FBI Report on "Dancing Israelis" declassified.

King Mob

davoxx wrote: »

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

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

enno99

King Mob wrote: »

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

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

Can you explain this

davoxx

King Mob wrote: »

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

King Mob wrote: »

You think?
Can you substantiate this?

King Mob

davoxx wrote: »

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

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

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

davoxx

King Mob wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

Di0genes

davoxx wrote: »

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

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

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

Firstly it's not my "defense".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not on me to disprove it.

ennon wrote:

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

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

Jennings happily spoke to the BBC.

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

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

enno99

Di0genes wrote: »

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

Jennings happily spoke to the BBC.

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

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

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

Here is the proper quote

After the initial blast, Housing Authority worker Barry Jennings, 46, reported to a command center on the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center. He was with Michael Hess, the city's corporation counsel, when they felt and heard another explosion. First calling for help, they scrambled downstairs to the lobby, or what was left of it. "I looked around, the lobby was gone. It looked like hell," Jennings said.

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

Di0genes

ed2hands wrote: »

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

Including the FBI:

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

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

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

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

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

Di0genes

davoxx wrote: »

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

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

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

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

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

out of
.
.
.
context


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

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

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

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

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

King Mob

davoxx wrote: »

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

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

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

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

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

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

Di0genes wrote: »

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

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

davoxx

King Mob wrote: »

Experience tells me that you can't.

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

fine just this once, again

davoxx wrote: »

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

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

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

meglome

davoxx wrote: »

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

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

This is from a previous post to you...

davoxx wrote: »

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

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

Let me post more of that piece for you.

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

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

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

davoxx

meglome wrote: »

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

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

meglome wrote: »

This is from a previous post to you...


Let me post more of that piece for you.



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

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

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



AND FINALLY!!!

meglome wrote: »

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

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

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

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

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

Be honest...

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

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

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

Di0genes

davoxx wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

You've shot yourself in the foot.

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

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

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

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

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

chirp chirp .... (you know crickets)

Di0genes

davoxx wrote: »

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

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

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Co..._Laden_to_9-11

As mentioned, hard evidence refers to things like DNA, fingerprints etc, so I imagine they'd be impossible to find

Bin Laden was already top of the FBIs most wanted list before 911, the hassle of adding additional charges and inditement s to his charge sheet would be pointless.



Incidentally whats your theory here. That the FBI doesn't think Bin Laden carried out 911, and just haven't mentioned it to anyone in the past decade?

Have you any idea how insane that sounds.

Di0genes

Brown Bomber wrote: »

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

Be honest...

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

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

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

Em Brown Bomber Post 66

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

Brown Bomber

Di0genes wrote: »

Em Brown Bomber Post 66

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

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

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

davoxx

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

Di0genes wrote: »

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Co..._Laden_to_9-11

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

Di0genes wrote: »

As mentioned, hard evidence refers to things like DNA, fingerprints etc, so I imagine they'd be impossible to find

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

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

Di0genes

Brown Bomber wrote: »

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

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

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

Whats the significance of dogs.

What do you think Urban Moving Systems were doing?

davoxx

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

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

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

Whats the significance of dogs.

What do you think Urban Moving Systems were doing?

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

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


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

Di0genes

davoxx wrote: »

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


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



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

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

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

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

This seems to be going far over your head.

Heres a simple point for you.

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

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

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

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

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

This seems to be going far over your head.

Heres a simple point for you.

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

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

good excuse!!


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

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

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

Yeah, that's proof, or evidence, or something ...

Di0genes

davoxx wrote: »

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

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


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

Sigh...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Di0genes

davoxx wrote: »

Yeah, that's proof, or evidence, or something ...

No thats logic.

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

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

I understand things like the concept of burden of proof.

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

davoxx

Di0genes wrote: »

No thats logic.

good thing so .. coz that is exactly what i asked for, but i mistyped it as proof or evidence .. apparently i get confused with those two, but seems like i was actually looking for logic!!!

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

Penn

Di0genes wrote: »

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

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

Di0genes wrote: »

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

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

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

From the forum charter:

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

Calm your tone, Di0genes. Only warning.

meglome

davoxx wrote: »

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

So do you believe a security dog can pick up something that isn't explosives or drugs but react like it is? Yes or no.

davoxx wrote: »

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

davoxx wrote: »

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

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

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

davoxx wrote: »

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

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

Brown Bomber

meglome wrote: »

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

Arghhhhhhhhhhh

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

IN. THEIR. OWN. WORDS.

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

The second tower could not be seen from point A.

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

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

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

meglome

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Arghhhhhhhhhhh

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

IN. THEIR. OWN. WORDS.

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

The second tower could not be seen from point A.

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

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

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

Sigh... I said "movements are not consistent with foreknowledge, they don't move to a better location to see what happens". Obviously they did move but they had no idea where they were going and had to use the roof of their van when they got there. So these 'elite' mossad agents not only hung around, drew attention to themselves but had no clue where exactly to go to get a better vantage point for the important footage they didn't actually need in the first place.

meglome wrote: »

The Israelis have a history of pulling off fairly audacious operations and I don't recall any of them involving having a load of people sitting there watching, especially while drawing attention to themselves. Maybe you can show the precedent for hanging around and watching?

Is this sinking in?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MILLER: We've certainly tried.

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

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

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

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

Be honest...

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

Brown Bomber wrote: »

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

So is that all they say or is that all they go on to make their conclusion?
What consists of "moving equipment" exactly? Cardboard boxes? Packing tape? Box cutters? Those hand cart things? Little packing peanuts?

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

davoxx

King Mob wrote: »

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

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

i think that post sums it up.

King Mob

davoxx wrote: »

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

i think that post sums it up.

So are you referring to this passage:

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

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

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

davoxx

King Mob wrote: »

So are you referring to this passage:


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

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

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

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

King Mob

davoxx wrote: »

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

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

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

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

During the search conducted by the W.P.D, it was revealed that the building and all of its contents had been abandoned by (BLANKED AREA) the owner of UMS. This apparently is being done to avoid criminal prosecution after the 9.11.01 arrest of 5 of his employees and subsequent seizure of his office computer systems by members of the FBI NK on or around 9.13.01.

(...)

A search of UMS, Weehawken, New Jersey revealed more oddities which caused the search team leader to characterize the company as a possible "Fraudulent Operation." There was little evidence of a legitimate business operation that was found. Evidence recovery agents did seize however, 16 seperate computer units used by UMS

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

King Mob wrote: »

So is that all they say or is that all they go on to make their conclusion?
What consists of "moving equipment" exactly? Cardboard boxes? Packing tape? Box cutters? Those hand cart things? Little packing peanuts?

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

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

davoxx

King Mob wrote: »

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

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

King Mob

davoxx wrote: »

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

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

davoxx

Brown Bomber wrote: »

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

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

davoxx

King Mob wrote: »

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

better than anything you've provided ...

King Mob

Brown Bomber wrote: »

(...)


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

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

So can you explain why they could not have just bought this stuff and keep it in their van and offices?
Or were they somehow not concerned about be caught and searched, yet also concerned enough to bring their own passports?

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

King Mob

davoxx wrote: »

better than anything you've provided ...

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

davoxx

King Mob wrote: »

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

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

davoxx

King Mob wrote: »

Please point out any claims I have made that require me to back them up.

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