this is suspicous. I have no clue as to why you seem incapable of admitting this. Perhaps as it does not fit in with the official narrative, which I assume is your take on it it therefore challenges your own personal infallability on the issue?
Can you honestly, honestly, tell me this is valid reason to leave your business, home, and country and go on the run??

You might of heard something like "innocent till proven guilty."?

There is no evidence he had foreknowledge.
And since neither of us have the full story we can't conclude why he left the country.

Black Uhlan wrote: »

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=123885&page=2
The FBI searched Urban Moving's offices for several hours, removing boxes of documents and a dozen computer hard drives.
There are legal means to hire foreign workers on a temporary or permanent basis and our office can help you explore your options.

Hardly standard practice for visa violations.

Not exactly something you'd do to someone in on your plot either.

Black Uhlan wrote: »

This account suggests otherwise

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/13/us/after-the-attacks-the-investigation-bin-laden-tie-cited.html?scp=1&sq=Spetember%2013%202001%20five%20men%20&st=cse

Separately, officials said a group of about five men were now under investigation in Union City, suspected of assisting the hijackers. In addition, the officials said the men had apparently set up cameras near the Hudson River and fixed them on the World Trade Center. They photographed the attacks and were said to have congratulated each other afterward, officials said.

Yep we all know the sooner information is release the more accurate it is.

And for probably the sixth time, the authorities concluded the men had nothing to do with 9/11.

meglome

Seriously am I missing something? The articles don't say they had foreknowledge, they don't say they did anything illegal other than over stay holiday visas. Some of these guys had ten lie detectors tests and came out clean.

Undergod

meglome wrote: »

Seriously am I missing something? The articles don't say they had foreknowledge, they don't say they did anything illegal other than over stay holiday visas. Some of these guys had ten lie detectors tests and came out clean.

Lie detectors are rubbish though.

meglome

Undergod wrote: »

Lie detectors are rubbish though.

Not my overall point, after a two month investigation they had nothing on these guys.

So while we can be suspicious of them there is nothing that shows they actually did anything.

squod

meglome wrote: »

Not my overall point, after a two month investigation they had nothing on these guys.

So while we can be suspicious of them there is nothing that shows they actually did anything.

You still deny anybody had fore knowledge, dispite guys turning up to film it and messages sent over Odigo forewarning an event.

I suspect you're a very trusting person. I doubt any evidence will convince you of anything, ever.

King Mob

squod wrote: »

You still deny anybody had fore knowledge, dispite guys turning up to film it

Except the only witness that saw them do this clearly says they turned up after the first plane hit.

squod wrote: »

and messages sent over Odigo forewarning an event.

Messages that contained absolutely no specifics at all.

squod wrote: »

I suspect you're a very trusting person. I doubt any evidence will convince you of anything, ever.

The irony of some statements here are amazing.

Is there any evidence that would convince you that there wasn't foreknowledge?

squod

Witness said she seen them after the first plane hit. Different statement.

There's a balance to consider, how much evidence either side is putting up.
I don't see any evidence to suggest there was no fore knowledge.

King Mob

squod wrote: »

Witness said she seen them after the first plane hit. Different statement.

That's what I said.
Or did you mean before the plane hit?

squod wrote: »

There's a balance to consider, how much evidence either side is putting up.
I don't see any evidence to suggest there was no fore knowledge.

Ok here's the thing.

You can't prove a negative.
The burden of proof in on the person making the claim.

If you claim they had foreknowledge you have to show evidence that they did.
That's how logic works.

I'm saying there is no evidence to support the idea they had foreknowledge.
No one has present any such evidence.

meglome

squod wrote: »

You still deny anybody had fore knowledge, dispite guys turning up to film it and messages sent over Odigo forewarning an event.

I suspect you're a very trusting person. I doubt any evidence will convince you of anything, ever.

There is NOTHING that says they had foreknowledge. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. They were filming after the first plane hit just like a lot of other people were. All of the original story say this. Where are you getting the information they had foreknowledge outside of (inside of) your own head?

I haven't read the whole thread. Just half of the first page, and got annoyed when people were responding to posts that weren't there or came later in the thread (dunno how that happened?) and I don't fancy reading 12 pages either.


Someone inhere recommended a documentary called "9/11: Blueprint For Truth", and I just finished watching it, thought I'd also recommend it too to anyone interested in 9/11.

Very interesting and shows that the planes most certainly couldn't have caused the towers to collapse.

Just wondering if anyone watched the same documentary and still thinks the planes caused it?

Or are there any other documentaries or videos, etc. that focus on the other side of the story (ie. A documentary explaining in-depth how the planes did cause the towers to fall).


Cheers

Black Uhlan

King Mob wrote: »

You did.
Why do you keep pointing out that "they were there to document the event."

Actually I don't.

King Mob wrote: »

I was referring to the thousands of people who had cameras and were "documenting the event."

So you CANNOT produce anything of any resemeblance? Then just admit it so.

King Mob wrote: »

Because they gave this interview after 9/11.
They didn't say they were documenting a terrorist attack during the attack.

Complete nonsense. Obviously they gave it after. I'm paraphrasing but their justification was that were recording the event as they knew what it was like to be victims of daily terror of Israel. Right or wrong? They were recording at the latest soon after the first tower was hit and before the 2nd was hit and the world suspected a terror attack. Right or wrong?

King Mob wrote: »

So you honestly can't think why there might be a map of places and time in a moving van?

Do you know which places were marked? I don't, but it is the places that were marked which interested the law enforcement agents.

King Mob wrote: »

You might of heard something like "innocent till proven guilty."?

I am not saying they are guilty, I am saying their actions marked them out as suspects for involvement

King Mob wrote: »

There is no evidence he had foreknowledge.
And since neither of us have the full story we can't conclude why he left the country.

And for probably the sixth time, the authorities concluded the men had nothing to do with 9/11.

How about if Dominik Suter was placed on an FBI 911 Terror Suspect list? Wouldn't that make the investigation incomplete without his extraditon?
Wouldn't that make a mockery of the men having nothing to do with 911? so need for your 7th time now thanks.

Can you take the US Governments word on it?
Here is the leaked document http://cryptome.org/CI-08-02.pdf

squod

King Mob wrote: »

I'm saying there is no evidence to support the idea they had foreknowledge.

Yep, there's no more evidence so far as I'm aware. That doesn't mean to say there's no evidence. It's highly probable there's no more evidence.

Don't get me wrong on this, I'm open to correction. But so far you haven't convinced me. Nobody knows what was sent on Odigo that day, (perhaps you do?). Or what those Isreali guys got up to.

Saying there is no evidence is a term said with certainty. Certainty is not what we have here.

Black Uhlan

King Mob wrote: »

Except the only witness that saw them do this clearly says they turned up after the first plane hit.

Messages that contained absolutely no specifics at all.


The irony of some statements here are amazing.

Is there any evidence that would convince you that there wasn't foreknowledge?

Actually the police recieved numerous complaints.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/13/us...0men%20&st=cse

Separately, officials said a group of about five men were now under investigation in Union City, suspected of assisting the hijackers. In addition, the officials said the men had apparently set up cameras near the Hudson River and fixed them on the World Trade Center. They photographed the attacks and were said to have congratulated each other afterward, officials said.

And Meglome. They failed lie detector tests too.

meglome

Deleted User wrote: »

Someone inhere recommended a documentary called "9/11: Blueprint For Truth", and I just finished watching it, thought I'd also recommend it too to anyone interested in 9/11.

Very interesting and shows that the planes most certainly couldn't have caused the towers to collapse.

Just wondering if anyone watched the same documentary and still thinks the planes caused it?

Or are there any other documentaries or videos, etc. that focus on the other side of the story (ie. A documentary explaining in-depth how the planes did cause the towers to fall).


Cheers

I have a rule of thumb that says if anything has the word truth in the title then it's most likely not telling me anything near the truth.

Any chance you could summarise why they don't think it was planes that caused the collapses?

You could try here...http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/


I think the planes caused the collapses for the following reasons.

• The buildings fell from exactly where the planes hit.
• If there were explosives why were they not set off immediately or very quickly, from the crashes and fires.
• Why wouldn't the cables controlling these explosives be cut, from said crashes and fires.
• Thermite has never been shown to have been used in controlled demolition, never ever. Nor is there even an experiment to show it could work.
• Why didn't anyone in full buildings not see these being installed.
• The design of the floor brackets in the towers is such that 600-800 degrees c would be enough to cause them to fail.
• Other steel frames buildings have collapsed from fire.
• No other buildings of the design of the WTC have been left to burn so we have no may to make a direct comparison, if we thought they fell 'too easily'.

meglome

squod wrote: »

Yep, there's no more evidence so far as I'm aware. That doesn't mean to say there's no evidence. It's highly probable there's no more evidence.

Don't get me wrong on this, I'm open to correction. But so far you haven't convinced me. Nobody knows what was sent on Odigo that day, (perhaps you do?). Or what those Isreali guys got up to.

Saying there is no evidence is a term said with certainty. Certainty is not what we have here.

So if I can summarise this.... The fact there is no evidence is evidence that there's something going on. Sweet jesus.

squod

meglome wrote: »

So if I can summarise this...

So obviously no you can't. You're certain - ly not capable of summarization.
You've convinced me of that at least.

meglome

meglome wrote: »

I have a rule of thumb that says if anything has the word truth in the title then it's most likely not telling me anything near the truth.

Any chance you could summarise why they don't think it was planes that caused the collapses?

You could try here...http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/


I think the planes caused the collapses for the following reasons.

• The buildings fell from exactly where the planes hit.
• If there were explosives why were they not set off immediately or very quickly, from the crashes and fires.
• Why wouldn't the cables controlling these explosives be cut, from said crashes and fires.
• Thermite has never been shown to have been used in controlled demolition, never ever. Nor is there even an experiment to show it could work.
• Why didn't anyone in full buildings not see these being installed.
• The design of the floor brackets in the towers is such that 600-800 degrees c would be enough to cause them to fail.
• Other steel frames buildings have collapsed from fire.
• No other buildings of the design of the WTC have been left to burn so we have no may to make a direct comparison, if we thought they fell 'too easily'.

Normally I'd agree with you on the 'truth' in the title thing, but I gotta say, they do a convincing job. It's probably worth noting though, that I'm not very biased or anything regarding this. I'd love to know exactly what happened one way or the other, but either way, I'm not devoted to any particular story.

Regarding your bullet points:

• One of the towers that was hit by a plane collapsed from above where the plane hit it. They show slow motion video footage of one of the towers beginning it's collapse 15 storeys above where the plane hit it. The footage doesn't look like it has been manipulated, either.
• In the (seemingly likely) event that explosives were used, I'd imagine the time between the collision and the collapse is there to give people a chance to evacuate the building? That's just my thought on it. I don't know if it's really worth questioning though, as I don't think there's any way you'll ever know for sure (assuming explosives were used, that is).
• I'm no demolitions expert, but I'd imagine in 2001 that the demolition business also had it's wireless capabilities.
• They talk about thermite a fair bit in the 'blueprint' documentary. I don't know how much it has (or hasn't) been used in demolishing things, but they do mention that it has the ability to reach incredibly high temperatures, and could melt steel. I think they show some Military footage of it being used in a building though. Unless I'm getting mixed up.
• Not see the explosives being installed? They mention during the documentary that the lifts were closed and under repair for a while prior to 9/11, and were being 'modernised' for a while, and also talk about how it's possible that using the lift shafts, you could plant the explosives without anyone's knowledge. About a year or two ago I seen a documentary regarding 9/11 aswell and they mentioned in that one that there were two or three floors in the building that the average joes didn't have access to, and no one seemed to really know what they contained. I can't remember the name of the documentary that mentioned them, and I haven't seen such floors mentioned since (though I haven't really been looking very deep into it) so I don't know how accurate that was.
• I can't really comment on this point. They mention that if the buildings fell and the floors fell in 'pancake' fashion, then the debree of the buildings would be very different and contain more solid mass than what was actually left of the buildings.
• They give examples of three or four other US buildings that caught fire and burned for several hours (they show a building from Chicago. I believe, that burned for 36 hours) and none collapsed. They're of the opinion that no building has collapsed from fire alone. They also go into great detail as to how the second tower to fall, fell sideways at the top, but still collapsed in on itself, ala controlled demolition, rather than falling sideways completely.
• I'd imagine that the WTC buildings, being so repetitive and basic in their design, would be easy to predict how long it would take for them to fall, by people very knowledgeable on demolishing buildings, etc. In my own opinion, i think that if the buildings were to collapse so easily after having burned for such a short time, they'd have to have been built pretty badly. So much so, that I'd imagine the force of the plane hitting them should have caused them to instantly fall over and take down any other buildings in their path? It seems very odd that they are attacked from only one side, don't so much as shake with the force of the plane, and still manage to collapse completely vertically.

Don't get me wrong, I don't know exactly what happened, I doubt anyone here does, but in my opinion, it was definitely not the planes or fire that caused the buildings to go down the way they did. If I had to choose between a natural collapse or a controlled demolition, I'd side with controlled demolition.


The Blueprint documentary also spends about 40-50 minutes discussing and going very in-depth about the other building ("building 7") that collapsed without being touched. They can't fathom how that building could naturally collapse.


Unless you're completely biased to the other side of the story, I'd definitely reccomend watching the documentary. Even if you don't care for the theory and think it's a load of bollocks, it's still very convincing and worth a viewing. It's about two hours in duration and very interesting.


If you go to their site, http://ae911truth.org/ you can view it for free on there. Here's a direct link:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4617650616903609314&hl=en



I'll check out the blogspot link you gave me. Thanks.

squod

I just watched the video also and I gotta say, after watching it again, I'm not convinced one way or another.

What struck me more was Giuliani saying the building was probably going to collapse in 10 mins.
But again, I'm not convinced one way or another.

meglome

squod wrote: »

So obviously no you can't. You're certain - ly not capable of summarization.
You've convinced me of that at least.

I'm trying to understand the confusion here. We are all reading the same articles it would appear. None of which say these men had foreknowledge or that they are guilty of anything other than overstaying a tourist visa. Certainly the FBI were suspicious of them but ultimately let them go as they had nothing on them. Well they sent them home as they were in the US illegally which wasn't the crime of the century.

So where exactly are you getting your information? Can you show us exactly?

squod

Maria, who asked us not to use her last name, had a view of the World Trade Center from her New Jersey apartment building. She remembers a neighbor calling her shortly after the first plane hit the towers.

She grabbed her binoculars and watched the destruction unfolding in lower Manhattan. But as she watched the disaster, something else caught her eye.

Maria says she saw three young men kneeling on the roof of a white van in the parking lot of her apartment building. "They seemed to be taking a movie," Maria said.



But Gordon insisted that his clients were just five young men who had come to America for a vacation, ended up working for a moving company, and were taking pictures of the event.





Back in Israel, several of the men discussed what happened on an Israeli talk show. One of them made this remarkable comment: "The fact of the matter is we are coming from a country that experiences terror daily. Our purpose was to document the event." But how can you document an event unless you know it is going to happen?

One highly placed investigator told Carl Cameron of Fox News that there were "tie-ins" between the Israelis and 9/11;


The Fox News source refused to give details, saying: "Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information.''



And what's your argument again?

meglome

Thanks for the reply. Most of these documentaries can be convincing but usually they are not telling the full facts or are giving an interpretation that is very much in dispute.

Deleted User wrote: »

One of the towers that was hit by a plane collapsed from above where the plane hit it. They show slow motion video footage of one of the towers beginning it's collapse 15 storeys above where the plane hit it. The footage doesn't look like it has been manipulated, either.

Never heard or seen that. Still doesn't fit with any controlled demolition I've ever heard of. I'll watch the footage.

Deleted User wrote: »

In the (seemingly likely) event that explosives were used, I'd imagine the time between the collision and the collapse is there to give people a chance to evacuate the building? That's just my thought on it. I don't know if it's really worth questioning though, as I don't think there's any way you'll ever know for sure (assuming explosives were used, that is).

All the lifts were off, how could you get the the tons of explosive up the stairs. The real problem for me is this wouldn't be a couple of boxes of explosives, this would be a truck load and seriously how could you plant all of those in a full building, a building that contains thousands of people. And why didn't they find residue of explosives? Why are there no seismic recordings of explosives?

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm no demolitions expert, but I'd imagine in 2001 that the demolition business also had it's wireless capabilities.

Wireless is never ever used in controlled demolition it would be extremely dangerous as a stray signal could set them off. Given the firemen couldn't use their radios properly in the WTC towers as the structure interfered with them I think wireless control would be very problematic indeed.

Deleted User wrote: »

They talk about thermite a fair bit in the 'blueprint' documentary. I don't know how much it has (or hasn't) been used in demolishing things, but they do mention that it has the ability to reach incredibly high temperatures, and could melt steel. I think they show some Military footage of it being used in a building though. Unless I'm getting mixed up.

I'm sure they do given the problems I mentioned above. In the 8 years since 911 no one, for all the talk, not one, has shown that thermite has ever been used in a controlled demolition. More than that no one has ever even done an experiment to show it could work. This is a huge problem with the thermite theory. I think when you need to invent new ways to demolish something, one that you can't even prove to work in practice then your theory has big problems.

Deleted User wrote: »

Not see the explosives being installed? They mention during the documentary that the lifts were closed and under repair for a while prior to 9/11, and were being 'modernised' for a while, and also talk about how it's possible that using the lift shafts, you could plant the explosives without anyone's knowledge. About a year or two ago I seen a documentary regarding 9/11 aswell and they mentioned in that one that there were two or three floors in the building that the average joes didn't have access to, and no one seemed to really know what they contained. I can't remember the name of the documentary that mentioned them, and I haven't seen such floors mentioned since (though I haven't really been looking very deep into it) so I don't know how accurate that was.

It literally takes months to set a building up for controlled demolition. Cutting supports, removing walls, placing truck loads of explosives (for a big building). But we're supposed to believe they managed to do this in the WTC over a couple of evenings while fixing the lifts. And not one person sees anything. How did they pull out the walls to place the explosives on the support columns with no one knowing. I'm sorry it doesn't make sense. It's known what was on each floor of the so it should be easy to check if floors were off limits.

Deleted User wrote: »

I can't really comment on this point. They mention that if the buildings fell and the floors fell in 'pancake' fashion, then the debree of the buildings would be very different and contain more solid mass than what was actually left of the buildings.

So all that dry-wall would be solid and not powder?

Deleted User wrote: »

They give examples of three or four other US buildings that caught fire and burned for several hours (they show a building from Chicago. I believe, that burned for 36 hours) and none collapsed. They're of the opinion that no building has collapsed from fire alone. They also go into great detail as to how the second tower to fall, fell sideways at the top, but still collapsed in on itself, ala controlled demolition, rather than falling sideways completely.

Other steel buildings and steel sections of buildings have fallen from fire. I'll find the info but in the Windsor building in Madrid the entire steel section at the top fell just from fire. The only way the top of the tower could topple is if it had something to leverage off. And a ten story section of a tower, once moving, is just going to fall like a stone and crush anything below it.

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd imagine that the WTC buildings, being so repetitive and basic in their design, would be easy to predict how long it would take for them to fall, by people very knowledgeable on demolishing buildings, etc. In my own opinion, i think that if the buildings were to collapse so easily after having burned for such a short time, they'd have to have been built pretty badly. So much so, that I'd imagine the force of the plane hitting them should have caused them to instantly fall over and take down any other buildings in their path? It seems very odd that they are attacked from only one side, don't so much as shake with the force of the plane, and still manage to collapse completely vertically.

All you have to do is find another building with the same design and see what happens to it. However since there are no other buildings with this exact design that's a mute point. They had a very specific design and it turns out flaws, so much so they have changed the design code in the US. I'm not a structural engineer but the weight of those sections of building falling would be immense.

Deleted User wrote: »

Don't get me wrong, I don't know exactly what happened, I doubt anyone here does, but in my opinion, it was definitely not the planes or fire that caused the buildings to go down the way they did. If I had to choose between a natural collapse or a controlled demolition, I'd side with controlled demolition.

The problem is the tell tale signs of controlled demolition are missing. Which is why thermite is brought up. And they can't prove thermite will work at all.

Deleted User wrote: »

The Blueprint documentary also spends about 40-50 minutes discussing and going very in-depth about the other building ("building 7") that collapsed without being touched. They can't fathom how that building could naturally collapse.

There was a 15 story chunk taken out of WTC7 and it was spanning over a large power substation. And with the same small floor brackets that effected the WTC towers. Doesn't seem odd to me.

Deleted User wrote: »

Unless you're completely biased to the other side of the story, I'd definitely reccomend watching the documentary. Even if you don't care for the theory and think it's a load of bollocks, it's still very convincing and worth a viewing. It's about two hours in duration and very interesting.

I'm gonna watch this. BUT if it's as obviously biased and misleading as it appears from what you've posted I can't see myself finishing it.

There lot's of other points I could make but gotta go.

meglome

squod wrote: »

Maria, who asked us not to use her last name, had a view of the World Trade Center from her New Jersey apartment building. She remembers a neighbor calling her shortly after the first plane hit the towers.

She grabbed her binoculars and watched the destruction unfolding in lower Manhattan. But as she watched the disaster, something else caught her eye.

Maria says she saw three young men kneeling on the roof of a white van in the parking lot of her apartment building. "They seemed to be taking a movie," Maria said.

So they were making a film after the attack has begun. Which is what we keep saying to you and you are now agreeing with, yes?

squod wrote: »

Back in Israel, several of the men discussed what happened on an Israeli talk show. One of them made this remarkable comment: "The fact of the matter is we are coming from a country that experiences terror daily. Our purpose was to document the event." But how can you document an event unless you know it is going to happen?

So we know there were filming after the attack had begun and then they admit to wanting to document the event. Right I feel all like a terrorist now because I would have documented the attack if I was there too, weirdly like loads of other people did too.

squod wrote: »

One highly placed investigator told Carl Cameron of Fox News that there were "tie-ins" between the Israelis and 9/11;

The Fox News source refused to give details, saying: "Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It's classified information.''

So an unnamed and unidentifiable source said some stuff that can't be verified in any way. We'll I'm convinced. And that assumes this report is even real.


You keep proving my point is that intentional?

uprising

meglome wrote: »

I think the planes caused the collapses for the following reasons.

• The buildings fell from exactly where the planes hit.
• That means nothing, the buildings shouldn't have fell like that, they disintigrated, there was no resistance, even if the plane could have took down the top, there should have been a partial collapse, there was no resistance, all floors fell in unison, there should have been a thud,thud,thud.
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrUplpIDmOA

• If there were explosives why were they not set off immediately or very quickly, from the crashes and fires.
• Yes and the explosive could have been placed in a shielding that will stay cool inside while outside temperatures reach 0000's of degree's, and there are different types of explosive materials, where they were placed exactly also makes a big difference.
• Why wouldn't the cables controlling these explosives be cut, from said crashes and fires.
• Who need cables?, ever heard of wireless?, radiowaves, microwaves, infared, laser, timer's,so who needs cables?
• Thermite has never been shown to have been used in controlled demolition, never ever. Nor is there even an experiment to show it could work.
• Themite doesnt burn through concrete.
• I've seen thermite eat through steel without it being too choosey about what or where the steel is that it needs to eat through.
• but would be useless for steel encased in concrete, also thermite doesn't explode with huge pressure, I agree the building weren't taken down by thermite alone, but in the proper places thermite could work brilliantly.
• Why didn't anyone in full buildings not see these being installed.
• Maybe they thought they were putting vibration sensors on the steel structure, and anyway the places where explosives would be placed would be in the parts of the building used for maintanence, out of view of the 1000's of employee's, and I'm sure there were always hundreds of big and small building projects going on in such a building. And having parts placed off bounds for short periods of time wouldn't have been a problem for Marvin.
• The design of the floor brackets in the towers is such that 600-800 degrees c would be enough to cause them to fail.
• Can you show me the link to this design of the bracket, even so how many bracket's were even heated?.
• Other steel frames buildings have collapsed from fire.
• Not in the same way they havent, partial collapses, 9/11 was controlled demolition.
• No other buildings of the design of the WTC have been left to burn so we have no may to make a direct comparison, if we thought they fell 'too easily'.
• They didn't fall too easily, they have endured much greater forces from nature that never caused any problems, problems started when the bombs went off.

If this is the crux of your argument as to why the government is telling the truth, it need's a lot more effort.

King Mob

Black Uhlan wrote: »

Actually I don't.

So why do you keep insisting that they were send to tape the attack if they weren't a surveillance team?

Black Uhlan wrote: »

So you CANNOT produce anything of any resemeblance? Then just admit it so.

I never once said there where other people dancing and shouting.
I said that there where other people videoing the attacks.

Black Uhlan wrote: »

Complete nonsense. Obviously they gave it after. I'm paraphrasing but their justification was that were recording the event as they knew what it was like to be victims of daily terror of Israel. Right or wrong? They were recording at the latest soon after the first tower was hit and before the 2nd was hit and the world suspected a terror attack. Right or wrong?

So because they said something after the event means they knew the event was going to happen?
Seriously?
Did they say that it was a terrorist attack during the attack?
Did they actually say they knew it was a terrorist attack?

Have you considered the possibility you're just interpreting the words wrong?

Black Uhlan wrote: »

Do you know which places were marked? I don't, but it is the places that were marked which interested the law enforcement agents.

Yep a moving van with a map with times and places marked suspicious alright.
Not like a moving van ever picks stuff up a certain places at certain times or anything.

Black Uhlan wrote: »

I am not saying they are guilty, I am saying their actions marked them out as suspects for involvement

No you're saying pretty clearly that they had foreknowledge of the attack.

Black Uhlan wrote: »

How about if Dominik Suter was placed on an FBI 911 Terror Suspect list? Wouldn't that make the investigation incomplete without his extraditon?
Wouldn't that make a mockery of the men having nothing to do with 911? so need for your 7th time now thanks.

So the men in question were found by the authorities not to be involved in 9/11 yes or no?

uprising

King Mob wrote: »

No it wasn't.


There was a two month investigation.

At least try to get your facts straight.

And there's still no evidence they had foreknowledge.

Context of 'Late October 2001: Intense Political Pressure to Release Suspected Israeli Spies Arrested on 9/11'
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=alate1001pressure

Around this time intense political pressure is put on US officials holding five Israeli men arrested for suspicious behavior at the time of the 9/11 attacks (see 3:56 p.m. September 11, 2001). According to the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and two unidentified “prominent New York congressmen” lobby heavily for their release. According to a source at ABC News, well-known criminal lawyer Alan Dershowitz also becomes involved as a negotiator to help get the men released. (Dershowitz will later refuse to comment on the matter.) [CounterPunch, 2/7/2007] ABC News will later report that was “high-level negotiations between Israeli and US government officials” over the five men, resulting in a settlement. URL="http://web.archive.org/web/20020802194310/http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/DailyNews/2020_whitevan_020621.html"][COLOR=#800080]ABC News, 6/21/2002[/COLOR][/URL Apparently the political pressure will succeed because the men will be released a few weeks later (see November 20, 2001]).

King Mob

uprising wrote: »

Context of 'Late October 2001: Intense Political Pressure to Release Suspected Israeli Spies Arrested on 9/11'
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=alate1001pressure

Around this time intense political pressure is put on US officials holding five Israeli men arrested for suspicious behavior at the time of the 9/11 attacks (see 3:56 p.m. September 11, 2001). According to the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and two unidentified “prominent New York congressmen” lobby heavily for their release. According to a source at ABC News, well-known criminal lawyer Alan Dershowitz also becomes involved as a negotiator to help get the men released. (Dershowitz will later refuse to comment on the matter.) [CounterPunch, 2/7/2007] ABC News will later report that was “high-level negotiations between Israeli and US government officials” over the five men, resulting in a settlement. URL="http://web.archive.org/web/20020802194310/http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/DailyNews/2020_whitevan_020621.html"][COLOR=#800080]ABC News, 6/21/2002[/COLOR][/URL Apparently the political pressure will succeed because the men will be released a few weeks later (see November 20, 2001]).

from your own link:

However, the FBI says that none of the Israelis had any advanced knowledge of the 9/11 attacks

.

uprising

King Mob wrote: »

from your own link:

.

Well the FBI could hardly say they had prior knowledge and then release them, now could they, because a deal was done, the men released and sent home.


According to ABCNEWS sources, Israeli and U.S. government officials worked out a deal — and after 71 days, the five Israelis were taken out of jail, put on a plane, and deported back home.
While the former detainees refused to answer ABCNEWS' questions about their detention and what they were doing on Sept. 11, several of the detainees discussed their experience in America on an Israeli talk show after their return home.
Said one of the men, denying that they were laughing or happy on the morning of Sept. 11, "The fact of the matter is we are coming from a country that experiences terror daily. Our purpose was to document the event." ABCNEWS' Chris Isham, John Miller, Glenn Silber and Chris Vlasto contributed to this report.

King Mob

uprising wrote: »

Well the FBI could hardly say they had prior knowledge and then release them, now could they, because a deal was done, the men released and sent home.

SO when the FBI says they had arrested them in conection with 9/11 and said they held them for two months they where telling the truth but when they say they had nothing to do with 9/11 their obviously lying?
Great logic there.

uprising wrote: »

According to ABCNEWS sources, Israeli and U.S. government officials worked out a deal — and after 71 days, the five Israelis were taken out of jail, put on a plane, and deported back home.
While the former detainees refused to answer ABCNEWS' questions about their detention and what they were doing on Sept. 11, several of the detainees discussed their experience in America on an Israeli talk show after their return home.
Said one of the men, denying that they were laughing or happy on the morning of Sept. 11, "The fact of the matter is we are coming from a country that experiences terror daily. Our purpose was to document the event." ABCNEWS' Chris Isham, John Miller, Glenn Silber and Chris Vlasto contributed to this report.

The exact same report your quoting say the FBI didn't believe the suspects had anything to do with 9/11.

Seeing as you've completely ignored the entire discussion I'll say it again.

Every single person who had a camera pointed at the flaming building could say "Our purpose was to document the event."

They never said they knew it was a terrorist attack at the time.
However seeing as they are from Israel which has had a alot of terrorist attacks they might have jumped to that conclusion.

Or did anyone who guessed it was an attack in on it?

There is nothing to show these guys had foreknowledge.

squod

"They seemed to be taking a movie," Maria said.

How many removals companies carry video cameras around with them?
None I bet.


"Three individuals were seen celebrating in Liberty State Park after the impact. They said three people were jumping up and down."

How many people jump up and down after a plane crash. Again none. They're actions would have made sense if they knew this was a terrorist attack. Nobody else did at the time. Reports told of a plane crash only.


One image showed a hand flicking a lighter in front of the devastated buildings, like a fan at a pop concert.
Again who told them the two airplanes crashing into the buildings were terrorist attacks?


One of them made this remarkable comment: "The fact of the matter is we are coming from a country that experiences terror daily. Our purpose was to document the event."
So then who told these guys to go to were they were, to bring a video camera and to document an 'event'. Why would somone know there was gonna be a plane crash? What does a plane crash have to do with terrorism? Nothing unless you knew it was a terrorist attack.
Which at the time of the plane crashes everybody else didin't know.

These guys shoulda been in bluddy work, not arsing around in carparks kneeling on vans videoing plane crashes. Unless arsing around in carparks kneeling on vans videoing plane crashes is their bluddy work!


"Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified."

So there's evidence linking these Isrealis (the blokes in the van) to 9/11 and it happens to be classified.
Why would there be classified information on a couple of dicks, arsing around in a car park, filming a plane crash?